The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1998 08 05CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING AUGUST $, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alyson Brooks, Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PIlESENT: Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: IlEQUEST FOIl IIEZONING OF 6.39 ACIlES FIIOM A-2, AGIIlCULTUIIAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 6.39 AACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 20UTLOTS; AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, STONE CREEK 6T}~ ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BLVD. JUST NORTH OF STONE CREEK ADDITION, LYNMORE ADDITION, DAVID D. MOORE. Public Present: Name Address Steve Slutner Mr. & Mrs. Roger Schmidt Laurie Juelich Mrs. DeLorenzo Tech Design 8301 Galpin Blvd. 2246 Stone Creek Lane East Stone Creek Lane West Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Thank you. Questions of staflk Sharmin, can you put up for me, I need some help thoroughly understanding where the private drive is going to go now and in the future. You spoke of potentially four homes but yet you think five potential. You can do four private homes. Four homes on a private driveway and you're asking.., now, five. That it does go to five. A1-Jaflk We believe that Mr. Schmidt's property located, we don't have the survey of his property. We don't have a survey of his property which makes it very difficult for us to prepare an accurate plan. However, Bluff Creek runs through this property and there are some very steep slopes. We believe that you could potentially get three additional homes. There is an existing house. There are three, potentially three additional homes that could be placed on this parcel. Now if our calculations are wrong and they could squeeze a fifth parcel on this site, then rather Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 than putting in a full city street, we're recommending a variance to the private driveway ordinance to allow sites to be served via private driveway. Peterson: Is that appropriate to grant that variance now or when that's... ? A1-JafI) When that subdivision comes in. Peterson: So really it's relevant to today's? A1-Jafl) No. We just wanted to bring to your attention and we thought we should address it now. That in the future when this subdivision comes in, it won't be a surprise to anyone. Peterson: My understanding, more for my own edification than anything else, condition number 1 we talk about guaranteeing transplanting trees for a minimum of one year. I haven't seen that... Is that something that's... A1-Jafl) Whenever we require any type of plantings, we require the applicant to guarantee them for two growing seasons, which means two years. We wanted to make sure that the same rule applies for transplanted trees as well. Chances of survival for grown trees is a lot less. Peterson: ... A1-Jaflk I said two didn't I. It's one year. It's one full growing seasons. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Sidney: Any comments? I guess I had mentioned this. I didn't see the notification and the list of people notified in the packet so we need that for Council I'm sure. Peterson: Any questions or comments? Conrad: Just one. What are the two outlots for? A1-Jaflk Outlot B is for future development. Outlot A is for parkland. Conrad: And B, what could be on B? A1-Jaflk Staff is recommending a private driveway to serve the property to the north and potentially another building site. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Steve Slutner: Thank you. My name is Steve Slutner. I'm President of Tech Design, the engineering finn to represent the parties, the owners. That would be Gil Vander Ham and Dave Moore are owners of this project. Reviewed significantly I think maybe I should start out your 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 question about the Schmidt property. One of the things, as we went through the process and we did meet several times with stafl~ We met with them. Dave met with them several times before I ever got involved. We met with staff on December 11th, January 15th, February 20th, 24th, 25th, 27th. So it went through a lot of iterations and I could show you all those iterations but essentially we started out showing a private drive in the portion of Outlot A. A private drive that came back through here and serviced four lots in that area. What we were then told by stafl} is that before we were allotted a private drive we had to prove that we could get a public street in there first and then environmentally if it made more sense to go to a private drive, because we have to take out a lot of trees or the terrain didn't, that didn't work very well on the terrain, then what we would do at that point would be able to get a private drive essentially. What we've done in that case since then too, through that whole process is the Bluff Creek watershed protection, which you guys are very familiar with, came into light at that point. At first we thought we had to stay 150 feet from Bluff Creek. Since then obviously it's in the primary zone. Even though the ordinance hasn't become part of city code yet, we're still saying you know that's fine. We'll move things to the front but through those determinations it was found that we could potentially fit 11 lots on this site. I think that's critical because according to that we could fit 11. We could cluster up to 11 up in front. We're not asking for that by any means. According to that we're asking for, as you can see, a lot less lots. So when we talk about the Schmidt property, when that's brought up, I guess it would be my understanding that they would have to show physically that, because what we did, had to show that they could get a public street in there to serve it first before they would be allowed a private street. So we would expect the same thing. To answer your question, and I probably am not in charge of focus here but, get it centered like that. Thank you. There's a very light line that's shown on here. This is the Schmidt's northern and easterly property lines right here. It comes from here over to there. And I've overlaid the project onto the aerial map. The red line that shows right here is actual Bluff Creek. The center line of the creek essentially. The other red line that I show right here is a 150 foot ofl~et from Bluff Creek. If you notice their home currently sits in right here and the home actually is within 150 feet at this point. The green line, which shows up right here, is a 30 foot ofl~et line from the Lynmore subdivision property line. So you can see there's a very, very narrow band that by ordinance essentially would be able to be developed. In this area, the band is only about 20 feet wide. So in this area you can see proportionately it's about 30 to 40 feet wide. So a reason we bring that up is because there's been a lot of attention. We really came tonight to focus on this subdivision but because a lot of the recommendations affect this subdivision with relationship to the northern property, we thought that we should come in and at least address those things. With respect to that, there's about, ifI might go through stafl~s recommendations and just let you know where we concur and where we don't concur because I think that's important to you. I agree, we worked with staff quite extensively and through the process here, Dave also went and talked to all the people in Stone Creek 6th Addition and talked to a lot of those folks, as many as he could. One of the promises he made to those people is that, in Dave's words, I'm not going to put a lot of little, dinky houses in that area. We're going to keep it consistent with Stone Creek. If you look at the lot sizes, the lot sizes are consistent with more of what you would consider for a normal subdivision rather than a PUD. The lot sizes are almost all of them are over 15,000 square feet so even though we're considered by putting it forward in the PUD, we're still staying a lot with what the R-1 recommendations are. One of the things with Outlot B, ifI might focus on that for a minute. Is this portion is owned by Mr. Schmidt, or by the Schmidts, excuse me. I don't know who that is in title on. And the rest of Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 this is owned by Mr. Moore and Mr. Vander Ham. The issue that you have is that there's also a common easement, exit and entrance easement for a shared driveway. That shared driveway is right at that point. What happens is that that driveway easement is 60 feet wide, north to south, 200 feet long. And so it actually comes over to about here and it's shaped like that, the driveway easement. And it's a shared easement. Through that, and I think that's real critical that that's what's happening with Outlot B. There's been ongoing negotiations to try to come to some resolve. Nothing's happened to date. The discussions I believe started in about mid-April and to date there's nothing's that happened. That's why it's listed as Outlot B. So we go through the stafl' s recommendations, and especially the engineering's recommendations. We think we have some solutions that will help with Outlot B. The other thing that I think has been important and when we saw the letter here essentially is under Finding number 2. Finding 2 talks about park dedication. Dave clearly has remembered that he never said that he would dedicate that to the city. He said that he would not develop it and would move everything out of there. He also said that he would allow, and it's shown on the plat a trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 and that that trail easement would be allowed all the way across to join into the park area. That's what Mr. Moore, we don't obviously, you know he has said through the records now. Now the park people are concerned about the steep slope in here as far as a trail system and a bridge. So with that we would be removing the trail easement if they so deemed that they would not desire that at this time. So that is something I guess and when Dave talked, what he was saying, and what he said is that he would like in exchange for Outlot A not being developed, that there'd be, and also with the allowance of a trail across there, that there be some thoughts and consideration towards a park dedication fees. And so that's probably where things are a little different than what Mr. Moore had stated. And again, you know we are, we do feel that we're offering something that's going to blend well with the neighborhoods. Be the same types of homes and that type of thing. Under number 6 in the Findings. This is on page 5 of the report. Because they're concerned, again just to reiterate that the no trail