Loading...
PC 1999 12 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 AND TIF DISTRICT 7-1 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. I appreciate you modifying your agenda to consider this item. Before you is a proposed new tax increment financing district. This district is located next to Lake Susan. It's part of the Village on the Pond development. The complex is called the Lake Susan Apartments. This was before you approximately a month and a half, two months ago. It's 162 unit rental apartment complex. Of the 162 units, 33 of the units would be made available for persons who's income does not exceed 50% of median income for our area. The objective of this district is to encourage residential development in an area of the community that has not been utilized to its fullest extent. This property has been vacant for several years. Currently there sits a single family home and a barn on the site. We also are trying to increase the concentration of residential. I think you have included higher densities in this area than what was previously zoned for. It would also improve the tax base. Currently the site is paying approximately $4,000 to $5,000 a year in taxes. Once the development is completed you're looking at an estimate of about $275,000 a year in taxes. We are proposing this tax increment district to provide assistance for those 33 units for a period of approximately 25 years. We believe that the district needs to be in existence for 4 to 5 years to meet that obligation. At that time then we would place the property back on the tax rolls and the $275,000 would then go back to each of the taxing jurisdictions as if it was on the market today. With that I think Nann has shown a site plan for a reminder for the three buildings located over by 101 and Rosemount. And at this time staff is asking that you approve the Attachment #3, Resolution declaring the program, Development District No. 7 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-1 consistent with the plans for the development of Chanhassen as a whole. That this site does meet the zoning and does meet the comprehensive plan for the City of Chanhassen and I would take any questions that the Planning Commission may have at this time. Peterson: Questions of Todd. I only have one of curiosity. What is the median income? Gerhardt: I knew you were going to ask that question. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Peterson: Then you have the answer then. Gerhardt: Don't have an answer. Aanenson: $61,000. That's what we used for the Metropolitan area as far as affordability. $61,000. $61,500 actually. Gerhardt: So for, what was it, for a family of four needed an income of about $35,000 to take advantage of these units. Peterson: Other questions? I'll entertain a motion to approve the resolution. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I just have a question. We're being asked to approve this and we just got it tonight. Are you comfortable doing something that we, I mean I haven't read it. I mean at least shouldn't we maybe just read through it? I mean it's like. Gerhardt: Sure. Blackowiak: The attorney, if he ever saw me sign something I hadn't read, he'd kill me so I don't know ifI can approve something I haven't read even though in spirit I may agree with the goal but to have something set before me that I haven't had a chance to look at, I don't know if I'm feeling real comfortable. Gerhardt: Chairman, ifI could suggest that your motion be contingent on any questions that you may have, that you can direct them back to staff or attend the public hearing in front of the City Council when they approve this on December 13th. Again, I apologize for coming in front of you at an early moment but the developer is trying to yet get into the ground this year. We've been fast tracking this entire process to allow him to do that. There are monies from Metropolitan Council that have been contributed as a part of this development. There are also monies from Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency. So we are trying to fast track this situation and I do apologize for the notice. Again the Planning Commission's role in this is to find that the development is consistent with the development of the community as a whole, the comprehensive plan and the zoning. You have approved the development from a site plan standpoint and with that it must meet the conditions that you placed on it. So I would suggest as an alternative for the last minute presentation on this, that if you take it and read it and if you have questions, at that time maybe we can address them at the public hearing process. Or you know if(b), we could establish a special meeting next week if you want on that too. I just wanted to try to get this item before you before the public hearing on the 13th and since you were meeting tonight. Peterson: As I've read the cover sheet, I don't see anything atypical at all to any other TIF districts that we've done on specific properties within that. Is that a safe assumption? Gerhardt: That's correct. Again, the State has put this as a requirement when approving a TIF districts that the Planning Commissions review them as consistent with the development as a whole. There are communities where I think they've had problems where developments have 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 come in where they don't have planning commissions or that they have circumvented their own zoning ordinances. We are not doing that tonight and the basis for that is that you have given this development site plan approval. Peterson: Thank you. Again I would ask for a motion to approve the resolution. Is there one? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the resolution declaring the program Development District No. 7 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole and I'd add a condition or note that the staff pass along any additional comments that members of the commission have to council before they consider this. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Conrad: What does it take to pass this? A simple majority? Peterson: I would assume it'd be simple majority. Other discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve the resolution declaring the program Development District No. 7 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole with the note that staff pass along any commissioners conunents they receive to City Council before the public hearing on December 13, 1999. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak who opposed and Conrad abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Blackowiak: Simply because I'd like to read it before I, part of the condition says that we've read it and it's consistent with city's plans and development and it very well may be. I'm assuming it is but I'd just like to double check. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 25 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 40 HILL STREET~ ROBERT FLYNN. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this report. Peterson: Questions of stafl2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. The logic of approving, I need a reason other than a truck that's bigger than the garage. What is the reason that we can stand and say the next one that comes in that looks like this should be accepted or? Kirchofl2 Well staff did think about that. Just allowing him to rebuild the garage as is. The same size, 22 x 28 but if he can't fit a vehicle in it, there's not a real point in rebuilding it. So it is deteriorating. It does need to be rebuilt so that's the logic that staff used. Conrad: You've got to give me something more than that. Is the physical, the total square footage is going up? I don't care about. Kirchofl5 The size is going up but. Conrad: The setback seems to be okay considering the neighborhood. That's fine but. Kirchofl5 He won't be creating a new neighborhood setback. A setback for the properly. It's just maintaining what's already there. And he does have to meet the height requirement, 20 feet for accessory structures. And there's a size requirement so he's well under the. Peterson: Part of what I think she's saying is that the size is needed for the vehicle also. Is the vehicle size enough of a component difference? I don't know. Conrad: Yeah and you take this to the next situation. For a boat. A boat's bigger than the garage. Do you allow the garage to be, I need something to hang my hat on. Peterson: I had a question also. Is it improving a neighborhood because of the quality of the current structure? Conrad: That's a good, and is it? Kirchofl5 Sure. Why not? Peterson: Well it is deteriorating. She noted that earlier so I think that's the reason compelling it. Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Robert Flynn: Yes, my name's Robert Flynn. My address is 40 Hill Street and I guess I would say anything further than what Cindy said other than it just to emphasize, the deteriorating part, it is, I mean squirrels have eaten into the soffits. The electrical is not up to code. I had a certified, I just purchased the house. The inspector went through it. The electrical is not right. So I would be improving the neighborhood, and ifI can't do it then basically I can't, I have to park my vehicle outside all the time and I don't think that's, of course is not great for the vehicle but also for the neighborhood. I mean I think people appreciate having you know to park in your garage and I wouldn't be able to do that. So that was the, you know like I said, I'm not increasing the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 width or anything else other than the depth just to be able to fit it in so. Other than that I think Cindy covered it pretty well. Do you want to ask me anything? Conrad: I'd like to. I'm searching for the right reason to say this is, you know you're asking for. Robert Flynn: Well the right reason is so I can use the garage. So the garage is to park a vehicle. I can't park my vehicle there right now. And as a side light, I'm improving the neighborhood by doing it. Conrad: That's what I can look at and you're doing that how? By just new construction. Robert Flynn: Yes. Conrad: Same type of materials? Robert Flynn: Yeah, same type. Cedar siding on the outside, just like what's there now. But it won't be in the deteriorated state like it is now. Conrad: There's no negative that would be staff'? Kirchofl2 No. He won't be creating a new neighborhood setback and that was foremost in staff's mind. That is he creating a new neighborhood setback? Are they all at 30 feet and he wants to go to 20 and you know are other neighbors going to come in next year and want a variance because the neighbor got one. Conrad: It just has to be clear in my mind that I'm not doing this because the car is bigger. That car, big car doesn't for me do it. Robert Flynn: Well if the garage was built back in 1960 and it's only you know, I don't know, I guess it's a pretty standard vehicle that I'm driving that many other people drive too. It's not, I'm not putting in an RV or something like that. Conrad: It's reasonable. Robert Flynn: Right. Right. So I think right now ifI put the vehicle in there you know, the garage door might clear it by a quarter inch but actually I think it would hit it. And you'd have no room to get around behind or you know. