PC 2001 05 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 1, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Karlovich, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet
and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Name Address
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
7301 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#78-2) FOR AN
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL STATION AND RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE, SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A 3,984 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING, 48' X 80' CANOPY ON A 0.74 ACRE
SITE AND A VARIANCE FOR SEPARATION OF GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED
HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT (BH), LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR
ADDITION, 441 W. 79TM STREET, HOLIDAY STATION STORES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Barreji 4567 W. 80th Street, Bloomington
Vic Sacco 4567 W. 80th Street, Bloomington
Mike Ramsey 6362 Oxbow Bend
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff'?
Claybaugh: No questions, however I do need to abstain from the discussion and subsequent vote. My
current employer, Riverside Construction is currently engaged in a project with Holiday Station Stores
within the city of Ramsey.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: I just had a quick question with regards to the purpose of the 250 foot separation requirement.
Is that a fire requirement or?
Generous: It was intended to limit the number of gas stations and convenience stores. They didn't want
every comer to have one. The market has sort of taken over and determined how many the city could. The
actual ordinance started out, they were just looking at convenience stores. Gas stations weren't part of the
discussion, but it evolved over a year and a half period when they were reviewing the ordinance to
incorporate gas stations. They were also, the city was concerned that we did not permit in our ordinance a
full service facilities for auto repair as part of gas stations so they amended that at the same time. In this
instance it wouldn't work.
Blackowiak: Rich?
Slagle: Just one question. I'm looking at the landscaping blueprint and wondering, as I drove by, I saw
there were 3 large spruce trees I believe that were located just directly south of the eastern most parking
spot. Am I to assume, we've not seen these on this plan, that those are being taken out?
Generous: I believe so, yes.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have 2 questions too. First of all I want to be really clear about the time
line of how this came about. The holiday station was there first in '79, and then the Amoco came 10 years
later, and then it was in the following year when we introduced that setback requirement. Is that about the
right time line?
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's somewhat significant to see the order of how things happened. Now, these
questions are more for the applicant. Is there enough space to put all these extra trees in that we're asking
for from the view of staff? I'm going to ask you too, ask the applicant of that but what's staff's opinion on
that?
Generous: That was Jill's directive that they could comply with.
Sacchet: It should be possible, okay. Under the conditional use permit findings, finding number 8. That
has not too many because actually I believe the proposed use does not have vehicular approaches to the
property which do not create traffic congestion. That means they all do create congestion. I think you
want to take one of the not's out I believe. Is that correct?
Generous: Yes, it will not create traffic congestion.
Sacchet: Yes, so the current approaches are such that they do not create. I think it's actually correct in the
second go around when you wrote it. Now there's another clash between the two versions that's under the
variance findings. Finding C states the proposed variance is due to the desire to efficiently utilize the
existing access points as well as comply with the requirements of the city's design standards. The
corresponding finding in the recommendation part reads somewhat different, if I remember right. That was
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
corresponding to on page 13, number 8. Is that correct? The one that says the purpose of the variation is
not based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the land.
Generous: Correct. That's the requirement under ordinance.
Sacchet: They say slightly different things, those two the way I understand it.
Generous: Yes, and I believe I went into more detail under the staff report. Under the final findings.
Sacchet: Okay. So basically your, because it's a little bit slippery one. I mean obviously this change is to
estimate the property and generate more income and, but it's, yeah it's true that they do use it more
efficiently at the same time.
Generous: Right, and they could actually do it, but then they violate some of the other things. The design
standards that the city's trying to get and so I was trying to balance the two of those.
Sacchet: Okay. One more question about the signage. We say that the big stand-up sign is actually in
place, right? So they wouldn't need an approval for that. That's already there.
Generous: That's going to stay there.
Sacchet: That stays the same. In addition they can have on two walls of the building they can have
lettering and they chose to have that on the east side and on the south side.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: So for instance they couldn't have another sign on the north side, is that what we're saying?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's the questions I have from staff. Yep, thanks.
Blackowiak: Ms. Kind, any questions?
Kind: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I've got a few. Bob, you talked about the original approval was tied to a
specific site plan. Do we do that now?
Generous: That's what we're doing, yes.
Blackowiak: So everything is tied so it's nothing changed.
Generous: Well it's a different site plan though.
Blackowiak: Right. So we just have to go through the approval with, okay. Alright. Do you happen to
know what the current retail building size is, or should I ask the applicant that?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: I don't remember off the top of my head.
Blackowiak: Okay. According to my calculations there are 3,840 square feet of canopy. Is that counted in
the site coverage percentage as well as the building?
Generous: Well the impervious surface underneath it is, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of curious. As I did the math I looked at it and I thought boy,
that's huge because it's almost as big as the building.
Generous: Yes.
Blackowiak: I mean it's almost like two buildings so that's what I'm trying to get that through my head.
This is I guess an engineering question probably. Can you talk to me a little bit about the current distance
between the east entrance, the east access point on West 79th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. To me it
does not look like it's a huge distance in terms of feet. How does that comply with current standards and is
this an opportunity for us to improve that because it seems like it's, if you exit out from that east entrance
you're just right there by the stop sign and I'm wondering, is there any room for improvement there?
Sweidan: Well Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Actually there's no specific distance from the
main street toward the east entrance, how much it should be exactly. But main reason he's using the
existing also entrance, but he is doing some, on extending to the curb toward inside the curb and gutter.
That's all that he is doing. Just reshaping the whole existing entrance.
Blackowiak: Okay. I was just curious because it seems like it's rather close to the intersection so I was
wondering if we could, if now would be the time to change anything and that was I guess my question.
Saam: Madam Commissioner. We could add that condition if you'd like. We were just, our thinking was
they're not looking or proposing to change either of the existing accesses so our thinking is they're working
fine now. We don't have complaints. Let's leave them alone. However, if you would like that condition
added, we could look at that more closely.
Blackowiak: I don't know that it's necessary. I was just I guess asking the question because I think this is
the time to do it. If that would be an issue for engineering at all.
Saam: I guess one thing we'd have to think about then is where the other access would be. I'm sure they'd
want two accesses.
Blackowiak: Well I just meant shifted it a little bit further to the west is kind of what I was, and I don't
know how that would work. If it would work but.
Saam: That's something we didn't look at in too much detail but we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of worried about that. I guess that's, those are my questions for
now. So would the applicant or their designee care to come up to the microphone and make a presentation.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Victor Sacco, S-a-c-c-o.
Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies. Address 4567 West 80th Street in Bloomington. Basically
we have worked with staff. We've got about 27, 28 now I think, conditions of our site plan for this
development. Want to redo the whole facility. We've been there approximately 20 years. I think it's
working nicely. We've enjoyed the association with the City of Chanhassen. Want to reinvest in the city
and we feel that this site plan does that. Basically we don't have any issues really, working with staff I
think we're in agreement with all the things that they've talked about. This new condition here, we're fine
with that which is draining from the roof to the north or south side. We have to look at that. Work with
our engineer and put that together but we're fine so if there's any questions that you folks have of us. I
also have John Barreji who is in charge of our construction, is here to help answer any questions involved.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Uli, you're nodding.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a couple questions of the applicant. I think you propose to put
new sewer and water access in, or city staff recommending that you use the existing ones. Is that an issue
for you?
Victor Sacco: I don't believe it is.
Sacchet: No problem there? The flag pole is something that staff points out that it would have to be
moved. Would you know where to move it?
Victor Sacco: I'm not sure exactly where we're going to move it but.
Sacchet: I think it's one of the conditions.
Victor Sacco: Yes, we'll make sure that it's within the setback area and that.
Sacchet: So you don't foresee any problem there?
Victor Sacco: No.
Sacchet: How about placing the extra trees that are necessary? Have you given some thought because
there isn't really all that excessive amount of space the way I see it.
Victor Sacco: We've talked to our landscape folks and we're fine with that, aren't we? Yes, we think we
can fit all those trees.
Sacchet: So you're fine with that? That's great. Let's see ifI have more questions for you. Nope, that's
it. Thank you.
Victor Sacco: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a similar question to what Madam Chair had and that is, what is the size of
this new building compared to the previous?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Victor Sacco: The existing was a 3,920 square feet. 3,920 square feet is the old one. And the new one is
3,984. Real similar is size. Very similar.
Kind: Okay. Thank you.
Karlovich: First of all I just want to make some comments before my question. This is probably the most
beautiful looking gas station building I've seen in a long time and I think it will greatly enhance the city of
Chanhassen. Be a great improvement over the existing one, and I do understand in today's market that the
newer stations are doing much better. The only question I had for you and possibly for staff, was there any
consideration of any windows on the south side? I thought that was part of the design standards or I don't
know...
Aanenson: Let me take a stab at it first. The first site plan Bob worked a series of different drawings with
the applicant. One, to increase the impervious surface. There was some parking in the front comer that we
objected to so in fairness to the applicant, I think they've worked really well to meet some of our objectives
that we had as far as design and layout and visibility from the comer. I believe as far as the pitched roof
and some of those things that we pushed, they worked well with us. We gave some examples to look at as
far as gas stations that we thought were good designs. We certainly know what direction we're looking at
with windows and I believe indicated that to them but as far as today's ordinance, it does meet that so.
They were suggested as much window space as they could. But as far as what they see is their prototypical
design and what they see for their needs, I would leave that up to them to answer that question.
Karlovich: Okay. I guess I saw it as possibly, maybe you think it's better to have the wall there as
opposed to the windows but I thought that would probably be an opportunity to probably even market a
little bit more from Highway 5.
Victor Sacco: Well we felt that, it's a relatively narrow building. It's 45 feet. It has a lot of frontage
going north/south but east to west, it's only about 40-45 feet and we do have that column feature there to
break it up so I think we just, we hope that you think that it will look okay without the windows. The faux
windows.
Karlovich: I think it looks great with or without the windows. I was just throwing that out as a discussion
item. I mean it's a very nicely done building. Thank you.
Blackowiak: I guess I just have one more question. Back to the square footage question. What is the
current canopy size as compared to the proposed?
Victor Sacco: 52 by 50 is existing so, what is that?
Blackowiak: That's 2,600 square feet. Okay. So it's about a 50% increase in both the intensity of the gas
pumps and, okay. Is that a Holiday Station over on Highway 7, in Shorewood by Waterford Towers?
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, it is yes.
Blackowiak: How big is the canopy over there, do you know? I mean comparable or no?
John Barreji: Three times the size of our building. The one in Shorewood with the massive roof?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Yes, the massive roof.
Victor Sacco: That thing is huge.
Blackowiak: I want to make sure that we don't have the massive roof in Chanhassen as well.
Victor Sacco: Okay, good. We won't have that. That was part of a strip shopping center and the
developer and the city wanted something, it's huge.
Blackowiak: That's their option I guess but okay. Alright, that was it for my questions. This item is open
for a public hearing so if, well excuse me. Before I do that, did you want to add anything sir?
John Barreji: No.
Blackowiak: I didn't mean to cut you off.
John Barreji: John Barreji, Holiday Station Stores. I am in charge of construction. 4567 West 80th Street.
No, I don't. Not unless we push the access. Driveways.
Blackowiak: Okay, and would you be, talk to me about that a little bit. Since you're up here.
John Barreji: The reason is, if we push this further back then cars, the cars as they come through will take
the first exit as they come through. If we push this further back then the cars hit the island perpendicular
so we should stand at least 5 to 10 feet from the end of the island to the end portion of the curb. So that's
why, it actually worked up really well with...
Blackowiak: Right. I was just kind of curious about the distance. That was my question. And if
engineering is not worried about it then I guess I'm feeling a little better about it so. Alright, well let's try
it again. This item is open for public hearing. Oh excuse me, Rich.
Slagle: One more question Madam Chair. There's a mention in the conditions for a rock construction
entrance. Can you talk a little bit about that? I don't see it on the.
John Barreji: It's not shown on the plans as part of our revisions. When we got the conditions, they're not
done yet but they will be ready for the City Council meeting. A rock entrance is just a typical entrance for
construction access into the site.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, let's try it. Third time's a charm, right? The item is open for a public hearing so if
anybody would like to comment on this proposal, please come up to the microphone, state your name and
address for the record.
