PC 2000 08 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 2000
Chairman Pctcrson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Pctcrson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Uli Sacchct and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind and Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aancnson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Sharmin Al-Jarl; Senior Planner; and Dave Hcmp¢l, Assistant City Engineer
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 39,910 SQ. FT. EXPANSION FOR CLASSROOM,
GYMNASIUM, AND LIBRARY/OFFICES, ETC. TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, 7707 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, CHAPEL HILLS ACADEMY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Blake
Bill Lawrence
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Steve Barnett
Greg Benedict
George P. Shorba
306 West 78th Street
2122 Boulder Road
7720 Frontier Trail
8709 Chanhassen Hills
823 Roundhouse Street
306 Chan View
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Okay, questions of stafl~
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a couple questions. On the condition, number 12 there's, the crossed
out part but it seems that they given the sidewalk and it looks like that's what they're doing actually. The
crossed out part.
Al-Jaff: They have made the connection.
Burton: That's already been done?
Al-Jaff: On the plans that.
Burton: Oh I see, so we don't need a condition because it's already in the plan.
Aanenson: Correct. That was the original condition and we're just showing you that it's done.
Burton: I get it. And then I'm a little unclear on condition 24. If you're sticking with what you've
recommended or if you're agreeing to one of the altematives?
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Al-Jaff: We would feel more comfortable with our recommendation and I think the applicant can address
that further. Obviously we would rather see it remain.
Burton: Okay.
A1-Jaff: There are cost issues that the applicant will be able to address.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess one of the topics that was discussed at the last meeting about this was the
roof. We have various roof styles and types of roofs. Has that been discussed with the applicant? Because
that I feel could detract from the overall plan.
Al-Jaff: We've talked about it. Other than taking out the existing roof, and I assume that if the chapel
portion that is of concem to the Planning Commission, other than taking that entire roof off; I don't know
how else you can hide it really. Increasing the height of the building or the parapet walls is not going to
screen it. And no we did not ask them to remove the existing roof.
Sidney: Okay. And one more question. I guess to clarify, I think one of the things I saw and we're
discussing here, concem about when you say brick or block or whatever, can you go over that again?
Al-Jaff: What portions are brick?
Sidney: And block and on your board there, is that the block and, that your referring to?
Al-Jarl': These are the same materials that you looked at initially.
Sidney: And that's the block?
Al-Jarl': That's the block. The colors are going to remain the same. The size of the block, rather than
using the large scale block, they will be utilizing this size of brick. And we refer to it as utility size brick.
Sidney: Brick, okay.
Al-Jarl': Brick. The recommendation remains as smooth face and not this textured block or rock face
block. The location, do you want me to go over that one more time?
Sidney: Two sides of the gymnasium would be the block?
Al-Jarl': Correct.
Sidney: And then the lower portion of the building, around the building would be block?
Al-Jarl': Correct.
Sidney: Okay.
Al-Jarl': The area that is proposed to be locker rooms, which has a one story height, will be brick. Does
that answer all the questions?
2
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Sidney: Yes, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah Sharmin, this is a site plan review.
A1-Jaff`: Correct.
Conrad: There are no elevations in our kit.
Al-Jaff`: There are these and then.
Conrad: I'm curious about, huh. Okay, I didn't get that.
Peterson: No, we didn't either.
Conrad: Can you put up the West 78th Street elevation?
Al-Jaff`: Sure. Nothing has changed on this elevation. It's what was initially approved by the Planning
Commission. It has windows along West 78th. These are pitched elements. Architectural features. No
function really. Entrances are off`Frontier Trail and then from the parking side. This is a brick faqade.
Conrad: It's recessed so it goes back?
Al-Jaff`: Correct.
Conrad: Okay. So you like that? That's okay? On 78th.
Al-Jaff`: Yeah.
Conrad: That's what we saw before?
Al-Jaff`: That's what you saw before.
Conrad: And pretty much the Planning Commission said that's okay?
Al-Jaff`: Yes. And the direction was to move with that style.
Conrad: Okay. And that's the part that's the variance part because it's closer to West 78th.
Al-Jaff`: Correct.
Conrad: That makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Okay.
Peterson: Uli.
Sacchet: Quick question. The trees. They are really nice mature trees and the ones that are being cut
down are, that's mitigated with the landscaping plan?
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
A1-Jaff: Correct. The applicant has truly made an effort to save as many trees as possible. The majority of
the existing trees where the playground is, all of those are remaining. There will be 3 trees, mature trees
that will be removed due to the expansion. And the applicant is adding additional landscaping.
Sacchet: So it's only 3 major trees taken? Because I couldn't see that from the drawing on there. And
then the other part of the question is, there are two little houses that will be removed. Which phase does
that remove the houses?
Al-Jarl': They intend to remove them with Phase I.
Sacchet: With definitely this initial phase?
Al-Jarl': Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. The idea to relocate the house or tear them down?
Al-Jarl': We've asked the applicant to relocate them. But it depends on availability of land.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question.
Peterson: Sharmin what, I thought we had talked about it before but there's so many sides and areas of this
building that needed windows. One of the areas that we look at, pull up your elevation on the gymnasium
on the south side. Was there a rational rationale for not having windows on that side? Which is the more
predominantly seen side of the building. We have them to the north, which was added, and we didn't add
them on the south side, which I'm at somewhat of a loss as to why we wouldn't have.
Al-Jarl': This is the area where the lockers are and typically you don't have windows.
Peterson: But the building is so high. The windows on the other elevation seem to be high where it'd be
irrelevant, wouldn't it?
Al-Jarl': And when you look at it, on a flat surface like this, yes it does appear high. However please
remember that the locker rooms extend out this portion. Extend out and it's one story.
Peterson: Boy, I can't picture it. See if you look at those, that picture there.
Al-Jaff: Here, this one shows it well.
Peterson: Those windows seem like they're 25 feet high.
Al-Jarl': Right here.
Peterson: Yeah. Why wouldn't they go all the way around?
Al-Jarl': We can make that recommendation.
Peterson: I mean we put them there on both sides for a visual affect, but yet the most visualized portion of
the building is the one without the windows. So anyway, we can talk to the applicant. Second question.
Do we know what the materials are or are they planning on keeping the same roofing material for the
4
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
current Academy? Are they planning on using the rock or are they planning on using asphalt shingles? Do
we know?
Al-Jaff: Right now it's all flat roofs. Parapets. The existing roof, there are no plans on changing them.
Peterson: The skylights remain in there then too.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah, one I forgot Mr. Chair. The music room. Last time I was concemed about sound where the
band room is Sharmin. Any, and the neighbors kind of liked, as I recall, the neighbors kind of like the fact
that there'd be music playing. Are we still okay with the acoustics?
Aanenson: He can't hear you.
Peterson: Sir? Sir, we'll answer your question in a minute. We'll get your question answered in just a
couple minutes. Okay? Try it again Ladd.
Conrad: The music room Mr. Chair, the last time here, I think the neighbors, some of the neighbors said
they look forward to having music coming out, but you know, I guess do we put any conditions on the
acoustics of that area? It is towards the residential side so how do we manage that?
Al-Jaff: If, and I'm just thinking out loud here. If there was a complaint we can contact Chapel Hill and
ask them to keep the windows closed maybe.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd rather not do that. Do we do anything with a room that's built for, and maybe the
applicant will answer the question.
Al-Jaff: Sound proof it?
Conrad: Yeah. Trying to beat a problem to the pass. Is that an issue? When we have people in our
neighborhood playing things, we can hear it for blocks so. It's an issue I think. We'll ask the applicant
that question.
Peterson: All right, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Dan Blake. I'm here with Chapel Hill
Academy. With me today is Bill Lawrence with the DLR Group, the architect. As well back in the back
we've got Steve Bamett, our Chairman of the Board and Greg Benedict, our Development Director. So if
you have any questions regarding the school, kind of direct them to those guys. I'm going to try to keep
this brief and hopefully be available to answer any questions. I'll try to address the items that I heard so
far. Just a little background. When we came before the Planning Commission last time we were sort of
under the gun because of a commitment we made to bring an application in by a certain date. And we
asked you to review Phase I. Commission had some issues with the overall plan that we weren't prepared
to really answer very well, and Council suggested we come back so that we didn't get, so that we knew
what we had before we started building. Now we're ready. We plan on starting this project this fall for, or
maybe this winter for completion by the next school year. We believe we've made the changes that
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
address most of the comments that we heard at the last Planning Commission meeting. Relative to the
roofs. The existing roof on the existing, original school building is quite flat. It's too flat as I understand
to do like an asphalt or wood shingle roof, and that's probably why it would be best left in it's existing
condition. The roof of the existing church building we believe will be hidden quite a bit by bringing the
building out in front of it and only from quite a distance would you be able to see that there's a roof behind
there. The question came up about the windows on that south side of the gym. If you look at, you've got
that picture. If you look at the other views. We have the windows right about at this red band, and if we
put, continue those same windows across this wall, they'd be halfway up the two story part of the building
and we believe you wouldn't see them because nobody gets this aerial view unless you're up in the bell
tower of the church across the street. And that's why we didn't do it. We didn't think that you'd be able
to see them from parking lot or street level. At least not significant enough to notice that they were really
there. And they don't really provide us any benefit. We added them to the other walls really to
accomplish a concem that we heard for those sides. Regarding the music room. I don't think we really
plan on doing anything special. It will be masonry construction. There will be high quality windows. I
don't know that this kind of issue's ever come up in this city or anywhere else relative to a school or any
other use. I'm sure the city has some kind of noise ordinances. If we're in violation, we won't be allowed
to stay in violation. The building will be air conditioned. Windows typically wouldn't be open for most of
the time that people are in the building. We haven't decided if they're operable windows or not, but likely
they might not be. Regarding the condition regarding the phasing. I think this plans depicts it the best.
We understand stafl~s concern to make sure that the entire exterior happens and we want that as well. It's
our plan to do all this. We hope to do it within 5 to t0 years, but it's difficult with certainty to predict
when funding will be available to go beyond the initial phase. One of our concems was the way the
language is specifically written, and maybe this just takes a little clarification. It talks about no interior
remodeling. You know we can't do Phase II without doing new exteriors so that's a given. You do Phase
II, you get new exterior. You do Phase m, you get new exterior. I'm very comfortable with that
requirement. My concem is ifI remodel the interior auditorium area, I wouldn't want to do new exterior,
which means I have to do Phase II and m at that time. My concem would be ifI wanted to renovate this
gym area that's in the middle of this classroom building after we build the new gym, that I wouldn't want
to have to add renovation of these classrooms from these outside walls. What I'd be very willing to do,
and I think this is fair and I think it gets to the city's concems to say, slightly modify the language in that
condition 24 so that it says that, instead of saying any phases II, II or iV, that it just says any remodeling of
the classrooms on these outside walls. And it's out intent to do remodeling of those classrooms to get them
up to the standards of the new classrooms. There's problems with the way the doors align. As Sharmin
mentioned, there's a lot of problems with the windows. They don't seal well. They let in too much light
and too much, or too much heat and too much cold. So it is our expectation that those classrooms would be
remodeled. It's not intention at all that that would get put off`forever. We just recognize that as being a
lower priority to us. A second altemative that we propose is no remodeling maybe in any of this area
without doing those two outside walls. It kind of adds one more caveat to us if we want to do anything in
this area, that we would agree to do these outside walls. And under either of those altematives I would ask
that we would be allowed to do some lighting improvements and some heating system improvements that
aren't structural remodeling. Just for clarification on those two issues. Lastly I understand we're going to
have a question regarding the height of the building. In this area, the building is roughly 12 to 15 feet,
depending on exactly how high that parapet wall goes that we need to do our screening, which would be
the.., down here that gym wall is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 feet. Possibly a little bit higher
again depending on what that exact height needs to be to accomplish our screening. These existing homes,
t, 2, 3, only one is next to this, the two story part. Those homes sit somewhere, ifI might look just a
minute here. On your grading plan it indicates the height. Those houses sit about 13 feet higher than this
parking lot where this gym will be built. My estimation is that the top of this buy will be at an elevation of
tOOt and that the top ofthesehouses are roughly at an elevation of t005. So these houses, notthe
windows but the top of the houses are slightly higher, will be slightly higher or are slightly higher than this
6
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
gym wall will be. This gym wall will be somewhat shorter than the two apartment buildings across the
street relative to how these residents might see a tall structure in that area. Given that I guess we're in
agreement with the rest of the staff conditions and I hope that these revisions are satisfactory to the city and
be available to answer whatever questions you have.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Just a couple I think, or one specifically. I think I've already
voiced my opinion on the windows and you didn't necessarily convince me that I was wrong in my request
but help me understand, as you look at, and I guess I just want your off`the cuff`response on this is, if you
look at the roof as it's currently designed and the current building with the pitch and the skylights and you
look at the new construction that will be surrounding it, boy it's just hard to put those two together. That
the current roof looks like it's just the design naturally makes it look like it's sloping and caving in. The
skylights are dated. Help me understand that that won't just look totally out of place. That's my biggest
concem about the whole project, and it's probably my same concem when it was last here.