easement would be required, we'd drop that between Lots 3 and 4. On page 6, number 9. The access is from Galpin Road. Eventually the driveway would be eliminated as the property to the north develops. The way we feel about that is I guess stated that right now the Schmidt's have access through the land they own to their property and through the easement that's there currently. If they wish to develop, then they have to get up to what's labeled as Bridle Creek Circle. That would be across Mr. Moore's land. We're not denying them access right now. I think that's very important. They have access that's being maintained. If they want to subdivide, they need to consciously make that decision and enter into negotiations for access across Outlot B. I think at that point the city will say, okay if you want to subdivide, essentially we aren't going to allow you access where it is now. You're going to have to somehow get access up to Bridle Creek Circle. Therefore they should have to negotiate. Dave shouldn't have to dedicate the land for their potential negotiations. Or for their potential development. We understand the implications of several entrances, you know from a traffic standpoint. We agree with that but we feel that right now as it sits, they have access. If they in the future want to look at subdividing, then they would need to negotiate for access across Outlot 1. So we do differ as far as dedication versus that, and I think that's very important. That's probably the thing we feel most strongly about. With regard to the rest of the issues, we really only have two things. Our resolution that we've come up with, we have a couple different alternates but the one alternate that we feel would work would be that it's recognized that Lot 7 needs some more width. That's this lot right here. What we would like to do, we would like to take this line right here, which is the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 properly line. Extend it out to Bridle Creek Circle and then we would split the area in there between Lots 6 and 7 to make all those lots so they are acceptable as far as frontage and then all the lots in the subdivision would also be over 15,000 square feet. The other portion of Outlot B that lies in front, or along the road frontage here, we think would be a very good place to address the city engineering department's issues with the potential site for on site storage for storm water management. We think that that's the best place to do it. With the drainage, the roadway is designed so that it all comes from here and drains down. We can catch it off the side there and then take it into the system, you know and size it properly for the standards that the city requires so those are the things that we would propose. And if you have any questions at this time. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Brooks: I have... What kind of legal guarantees for the park dedication. If they don't dedicate that land as a park, is there kind of a legal agreement you're going to come into with the city to say that the area won't be developed. That it will be maintained as a park. I'm not sure, by doing it this way what we're going to get out of it. Steve Slutner: I think Mr. Moore, in all honesty you know when we talked prior to the meeting and on several other occasions, the park dedication fees in this case I think add up to $10,200.00. For the acreage involved there I think what we're looking at is that he'd be more than happy to dedicate that but at an appraised value. And even if you took the appraised value and deducted off the park dedication fees from that, that that would be an appropriate mechanism to dedicate rather than to dedicate this land for essentially $10,200.00. It's just not, it's not a value that really, from an appraised standpoint, is very reasonable. Brooks: I guess what I wonder, you know if he ever sells the properly. Steve Slutner: He's willing at this point to dedicate it but not in lieu of park dedication fees. Does that make sense? Sidney: You want additional compensation. Steve Slutner: Yeah, and at appraised value. You know have the city come out with an appraiser and you know then Mr. Moore could potentially have it appraised too and come to some terms. But just in lieu of park dedication fees I think is by all realistic terms is what dollar values go with land space is probably low. So that's, he's willing to dedicate but it would be at an appraised value and the city would have the ability to come out and appraise. Peterson: ... certainly sounds logical. Is that something that we've done before? Al-Jarl) That's something that we need to talk to the Park Director about. Steve Slutner: Before we talked about just the trail and that's why, you know give you a trail easement. That's no problem. And then at that point what Dave's thoughts were was, that each one of the properly owners would own one portion of this. It would be kind of essentially Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 become common area with no ability to put any improvements on it essentially and write that in the covenants but it would have the trail easement across that. In lieu of that, being where it's proximity here, we think that the dedication at an appraised value would be a viable opportunity for the city. That's the other option is just to take it to common area and put restrictions on it. So it's not like he wants to necessarily do something with it. Peterson: ... mean you can work with staff prior to the Council. Steve Slutner: Sure, sure. We just wanted to bring it up since the recommendation was to go on record for that. Peterson: Understand. Other questions? Conrad: Yeah, I need a recap. You talked about their findings but really in terms of the staff recommendations, can you rego, can you go back through the staff recommendations and tell me the issues that you have? And are they resolvable tonight? Steve Slutner: Sure. Go right through, right down the line. Would that work for you? Okay. Conrad: You had three or four so go through the recommendations. Steve Slutner: Sure. Number 1 is no problem. Conrad: Don't talk to me about the ones you're okay with. Go to the ones that you have... Steve Slutner: Okay. I don't have these highlighted sir so I'm going to have to just go down. I highlighted the findings. Conrad: Okay. I assume 5 is a problem. Steve Slutner: Correct. 5 is the one that we just discussed. Conrad: Can you resolve that tonight? Steve Slutner: Can we resolve that tonight? Conrad: Yes. Steve Slutner: It sounds like not necessarily. We're willing to work with the city. We just want to let you know our position. Conrad: Okay. Steve Slutner: And it's willing to dedicate but it's at a different value. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Conrad: Yeah. Okay. Steve Slutner: The other option would be to, you know it's a little harder because it's out of public works and stuff but you've got your SAC and WAC and all that but those are, I understand those are different pots so that's probably not really a viable option. Lot, or number 8. Lot 7. We've addressed that. That we would make it wider. So that's okay. We've come up with number 9 1 didn't address sir and that would be with regard to the grading of the cul-de-sac. If you could zoom in in this area right here. The Fire Marshal's concern is this, essentially I believe Dave would be this inside radius here. Is really the issue. And what we think is, Dave made a presentation in the package which they've discussed and would work. I just saw that this afternoon so I haven't had a lot of time to think about it. The other issue is that you know we could extend, get rid of this little, I guess this little point of right-of-way right here. We could bring that across like this and then put a larger radius in here to, came in and did something like that. That would also work as well. So we're willing to work with the city on that. Okay. I just wanted to bring that back up. It's something that we need to talk to Dave and the Fire folks about so. One of the things is with number 18. With utility easements. We think we have a route that works better and one of the issues that was brought up is that we go out and do more survey work that encompasses the whole area. We have included that, or completed that study and come down, right now there's a stub down here on Lukewood. Is where the stub is but also across the way there is an existing manhole. This stretch from here to here is about 750 feet I believe Dave. Somewhere in there. And you've got several issues there. You've got the bike path. You've got a chain link fence right at the top of a slope. The slope is probably a 2 to 1. At the bottom of it you can see you've got significant plantings and you have Bluff Creek. What we're proposing, and we obviously need to talk to the engineering staff about this, is that from the last manhole here would be to bore underneath Galpin and then come down and connect into this existing manhole here. We think that environmentally it's much more feasible to do that. Less disruption to this area along here, which is a pretty sensitive area. With the bike path and with the creek and there's also wetlands in there too so we think that this is a much better solution over here. Again we have to take care with them so that kind of takes care of point 18. And the last point, point 25 is the other one that we disagree with. We don't disagree that from an access standpoint that it might be the best thing to do in the future. We just kind of, if there's some negotiations to be had, they should be negotiated. It shouldn't be dedicated. Okay. And I will tell you that I know Dave has spent lots of time discussing things with the Schmidt's and trying to come to some resolve... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) A1-Jafl5 One simple example.., was Lake Lucy Estates. The Randall's property. Future development of that parcel. We required that the applicant... Now in this case, one of the things.., having this subdivision provide the public right-of-way. However, that's.., and you would have additional setbacks from the right-of-way. With a private drive.., but again we've already looked at future access to the adjoining property... There are many examples around the city that reflect that. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Burton moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Roger Schmidt: Good evening. My name is Roger Schmidt. I'm at 8301 Galpin Boulevard and that's the property directly to the north of the property under consideration tonight. And I have read the staff report and my concerns, I'm just going to go over some of the concerns in the staff report. Some of them have already been discussed here so I don't know when things may change but I'd probably take them in the order that I consider of importance, if that's okay. First of all the request for an easement, the 20 foot easement along the westerly side of my property for additional sewer. Now again, we go back when they put the sewer in along Galpin Boulevard. They got a 27 foot easement at the time and now they're asking for another 20 foot over and above that and that would be pretty difficult for me to consider because I've done an awful lot of plantings down there and it's pretty much mature trees and things like this that are shielding me from the road and I'd have to look very closely at that but again, at this point I don't know exactly where that easement would lie. I mean that 20 foot would lie. It would have to be staked out and looked at to make that decision. So and I'd like to get, have an idea of what the total impact of that could be. Okay. The second one probably would be the road easement that we just got done discussing. Again there I think I'd have to see a layout to see how that would work coming into my drive area that I'm using right now. I sometimes if we're talking, you know for the size, for the amount of easement that they're asking there, would they be able to get you know fire trucks and so forth to negotiate some of those sharp curves that are necessary to go from Galpin into that easement area and then down into my drive area. But that you know would have to be looked at. I think too I prefer what I have right now from the standpoint of maintenance and everything else. When it comes winter time and I'm blowing snow and so forth, I think that as long as I am there, I would prefer that the driveway stays the same because if my driveway stays I wouldn't have to use a north/south which would probably be much more subject to drifting and things like this. It'd be a little bit more of a chore for me to try to keep up with. Let's see. Another, along there is a utility easement that was also brought up on the south side of our present drive that runs up into the property that's going to be developed and I guess I'm, you know some of that utility easement serves my property, electrical and I guess I'd like to know how that would be handled. At this point where it is right now is you know is fine for me. I mean I'd prefer it there. If it were to be moved, you know depending upon where it would be moved, and how that would be handled and things like that. I would have to know that. Drainage. I'm looking at the staff report. They talk about drainage and they address, I think they say the drainage is primarily to the east, south and west. East, south and north I guess and they've kind of addressed the drainage to the south and the drainage to the east but there's nothing in the report to say what would happen to the drainage north, which I would be concerned about and their slope is down towards my property and I guess I'd like a little bit more definition of what the drainage might be there. One question in reading the report and maybe that can be answered now but they were talking about, they use the term grading limits and I don't know what that term means and where those grading limits are located. They define some things that can be done within the grading limits and I don't quite understand that. Another question I would have is what the intentions are, if any or if there's been any 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 consideration given to the trees along the southern, or the northern. Well my southern boundary. The northern boundary of the properly to be developed. I mean has anybody considered that? Are those trees subject to removal as long as they're on that properly or has there been some consideration saying that we'd like to maintain, they're pretty mature trees. Deciduous trees. Maintain that for some screening. And then the Bluff Creek overlay. I might make a correction here. The drainage area down that's on my properly has been referred to a couple times tonight as Bluff Creek. It really isn't Bluff Creek. It's in the drainage area but Bluff Creek is substantially, you know is quite east of us so that's just a correction. But I guess the Bluff Creek overlay certainly does affect, the way, the last I heard.., certainly does affect the properly but I again, I guess I can't make any kind of decisions on what can be done or not done until that is resolved I guess is what it tums out to be. I've heard, when I, just a little bit of background. When they put the sewer in, and incidentally I thought when they put the sewer in that that was going to be ready for hook-up but obviously that's not the case. I mean I thought that all the properly along there could hook directly into sewer but that I found out in the last month or so that you have to run an extra line and then you know, to hook in to get down to a pumping station. But with, I lost my train of thought there but with oh. When they put, I was assessed for 7 lots when they put the sewer in and I questioned that at the time and then you know, now in the meantime we're thinking there's only maybe one more developable lot on the properly. Now staff comes up with 3, you know make another 3 or 4 so I really don't know and it... a lot on what that Bluff Creek overlay, how that tums out. But the thing is is that I think there's at least two additional developable lots on that properly. And again, I would like to, I would very much, from what I know right now, I would like to service those through the existing drive that's been there for 30 years or more, you know which has worked out pretty fine obviously. I know staff has told me, you know to limit the exits onto Galpin but I would prefer to keep that. I believe that's all I have at this point. Thank you. Peterson: ... trees and the driveway.., highlighted questions. A1-Jafl5 As far as the trees go, in the rear of the properly to the north. The trees are in this area that Mr. Schmidt is referring to and these are the grades right here. The applicant is staying outside those, the grading limits are outside. They will not be impacting the trees. Hempel: If I could just add onto that maybe though. Those are the grading plans to prepare the house pad sites. Now ifa house comes in that's larger than that house pad or a different configuration, it could alter those grading limits a little bit. There is a setback on the properly that's 30 feet that would limit the building area to that. So whatever trees within that 30 feet most likely would stay unless there was additional grading required for a foundation, walk out type home whatever. A1-Jafl5 ... require a preservation easement. However... Peterson: How about the driveway? Does the existing driveway service two lots... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, planning commissioners. The existing driveway currently shares both residents come out onto Galpin Boulevard which is a counly road, under counly jurisdiction. They 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 have to approve any modifications, intensifying the use. Changing locations, all that. Given the location's sight lines for the driveway are acceptable for one or two residents at this time but knowing that there's this additional access proposed to make a four way intersection with Bridle Creek... turning movements of two driveways into one intersection is a much preferred alignment. As far as the north/south alignment grade wise.., but it does look feasible. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Laurie Juelich: I'm Laurie Juelich and I live at 2246 Stone Creek Lane East. I'm President of the homeowners association. We had a brief discussion about this and I'd just like to make a few comments on it. First of all we have some questions on the notification of this meeting tonight. Several people on Stone Creek Lane West did not receive the letter or notification of the meeting tonight. Mainly the DeLorenzo's who have the, I don't know if you have that map here but they have the main easement to, of the drawing that we have here, of the cul-de-sac that you need to come through on. Unfortunately he had to be out of state tonight so we had this discussion. He did not receive this letter so I don't know what your notification process is but he would have appreciated knowing about it. First of all our first concern is properly values. From what was going to be in there. Again it does seem to be fairly consistent with us at Stone Creek. Second of our concern is the drainage. There's several problems with drainage alone in Stone Creek. Unfortunately we were left with grades that were not to survey so that's going to, however this builder does it, is going to have to take in some half grades on Stone Creek so that we don't have drainage problems into the Stone Creek development. The third thing we have a concern about is the tree conservation and we would like to see some type of commitment to maintaining... Outlot B, or A. So that the trees, is that A? We'd really like to see a commitment to keeping that treed and preserved. Chanhassen is very strong in it's commitment to preservation. I myself have a wooded lot and I can only go back 30 feet on my lot so I would, we would prefer that. All the lots that border this development did pay a premium lots for the trees. The treed lots so they would appreciate them staying there. Also that's a beautiful area. Wonderful ravine if you haven't had a chance to take a walk back there. Deer live back there. Lots of wildlife. It would be nice to keep that. The other thing is the trail that you have noted in here would be very redundant to the trail that is being broken right now in that area. I don't know if you're familiar, if we need to talk to Todd Hoffman. They are, it's part of the trail system...two trails coming into a park which would be very redundant. But again we would like to, I would like to stress, you need to talk to Mr. DeLorenzo who has that access that you will need. He would like to be contacted on that. But if we can see some commitment into conservation of trees and that wooded area, it would be much appreciated by the homeowners of Stone Creek. Thank you. Peterson: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn, your thoughts and comments. Sidney: Well I'll start ofl~ I really appreciate the comments from the applicant and also from the neighbors and I really commend the developer for looking out for the best interest of the city in 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 preserving Outlot A. I think that's an important asset that the city will really be able to use as a passive park and I know that's a subject of a lot of discussion about how to increase the number of those types of parks in Chanhassen. One comment, I noticed that bridal, the other kind of bridal and I saw that a lot on the plan. And that always comes up. And I guess just basically I have no problem with the concept of the development. However, I guess I feel like there's a lot of loose ends in this proposal and I see the issue of Outlot A as one of them. The cul-de-sac design and Outlot B and I guess if it's consistent with what has been done in the past, I'd be okay with sending this to Council but I still feel like we could clean this applicant up more if the other commissioners feel that way so I'll leave it at that. Burton: I pretty much mirror what LuAnn said. The staff report notes that the development is consistent with all plans and ordinances. Preserves natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible .... balance between the amount and arrangement of open space.., internal circulation. That and the comments tonight. The only issue I think is still out there is Outlot A. I don't know if we can resolve that tonight but I think that it should be preserved as a park or... I don't know how to articulate that as a condition but.., comments that I have. Otherwise... Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I agree with LuAnn and Matt. I think it's a good project. I like the fact that it's environmentally sensitive and that we're clustering and keeping the Bluff Creek area, which we've talked about a lot. I also agree with LuAnn, there are loose ends. The applicant way saying he talked to the neighbor. Mr. Schmidt had a lot of questions so I'm not sure what was discussed. I'd like to see, maybe a few more discussions for Mr. Schmidt's comfort and also for the homeowner's comfort. It sounds like that they're resolvable issues. They're just out there and they haven't been taken care of. Maybe even a presentation from the engineering consultant to help resolve some of these issues. I know Mr. Schmidt's issues could probably be resolvable. It sounded like what's my property going to look like after I give you some of these easements. Trees are going to be lost. I think probably easy answers and you guys should be able to take care of that. Otherwise I mean I like the concept as a whole and as for the Outlot A issue, I think that's probably not for us here tonight. That's probably something to work out with the city and we may be able to, maybe we can redo a condition. I don't know if we can redo a condition to sort of say, Outlot A shall be granted to the city in accordance with an agreement to be established later. Something that will at least keep the project going but allow... And that's it. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, my only issue, I think staff can resolve some of the comments that were made tonight. They're valid comments and it appears that they're taken care of. Item number 5, Outlot A is a big deal and I don't know that I can go ahead and say fix it. It is... the leverage is if it's dedicated, then that's one thing. There's something wrong with the agreement right now. The applicant is thinking one thing. Staff is thinking another and I don't believe that it's been resolved so I'm not sure I want it to go ahead. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: I too, I think it's a good project. My only concern with again moving ahead is I don't like to give Council... and that's a big dangling, point number 5. Outlot A. Sharmin, I look for your guidance. If you feel as though we can send something tonight in the form of an action and we can move ahead, I can be convinced but right now.., without that being resolved. A1-Jafl2 How about if we couldn't reach an agreement, we would bring it back to the Planning Commission? But Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director would meet with the applicant. They could find some middle ground where they could agree to move it forward... Basically coming in with a new concept rather than, because it wouldn't be what you approved tonight. Conrad: That's giving up control. That's okay. I'm not sure the negotiations, when the applicant dedicates something and park it means they're giving us that and what are we giving up so the Park and Rec is going to negotiate something else. I'm not sure. Al-Jarl2 Could I add one thing? This parcel will be landlocked so as far as future development of the parcel, just briefly looking at the plan, I don't believe they will have access to this parcel to develop it. To be an active park. You could put a condition on there that it shall be used for an open space. Peterson: Essentially what we're doing here is a simple tax plan.., and if they couldn't, bring it back.., less than a full dedication. All right, with that discussion may I have a motion? Brooks: ... on 5 so guide me Ladd. No? You're no help. Okay. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of general concept and preliminary PUD Development Plan Approval of 6.39 acres from Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential, Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and two outlots as shown in the plans dated June 22, 1998 with the following conditions 1 through 25 with an amendment to number 5. And the amendment being, Outlot A shall be reserved through park dedication in accordance with an agreement with the city to be established. To be established if agreement is not reached, the plan comes back before the Planning... Conrad: Say that one more time? Brooks: Oh yeah, thanks. A1-Jafl2 If the parcel wasn't dedicated as parkland, basically it comes back. Peterson: With that is there a second? Burton: Well, if it wasn't dedicated as parkland... Brooks: Do we want to go that far or do we want to just let them negotiate whatever.., they want to come to and if they don't want to negotiate. Leave it open... Peterson: Discussion. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Brooks moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of General Concept and Preliminary PUD Development Plan Approval for Rezoning of 6.39 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development- Residential and Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plans dated June 22, 1998, with the following conditions: The applicant shall guarantee any transplanted trees for a minimum of one year. Transplanted trees shall be counted as replacement plantings. Buffer yard plantings shall be installed along Galpin Boulevard. Minimum planting requirements are 4 over story trees, 8 under story trees, and 16 shrubs. 3. Install tree protection fencing at grading limits prior to construction. The accessory structure located on proposed Lot 6 shall be removed prior to recording of the plat. Outlot A shall be reserved through park dedication and fee title to Outlot A shall be granted to the city in exchange for full park fee credit. Park dedication shall be established through an agreement with the City. If agreement cannot be reached, the item will come back before the Planning Commission. 6. Building Official Conditions: Revise the preliminary grading & utility plan to show the proposed dwelling pads with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Obtain demolition, moving and/or road use permits for existing buildings to be relocated. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. The proposed single family residential development of 4.25 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,400 and a water quantity fee of $8,415. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Lot 7 shall maintain a 90 foot lot width. If the 90 feet can not be achieved, staff recommends the applicant be granted a variance. 9. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. Install a fire hydrant at the intersection of Bridle Creek Court and Galpin Blvd. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 10. 11. 12. insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The cul-de-sac as currently designed will not allow proper turning around of fire apparatus. Submit redesigned dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for review and approval. Fire Marshal will not approve building permits until redesign of cul-de-sac is submitted. If trees are to be felled on site, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued. The plans shall be revised to include the following: The grading plans shall include the type of dwelling, lowest floor and garage floor elevations. b. Show existing well and septic site with provisions for protection. Drain tile behind the curb in accordance with City detail plates 5232 and 5234 to address household sump pump discharge. Show sanitary sewer extension from Lukewood Drive including existing topographic features. Extend erosion control fence along the west side of Lot 5 and add tree preservation fencing. The cul-de-sac configuration/alignment shall be revised to accommodate turning movements of the City's emergency vehicles. g. Provide traffic signage and street light locations. The existing home on Lot 5 shall connect to City sewer and water within 12 months after the utilities are accepted by the City. If the existing well and/or septic system fails sooner or is damaged during construction, the home shall be connected within 30 days after City acceptance. The applicant's engineer shall verify that the existing storm sewer system in Galpin Boulevard is designed to accommodate the additional runoff generated by this development. In addition, the downstream water quality pond shall be increased in size to handle the additional runoff generated from the site. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. During design and construction of a home for Lot 3 the surface water runoff must be managed to avoid flooding of the home. The location of doors and windows should be two feet above the existing/proposed grade along the south side of the home. At time of building permit issuance each lot except Lot 5 will be charged a sewer and water hook-up charge. Should Outlot B be platted in the future, this parcel will also be subject to sewer and water hook-up charges. The existing home on Lot 5 shall change their street address once Bridle Creek Court is paved with bituminous. In addition, the existing driveway access shall be removed and restored with topsoil, seed and mulch. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer shall supply staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The developer shall be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer service to the site and acquisition of the necessary temporary and/or permanent utility easements. If the developer is unable to acquire the necessary utility easements, the plat shall be considered premature for development. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 23. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 25. A 30-foot wide strip of land shall be dedicated or deeded to the City over Outlot B for future driveway access to the property to the north." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: ... that's more of a side discussion and I think they'd be happy... Conrad: Do we have the mailing list of where we sent notification? A1-Jafl) I don't have it in the file but I will have it for City Council. Conrad: We always have that... Peterson: ... Burton moved, Brooks seconded to recommend approval of Vacation of a portion of a utility and drainage easement located on Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6th Addition, as shown in the plans dated received June 22, 1998, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a legal description o£the Utility and Drainage easement proposed to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 8~249.5 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING WITH THE MAJOR TENANT BEING VIDEO UPDATE ON LOT BLOCK 1~ SEVEN AND FORTY-ONE CROSSING IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41~ KKE ARCHITECTS. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: Could you spend a little bit of time, I've got to rewind my memory. We've been here before. A1-Jafl~ yes. Peterson: ... were then and how it compares to now... Al-Jarl) Sure. This application appeared before you on July 14 of 1997. Basically it was a very similar application to this one. The only problem was access to the site. The applicant, the previous applicant did not have a cross access easement to enter the site. Eventually what happened, the owner of the shopping center purchased Lot 1 and granted an easement to this parcel and came back with a new plan. We felt there were enough changes in the applicant where it should re-appear before the Planning Commission and that's why it's before you today. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm wondering if you could point out in detail where the neon, where you'd like neon and where neon is not to be? Al-Jarl) Okay. This is the north elevation... Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Sharmin, on page 2. Just a clarification. The second to the last paragraph. It says staff is recommending the applicant reduce the width of the service lane located to the west by 4 feet... This will permit the drive aisle to be, the drive aisle in the parking lot to be widened to 24. And then four sentences up it says the ordinance requires 26. So are they shooting for 26 or 24? Hempel: 26. Conrad: For me to get a perspective on the neon, you're eliminating, you're recommending the stripes not go. Al-Jarl) Over the brick. Conrad: On the, on any elevation? Al-Jarl) Correct. On the north and east elevation. Just keep it around the stucco entrance. Conrad: And the reason for that is? Al-Jarl) Excessive signage. We're viewing the neon as an extension of the sign because it is one of the trademarks for Video Update. Peterson: Questions of staff'? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Burton: Do you know if the city attorney has reviewed the operation and easement agreement that the applicant has submitted? A1-Jafl5 No, not yet. Burton: ... A1-Jafl~ Yes it will when we record the site plan agreement, the city attorney would have to review everything. Peterson: Other questions? Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Ron Krank: Good evening. My name is Ron Krank. I'm with KKE Architects. I'm here representing the property owner. Staff has done a very thorough job as you can tell from the report in going through every aspect of the plan. And I'm not going to go through much of it in very much detail except to maybe tell you how we're going to accommodate those elements that we can and are concerned with those that we think are issues. I think I'd like to start with a plan. The way this site is laid out, we have Highway 7 to the north of the property and the existing shopping center is back in this area. The proposed building, which is really 8,100 square feet. It's 90 x 90... stafl} if anybody measured this probably took this entrance to be actually part of the building. Actually it's just pilasters against the building so it's 8,100 square feet. And as such requiring 41 parking stalls. I think when we came in originally it was proposed, the property... square feet. That's probably where the parking requirements took place. But I tell you that because we really don't have too many issues with, most the things that are being proposed on the plan, is being proposed is two, 24 foot aisles be increased to 26 feet and we propose to accommodate that by taking 4 feet off of this drive aisle. Reduce it to 20 feet. And secondly, staff is proposing that we increase this 5 foot green area from the property line in to 15 feet. We have problems with 15. I believe the ordinance is 10. We can accommodate the 10 by taking another 5 feet out of this drive aisle so it winds up being a 15 feet and then we'd make it one way around the building. We like this for a couple reasons. One is there will probably be a... entrances on this site. And secondly, when customers park in this area, if they wind up backing this way for them to get out. So we believe we can accommodate that and these changes fairly easily but we do have an issue making this 5 foot wider than the ordinance. The ordinance evidently also requires a 15 foot setback from the south property line. We have an excess dimension here, in this whole area so we can take another 10 feet and move forward and still meet the 26 foot ordinance.., and still get a sidewalk to work because this is straight in that area. So those seem to work well. The only issue we really have pertains primarily to traffic concerns that have been suggested with regards to entrances on the south side of the site. This is a small shopping center. It's only 28,000 square feet of area. Just a few shops over here. Excellent sight lines throughout and we just feel it just makes a lot more sense to be able to drive from this center directly and find a space or here rather than coming around and going in and trying to get out. It just seems to flow easier. If this was a Wal-Mart or a Target or a big center where you've got a lot of traffic going back and forth, it would probably be an issue. But frankly given the fact this is wide open and a lot of parking out front, great visibility, our preference would be to... so on the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 site plan really that's about all we have. With regard to the exterior of the building, we really started the architecture by looking at the existing building, which is a blend of brick and unpainted concrete block. It also has anodize aluminum.., store front and then there's some red out around the columns and they used also the.., some pre-finished metal awnings and then it looks like they used bar joist, standard metal bar joists to support on the outside. What we want to do is provide a very clean, simple building. Not too fussy because it is a small building but we wanted to call attention to the users and do it in what we thought was a very dignified manner. This building being a different proportion, we've raised it up higher so it's not just a little squat building. The existing center is 15 feet to the top of the roof. We're proposing to raise this to 18 feet. The windows in the existing center are 7 feet high, lining up with the doors. Proposing you go to 10 feet and then we're proposing that the building be all brick except for the gray unfinished rock face block at the base and then also we had two thoughts. One was either a drivit or stucco like material at the entry or the pre-finished, or the concrete block. We had indicated here that the concrete masonry units, our current thinking we'd probably do it in a drivit. Get a little more strength and call a lot more attention to the building. And then what we're doing to accentuate the entrances is creating double pilaster on both sides. We're taking some of the idea that truss system, the existing style. We're reducing it down in scale so that it has a little better proportion as it would relate to this building and then we're keeping this as a detail on top which you can see through. On the existing building they used another material behind it. It's sort of a translucent material and I don't think it's as successful as frankly being able to see right through it. So what we're proposing is, this would be the north elevation. The front of Video Update. Glass on both sides. We're proposing the double band of neon on either side which frankly we think we need to give it a little more character and scale to it. It's a small building and with these two lines of neon in those areas that Sharmin pointed out, we felt that was really essential in tying it all together. Secondly as we wrap around on the glass we thought it made sense to do just as we did in the front here, accentuate the glass portion of the east elevation with the two bands of neon. And then finally we decided since this space adjacent to the Video Update facing easterly will no longer be a retail tenant but it will be the owner of the building... We didn't need an awning. We didn't need anything to write or call attention to it so we're just going to have signage on the front. It will meet the ordinance. We felt it wasn't necessary to get the canopy.., so then we took it off from the south of the elevation as well. So in essence we are blending in with the existing center but I think we're doing a little different job let's say in terms of proportions, height, and working with some stronger detail, strong proportions rather than trying to get lots of things happening. We do have some photographs of the existing center if you like. I can share that with you... Peterson: Questions of the applicant. Conrad: Chairman, what do you see going in the second part of the building? Ron Krank: It's going to be office. It's going to be offices for the building owner. Conrad: South elevation is fairly bland and. Ron Krank: In the future there's going to be another building there. Office building.., back here, you might remember on our plans, south of this building there's an enclosure, a brick enclosure 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 for the trash. So there's other walls.., sticking out. The opening of the trash will be...but eventually there's going to be another structure here. Conrad: Another building. Ron Krank: Correct. Peterson: More questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please to open it. Brooks 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. Richard Green: My name is