Mike Ramsey: Hi. My name's Mike Ramsey. I own the property just west of you guys. My address is
6362 Oxbow Bend, Chanhassen. I own the Gold Medal Sports and run the plaza right behind you guys.
The building looks great and I welcome it next to our building. I just have, I guess I've got to voice a
couple of concerns and the drainage issue is I guess being addressed. I still worry about the drainage issue.
I guess I don't know, I'm not an engineer so I don't know about the elevation of the building. The Holiday
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
sits higher than the plaza right now and in the winter when everything melts and there's runoff, we've got it
coming in the back doors of all the tenants right now so that's something I'm dealing with right now so I'm
a little skeptic and worried about the elevation issue of the new Holiday coming in. I know you're talking
about running the drains to the north and south, which would be great. I still, I know the building is
pitched east and west so is it caught by gutters and then dispersed the other way? I'm still worried about
that so I guess that's it. An issue and a question, a big question I have. I also have a question on your
mechanical boxes behind. Right here. I have a patio just to the south, it would be the southwest of all
these mechanical boxes on the end of my plaza and at the present time there's a restaurant in there that
doesn't use the patio but the patio was put in at considerably expense and I can in the future I can see the
patio being used and if the mechanical boxes are sitting right out in front of the patio, I can see quite a big
of noise. If the air conditioning ducts, mine in the plaza everything had to be put on the roof and it's
screened in. I'm looking at your drawing and I don't think, I don't know how you'd put it on the roof but
so all the mechanical boxes I guess, regardless of whether they're fenced in or screened in, right off the
patio is I guess a bit concern of mine also. And the space, I guess you're talking about landscaping. It's
going to be a tough squeeze to put in trees inbetween there now, and I've got no problem with trees being
put in there but there's a bunch of pines in there already and I don't know if you can put, there's a shrub
tree and a canopy tree. I'm looking at, we've got understory trees and canopy trees. I was asking my wife,
what's the difference on that. Is an understory tree, is that pines?
Generous: They're ornamental trees generally.
Mike Ramsey: Okay. And canopy trees obviously are shade.
Generous: Those are the larger ones.
Mike Ramsey: I just think it will be tough squeezing them along there because there's 15 feet between all
the property lines, and especially if there's mechanical boxes. They'll be in the mechanical boxes so I
guess, and the garbage. That has nothing to do with I guess the building of the property. Right now I deal
with a lot of garbage from the Holiday Station. It's, I'm on constant pick-up and so I know the garage is
still going to be on that end of the building and it will be inside which helps immensely. I know it's outside
right now so it has the tendency to blow around everywhere but we're on constant pick-up of everything
that blows over so, those are my concerns I guess. If you want to yell back at me or have any questions on
some of my concerns I guess.
Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, can we talk to him a little bit about the drainage issues and also the mechanical
boxes? I don't know who.
Aanenson: Sure. I did speak to Mr. Ramsey about that too. As far as the drainage issue, there is a
problem already on his site and I guess we would ask the two property owners to get together. Obviously
you figure landscaping behind it is tight with the mechanical equipment, and maybe both problems could be
solved if they worked together to try to go back and retrofit so the water isn't going into Mr. Ramsey's
building. As far as mechanical boxes, I believe Bob has put a condition in there as far as wing walls. It is
a pitched roof. We wouldn't want them on top, but also we want to mitigate the noise and if we can work
that with the landscaping or wing wall or something like that to screen that, I think that's certainly
achievable and I believe the other condition on there, in there Bob on that. And then the other one as far as
trash, I guess I'd leave that up to the Holiday. I think this building does have the enclosed trash in the
building, which help alleviate that so.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Mike Ramsey: The mechanical boxes, when you say screen, what kind of wall?
Aanenson: It'd be like a, something to match the building. A brick wall or something to match the building
so we'd muffle that noise.
Mike Ramsey: It wouldn't be just a fence or a boxed in or would it be bricked in or?
Aanenson: We would like it to match the building. Something that's durable.
Generous: If it's brick. Otherwise it'd be, the other way to screen it is through permanent landscaping.
Evergreens.
Mike Ramsey: I just know that...to the property line in the building, we're going to be 30 feet apart with
two buildings as it is and then you put those, it will be about 15 feet apart. And if there's a patio out there,
I know I wouldn't want to be sitting on the patio drinking a coffee or that so.
Aanenson: I think it'd be helpful between now and City Council if the two parties could get together.
Make sure, if they have to get cross access to get landscaping and the like to work some of those issues out.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's a good idea. Okay.
Kind: Madam Chair, if they do add a wing wall, would that meet the setbacks?
Generous: We'd treat it like a fence. But you can build up to the property line.
Kind: So you can encroach?
Aanenson: Yes, right. Right. But I guess my intention, if they can work to see what's best for both
parties, that works well. Reduce maintenance so they're not crossing each other's property, whatever to
solve kind of the drainage problem overall.
Karlovich: So will staff mediate that? It appears as though the entire site in front of the building all drains
towards Great Plains Boulevard so I'm assuming there's going to be gutters that are going to go out in the
front and then it will drain away from the building. So drainage doesn't seem to be a huge issue. The
landscaping though looks like.
Saam: It's on the other side.
Aanenson: It's on the back side between the two buildings.
Mike Ramsey: The west side.
Aanenson: Historically it has been draining that way. I guess that's what we said and Mr. Ramsey's
building came in second. Again I'm not sure what the final elevation or the final grading was there, but
we're saying here's an opportunity as long as the Holiday is going in and grading, that maybe the problem
can be resolved in the best interest of both parties, and we'd be happy, if we need to, to mediate that
meeting. Set something up.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Would anybody else like to make comments in the public hearing portion? Seeing none, I will
close the public hearing. Commissioners. I'd like to hear comments. Rich, why don't I start with you.
Slagle: Well I again think it's a pleasant proposal. It certainly looks very nice. I just have a concern as
voiced by a couple of comments I made regarding trees. It's unfortunate those 3 large trees will have to go.
I don't know if there's any alternatives with that. And I think I heard from Mr. Ramsey that noise is also a
concern. Possibly equal or more than the site lights of seeing the boxes so I hope that's addressed in your
discussions. And other than that I think I'm okay with it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli.
Sacchet: I think it's very appropriate use of that location. I think it's well designed for that location. I'm
glad to hear that all the conditions the applicant is fine with. The only comments are more of an editorial,
when we get to looking at actually a motion but basically I'm fine with this proposal.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I too agree. I really like the site plan. I think it's greatly improved over what's there
right now. It always kind of bothered me, the building orientation. The way it is now and I think this
improves upon that a lot and will be a nice addition to our city.
Blackowiak: Okay, Jay.
Karlovich: For the record I think the only comments I have is that the council may want to see windows on
at least the south side of the building. With regards to landscaping screen with the adjacent property
owner, if you look at the utility plan it appears that there is, I don't know if they're going to be able to put
landscaping. They'd have to be putting them in right on top of the water and sanitary sewer. I guess
maybe the mitigation there is if the adjacent property owner allows them to put some landscaping on their
property to do the screening. It would appear as though staff already recognizes that. Otherwise I think it
is a very nicely done building and will be an improvement to the community.
Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are fairly consistent with what we've heard so far. I do like the
building. The main concerns I had were the 250 foot separation and the reasoning behind that but I'm
comfortable with that now. The retail building is staying approximately the same size, and as long as we
don't have a Shorewood type canopy, I feel very good about that. I think the building orientation is a huge
improvement and I generally like this project. So with that I would like to have actually I believe it's going
to be 3 separate motions or condition.
Generous: Two.
Kind: And just a procedure question Madam Chair. Under the first recommendation the numbers start at
6. What's the reason for that?
Generous: The computer.
Kind: Oh, okay. There isn't a reason. Okay, so I'll renumber those in my motion. And same with B.
Same deal there?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: Yes.
Karlovich: Prior to the motion are we going to make the findings of hardship or how are we going to do
that?
Blackowiak: Well I think, that was I guess my question. That the variance, doesn't the variance, and I
guess I'm asking you Kate. Okay so the conditional use permit with a variance, okay. So it's wrapped into
one. Alright, and then Findings of Fact are attached? Procedurally Kate I don't think we need to, can we
reference that or do we need to specifically?
Generous: You can reference it.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: With the Findings of Fact.
Blackowiak: Okay. Jay, would you be comfortable with that?
Karlovich: You know, I think you can adopt at least the findings that are here in the staff report and that
would be enough of a record for an undue hardship if we feel the need. If there's going to be any other type
of opposition or create more of a record, that's something else but the city staff has put together, as long as
this is adopted as part of the motion I think there are some, appear to substantiate the variance.
Blackowiak: Right, and also we do have the Findings of Fact attached.
Karlovich: And it's not so much, we're just making a recommendation but the City Council just adopts our
recommendation.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well with that, I'd like to have two motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
#2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot separation
requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based on the Findings of
Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And then I do have one
correction for the Findings of Fact, I think that apply to this which is point number 8. The finding should
be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the property do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Blackowiak: A motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Blackowiak: Okay, any discussion?
Sacchet: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to make sure we wind up most of the comments in the attached
Findings of Fact part that goes to the council. I'm trying to figure, this is the variance part. That also has
the wrong numbering and plus for the first bullet on page 13 of the variance which is currently numbered
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
number 6, which should be number 1. That first half of the paragraph is a carryover. A cut and paste
apparent mistakenly. That should be taken out. Are you with me Bob, what I mean?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. And then I would further like to request that the finding number 8 on that page, which is
really number 3 should read the same way as the finding in the staff report, okay? That's my comments.
Kind: I'll accept those friendly amendments.
Blackowiak: Okay, so we have a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit/t2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the
250 foot separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels
based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
3. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
4. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
5. No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.
6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided.
7. The Findings of Fact in the staff report shall be revised to amend item number 8 to read as
follows. The finding should be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the
property do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public
thoroughfares.
8. Finding number 6 on page 13 of the staff report shall be amended to delete the duplicated
portion.
9. Finding number 8 on that page 13 of the staff report, which is really number 3 should read
the same way as the finding in the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Now we need a second motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25,2001,
subject to the following conditions which should be 1 through, oh here comes math.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: I think it's 23.
Sacchet: It will be 23. And I would like to make a couple of changes besides just numbering it starting at
1. Number, what is currently 14, what should be 9. After rock construction entrance, I'd like to specify
for the construction. What is labeled number 15, what should be number 10, add silt fence around the
construction site. I'd like to add, and will be removed after construction. And I believe that's my motion,
yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second that motion and add one friendly amendment to number 23. Old 28. Change the sentence
to read, and/or south of the building.
Sacchet: That's certainly accepted. Can I amend myself?
Karlovich: If it's friendly.
Sacchet: I would like to propose a number, what would be 29 with this numbering which will be 24 I
believe. That the applicant works with the neighbor to screen the mechanical boxes. That's probably
specific enough. Yeah, I'd like to add that as another condition. And I accept that.
Blackowiak: Uli, could I just add something too?
Sacchet: Sure.
Blackowiak: On that number 24, this is new number 24. Applicant works with neighbor to screen utility
boxes and address the water issue between the two properties.
Sacchet: You can add that with it, yes. That's fine.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, so it's been moved and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
Review/12001-3, plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern property
line to fully screen the parking lot.
3. The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and will
have a minimum size of 2 ½" diameter.
4. The Austrian pine in the plant schedule shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year storm event.
Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301, and 5302.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard.
Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
Add silt fence around construction site, and removal of the silt fence at the end of construction.
The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add, ~All connections to existing manholes shall be core-drilled".
d. Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, ~All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26".
e. Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
f. Add a storm sewer schedule.
g. Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet from the property line.
Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only two elevations.
The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction
as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
The accessible route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to the
building entrance.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
20.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
21.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
22.
The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to discharge
to the north and/or south of the building.
23.
The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical boxes
and address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. It says City Council date is May 29th. Is that Memorial Day?
Generous: It's the day after. It's a Tuesday.
Blackowiak: It's a Tuesday, okay. That helps. So City Council is Tuesday, May 29th. Don't come on
Monday, there won't be anyone there. Alrighty.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY
OFFICE BUILDING (8~450 SQUARE FEET) WITH A PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL~ LOCATED AT 7811 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD~ BURGER OFFICE BUILDING~ DERRIL BURGER.