Dan Blake: Well the skylights are going to be updated. I don't know, I understand what you're saying.
It's a vaulted two story space in the center there. I guess I can't come up with a suggestion other than you
know putting in two story walls there and trying to keep some of that height on the inside that would not
have that existing roof and something like it's existing condition. And I think going to a two story building
throughout that would dramatically impact the bulk or the mass of those side walls. Like I said, we've
kind of discussed some various materials and I think we feel like we're stuck with what's there to some
regard. I guess I hope that the other improvements make that maybe go away a little bit. Right now that's
what stands out. I mean I think what stands out to me right now is that the building is made out of about 8
different exterior materials obviously before there was this kind of a process. Hopefully by tying
everything else together, that element goes away to some extent. It certainly won't be hidden. Probably
won't be as visible as it is in our little 3D views because they're from up, not from parking lot level.
Peterson: Was there even any discussion about changing the color of the rock on it? I mean I'm just
thinking out of the blue here.
Dan Blake: Well I'll throw out that if there is a need to replace that ballast and redo that roof, I wouldn't
have a problem with going to more of a tan color that would blend in with the brick. Certainly wouldn't
object to that. Wouldn't even mind, you know if that's a condition that when that roof needs to be
replaced, we do that. I have no idea what the magnitude of that involves to, you know as far as
volunteering to say we'll do that right now. Certainly if it needs to be replaced, we would consider that.
Peterson: All right, thank you. This item isn't open for a public hearing but due to the fact that it's been
quite some time since we've heard any additional comments, we'll certainly entertain any comments from
anybody in the audience. Any comments or questions now so if you would have questions, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
George Shorba: I'm Mr. George P. Shorba. I live right back of the academy on the north side. All I'm
interested in is how high are these buildings? Are they higher than the present building that's in there
now?
Aanenson: He has met with City stafl~ We've reviewed.
George Shorba: See I don't hear too well.
Dan Blake: Your house sits at about here. You're in the middle.
7
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
George Shorba: ...but I didn't get the height.
Dan Blake: The building adjacent, behind your house is the same height as the existing, the flat part of the
roof so it will be lower than the pitched part of the existing roof.
George Shorba: See I'm up quite a bit.
Dan Blake: I understand. About 13 feet higher.
George Shorba: About 12 and 3/4. Something like that. See I get a breeze, good breeze there.
Dan Blake: So this, the height of this building is not any higher than the existing structure out here. It's
actually lower than the peak part of the roof. The gym building out here adjacent to this last house is
taller, but not adjacent to where your property is in the middle.
George Shorba: I would say that I was wishing that you'd be on the main drag instead because there's
nobody else in front. All there is is the dead people in the cemetery. You know what I'm talking about.
And I've got... So it will be about the same height?
Dan Blake: Right. One story.
George Shorba: That's all I wanted to address. Otherwise I'm going home and watch the ball game.
Peterson: Any other comments? Alright, commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. I think you've
already sensed my thoughts a little bit. Ladd, any particular issues?
Conrad: I think you've said them. I probably agree with you Craig on the windows on the gymnasium. It
might be a benefit. I'm not totally convinced but it might help. I'd like to have staff`review that. I'd like
staff`to review the music, the sound implications. I just want to be stupid and building a band room and a
couple years from now have a great orchestra out of the academy and have the neighbors say well you
should have thought of this. I just want to think about it before, acoustically what do we do there? I don't
know what to do with condition number 24. Staff's point is good. I don't know why somebody smarter
than myself will have reword that or to go with that.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think that the block on the gym makes sense. I think it'd be cost prohibitive to
force them to use the brick there. I wanted to comment on the variance request and I think it's important to
note that the purpose of the variance was to blend the school in with the community. The surrounding
neighborhood and the purpose was not for the intention of increasing the value of anywhere. I agree with
you over the concems that you mentioned about the windows on the gym. I'm not convinced that it
wouldn't be noticeable that they're absent. That seems that'd be a nice addition to have the windows
going around the entire gym. As to the roof, I don't think I'd want to penalize the applicant regarding the
roof and putting any conditions on the roof but it did take the building as it is and they're doing a lot to
improve it and I wouldn't want to hold the roof against them or make them do anything with the roof. I
think they're doing a good job. I agree with Ladd on condition 24. I understand the staff's concem. I
know they're condition addresses it and I'm not sure I like either of the altematives that have been
suggested by the applicant so I guess I'm leaning towards leaving it the way staff`has it at this point until
I'm convinced otherwise.
8
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: What about just changing that so it includes any interior HVAC and lighting?
Burton: I don't have a problem with that.
Peterson: Okay.
Sidney: Mr. Chair. I agree with Commissioner Burton's comments. I do think it might be worth noting as
a condition that, and I guess the language I'd propose would be that the applicant will consider changing
the color of the rock group when replacement of the roof is necessary. Just to keep that in their minds.
Also I think condition 19 should be cleaned up a little bit to make sure that we understand that we're
asking for brick and rock face block as exterior. And I guess I don't really have any strong feelings about
the windows on the gymnasium one way or another.
Peterson: Any final comments?
Sacchet: I do believe that those windows would be visible from, I think they're high enough over the lower
floor and the view is from quite a distance from the street, through the parking lot. I would like to really
make sure that if you don't see them, there's no point in putting them there. I'm inclined to think that you
actually would see them and they would add an additional element of architectural interest. I don't have
an issue very much with the practice rooms. Having a background in music myself, in a school those
practice rooms are usually small and closed. But it's certainly worthwhile looking into that we don't get a
problem. I would not think that's a major issue. In terms of the condition linking the outside to the
interior, I think I would be willing to go with the middle option. The idea of the option. I would be
willing to relax a little bit. I think it's a reasonable request to do that. That's my comments.
Peterson: Which option are we talking about? The one that was submitted by Dan Blake?
Sacchet: Yeah, Dan gave two options. Altemative 2, no interior remodeling which would require building
permit except lighting and HVAC upgrades will be permitted within the existing classroom portion. That
means the whole southem portion of the building unless the exterior walls are included with, I think that's
a good balance. I would support that...
Peterson: Okay. My comments I think I've already shared so I'll certainly entertain a motion this evening.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan Review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy master plan
as shown on plans dated July 24, 2000, with the following conditions. And I would leave them as they are
except for 24. I would substitute the altemative 2 that the applicant has submitted that I just read, and I
would put in also that we recommend we study whether these windows on the south side of gymnasium are
visible from ~h
the parking lot and from West 78 Street. If they are, I would recommend they are added.
Peterson: Okay. Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad: So the condition 24, what does that mean? What are we saying on the revision?
Sacchet: May I address what I think it says?
9
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Let her read first.
Conrad: And did we ask staff; what did you think about that?
Aanenson: Our concem is you're going to have several different materials out there and as they indicated,
it may be up to 10 years. If you allow them to do the HVAC, which he indicated the problem with that
area is energy, you're going to have three different materials for a longer period out there. We want to
have a reasonable connection. Obviously they want to fix the energy problems. I'm not sure if that's just a
heating or the windows or, there seems to be some sort of tie that we need to make with remodeling. We
just don't want that area left, and it can be left a long time and you've got different materials and that's
what we're trying to resolve.
Conrad: It is the area, the classroom area or the, I'm trying to figure out if.
Aanenson: It's existing classroom area.
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah, right those windows.
Conrad: But in the motion, in your staff`report, it's talking about Phase II, II and 1V and so is that, is that
classroom impacted in all those phases?
A1-Jaff`: No. The classroom is in Phase IV.
Conrad: So why don't we.
A1-Jaff`: With Phases II and m they are adding actual, with Phases II and m they're adding exterior space.
So we had no doubt that the exterior will be taken care of.
Conrad: So II and m is insignificant. So it's really IV that we're concemed with.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Okay.
Aanenson: So how long does that stay the way it is? What's the motivation?
Conrad: Yeah.
A1-Jaff`: And right now you will have a detached building, as far as the gym goes. Eventually they're
going to need to make that connection.
Conrad: Okay.
Sacchet: May I clarify, make sure I have clear understand the words right. It's my understanding that the
wording that is proposed here means they can fix lighting and heating and cooling. It doesn't mean they
could change windows or doors or anything beyond that, if I'm correct.
10
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Aanenson: Right. But the biggest issue is the heating and cooling. So that buys them a lot oftime.
Sacchet: The heating and cooling is the main thing that needs to be.
Aanenson: Right. So that's I guess our question to them is, does that give them 10 years? 117 20 years
like that without that space being fixed.
Peterson: That's the biggest eye sore. If it quote unquote is an eyesore in that area. Starting at the roof
and coming down.
Aanenson: There may be some middle ground. I'm not sure we can solve it here tonight but that goes
back to Ladd's.
Peterson: Sure go ahead Dan.
Dan Blake: Thanks. I just want to clarify a couple things. First, we believe that there's a lot of
motivation for us to do remodeling here, not just because of heating and cooling. We plan on putting a
library in here. We plan on upgrading these rooms for a lot of reasons so I think that's adequate assurance
to the city. Obviously you have to make that decision. Secondly, if we were to do everything, Phases I, II
and m, the original, the design that you see before you with the red base up to a certain height was
intended to match the height of the red brick that's out there. Color and height so that when this phase was
built next to this, at least it sort of fit together. So it would sort of fit together. It's just going to have that
glass above it, which would eventually get tumed into brick and less windows that matches better so, we
think the first phase was a design so that they sort of fit together as best as you can fit together those odd
materials. So I guess two things. I don't think, it doesn't have to be a worst situation if it's as is, but we
expect that there will be quite a demand for upgrading these classrooms. We're going to have half our
school in brand new nice classrooms. And the other half in these 50 year old classrooms. We're going to
immediately have parents saying let's do this. I could see this Phase 1V tuming into Phase II and then
when we did this, we'd do the outside.
Sacchet: Yes, that's basically why I was targeting this altemative because it means remodeling not just in
the classrooms. It actually means remodeling in that whole segment of the building and to me it seems
pretty necessary. I mean right now, what is it at that big, open room in there that something I'm sure, it's
motivation for them to remodel and then to fit the classrooms. I do believe that from a city we have
assurance that this will be done and not just be pushed off`to the maximum. That's just my personal feeling
about it. So I would stay with that as my proposal.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion?
Sidney: Mr. Chair I guess, the comments that I had if we could, friendly amendment here to condition 19
that we clarify that it's smooth face brick and rock face block as indicated in the staff`report. Then also I
suggested a condition 25 to keep that roof in front of the applicant. The applicant will consider changing
the color of the rock roof when replacement of the roof is necessary.
Sacchet: That would be 26 because I already added a 25.
Sidney: Oh, okay that's fine. That's fine.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's fine.
11
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: As further discussion, I'll probably. Not probably, I won't vote in favor of this only because I
just don't, in my mind I can't see the roof as it is today fitting in with the rest of the area. That area being
the rest of the building so I agree with all the other amendments and the stab at trying to take the rock,
change. That would certainly help but it just, I don't think it's going to look as good as we want it to for
that area of town, or any area of town so.
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan, as shown
in the plans dated received July 24, 2000 with the following conditions:
Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to
grading.
Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a
rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre and post development storm water
runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can
accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion.
The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within
City right-of-way or easement areas.
If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in
greater detail the utility service proposal.
The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
7. Building Official Conditions:
The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout
Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of
which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost.
Meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13.
Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if
additional hydrants will be required.
12
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
9. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down
in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail.
10. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
11. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off
requirement and meets other city ordinances.
12. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the
same as those used on the new building.
13. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a
decorative fencing.
14. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements.
15. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
16. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 block and rock face block as indicated in the staff
report for exterior material.
17. Chain link fence along the south and southeast comer shall be removed.
18. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb
to match existing curb on West 78th Street.
19. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances.
20. The modular units must be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for
the th
classroom addition along West 78 Street.
21. No interior remodeling which would require a building permit, except for lighting and HVAC
upgrades, will be permitted within the existing classroom portion.
22. The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of gymnasium are visible
from the parking lot and from West 78th Street.
23. The applicant will consider changing the color of the rock roof when replacement of the roof is
necessary.
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 2.
Peterson: Goes onto City Council on the th
28 and Ladd your reason for the nay.
Conrad: I think the applicant should review the acoustics with the stafl~ The applicant I think should, I
think as in the motion, review the windows in the gymnasium on the south wall, and I'm not comfortable
with condition 24 as it's been addressed.
13
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330
MURRAY HILL ROAD, MIKE ARVIDSON.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom & Neysa Winterer
Shelli Placchino
Mike Arvidson
Chuck Lewellen
Carol Riese
Ted Dorenkamp
Greg Golmen
Gilbert Kreidberg
Junie Hofl'-Golmen
2210 Melody Hill
2210 Melody Hill
5595 Timber Lane
6340 Murray Hill Road
6320 Murray Hill Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
6444 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of the staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. The existing structure, do we know how long that's intended
to remain there? We don't.
Peterson: Speculation by staff I would imagine so.
Sacchet: That might be more a question for the applicant.
Peterson: Other questions?