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Robert Flynn: Thank you. Peterson: Can I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Blackowiak moved, Sidney 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. Burton moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Your thoughts commissioners. Kind: Sure. I think since the garage needs to be replaced, it's reasonable to build a garage that's more useable by today's size standards so I would support approving the variance. Burton: I agree with Deb. I would just add that if we enforce the ordinance he would not have a garage that he could park his vehicle in and I don't think that's acceptable, in Minnesota particularly. Sidney: ... applicant needs to have a new garage... Peterson: I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-20 for a 27 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-20 for a 27 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 135 CHOCTAW CIRCLE~ PAUL WEATHERBY. Public Present: 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Name Address Kris and Paul Weatherby Bill Shimp Harlan Swanson Tom Randall 135 Choctaw Circle 155 Choctaw Circle 131 Choctaw Circle 125 Choctaw Circle Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Conrad: Yeah, what's the difference here between a bigger car and a bigger table? Kirchofl2 The difference here is they would be creating a new setback for the neighborhood and they already have a deck and they can put the table on the ground if they want. They don't have to put it on the deck. Peterson: How big is the deck currently, do we know? Kirchofl2 It varies... Peterson: Put the other one back up there please. Other questions of stafl'? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Cindy, do you think that the position of the house on the properly would be considered a hardship because that limits where they can put the deck? Kirchofl2 Well since the deck already exists on the site, no. Kind: Even though it's a very narrow deck? I mean it does limit where they put it. Kirchofl2 Yes, but I believe they do have a reasonable use because they do have a deck on the site now. And they could just rebuild that. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I have a question I guess. What... deck size? Kirchofl2 That's hard to say. I know there are a lot of 10 foot decks. Sidney: In width? Kirchofl2 Yeah, in depth. I mean I see some that are bigger than this and some that are smaller than this. Just merely a square or rectangular going out a patio door. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Paul Weatherby: Hello, I'm Paul Weatherby at 135 Choctaw Circle. The reason that we are applying for a variance is that the house has multiple levels and that in part limits the, our ability to put a decent sized table. I think one of the commission members visited the house and while it's a large, if you look at square footage, yes it's a large deck but really the fact, project this. The fact that there are a couple of bump outs here it limits the placement of a table. If you have, if you ever tried to seat with a family of 5 or 6 people at a table, a 9 x 10 foot area just doesn't, I mean by the time you get a table and chairs around it, there's no room to move and we're applying for the variance to have a larger area to be able to have a table where we can, we use the deck a lot and we eat out and enjoy the view of the lake while we're outside. And we're hoping to have a large enough table to sit comfortably and have room to move around if you need to, for traffic flow. The fact that there are a lot of doors leading out and that would block. I think one of the staff proposed plans that are extending this area out where you have the same problem of blocking the doorway here. And we felt that this was a place that's away from doors that we could have an area where we were, where there would be room to move without blocking traffic flow. And as far as the setback, I mean the plan here, it does abut an outlot, not the lake itself and this area, actually on this end of the development the outlot is three times as wide as it is farther down at the south end of the outlot. I believe that the outlot is only about 48 feet wide some 500 feet south of this area, whereas here it's from 125 to 155. I mean basically outside this point here is 150 feet of woods. I mean the outlot is completed wooded. It would be a point that's not visible from any other house in the neighborhood or anywhere for that matter. The traffic flow along the outlot, what little there is, foot traffic, there is an area. There's a significant grade down to a flat area by the lake on this in about this position here. And there's a path of sorts that runs about 80 feet or so from the lake. So it's, I mean I really don't believe that from the area where the foot traffic is you could tell that we had, if we were to build a new deck, that it would be any appreciably different from down there other than just the appearance of the deck. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Thank you. Paul Weatherby: Thank you. Peterson: A motion and a second for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sidney 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. Bill Shimp: My name is Bill Shimp. I'm a neighbor a couple of doors down and I'm the President this year of the Lotus Lakes Homeowners Association. There's a long distance, I don't know ifI can reference this. Between this deck and Lotus Lake and this large outlot area is part of the commonly held property of the homeowners association, which consists of about 42 families. There are only three houses on this side, one of which is mine, and so the foot traffic 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 that Paul referenced is very infrequent and this is, he's correct in saying that this isn't anything that one would even notice. I and a number of the other neighbors have looked at this and whereas our bylaws would require a vote on our part to, if it passes this hoop, through this body, would require a vote to okay this as well. My read of the neighborhood, in a preliminary fashion I could say is that there would be literally no opposition to this. And we who would use that area would be supportive. I off'er that as a preliminary feeling and like I say we would need to take that to a vote but... Tom Randall: My name is Tom Randall. I live at 125 which is iwo doors from the properly in question and I'm going to make this real simple. As far as I'm concerned no one, except perhaps a few ducks out on the lake, might be able to see this deck because of the heavy wooded surroundings to it. And being iwo doors away from it, I can't see their back yard. Again because of the woods factor and because of the angle of the house. It's set back considerably from the road so the back end of it is out of sight pretly much for I think anybody in that immediate vicinity. I guess in the winter time, the foot traffic on the path could potentially see some activity on the deck but I don't think there will be a lot of activity on the deck in the winter time probably, unless they're masochistic and they like to eat out in the cold or whatever but, so in the summer time when they would be using it, it's just too dense for anyone really to see anything there. So I'm here in support of their being allowed to obtain a variance for that deck that they want to do. Peterson: Anyone else? Harlan Swanson: Harlan Swanson. I live at 131 Choctaw Circle, next to the house that is being discussed. I know from my own home I cannot even see the deck, again because of the way the home is situated and most of us did buy into that Choctaw Circle area so we could enjoy the outdoors. And I have been on that deck in the past. It's a narrow deck. It would not be useable. I don't think anybody on the Planning Commission would want to put a table on a same size or similar sized deck to be used for company. There definitely is a need for a larger deck. And I guess I can't say anything else. I did send a letter to the Planning Commission endorsing it before you. You should have that in front of you someplace and I do support the variance. Peterson: Anyone else? Motion to close. Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners any thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll discuss. I think that the placement of the house creates a hardship for the placement of the deck and because the properly abuts an outlot that it's not encroaching upon any neighbors and the rear setback is theoretically quite large when you consider how far it is from the lake. And the deck itself does need to be replaced. It's in disrepair I guess. I don't know what the word for that, and I think since they're going to replace the deck, they should replace it with something that's desirable and useable by today's standards. Peterson: Anyone else comments? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December t, 1999 Burton: Mr. Chairman. I'm on the fence as to whether it would qualify for a variance or not, but the fact that it's a small encroachment with low to no visibility and pretty much unanimous neighborhood support, I think all those weigh in favor of tilting it towards approval of the request. Peterson: Anyone else? Sidney: I guess have some feelings that I would like to recommend approval. However I guess the staff report... Peterson: With that request, other commissioners comments. Conrad: This seems like a no impact issue, that's the trouble. I can't think of a harm on this one. Maybe staff can help me. As our side yard, rear lot yard setbacks are typically meant to protect the neighbors. We don't have neighbors with an outlot. We do have the whole community that's in that outlot. So the next one, you know you always play it again. The next one that comes in where the, it is a significant encroachment. If it was a 5, this would be a piece of cake if it was 5 feet. I'd have, you know 5, I have no problem with that. But as you get into the t0 or 15, whatever this is, all of a sudden it becomes, it's not just a close deal. It's a little bit further and there's more. So I'm, you've got to play the next one that comes in. It doesn't look like the neighbors will be coming in and say look at what you just did for them. I'm going to build a deck that's 40 feet long and it doesn't look like we're stuck with a neighborhood issue. It doesn't look that way. But it's the next outlot that somebody is within, it may not be situated this way. There may not be tOO, you know we're not screwing up Lotus Lake by allowing this, but it is the next lot, outlot that comes in that's somebody's behind and wants to do something and maybe it's totally open. Maybe it's not this configuration and how do you justify turning them down? I don't mind this particular request. And I think I've been able to talk myself into the situation. I think staff's recommendation is appropriate. But I think here's a case where we may choose to change the recommendation simply because we're looking at the situation itself and in this situation it is justified. Not justifiable but not harmful. Peterson: To key on your comment Ladd, I think that as I look at this, this is an excellent example of why we're here. We're here to interpret the setbacks and the variances as to how they relate to each individual circumstance presented. I think staff again is proper. I think they're obliged to present us with the facts. We are obliged to interpret it to each situation and I think that's what we're doing. I know that this is not a safety issue. If we change it. It's not an optics issue. Then it presents itself as a compelling reason... I think that's what we're here to do. Is it a reasonable variance or not? Conrad: I think it is. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, the only other comment I'd like to make, and this has to do with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association is if we do choose to go ahead and approve this, I would t0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 suggest a condition that if it is not approved by the homeowners association, that this approval terminate. I don't know if we can do that or not. Kate, help me? Aanenson: I don't know if you can tie the two issues together. Your findings stand on their own. There's really not a nexus I don't believe. Blackowiak: I mean I'm saying that. Aanenson: ... point but I'm not sure that we could tie the two together. If your findings stand. Peterson: I think it's an interesting request but I can't. Aanenson: I don't know either. Peterson: I don't want to handcuff staff by having to follow up on it. Blackowiak: Right. I'm saying that if for some reason it goes back to the neighbors and the neighborhood decides you know what, this is just not what we want, then I don't want to give any properly carte blanche to go ahead and encroach 15 feet, you know with any time that they choose. So I'm just saying that you know that I want it understood that they would be approved of this specific plan and I don't know. Aanenson: Let me clarify that. We do not enforce homeowners association covenants so let's say that we get an approval and they don't and they decide to take action, we would be separate interests in that so to be clear on that. If he was to take his own action against them. Blackowiak: Right, no I certainly understand that. It was a thought. Peterson: It was a good thought. Can I entertain a motion? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-19 for a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the reconstruction of a deck with the following condition, number 1. The deck footprint must be as shown on the Weatherby's deck plan detail proposed structure dated November 4, 1999. And just before it's seconded, the reason I add that is, I don't want the deck to expand along that whole 30 foot, or 15 foot now variance. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: Yeah, just a little bit. So the next house that comes in from Lotus Lake Estates that wants to get within 15 feet of the outlot, we pretty much have to. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Peterson: Why? Kind: We'll take a look at it case by case. Peterson: We'll have to evaluate the circumstances as we did in this situation and. Conrad: Craig, your rationale was here that there was no visual impact? Peterson: No visual. There's no safety issues with setbacks and. Conrad: No runoff impact to the lake which is. Peterson: I don't want to shrug away from the responsibility. We're going to have to interpret but if we just go by the basic ordinances and setback ordinances, then staff can do it. I'm spinning in opposite way. I used to be much more conservative but I think I'm, I mean we're obligated to interpret this. Conrad: You're also obligated to forecast the future. So that you understand the rationale for doing this so that the next one that's different doesn't have an automatic. That's my only comment. Aanenson: Can I just add to that? I would recommend that if that's your rationale for basing it, that you make that one of your findings and that's what I just heard you repeating. That would be our recommendation is that that would be the reason you granted it for those specific reasons so then we have something to fall back on. Conrad: I think that's real important. I think what Craig said was right. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99- 19 for a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the reconstruction of a deck subject to the following condition: The deck footprint must be as shown on the Weatherby's deck plan detail proposed structure dated November 4, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Also note that a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the Board's decision. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TM STREET, EAST OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Kathy & Larry Schroeder Dan Burke Dan Blake 7720 Frontier Trail 225 West 77th Street 306 West 78th Street Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: That begs the question. It doesn't seem like enough. We're growing and reducing parking. There's a lack of logic. A1-Jafl) Right now, and we've been monitoring this every time we drive by. It's not scientific the way we have been monitoring the parking lot, but I have not been able to see more than 30 cars at any given time and I'm talking about the times when kids are dropped off or picked up and at that time the teachers are usually at school as well. So there isn't a parking problem out there today. Peterson: We'll double the size. A1-Jafl) We're going to double the size. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to us that with the ultimate expansion of this site the parking will still be adequate. Aanenson: Can I just add one thing? The original use was for the church, which is going to a school use with different standards and I think that's really why we're allowing it to be. The church had an overlap... Peterson: Are you inferring or stating that they have convinced you that 84's going to be enough? We have to do that now because we can't start this and assume that 84 is going to be enough. A1-Jafl) One of the things that we have talked about is activities. Evening activities that will potentially generate additional traffic for a concert or a game or after school activities. We have a parking lot right across the street and then the Medical Arts parking lot is available also. In the evening those parking lots are pretty much empty. So is there an alternative? Yes there is but at this time with this proposal, with the classroom addition, there is enough parking. I don't have, we don't have enough information at this time to tell you what the ordinance requires with the ultimate expansion, but it's going to be pretty close. One of the things we talked about when we were discussing old town was having the addition come in this direction to cover the parking lot. However, this would mean losing more parking spaces and there was an option to put the parking on this side. We wanted to separate the parking, vehicular area from the residential area so, and it 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 would have also meant cutting down large number of trees in this area so that is one of the reasons why the addition came to the northeast side. Sharmin AI-Jaff continued with her staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin, did you want to include a condition about the size of the block? Al-Jarl) Condition number 19 reads the applicant shall use a smooth face block not to exceed 4 x 12 inches. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm sorry. On the variance part, my understanding. Just make sure I've got it right. The City's asking that they move it closer to the street. The applicant. Aanenson: Well I think it was mutual. Burton: It's mutual? Okay. Okay. Aanenson: And we believe it's consistent with the neighborhood standard. Burton: Okay. A couple questions about some of the conditions. On condition 14, we talked about the detailed parking and built in lighting plan. Is it necessary to add language that says that which complies with city ordinance requirements at the end of that? Or is it. A1-Jafl) Sure. Burton: Condition 16 talks about a fence. Aanenson: Can we go back to that one moment? Burton: Yeah. Aanenson: I think too, based on where this is, I think they want to have something that's residential in character too. That was one of the things we talked about in the old town plan as far as height. So it may be something you want to look at in a different phase because they're not doing that parking lot. No changes at this time to the parking lot so that may appear in a different phase. Is that correct? So that might be something, that's a good point. I think that's something that we'd want to look at. The neighborhood situation. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Burton: On the condition 16's talking about fencing around the play area, and I wasn't sure or I didn't know if the City had an ordinance dealing with fencing around play areas. I think this came up at a recent one too and I can't remember what happened. Aanenson: Chain link is acceptable. Burton: But do we have an ordinance on that or no? No? Aanenson: The only ordinance on fencing is if it's adjacent to a street where you may block sight line and that's generally where it's more opaque. So under the circumstances I don't believe. Burton: Sorry to keep rattling offthese questions here but the, we have the right-in, right-out suggestion by engineering and it looks like they had incorporated that but I don't think it's a condition and I'm just wondering kind of out loud here if that should be a condition. Al-Jarl) It's not part of the, they're not planning to put in the right-in, right-out with Phase I. Burton: They're not? I'm looking at a map or drawing here that shows right-in, right-out right there. A1-Jafl) Yeah, it's part of the ultimate master plan. At this point with Phase I, the only change that's taking place as far as the driveways go is closing off the driveway, the service driveway off of West 78th and putting in a new driveway off of Frontier Trail. Burton: Yeah, I guess I have a question for engineering as to whether we should require it at this point with the addition of the Phase I here that it be right-in, right-out. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I put it in the staff report just to make everybody aware of the overall master plan. How it was going to impact traffic and that we foresee that a right-in, right-out would be acceptable at that location of West 78th Street. It's my understanding that there are no improvements or changes going to happen to the existing parking lot out there so at this time it would not be appropriate or necessary to include that as a condition. We just wanted to make the applicant aware and the commissioners aware that sometime down the road it will happen. Burton: Okay. Kind: Mr. Chairman, while we're talking to engineering I have a question about that removal of that existing drive. Would the applicant be required to get rid of that curb cut that's on West 78th and replace it with a regular curb? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, that's correct. We would require a full restoration of the boulevard and curb along the street. Similar to what's out. Kind: Should that be a condition? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Hempel: Typically we require a construction and right-of-way permit any time they're working out in the city's right-of-way and we would address it through that method. Kind: Okay, thanks. Hempel: Good point though, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: A question... I guess in past applications when we've had a demolition we've had a condition stating that the applicant should obtain... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I don't think I can address that one. It's more of a building issue. They may require some sort of a demolition or removal of the modular units so. Sidney: Correct. Do you think that's redundant to... Aanenson: I think it puts them on notice. That's fine. You can just leave it open and say secure any necessary permits. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have one Mr. Chairman. Ultimate buildout shows a 43.2% hard surface coverage compared with 65% under ordinance. What are they at right now and what do you feel about 43%? Is that? Al-Jarl) It's in compliance with ordinance so they exceed what ordinance requires by 20% so it's truly not an issue. Blackowiak: Just for some reason to me it just looked like it was. Al-Jarl) More than that? Blackowiak: Yes. Much more than that. Al-Jarl) It is for the play area and then you have all of the green space around it. Blackowiak: Okay, good. It looked deceptive. The next question, I think you characterized the sidewalk along Frontier as being substandard. Would this be an opportunity when the Chapel Hill connects from West 78th to Frontier to do some upgrading at the time of the demolition? Because you know that there's probably going to be further degradation of the sidewalk when you've got heavy machinery going across and that type of thing. Do we need to address that as a condition? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Al-Jarl) When I went out there three times to really look at what are we going to lose in the process, there are some mature trees that add so much character to that area. So it's a choice between an upgrade sidewalk or mature trees. Aanenson: Let's clarify upgrade. Talking width. There might be some.., that are damaged but as far as making it the standard width of 5 feet, that would change the character by the loss of the trees. It's our recommendation narrow. There's some substandard areas that's something else we can look at. Blackowiak: Okay, I was thinking it was just sort of in general substandard. Aanenson: Well we can certainly look at that and make that recommendation. Blackowiak: About another condition. Do we want to add a condition that the modular building seemed to be removed upon completion or is that addressed in a prior condition? Aanenson: I think it goes back to what LuAnn was saying and we're just going to cover that by adding a condition that secure any necessary building permits. Blackowiak: So that covers the removal of the modular buildings then? Al-Jarl) On the Phase I sheet that shows what they are going to accomplish within the first phase, they are showing that they are removing those modular buildings. That's why we didn't put it down as a condition. Blackowiak: Okay. I just didn't want them to move them and not remove them so. And I think that's it for me, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Music room backs up to the neighborhood so how do we manage sound? A1-Jafl~ One of the neighbors says it's there now. Conrad: Is there special acoustics in that part of the building? Are there doors that should, we have to manage that and it doesn't matter if it's there now or not. We just have to manage that. It's a bigger, I'm assuming it's a bigger music area and it's more important and blah, blah, blah. So that has to be managed for future neighbors, or the current neighbors. Going back to something that was said, Kate. You talked about condition 16 and the fence. Your condition 16 says show the type offence. Staff report said decorative but we can't enforce decorative, is that what you said? Aanenson: No, I said a chain link is permitted currently. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Conrad: It is permitted but decorative was what the staff report said we'd like. Al-Jarl) Correct and it... Conrad: Chain link, my definition chain link is not decorative. Let's make that real clear. Aanenson: Like wrought iron or something like that. A1-Jafl) That we encouraged. Conrad: Encourage but that's not in the staff report so I'm assuming we can't, we can't enforce that. A1-Jafl5 That's true. Conrad: We can't? A1-Jafl5 We can't enforce it. Conrad: The service road to the north, how is that buffered from the neighborhood or do we treat that like an alley or what is the, what are our standards for the service road that goes in there Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I really didn't look in too great of detail on that part of it yet being that it's a future phase. I guess I apologize for not addressing that. Conrad: Okay, it will be an issue when it comes in. I like the footprint a great deal, and you're not asking for whether I like this or not right now but I like it a whole bunch. I think there's some really good things. What I don't like are not part of what we're approving tonight, and I don't get involved with design but I really don't think that, and I think the applicant's going to have to persuade me in the future that this is really fitting the neighborhood. I like the south elevation. I think the elevations that are working for the city are really good and those elevations we can approve tonight. I think those work. In terms of our conditions, fitting into the neighborhood. Making it work with the neighborhood. I don't buy it yet and somebody's going to have to, I don't need to belabor the point. I'm making the point right now. That the east elevation, if that doesn't fit to the neighborhood other than a low profile but everything else says it's really different from the rest of the neighborhood. I like the trees. I think you're doing the right job protecting the trees on that site. I don't think the chain link fencing is doing us any good over there other than we need fencing for those areas but my point is when it comes back, I'm going to be real critical of the north elevation. Anything that's facing the neighborhoods. They don't look to me today like they're fitting. Okay. I think the elevations that are being approved tonight fit. They fit the busy downtown. They fit the commercial side of our business. Those are okay. They're fine. There are constraints but I don't, what I'm seeing in terms of the long range is not acceptable. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Aanenson: Can staff just comment on that real quick? I guess that's part of what Sharmin was trying to frame up is that what we're doing tonight is setting in place some other, you know trying to unify the theme and location of the addition so while that first phase may work, it has an implication for the rest of the site. Conrad: Okay Kate but. Aanenson: But I guess I'd ask you to evolve that a little bit further. Conrad: Well you've done a nice job or the applicant has on the south elevation. There's some break-up. There's some elements that are reflecting roof type. Not a flat design. You know we've got a flat roof here. We're putting a flat roof in and that doesn't reflect the neighborhood. You break it up on the south elevation that faces West 78th Street. I think that's good. And so you've got the flat but you've broken it up with some architectural detail which you do on all other commercial projects that come in to this city. Then you take the north elevation that faces the residential area and you're saying well it's because it's their back yard we may be able to let this work. And because maybe it's probably down 6 feet or from whatever their elevation is, it may work. I could be persuaded on that but it's not very pretty. Doesn't fit right now so based on how you set me up in the staff report, what we're trying to do in the old town, it doesn't work. On those elevations so I would be critical on those elevations. I want it to work. I want it to fit into the neighborhood. I want those additional details. They may even be non-functional which I don't like but they may be non-functional but they have to reflect or echo the neighborhood and maybe it's just going to be a different staff and applicant presentation at that point in time to show me how it will break up the visual and trees break up the visual and that might work for me. But again, I don't want the applicant rubber stamping the long range future because I'm not here. I think the staff and the applicant is presenting on the brick, I think that's fine. But I think we just need to take another look at those lwo elevations in the future. Peterson: I feel like we're doing our pre-vote. Conrad: Yeah, and I'm sorry about that. Peterson: No, that's fine. Because I felt, my comment to Sharmin before you made yours was, I'm not convinced I like any of the elevations. I think, as I looked at them and whether it's the presentation to me or whether it is missing something. I think it's probably a little bit of both. I think after your comments Ladd I look at the south elevation and I think, I do like that the best. I don't know whether I'm all the way there yet because the gymnasium's still a lot of building there. Without, and I can't, with the drawings that I've got, I really can't get a good feel as to whether it's broken up enough or whether we can do more in there. But I didn't feel good about what I saw and I don't know whether it's the drawings that aren't there or I just can't put the pieces together yet. But something is missing. I don't know what. I will in the next 20 minutes. One technical question Sharmin. One of the materials you passed around was the roof material. Is that, is the roofing? Kind: No. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Peterson: Yeah it was. Burgundy. Kind: Oh that's the standing seams. A1-Jafl~ Canopies. Peterson: Just over the entrances right? Part of what I didn't like, and I couldn't picture it again was working with the asphalt and the straight roof. It seems like it's kind of plopped in there but again it's tough to visualize it, particularly on a small drawing but anyway. Pictures are good. A1-Jafl~ Please keep in mind this is just a mask. There aren't any windows on this. Landscaping is not shown. There are a lot of things missing. Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name and address please. Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Dan Blake. I'm on the Board at Chapel Hill Academy. I guess our address there is 306 West 78th Street. Sometimes called 7707 Great Plains Boulevard. One of those two. Chapel Hill Academy is a 28 year old organization or institution, a school. It's been in the southwest metro all of that time but in various locations. We started leasing the Old St. Hubert's building partially in 1997, fully then in 1998 and we have purchased the building now in 1999. Chapel Hill Academy is a kindergarten through 8th grade non-affiliated Christian school. We currently have about 323 students. That's about 200 families. We, our vision is to grow to somewhere between 425 and 450 students which would be two classes of each grade. Right now we have two classes in some of the younger grades. One class in the older grades. As I said, we've been using this properly for a couple years now and I think, anyway I haven't heard differently that we've been very good neighbors so far. What we've submitted, as Sharmin explained, is a master site plan. It was a requirement of our interim use permit. It was a good exercise for us to go through though to kind of forced us to go through the steps maybe sooner than we would have to think about what is our needs for amount of building on the properly. How do uses flow together and where ought they be because otherwise we likely would have said, well we need to add something so let's build it and then figure out what to build next. This way by going to a master plan really helps us work towards a long term goal. And our long term goal is to accommodate those students. The things we need to accommodate our students are classroom space and gymnasium space. The master plan, this model, if we can get that back. Classroom wing. Gymnasium area. Talking about Phase I, but I guarantee you Phase IFs going to be right behind, only because we're not quite sure how much money we have and exactly how things go together. Are we not talking about the details of every phase but it will be very shortly that we're going to be back talking about at least the gym space. Some of the other parts of this fulfill much more of a want than a need to our organization. The current site, you know you're obviously all aware of it, has a lot of history. As Sharmin mentioned, the building was built, I have a ton of photos here and I'm not going to put them up on the screen. I don't know how well they'd show but if anybody wants to look at them we can. The building was built in a few phases with many different materials and architectural styles so 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 that really represented a challenge on how to add to it and how to come up with a long term plan that fit things in. So when I hear a couple of comments, or a comment about like the existing roof. Well it's there. It's difficult to say well we'll just tear it down. We'll straighten the flat roof to match the rest or make everything else. It's not a pitched roof in the sense that most of the architecturally pitched roofs exist and that it really doesn't have enough slope to it. I don't think at least to totally fit in to a theme of pitched roofs. You know we have the cemetery across the street from part of it. The Old St. Hubert's church building. Those are the kinds of things, strip center to the west. The Country Clean store and start getting into the apartment buildings as you go along the south side. A wide variety of things around us to try to relate to so you know it does become an interesting challenge to figure out how to make the various parts of the building fit together with the surroundings. We're talking about Phase I today, but it's critical for us to get a strong feeling towards the master plan because if we don't have a strong feeling towards the master plan, we would not be comfortable going forward with Phase I not knowing what the rest of the phases are because they're all integral parts and like I said, they'd likely follow soon behind once we get the classroom and we put the gym space right up to the gym is very old. Very non- conducive I guess to the classrooms surrounding it. And so those are what we've identified as our immediate needs. So you know whatever input we have towards the master plan I think is important. One, for us to hear and two, to be on the record because we're going to have some amount of reliance on what you're telling me. If things aren't okay, we want to hear that. I'll address some of the specific comments I did hear. Parking. My interpretation working with our architect, interpretation we believe we need 70 parking spaces. This shows 84. I think by nature elementary schools don't need much parking but never have enough for a big event and then you look at well where does it spill over? I think staff kind of addressed how that would work. So it really is the change of use from a church to a school that's driving the parking down and making that acceptable. Second specific item that I heard and will comment towards is the relationship to the properties to the north. Again I have some photos but those properties sit anywhere from 8 to 13 feet higher than what our, the base of our building. And are full of very large mature evergreens and deciduous trees. We've met with those neighbors, the ones that chose, or were interested in meeting with us and talked to them, I don't believe we have issues with those neighbors to the north as to how this building is proposed. You know there is a building there now so yes, we're adding to it but there is a building there now so it's not as though it's a new use being plugged in there. We do have one particular house to the east that is obviously very sensitive to what goes on because that house is located very close to the existing building and as well as anything that we've proposed and the Schroeders are here tonight and may choose to comment to that regard. But I think that's where the critical side relative to the adjacency to a residential but I think one of the things I would ask you as planning commissioners to remember is this piece of property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned for an office or institutional use. I understand the need for transitions and respect for adjacent uses, but I think we have to be careful not to try to apply residential standards just because it's next to residential. We're getting, we get commercial really fast as we go next door and there will be less of a concern with transition the further we go. And so I think that comes into the overall play. The last thing, I guess I'd like to ask if anybody has any questions before I talk about exterior materials because I'd like to address site plan or building footprint issues if that would be okay. Peterson: Questions so far? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Dan Blake: Okay, that's just fine. I want to talk a little bit specifically about exterior materials and I know that this is an important issue to the city and it's important to us as well. Our obligation to comply with the ordinances to be compatible with their surroundings and use appropriate materials. There isn't anything specific in the ordinance that says small brick, big brick, block, stone, glass, whatever it be. If we were in Eden Prairie, it would be easier because their ordinance is more specific. So our charge is to be compatible. There is very little brick in the residential next to us. Mostly siding. A little bit of stucco. The residential to the, the apartment buildings as you go to the west, and the closest one is stucco and brick on the comers. As you go further beyond that it's wood siding with brick. The adjacent commercial uses are siding or, the visible side we see of the strip mall.., across the street, which I think is a fairly unfair comparison for anybody to try to match. That building was built some 100 years ago or so. We struggle at Chapel Hill with what can we afford to pay to provide an education to students. We tried to come up with a plan that was mostly functional but hopefully wasn't distasteful. You know there's architectural elements, some of these little metal roofs that stick out there, that serve absolutely no function. We know that that was important to the city to add those kinds of things to the picture. They cost money. That means that something else doesn't happen. Brick versus block is a big dollar item. Look around at what's being built. The use of colored rock face block is very common these days. Certainly more in industrial applications but you have it in your downtown. Not whole buildings but you have portions of it. The new or relatively new Waconia High School is built completely out of rough face block in an 8 x 16. The big picture that Sharmin holds up, that's what a block, that's the size of a block. You have that size block in your town all over the place. The new CSM office industrial building on Dell Road that is adjacent to single family is being built out of that kind of material. It adds a lot to our cost and it means if we don't go that route, it means we have to reconsider what we can do. How much building we can build. How fast we can grow. And whether we can even, whether we ought to even try to exist in this location. I really do understand the city's desire to start something that is very desirable in this location and that this is, sets a trend not just for the rest of our building but for any other redevelopment in this end of downtown. And if somebody wanted to contribute the difference, we'd love to put all brick on the building. And maybe we would end up doing it anyway even if you approved a rock face block scenario because we don't know how much money we can raise yet to do that, and I'd certainly be willing to make a commitment to try to make that work. But I doubt that I can come back later and say well now go to block if we've agreed on a brick material for now so. My first choice would be that we approve, that the City approves a, allows the 8 x 16 block material, rock face block with the color schemes as shown. And