Public Present:
Name Address
A1 Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Fred Richter 3610 So. Co. Rd. 101
Derril Burger 18001 Highway 7
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Jay, do you want to start?
Karlovich: I'm going to pass for right now.
Claybaugh: Yes, I have some questions for staff.
Karlovich: I'm sure you're going to hit everything that I was.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Claybaugh: I'm just going to take it in the order that it comes up on the documents. I don't want you to
read into my priorities I guess. First thing that jumps out is the existing 24 foot oaks. Those 2 that are
there. It seems like you compromised with respect to the number of peninsulas that were going to be
required and you're only asking for 1 when the ordinance requires 2.
A1-Jaff: The ordinance requires a 10 foot island. In this case we will gain a 30 foot island. We talked to
the City Forester, Jill Sinclair at length about this. It was her recommendation that if we are to get a 30
foot island around the existing 2 oaks, that would be the preference.
Claybaugh: Yes, agreed. So what you're saying this compromise was relative to size.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. And the forester has looked at that and is comfortable with the drip line on those trees?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. How's the health of those trees during construction going to be monitored?
A1-Jaff: We will have construction fencing, the orange fences around them. The City Forester typically...
Claybaugh: Specifically my question is not to be suspicious but things happen during the construction
process and don't want to get to a point where we go oops, it's too late. The trees are dead. We might as
well take them down. Okay. It needs to be monitored during the construction process. I just want to know
what's in place to, that pertains to that. That would be one of my concerns. The other question I have,
they identified the parking was adjusted to reflect 1,000 square feet of warehouse storage, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. Maybe a question for the petitioner but was anything raised with respect to wanting to
expand office space in 2 years, 5 years, whatever that's a typical thing that we say is, you know we do this
to meet the requirements for parking or because there isn't a great demand for it but 5 years down the line
or whatever the time table might be, it's convenient to finish off that warehouse space and it's cost
effective, at which time the parking's over burdened so I just want to make sure that the staff had addressed
that on some level.
A1-Jaff: We would have to come back. If they decided to convert this space, they would need a building
permit and...
Claybaugh: Yes, I realize that but when people come back later, 5 years down the line, it's a lot easier at
this stage to head it off and say, you need to be cognizant of the fact that if we are going to make variances
at this point now, they're not going to be redundant variances down the line. Rather than having them back
in front of us in 5 years, not that we'd all be here but, rather than postpone it til that time and it seems to
me to be easier to address it at this point and get a firm recommendation from staff with respect to that
because I don't see any room for expanding the parking lot.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, can I just jump in? I did some quick math while you were making that comment
and it appears that if we have 1 stall per 1,000 for warehouse and we require 4.5 per 1,000 for office, if
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
that were converted, they would need an additional 3.5, okay. At this point the requirement by ordinance is
35, and they have 38 so they'd be halfa spot short.
Claybaugh: I'm lacking on the 38 because I'm seeing 33 and 2. I've got 35. So help me out, correct me
if I'm wrong.
Blackowiak: Oh, the total is 35. That's what I'm looking at right now. So if we have 35 total and we
needed another 3.5 to meet the ordinance requirements then we would need 38.5.
Claybaugh: Okay, is that accurate?
A1-Jaff: Yeah.
Blackowiak: So I think that's not.
Aanenson: That was our position.
Blackowiak: That was your position?
Aanenson: Right, and also the city has a parking lot next door and there's always a potential the city can,
depending on the frequency do a lease or something.
Blackowiak: Okay, I had the same question so.
Claybaugh: Okay. Yeah, I didn't pick up on the 40 down here. I picked up on the 33 and 2. Can you
comment on the 24 foot wide drive aisles in lieu of the 26 feet and with that configuration of parking, that's
one of the pet peeves in some of the developments that's been done within the city limits is the tendency to
be excessively flexible with respect to aisle widths and parking stall widths and number of parking stalls so
on and so forth so. DO you, you said that the minimum standard here, if I'm reading correctly is 26 feet.
They're looking for 24 feet, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. How big a concern do you feel that is or isn't?
Aanenson: I don't think it's a concern at all.
Claybaugh: Okay. What are we running over at Market Square for aisle widths over there? Does
anybody happen to know off hand?
Aanenson: Well I think the difference there would be frequency and the volume of trips there as opposed to
this. When you've got a single tenant and a single user as opposed to that would be.
Claybaugh: I'd agree with that with respect with an inlet and an outlet but you have one inlet, combination
outlet with this parking lot so that kind of gets that. So that's why I would be concerned about 24 foot
width. Okay. Are they able to increase that to the 26 foot and still meet some of the requirements for
parking stalls and setbacks, or does that?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Aanenson: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. I guess I would just comment that a lot of the elements are there to capture a lot of the
historical elements with respect to the type brick that was selected and the rest of it, and the extensive use
of brick certainly lend itself to the historical character, but I didn't get the impression in looking at the
elevations, at least at this stage, that they really capture those elements. I think that the materials are there,
but I don't think that it's articulated in the design. At least to the degree that I would personally like to see.
Besides that I like how the building sits on the property. I like the elements of the lot being out front. I
don't have any problems with the setback off, needing a variance for being setback off the street for the
parking. That's a minimal concern to me. I think they've incorporated fairly extensive landscaping. I
think that how, like I said, sits on the site and how it would be perceived off Great Plains Boulevard, I like
the look of that so. I simply restrict my comments to that at this time.
Blackowiak: Deb, do you have any comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Going back to the 24 versus 26 foot. I'm struggling to find a condition for that.
Did we leave that out or are we okay with the 24 foot?
Blackowiak: Number 8. Condition 8.
Kind: Thank you Alison. Okay, and then my question is, how important is that? I'm worried about
encroaching into the trees more and making it more difficult.
Aanenson: The ordinance is 26 feet so, I mean it's.
A1-Jaff: You would have to grant a variance.
Kind: And what is our experience with 22 foot drive aisles. Is that adequate for a smaller parking lot like
this?
Saam: I guess I would recommend 12 foot lanes is a standard design. So that's 24, yeah. However like
Kate said, the ordinance is 26. That's strictly all I'm going by. I'm just checking that it's per ordinance.
It didn't meet the ordinance. That's why it was mentioned in the staff report. Sure, 24 would work.
Kind: And then do we need to, if we prefer the 24 foot, do we need to actually grant a variance as part of
this process?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: Yes, okay. I'm just concerned that, I mean 2 feet doesn't sound like very much but when you're
talking about oak trees, it's a lot. And that would be pushing it more into that root system of those
important oak trees. Also my question, I do wonder how many city owned parking spots there are and if
we can give them more relief on total number of spots because they're city owned parking right there.
A1-Jaff: I believe there are 87 parking spaces. They're entitled to 2 parking spots that they lease from the
city. Now one of the concerns would be, should the city ever decide to develop the property on, we'd be
shooting ourselves in the foot.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: By counting too many spots for this particular building, yeah. Okay.
A1-Jaff: We just want to make sure that the city leaves it's options open.
Kind: So the size of the lot right now is what you're comfortable with, or deleting those 2 spots.
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: Okay. Let me quick check to see if there's anything else here. Materials wise there's no sample of
the roof. You know Roofs are Deb. And I mean one little piece of fiberglass shingle doesn't help me too
much. Can I be reassured that this is not a flat shingle that will ripple in the heat?
Aanenson: We can pass this around. This is a sample.
Kind: And I'll ask the applicant that. That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a brief comment and a couple of questions. You know it sounds
awfully good on that page 3 when you talk about the historical part. I'm glad you addressed that Sharmin.
But you call this thing a building in the Jeffersonian style. That's an awfully big term. I mean it's a nice
building but when I hear Jeffersonian I mean I see columns. I see a dome. Yet, the rest of the building is
brick and has windows and so does this one but Jeffersonian is a little bit of a stretch there. My question
for staff is the following. You say they can only have one wall mounted sign so they cannot have a sign on
both sides of the building, is that the interpretation of that? I want to be clear about that.
A1-Jaff: The ordinance states 1 sign per street frontage and at this point they have 1 street frontage facing
Great Plains Boulevard.
Sacchet: That will be the north side or the west side?
A1-Jaff: That would be the west side.
Sacchet: The west side, okay. Okay is that, I was a little fuzzy there. Then I have a question of, can or
can't they use the existing sanitary sewer and water service? That's a question for you guys because in the
condition it says it's possible and that doesn't do anything for me. A possible. Can they? And then they
should. If they can't, they can't.
Sweidan: We see it that they can.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. That answers my question.
Sweidan: ...that is possible because we see it that they can.
Sacchet: I'm going to ask it to the applicant too. Okay. And then I have a little bit of a disagreement with
staff here on the statement that there's a lot of buffering to the cemetery. I was just out there and I was
actually struck by the lack thereof. And I was a little disappointed because it reads real well and it looks
good on the map but if you go out there, you're basically parking in the cemetery. I mean to me that's
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
obnoxious. That doesn't work for me. So I mean yeah, there are some trees that are awfully big and a
couple of them get hurt by the parking lot and I specifically would want to ask those two big trees at the
southwest comer. I mean there's not even a parking spot. It's just a part of hard top so cars can turn
around easier. Is that necessary? I mean would they be better to keep the trees?
A1-Jaff: That's one of the points that we discussed with the applicant and again they are open to that.
There is some tweaking we need to do to the plan and we believe that we can do all of that administratively
at staff's level. By the time it gets to the City Council, all those issues will be resolved.
Sacchet: Okay, and has there been a consideration of putting some significant screening buffering to the
cemetery to the north as well as to the east?
A1-Jaff: We could do that. I mean you're granting a variance.
Sacchet: Well maybe I should ask that of the applicant then. It looks like the applicant has something to
say when we get to that so I'll save that question for them. That's fine, thank you.
A1-Jaff: Thank you.
Sacchet: That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions for staff?
Slagle: Just a couple. We noted, or it was noted in the proposal that there'd be a couple of spots, parking
spots in an effort to save the two 24. The trees. Inch trees. My question is, is it one on each side?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
Okay, and have we gotten an opinion from the city.
Forester.
And that's sufficient?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. And then one last question. In the paragraph talking about the historical value if
you will, it mentions the structure built in 1888 as a carpentry shop. Is that what is termed as the shed? Or
as I drove the lot I saw.
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
There is an existing shed in addition to the building.
Okay. I think that's what I saw. My question is, what is the plan with that?
They intend to remove both of them.
I saw that but I'll just, I guess ask the applicant. I'm just curious if there's any plan to save that.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
A1-Jaff: Relocate?
Slagle: Yeah, relocate or something like that. And then lastly, the site plan fails to show the trash
enclosure location. Has that been resolved?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great. Sharmin, I think I just have a couple quick questions. We have a cemetery
that's zoned RSF. Is that, I mean it just sounds rather humorous. I'm sorry, I should be a little more
serious about this but, we went through the glitch ordinance. Is there, should this be rezoned in any way,
shape or form or do we leave it or what are our options here?
Aanenson: It's permitted in the A2. That's what our other cemetery is. It's my understanding that the
other property owner in the area has sold his, there's a house on West 78th, and has sold his back to the
church so it's my understanding that they'll probably come back and do a master plan for that area, and
maybe it should be office, you know institutional because it relates to the church. But A2, and I'm not sure
that's the appropriate zoning either so, something that we could put on the list to look at but I think it will
resolve itself as it comes through the master plan.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I guess I'm not that concerned but it just, that seems to be driving the 50 foot
setback and I was just curious if there was another tool that we could use to.
Aanenson: Yeah, A2 wouldn't be any better.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well that was I guess my question. And then on the old, I say old, old St.
Hubert's. Do they have wood shakes on there? What is the roofing material on that?
Aanenson: Yes. The city put new wood shakes on there.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then the old village hall, what is the roofing material on that? I'm sorry I'm
asking, I can't remember. I drive by all the time and I just.
A1-Jaff: I don't remember.
Aanenson: I don't think it's wood shake but I don't know.
Blackowiak: I didn't think it was either but I just, I wasn't sure because the pictures I saw of the
Counselor building, I believe this is the one up on 101, was a wood shakes and it's a very nice look and to
make it consistent with the old, old St. Hubert's, that might be a thought. But I'll save my comments for
later. This is a public hearing. Oh sorry, did you have some?