Ladd Conrad asked Dave Hempel a question regarding tree removal during the tape change.
Hempel: No. Tree removal. There would be some tree removal associated with that or trees along the
property line.
Conrad: Major or minor?
Hempel: Not significant tree, wooded area. One other thing I did fail to mention with the previous plat
that was approved in '96. The Golmen-Hoff-Golmen plat which was a two lot subdivision directly west of
this, staff did recommend additional right-of-way for extension of Melody Hill be conveyed at that time
with that plat. That did occur. We do have right-of-way through that subdivision up to this subdivision at
this time. Remaining right-of-way needed would be on the south side of the road, actually on the school
property which is about another I think 20 foot width of land that we would need. One other thing just
came to mind. Over the past year or two we have had conversations with the school as far as looking at a
secondary altemative access through Melody Hill area because the access situation with Trunk Highway
14
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
41 so that's another incentive I guess to having a thru street if possible. Connection with the school
property.
Sacchet: Well Mr. Chair. Are we talking car access or pedestrian access as a secondary access when
you're talking about access?
Hempel: I believe they're looking for both. Secondary vehicle and pedestrian. I don't believe it was for
bus traffic. Main route for the buses to go.
Sacchet: But they're thinking that you could drive through there.
Hempel: Correct. I should point out I've not heard anything since the one time which was approximately a
year and a half ago.
Sacchet: I have a few more questions. Now if we would not go with where it plans to go...cul-de-sac and
do a road, or partially road, would that have to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission or in terms of
procedure? What's our scope with this that's in front of us. Can you answer that?
Aanenson: Our condition is to recommend it with the thru street. Since you don't have the thru street in
front of you, our recommendation is to deny the plat as proposed.
Sacchet: Okay. Now, so you understand that...still another question that comes beyond the scope in terms
of having a vision of where this is going. Doing this thru street, does it have to go all the way through. Or
potentially it could just go and stop for access that development and maybe have a pedestrian way through
if the neighborhood is so violently opposed to having a thru street. That would be a possibility eventually,
is that correct?
Al-Jarl': Where would you stop it?
Sacchet: For access to parcel space. Instead of going all the way through.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. That's kind of a difficult halfway, I mean how long do we
envision for it to remain halfway I guess. Are we just delaying the inevitable? We do have a few
subdivisions that occurred in the past that have similar, where they extended the road partway and then
over time as the area filled in with additional neighbors and so forth, the road never went any farther and it
kind of defeated the purpose of putting the road there in the first place so. I guess it'd be staff's
recommendation that you either look at extending the road all the way through, make the connection, or
not having the road and doing the cul-de-sac street that serves basically this type of subdivision and
anticipate another one with the parcel to the north.
Sacchet: Do we know if the parcel to the north having intent to subdivide?
Hempel: I believe in a correspondence from them, they do not wish or have a desire to subdivide at this
time.
Audience: I'm the person to the north.
Peterson: We'll have public comment in a few minutes.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'd appreciate if you can address it.
15
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Ifa road did go through, the applicant would still have the same rights to do
a cul-de-sac coming from the north. Is that true?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Dave, the site was assessed for one additional, over the years has been assessed only for one
additional sewer connection. But regardless of where the cul-de-sac is put, they do have the right to put a
cul-de-sac in. Is that true? Whether it be from Murray Hill or an extension of Melody Hill, they still
would.
Aanenson: Well it's our recommendation, our finding that it's in violation of the city ordinance. That's
our opinion.
Conrad: To?
Aanenson: To not have the street go through. That's the stafl~s recommendation.
Conrad: Okay. But if Melody Hill went through, they could run a cul-de-sac off`of that and still feed 4
lots.
Aanenson: They wouldn't need a cul-de-sac. If Melody Hill was extended you would have 3 lots
accessing off of Melody Hill.
Conrad: Okay, and then the fourth off of Murray.
Aanenson: Murray Hill.
Peterson: If they made the cul-de-sac to meet the codes for a private road, they could still go ahead and do
that, am I not interpreting this right?
A1-Jaff`: Repeat your question please.
Peterson: If they increased the cul-de-sac, increased the size of the cul-de-sac private drive to city
standard, could they not still do that?
Aanenson: Again our recommendation that doesn't meet the subdivision regulations.
Peterson: Okay. That was my question. So even if they increased it to meet the street standards, it still
wouldn't meet the subdivision?
Aanenson: That would be our opinion, yes.
Peterson: Okay.
Al-Jaff`: This option meets city standards as far as public street but it's not the option that staff`is
recommending. We're still recommending connection of the thru street.
16
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Aanenson: Not quite exactly. It doesn't meet the thru street criteria. It doesn't meet the subdivision reg
when there's an option to put the street through. The cul-de-sac width would meet the city standard...
Sacchet: Can I ask one more question Mr. Chair? What is our intent in terms of the comprehensive plan
for the city, what's the plan for Melody Hill? I mean we have a Melody Hill stub to the west and then you
have no more Melody Hill on the east side. What's the original intent that that is to go a thru street. Is
that one street? I mean what's the original vision here? Or city vision I should ask. Is that something you
can address?
Hempel: Yeah, in the comprehensive plan it does propose the connection of those two streets to provide a
transportation link to connect the neighborhoods to the secondary access from Melody Hill.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks for clarifying that.
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your
name and address please.
Mike Arvidson: Mr. Chairman. Mister and Misses. The city is proposing that I change my plan
completely. I object to that and I will not change the plan. I think the city is using the wrong priorities. I
believe that the people and the neighbors are the priority here and not the engineering of putting a road
through. My intent is to enhance the property and the neighborhood. If we put a road in, it would take
away from the neighborhood. It would take away from this beautiful property. And I might add that there
are 100 year old trees that would have to be taken down to put in the city road. The economics of doing
what the city would prefer is not in the best interest of anyone. The price of the lots would have to be for 3
lots and not for 4. For this neighborhood there are exceptional homes in this neighborhood. This is an
exceptional neighborhood. I don't think that has been taken into consideration. The city says that it's
inappropriate, meaning unsuitable. Improper. Unfitting. My plan. I say the same thing about their plan.
Finally I would not want this property if my plan does not go through. Thank you.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. The existing house that's on there, like I was trying to get that question answered
by staff`before. Do you have a vision of how long this house would remain?
Mike Arvidson: I believe the Woida's said it was built in the 40's and that's all I can tell you. And it's
been added to a number of times.
Sacchet: I mean it is the view of your...how exceptional the neighborhood is, which I certainly agree
with. It's a wonderful neighborhood. I can vision that house wouldn't stay long at all.
Mike Arvidson: Well, you have to have vision. Carolyn McClure is willing to purchase this house. I
think a number of people in this room know who Carolyn McClure is. She does amazing things with old
homes. The best I can tell you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it.
Mike Arvidson: One other thing. I do plan on building on this property, one of the lots if it is approved
the way I would like it.
17
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Okay. Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. A motion and second for public hearing
please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and
state your name and address please.
Tom Winterer: My name is Tom Winterer. I live at 2210 Melody Hill. I'm the neighbor that would be to
the northeast. No, northwest of this parcel. I'm the proud recipient of the subdivision of Golmen-Hoff-
Golmen when that was subdivided and so where I enjoy right now is some of the land that's been deeded
for the right-of-way for the extension of Melody Hill. And we, when we purchased this house about 5
years ago, we looked at probably 20 properties from Shakopee to this was the further north property that
we looked at. And it just was such a jewel when we got up to it. Saw the thing, you know and we were
told that this subdivision had happened and that the neighborhood was so united in their concem about the
quality and the character that the streets lended. We were like, well it's a great investment. We always
envisioned the place remaining the way it is. This is the issue regarding this development. What this says
is that at the request to subdivide 2.1 acre parcel into 4 single family lots. What I think it should say is,
this is a request to have the city continue on with their master plan. I don't know how old the master plan
is, but I do know that the house that I'm in has been served well by the way that the streets have served it
for, I think it was 1936 is what's on my deed. And the city's filled in lots around it rather well and it's
very pleasing and it feels like to us in the neighborhood that you know the patient is fine, but the city wants
to recommend major surgery. One of the issues that got brought up by staffwas the desire to help out the
school's needs by serving the school with access off of Melody Hill for an overflow parking lot I think is
what it's for because of the concems with safer point of access on Highway 41 for the school. I don't know
what the issue was Dave, but you brought it up when you talked about the type of traffic that Lake Lucy
Road gets and what Melody Hill would get. It sounded like you were saying Melody Hill will still be fine
and it will still keeps it character but if you put, connect the two streets and then put that overflow parking
off of Melody Hill, it will become a Lake Lucy. In fact it will be nicer than Lake Lucy to go on because
of the hills and the tums and the twisting and all. We envision that it will become the neat race course in
the neighborhood for people to zip up and around just because of how nice the homes are and everybody,
the way they do their yards and the gardens and everything, I just feel like that's in jeopardy here. I would
look forward to having Mr. Arvidson as a neighbor with this current proposal or if the commission sees fit
to help him resolve the issues that he has and still be able to do 4 lots. It looks pretty obvious to anybody
that you can see from the plan, you can take a look at the amount of land in here that he would have to get
rid of to make this extension happen so as a neighbor or a future neighbor of his, I would like to lend my
support to Mr. Arvidson's plan and if you have any questions of me I'd like to let you ask them now.
Nothing?
Peterson: Thank you.
Tom Winterer: Thank you for letting me speak.
Ted Dorenkamp: Chairman and panel. My name is Ted Dorenkamp. I'm the property owner to the north.
I purchased my property about 3 years ago and there was no idea at that point in time to, that that was a
subdividable lot. I didn't purchase it for that reason. I only leamed of this sitting with the city planners
when I had thought about purchasing the Woida property. We have no intention of subdividing our
property ever and we are opposed to the road extension of Melody Hill. Like our neighbors, our neighbor
previously talked to you about, it is an exceptional neighborhood. It's a quiet neighborhood and adding a
thru street on Melody Hill would only degrade the property and add much more traffic and give you maybe
18
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
some safety concems. If you're talking about that road being a feeder road for the school, you should
certainly understand that there's a 10% grade that that road would have, that buses would have to go down
on Melody Hill, around a curve. They would have to make two left tums into that school. If you try to get
across 41 in the moming, you'll notice that, you will surely know that it's impossible to do that with all the
traffic. Lake Lucy Road is the right approach there. I do support Mr. Arvidson's proposal. It makes sense
for the neighborhood. It keeps the integrity of the large properties there and I give him my support. Thank
you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Don Kelly: I'm Don Kelly. My address is 2081 West 65th Street and when I came this evening I didn't
know what Mr. Arvidson's proposal was. I was concemed that there might be some consideration in
connecting Melody Hill. I was pleased to see that he had a more sensible solution than having all of his
access off of Murray Hill Road. I was here 15 years ago. My home is on West 65th Street which is right
here and this property here was being considered for subdivision. And I was very surprised when the city
proposed that they just loop this road right through and eliminate two cul-de-sacs. Looking at city
ordinances it was the right thing to do. Looking at safety, at snowplowing, at all sorts of things, trash pick-
up, it was the right thing to do. The Planning Commission recommended it. The neighbors of course were
all opposed to that. The developer was opposed to that. Only the city was in favor of that. It was sent to
the City Council and fortunately one of the people on the City Council drove to the neighborhood and
looked and she said this is a beautiful neighborhood that we'd be destroying if we continue with the city's
plan. As a result this development was finished this way and it's still a beautiful neighborhood. I have the
same concems with what the city is recommending now with the new development. There are people that
live on Melody Hill on both stretches that are, that live in beautiful neighborhoods that have moderate
traffic. Connecting those roads would substantially increase the traffic. It creates a shortcut from my area
to the school from anyplace, anybody going to Video Update can get there a little quicker going that way.
That's not an appropriate thing to be doing to those neighborhoods. Issues of safety have been brought up.
The other thing is that as far as access to school from the north, obviously we don't want to increase the
traffic there either, but the city had an opportunity only a few years ago to put an appropriate access to
Lake Lucy Road through an area that had not yet been developed and was cornfield. If that access was
necessary, it would have been sensible to make that part of that development and not part of a
neighborhood that's been relatively stable and developing over the 4 years. When I came, my only
concem was to point out that the area right through here where the city water tower is, and the access road
for the city water tower is pedestrian access from this neighborhood to the school and hopefully nothing in
this development would restrict that pedestrian access. After listening though my major concem is that my
hope that we can approve a development very similar to one that Mr. Arvidson proposed without extending
Melody Hill Road. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Chuck Lewellen: I'm Chuck Lewellen at 6340 Murray Hill Road and just a couple of points and one is, I
support Mr. Arvidson's plan. It looks real good to me and I think one of the good things about the
neighborhood there. We moved in in '96, is some of the beautiful trees and white pines and I believe that
some of the trees that would have to be removed for this proposed extension of Melody Hill would be some
tmly beautiful and perhaps extraordinary white pines. And the other one is just a technical point and I
don't know if it's important or not but I live at 6340 Murray Hill Road and my neighbor on the comer here
of Summergate is 6320 so I don't know where this 6330 came from that was in the notice because I think
the address of the current house is 6398 so at some point I don't know if there's any technical problems
with service. I don't think they'd want to continue to use 6330 as a address here.