that we make a commitment to try and figure out how to accommodate as much of the smaller materials as possible. And thoroughly investigate the cost of such. Let me just explain a little bit on a construction side. Generally, especially on a gym wall like this, generally that wall is a masonry construction. IfI build it out of rock face block I build a block wall. The outside is the outside, the inside's the inside. IfI am required to put brick on it, I build a block wall and then I build a brick wall next to the block wall. The brick costs almost as much as the block and it serves no purpose other than decorative, which is a purpose certainly. But the block is structural. Becomes a structural and an outside finish in one piece as opposed to lwo walls next to each other. And that's why the cost is so much higher. It's not the cost of these bricks versus these blocks. It's lwo walls versus one wall. As an alternative I would be willing I guess to off'er, if we were to 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 look at, you can go back to this picture. We could go with rock face block in the reddish color and along the bottom, all along the side.., and we'll go with the brick and the lighter color on the side that.., along 78th Street... back wall, the side wall and the back and then the back around the building be the block material with the color scheme to match so that from a distance you can't tell. But from close up you obviously can and I think that's true and a worthy point that from a distance it's difficult to tell block versus brick. With the types of materials available to day, but obviously from up close it's a different feel. I know that your job as a city is to try to set flavor and tone for the, what's best for the city as a whole. We just have to be careful to not regulate things out of existence. You know there's a building there now. It's built out of 4 or 5 different materials. I don't know if you consider it an eyesore or not. I guess we thought it was okay enough to buy it. But that's what's there. It doesn't make the newspaper that this is just a horrible building so as much as we'd like to build the ideal, maybe other alternatives don't have to be bad. I guess I'll leave it there. That was a lot and answer any questions anybody has. Peterson: Questions? Thank you. Kind: Actually I do have a question. I was waiting for Ladd. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the applicant or for you. I was wondering if you considered bus turn around areas, having that be separate at all on this master plan? I know that we're just, we're looking at the master plan and specifically Phase I but. Dan Blake: Well the bus turn around or the concept was really what drove the additional parking lot connection to West 78th Street. It allows a bus to turn in right, follow the edge of the building. We do have some busing. Not a lot of busing. Most of our stufl's still carpooling. We only get busing from the District 212. 112. People and I think it's one or two buses total. So it's not like a typical elementary school where there's 12 buses lined up. We have one or two, so that's why we wanted to create a smooth flow for the buses to drop off at the curb side. Why the sidewalk plazas and then straight back out and form a loop so not internal to the parking lot but we try to create a nice loop for that. Kind: My concern is people who are doing the car pooling, fighting with buses to get to that curb but you anticipate future use won't even be that much busing or? Dan Blake: We don't think there will be a lot more busing because it's not available, it's not really available to us from outside the district. Our students are spread around Eden Prairie, Minnetonka as well as Chaska-Chan. What our design is if you look at the master plan is a whole bunch of sidewalk and curb side that follows that whole edge of the parking lot intentionally so there was a lot of bus and parent space for drop off and pick up. We also have designed into the plan a main entry and then like a young grade classroom entry so there are two doors that different students would be dropped off at so they wouldn't all have to be dropped off at the same door. To spread that out a bit. Kind: I also have a question about the existing roofi which on the plan is specified that it's an asphalt roof. I was surprised when I went out there to look at it that it's actually kind of a rock aggregate. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Dan Blake: It's asphalt, not like a roofing shingle. Kind: I thought it was an asphalt shingle is what I expected to see. Dan Blake. It's too fiat to have shingles on it and shed water. It's asphalt like a flat roof would be with gravel spread on there. I suppose mainly decoratively. Kind: And your plan is to keep that long tenn. Dan Blake: That roof was recently redone. Our plan is to keep it generally in that configuration. It is, it's too flat to put an asphalt kind of shingle. I'm not sure how the wood shingles work, which is what's on the church part of the building. Kind: Right. That was my next question. Dan Blake: But the choices are a smooth roof or that kind of asphalt roof with the rock on it and primarily for decorative purposes. Kind: So long term you might consider standing seam? Dan Blake: Well I would consider it but you know that standing seam metal roof costs as much as this whole addition probably so we wouldn't, that would be a logical thing to look at when we go to rebuilding that area I guess and to make it match some of the other stufl~ Kind: And the sanctuary roof, any long term plans on that? Dan Blake: Well, most of it starts to become hidden because we're building out in front of it. You can see a little bit of the peaks left. We would probably replace those with similar wood or go to the same material that we have on the, on this roof for the portions that are visible. You know nobody sees the building from this view either unless you're flying by. From the ground it's tough to see that roof even now. One of the things I want to add, talk about that we didn't, that isn't overly evident and you can't even tell in this model. We chose to design a higher, a little bit higher wall than we needed to and we choose to make that outside wall be all of our rooftop screening as opposed to maybe more like a 10 foot wall and then have separate screening up above. We think with that it will, it makes the rooftop, any rooftop equipment even less obvious. Obviously it's still there but. Kind: I like that. Another question about, what was I going to ask? Shoot. I lost my thought. Oh, the windows. On the elevation it looked like they're glass block. Are they regular windows with grids in them? Dan Blake: Regular windows with lines in them, yes. Not glass block. Most likely they wouldn't be operable. We'd have air handling in there. You know I guess I'm learning this as I go but in the, in days gone by there was a lot of glass and classroom windows and now schools 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 are rebuilding those walls. Taking out most of that glass. They don't have so much heat gain and then replacing it with better air handling internally so you don't have to have the windows that can open and you have a more secure environment and that would be our long term plan for the existing portion of the building as well as the new stuflk Kind: That answers my questions on why there's less windows than what's currently out there. Also I noticed that your plans are for Phase II to be the gym and Phase III to be that area that connects it. How do you propose to get the kids to the gym? Dan Blake: Well the Phase II plan, which why we're not talking about it specifically tonight is because I don't have all the detail for it. We're proposing to have a temporary link of some kind to connect the structure, and that's as opposed to putting the gym next to the building because we're trying to put the gym where it makes sense for the master plan and the master plan has a cafeteria which will kind of be the lobby to the gym and an auditorium. Instead of putting the gym right next to the building, so we would build a temporary link that would connect the two buildings. Probably have some entrance into the length and it would become the activity entrance until there's a front administrative area. The details of how that would get built I didn't show staff so therefore they said well we can't really address it now. But it'd likely be some kind of nice looking contemporary material I suppose. Whatever that means. Kind: I guess that's all for now. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Just one... Dan Blake: The need is somewhat out of convenience. I don't know, I have to be careful what I say I suppose relative to a variance. When we started talking with staff} let's go back even further. Before we bought this property we had some architectural work done to determine within the bounds of city code, are we sure we can fit enough building on this piece of property to work. We concluded yes. The building expansion that was proposed by that particular design scheme was completely.., where a couple of the existing houses stand. It didn't take long for the neighbors and staff to say, there's better ways to do that expansion, and we never intended that to be the plan we were going to build but it was a spot to start discussing. We heard from staff that there was a desire to move closer to West 78th Street. More like the commercial stuff to the west and somewhat consistent with the residential further to the east. Personally I think staff's direction was probably to be out even closer than we were. I'm thinking they were expecting more like 10 or 15 feet from that sidewalk instead of 30. We designed a building, a classroom wing which was basically a 30 foot by 30 foot classroom and a 12 foot corridor and a 30 foot classroom next to it. It got out to that point. We've got some of those little architectural extensions out there and that's where the variance came in. We were working to put a bunch of the building out that direction. We didn't go as far as maybe staff wanted to so that's the reason for the variance is to bring it closer to what else is out there. I guess sometimes we use what else is out there as a reason, the excuse for the variance. In this case maybe our design was to match what's on both sides of us. Even across the street that building is probably in the neighborhood of 10 or 15 feet from the 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 properly line. So I guess that's the why. Right now if you were to ask us can we live with 35, it would drastically alter the entire design because I can't cut 2 or 3 feet off of those classrooms and still make them functional so we would have designed it very differently if we thought we were trying to strictly adhere to the design standards. Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad 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. Larry Schroeder: I'm Larry Schroeder. I live at 7720 Frontier Trail. We're right on the comer that would be the northeast comer of the properly. We're the neighbors of Chapel Hill. We've lived there for 30 years. There's always been a school there. I have no problem with the kids, the music room. I kind of like it. I open the windows and it's god awful but it's nice music. It's kids. So I think Dan and Chapel Hill are doing a great job. I have no problems with it whatsoever. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Dan Burke: I'm Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th which is around the comer on 77th Street. From the designs that I had seen before, I think this is a great improvement. It does a nice job I think of cutting the block diagonally. Setting the back side more residential. And the front side more of the commercial side. I think by doing that we really will be able to get a nice division on the block and in the neighborhood. My concern is in the lighting on the back side. I would like it to be more on the residential, we have much more of a dark neighborhood and would like more down lighting versus broad lighting. That's my. Peterson: Anyone else? Close? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one? Blackowiak: I'll jump in. I agree with much of what Ladd said. Although we're just looking at Phase I this evening, I do think we have to kind of look to get an overall flavor of the project because what happens in Phase I is going to directly affect Phases II and III and I don't think we can take Phase I without at least considering the other, the implications on the other phases. The north and east elevations do seem to be lacking. South and west look good. There could be some more interest. I do realize it is an OI zone. I understand that. But we also need to understand that it's in the Highway 5 corridor. We can expect a little higher quality standards. And we also have neighbors to consider and it is a residential neighborhood so I don't think it's being 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 unrealistic to ask for more interest and to try to make something that the neighbors are going to be happy with and the city will be happy with too. And I think, when I say city is the community. Not just the city stafl~ I think you're going in the right direction. I do like it. Specifically regarding the block. I don't know that I feel comfortable requiring totally smooth face block, and I'll throw this out. I might say maybe, we set a percentage. Maybe 50% or something. I certainly can understand that the smooth face block on the gym might be cost prohibitive and not necessarily expansive. But I think there are trade-ofl~ to be made if we go that route and off'er smooth face block on a portion of the building. Then I think that in return it is fair to expect some increased interest on the northeast elevation. I don't know exactly what that would be. I don't want to tell you what that would be but you know, as long as we can all work together I think we can come up with a nice product. Overall I don't have, I really don't have any problems. I think that the staff report adequately addresses the issues that I have. And at this point you know, given my comments, I'm very comfortable with what I see. Peterson: Other comments? Kind: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I'll jump in. I agree with Alison's comments regarding the brick face. I think it's important to get it to be not that industrial size. I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to have just the buff colored areas on those elevations, on the one story elevation be that 4 x 12. Is that the size? And that that bottom red, the rock face. Just kind of throw that out as a possibility. I kind of like actually the contrast. I don't know. That might be a compromise way to go. What else? But I do feel strongly that it needs to be that smaller size on the bulk of the building. I agree with that big time. What else? I'd like to see more windows. I understand the energy conservation aspect. Maybe that doesn't really apply to this phase but on the future elevations I think that would be something that I'd like to see, especially on the gym. I think it's very common to have those high, I call them kind of skylights and to get some natural light in the gym. I'd like to see that on the gym. But that's future so whatever. And then I have a few suggested additional conditions that I'd like to throw out for discussion and see what the rest of the commission thinks of them. That we, number 16. I know Matt said something about this, with that fence. And we talked later about the chain link aspect. I think because we're in the Highway 5 overlay district that we could request a higher quality fence because of where we're talking about. And maybe the language is that we strongly encourage the applicant to use decorative fencing or I don't know. If that's a must thing or not. I'd be interested in other people's comments on that. But the chain link fence that's there has got to go and I'm glad to hear that it is going. Right along West 78th Street. And then the other addition that I'd like to add is the possibility of mixing the brick. I'd be interested in other commissioners' thoughts on those two things. Peterson: Other comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman...I do like the building... I agree with staff's recommendation... almost industrial looking... Kind: Mr. Chairman, I forgot a couple things regarding pedestrian friendliness. The sidewalk that's being added along Frontier Trail that connects up with our cute little 3 foot, will be 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 extended down to West 781~ Street. I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to add the proposed addition student entrance on the east side had that sidewalk go directly out to the new trail. I'm just thinking for pedestrian access to the student entrance that it would be silly to walk all the way down to West 78th and then go back up to the student entrance. So that sidewalk I think needs to be added there. And then also for future phases, I'd like to see a sidewalk along Great Plains on the east side. I'm having directional problems tonight. On the east side and I know that's a future phase but I'd just kind of like to put that out there for part of the master plan. Al-Jarl2 West side. Kind: It would be west side? Peterson: East side of Great Plains. West side of the building, east side of Great Plains. Kind: Are we talking about the same place? Okay. It would be on the east side of Great Plains Boulevard. Right? Peterson: West side of the building. Al-Jarl2 West side of the building. Kind: Yep. And that's probably a future phase. That's all for now. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple brief comments. I think it's a very nice project and welcome addition, well it's already an addition to the community but I think these are nice improvements to the school. I again mirror the comments of my, of the other people on the commission. I can't really weigh in on the materials on the size of the blocks. I don't have a very good, personally a good idea of what visual impressions would be so I really can't add anything to that and I'm not sure how I feel about it because I don't really have a good grasp of it. With respect to the lighting I do think it's important that we make a condition that it has residential character, especially on the neighborhood sides. I do want to add that I do like the phases that we're looking at. I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight and I think that the comments on those were good. I guess that's really it. I don't want to repeat everything everybody else said but those are my general thoughts. I think it's a nice project and I think the staff comments are good. Peterson: Others? Conrad: I'll just, I probably segwayed, or I probably said what I believed in half hour ago. It is a good project. The footprint is right. The variances are right. The variance is correct. That's the right thing to do. Phase I is good. It's everything else that we're not sure of, which is a make that a real positive signal. I think everybody here is concerned with the sides facing the residential community. It's not where it can be so you're okay in Phase I. I don't see that changing your long range plan. Us approving Phase I tonight but it does say the long range plan has to be altered in terms of its architectural detail as it's projected or presented to the neighbors. I think whoever 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 makes the motion has to really deal with the brick issue. I haven't heard anybody really deal with it very well yet and I'm not the one that's going to deal with that so... or come up with an absolute recommendation on that. My last point is on the gymnasium. I'd really encourage you to when that gets built in Phase II I think it will be fairly critical again because you're bordering neighborhoods. The neighbors and we'll want to see how that does fit. It's a bigger wall and I'd really like you to encourage you to look at the smartness of putting windows on that. And that's way beyond my scope of expertise but lighting and a gymnasium, I've been in those that are lit and it helps. It helps. It would also help break up that wall I think so that's just a future to what's presented tonight. I would hope that somebody would give clear direction in terms of the brick. Peterson: My comments about that dissimilar to my peers. Architectural interest is a consistent theme we've heard. Certainly one that I still have. Secondly, I am genuinely not comfortable with the existing asphalt roof. I mean, and I don't have a resolution to that. It's a very unique roof now and we're basically boxing around it and.., that's the best alternative .... convinced that it is. Drawings now don't do it justice as to its unique drawings here.., as a normal pitched roof and it looks distinctively different than what the drawings are... And I don't know if there are any alternatives but it will be interesting to see other versions that may... As it relates to the brick, I feel strongly about using the smaller ones, primarily because off the smaller I believe have more of a residential feel to buff'er, nicer transition versus a larger being an abrupt commercial kind of a... The properly CSM is doing, I wouldn't want the CSM building in this neighborhood. CSM isn't in a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. We have issues and possibilities that go along... I'm offering more.., than I am positive but I've got, with those final comments is there a motion and a second please? Kind: Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion can I just get a feel from my fellow commissioners as to how you feel about the larger block on the reddish portion. Or do you think it should be all. Peterson: I think it should be all smaller brick but that's one opinion. Kind: Okay, I'll venture a motion here. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy master plan as shown in plans dated August, received August 31, 1999 with the following conditions. 1 through 19 and then I have a couple amendments and a couple to add so here we go. Number 5, these will be conditions that Sharmin has that we don't have in front of us. So the number 5 will be the changes that Sharmin had. Number 10, add a (d) that says obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. Number 12. Add a sentence at the end that says the new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition. Number 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. Number 15. Show the location of the trash enclosure for Phase I and the materials used to build the trash enclosure should be the same as those on the new building. Let's see, number 16. Show the type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. And then number 19, Sharmin will you read what you have for that? A1-Jafl~ The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Kind: On Phase I. So we don't have to deal with the gym aspect at this point? A1-Jafl2 This would reflect this... Kind: Let's have 19 be that way. Number 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast comer will be removed. Or shall be removed. I guess that's a better language. Number 21. 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. And number, I'm up to 22. A detailed sign plan. We didn't talk about so I'm just throwing this one in here freelance. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. And number 23. The modular units must be removed. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: I'd second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion to that? Conrad: So the block issue is per staff recommendation? Kind: Correct. Peterson: Other discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 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 August 31, 1999, with the following conditions: 1. Increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. 2. Increase plantings for boulevard trees in order to meet ordinance requirements. 3. Increase plantings for parking lot area in order to meet ordinance requirements. 4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. 5. 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. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. 8. 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. 10. Building Official Conditions: a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout. b. 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. c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. 11. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. 12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall be connected to the sidewalk along West 78th Street. The new sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition. 13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances 15. 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. 16. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. 17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee site improvements. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast comer shall be removed. 21. 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. 22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. 23. The modular units must be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS. Peterson: Any old business Kate? Aanenson: Yes. I have old business. AT&T tower has been continued until December 13th. They have acquiesced and they are redesigning their tower to fit some sort of a cross theme. We haven't seen it yet but they figured out a way to make that work so we're very pleased about that. Unfortunately we haven't seen exactly how it's going to look yet but it should be coming in this week and it will be going to the City Council on the 13th. Sidney: You said the... Aanenson: Yes. The tower next to the church. It will be incorporated with the cross in the design. We don't know, we haven't seen it yet. Peterson: A 300 foot cross. Sidney: That's what I'm thinking it's going to be. Aanenson: Yeah, we haven't seen it yet. Then I believe there was questions last time when I wasn't here about what was going on with Pulte. The Council did reconsider it for conceptual approval so it still has to go through, back through another public hearing with you regarding preliminary approval and as a part of that we're working hard to come up with some different designs on the homes that you made suggestions on. The different types of products so there will be five products so we're working on that. So that's kind of the status of some, the old business. I have quite a bit of new business if we can jump to that. NEW BUSINESS. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Aanenson: We had tabled tonight the Lake Susan Hills Apartments. Sharmin's been working hard on that. It's now been called, just to break up the confusion with the other apartment building which appears to be back on track too, it's now called Powers Ridge. Unfortunately the other one had the Lake Susan name but somebody else got it. So that one's called Powers Ridge right now. Just for your edification, I don't know if you received notice of that but there is a neighborhood meeting at St. Hubert's tomorrow night regarding this project. We haven't seen the revised drawings. Sharmin's been working hard on the one building that faces the majority of the neighborhoods, we've asked them to break it up. It does have underground parking so we asked them to put a break in the building. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, Powers Ridge is Lake Drive and north of like Osprey and that other one? Aanenson: Right. It's between Powers and Audubon. Yeah, and that's the one that's on your agenda tonight. It was pulled off and the reason was is we wanted some different architectural changes and they were meeting with the neighbors again tomorrow night at St. Hubert's. I believe it's 7:00. If you were interested in that I can give you the time if you want to call me. So that's where that one is. We are working on the Freseth property. That will probably be coming in January. That's the property between Mission Hills and just south of the new St. Hubert's. South of Rice Marsh. Eckankar is coming forward. We're working on an environmental assessment document doing a master plan for that entire project. Conrad: What is that? Aanenson: Ultimate campus for their entire property. Conrad: You've seen it? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Bigger than? Aanenson: Yes. It will be a big project. It's in phases. I mean right now what they're coming in with is an office building. Part of the property was guided institutional, which does allow those types of uses. Part of the property is also, to the north of the site, is residential so we're going to re-guide it with.., and then do an ultimate master plan and then as part of the EAW I think too, the importance of that is preserving some of the natural features. Older trees and. Other things that are happening. The next packet that you get from us will be the first of the year. We're going to come and present, it's been a long time, a new format for the staff reports. I'll put together a cover memo explaining that to you but I think there's two things we want to make sure are clear and we'll put that right on the cover of the report is one, the deadline of the applications. Make sure that we're within our 60 and 120 days. And then also we want to put in there level of discretion and what authority you have. What you can and can't do and we'll kind of go back to, when I put that cover letter, do you remember when we had Roger talked about before. We have the discretion... The least discretion was someone asking for a building permit. The most 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 discretion is when we're doing the comprehensive planning guiding a piece of property. And we'll probably go back and I think that will help us in framing some of our decisions too and kind of keep us on track. So that will be the first packet that comes out and again we'll put a cover memo. If you have questions when you get that, a lot of the interior stuff will be the same. It's just a new cover. I'm trying to make it more user friendly and keep the proposal summary in. Also we have some other things that we're working on. The council's directed us to work on architectural standards. Tied in to what we're talking about tonight. Following some of the things that Wayzata, Eden Prairie, doing glass and brick. We're putting together a paper. They'll be looking at, and you'll have an opportunity to review. We have a lot of comprehensive plan amendments we talked about that we need ordinance and then also the zoning ordinance, the City's looking at the home occupation ordinance and also we're going to do a paper on that which will be coming to you shortly on the conditions... And also defining what those uses are because there's some of them are not clear definition of what that use is. Make sure of that. No ambiguity. Some of the conditional uses may or may not be appropriate or put scale size and square footage so there's more concrete.., so we'll be doing, review a lot of development issues and also long range kind of issues too. The other one I just want to mention too coming up in the first is the septic one will be back on. That was just a matter of getting it designed. That was one, I don't know if Bob had explained that to you or someone at the last staff meeting. Part of the requirement for upgrading septic, or monitoring septic systems, we have some that are on severe slopes in the city that were built prior to 1987. It's difficult for them to find alternative sites that's acceptable so when we looked in a few areas that we do a collective system because we won't be down in certain areas with sewer and water for 10, 15, 20 years. The payback would work. But what we're finding is that some of these circumstances that the cost is prohibitive based on the number of people using the.., system it's still cost prohibitive so we're going to have to give some variances to make situations viable for the people that own the homes. What's tripping some of it is our testing and also when there's a sale so this is a circumstance that the item that was deleted tonight, that is going to require a variance to be in a slope. But that's the only alternative available at this time. We're seeing some of those. Other than that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 17, 1999 as presented. Peterson: Anything else anybody? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 34