Karlovich: I formulated some...
Blackowiak: Good. Jump right on in.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: When I was looking at it and looking at it before, on the Certificate of Survey, can staff
possibly explain who owns what rights to drive over the other lot and I guess the city owns the lot next to it.
Aanenson: Correct.
Karlovich: Do they have an easement in there? Do they need additional easements from the city? On the
Certificate of Survey it looks like the old alignment of West 78th Street. It doesn't say that it was vacated
but I assume it was vacated. I just have no understanding as to who owns what access rights and who is
acquiring what access rights.
Aanenson: I don't believe it's on the survey. I believe there's a cross access agreement with the city.
Karlovich: A cross parking agreement with them or how does that work?
Aanenson: It's not parking. It's access. Mr. Klingelhutz might be able to answer that better, if you want
to ask him that.
Karlovich: We can reserve that for him.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, this is a public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry, I'd like to hear
from the applicant. Yes, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please
come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Derril Burger: My name is Derril Burger. I'm at 5925 Woodland Circle in Minnetonka for the last 38
years. 5 miles and 2/10th from where we're sitting. I know Chan very well. I don't have, I'm happy to
answer some questions and for the gentleman here, I'd be happy to donate that building to you if you'd like
it. I'm serious. I mean you were talking about saving it in some way. If you have some method of doing
that, I'd be happy to talk with you. We worked very closely with the staff and we've basically been in
agreement on almost everything and where we aren't in agreement we've come to an agreement. And
they've been very good to work with and we think we're going in the right direction. I'm excited about the
project. It's a single use building. I have a comment, well I guess I'll hold it for later but the comment
relative to the use of the lower level. It will never be used in any other way during my tenure there. It is, I
need that storage space in that lower level. It will not be converted to office space while I own it. I really
haven't anything to say but when the appropriate time comes, if that's now, I'd be happy to answer any
questions you'd have of me and what I'm doing. And then I would mm it over to my architect from Steiner
Development, Mr. Fred Richter.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions?
Sacchet: I do have questions for the applicant but I don't know which one of the two I should address them
to.
Blackowiak: Well why don't we, since he's up here, why don't you ask him. He can always defer.
Sacchet: Why not start with you and then you can defer if need be. Now you already heard from staff that
the trash enclosure and the rooftop equipment and mechanical shielding's been taken care of. I guess
you're going to address that when you look at the architectural piece. This thing about the 30 inch oak on
the west side, you're fine in putting in a retaining wall and rerouting the sewer?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Derril Burger: That seems to be the most appropriate thing to do, yes.
Sacchet: You're fine with that? And do you think it's practical to give it that 30 feet diameter safety zone
under construction? That might be more an architect question, but I think in principal it's more one for
you.
Derril Burger: 30 feet, it's roughly 30 feet between there and the building.
Sacchet: So you think it's doable?
Derril Burger: It's doable but it's going to be very tight between the building and the tree.
Sacchet: That's why I'm asking because I do believe it will be tight. And on the other hand it's also
important if the tree needs to have a chance. You're fine in using the existing sewer and water lines?
Derril Burger: Yes. In fact I had my sewer and water person out there last evening looking at it and we
think that it will work. And that's what they're saying, we will think it will work also.
Sacchet: So you agree with staff that it's doable and you're fine with that.
Derril Burger: If it's not totally doable, we can do a gravity from the upper level and the lower level has
very little use and we can do...if it's, it's debatable, it's real close I think as we looked at it but it's doable
yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Giving up the southerly access, are you fine with that?
Derril Burger: Yes definitely.
Sacchet: Okay. Now the thing with the parking spaces, you just made a statement that you think the lower
level is just going to be storage so.
Derril Burger: The part, excuse me, the part designated for storage, yes.
Sacchet: So I mean that, I would tend to conclude from that statement that there is really more parking
spaces than you need.
Aanenson: Can I give a comment on that?
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: While we'd like to think Mr. Burger will be there forever, we always anticipate that a business
can come and go and ultimately.
Sacchet: And it will.
Aanenson: Yeah, and so we try to look at ultimate utility of the building.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: So it would possibly be a proof of parking be a workable idea? Maybe, just maybe? I'm just
exploring.
Derril Burger: Relative to parking, while you're looking, I have talked with the people at the church and if
they remain there for a period of time, we indicated to them, we've talked at length that, I am receptive to
the idea that they may use part of my parking lot on Sunday.
Sacchet: So there would actually be a use for it that way.
Derril Burger: Yes. Sunday's one of my busiest days in my business but I indicated to them that they
could use it. Actually half the parking lot on Sunday during their services.
Sacchet: That's a good comment. In terms of the signage, I think the drawings that I've seen you had a
sign on both sides of the building. Now according to what staff is saying you could only have one or the
other. No problem there for you?
Derril Burger: One sign is fine. However I would prefer to have it on the south side. The west side you
can't see it. I'd prefer to have it on the south side so when you're coming up Great Plains Boulevard you
can see it. The way the building sits at a slight angle from the street, it's not perpendicular.
Sacchet: And two more quick questions. In terms of putting some screening to the cemetery. I mean to me
that seems absolutely essentially personally. I mean after having just looked at it a few minutes ago.
What's your thinking about that?
Derril Burger: We do have a plan for that and I think I'll let Fred speak to that.
Sacchet: He can address that, okay. And in terms of having those two trees that kind of on the southwest
comer of the parking lot, which is just really a turnaround. It's not even a parking spot. I might address
that with you also.
Derril Burger: Southwest?
Sacchet: You have to back in to get out.
Blackowiak: That's east.
Sacchet: Oh it's east, not west.
Derril Burger: You're talking about those two big boxelders?
Sacchet: Yeah. Well it's boxelders I know but.
Derril Burger: Those are garbage trees.
Fred Richter: They're big though.
Sacchet: They're big garbage trees. Okay. Yeah, that's my questions of the applicant. Thank you.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: Madam Chair? I have a shingle question.
Derril Burger: Sure.
Kind: The quality of this is such that it will not ripple in the summer?
Derril Burger: I guess I can't guarantee what a shingle's going to do. I can only guarantee what I'm
putting on there. We've been building for 20 years and we've used this shingle many, many, many times.
This is a 30 year shingle. It's a, what kind?
Fred Richter: Timberline heavy texture.
Derril Burger: Timberline, heavy textured Timberline and it has a nice look to it.
Kind: And would you consider wood shakes to coordinate with the old, old St. Hubert's?
Derril Burger: I really don't want wood shakes. The answer is no unless I were forced to and then I don't
know what I'd do. I don't want them. I don't like them. I guess that was pretty clear. So was your
question.
Kind: Thank you. That's all Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Does anybody have any other questions for this applicant? Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple. Mr. Burger, I appreciate your offer of the shed. I think I'd have to talk to the boss
at 7411 Fawn Hill before I accepted. But I'm wondering if there's some city group, you know historical
society or something that has had a chance to look. I just drove by it. I can't tell you if it's in shape to
even move it but I'm just wondering, since it's 1888, I don't know if any group would want it or not so I
just throw that out to staff if that's a possibility. I noticed on the plans that there was a door on the lower
level, I think on the east side. Are there any plans for like a patio or anything down on that, lunch tables or
anything like that?
Derril Burger: No.
Slagle: It might be an idea, I don't know. That's all I have.
Claybaugh: I understand your opposition to wood shingles, whether they're machine split or hand split.
And you brought in the Timberline 30 year, which is a heavy textured shadow shingle. Nice shingle. If
you're not open to wood shingles, would you be open to different types of heavy textured shingles that are
of an asphalt composition, similar to that but provide some different architectural options?
Derril Burger: Such as?
Claybaugh: I'd have to pull together some samples for you but.
Derril Burger: I've looked at every shingle on the market.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Claybaugh: There's GAF but there's Owen Coming and a number of different manufacturers that have
their comparable or little upgraded type, slight upgrade to that. That might be on there. That might be a
little more fitting or suitable so I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to explore that if they were not of a
wood material.
Derril Burger: I'm not opposed to it. No, I'm not opposed to looking at that. However, I have explored it
very carefully.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand the cost and.., maintenance applications of the wood shakes and they look
nice but that's kind of where it ends. But there are a lot of nice thicker, heavier textured shadow lined
shingles that are out there that have some different design options to them beyond the Timberline series so.
Derril Burger: I'm open to looking again. I have looked and I prefer this particular Timberline shingle.
That's one I've used many times. I'm tearing the shakes off of my office building in Minnetonka today,
cedar shakes and I'm putting this shingle on.
Claybaugh: I noticed that when I drove by. One question I guess it wouldn't be for you, it'd be for staff.
You may know the answer. Is this building going to be sprinkled or is it required to be sprinkled or not an
issue?
Fred Richter: Below the requirement.
Derril Burger: It will not be sprinkled, no.
Claybaugh: Below the requirement, okay. Okay, so the existing stubs for sewer and water have been
sized adequately so, okay. Okay. That's all I have sir. Thank you very much.
Karlovich: Excuse me, is it Mr. Burger?
Derril Burger: Yes.
Karlovich: Mr. Burger, I just wanted to, as with the last building I just wanted to make the comments at
least for the record. I think it is another beautiful building. Beautiful brick building. Nicely done. I
thought you did a nice job of using a walkout on this kind of railroad property remnant and positioning the
building farther away from the other historical buildings and then there's more parking in there. It looked
like a beautiful structure and at least well done there and so I just wanted to give you some positive
feedback in addition. I also found it kind of at least humorous in your report, how do you feel about the
gas line and them wanting their setback. I thought that was just kind of an interesting.
Derril Burger: Well first of all, I spent a lot of time with Rick Pylon of the, one of the Chief Engineers with
Minnegasco on site and off site and the gas line runs, the building. There's quite a bit of distance between
the southwest comer of the building and the gas line. That's about 60 feet maybe or something like that I
think. I'm not sure, but then on the southeast comer, it's down to 10 feet which they didn't like but we find
it acceptable.
Karlovich: And then I guess, just my question from before. What is the status or the legal status and the
reason I'm asking and I'm not criticizing it but just trying to ask the questions and create a record for the
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
City Council to look at with regards to easements or cross easements or cross parking. Is there, do you
know that or maybe your architect can answer that question.
Derril Burger: I'd defer to the city and to.
Aanenson: Maybe I can take another stab at it. This property has a lot of historical change to it. Owner
of the property was a former mayor of the city. I believe that there's handshake agreements along the way.
There is a condition in here that says there must be a cross access agreement in place. We've spoken to the
applicant. We are willing to do that. Again, as we look at the development, as Sharmin had mentioned of
the other property, there is a church use looking at it. Whether it's a church that buys it or if we look at the
development of the Pauly-Pony-Pryzmus site, something else will come there, there's an opportunity to use
some of this parking. I guess that's kind of why we looked at, not that we want to maximize or over park it
but if there's another use that might be tight on that site, it does provide when we've got the cross access
easements and we found that to, instead of over parking, you know benefit both sides and they're willing to
do that and it is a condition number 9 that there is a cross access agreement in place. That will be part of
this when it goes forward to the City Council so, and it has been used that way in the past.
Karlovich: Alright, thank you.
Derril Burger: I'd like to introduce Fred Richter from Steiner Development who is my architect and you
can ask him the more technical questions.
Fred Richter: Let me just try to go through some of the answers.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Richter, can I get you to step up to the microphone so everyone can hear you,
thanks.
Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. I'm the architect on this project. My address is
3610 South County Road 101 in Wayzata. There was, first question was about the buffer. Our landscape
plan showed actually an arborvitae hedge that runs between the cemetery and the parking lot. We think it's
very appropriate. Arborvitae kind of have a relationship with cemeteries. I think the, Mr. Burger wants to
also have a subtle separation. Although we appreciate the open space, I think the cemetery relates well
with the setback to the building. We think this is kind of a happy compromise to make a good neighbor.