19
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close?
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Thank you gentlemen. Commissioners. Anyone want to take a jump at this one? You look like
you have some thoughts Matt.
Burton: Yeah I do so I guess I'll go first then. I guess for me, starting at the point that triggered the whole
process I guess that's the application itself. I was just looking at the, one of the petitions that we received.
Actually this is, I thought this was a present one but this is one from 1995. I think there was a newer one
too. Yeah there is. Well, the trigger is not the city wanting to put a road in. The trigger is that the
subdivision plan with the private street was submitted and this is the second time that this has come before
the Planning Commission and I went back and I read the proceedings from last time and some of the
members on the commission now were on the commission then and I read over Ladd Conrad's comments
and Craig Peterson's comments and I agree with Ladd and Craig's comments from last time. I think that
it's a good planning practice in my opinion the road would make sense and that takes into consideration
the potential future development of the surrounding parcels. And even though the parties to the north or
around the property don't have any present intention or any future intention to subdivide, down the road
that could be a concem and I think it's obligation as planners to watch out for that. Now it's obvious the
neighbors don't like it and ifI was a neighbor, I wouldn't like it. The flip side is, the project doesn't
qualify under the subdivision ordinance to be approved. On it's own merits it fails so in my opinion the
options are a public street or don't subdivide and that's where I'm at.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll take a stab at it. I too went back and I read the comments from the previous
time. This type of application came before the Planning Commission and in this case I do agree with the
stafl~s analysis of the application and with Commissioner Burton's comments. I think the foremost
question surrounding this application is whether or not the proposal meets the test to be a private street per
city code and I don't believe that it does. In that case I would recommend denial of this application.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I actually did go out there. Somebody made the comment to go out there. I
spent more time than I expected. I spent at least an hour or more driving around this neighborhood because
I understand one of the concems of the neighborhood is the thru traffic. And I have to reach the conclusion
that thru traffic in what I call thru traffic really doesn't apply to that place. I mean if you call thru traffic,
people coming over from West 65th Street or from Hummingbird Road, or maybe from the other side of
Galpin from the extension of Melody Hill or a couple of roads there, to me that doesn't quite qualify as a
significant thru traffic. Anything significant that comes from a distance is going to go down on Lake Lucy
Road. So I don't think that this thru traffic concem is that much ofa concem. When I was out there, I also
had this thing in the back of my mind, the access to the middle school which seems to be somewhat lurking
in the background to a lesser concem. Yeah, I wouldn't be thrilled ifI were a neighbor there and they
wanted to make a parking lot you know, but that's not what we're discussing here tonight. What I could
see as a possibility, even though I really make no, Dave Hempel's comments about...there is this easement
in-between. I was hoping that maybe there would be a way to access this new development, this
subdivision through Melody Hill based on the position of the neighborhood, not make it a road that drives
all the way through. That it would be pedestrian thru way which I have to agree with Dave Hempel, that's
kind of a half baked solution. But I have another concem is personally, it's very nice up there even though
you're proposing it but having been out there and looked at it, one concem I had is the one house you're
20
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
basically putting right undemeath the water tower. While with the rough subdivision sketch that was
drawn up as an altemate vision from staff; you would have the house away from the water tower so that
seemed to be a plus in that sense also. But to come back to the issue that's in front of us, does this qualify
under the city ordinance framework for private street? Well the first criteria is the prevailing development
pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. I really don't think this request
meets that requirement. That's the number one criteria that we have to deal with to look at whether we
should recommend or not recommend this plat. Based on that clause I feel from...view from this side we
have to deny this. That's my comment.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anything additional Ladd?
Conrad: Really nothing new Mr. Chairman. One thing though. I think the development is out of character
with the neighborhood when you really get down to it. It's legal if you can get the access to it but when
you look at the other properties around, it's not the same. It's maximizing the use so, but it's legal if they
could get access, but it's real clear that our ordinance doesn't allow it the way they're proposing. That's
real clear and that's what the ordinance is for is to kind of standardize it, and I don't think we're kind of
ramming a plan through if somebody thinks we are because I have no need to ram a plan through. There's
common sense reasons for not going it, but right now it's sort of an out of character development with an
ordinance that really tells us what we should be doing from a good solid planning standpoint, and you
know the connection, you know I don't think it's a thoroughfare. I've lived here for 30 years and I'll take
you to my street and I'll show you the 20 fold increase in traffic on my street just living here, and that's not
comfortable for me but it's the way Chanhassen has grown. I don't think this is the same. This is a lot
different than the street I live on so, I think from a pure planning standpoint Mr. Chairman, this application
should be tumed down. I think if the neighbors really think it's important not to have that connectivity and
there's a good reason to preserve something, I think that's something that you've got to pursue at the City
Council level. Don't want to put the burden on them but from a planning issue, this is real clear in what we
do.
Peterson: And in closing I certainly would mirror all of my fellow commissioner's thoughts. It is pretty
clear and it just doesn't work. And there's no compelling reason to let it go so, with that said I'll entertain
a motion please.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat for
Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Division for four single family lots as shown on the, I guess I can just
deny this request. I don't have to go through the whole thing do I?
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Subdivision
#00-8 for Arvidson's Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Thank you everybody for coming and offering your opinions.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED
21
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, YVItlTE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Elaine Arion
Eileen Heitkamp
Scott Bieganek
Bill Coil'man
Mike Steadman
Marty Campion
Dave & Bobbie Headla
4041 White Oak Lane
4021 White Oak Lane
4040 White Oak Lane
600 West 78th Street, #250
6455 Tanager's Point
Otto Associates
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of Bob?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. The original plan for this area is to get access through White Oak Lane,
correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. On one of the lots, yeah it's currently two lots but there is a well. Is that something that
would be, I mean I would assume the well would be abandoned, but I don't think it says that on the report.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. City code does require properties to connect, especially in a
subdivision case, to connect to city services if they're within 150 feet. In this situation I believe sewer and
water would be available within 150 feet of the home. If not, you could certainly add it as a condition.
Sacchet: Now next question is, on the north side there is Stratford Lane which has an easement along the
north lot. Is the intent that the lot to the north would have also access from Stratford Lane or is there a
plan or a vision how that would fit together then?
Generous: Mr. Chair, portions of that parcel would access via Stratford Lane. The rear portion would not
though so that's why the street connection would.
Sacchet: So it'd be about half and hall?? Roughly.
Generous: Yeah.
Peterson: Bob would you kind of guide us through that, what you just said on the overhead.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this doesn't show it very well. We did provide a drawing as an
attachment to the plan. This is the subject property, the Wenzel property with the proposed subdivision.
This is Headla's property to the north. This is Stratford Lane and Minnewashta Parkway. It's potentially
these lots on the front could be accessed off of Stratford Lane. The ones on the rear would have to come
from White Oak Lane.
22
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Sacchet: To clarify, so that outlot to the north of it does not need to become a street?
Aanenson: When that plat got recorded it was recorded by the developer and it was recorded in the name
of the homeowners association so the city has no rights to.
Sacchet: It's not an.
Generous: It's not a public easement.
Aanenson: Right. It stops just past the intersection of those two streets.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers what I really wanted to know.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Is there a philosophic reason, the street is the big deal here. Everything else
looks good. Is there a reason we want to, the motion was worded in the affirmative? Is there protection for
somebody or any, yeah. Is it wiser to be in the affirmative or wiser to be in the negative on this motion?
Aanenson: We structured it in the affirmative with the conditions of approval which meant we did approve
it if they'd modify all those conditions. You could also strike a motion that would say it's inconsistent
with the city subdivision ordinance regarding half street. That would be an option if we legally sought that
position.
Conrad: Does either one do anything that forces premature development? Or is it the same, does it net out
the same place?
Aanenson: Well I think it was framed pretty well in the last application. The city's not driving the road to
go through. The development forces access issues and it's our job as planners and engineers to make sure
we're providing adequate access and services and at this time a half street doesn't meet the city's
ordinance requirements.
Conrad: Does it put any pressure on the neighbors to the north to do anything?
Aanenson: Well we can't approve the half street. I mean that would be our intention to see if they could
build, if they have an option to put the entire street on their property, that would be one option.
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: The applicant.
Conrad: And would that be acceptable?
Aanenson: Or to buy a portion of the neighboring property. He'd have to speak to that but that was
approached as an option.
Hempel: I believe we have that as one of the conditions of approval is for the full city street to be on the
property. Which would provide access to the property to the north for further subdivision as well.
Peterson: Other questions?
23
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Sidney: Mr. Chair. I guess I voice the same concems as Ladd. I guess my feeling is that, you know I was
concemed that this was the motion was in the affirmative and yet we don't have the full application so to
speak in terms of what would be presented as a city proposed cul-de-sac that would, and accessible parcels,
so it's like we have this fuzzy set of conditions but we don't have it in a blueprint here. So I guess I'm
uncomfortable with the affirmative as stated in this analysis.
Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come
forward. Name and address please.
Bill Coffman: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Bill Coffman. I'm the President of
Coil'man Development Services. I've been hired by the Wenzel's to develop and sell their property. With
me tonight I have Larry and Nancy Wenzel and also Dave Headla and Bobbie Headla in the audience as
well and I believe many of the neighbors from the White Oak Lane area are present as well. First off; a
little bit of background on the properties here. I originally approached both the Wenzel's and the Headla's
a little over a year ago to purchase both parcels for development. At that time they both were not ready to
do anything on their properties. Earlier this year the Wenzel's approached myself with the idea of
developing. They were ready to develop their property at this time. Unfortunately the Headla's are not
ready. So hopefully we have a compromise position here after last week or so listening to staff; and
hopefully working with Bob here in the last day or so, we've got a new twist on this concept that does in
fact eliminate the private drive and we eventually get to a public road cul-de-sac extension that does in
fact serve the Headla's in the future in a more direct way as opposed to the common driveway that you see
on the current proposal. As you can see here, basically the cul-de-sac is extended another 150 feet or so.
The long and the short of it is that we are only proposing to build half of the public street at this point. We
will not be building any of the infrastructure into the Headla's property. The Headla's just are not ready to
develop at this time and after reading the ordinance that reflects stafl~s viewpoint that half streets are not
allowed, I read that ordinance and I come up with quite a bit of wiggle room in there that it would be my
position that it would be permitted. And since we are taking into account the properties to the north for
future development, and the future dedication of the other half of the common or the public street is taken
into account, that this should be permissible under the ordinance. And I'm not quite sure how the city
attomey came up with his interpretation but I guess that is his opinion. So I would like some clarification
on that from you folks for sure.
Aanenson: Immediate concem is safety. How do you tum a garbage truck, a mail truck? I mean there's
no way you could stay on halfa street and make the radius tum. It's impossible. It's an immediate safety
issue.
Bill Coil'man: I guess that is correct but you have a stub street right now and it seems unfortunate that
you're tying two property owners hands together so tightly that one landowner, the Wenzel's cannot do
anything with their property unless they join hands with the people to the north, the Headla's. And that
seems to me to be a tall order for the city to dictate that these two have to hold hands so tightly and to not
allow one property owner the right to develop their property and move on with their life and their
retirement plans, it's tough to swallow.
Aanenson: ...that's our position. They have a right to go forward if they build the street on their property
so they can move independently.
Bill Coil'man: Other than that point we agree with most of the, or all of the conditions of staff[ That's the
big sticking point. Whether or not you will allow us to build half of a street today with the understanding
that in the future the rest of the public street will be built.
24
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I'm struggling a little bit with this half street thing. The information I have in
the staff`report's very clear that that is not an allowed use. And the comments just made is that that could
be mitigated by if you, this other property doesn't want to wait. I agree with you, it should be tied that
close together. But that could be mitigated by putting the whole street over that property. Now if we
would take the position that that's the price that needs to be paid for developing that independently, is that
feasible? I mean have you looked at that? Is that at all doable?
Bill Coif`man: Well we have taken a look at that. That, at this point we feel it would be an undue burden
on the property owners to the south.
Sacchet: So you're asking no, it is not doable or?
Bill Coif`man: We could certainly take a closer look at it but at this point we would say no.
Sacchet: Well I'm sure it's not your preferred option.
Bill Coffman: That's correct. It would not be the preferred option.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and
state your name and address please.
Scott Bieganek: Hi. My name is Scott Bieganek. I live at 4040 White Oak Lane. I'm a recent resident
in the area. It's a fairly new development. I'd like to show my support for Larry Wenzel and Nancy
Wenzel and for the Headla's. I think you should remove yourself from the rule books for a minute and use
a little bit of common sense in thinking this through. We already have a stub street here. The only excuse
I hear not to put this development through is really concem of a safety issue. We already have the problem
of having a stub street and not having the ability to tum around. What I see this brings is a commitment to
put in a cul-de-sac and to provide safety in the future. At the same time I don't think you should be
forcing the Headla's into early retirement if they're not willing to go into early retirement and I think you
should allow the flexibility of the Wenzel's to take advantage of their retirement when they want to.
Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Dave Headla: Chairman, commissioners. My name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta
Parkway. Live all along the north side of the Wenzel property. I've got a couple of requests here. I'd like
to see a little compassion by the city. When Wenzel's have lived there for so long, they're ready to
develop. And the other one is, I feel that the decisions made here, and many times are in a sterile
environment. You can sit here, yeah and look at all the guidelines. Okay, that's perfect. You do it right
by the book. But what about the poor people living there? I think you've got to take that into
consideration. I really think you should. We support the Wenzel's. We feel they have a right to develop.
25
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
I think Coffman has come up with an excellent plan. We're agreeable but boy, it took a long time just to
get to that and Bob was a great help today. We did some quick figuring and I think he came up with a plan
that's reasonable. I think we all conceded some. Now if you approve this you're going to be a lot better
off than what you have right now. Right now you have a stub street. All the Wenzel's are doing is
enhancing that part and Kate mentioned about turning a dump truck around or dumpster, whatever. That
problem is there now. The Wenzel property is not creating any new problem. I think in the long run
they're solving some of your problems. I really encourage you to approve this as the lease development
between Bob and Coffman. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Any further comments? Motion and a second for closing the public hearing please.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one please.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I'll try to start. I do agree with city recommendation, staff
recommendation that we cannot approve the variance for the garage. I do think that change that the
applicant has presented with moving the cul-de-sac further in is very sensible. That's, I reached a similar
conclusion that the cul-de-sac should be abutting Lot 1 and 3. It doesn't have to go all the way to have all
those lots. It's one of the lots is permitted to access off from Minnewashta Parkway. I do also believe that
using our criteria for private street, this application does not qualify for private street. It has to be an
extension of the public street and I think that's what the applicant has included in their idea. Now your
concem about does it improve or make the situation worse. I'm a little tom about this. I mean right now
we have a two lane street that dead ends. Now we're going to have half of a two way street that goes on
and has halfa bubble at the end and I'm really hard pressed to decide whether that's an improvement or
getting worse. I mean it goes from a two way street stub to a one lane street stub with a bubble. I wouldn't
call that an improvement. Because you've only got one lane. I think that's a real issue. And I sympathize
with that it creates a pressure on the property to the north to develop which is not right and it's not right to
stand in the way of some type. If the southem property wants to develop at this point, not in connection
with the northem property, I could see that there would have to be a little extra.., so maybe it could be
made better by making that street a little wider or something. I think it needs more. But to come back to
the issue in front of us, I don't think we can approve the variance and I don't think we can approve or
recommend approval for the private street. And I believe that's the two decisions we have in front of us.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other commissioner's comments.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the comments that were just made. I am sympathetic to the situation.
I like to be creative and think of a way to get this to work but I haven't seen the plan that makes it work
tonight. A plan that passes the test tonight. I think there could be a way to do it but I don't know what it
is. I think what we've seen, what's been proposed originally doesn't meet the criteria and the modification
I don't think does either. So I think that we would have no choice but to deny it on it's face and what
Peterson: Okay. Any final comments?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll weigh in. Yeah I don't see a plan that's in front of me that I feel comfortable
with. It's a tough, this is one of those tough ones that really, there's not a real good solution. I really want
a solution that doesn't force the Headla's into doing something they don't want to do. And faster than they
want to do it. Yet I think the applicant has some altematives. I wish we could be creative in this one but I
don't see anything in front of me that's good enough right now. It's just not there.
26
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Bill Coffman: IfI may respond.
Peterson: We're probably done right now so. Closing comments Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing more Mr. Chairman.
Peterson: Anything?
Sidney: No, I agree with the comments that Ladd made. Right now what's before us doesn't meet the test
for the private drive or half street, although we can't do that. And also there's a concem about granting a
variance and I don't think we want to do that so you know really I think we need to have another
application that would have some suggestions that would pass the test like we were talking about.
Peterson: Okay. I too. I think the key thing I heard by my fellow commissioners was that there are
altematives and there clearly are, and they're not being used. The creative altemative that was presented
tonight you know I think is not a viable one for all the reasons mentioned for it. You mentioned it's a
smaller street, which you're getting into a deeper situation with the problem being inconsistent with safety
and a variety of other things so I would concur with my fellow commissioners. This doesn't work and they
have alternatives that they can pursue. On that beep I'll entertain a motion.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the setback
variance for the existing garage.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the setback
variance for the existing garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: I'll entertain another motion please.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the Planning Commission deny approval of the preliminary plat for
Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition for the reasons stated.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Preliminary
Plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition, creating five lots and two outlots, plans prepared
by Otto Associated dated 6/30/00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: It goes onto the Council on the 28th so I think, did the applicant get at sense of what direction
the Planning Commission was taking?
27
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Bill Coffman: Yeah. I would like, as just a point of information. Or clarification. What street width
would you be looking for at a minimum to basically come to the east? I'm looking for some direction
from you folks on what would be acceptable.
Peterson: Dave, if that's a quick answer, let's do it tonight. If not, maybe you two guys can sit down and
chat tomorrow.
Hempel: I'd like to discuss the matter in greater detail with Mr. Coil'man tomorrow.
Peterson: Alright. Is that reasonable?
Bill Coil'man: Sure. Then what you're suggesting is either take this plan to the council or come back with
a different application with a different design?
Peterson: That certainly is your option, yes.
Bill Coil'man: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 96,925 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO A 95,260 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON
PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, EMPAK
ADDITION), AMCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, EMPLAST.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Hosford
Mark Huus, Amcon Construction Company
Scott Quiring
Tom Rossak
950 Lake Drive
200 West Highway 13, Bumsville
200 West Highway 13, Bumsville
200 West Highway 13, Bumsville
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have two questions. Just so I'm understanding correctly when you say the proof of
parking, that means they don't have to build the parking now but there has to be room that they could build
it at a future point when it's necessary?
Generous: Correct. They'd have to design it and show us on a plan that it could be installed.
Sacchet: Okay. And then the second one, I think you pretty much hope is that, I'm not sure I followed all
the details of your changes to the condition number 16 but my question was how many places is the 25 foot
drive aisle width that needs to be sent at 26 because it seems it will be a small extension and where it's
worth ripping up... I think the condition that you just explained answers that concem, right?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Alright, that's my questions.
28
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: So Bob, are you comfortable with the changes they've made that they're substantive enough to
approve?
Generous: Well I ran it by other planners and it does add that articulation on that comer. This is a
warehouse building. It's mammoth. It does sit up on the hill and with the landscaping I believe we'll get
the interplay of the concrete and the living material to help soften that expanse. So I think it will work.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Sidney: Mr. Chair. One question, and I was looking at the square footage and I thought well that's pretty
close to what would trigger possibly an EAW and I was thinking well, is that only once done on a property
if it's a large building or if you had an addition like in this case, if it were over 100,000 square feet, would
an EAW be required?
Generous: Well they'd have to triple it. It's 300,000.
Sidney: Oh, 300 for, okay. So do additions count into that?
Generous: Yes, you would have to look at all that but they're maximizing the site. They're at a floor ratio
of .35 and that's pretty high. In an industrial site. Especially when you're doing one story. Now if you go
multi stories you can get more square footage on the site.
Sidney: Okay so, I guess that's what I was trying to formulate as a question. If you have an existing
building and they add onto it, at some point you may trigger an EAW?
Aanenson: Yes.
Peterson: At 300,000.
Sidney: At 300,000.
Aanenson: I'm not sure, 300's for new. I'm not sure.
Generous: I think it's also for expansion.
Aanenson: ...this building doesn't but if there is for an addition.
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward.
Mark Huus: My name is Mark Huus. I'm an architect with Amcon Constmction representing Emplast.
Also like to note John Hosford from Emplast is here to answer operational questions if you have any. I also
appreciate Bob's help in preparing the application. Be willing to answer any questions that you might
have. One point I'd like to make is that we did not want to emphasize the architectural element on this
end of the building too much in order to prevent confusion as to exactly where the entrance is. The drive
does enter approximately the center of the site and so I feel like we've got a balance here and we didn't
want to call that out as maybe a building entrance. Be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
29
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Conrad: Yeah, what are you doing on the expanded area?
Mark Huus: Pardon me?
Conrad: What is the expanded area for?
Mark Huus: Operation inside? I believe it's warehouse.
Conrad: Strictly warehouse.
John Hosford: That'd be strictly for warehouse.
Peterson: IfI said I wasn't happy with that, from one entrance to the other is a lot of concrete. A lot of it.
And part of what my concem is, the building is a pretty prominent building as it relates to a park, which is
one of our prominent parks in this city so it's going to get a lot of visualization and a lot of eye contact.
And even with Bob's comment of landscaping, you know is there anything else you can do to mitigate my
concems?
Mark Huus: Well we had that initial concem as well, and that is part of the reason for offsetting that
building 40 feet. I guess that's the first thing we did. I'm guessing you have a landscape plan in your
packet but that was the other thing we did to address that concem. We're adding quite a bit of landscaping
there. There's also several existing trees that we're going to move out into that area. Trees that would be
in the way of the expansion. And I guess I've got a photograph here that shows some of the landscaping at
the existing building. Now this is the beginning of the warehouse portion here and although it doesn't go
quite down far enough, but they've done a real nice job of landscaping in front of that existing wall. And
that's what we're anticipating carrying through. The elevations we've shown here on the large board are
primarily intend to show the building itself. It only shows a fraction of the trees that we intend to put in
front of the building.
Peterson: How substantive are you planning on putting in as far as size?
Mark Huus: Pardon me?
Peterson: How substantive of size are you planning on putting in? Of trees.
Mark Huus: Like I said, some of them are fairly mature trees that we're moving out and I believe we've
got 6 to 7 foot pines. And then 2 V2 inch caliper deciduous trees.
Peterson: I think it's also important to note, if you're putting in that other end in, to be careful not to cover
that up with the trees. You're kind of defeating the purpose of the building articulation so.
Mark Huus: Right. I think what we intend to do is to lower the plantings in that area and rearrange
Peterson: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Mark Huus: Thank you.
30
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and
state your name and address please. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Fellow commissioners. Your comments on this one please.
Sidney: I can start. I guess I do have some concems about the expanse of the south elevation. However I
agree, well understand that it's a warehouse building and there will be landscaping so I guess I do feel
comfortable in that respect that the applicant has done a good job in the past. Will likely do a good job of
landscaping in this case too. The addition of the architectural element on the comer I think is a good idea
and I guess overall I think it's a reasonable plan for it's purpose.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman...I think it's fine for what it is and it's in an excellent location for what it is and I
believe that the landscaping carried through the way they've done it, it should be fine. I surprised we
don't have any private street issues. Otherwise I think it's fine. I agree with the staffreport.
Peterson: Okay.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, the landscaping. Yeah, the building's okay. No great shakes but really want to make
sure the landscaping does something and I missed it. You know when I went through the plans, I didn't see
something labeled landscape plan and maybe we have the overall floor plan. It didn't say landscape plan
so I didn't really review it. I really want to make sure that that really is, it's got to break up the walls and
it's got to, just like the applicant said, but I really need it firmed up. It's loose to me right now and maybe
that's because it's loose. When the applicant goes to the City Council, really want a lot of attention paid
to the landscape plan. What you're doing. What trees you're moving around. How you're breaking up.
It's a huge wall. It's across from a park and I think you build it the way you want to build it, that's okay
with me but boy, make sure that landscaping plan can cut it up and soften it a bit. Both winter time and
summer time.
Peterson: Any closing comments Uli?
Sacchet: I like the proposal. I do believe the applicant has made an effort to add a little architectural
interest. There seems to be a lot of plantings on the drawing right now so I believe that the building, that
Ladd is pointing out is fair but I think that it's important to make sure that it's there because it's, you drive
out of Lake Susan Park and you have this thing in front of you. So I think it needs that buffer element
definitely. I feel that this is a good plan and we should approve it.
Peterson: Good. Thank you for those comments. Mine are not dissimilar. I'm real reticent to let that big
of a wall go in that prominent of a place. I'm depending upon a lot of, on the tmst that those trees will go
in and substantially change that feeling that that wall gives so I will vote, with reservation but with
confidence that it will happen. A motion please.
31
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Conrad: I would make the motion Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000 subject to the conditions of the staff`report
with an add on condition 19. That the applicant present to the City Council in detail their landscape plan
when it does reach the City Council level.
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Peterson: And you're noting the item number 16 with the drive aisle change?
Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chairman, yes.
Peterson: Okay. Moved and seconded, any discussion?
Conrad moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2000-10, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
An architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest comer of the building, shall be
incorporated on the southeast comer of the building. At a minimum this should include a sloped
roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protmding element such as columns and/or a
stoop/patio if additional entrances are required.
Revise the site plan to provide the following parking: Offices 74 spaces, largest shift 65
spaces, warehouse 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces. 30% (58
stalls) may be shown as proof of parking. Should parking become a problem, the city may require
the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises, Section 20-1124(1 )(e).
upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner.
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of
hydrants.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs.