Richard Green. I'm here to represent the retailer, Video Update. An address is 1424 County Road 9 in Dennison, Minnesota. Video Update is currently a tenant in the center behind. My main point I'll address is to the neon. That is a characteristic that wherever possible is repeated by Video Update in it's elevations. Our retail business is that of entertainment. We think the neon is consistent with entertainment retail, of theaters and video users. The existing store has across it's entire front the same planned double band of 15 millimeter neon tubing. We have here two presentations. We've got the north elevation. That's a presentation to Highway 7. It is the strongest characteristic I think on the building. The east elevation though, with that additional wrap of neon and signage is probably the most important to us as a tenant because the majority of the traffic entering the center does so off of TH 41 with the right-in only on Highway 7. The majority of the traffic entering and trying to identify the occupant of the building has to do so across the parking lot at this point so for us we think both to show the consistency of the wrap in the two elevations, the two presentations, and the distance that we are trying to get some identification from a customer moving in a car, that would be important to have that wrap of neon and the signs on the two elevations. So any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Peterson: Maybe back to the architect. If your most important visual is from TH 41, why wouldn't the building have been oriented towards TH 41 than TH 7 then? Ron Krank: Well, we've looked at these plans very carefully and really it's a good question because we've looked at whether it's the east entrance or the north face of the building that we really wanted to make as an entrance and you see we've got parking in front on the north face. There will be traffic coming in there. Slipping in. There's a lot of traffic that goes by that we want them to know we're there. The traffic is going to enter the site and use the site as it's true, will be coming off of TH 41. So from that standpoint we do want the center identified but just visually, knowing they're there and recalling the Video Update store, it's just good advertising. So that's why we did that. Got that front face but Rick is right, the bulk of the traffic does come in off of TH 41 and we obviously want them to see it and know it's there. Frankly the existing 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 building has a lot going on, as you see here. Just a lot of different ideas and details and it's got 3 or 4 layers of different things. We think by the simplicity of the building with some attention to the entrances and the neon, we can really make a better statement so less is more in this case. But the neon is an essential element. It does call attention to it and so that's why we felt by reducing it to just at the window, it would be in effect of compromise to stafl~ s concern about the magnitude of it. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Sidney moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Ladd. Your thoughts on this one. Conrad: Yeah, I'm okay. I think they're making the changes per the staff report. It's okay with me. I really don't, I don't have a problem with the neon. This is supposed to be a fun type of building. If there's an ordinance restriction to it, then word excessive is key here. I wouldn't do this ifI thought it was breaking an ordinance but I really don't have a problem with... The other, you know I have to go with staff on almost all the other issues. Peterson: Well, if there is a second building that goes in there, ... we won't have the neon .... if another one goes in... try to integrate that in with the building with neon. Conrad: You know I don't know. I can't forecast that. I know what's fun and a video store is fun and I don't need to make it boring. Again, if there's an ordinance that says don't do this, I will, I'll stick by that ordinance. Staff is pretty good at interpreting what we have sensitive to our direction and City Council. In this particular case I don't want to strip out the fun things. Obviously visibility is important. That's what they want and ifI thought it was gross, I'd vote it down. I just don't feel that so. Peterson: Sharmin... A1-Jafl) It says logos should constitute no more than 15% of the sign area. Is this a logo? That becomes a question. And I haven't figured out the exact area of the neon lights but my guess is that it would exceed 15%. But is it a logo? I mean that would become the question truly. Peterson: Okay. Alyson. Brooks: I think it's a reasonable project. Although I would disagree with Ladd on the neon. To me it looks like a generic Video Update building. I don't consider Video Update building's fun. It just looks like Video Update architecture to me. Fairly generic. But it is what it is. And I think that it's sort of, sort of says it purpose all by itself with a big Video Update sign and I don't think neon around the back and the side is going to make a real big difference to consumers on whether they're going to drive to the video store. Once they know it's there, people will either go or 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 they'll be driving by and say hey, let's stop at Video Update. The extra neon to make it extra fun isn't going to make the difference so I say, the project's great. Let's go with the project. All the staff recommendations and not do the extra neon. Peterson: Matt. Burton: Well the two that strike me are the neon also and the southeast driveway entrance and I think the neon is appropriate for this type of building and I think I'd be in favor of deleting the sentence in the recommendation.., swayed on that on two ways. One is it's on a highway and two, it's the existing Video Update there has it already and, the neon band... On this driveway one, I guess I understand the applicant's concern and I guess.., talk with staff and keep working on that issue.., and perhaps see if they can get, otherwise I agree with all the stafl's recommendations except for the neon. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I generally don't have any problems with the application. Excellent staff report. Very thorough as always. I guess the neon issue I was thinking well maybe not but at this point I guess I would be in favor of having the neon. I'm thinking that is it any more or less than what SuperAmerica looks like because that would be heavily lighted in the evenings as well as it has bands of red along the white roof line as well. I guess I don't really have a problem with the neon and would be in favor of deleting that as Matt said. Condition. Peterson: My only two comments are the neon and... I would be, I would support stafl's position on the neon only because I'm thinking ahead about that secondary building and I think it would be better if the building would not have a neon on all the sides just seemingly being able to integrate a future building more easily. Dave, looking at that entrance, I mean as we looked at it, having it open versus closed, it seems more logical to have it open to me. What am I missing? I mean what was the rationale for having just one? Hempel: Well the existing curb radius out there provide smooth transition. It's a good radius for turning vehicles. Granted it's a right in only off of Highway 7 so truck traffic most likely will access through off Highway 41. To give you an idea of what it would be like is if you turned into Market Square from Market Boulevard, first entrance into Wendy's. It's a continuous, almost 270 degree turn as you're going around. Cars coming behind, there is maybe some concern for rear end collisions. Again, the main access would be from TH 41. I do agree with their. Peterson: But that though, wouldn't that be a compelling reason to open up the parking lot more? Hempel: A more open parking lot you find a little excessive speeding through the parking lots. Pedestrian safety is a concern if you do have that Market Square with all the islands in it. You don't like to drive it because you really can't go through it too fast and granted this probably is not as intense use as Market Square but just a plan I guess, a general site plan. Considerations to this we felt and additionally the previous site plan approval did not have that either. They had the one access off the south and one access off the east. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: I think we had this same discussion a year ago too is. Hempel: Yeah, and that was I think a bigger building as well. We can certainly look at it a little bit closer with the applicant. I think the intent of the quick short trips to Video Update too, there's a peak period, afternoon, evenings that should maybe be looked at a little bit closer. Audience: The intent of the other building, if it ever gets built... Peterson: My point was more to the line of because there's neon on one building, I would suspect there wouldn't be neon on the next building. That there wouldn't be a natural flow of styles in buildings that are very close to each other. Audience: ... really a rare case of... when they put their sign on and that was about 4 years ago and... Brooks: If we permit them to have the extra neon, do you see any chances of moving other people in here saying well you did it for them. Let them expand their commercial logo. I mean are we setting a precedent that we don't want to be setting? A1-Jafl2 Yes you are. Peterson: With that discussion, can I have a motion please. Burton: Yes. I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #97-4 as shown on the site plan received July 9, 1998 subject to the conditions 1 through 20 and deleting the sentence in number 2 that begins, if a neon band. Well I'll just read the sentence. The sentence, ifa neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, it shall be limited to the north entryway of Video Update. And also deleting item 20. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Yeah, I'd second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Yes, I'd like to amend it however and instead of if. Instead of deleting the whole sentence, I probably shouldn't have seconded it but I can vote it down anyway. I'd rather have it worded that ifa neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, and if it falls within city sign ordinance specifications. Then stafl's still going to recommend against it. But I'd like to make, I don't want to break the ordinance and the deal is 15%. That's the deal and we can't, and if this takes us above it based on interpretation, we shouldn't do it. So that would be, you know I'd like you to reconsider or at least amend. Burton: I'll amend my motion to do that. Incorporate... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: It's a friendly amendment so we can move ahead... Is there a second? There was a second. Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97-4 as shown on the site plan received July 9, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 10. 11. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign ifa sign was erected. Ifa neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, and if it falls within city sign ordinance specifications, it shall be limited to the north entryway of Video Update. No signage will be permitted along the southern elevation. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. Increase under story plantings in buff'er yard to 6 trees. Increase all parking lot islands and peninsulas to 10' in width. Install tree protection fencing around existing vegetation on the west side of the property prior to construction. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Fire Marshal conditions: Install a P.I.V. (post indicator valve). Valve location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Lighting Plans shall include photometrics, wattage, treatment for glare, etc. Building Official's conditions: 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. a. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Services Commission. The applicant shall intensify the landscaping plan along the westerly slope to restore the existing buff'er to the original condition or better. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. The site plan shall be revised to include the following: a) The radius on the north/south drive aisle in the southeasterly comer shall remain at 20 feet, b) The parking lot and drive aisles shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20-1118, c) Provide minimum 10 foot landscape median belween parking lot and north/south drive aisle from Trunk Highway 7, d) Delete southeasterly driveway entrance from existing parking lot, e) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Prepare a traffic signage plan for review and approval by staff2 Recalculate impervious surface percentage. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The building setback along the southern property line shall be increased to 15 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OUTLOT D (0.7 ACRES)~ SPRINGFIELD ADDITION~ INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON SUNNYVALE DRIVE~ LUNDGREN BROS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff2 Seeing none, is the applicant here and would you like to address the commission? Please come forward. Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Brothers and project manager for Springfield. And I'm available to answer questions. I don't really have any complaint about conditions of approval. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: Questions of the applicant. Thank you. Conrad moved, Burton 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. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners? LuAnn. Sidney: No comments. Peterson: Matt. Burton: No comments. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: No comments. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. Peterson: Neither have I. May I have a motion. Sidney: I'll make the motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of Outlot D, Springfield Addition into lwo lots as shown on the plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 9/14/93, revised 7/9/98, subject to the following conditions 1 through 8. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Sidney moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of Outlot D, Springfield Addition into two lots as shown on the plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 9/14/93, revised 7/9/98, subject to the following conditions: 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 1. Full park and trail fees shall be required pursuant to city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall pay water quantity fees of $1,386.00 to the City at time of final plat recording. 3. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the right-of-way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. Construction plans and specifications for the extension of utility service and street improvements to this development shall be submitted to the City three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The developer shall be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10-year storm event. Detailed storm sewer calculations for the development will be required in conjunction with final platting. 7. The street right-of-way throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before October 31 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and sediment control." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT PROPOSES TO IMPACT APPROXIMATELY 100 SQUARE FEET OF WETLAND BY PLACING A BOARDWALK OVER A WETLAND TO ACCESS LAKESHORE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED IMPACT IS NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT C~VCA) OR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS~ BUT BY THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN'S WETLAND ORDINANCES~ 1085 HOLLY LANE~ JULIE SPRAU. Phillip Elkin presented the staff report on this item. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: That sounds like a very unique solution to a arduous process that the applicant has been going through. Elkin: Exactly. It's a very unique situation and again we, when we think of boardwalks on wetlands, we think of going out a distance to cross a wetland or to get to open water on our lakes. But it's pretty straight forward so. Peterson: I assume this is going to look similar to the boardwalk in front of Houlihan's and that wetland in that area? Similar? Elkin: Except it's only going to, it only needs to be about you know 6 or 7 feet long. 10 feet at the most. It's just a section, a dock section really that needs to be laid down over two humps that has water in the middle and just allow the applicant and her family to get to the lake to fish and swim so. Sidney: Would there be footings? Elkin: No, I don't think so. Sidney: No footings? Elkin: No. Well, did you plan on putting footings Julie? No. It's such a minor, you could just lay it over to have passage to the lake so. Peterson: Other questions of stafl~ Would you like to address the commission? Julie Sprau: Good evening. My name is Julie Sprau and I'm the applicant, 1085 Holly Lane, Chanhassen. I believe that the staff report and our application is fairly self explanatory so my purpose this evening is just to answer any questions, concerns, comments that any of you or anyone else might have. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Julie Sprau: Thank you. Peterson: Thanks Julie. This is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Burton moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners? LuAnn. Sidney: I guess I don't see any problem whatsoever. Like you said, a unique solution. Burton: It makes sense to me. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Good project. A dock is much better than filling. Conrad: Good solution. Peterson: I also think that and on behalf of the city and the state, apologize for putting you through all this. Can I have a motion please. Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve water alteration permit #98-3 to allow a boardwalk over the wetland. Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Brooks moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-3 to allow a boardwalk over the wetland to gain access to lakeshore. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF OUTLOT B~ SARATOGA 1sT ADDITION INTO 2 LOTS; ONE LOT OF 2.75 + ACRES TO BE PURCHASED BY THE CITY FOR PARKLAND. THE REMAINING 3.45+ ACRES TO BE HELD BY THE OWNER~ DOUGLAS HANSEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SANTA VERA DR. JUST WEST OF THE SANTA VERA APARTMENTS~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Questions of staff'? I only had one and maybe I'm pleading ignorance. Why are we rezoning park space office institutional? Generous: It's just to be consistent with the zoning of the rest of the park site. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: The rest of the park is OI? Generous: Correct. Peterson: Don't we have a separate zoning for parks? Generous: Not specifically. Generally it's a permitted use in one of the zoning districts. Peterson: ... a permitted use would be park. Wouldn't park space be permitted use of anything then? Just out of curiosity now. Is that the case, park can be used under any. Generous: I believe in almost all the districts. But because the rest of City Center Park was zoned OI, we wanted to make it all the same. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I found my question. What have we, what are we committing to by allowing the subdivision? In terms of the apartment building, are we concerned about our commitment? By breaking off so many acres of land for parks, that's fine but I'm not sending a signal that I'm accepting any other conditions on this. So Bob, tell me what I'm committed for when, if I approve this subdivision. Generous: With the subdivision, nothing. With the PUD rezoning the properly, that they can develop up to 30 additional dwelling units on the site. That's the only commitment they've made. Conrad: Up to. And what does that mean? They have a cap but that there's no guarantee, right? There is no guarantee that we are going to allow the 30. Generous: They would still. Conrad: My point is, I haven't looked at the, I don't know what it is. Yeah, but if you allow the subdivision, right now we are saying that you are, we are saying you have the right to do something and I just want to be, through allowing that subdivision, I want the applicant to be very clear that we have, that I haven't reviewed what the potential for that other parcel is. I don't know. I don't know the surroundings. I don't know how it's integrated. I don't know access. I know nothing. So it seems like a simple subdivision but I'm not reviewing the potential impact to the part that we're not talking about. Or rather to the 30 units as an apartment building. Peterson: Correct me if I'm wrong. We have full and complete responsibility to review the plan prior to anything being put up there? Generous: Site plan, yes. Anything additional would have to come through the public hearing process. We tried to develop the design standards as part of the PUD to create some parameters. Peterson: It's strictly a rezoning issue and approval of the preliminary PUD. Generous: Correct. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Conrad: Well I don't know. I just don't. I need to read the motion Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Doug Hansen: Doug Hansen. I'm the owner of the existing apartment buildings. My address is 11969 North Shore Drive, Spicer, Minnesota. And we were the owners, Tom Klingelhulz and myself were the original developers of Western Hills Apartments and we had the original plans to put in 80 units in that properly. Through the Planning Commission and Council and it was all set to go. We just did the first phase. My partner and I split up after that. It dragged out over 3 years. It was a bad scene and I just didn't have the heart until now to finish this up and the development of it. Development of that land. Talked to Don Ashworth, filing part of it to the park so this has been happening for a long time .... and we'd be way under the density. In the staff report, I have two... It's on page 8. The wetlands. That was a big surprise to me until Monday. We bought the land from Pat Kerber in the 60's. It was a corn field and it's never been a wetland. We've been through the development process and as you can see there's no wetland... setbacks I'm concerned about.., so I would like that looked into. We built the berm.., the runoff is from the school properly, part of it. From the drive north it runs off and the fence from the school properly acts as a filter. It catches leaves, papers, whatever... When we built this sidewalk, that kind of dammed up the.., so it's just a matter of a slow runoff after the snow melts. The other issue is the park fees and the Planning Commission meeting 3-4-69 speaks to that. We donated 10.6 acres of parkland to meet our park obligation. We've spoken with Todd about that so I think.., this wetland is a complete surprise to me. It shouldn't be there. I don't know.., if it was graded properly it wouldn't be there. It's just a flat... There's no cattails. There's no water. All it is is a dumping grounds for the... That's all I have. Otherwise I'm, it says in this 3 here, the wetland shall be delineated at the time of site plan approval. I'd have that map... Peterson: Do you have a question on that? Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hansen, that means that you have a person that's an expert in the field come out and stake out where the edge of the wetland is. The alternative, determine that there is no wetland there. Doug Hansen: Staff put this in to my, without my knowledge. I'd like the staff to look at that. Generous: We can look into that further, sure. Peterson: Why don't you talk a little bit about the background of how all the wetlands.., into the city Bob. Without going into a dissertation but how was this cited as a wetland? Generous: As part of the stormwater management plan the City hired experts to go out and identify all the wetlands in the community... They did this in anticipation of developing a storm water system that would utilize some of the existing wetlands for pre-treatment of water to improve water quality in the city's lakes and streams. These experts have gone out and created maps that show all of these and give a designation. There's a wetland inventory book that the city 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 has and we use that when we review the developments. From that the city is the local governmental unit responsibility for the protection of wetlands in the communities and plus we look at each development proposal as it comes to determine what impacts it may have on the city's wetlands. We can investigate this further to see in fact that it is a wetland. Wetlands are created through drainage. There is different characteristics involved in the wetlands besides only vegetation. You have water, hydrology and soil conditions and so there is more than just looking at it and saying that it doesn't have cattails but we'll investigate that further between now and going to City Council on Monday. Peterson: Any comments? Any questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Seeing there's nobody here.., can I have a motion to close. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. I think Ladd's still thinking. Matt. Burton: I don't have any problems with it. Instead of maybe referring to it as the wetland, say any wetland shall be lineated... Otherwise it's fine. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I have no problems with the project at all. I do think that staff needs to go into the wetland issue. Coming from South Dakota I used.., farm ditches and they'd fill up one year for 3 weeks and voila, they had a wetland so it can get confusing sometimes. That should be checked out and re-determined and I agree with Matt. If we just... Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm dealing with what we're doing. The subdivision is not a bother but the staff recommendation says conceptual and preliminary approval. Now that tells me I need to see more than boundaries. So what am I doing Bob here? Conceptual, I have no idea what he's going to do on that land. There's no concept so what are we really, it is a subdivision and the park, I haven't seen what the parks, the portion of what's going to be used for the park either. So it just seems, we're going to put a park on one part and some other thing goes on the other but the wording says conceptual and preliminary approval. Help me with that. Help me with the wording. Is that the wording that? You know you want us to approve a PUD but I don't have any idea what's on that land. Nothing at all. Do you want one chunk over here for park and one chunk over here for apartments but I don't have a clue. This is not it. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Generous: Preliminary approval of the design standards basically. We're approving, that's the only thing we're approving tonight. With the condition that you'll see the plan and they'll have to comply with these standards. We're maxing out, they can get an additional 30 units on their 3.85 acres. Peterson: Are we word smithing here? I mean we were talking about conceptual and preliminary. I hear your frustration with those l~vo words really. What do they mean, what impact do they mean by that? Conrad: Yeah, that's important. It's also what you're approving and it seems simple. You know we want a park. We like that. I think we have control of something coming back in here, but I guess I'm picking apart the process a little bit. Usually when we have a conceptual PUD folks, we know what's going where. We know what park parts are on that park. I don't know what we're using it for so it's real incomplete. Bob's saying we're putting some standards in. I have no. Peterson: What's the rationale for doing this in a conceptual basis... ? Generous: So thatthey can get closure. The purchase ofthe propertyis contingent onthis. Conrad: The purchase of the properly by the city. Generous: Correct. Conrad: And you feel this meets the normal, we would do this for any other group just this way. This is sort of normal operating procedure where we. Generous: Well generally they come in with their development proposal at the same time, yes. This is one where you have to, we do have a concept that the applicant submitted. Now we took this idea and tried to incorporate design standards to this thing that we thought would be better, make a development, better development. One, we'd push that parking area adjacent to the park, away from the park. Make it more, the design standards are such that the building should be closer. We envision having balconies off that building because the building setback is less than the parking setback in that area. We put some design standards for the materials, site landscaping, that we think will make.., project. And we defined it such that it would be an apartment building. Conrad: No more questions. Peterson: May I have a motion please. Burton: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approve of the conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #98-2. Brooks: Second. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: Any discussion? Burton moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD#98-2. All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: On what basis? Conrad: This is an awful presentation of a conceptual and preliminary PUD. It's just, it's because the city wants to get the land so you know every time we do that we kind of tend to push and make some exceptions. If it was somebody else coming in here, you'd nail them. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approval of Subdivision #98-7 of Outlot B by creating two lots of 2.75 acres and 3.58 acres with conditions 1 through 3 as stated by the staff recommendation but amending 3 to read, any wetland shall be delineated at the time of site plan approval. Peterson: Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Burton moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve Subdivision (SUB#98-7) of Outlot B by creating two lots of 2.75 acres and 3.58 acres with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement with the City. 2. Future development must comply with the development design standards. 3. Any wetland shall be delineated at the time of site plan approval. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the rezoning #98-3 of 2.75 acres from R-12 to OI and the rezoning of 3.58 acres from R-12 to PUD- R. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Burton moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the rezoning #98-3 of 2.75 acres from R-12 to OI and the rezoning of 3.58 acres from R-12 to PUD-R. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Generous: Comp plan will be back on the 19th. Sidney: What happened to the Frontier Building? Generous: What do you mean what happened to it? Sidney: It's still there but where is it in the process? Generous: I believe they have approval for the site plan. Peterson: Council approved it... Sidney: Okay. Generous: And then Arboretum Business Park, the Building 2 is coming in. They went with the larger building so it's 115,000. They found an office tenant for it so they're adding additional office frontage on the north elevation rather than having the blank wall. They've added a couple more entrances so it will be a little nicer project. As you come down from the north. They're in for building permit right now. Conrad: They're coming back, it's coming for building permit. So we approved the two buildings. We did not approve the one. Generous: Right. Council approved either option and then they have a tenant that's leasing a majority of the space and so they're coming in with the larger building. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35