The other thing I'll add is, there's a lot of mature trees up in the cemetery so there's tree coverage here, all
the way through and then we're keeping the oaks in here and now the boxelders over in here so there really
is a mature line and now this understory basically arborvitae hedge. The other question that came up, this
is an updated diagram that kind of just summarizes all the comments. And one of them was preserving the
trees. I mean that's our goal is to preserve the trees. One person brought up, ways and means of
construction. We'll have to pay attention to those. For starters, we've pulled a small, almost landscape
retaining wall to have no grave disruption around that large oak. At the same time during construction
we'll have to stake it and make sure all subcontractors don't drive machinery over it and we'll do what we
can. Unfortunately there's no absolute guarantees. We are going to be trenching for footings and that but
we are a good distance away so we're optimistic. Same thing in the large island. Here the issue is actual
grade increases but we'll have a mulch over it so that should keep the root structure intact there. As far as
the parking spaces, and I've been a little confused. We have always laid out 62 feet in a parking lot in
Chanhassen. That's curb to curb, 18-24-18. They work just fine and we've got thousands of parking
spaces over in Arboretum Business Park. Now we are increasing this to 26 drive aisle and that's
something that I think is appropriate. So I think our dimension should be fine in the parking area. The
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
other item, I'll just kind of run through them. We mentioned the catch basin at this end. Our water is
draining this way and this way. This storm sewer will be rerouted either in the catch basin to the west, or
over here to catch this one on the east side and out. We won't bring it down as drawn through the tree
structure. We talked about the easements to the adjacent property. We do, are calling out the shoebox type
light standards with the flat lens on this side, lighting this way. This is the trash enclosure. That's replaced
what was that turnout here, saving the large boxelders. The trash enclosure will be detailed with the same
wood siding as in the projections of the building. The sanitary sewer and water service.., comments of the
staff. I think this has been a good process where Mr. Burger's been very open minded and cooperative and
staff brought up good suggestions and the building's gotten better as we've incorporated things. We are
going to put this building, the only mechanical will be residential scale condensers and they'll go on the
south side of the building. And the preferred wall sign will be on the south side. We are calling out a
monument sign in this location. And I think that pretty much covers it. There were, there's one question
about the Jeffersonian quality of the details. I think the Jeffersonian was a sincere effort to describe the
basically the dark brick, a lot of white wood. Some columns. We are detailing the building with natural
wood that will be painted. Mr. Burger will understand the maintenance responsibilities. I think a
Jeffersonian describes a building in a green landscape, very rural. You think of Charlottesville, Virginia.
University of Virginia. Granted it's not a dome and things like that but it is kind of in keeping I think with
what that style is. This is not a storefront building with a zero setback. It really is a historic building with
landscaping and green area. I think when you get the trees around it and all, it should actually fall in place
pretty well. As far as detailing, these are schematics. The drawings are CAD drawn but I think we will,
with the actual lap siding, the wood columns and all, we'll be you know genuine high quality detail so we'll
do that little extra touch. Which really won't be much different from the houses in this area, so that, unless
there's other questions.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions.
Kind: Madam Chair I do have a question. When you take out that turnaround at the east end of the
parking lot, how do cars back out to get out?
Fred Richter: They make just a little more careful turn but it really just impacts the one.
Kind: That one?
Fred Richter: Yeah.
Kind: I hate that parking spot. Why don't we just get rid of it?
Fred Richter: Well if you were there and it was the only parking spot there.
Kind: You go eh, eh, eh to get out.
Fred Richter: It works. We had the same situation in our own building.
Kind: And nobody parks there, right?
Fred Richter: No, people park there.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: Okay. And then the tree protection diameter, I am a little unclear about that. In the staff report I
believe it's the city forester who recommends a 30 foot diameter. That would mean 15 feet on each side so
if that oak on the west side of the building.
Fred Richter: This is a, I'll call it a specimen oak. This is the one we're probably most concerned about.
Kind: Yep.
Fred Richter: And this building's designed to use, this gable with the columns and the.., was designed to
have that oak tree in front of it. This is 35 feet, the setback.
Kind: Oh to the street. Or to the property line, I'm sorry.
Fred Richter: So the 30 foot is in there but we're going to be very close on the eastern edge of it when we.
Kind: So the tree is not 30 feet from the building?
Fred Richter: No. The tree is.
Kind: Right in there.
Fred Richter: Yeah, probably 15-20.
Kind: Yeah. And then there will be no grading in that area, or very minimal. How about up in the parking
lot, the two oaks. The 24 inch oak. Is it possible to use a lighter weight equipment when, in that area for
your final grade?
Fred Richter: Well I, and I'm not a, and this is a ways and means of construction but it's my
understanding that we'll be the contractor is we want to minimize any vehicles going over at all. This is
kind of just a no zone to use heavy equipment over it. And this grade will stay as is. This grade actually
gets raised just, curve around it and then we'll mulch over it to bring it up to the height. And... boxelder it
is back there. They are, I was very surprised how big boxelders can get and those are trees very worth
saving. We're glad to...
Kind: Thank you. Rich?
Slagle: Madam Chair, just one quick question. You mentioned the condenser boxes would go on the south
side. Is there any thought to having them on the west side? I'm just thinking aesthetically.
Kind: The east side would be.
Slagle: The east side, I'm sorry. East side.
Fred Richter: Actually the east side is secondary sidewalk with the grade will drop off considerably... This
is the east side and this is an exit and this is the drop off and we are going to do a small retaining wall down
here just because of the severe grade. This is the west side.
Slagle: Fair enough.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Craig, any more questions?
Claybaugh: Not really any more questions, just a few comments. I answered the last question with the
grade changes. I was concerned about the grade changes around the existing trees. Sounds like you've
addressed that. I'd like to get a little clearer on what the staff's intent is or what the historical perspective
is with respect to the building there. What are we really trying to achieve or where are we setting that bar
at for that particular site. When it's introduced in that fashion, and maybe that's part of why I'm getting
hung up. When it's introduced from the historical perspective, and we're trying to achieve this, this and
this exactly where.
Aanenson: The historical perspective, just to bring up the fact of the existing building. That it was a
landmark identified. There is no city ordinance regarding historical perspective. Just as a point of
reference, we did show you what was in the area to talk about the materials that we used just so blending,
which is common practice. Was it our intent to make this a historical building? No. Our intent was to
match the materials, yeah.
Claybaugh: I realize it's not that far reaching but I just wanted to.
Aanenson: Right, just to blend you know. I think the other question, Sharmin showed the original St.
Hubert's church, just to show you the materials and brick and that was our first condition that it had to be
brick because that's in that area.
Claybaugh: Yes, now I like the red brick. The texture of the wearing on it...
Aanenson: Right. And from that we just kind of worked with the architect a little bit.
Claybaugh: The other one that's there, the buckwheat provided a nice contrast to it. Still provided some
attention to that brick. My biggest concern was just at the details for the gables at the front entry. That's
been one concern. Of greater concern is the roofing material because of the scale of the roof so, but
otherwise like I said, I like how the site is laid out. You're getting the parking width and not to belabor the
tree issue but I don't know if anything's been discussed for provisions if any of those trees do die during
construction. What will go up in their place, or if anything will go up in their place.
Aanenson: There's a standard for security for landscaping which is in place and there's a requirement for
canopy so they would have to replace caliper.
Claybaugh: Alright.
Blackowiak: Any other questions for the applicant? Jay, anything else you wanted? No? Okay. Well this
is a public hearing so I'd like to open it up for a public hearing. Anybody who would like to comment on
this proposal, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Mr.
Klingelhutz, you don't want to?
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz, present owner of the building. I live at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard,
Chanhassen. I hear a lot of talk about the historical value of the building. It's an old, old, old building.
There's been a lot of dollars spent on the inside to stabilize it and keep the floors level. In fact there's a
few, it settled so much on one side that we laid 2 by 6's on the floor and cut them down 6 inches on one end
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
and down to about an inch on the other end just to get the floor back to level. The foundation under it is
large rocks. They're in the ground about oh 6 inches. I think they were laid virtually on top of the ground.
A lot of the beams under the outside walls are in very poor condition. I think if somebody really tried to
restore the building they'd almost have to tear it apart and rebuild it to make it a stable building. I
remember in 1998 when the committee was on that part of Chanhassen, one of the ladies on the committee
said well what are we going to do with that ugly building? And it kind of jolted me a little bit that
somebody would say about an old building because that's probably some of them were built that way that
many years ago but it isn't the best looking building but it served it's purpose. We've been using it for
office space and the longest tenant we've had in there since we took over the building, he's been in there for
24 years and that's Willie Torbald the accountant. But I think the plan Derril's come up with really does
something for that lot. I like the way the building is set on the property. It's set back far enough so that
even coming from up Great Plains Boulevard you don't spoil the view of a lot of the church. You probably
noticed that on there and saving the major trees was something that I talked about when he offered to buy
the building. I said I love those oak trees and I don't want to see them destroyed and he really complied
with some of my wishes on that. Somebody brought up the cemetery being zoned single family residence
and that was a surprise to me. When it's probably the most densely populated area of Chanhassen... When
they purchased the land from the railroad, we definitely made a very thorough search of anything in the
Carver County recording about the property and there wasn't even a gas line easement on the property at
that time. So to tell you the truth, the gas line to this day has not got an easement on the property, unless
Mr. Burger gives them one, I think they should be pretty happy about it because I was often think that they
would shut them off and make them move it. But those are some things that happened when the railroad
and the gas line company, which are both big companies work together and forget to put an easement on
the property and it should be there. I guess if you have any other questions about, from me about it. I've
lived in Chanhassen all my life. Former mayor here. City council member but that don't, don't use that as
any part of your decision here. Thank you. But if you have any questions, just ask.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? No, thank you sir.
A1 Klingelhutz: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to come up and comment on this proposal? Seeing no
one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's now time to make your comments. Jay, would you
like to start?
Karlovich: I think I've made all my comments. I think it's a very nice building. I like the fact that the
building is kind of a walkout and put a distance away from the kind of the historical area. Otherwise I
don't have any other comments except that to the fact that this is only a site plan review and I guess, well
there is a variance but the variance seems kind of a drop in the bucket so I think our review of this is
somewhat limited and be mindful of that. That's all the comments I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: No new comments. Just reiterate the old comments. I think they've gone a long, long ways to
select brick of integrity and I would strongly encourage them to go just a little bit further with the roof
scaping on there and try to tie it in with some of those same features and character.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: Madam Chair, I too like the building. I think it's attractive. The design's pleasing. I'm fine with
the 30 year Timberline shingle. Being the shingle woman on this commission, I think that's acceptable. I
also would support a variance to grant the 24 foot width aisle. I prefer having the shrubbery on the north
side as a buffer between the cemetery and the parking lot so I would support that variance.
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli.
Sacchet: I do believe it's a good plan. I also agree about, I mean it sounds awfully nice when I read the
report and it says this building was built in 1888. I thought wow. But you go out there and you look at it,
and I think it's time for something to happen there. I certainly agree with that. However when I went out
there, what really struck me is the proximity and the openness to the cemetery, even though there are all
these mature trees. There is really not much buffering so for me to really feel good about this I think there
needs to be very mass of significant buffering and obviously you've looked at that to some extent and I
agree with Deb that increasing that, those 2 feet more green space, if that can be used to do a little more
buffering. I'm very much in favor of that. In terms of the specifics, we say if possible utilize the sanitary
sewer. So we can say they shall use the sanitary sewer in condition 6. In condition 14, as large as possible
is not a good term for me and it looks like they can accommodate the 30 feet diameter space with that oak
so I would want to spell that out for them. And I would want to add some condition requiring very
significant buffering to the north as well as to the east side for the cemetery. In conjunction with going with
the variance at the 24 foot drive aisle. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Rich.
Slagle: Just two questions. More for staff than anything. What process do we use in this, just educational
for me, for tree protection? If let's say a 30 inch tree were to die. As an example I have huge oaks in my
yard and one in the back yard has some rock that was done maybe 15 feet away and it is dying. And I'm
just concerned, what is the process? And I apologize if I should have read this somewhere but I'm just
curious.
Aanenson: As a general rule, it's a tree fence, as Sharmin indicated, put around. And all subdivisions are
walked and engineering looks at them too before they're given an order to proceed. With commercial
development, they are asked to put a fence up and they are inspected and the building inspectors do the
most work for us. They're out in the field and let us know that the fencing is down. It's also incumbent
upon the developer to use best management practices. That they're making sure that the fence stays up
and people aren't taking shortcuts with the fence down, but it's the city's job to make sure that it's up.