The applicant shall plant one additional overstory tree along the east property line in order to meet
minimum buffer yard requirements.
7. The addition must be provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system.
Accessible parking spaces must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code
Chapter 1341.
9. The addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 for high pile storage.
10.
Exiting for the existing building and the addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Building
Code Chapter 10. These requirements cannot be determined until complete plans are submitted.
32
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
11.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
12.
Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin and storm
sewer sizing based on a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
13.
All areas disturbed as a result of constmction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit.
15. Add all applicable city detail plates to the plans.
16.
Increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet when adjacent to vehicle parking stalls.
Drive aisles that are not between two rows of 90 degree angle parking spaces may be 25 feet
wide.
17. On the Grading Plan, Sheet C-l:
Show all existing and proposed storm sewer line.
Revise the grading along the southeast comer of the building to prevent stormwater from
draining toward the building.
Show the erosion control features.
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
Change the title of the plan to" Grading & Erosion Control Plan".
Change the straw bale dam protection around catch basins to a concrete block and 1" rock
filter around the catch basins (see attached detail).
Show the correct easement locations as per the Empak Addition plat.
18. On the Utility Plan, Sheet C-2:
Lighten or screen the existing utility lines to distinguish them from the proposed utilities.
Provide documentation that the existing water and sewer services are sufficiently sized to
handle the building addition.
Add a note stating that all connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled.
Add a catch basin on the south side of the westem entrance drive just before the future
parking stalls.
Show the location of the existing light poles along Lake Drive.
19. The applicant shall present to the City Council a detailed landscaping plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE
PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT SIGN ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS
PARK 3~ ADDITION LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 82~ STREET AND TH
41, MIKE SCHLAGEN.
33
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Kosmas, K.K. Design 6112 Excelsior Blvd.
Mike S chlagen 1941 Melody Hill Circle
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of Senior Planner Mr. Generous.
Sacchet: I have one question Mr. Chair. If they would put a sign that is 90 degrees at the comer of those
two streets, that would count as two signs?
Generous: Correct. The ordinance permits only a 45 degree angle.
Sacchet: If it's 45 it'd be done. Then they could have it on there?
Generous: Then they could have that one on 41. They could be at the comer.
Sacchet: So they could have one at the comer of 41 plus the one?
Generous: No. Just the one.
Sacchet: Just the one. But if they would do it, what would they gain if they do a 45 degree angle sign? I
mean where could they put another sign?
Generous: Well their argument is that the orientation of the sign is different. The one that's facing, that's
oriented north/south of the sign are east and west are visible from 82nd and the other one to the north is
oriented east/west and visible from 41.
Sacchet: I understand that part.
Generous: But we say they're both on 41 and that visibility is not the issue.
Sacchet: But what I'm trying to explore is what the options are for the applicant and I'm not sure whether
there's a difference between the options. If they have a 90 degree sign at the comer. If it's 90 degree, and
what you just clarified is that that would count as two signs.
Generous: Right, and that wouldn't be permitted.
Sacchet: But it seems a special case, if it's less. If it's 45 degrees.
Generous: 45 or less it would be counted as one sign but they could only have one of those on Tmnk
Highway 41.
Aanenson: If it's on the comer it's still both street frontages.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Okay, thank you.
34
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Okay, thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come
forward.
John Kosmas: My name is John Kosmas with K.K. Design... Mike is also present to answer and also he's
got some questions. I will be listening. Previously this site was reviewed as a Kwik Trip site. It was
previously viewed and approved. Kwik Trip then left the project and Mike then picked up the project. In
that process we reviewed what was approved and the allowable conditions, or the various conditions that
were applied to this project. In that process there were, I don't remember the item but it was like item
number 6 or 8, that identified the signage and that there were two signs available. One on 82nd and one on
41. The original two locations had the signs basically oriented one at about the middle of 41 frontage,
which would be in this location, and a second one located down in this comer by the entrance of 82nd.
Very honestly did not think anything of it. Said hey that looks fine to me. Makes sense. You've got an
orientation of both streets. We proceeded on with the rest of our site planning as we took over the project
because we did not have the project originally when it was Kwik Trip. In our permitting process we then
submitted plans and we then got a note back saying that we have to move our signs because we're in the
easement area, which was not something that was clarified in the original documentation, original approval
process. So we started looking at where we can put the signs when we do that. The yellow identifies the
various easements that are applied to this project. Not only the typical utility easements that would
typically be anywhere from 5 to 10 feet around the perimeter of the site, but in this particular case we also
have wider easements. This side is more traditional. This is only a 10 foot on our side of the property line.
This is a 20 foot that mns through here and a 20 foot utility easement that travels north, then crosses the
property and then feeds the city owned property to the north of us. And then in the negotiations at, with
Kwik Trip and with the City there were two different locations where they looked at the utility, or excuse
me, the driveway easement to again access offofthis parcel. Originally that easement went this way,
which caused some issues as far as the grading and such that were happening back over in here. In the re-
evaluation of that, it then got relocated over into this site. So that dictated again the location that the road
had to be. The pump islands had to be and the canopies had to be. So when we took that into
consideration and said okay, what's left? This location went away because there's no place to put the signs
because you're on top of your easements. So we started moving down the line to see where we could
place that and the first immediate location is basically in this zone. Now I also look at it and said okay,
let's get it away from the curb cuts and let's get it away from this particular area and move it as far away
from that so it's more free standing. Out of the landscaped area where a sign typically is more visible.
Went through the permit process. My understand it got approved through the permit process, but I was
incorrect because the permit process does not approve signage. Then the signage came back for permit and
that's when we first found out that there was the setback requirement additional to the typical 10 foot
setback that's required from a street. Because this sign is allowed to be 10 feet. I can normally put a sign
any place, in my mind, any place along 82nd that would be 10 feet back. But because of the easements you
can't place the signs within the easement. So we then worked with a 20 foot setback offof41. The 20
footsetbackoffof82nd. And that seemed to make sense. It stays clear ofthe 30 foot triangle, whichis
desirable and because of this particularly intersection, the 30 foot triangle really isn't adequate because the
intersection is way out on the side. So Bob and I had some discussions. I said now I don't see that in the
ordinance. I don't understand that in the ordinance and that's where we came to this position of saying
okay, let's come to you guys and talk. The sign is right here to 82nd. It is not intended, it does not tum to
be able to read from there. Excuse me, from 41 as you're traveling north and south. We would love to
have it down here because it helps identify that driveway, but in reality the customers that's coming from
this direction will read that sign, will realize as he passes to the site, they will enter into this driveway. For
the same reason that we want the customer, we don't want this sign oriented this way... If you're sitting
here you will see that and you can see that you can make that, that's the median entrance onto the site.
Once you're familiar with the site, depending on where you're traveling to, I would guess that most people
35
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
coming from the south would take the right naturally on 82nd, come onto the site and actually leave and go
north. IfI were entering on the site as a customer... Therefore this sign is not using, working offof41's
traffic, which really was...Bob indicated that before we put the one at 45. Unfortunately 45 degree signs
aren't visible from any good direction then because you're really catching somebody coming here that's
actually going away from them so it's not visible. I think the suggestion that was made to do an 90 degree
comer sign has some merit but again, then where do you put which element because the 90 degree, okay if
you put the 90 degree coming back here, then the 41 traffic is having to read it sort of behind the sign. So
that one kind of fell apart in our process. So in the process of identifying where that 75 foot setback is,
happens to put it into the easement area in the driveway, and that didn't work. So then we moved it back
this direction. The green identifies... 15 foot to 20 foot green strip between the sign and any driveway?
The blue identifies their four zone which works for signage. And there's actually the parcel that's left for
signage. The same as it was up in here because again if that sign was back in here, not being able to,
because we originally... 10 foot off....told that it was incorrect so we moved it north to take it off of there.
And actually in some respects that will probably help that driveway by doing that... So, here we've gotten
to. We didn't go to blows. We came here to help and try and find an answer for. Mike, anything you'd
like to add?
Mike Schlagen: The only thing that I'd really like to add is the visibility in our business is just a huge
part. In my opinion with that 45 degree sign, people traveling north on 41, they're not going to be able to
see that until they're, excuse me. People traveling north would be able to see it. People traveling south
would have a tough time seeing it until they're actually by the site and they have to look around. Now the
city has required a few things of us already. One was to put the berm on 41 so the building is not going to
be as visible as we would originally like it. And having the trees in front.., anything that we can do to
make it more visible...
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Basically what you're saying is that this is not necessarily where you ideally
wanted the sign. You're saying these were the places that were left after you tried to accommodate the
sign.
John Kosmas: After we started looking at it and address it, because we originally had this location. We
knew we couldn't fit here because it was too tight so we had it actually back in this comer by the entry
here.
Sacchet: And off41, kind of in the middle?
John Kosmas: Yeah, and that.
Sacchet: Okay. That would be your preferred option.
John Kosmas: Then we were told no. Move it out of this easement so it meant moving it into the trees,
which we didn't think that was appropriate. And then to address this one and find out that this one really
couldn't stay in this little comer and so we looked at moving it down the line and like I said, the blue zone
is what we had left...that's just my habit I guess.
Peterson: Okay, other questions? Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
36
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Motion taken and public hearing closed. Commissioners, comments on this one please.
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I'm a little but stumped. You know on one hand I'm a little bit confused
because I think the staff recommended options to put it back to the driveway on 82nd Street... Now
according to what the applicant presented that would actually not be a legal location.
Generous: It wouldn't be an optimum location.
Sacchet: But it would be an acceptable potentially location, is that what you're saying?
Peterson: It would meet statute.
Generous: Yes. It would meet the ordinance requirement.
Sacchet: So it would be possible to move that sign to where they originally wanted it.
Generous: I think it has to go back.
Sacchet: On the other side of the entrance there. And in terms of where they originally had it in the
middle of their property on 41, that does not meet their needs?
Generous: Well that's not an issue. What was when they put both of them over on 41 that they ran into an
issue.
Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because where they originally considered putting the signs seems
reasonable place except it seems like you got in conflict with some easement.
Generous: With designs and easements, sure.
Sacchet: And so what we're looking at is, would they need to ask for a variance to put a sign into that
easement or what's the framework there?
Generous: That would be the next option for them to request a variance from the sign ordinance
requirements. If they wanted to pursue. If you affirm our interpretation.
Sacchet: Well I think from what I hear from the applicant was they're proposing having them both on 41,
different angles which you say you can't because they're both on 41 is not really what they ideally what
either. So it seems pretty crisp in that case that they, yeah go ahead.
Aanenson: Can I give some other framework to this because we're looking at this in a vacuum. There is a
sign package for this. There is wall signage. What they're trying to accomplish is the southerly traffic, is
my understanding. If they want to correct me, is to get the southem traffic. Yes the berm and the building
is lower so it complicates that. So they can put it a lot of places on 41 but their position is because of the
landscaping, you can't see it. But there are places, and they want to put that as north as possible. There is
sight lines from the south. Clear sight lines of the building and the wall signs, but you're not looking at
that either. We're just talking about the monument signs. I just want to make sure there is some other
37
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
signage on the property. Maybe Bob can take a minute just to go through that. I don't know if that's
helpful or not but, so there are other places on that and we believe that there is visibility to the view.
Peterson: Do you have an elevation of the building Bob?
Generous: Yes I do.
John Kosmas: For clarification. This is the original that was submitted. The sign was located in this
location and a sign was located on this location. As it tums out, it's 10 foot from the property line which
meets the ordinance. And this one's actually 10 foot from the property line. When it went through,
engineering came back and said, no. You can't have this one because it has to go into this area .... yes it
would be in amongst the trees so we'd have to relocate the trees to do that... But this one has to move over
and be within about, and actually a sidewalk at the intersection. The sidewalk now has to be mnning right
along the curb line. So the area that was available, as Bob and I talked about it, there's approximately a 5
foot area there and that is not where the sidewalk is going to be located so that space is not available to me
anymore. So now I have to move, because I want my two signs. I'm greedy. I've been approved for two
signs. I deserve two signs. I want to try to meet the ordinance as much as I can. I can't meet the 75 foot
setback. I can meet...43 feet as I work offofthe storm. I can't be where I am here so I'm to the north of
that easement. I'm moving it out of the easement to be able to able...relation to the property line where it
belongs. So that's the one issue. And the other question was the exterior. There are two signs located on
the building. One is located over the entrance area, and there is a sign that basically identifies...
Aanenson: Tell them which direction those are facing.
John Kosmas: Okay, this sign is facing south.
Aanenson: West 82nd Street.