And if it does, if the tree does die within the landscaping requirement they do have to replace it on a caliper
per inch basis.
Slagle: Okay. So as an example, where the island is, or where the island is on the north side you would
have a tree fence but obviously they'll be grading for the parking lot.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: And again I'm just concerned that where that fencing is, just 1 foot or 2 feet away could be a root.
Aanenson: Right. We've tried conditions saying it has to be hand dug and the like, and the fact of the
matter is, unless you're standing there, you know, the developer, the builder of the site, the applicant is
trying to save the trees and again, you're relying on who's ever out there that day. Who's ever delivering
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
lumber. Who's ever loading the Bobcat to be responsible. And that's their job too to let their people know
you know what the practices are going to be out on the site.
Slagle: Okay. And please, to the applicant, this is not directed just to your project. I have to think about
that in the sense that I just want to think about a process that I would be comfortable because right now I'm
not comfortable with what I call the vagueness of that, and I know the intent by all is good. I'm just
wondering so let me keep wondering, thank you.
Claybaugh: Question/comment for staff here. Building on what Rich said here. A lot of times there's the
issue is belabored in meetings like this. By the time it gets out to the job site those people know nothing of
what went into it and I guess one of the things that I would like to see is that there's some weight assigned
to it so the people that come on site know what, as a matter of fact, and that if necessary there is some teeth
incorporated into the verbiage of it. Because I've seen it go both ways. I've seen elements like this very
strongly and aggressively protected and I've seen other times where it's been discussed at length and
exhausted and come out a week later to the job site and they are running circles around trees so, to build on
what Rich started here, I'd like to see some language, a little less vague that would at least provide some
degree of comfort that it was going to be followed through on and that would be an ongoing process.
Aanenson: I don't mean to belittle your point but we certainly want to do that. We can put whatever we
want in there, but unless we're out there, unless they're responsible, you know we try really hard to do that.
Claybaugh: Well maybe whether it's in, this is clearly too far reaching but I'll say it anyways. Whether
it's how the subcontracts are written or whatever, but make a concerted effort to make sure that
subcontractors and suppliers know what's at stake. How that's achieved, that's the development builder's
option. But it is of concern, I agree with Rich because it doesn't make it in the translation and to say that
it's difficult to do it, I realize how difficult it is to do. It's what I do, but I also know that a difference can
be made just on how that front end, how that job is set up and how people coming on site perceive the level
of importance of those trees so, that's it.
Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might add. I think I heard staff also note that the caliper is replaced
if in fact we lose the trees, and I'm also hearing the applicant having the same concern as staff and the
commission so I think having the applicant as sensitive to this issue as everyone is here, it's not as if it isn't
a shared concern. So I think I am hearing that it would be translated out into the field and if in fact it
doesn't occur, the counter side is the replacement then of those trees which isn't the ideal. We all realize
keeping the mature tree is the best, but on the downside there is the replacement factor.
Claybaugh: Right, but the replacement factor is basically unachievable for these trees. They can increase
the caliper dispersed around the site.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Claybaugh: So it's not something that can be duplicated and that's where the additional concern comes
from.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Blackowiak: Jay, did you have another comment?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: Yes, I apologize Madam Chair for kind of having my comments coming when I did review this
it was late and ever since I had my children I've been tired the rest of my life but, the staff report has done
well and very lengthy but one thing that I recall when I was looking at this was the sidewalk shown on the
site plan on A2 is outside the limits of the property, but I think if you look at the Certificate of the Survey.
Who's going to have to reconnect the sidewalk so that it kind of, right now it stops at the north side of the
property and then kind of you have to cross across the parking lot and hook up farther to the south along
the street. Does that need to be a condition that they're going to install the sidewalk outside the property
limits as shown on the site plan? Maybe a question for staff. Do you see what I'm talking about? I mean I
guess technically if you approve a site plan, do they have to put the sidewalk improvements outside the
property limits? Or who's doing that?
Saam: Yeah I guess we would like to see them replace that sidewalk. One of the conditions was that this
southerly access would be removed so curb would be placed there. This pavement would be ripped out,
sodded and if you're talking about continuing this sidewalk in a north/south fashion, I guess that's
something I'd like to see the applicant do and the city would grant easement or whatever to do that. I
haven't checked that with the city attorney yet but that was kind of our thinking.
Karlovich: I don't know so much that they need an easement, just as long as they install it.
Saam: Yeah.
Aanenson: Doesn't the sidewalk exist there right now?
Saam: Well I'm not sure if we're looking at the right, same spot.
Aanenson: On 78th.
Saam: Yeah, Great Plains.
Aanenson: Great Plains, sorry. Great Plains going up. It's there right now, just not where the driveway is.
Saam: Okay, I'm no sure if we're looking at the same spot but.
Karlovich: What I was looking at was A2 and then the Certificate of Survey next to each other. You look
at the Certificate of Survey, you can see where the, it appears to be a sidewalk that ends at the entrance into
the property and then it starts again and goes along the cemetery and then on the site plan, they nicely show
it being kind of rebuilt and their own sidewalk connecting into it on the south side of the parking lot. Yeah,
it stops there and then if you look at the site plan on A2. It's on city property outside and I just was
wondering if that needs to be a condition. They show it nicely being rebuilt in here but I think it's going to
stop here and stop here. Who's going to build this segment of the sidewalk is my question? Is it just going
to get chopped off here and the city's going to have to install the rest or...
Saam: Mr. Commissioner, since it was shown on the site plan, I didn't feel it was necessary to include an
additional condition saying that he will do this. It's already shown on the plan. We can sure add one on
there since it's not shown, and I see your concern on the grading plan or on any other plan. It was our
feeling that the applicant would be installing that since it's shown on their site plan.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Well I think we can put a condition in, if that would, it sounds like that's what you're looking
for.
Karlovich: Well I just, I think that would be the high road to take.
Blackowiak: Yes exactly, especially since it's outside of the property line.
Karlovich: Right.
Blackowiak: That the applicant owns, correct. Okay. Are there any other comments? Well I'll just add a
couple. Generally I also like the building. Regarding the drive aisle width question. I think I disagree with
Deb when she says she wants to put the drive aisle down to 24 feet. I knew that would get your attention. I
think that we could leave it at 26 feet and request that the applicant explore the feasibility of 24 feet. I
think there's some work yet to be done on the buffering on the north and east sides so I think we need to
sort of look and see where things are going to shake out and before we start going in and changing drive
aisle widths, let's bring it up to the minimum, which is 26 feet. Keep it at code and if council wants to
change it, they can do that but let them look at the whole picture instead of us going in and changing before
we have the other components. I am also a little concerned about the buffering and again that's going to
have to be a component that we, we're going on good faith that it's going to be taken care of before it goes
to council and that there will be a sufficient buffering between the property and the north and east areas
adjacent to the property. I redid some math on this parking stall thing and I misspoke when I said they
were 3 short. Or a half short. They're actually about 4 short because it seems there are 2,000 square foot
of warehouse approximately so they would actually be short 4, if indeed that ever got totally converted, but
I guess as Kate said, it would have to come in for a building permit so I don't have any problem leaving the
parking as is, as long as there's a mechanism to address that issue, if and when it should ever come in for a
building permit. The bottom line is I do like the project. I think it's a nice use of the site. I think it's rather
a tricky site, but I think the applicant has done a nice job. So with that I would like to have a motion
please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I move approval of Site Plan #2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot
office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5 foot setback along the north and a 10 foot
setback along the east side of the property, and a drive aisle width variance to allow a 24 foot width aisle as
shown on the plans dated received April 4, 2001, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and
subject to the following conditions 1 through, how many are there here?
Sacchet: 21.
Kind: 21. And I would like to add, let's see. I'll add condition number 22. That landscaping plan shall be
revised to show plantings on the north side of the parking lot to buffer between the parking and cemetery.
And revise condition number 7 to read, 30 foot diameter tree protection fencing shall be installed around all
trees in the construction zone that will remain. Final grade shall be done with low impact equipment in the
treed areas. And then condition number 8 would be removed with my variance in my motion. And number
9, I would like to add a sentence that says, and relocate the sidewalk to the north entrance. Number 14.
Change to read as follows, establish a tree protection area around the 30 inch oak near the western property
line. The area should be, shall be 30 feet in diameter and no grading or other construction activities will be
allowed within it. Let's see, number 6. The applicant shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water
services for the new building. Get rid of the words, if possible. And I think that's it.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: I just have one question. Was your modification to number 9, was that designed to get in the
sidewalk issue?
Kind: Right.
Karlovich: Okay.
Slagle: Two more questions ifI may.
Sacchet: We need to second first.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. There's a motion. Let's have a second first and then we'll have
discussion.
Sacchet: I second the motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Now is there any discussion?
Slagle: Just two quick questions. You mentioned the 30 foot diameter protection for the tree, but if I
understood the east, the western area, western side of the building is actually closer than that.
Kind: It was 30 feet diameter around the tree.
Slagle: Oh diameter, 15 feet and we're sort of comfortable that that's okay.
Kind: That's what the forester said.
Slagle: Okay. And then you are going with 24 feet?
Kind: Yep.
Slagle: Okay.
Kind: That's my motion.
Sacchet: Are you done Rich?
Slagle: You bet.
Sacchet: I'd like to make two picky amendments. I like to use the exact wording that the City Forester
proposes for the 30 foot diameter that actually reads, at least 30 foot. And even knowing that you only
have about 30 foot, 35 feet to play with. I know it's tight. But just to give it a little more umph, I would
like to add that wording, at least. And also like a little more umph in condition 22 about the buffering. I'd
like it to say massive buffer planting and screening because I really think it needs a lot for me to feel
comfortable with it. It's a great proposal but it needs massive buffer plantings and screening.
Claybaugh: Could you be more clear than massive?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: A lot. Solid. Tall.
Kind: 100%?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would consider that from the parking lot, you should not be able to see the cemetery and
vice versa. I mean I'm just, I'm not so much concerned about the people in the parking lot as I'm actually
concerned about the people that go out there in the cemetery and they feel like they're in a parking lot. So
yes, I would require 100% buffering. Is that specific? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Did you accept those?
Kind: I accept those amendments.
Blackowiak: Amendments, okay any other comments?
Karlovich: I just want to say for the record, I don't have the sufficient I don't think building or background
to know if24 or 26 are necessary but it seems as though I'm just going to defer to the rest of the
commission on this one.
Kind: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Matt said that 24 foot would be sufficient but our code is 26.
He said 12 feet either direction so I'm going with his comments on that.
Sacchet: And if I may clarify Madam Chair. The reason why I accept that 24 foot is in view that the
additional 2 feet gives more room for buffering. To the north, which to me is very important.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5 foot
setback along the north and a 10 foot setback along the east side of the property, and a drive aisle
width variance to allow a 24 foot width aisle as shown on the plans dated received April 4, 2001,
based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 2001, 3101, 3107, 3108, 5203, 5215, 5234, and
5300.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Grading within the drip-line of the 30 inch oak tree shall be minimized through the use of a
retaining wall on the north side of the tree.
5. Reroute the proposed storm sewer along the west side of the 30 inch oak tree.
6. The applicant shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees in the construction zone that will remain.
Final grade shall be done with low impact equipment in the treed areas.
Deleted.
Remove the existing southerly access and utilize the existing access to the north. The shared
portion of the access drive, which goes across the city owned parking lot, must be contained within
a private easement, and relocate the sidewalk to the north entrance.
Any offsite grading will require temporary easements.
On the utility plan:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the Sewer and Water Notes add, ;;All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26."
d. Add a storm sewer schedule.
e. Show all existing utilities with invert, pipe size, pipe type, etc.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing utilities.
b. Show all existing and proposed easements.
c. Add a legend.
Enlarge the parking lot peninsula to a minimum 30 foot in width by removing parking spaces on
either side of the peninsula.
Establish a tree protection area around the 30 inch oak near the western property line. The area
shall be at least 30 feet in diameter and no grading or other construction activities will be allowed
within it.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 24
square feet and a height of 5 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per
street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall
upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the
following criteria:
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to
the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural
accent to the building.
Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section
south of the site.
Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign
plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff shall be provided prior to
requesting a building permit.
16. Building Official Conditions:
Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing the existing structures on the site.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
The access aisle between the accessible parking spots must be a minimum of eight (8) feet
wide.
The plans were reviewed for allowable building area, exterior wall protection and basic
exiting only. Detailed building code requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
17. Meet with Fire Marshal prior to building permit submittal.
18.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by
ordinance.
19.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened by a
wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes require that
recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be
dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The
applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required
for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space
should be contained within the same enclosure.
20.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be
screened from views.
21.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
securities as required for landscaping.
22.
The landscaping plan shall be revised to show plantings on the north side of the parking lot to
provide 100% buffer between the parking and cemetery.
All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4to2.
Blackowiak: Motion carries 4 to 2. Rich, would you like to make a comment on why your nay vote was
there for the record.
Slagle: Sure. The buffering. I think it might be just a tad excessive. And then the second thing was, I
really am trying to stick with the ordinances as much as I can. I don't see a reason enough to go to 24 so
just those two things.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Yep, and I agree with what Rich said that I feel we need to stick with our ordinance and if the
applicant comes up with a plan that substitutes a lot of buffering on the north side, I would probably be
willing to give that 2 feet but until I see that plan, I really feel it's important to stick by the ordinance and
that's the only reason I voted no. I love everything else about it. So motion carries. It goes on to City
Council on Tuesday, May 29th.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7305 GALPIN
BLVD., PID #25-0101300 AND 25-0101600, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, questions of staff. Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have questions Madam Chair. Some clarification about the four options. The first
option, if we change it to the medium density. That could basically mean that then density transfer could
happen on top of that, is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Then to option number 2, we would be basically putting a frame around it as very
specifically similar as Walnut Grove.
Generous: Right. We would prescribe the development.
Sacchet: However, at this time we have no indication from the landowner that that's what they want to do.
Generous: I'll let him speak to that.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that will be a question for the applicant. Or maybe you don't have an applicant.
You have a landowner. That's one thing I'm struggling with, okay. Then the third option, we basically
wouldn't have good way to protect the Bluff Creek, correct? I mean there's no density transfer option so
they would possibly have to cut in more into the trees and into the creek.
Generous: The city would need to provide him a variance to encroach further into the primary.
Sacchet: We would be more limited in terms of being able to protect the Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. But there are more issues involved in that. I think the primary zone is the primary zone
and it's a setback requirement from that. However there are some questions about are we over stepping.
Sacchet: We would have less flexibility to mitigate basically, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And then with the fourth option, we'd be making a step that is really general city wide. It's not
specific to that site. Do we have read what kind of implication overall that could have? Because we're
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
looking at one site and we're talking about making a change to the overall framework. Do we have a sense
of what that's going to bring overall?
Generous: As part of the update to the comprehensive plan we did have the GIS information for the
primary zone and so we did incorporate that. We have a sense of the number of units that could be
developed within those utility expansion areas. We don't know exactly how that will shake out in every
site. An issue that we had before within the Puke development for instance. The north half of that
property was guided low density residential. We needed to do a land use amendment to permit them to do
the density transfer, yet we maintained the 4 units per acre as a cap on that. Had the PUD been amended
they could have done that development without the land use amendment.
Sacchet: So we actually have been simplifying a little bit.
Generous: Yes. And the Met Council wouldn't have had to be involved in the review of that project.
Sacchet: Then two other quick questions. In the drawings, the two last ones you attached just to clarify.
Can you specify which option you're actually depicting with, I presume that the zero lot line, the Craftsman
style homes, that would be relative to, is that Option 3 ?
Generous: No, that could be done as part of either the land use amendment and rezoning to PUD, or if we
amended the planned unit development. Because that comes in under 4 units per acre.
Sacchet: So it would be option 2 or 4?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And then the last one, the townhouses one, that would be under.
Generous: Option 2 only.
Sacchet: Option 2 only.
Generous: You could do townhouses if we amended the PUD but the number of units would have to go
down to 10.
Sacchet: It would have to be less units?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you Bob.
Blackowiak: Deb?
Kind: Madam Chair, yes. Currently our PUD ordinance does not allow twin homes in single family
detached PUD's.
Generous: Correct. Under residential low density you can only have detached.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: And if they went as a straight subdivision you could have a twin home?
Generous: If they rezoned it to R-4, correct.
Kind: Which is what this property is guided for?
Aanenson: It's guided low density.
Generous: Which, the R-4 is one of the zonings that would be consistent with that. RSF is another one and
the planned unit development is a third so there's 3 different zoning options to actually implement the low
density residential land use.
Kind: And what's the intent behind our PUD ordinance not allowing twin homes in it? Do you know any
background about that?
Aanenson: Well at the time that the Planning Commission, this is in the early 90's, was revisiting the PUD
ordinance, there was concern about if they lowered the minimum lot size or allowed that, then everything
would come in that way. So there was a feel of going less than 11,000 and making an average and that
number bounced around quite a bit and eventually landed on 11,000 square feet. And not doing attached.
Kind: And would that be a concern with option number 4? That all future development in the yellow areas
on our guided map would come in as cluster attached homes?
Generous: Within the Bluff Creek corridor, maybe.
Kind: This would apply to everything that's yellow on our map.
Generous: When we recommend a PUD we want to see a benefit to the community. If they don't have it,
that's a rezoning. The city has it's greatest power, if you will, in the zoning process.
Kind: So there has to be significant environmental reasons to grant.
Generous: Right or something significant benefit to the community to grant the PUD.
Kind: Okay.
Blackowiak: Rich, do you have any questions? Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I had some questions. I thought number 4, right from the get go was too broad. I think
it'd be very difficult to answer the questions here today what the future ramifications of a decision like that
could be. I need a little guidance, I'll give you some parameters in the form of adjectives. Don't want to
invite people to come in and when you say that they would have to go through this process and this process
and show this hardship so on and so forth, I'd like to select something that doesn't invite that process. If
that makes any sense. I don't want to encourage people to come in and do those things. If there's an
alternative to it. We fix half a problem and create possibly another one with respect to they come in
individually with a little different dress in here and so on and so forth, and appear a little different and it
becomes harder and harder to differentiate where to draw the line so I'd like some guidance with respect to
that. I know you used the term wildcard on one of them. I'd like to know which one that was.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: The first one.
Claybaugh: The first one, okay. I can take that off my list because I didn't like that. I guess so with
respect to the statement I made with encouraging or inviting people to come for different variances or
would come to us under a different pretense, what selection would be best to mitigate that in your mind?
Generous: This specific property, the one that would provide the most surety would be the land use
amendment and the rezoning to planned unit development with the design parameters.
Claybaugh: Okay, and why did you feel, just because the wild card is just with respect that you don't
know what would be proposed for that area because there's no applicant at this time. What would be the
possible, what would be the scope of what someone could come in with if we did opt for Option number 1,
the land use amendment? What things could we expect to see?
Generous: Whatever the density they could get on the site. I assume that the 2.9 units, or 2.9 developable
acres and so that times 8. So they could stack townhouses. There's a lot of things they can do.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, if I may address that for Craig just briefly. I don't know whether you were a part
of us when we looked at that before once and the concern that came up in that context, and I think it's
important for you to be aware of it in case you weren't there, is that if we change the density assignment of
that area from low density to medium density, then with it being partially the Bluff Creek primary corridor,
they can make a density transfer and effectively it could become high density. So that's the concern there.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's very much my concern.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Jay, any questions?
Karlovich: I just kind of question the process here in which we've got something before us where we don't
have any staff recommendation. I just think as a commission we should be reviewing staff
recommendations and also with regards to the zoning, there's no application by the land owner. I don't
understand why we're doing anything but, the other thing too is I would like to see the staff empowered and
come up with their recommendation as to if they want something different than the current, that's
something that the commission should be reviewing instead of I guess the commission doing the staffs job.
It's just a general observation.
Sacchet: May I ask a question in that context?
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Sacchet: Because I think it's a very valid point that you're bringing up Jay. I'm trying to remember what
exactly the framework was when it came up first.
Aanenson: We did bring this forward with a recommendation and.
Sacchet: I think you did come with a recommendation and we turned it down.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Aanenson: There wasn't consensus. So what we tried to do is break it down into bite size pieces and give
you more options and explain to you with some design parameters. Also the reason why we're doing this is
that it is inconsistent, the zoning in this is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning and the
comprehensive plan are in conflict and we identified those land uses that we were going to go back and
change. So we can leave it in conflict, that's certainly an option.
Claybaugh: So that's the motivation for addressing it at this point is that the two are in conflict?
Aanenson: Yeah. Well we had brought a report back probably 2 months ago. A staff recommendation
and there wasn't consensus.
Generous: And then back when the original Walnut Grove development came in, there was an impression
or direction from council that that should really be part of this project. So now we're bringing it forward.
Sacchet: I think it's important to see it in that context. I mean it's not like they're asking us because we
didn't like what they brought us last time.
Karlovich: Well that explains it. I was confused about the background.
Sacchet: And the reason is to try to make it consistent.
Generous: Which was, and it was the first option originally which we didn't go beyond the land use
amendment.
Blackowiak: Go ahead, I'll just.
Sacchet: Are we taking comments?
Blackowiak: Well actually I'd like to just ask a couple questions and then, do you have another question
Deb?
Kind: I do have another question.
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Bob, when I was boning up on my PUD ordinance and reading this section I noticed that each PUD
shall have a minimum area of 5 acres.
Generous: Unless it's adjacent to another planned unit development.
Claybaugh: So there's exceptions you make.
Kind: You're right.
Generous: Thank you.
Kind: Correct as usual. Thank you, so this does.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: It would fit under the criteria for rezoning if the city wanted to.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Generous: That's an instance where it might make sense to rezone to planned unit development.
Kind: I'll save my, we're in the questioning stage. I'll save my comments for later.
Blackowiak: We're in the questioning, thank you. Okay. Well I just have one question. What is the
advantage to the city of rezoning it? Rather than just leaving it in conflict. I mean I realize we can leave it
in conflict. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Aanenson: Well I think the advantage of the rezoning it now is similar to what Walnut Grove had, which is
our intent at the time and Mr. Hennessey didn't want to be part of that at the time, which is fine. But I
think what it does secure, is that people know what that property is going to be. The people at Walnut
Grove know what it's going to be. The surrounding land uses across the street know what it's going to be.
And we have the design standards put in place so it kind of erases the question mark. We're not saying
when it has to develop but we're saying when it comes in, this is our expectation. It's going to be this type
of units and it's going to look like this.
Blackowiak: Any disadvantages? For example let's say that it gets rezoned to one of these options.
Wouldn't it be possible for an applicant to come in and request yet another change?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Blackowiak: So I'm just wondering what advantage we get by rezoning now when there's a potential for
future rezoning. I mean aside from property owners possibly knowing what it's going to be. I don't know.
Slagle: I've got one question regarding what the adjacent property owners would know it to be, if you will.
Would that not require an issue of a public hearing?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're just looking for direction tonight. We'd come back.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well this is not a public hearing tonight but I would like to have comments from the
landowner if you would like to get up and give us some ideas of what he's thinking. I don't mean to put
you on the spot but. Yeah, come on up to the microphone, state your name and address and if there's
anything you'd like us to hear about this, now's the time.
John Hennessey: Hi, I'm John Hennessey, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. In reading the notes and the work that
Bob has put in on this, it seems to me that he's leaning towards option 2. I have no problem with that. At
the time that Walnut Grove did go in, we got it on the record, the council said that they would be hard
pressed, in so many words, to withhold medium density on the property but at some point in time probably
in the fairly near future we're looking at selling the property and just leaving. I have no intentions of
developing it myself. Just put it on the market and let it, whatever happens. It'd be very nice if it were
zoned in advance. I see a benefit to the city is that you do get rid of, by zoning to option 2 you get rid of 2
curb cuts on Galpin. You only probably showed 1 on the plan but in my title I do have 2 curb cuts on that
property coming off of Galpin, which is not a desirable thing. Especially for me coming out of there in the
morning. I didn't initiate this process. The City did. It's to my benefit and I appreciate it.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
John Hennessey: Any other questions?
Slagle: Just a quick question Mr. Hennessey. I live in Longacres area. Was it for sale recently? I thought
I saw a for sale sign somewhere?
John Hennessey: Oh we stuck a sign out there a couple years ago to get a feel for what was out there.