John Kosmas: Facing 82nd Street. And this sign is actually facing west, which is 41. And between this
sign and for 82nd is the canopy which you do not allow signage on. So we're clear about that. There is no
signs that we requested on the canopy. So you're reading through the canopy...basically at a similar
elevation as the sign. So that one really isn't there to try to attract customers. It's too deep on the site. It's
not really what we're talking about as far as signage. It's there for identification. For ownership and that
happens, because the new sign happens to read Arboretum with a small Citgo logo undemeath it. It's very
nice, attractive. Outline letter design. That was also done with the car wash. Very nice, simple. Not a
garish sign by any standards of any measure. And the quantities are well under the allowed. We're not
trying to, not trying to send out a beacon offofthat because this, as Mike indicated, it is lower. Out of the
way. We really can't use that as our focal, and we can't use the canopy as our focal. I'll also say...canopy
is still advertising because it's there. You can see it but it's not the intent of what... So as you are back
over here at the intersection, yes. You can potentially see what's happening over here but it's very, very,
it's not like a typical street where if this street were sitting right here by the property line. Totally
different relationship... Now I'll be quiet.
Peterson: Okay. Any other questions?
Conrad: Where are we in this meeting?
Peterson: We're in commissioner discussion. So if you have an opinion I would love to hear it.
38
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Conrad: Well it's real clear we need a sign on 41. We need a sign on 82. The stafl~s interpretation is
correct. Personal feeling is the applicant needs visibility. I have no reason to restrict visibility but I also
do have reason to reinforce what staff`says is our ordinance so that's a wishy washy way, and I think you
can get some variances to allow visibility. We just have to make sure they succeed and they have the sign.
The street signage appropriately placed. If that takes a variance I'd be willing to vote for that. Not tonight
but when staff`would review that. That would be my, I don't see another solution Mr. Chair.
Peterson: Other comments?
Sidney: Mr. Chair I would reaffirm Commissioner Conrad's statement. I think what's before us is, we're
asked to interpret the regulation. That's very clear so that's what we need to do tonight. What the
applicant wants to do, if he wants to bring back another request for a variance, certainly entertain that.
Peterson: Any closing comments? I'll entertain a motion.
Sidney: I'll make a motion that staff; the Planning Commission affirms staff's interpretation of the
regulation regarding signage for the Arboretum Citgo.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: Yeah, I'll second that.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Conrad: Just to make sure that the applicant knows that we're sensitive. You heard me say that we're
sensitive to your signage needs so I guess by tuming this down, by affirming staff`we do believe that
they're interpreting the ordinance properly but we're probably going to signal that there's got to be some
other solution to the problem. Even though we saw the yellows and the greens on your deal, I think we're
looking for a different solution and we'll probably be sensitive to what it takes to get that for you so that's
the reason for the tum down in my mind.
Peterson: Is that too squishy?
John Kosmas: Well, if you're telling me to go back and look at other solutions, which is what I'm kind of
hearing, and bring it back and you'll be favorable to an interpretation of the variance for me, then I'm
saying...variance even though that's a different process.
Peterson: That's the issue. We don't have that in front of us tonight so.
John Kosmas: Well I guess, okay. I don't know that I understand the 75 foot setback as being, I didn't see
it written. I hear it as an interpretation so my clarification of that is, it's my error not finding in the
ordinance and that's why what this step, rather than immediately going for a variance request because it
seemed clear that there was room to make an evaluation of this without going through the variance process
but maybe I misinterpreted that. I don't find it in there saying that it has to meet 75 feet. I find setback
requests saying 10 feet. And I requested 10 foot. I exceeded the 10 foot. Now the interpretation of it
being 75 feet back with the building permit setback is a different interpretation of what was represented
originally, and I don't see it written so that's why I'm asking for the interpretation. I don't think I'm
asking for a variance when I say I don't understand the interpretation of stafl~
Peterson: I think what we're saying.
39
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
John Kosmas: Otherwise we'd work with them.
Peterson: Uli.
Sacchet: Well it's my understanding that stafl~s position is that it's all the same street even though they're
not facing, oriented different ways. And so what we are saying, what we have the motion in front of us that
we're affirming that we agree with staff`that these two signs are on the same road, therefore is not
complying. And the reason why I feel comfortable doing that is because it seems like it's not really what
you ideally want to do either. It doesn't seem like it ideally serves you. I think you'd be better served
with that sign close to where the entrance is to your property.
Aanenson: This is the front building setback line and that's the interpretation...
Peterson: Do it again.
John Kosmas: This lot right here, has a 75 foot identification.
Aanenson: Right, because that's part ofthe building front setback. So we're saying he has to be behind
that front setback to be at a different street. That was our interpretation.
John Kosmas: And that's the interpretation that I don't understand because I don't read it anyplace,
therefore we have discussion and went this route. I can't put it there. I'd gladly put it there. I can't put it
there.
Peterson: So bring it to the right is what you're saying.
John Kosmas: The first place I can physically put it, with any rationale being, is approximately right here.
I've got to stay 5-6 feet away from... That's a given. That's one of the reasons this doesn't work. I don't
have a choice. So if I'm doing that I am right now at 20. This chunk of blue represents approximately 22
feet. IfI stayed out of my green strip without moving my trees around, because I've got to put a sign in
there and I've got to change the plantings. Now I'm 42 feet according to... Once I start getting any closer
than I'm starting to get into what I set up as a green zone that I didn't want to touch. So I will be back
asking for that and that's why I'm saying the interpretation is...
Aanenson: Can I give a clarification again?
Peterson: Please.
Aanenson: The point is that we said it's in front of the building at this point, it's in this front. It falls on
this street. They're saying they agree with that interpretation. What I heard them say is that if you come
back and ask for something that under the variance, well they may be willing to look at that. But they
can't make that under the interpretation because if they make that interpretation, then it falls all under
sign...
John Kosmas: No, I understand what the problem is...
, nd
Conrad: And Ive got to underline the fact, I think the sign on 82 should be by your entrance. That's
where we originally thought it should be. That's what's logical. That's what I'm looking for actually. I
40
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
want good visibility there. I want good visibility on 41 for you, but I'm not sure why I want another sign
that close to the highway. That's misusing the ordinance.
Peterson: But with a variance I'm confused as to why you don't think you can bring it back to 82nd Street.
Conrad: Yeah.
John Kosmas: IfI come back to you, I've got to be between here and here. I've got to be within this zone.
I can't do it over here.
Conrad: Why?
John Kosmas: I can't fit within any of the setbacks. I've got an easement agreement.
Conrad: But we can give you a variance to that, can't we?
Aanenson: An encroachment agreement, sure.
Conrad: Sure we can.
John Kosmas: Not if you're going to dig the water line out. I can't get into that close to a water line
easement.
Conrad: I don't know that. But that's my.
John Kosmas: So I can't do that with what's underground rationally ask for an easement and put it on top
of a sewer and water line. That's not appropriate.
Sacchet: Not on the other side of the driveway there's not enough room?
John Kosmas: No. Because there's a utility easement. Setback easement that's running through here.
This green is the driveway easement that's been requested. So I mean the only other way...is you take that
bubble right there. I'm back 75 feet. I am sitting in the easement. It's a foolish one to grant me, and I'm
going to answer my own question. Because now I've narrowed down the drive easement and that doesn't
function. You want this drive easement free. So I mean I don't mean to.
Peterson: I hear your point. Either way we can't do it tonight so you know Kate, I guess I'm.
Aanenson: We'll sit down and see what options we can... I'm not sure that was discussed but we can look
at that.
Peterson: Did Matt fall asleep over there?
Aanenson: He was ready to make a motion earlier. There is a motion on the floor.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Sidney moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission affirm staWs interpretation of the
regulation regarding signage for the Arboretum Citgo monument. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
41
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: I think we've clarified that. See you soon.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18-57 (q) AND SECTION 20-615 REGARDING FLAG
LOTS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Morin
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair, two questions. It sounds a little bit, and from your side you actually encouraged
the fourth option.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: And then the options 1, 2, 3, they stand on their own or is there, I guess the potential of
combining elements?
Aanenson: Sure. You can do that.
Sacchet: Okay. Now would the, I feel we may need to work...if we decide.
Aanenson: Right, I guess that's some of the information in speaking with the city attomey of creating some
non-conforming lots and such. IfI can just bring a little bit more background into this too. If you look at
our lot size, we have one of the larger lot sizes and when we looked at this discussion before, we talked
about that too. Most of these flag lots are not to try to get to the minimum lot size. Examples we had such
as Shadow, or even the Mason homes. All those lots are over sized so it's not the intent to get a smaller lot
in there. It's, we believe based on natural features. That's the appropriate use of it. So it's not just like
squeeze a smaller lot on it.
Sacchet: May I ask one more question Mr. Chair? There's one thing I'm kind of struggling. On one hand
we have a situation that seems to work reasonably well in most cases.., and then on the other hand we're
looking at how we can give a little more framework. Basically, I mean ideally we would be able to
mitigate situations with discussion and see what's reasonable and what works well. But mostly we have
situations that on the other hand where we wonder whether that's possible and that's why we're looking at
how can we put further framework into the picture so we can handle those situations that appear not to
work out as ideally as the 91% that usually do either based on the situation or the possibility to work with
the people and come to a good solution. Now if that is not a possibility, if we have that much of a conflict
over interest, then that's where we need more control. That's the intent here, is that correct?
42
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Al-Jail': Yes, correct. We just needed to point out that there are ramifications. Whatever approach you
take, there will be ramifications. There will be impacts city wide.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: I was thinking about the first option, tying it in with variances and it seems that it would almost
never pass a variance test because it would be an economic self interest. Generally it's always a request so
we couldn't tie it in.
Al-Jaff: We spoke to the city attomey regarding this one. City of Minnetonka permits them as a variance
and our city attomey wasn't in favor of the variance option.
Burton: I personally don't think it would ever pass.
Al-Jaff: I think you're right.
Sacchet: So you're saying that it would not be good option 1 on that basis.
Peterson: It's a thought. Other comments before we open it up for public hearing?
Conrad: Typically, you know I don't have a problem with the flag lots when you have a new subdivision
that's going in. Then it's pretty easy because you've got control and there's orientation. There's some
logic to what's going on and usually it's to save trees or minimize impervious surface. So the new ones
that go in, typically work unless we're, there have been cases where the applicants try to squeak out some.
Aanenson: Funny lots.
Conrad: Yeah, and offensive. They're typically putting in a flag lot when next to a bigger property that's
been isolated for a while and boy, it's just, those are the ones that you don't want to allow. It may be legal,
but boy. Somehow we've got to stop odd things from happening. We continue to cram more stuffinto
things that really is legal but really it was not intended, the property wasn't ever intended to be divided the
way we're doing it right now. Some of the stufftonight, well this is legal. It's not the way the
neighborhood was structured to begin with. It's happening in my neighborhood.
Peterson: It's going to get worst. That's.
Conrad: And it's going to keep happening, yeah that's right.
Peterson: And that was the intent of when we brought it up in the first place so although number 4 seems
to be the most logical, I'd be hard pressed to just let it continue as it is. You know let's take some risk and
set some tone. Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and
state your name and address please.
Joe Morin: My name is Joe. Joe Morin and I live 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I live on a 5, well I didn't
realize you had this new technology here or I would have brought the entire plan so I have kind of a hand
written sketch that kind of shows what our configuration looks like. This is really a 5 acre parcel that goes
43
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
down to Lake Lucy and there's a large pond, about 3 acre pond right in here. And because of the
topography in Chanhassen, that's one thing that attracts a lot of people. You can't always set your building
pads in back to back or, and so there are a lot of, I think odd configurations throughout the whole city. Not
odd but they make sense but they just don't line up.
Peterson: Unique I think is the right word.
Joe Morin: Yeah, they're unique and I think what we have is kind of a unique situation here too. It took,
oh I don't know, maybe 5 years to get this parcel figured out in a way that was sensitive to the environment
and terrain and the trees and I really have to applaud the staff`for figuring out how to pull that cul-de-sac
back, saving the trees and allowing some private drives here. If they would have insisted on a public street
coming into our property, it would have wiped out a lot of the beautiful trees and made it a lot worse than
it is now. I say that because when we built here we originally never expected any development at all
because we expected the sewer to come this way, but when they built the lift station here, that made it
possible for these pieces to develop so we're kind of caught in-between the two major developments here.
Now, when this parcel was developed and proposed and went through the City Council we were, as
Sharmin pointed out, we showed our conceptual plan which has a building pad here and here. And so we
have a potential to subdivide with a line here and a line here. Again that would be 3 houses on a 5 acre
parcel. I think Ladd's probably the only one that was here at the time when we were actually ground this
thing and hammered it to the conclusion finally. As you can see there's a lot of hills. Very steep
topography. Wetland here. 3 acre pond here. Now if we were to put a house here for example, that
would have a front yard facing this way, there are homes on the other side that are walkouts that have their
back yards facing the pond. Okay. It would be hard for us to demonstrate a hardship since we already
have a house on the lot, yet it is a 5 acre lot. The setbacks from property lines. If they come in any closer
because of the, the home site here is probably about 400 feet away, okay. Yet the property line is right out
here and if that property line were moved in any closer, that would jeopardize our ability to build on this
pad, and that doesn't make sense either. And so in crafting a law that eliminates the really dumb things,
some of the real sensitive approaches to development and being in a wetland kind of situation, could be
jeopardized and I hope that, I don't know that any of these options really adequate address situations like
this and I don't think ours is unique. I agree something probably needs to be done but I don't think we're
there yet and I hope that we give staff a little more time to craft something that either includes this kind of
situation or just kind of, or try to get by with things the way they are because I don't think it affects very
many situations in Chanhassen. Do you have any questions of me?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. Are we basically saying that with some of these options
we're considering to this ordinance, that it would make your situation more difficult or harder to deal
with?
Joe Morin: Depends how it's interpreted. If you look at.
Sacchet: I shouldn't say that. With the additional setbacks and all that...or the orientation all of a sudden
it could be a problem.
Joe Morin: Yeah, I think all of the options probably impact us in a major way one way or the other. I
don't understand the first one. I don't know what demonstrating a hardship involves. It sounds subjective
to me but if the criteria, you can't get the house on the lot, we already have a house on the lot but my
goodness, we certainly could put 2 more on the lot too. And in fact build our own home down here some
day. That's our plan.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
44
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, Jerry Paulsen. 7305 Laredo Drive. I think it's obvious from what we've
seen of subdividing lots in general, economics is what the driving factor in many cases. And certainly the
idea that someone wants to make a profit by dividing a larger lot which is justifiable in many cases I'm
sure. As Commissioner Ladd Conrad mentioned, it's probably wise to more seriously consider this sort of
thing in a new division rather than going into an existing division to address this thing, and Commission
S acchet's comment about making a combination of these things, perhaps not, it's not an either or certainly
but taking the best features out of what are desirable. Features out of each one of these options. I've just
informally done a little poll of some of the adjacent communities and if I understood their planning
departments correctly, I found at least two communities adjacent to Chanhassen that say no to flag or neck
lots. They say we won't do it. I found at least one adjacent that says 2 max lots on a private street. We're
talking about 4 now and maybe 5. And I found at least one adjacent community that says no to private
streets. It is, I think it can be...to consider private streets as a desirable feature. Obviously I have some,
we have something personal in this as far as our local neighborhood is concemed but in generally speaking
just from what we've seen of it, I think you should consider being perhaps more restrictive than we are now
and hope you consider something in that light. Thank you.
Peterson: We should have a frequent visitor program for Mr. Paulsen. Get a free hair cut or something
after 10 visits. Thank you.
Aanenson: I was going to say, we do have entire subdivisions that are private streets such as Hesse Farms.
That entire subdivision. So that's.
Janet Paulsen: My name's Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive .... I feel threaten by the private
streets. First of all it's not maintained by the city. Plowed by the city. Essentially a stub street and.., no
tum around. It's 20 feet wide at the maximum instead of 30 foot right-of-way. Access to 4 homes. It's
crowded for the fire trucks and emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. It also doesn't require a concrete
curb and gutter. I think that private roads have a purpose probably for a townhome situation. But...in the
May 3 1st position paper, it seemed to me they were mainly used to divide very valuable shoreland. That's
what we're faced with in our neighborhood. I don't want to do that. Our shoreland is so important in
Chanhassen. It's what makes it beautiful and it should be preserved.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Debbie Lloyd: I actually only have a question. Are we going to address building pads this evening?
Aanenson: No.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I do want to just point out that in the Olivewood...
Aanenson: It's upside down.
Debbie Lloyd: In the Olivewood plan, which addresses private streets, I want to point out that this shore
maps...Minnetonka do an outstanding job with their plats, including denoting house pad envelopes and
proposed grade elevations ....
Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
45
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Peterson: Wow. We want to do something. I think you heard, a little even before we summarized with
closing thoughts but I think we all want to do something. We don't know what. You know I think, I don't
like Option 4 because I don't think it addresses, takes any stab at trying to address it. I mean private
streets, I mean I don't, I prefer not to do them but they can be done very, very well. Like Hesse Farms is a
wonderful example. And some of the ones we saw tonight are very nicely and tastefully done and they
meet the criteria. But I don't like doing nothing. You know I think it lends itself to more work for you.
More work for us and the council trying to interpret. I mean what does, is the City Attomey, is he offering
that doing nothing is the most prudent way to go?
Aanenson: Certainly he spoke that the number 1 variance he would not recommend to the City Council,
the variance process. I guess our concem is the implication of the non-conforming lots and speaking with
him and try to get some language for that. As Mr. Morin spoke, it's not going to be perfect no matter what
you do. You can't anticipate every situation. If you make it going forward, there's people that we have
provided options for further subdivision that does provide via a private street so I guess we'd like some
time to go back and research those and show you what problems we're going to create. Get a better handle
on that. That's going to take a little bit of time. Then come back with the city attomey assisting us in
drafting an ordinance. That maybe it's a combination of a couple different things. But obviously it
appears that it's existing lots that seem to be the bigger room but that's not always the case. We do have
situations where subdivisions adjacent to an existing neighborhood which is just as much of a concem with
their orientation so, we'll take a look at it.
Peterson: Fellow commissioners, any other?
Conrad: I don't think we've helped at all. Really.
Peterson: Well certainly not you.
Conrad: I haven't. I could very easily throw out 4, 3 and 2. They don't work. The variance is sort of says
I've got a shot at it. To look at something. I'm not sure I like the implications of the variance but it's, you
know I can verbalize some of the things that we're trying to prevent but I think when you put down
standards it's a lot harder. We'll never hit it. And maybe we start putting down some real solid intent
statements and flag lots and some of the stuff`that I've seen in the staff`report in terms of some of the
verbiage, that's what we're trying to do here. So maybe l don't know. I personally amjust trying to, I
don't like driveways going by houses because there's a 10 foot, you know setting a driveway in that's
maybe going close to a porch and it's legal because it's 10 feet away from the yard. Ah, that's garbage to
me. I want to prevent that. Yet if maybe some of the plans I saw tonight, that same driveway is a fair
distance away from the neighbors and it's not a problem. So when you try to cram some of this stuff`in,
boy I have no need to create a lot in an odd situation and that's what I would try to prevent. Maybe you
can solve that one for me. I don't know how. It's not a buffer, it's not just saying buffer yards or lot sizes
are playing bigger. That doesn't do it. That will prevent some things that we're trying to do. So I'm
taking us no place on my conversation here unfortunately. I've tried to think about this and I know what
I'm trying to prevent. I just, I have a great difficulty in preventing it unless I see it and I say, then when I
see it I say, you know that's strange in this neighborhood. That shouldn't be planned.
Aanenson: ...if you could look at some of the areas of subdivisions or if we want to collectively on our
next work session go look at some. I can give you examples on Frontier Trail. Forcier's across the street
on one side and the other side, Hestia Homes. Both have private drives. Two different applications. Both
successful. But they both are served by flag lots and private drives. Two different applications.
A1-Jaff`: The topography that they had in.
46
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Aanenson: In Morin's?
Al-Jaff': Yeah. It made sense to serve via private driveway.
Aanenson: So ifyou wanted to do that, we could go together and go individually and look around. Give
some feedback. Good, bad. Why it works. Why it doesn't work. Get more specific. I think that would
be helpful.
Sidney: I guess looking at the various options I guess I'm more inclined to look at the one that, well do
nothing actually which has the least restrictive language. Although I'd like to beef it up somehow, but I
don't know how to do that. Reason being is that I think it would be desirable to have staff`have the
opportunity to work with the applicant and to come up with some creative solutions and not be totally
restrictive on the language. But I'm wondering if it's appropriate with the current verbiage if we can add
something to it that's actually in place and really address the things that we don't want to see.
Aanenson: That goes back to...
Sidney: Yeah, and I don't know what those things are. What are the bad things? Or most conceming. If
it's the porch issue or something like that we could add that in. I guess we need more information about
really where we're headed as a, you know what we want to prevent.
Conrad: I think that's what we should be doing is identifying things that we really don't want. In my case
it might be a driveway that's really too close to a property line that's cutting off; that may be getting to the
right place but it's still putting the driveway where normally a rational person never would have thought it
was going in there. When they bought the property next to it. I don't know. Maybe we identify a few of
those and take a crack at it.
Burton: Mr. Chairman I was thinking that allowing these flag lots and private drives we'd then have a
pseudo variance type test that would have these things that we don't like that somebody else.., consider
and decide whether you would allow it or not. Something along what I think I'd like but then it's tough
drafting a project.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. When I first read this I thought I liked them all except 4. I'll be honest about this.
And that apparently wasn't quite cooked enough. It wasn't crisp enough. And I think it's a very valid
point. We have to identify what we're actually after. Now I personally, I mean I'm relatively new with
this group here but from the experience I've had so far in these couple months, I found myself in positions
here where I felt we would have liked to do something, but we couldn't. And so coming from an
environmental view point.., something that I think is good. And my vision of what I'd like to see
happening. So basically where I stand on this is more restrictive in general I think is better in this case,
from where I'm coming from. Then on the other hand you all think it's ridiculous, I mean it has to be
workable. It has to be reasonable, right? And I think the suggestion that we might even have a work
session and try to identify some specific situations that we do not want. I think that could be a good next
step. In any case I think in order to come to really a determination what we want to do, we need to very
diligent looking at what we're actually creating. Who does it impact? What does it impact? What are the
specific situations. When I read through these three options, I said alright. Variance. Great. Oh yeah, we
had a problem. We can't ask them how to orient the house. There we go, and it gets more setbacks, that's
great. So we have a little more safety in that it's not going to be jammed in. But that's a little short
sighted. I think we create potentially more problem than we solve if we go to just jumping in like that so, I
47
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
think my recommendation would be try to find more specifics. Have a work session and then very
carefully look at what's the impact. Because as far as where I'm at, more restrictive I think is good.
Conrad: You're going to take a lot of people's rights away. But I think we should do a work session. We
should literally go up to a board and draw it, much like Sharmin did and say okay, do we want to prohibit
that? Is this, I know 3 or 4 examples of cases that boy, I don't know. The old land owners has an acre and
a half and wants to split it in two and we're going to say no, you can't.
A1-Jaff: We can continue looking at what other communities are doing and maybe gather more ordinances.
Sacchet: It seems like...other communities around seem to be putting more restrictive. I wouldn't think
it's a good idea for us to say no private streets or no flag lots. I like flexibility. On the other hand it seems
like we need some handles on situations when they come up and it's mostly something.., so it's a tricky
situation.
Peterson: In theory, can you have a flag lot without a private drive? Or very often.
Aanenson: Yes we do. That's some of those subdivisions we showed you. Certainly. Yes.
Peterson: Most of those are private drives.
Aanenson: No I would say they're about, a combination. Probably half and half. That's what I think
would be helpful. Either go look at them or take some pictures throughout the community and show the
different applications. And also see how the house fits. How does it feel? Does it feel tight? Does it feel
good? I think you have to actually see it to get that sense.
Peterson: One way of doing it is change the ordinance as it relates to private drives and make them a
variance where we'd have more discretion on granting them.
Aanenson: Lot of different ways. I think the approach would be good just to put that list together. First I
think we need to do the visual impact. Same as we did when we looked at architectural study. What we
do and don't like. Try to get that down. What works and doesn't work and then start developing the
ordinance from there. That'd be my recommendation.
Peterson: So do you have enough direction awareness from us?
Aanenson: Yes. I think you have to go...
Peterson: Let's go home with that thought. Thank you for coming folks.
Aanenson: I would recommend that you table that since it was, you did open it for a public hearing.
Sacchet: I recommend to table.
Conrad: Second.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table consideration of amendments to
Section 18-57(q) and Section 20-615 regarding flag lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
48
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
APPROVAL OF MINUTE: Commissioner Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated July 18, 2000 as presented.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: I just want to let you know the next meeting, we do have a subdivision. Next to Springfield.
It's the Pruitt's who are, that outlot on Lyman that was not part of the Springfield development. We are
addressing code amendments. The Witt's will be coming back asking for vacation of the condition of
approval. Before they asked for an appeal of the interpretation. And then Family of Christ.
Peterson: Who are the Witt's again? I can't remember.
Aanenson: ...next meeting, and then you did get a note regarding the November conflict. The first one. I
got one note to cancel the meeting. I'm taking a consensus. Whatever you'd like to do. We can't even
meet under a work session so, unless it's an incredibly full agenda, we're going to try to bump them to the
second meeting in November.
Peterson: Or might that be a good night for a work session.
Aanenson: That's what I say, we can't technically we shouldn't meet because it's election night. That's
what I was thinking too. That'd be a good night but we do have a regular work session scheduled in
October.
Peterson: That's not ordinance. So how can you say technically?
Aanenson: Well I think you're not supposed to formally have an official city meeting.
Peterson: We're not. It's a work session. Come over to my house and have cocktails.
Aanenson: Okay, that'd be fine.
Conrad: Don't we want to watch the results?
Aanenson: Well there you go, that too. And I didn't put, we still need to talk about Chairman but because
we had two people absent tonight, to put that on. Also the prioritizational I'll put in the next packet too.
Ongoing items because we're just a couple people. And Uli, I do have you off`the...
Sacchet: I'm not here next time.
Aanenson: I got that. And just for clarification too. It's 300 square feet for an EAW. Even for an
addition.
Sidney: 300,000.
Aanenson: Correct. Even with an addition so.
Peterson: Anything else?
Conrad: No, let's go home.
49
Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2000
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50