Slagle: Just wanted to make sure I had the right property. Okay, thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Well, I guess the commissioners maybe should make some comments right now.
If you've got any comments, because I guess what staff is looking for is direction. I mean what do, what
would we like to see. So let's start with Uli, you look like you're ready to go.
Sacchet: I'm ready to go. I'm definitely ready to go. I'm very clear about this one. I appreciate your
comment that you're fine with the PUD type of solution, option 2 and I think with my questioning I made it
pretty clear that option 1, I really oppose. Vehemently. Number 2... we don't have an application. I mean
we're out of our league as far as I'm concerned, and we're not in the right place. Now number 3, leave it
as is. Well that doesn't solve the problem that we're trying to solve in the first place and I think there's an
additional reason why to go with number 4 because what we're trying to solve is a more generic problem.
We're not trying to deal just with that one property. Where going with option 4, we're putting something in
place that promises to be beneficial in other environments as well. Now yes, I agree there was a concern
that there's a fear that that might be a proliferation for people to then come and want to do all these density
transfers and then we get higher density than we want, but I really don't think that's an issue. That the
PUD system itself entails that we have a say and there has to be justification and reasoning why there is an
increase of density. And if we're looking at the Bluff Creek corridor, it's so important to have these tools
in place that we can do in a smooth way these density transfers and I do think it will be for the benefit of
the city overall if we have that tool in place that we can do a density transfer into a low density
environment, which in this particular case then would effectively allow it to be medium density in the
buildable part, and would allow us to protect the Bluff Creek corridor piece and by leaving it as such as
low density zoned right now. That to me seems like it means all the ends in the best way so I'm very clear
that I'd like you to explore number 4 in this context. That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Rich, do you want to add anything?
Slagle: Not right now.
Blackowiak: No? Okay. Deb.
Kind: I agree with Uli to a certain point. I want to emphasize though that if we do go with option number
4, we would not be increasing density anywhere. The density guidelines would be the same as what's in the
comp plan. They would just allow for transfer of it but the overall density for each individual parcel would
remain the same. If I'm understanding this correctly.
Generous: That's the intent. To allow in the low density to use the 1.2 to 4 units per acre.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: And the control that we as a city would have would be, we would only grant these types of cluster
housing in areas that, where we get a large benefit by preserving primary zone of Bluff Creek or some
significant natural feature. Large stands of trees or that sort of thing.
Generous: Correct.
Kind: I would support exploring number 4 more for those reasons.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
Slagle: Just a quick question on number 4. In the sense of what allows the city to have control over, would
that area that you guys have been sort of asking about, would there be merit to having the city attorney just
review that so that what we believe the control would be and what not isn't vague or potentially could be
challenged by someone successfully? And I'm being vague because I'm not totally up on that but I'm just,
it sounds like we're asking for some use of tools or whatever and I just want to make sure that they're
enforceable if you will.
Kind: And Madam Chair, I also forgot to comment. I would be in support of, if Mr. Hennessey came
through with some sort of proposal as an applicant, I think number 2 is a good solution for his particular
project but I'm uncomfortable approving that without having an applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I guess it may be a reflection of being new to the council but, as stated previous
number 4 is too broad for me. I think the intent is good, but I'm very uncomfortable with exactly where it
would fall legally if challenged and if some of those transfers were brought forth. Item 1 I didn't see as an
option. Item 2, for lack of an applicant I don't see as being necessary to consider at this point. I would be
in favor of item 3 at this time.
Blackowiak: Jay.
Karlovich: I'd like to start out with just some, a couple questions for staff. What did the staff recommend
before?
Generous: We've done the PUD amendment and that was pulled off. Originally we were just going with
the medium density, which we did look at the implications that yes, once they had it in place he could walk
and someone could come in and then they have the density range 4 to 8 units per acre. If they complied
with that, we'd have to, we'd grant it.
Karlovich: What are some of the pitfalls of number 4?
Generous: You're not certain of what properties are going to come into the development when they're
guided low density right now. Right now you're very limited in the options on that. So if it's guided low
density, it's either a planned unit development with 15,000 square foot average lot sizes, 11,000 square
foot minimum lot size, or they can come in and rezone it to R-4 which would permit twin homes, or single
family detached on 15,000 square foot lots. Or the strict 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. We'd lose
the ability to do any density transfer or cluster or attached housing.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: That's with option 1, excuse me for interrupting.
Generous: Without amending the PUD, right.
Sacchet: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: And if Madam Chair, if you don't mind my interjecting as part of your question, though
you just said that you lose that ability. It just adds a step as you had said. You'd have to go to the Met
Council in order to do the land.
Generous: Correct, land use amendment.
Mayor Jansen: You can still do it, as we did on Puke. It just entails another step. Okay. And one other
option that I was just looking at as a few of you were leaning towards number 4, is you conceivably could
amend that just within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Versus having it be the overall PUD ordinance. You could just do it within the Bluff Creek
ordinance. Then you know you're just affecting that segment of the zoniong.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Sorry. I didn't mean to jump in on your time.
Blackowiak: Jay, do you have any other comments?
Karlovich: No I just, I don't see the need for, without an application in front of us and for doing anything
at this point right now. You have a guide plan and you have some zoning that does not agree with the guide
plan. You're not rezoning it, not in conjunction with the guide plan. I think I'd kind of wait to see what
would come in on an application.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree. I still wonder why we want to, if there's not a pressing need for us to change,
why we want to go ahead and rezone. That aside, I don't like number 1. Option, if there's going to be a
change, I mean it looks like options 2 or 4. I like the idea of option 4 specifically in the Bluff Creek
corridor and no other area. But I'm of the same mind as Jay when he says you know we don't, if we don't
have a reason, we don't have an applicant, why are we, and we still have the intent. We still know what
our intent is. That we want to have it medium density basically. I mean isn't that kind of what we've been
saying all along? And if anything else came in it would have to go through a zoning change and public
hearings and I'm just curious why we want to go through a public hearing process now when that indeed
might not be the ultimate zoning on the property. So I guess I don't know, if anyone's got any more
comments. I don't know what to tell you Kate, I'm sorry. It seems like we have some that like 2 and 4,
and we have a couple that don't want to do anything. I think you can definitely cross 1 off. So if that will
help at all.
Claybaugh: Maybe that's how we need to do it. Come at it from the back end.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: And I don't know what the direction is. Do you talk to Roger and find out the legality of
number 4? Can we restrict it? Can you talk to him and find out if there are advantages or disadvantages
to, I mean legally are we going to protect ourselves a little bit more if we rezone? I don't know.
Aanenson: Well I think this is kind of a micro problem of a macro issue, which is the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, which I think the mayor brought up a good suggestion, and maybe we look at the PUD. If we
want to use the tool of the Bluff Creek Overlay District, we don't have an ordinance to make that happen.
So we've indicated the problem with the PUD but maybe we go back and do analysis of doing the PUD
only in the Bluff Creek area and maybe that solves some of that problem. So by doing that, that might
solve this problem so maybe step back a little bit at a macro scale instead of the micro. Because there's
still the problem with the PUD. It is a complex issue.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, if I may. I agree that we don't have an application. We don't have a need driving
it from an application side, and on the other hand we've had situations before where we were limited by not
being able to consider density transfer in the Bluff Creek area into a low density residential zoning. So I
think it's important for us as a Planning Commission to look at this really from a planning viewpoint, not
from a viewpoint of recommending approval or denial. Or recommending denial of approval of a particular
application. Because this falls into the overall planning framework and it's kind of being triggered here by,
because this is a, it's a large context of trying to resolve some of the conflicts between land use and zoning
in the city. It brought up this thing, and as Kate said, it's a small example for something that's really
applicable to the whole Bluff Creek corridor and so I would like to seize that opportunity to put tools in
place that will allow us to more effectively deal with it when applications will come in front of us, which
they will. That's for certain and then at that point, if we have the tools refined, and possibly the conflicts
between zoning and land use resolved, we're going to be in a much better position to deal with it. So I
would say in that context that there is definitely a reason to consider this and I very much appreciate and
like the suggestion of you Madam Mayor, to put this into the context of the Bluff Creek corridor because
that's where that applies. That's where we have that situation. Where we have the framework where the
density transfer becomes such an important tool to mitigate between protecting the natural resource of the
Bluff Creek and at the same time giving the abutting developers enough space to do something that they
want to do so I would like to put into that context and take it out of the context of this particular property
or due to the fact that there is no application because it's a more far reaching context and it's an
opportunity for us to put something in place that we will be able to draw on in the future.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have one other question of staff. In your opinion are the most significant natural
amenities yet to be developed all in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, or are there other areas that would fall
in that category outside of that area?
Aanenson: Well, Bob and I were just having that same discussion so, I think we said the word
incrementalism. But it's an interesting approach to start thinking on that way and then obviously the PUD
is to serve amenities. There's other significant wetlands.
Generous: Topography.
Kind: The seminary fen, is that all within the Bluff Creek?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Aanenson: Topography. Yeah, that's part of the overlay district but there might be some other ones but I
think it would capture a lot of them. We would still have the PUD by itself. You could still come back and
apply that tool but for the density transfer and how we can split that baby, but I think we'll take a look at
that approach.
Blackowiak: Well I hope we've given you something to think about.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Generous: We'll bring another issue paper for you.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: I just have one thing, if that's alright. I'll pass these pictures around. They're pictures that we
took, the area down on 101 and 212. I just want to remind you that in the comprehensive plan that area
south of 212, we have stated that we do not intend to provide sewer to that area and municipal services, and
you can see why. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. It floods. The areas that were down there, there was
some sand bagging of some businesses. The golf which is down there, the nets stayed in place. The house
is above the flood plain as is the septic system so that wasn't a problem but we did look at that. But there
are some other issues, but just a reminder. As planners, it's a good thing to go look at and observe and
think about the implication of water movement. Whether it's on the river or the lake, it does happen and we
need to be thinking about that as we look at development patterns.
Slagle: Madam Chair, quick question. Is that salvage yard in the city's boundaries?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Slagle: Okay. You know, I just ask because obviously it looked like, from driving by there, it might have
been partially affected by the.
Aanenson: I'm more certain it was, yep.
Slagle: Okay. And I'm just asking from an environmental standpoint. Is there any concern by the city of
that?
Aanenson: Well I can give you a lengthy history on that but we have some other items to discuss tonight
but yeah.
Slagle: So the answer is yes?
Aanenson: Yes. There's a lengthy history on that.
Slagle: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
April 17, 2001 as presented.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
ONGOING ITEMS.
Blackowiak: Are there any ongoing items?
Aanenson: Just to remind you about the housing forum. Uli came to the one last Thursday. There's
another one that will be in this building, in this room, this Thursday starting at 7:00 p.m. Kit Hadley from
Minnesota Housing Finance. Julie Frick, Carver County HRA and Guy Peterson from the Met Council
talking about financing and doing projects so if any of you could attend, that would be great.
Blackowiak: Okay. We do have an open discussion for the design standards. However, I'm going to
adjourn the meeting first and take a 2 minute break, if you have something?
Kind: When would you like me to give my City Council meeting synopsis?
Blackowiak: I was thinking in open discussion unless you can do it right now?
Kind: No, that's fine. I'll do it in open discussion.
Blackowiak: Uli, did you?
Sacchet: I'm a little torn. There's just one thing I wanted to ask, which I actually wouldn't mind if it's
recorded in the minutes. It happens to me each time I go to Europe, to Switzerland. I think I see these
roundabouts and I don't see any roundabouts here and it seems such an incredibly efficient, low cost way to
handle traffic crossings.
Aanenson: You would ask that after the engineers left.
Sacchet: I know, but I wanted to have at least it mentioned when it still gets into the minutes. It's a riddle
to me why we're not using more roundabouts. I mean they're incredible. I mean it's a little bit of
education that it takes people to get used to it but, and it took a while in the area where I see them used in
Europe but by now they're an incredible solution to, and it's low cost. I mean it's fantastic with the speed.
It's fantastic to get through the crossing. You don't want to wait. It's safe. It doesn't cost anything. It's
something to think about.
Slagle: Madam Chair, so we'll continue the meeting after the break?
Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll adjourn. We'll take about a 2 minute break and then.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. An informal
open discussion on design standards was held after adjournment.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
51