Loading...
PC 2009 08 18 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2009 Acting Chair Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: HISLOP VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, ND PINEHURST 2 ADDITION (6604 ALDER WAY). APPLICANT: BRENT HISLOP, SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE #09-10. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Let’s start with you Mark. Do you have any questions? Undestad: No. Laufenburger: Kevin, how about you? Dillon: I have no questions. I thought it was laid out pretty clearly. I get it. I’m going to probably vote in favor of this one. Laufenburger: Any questions Tom? Doll: I just had a, regarding the erosion control plan. Does that bear any more burden to the homeowner? I mean there’s certain, when they develop property there is silt fences established and I drove by the property and their silt fence is still up. I’m just kind of curious does that, does the City, do you guys take that into account when you come up with something? Aanenson: Well typically when it’s sometimes a grade, custom graded lot, we would normally walk it. In this circumstance we actually did walk this one too to kind of see how it fit. So there will be typically silt fence put up during the construction. There is some silt fence out there that was done with the grading. This was kind of pre-graded and that kind of led to where we are today because it was graded in a different spot, so that is our responsibility through inspections and engineering to make sure they’re maintained and then that they’re removed after the construction and seed’s taken hold. But I don’t think that will be a burden. That was one of the issues, if you look at this lot is how this house sits. If you were to put it where the setback, it’d Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 actually be back, be back further. Kind of over that silt fence into the back so this kind of keeps it in with what’s already been rough graded. Does that answer your question? Doll: Yeah, I guess the, it was the kind of the wording of that. They needed a plan or. Generous: With the building permit, yes. They would submit additional, well it’s, we require it on all building permits that they have a survey and the topography plan. And we want to make sure that they’re not encroaching any farther into the green area, if you will on this site. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: So the silt fence again would show, like so the dirt doesn’t run into the neighbor’s property. Kind of just shows the areas where people think it’s going to flow and that’s why it’d be established. So the inspector goes out he’s got a plan too where… Doll: Okay. I was just kind of reading it as that you would have an erosion control expert that would need to come out. Aanenson: No. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: They would just show on the building and we just make sure that it’s out there regard. It’s, and the contractor would put it on there. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: The building contractor. Doll: That’s all I have. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks Tom. Kathleen, any questions? Thomas: I don’t have any questions. Laufenburger: Alright. Dan, any questions or comments? Keefe: I’ve got to back you up just a little bit Bob. I’m a little confused on my directions here more than anything. This says due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, which is what? The one that borders the school? Generous: Exactly. Keefe: Okay. The western side of the property would place the house at the 15 foot setback. Aanenson: I think this grading plan’s a little easier to see. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah their sketch plan should. Aanenson: This right here is kind of that unbuildable, through this right here so it pinches it. So if you move it down it pinches the lot width. Keefe: I see. Aanenson: And there’s nobody on that side. The middle school’s right here. Keefe: Right. So the variance that we’re, that we’d be looking to grant is along which line? Can you run your. Aanenson: It’s pushing the house forward. Keefe: I see. Generous: It would be on the northerly 15 foot easement line. Keefe: Okay. Generous: But then we were saying that. Keefe: But the front yard is the northern? Generous: Yes. Is the northern side. Aanenson: And that’s a little quirk we have with the private street. Keefe: Yeah. And so there, and then you said there was a mistake made between the sort of normal setback, which is the 30 foot setback which is with this zoning classification, right? And then. Generous: And the 20. Keefe: And then the private street, okay. Generous: Which was a condition of the subdivision since the ordinance is silent on setbacks from a private street. Keefe: Okay. So the governing rule here is the zoning setback. The 30 foot setback. Generous: Right. Keefe: The 20 really has no. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah. It’s a little bit on the eastern side of this property. It wouldn’t impact the real location of the house because they want it sitting in line with those other buildings. Aanenson: Right, and that’s one of the criteria that we look at with variances. That it will, aligns up and when we went out there field checking, you’re pushing that house significantly behind the house immediately next door. Keefe: Okay. So by approving the variance we’re saving the trees because they’ve already, well but they’ve already taken the trees out. Generous: In the grading area. Keefe: Was that done prior to this application? Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: It was. It was done as a part of the development. Generous: The subdivision. Keefe: The subdivision development, okay. And if we were to not grant it they would be forced, based upon the allowed building site or pad site or? Say we were to push them back. Generous: You would push them back at least 15 feet, if not more into the treed area. Keefe: Would they then be limited in terms of their building pad size or? Aanenson: Well that’s that pinch point we were talking about. This is the area of the setback from along here so it would pinch, it’d force the house to be narrower and it drops off significantly so it makes it a little bit more challenging. Keefe: Yeah, right. Generous: Yeah, it’s a walkout so. Aanenson: The topography, yeah. Keefe: Okay so, hardship on this is? Because we’re going to grant a variance, would be what? Because of the building paid size or because of? Generous: Well the grading. The configuration of the property. That northern property line. Normally the way all the other lots were configured the continuation of that would have been into the school site, but because the line didn’t turn to the south, well went more westerly than northwesterly. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Keefe: So where do we fall in terms of hardship and what do we, you know I mean, it’s kind of to grant a variance sort of technically you know. Aanenson: The topographic features. There’d be additional tree loss. Keefe: Yes. Aanenson: And then also it wouldn’t line up with the rest of the neighborhood, which is one of the criteria that we look at for orientation. Keefe: Right. Aanenson: To be consistent with what’s, or the pattern that’s set in there. That was one of the things that we physically went out and checked too. Keefe: Right. Do you guys typically write that up in terms of a hardship? And I’m not sure whether you addressed that or not in here. I mean you know, I’m in agreement. Aanenson: Sure. Keefe: I just. Aanenson: We can. Generous: Yeah, it’s on page 1 of the Findings of Fact. The literal enforcement of the setback requirement would cause an undue hardship. The house location would be forced further south into the wooded area that the City is trying to preserve. The house would also be pushed out of the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along the private street. Keefe: Yes. Okay. Aanenson: So that’s in your Findings of Fact. Generous: And you would adopt that. Keefe: That’s all I have. Laufenburger: Alright. Thank you Dan. Do we have an applicant or builder present this evening? State your name and address please for the record. Brent Hislop: Good evening members of the commission. My name is Brent Hislop with Synergy Land Company. P.O. Box here in Chanhassen. 470 so. I live technically in Victoria. No specific comments. I think you all got my write up in your packet. I believe I stated everything probably 2 or 3 times in there as far as our interpretation. Just one note (a), I think it truly is very obvious that the original intent of this lot was similar to the abutting lots. I’m not 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 entirely convinced that this process was necessary in terms of a variance separate from the original private street but nonetheless we worked successfully with the City on many projects and certainly staff and appreciate their help in working this out so. We’re supportive of staff’s recommendations, our request, and certainly stand for questions if you have any. Thank you. Laufenburger: Okay. So you’re comfortable with the outcome of the, the way the. Brent Hislop: With the city line? Essentially that’s the change, yes. We’ll move forward under that condition. Laufenburger: Any questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak on this item? You can something else if you want. Brent Hislop: One follow. I discussed this with staff briefly. Given the configuration and I think staff agrees, or at least understands, it’s a yet to be determined thing. Very common but potentially we’d have a driveway easement across, well for sure across the triangle area but potentially within the 15 feet and we or the ultimate buyer would be responsible, just like any other driveway easement so I just wanted to note that as a side bar. Laufenburger: Okay. I think we heard that and staff say that that section would be reserved for driveway but no building. Aanenson: That’s correct. Laufenburger: No structure. Brent Hislop: Okay, thank you. Laufenburger: Any other public comment? Then we’ll close the public hearing and bring this back to commission. Comments. Let’s start with you Tom. You have any comments or questions you’d like to address to any other member of the commission? Doll: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: I’m in support of the variance. I think it’s a good idea and it will help keep them out of the wetlands. Get the house in line with the rest of the houses that will be developed there and seems acceptable. Laufenburger: Good point. Dan. Keefe: I’m good with it. Laufenburger: Alrighty. Kevin. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Dillon: I support it. Laufenburger: Alright. As am I. I’ll entertain a motion. Dillon: I’ll make a motion. Laufenburger: Kevin. Dillon: That the Chanhassen Planning, that’s the wrong one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback nd variance to permit a 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. Aanenson: That’s it. Just need a second. Laufenburger: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Laufenburger: Thank you Mark. Any further discussion? Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15 nd foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. 2. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be “soft” connected to the 4 inch drain tile located at the back-of-curb for the private cul-de-sac. 3. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. 4. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, 6 inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plant/shrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. 5. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 6. Structures shall not encroach into any easement except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ZELLNER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED ON ND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WESTERN HILLS 2 ADDITION (7461 LONGVIEW CIRCLE). APPLICANT: RICHARD & CHANIN ZELLNER, PLANNING CASE 09-12. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks staff. Start with you Tom. Any questions for staff? Doll: This is just kind of a learning thing for me. Corner lots, are there typically, are they equal setbacks? You know usually there’s a side and a front. Aanenson: Yeah, we consider the front, the true front is where your front door is, but when you’re on a corner lot you have a 30 and a 30 so you have two fronts and then you have, so this would be, this side would require 30. This side would require also that, and then 10 and then. Generous: It’s 10 on the other. Aanenson: 10 on the other. Generous: You have two sides and two fronts. Aanenson: Right. Doll: I have no further questions. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: Um, no I don’t have any questions. Good with it. Laufenburger: Dan, any questions? Keefe: Yeah, you know just so I’m clear on this. If I’m looking at the color coded, yeah this one right here. The blue box has, is in the encroachment. If you go down to that corner. Aanenson: This little triangle piece is what’s in the encroachment. Keefe: Yeah, is there an eave on the existing building that is causing that? Aanenson: No, that’s the existing garage. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Keefe: Yeah, and but it’s got a roof on it right? Aanenson: Yeah, Keefe: But it’s got a roof on it right? Aanenson: Yeah, I do have a picture of the house as it sits now. There is an eaves that comes over that but that wouldn’t count today. The 2 1/2 foot setback does not count today because you can encroach in the side yard but the foundation’s still over. Keefe: Yeah, so the blue box as we’re seeing it right there is the building, right? Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: Yeah, it’s bigger than just the eaves. It cuts through the corner of that. About 17 square feet. Keefe: Okay, so really all they’re talking about is just taking a building, that same building going up like that. Aanenson: Yep. Yep. Keefe: And then the, and is the roof configuration on the proposed similar to what it currently is or? Aanenson: It will have the same pitch. Over the front of the house. It will take that same pitch over the top of the garage with two windows. Keefe: Yeah, and so it’s no more than it is today in total is it? Aanenson: Not really except for the second story. Keefe: Except for the height. Aanenson: And the eaves are going a little bit further into that. If you look at the orange, this is a little additional encroachment. Keefe: And is that more because it’s. Aanenson: It’s a foot and a half, right. Keefe: An architectural feature related to the scale of the building kind of? 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct. Keefe: Alright. Thank you. Laufenburger: Kevin, any questions? Dillon: No, I have no questions. This seems pretty simple and straight forward. Laufenburger: Alright. Mark? Okay. I do have, staff has there been any, has there been any feedback from any neighbors? Aanenson: Yes we got some calls and explained to them what the variance was for and nobody objected to the variance. We did have a couple calls. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you. Is there an applicant for, is there an applicant present? Step up to the podium. State your name. Richard Zellner: I’m Richard Zellner, 7461 Longview Circle. Laufenburger: Welcome. Chanin Zellner: I’m Chanin Zellner. Laufenburger: Chanin, welcome. Richard Zellner: We have nothing really to add. You know entertain any questions you might have for us. Laufenburger: Okay. Any questions for the property owner and applicant? How long have you lived there? Richard Zellner: I’ve lived there since 1992. And then we’ve just been married for a little over a year now. Laufenburger: Happy anniversary. Richard Zellner: Thanks. Laufenburger: I guess no questions. Thank you very much. We will close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the commission members. Any questions or comments? Mark, start with you. Undestad: No, I think it looks good. Laufenburger: Kevin. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Dillon: You know I don’t. Laufenburger: Going to change your mind? Dillon: No I don’t. The only other thing is, and it’s not a topic for this but I’m wondering if at some point we should, is there a way like really simple things like this, do they need to come to the Planning Commission? I mean it’s a topic for another day but. Aanenson: We can look at that at a work session. Dillon: Sometime I think that is, and we have an off line session we might want to talk about that. Aanenson: Sure. Laufenburger: Dan. Keefe: No. Laufenburger: Kathleen. Thomas: Looks good. Laufenburger: And Tom. Doll: Looks good to me. Laufenburger: Alright, I’ll entertain a motion then. Keefe: I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves Planning Case 09-12 for a 4.1 foot front yard setback variance for an addition above an existing non-conforming structure located on Lot 1, Block 1, nd Western Hills 2 Addition based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. Laufenburger: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Thomas: Second. Laufenburger: Kathleen, thank you. Any further discussion? There being none. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves Planning Case 09-12 for a 4.1 foot front yard setback variance for an addition above an existing non-conforming structure located on nd Lot 1, Block 1, Western Hills 2 Addition based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action with the following condition: 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 1. The survey for 7461 Longview Circle must be revised to include the perimeter drainage and utility easements to ensure that the proposed improvements will not encroach into the easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. AUTO MOTORPLEX SITE PLAN AMENDMENT: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN PERMIT 2006-23. APPLICANT: BRUNO SILIKOWSKI, PLANNING CASE 09-13. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. This is an amendment to an approved site plan located at 8200 Audubon Road. The amendment is to permit the inclusion of decks on the exterior of these storage facilities. It’s planning case #09-13. Audubon, or Auto Motorplex, they’ve changed their name since the original came through, is a condominium style development where individuals buy units and belong to this association. As part of the development they have a club house, museum building located on the, in the central portion of the site but on the east side of there’s a large open space on this property. The intention of the facility is to permit high end car owners to be able to store and work on their cars and be around other car enthusiasts. That was part of the original promotion of this site. At that time they were talking about having the club house and the museum where the members would meet and they were having to also talking about events where they’d have the cars come in and little shows on the site and this development has been evolving from the original approved site plan and right now the developer, or the owner is requesting that we amend the site plan to allow them to put two types of decks on this site. The D decks are the larger decks. They can be anywhere from 8 to 14 feet projecting out from the building and they would be on the side of the building so they could be just that one unit or someone could buy two units and they could go along the whole end. That would be located on the west side of one existing building and on the north sides of four buildings, two of which are there and two of which would come in the future. On the west side of the property these are unbuilt buildings. They would have smaller 6 foot wide decks. Part of that expansion there would also the developer would like the option to allow them to have roofs. The questions we have for the Planning Commission, ultimately City Council, is this expansion or extension of the use consistent with what was approved for the development and the use of it as a storage facility. Now when you come into the site, this is looking down, you can see the background. There’s the Stone Creek development across the open space. This is approximately a quarter mile away from the club house building. I should say on that first one, on the north side of the building that would be one of the areas for one of the decks to be located. And additionally along that whole edge. Yeah, there’s a door already there and I think they have a nailing strip on. But we held them up from going forward for Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of that as being consistent or not. Again as you’re looking down this site is lower than the easterly portion of this site. Those are the two additional buildings locations that will develop in the future and they’re on, building that one building on the left side. You can just see the middle of it. There’s a small area where they put some balconies. Now we’ve made the distinction a balcony is treated more as an architectural feature. It adds interest to the site. It allows them to step out of their unit and look down at the cars below or the activity, but it doesn’t provide a real space for them to sit down and have a social gathering. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Also they’re adding windows which have improved the looks of the building that they’re still maintaining. The individual units are for storage so they can work and store their vehicles. Over time they’ve added mezzanine levels and little office and meeting areas and they’re becoming more a social gathering spot for the owners. Now it was sort of implied originally but we always thought that the gathering spot would be at the club and not in the individual unit. However if you ever had a garage you invite your friends in. You look at your car and so that’s what we thought would happen. These are becoming high amenity spots and so again we want to bring it back to the Planning Commission and City Council to see if that’s appropriate in this location. So, and then we’ll just continue the tour of the facility. Here’s another view on the other side of that opening. These are little unfinished balcony areas. They have some wrought iron rails that go around it and we think they improve the look of this site. Then you can see how the building architecture has been improved through the use of those fenestration and that and then you go onto the next one. Now this is one of the first buildings that were built and you can see there’s not a whole lot of detail on it. It’s consistent with the approved site plan but you only have one little window on the end of the unit and so they’ve been, like I said, it’s been evolving with architectural detail and what the condominium buyers want in their units. So if we go onto the next one. Now this is part of their common area. It’s the club house/museum buildings. There’s a little deck, bridge way that provides an entranceway into this common gathering spot and then out in front they also have the green space. On the next one you can see they’ve really done a good job with the architecture on this building. One of the concerns that they add a lot of the glass for the building to give it a nice presentation and this is again the club house building. The next one. Now that’s the back side of it. Again they put in that balcony area where they can come out and look down on the group but it’s not really a place where you can put chairs and tables, but underneath there’s a big concrete area and they have tables and chairs and a grill out there for their members to use. And if you go, that’s the end of the unit and the club house building. I think that’s actually part of the unit for Bruno, the owner of the development and again he has a little balcony on the end of it but to overlook the activity that’s going on but not to create the habitable spaces. If you can go onto the next one. Now this is the end of the most westerly building that’s out there and they want to put a deck on that and they actually came in for the permit for that deck and that’s, this is where we caught it and said stop. We need to go back through the process and see if this is going to be appropriate. Laufenburger: So Bob just to clarify. The balconies, the smaller units, the smaller out croppings that you call balconies, some of those are already in place. Generous: Correct. Aanenson: Right. That’s a good point and I guess the original treatment of those were architectural details as opposed to functioning as a gathering place and that’s where we just want some clarity on that. Laufenburger: Okay. Generous: Yeah, most of they are limited to 3 feet in width so you don’t really get a lot of space that you can use. Our code actually addresses it as an architectural feature similar to bay windows. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Laufenburger: Okay. Doll: And these are on the mid level where the header board is underneath that sliding door, is that? Generous: Yes. And then this is just a court yard area of the club house and again this is what we always thought would be the primary meeting spot. Laufenburger: Okay. Generous: And then here’s an example what’s in the report of the idea that he would like to be able to put that roof over the 6 foot deck areas that they’re proposing on the B decks, which would be on the western side of the property. While it does add some architectural interest, our concern is that once it’s there then the next step is to enclose it and is that also consistent with that. With the evolution of this use as a storage site for the car enthusiast. So I did do an analysis of the distances from the, this development to the closest house to the west. The most westerly building in the future would be about 675 feet from the nearest home. As I said earlier the existing buildings out there are almost a quarter mile away. It’s 1,510 feet and 1,550 feet to the club house so there is quite a bit of separation between this and the residential development across the Bluff Creek corridor. So with that we have provided two alternatives. One is to approve the site plan amendment to allow them to use the decks. We did have a condition that they could not put the roof in there but if you believe that was appropriate you could always delete that condition. Or if you don’t believe that this is a natural evolution of the, from the storage site, then you can deny the use of decks on the property. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Bob. Let’s see if we have any questions for staff before we ask for the applicant. Mark, do you have any questions? Undestad: Yeah, just one Bob. On the deck structures, the enclosed, I see in one of your conditions that we approve it here, no glass, screen, walls, that kind of stuff. Could you put in there just you know no enclosure? In other words can’t enclose it period but the roof structures if, you know to keep the rain and stuff off. Generous: Well that would be an option, yes. Undestad: Alright. I don’t have any other questions. Laufenburger: Thank you Mark. Kevin. Do you have questions? Dillon: So like in terms of the would the decks be consistently applied across the building? I mean would they be evenly spaced and would, or would they be kind of a hodge podge of decks? Generous: I wish Bruno was here. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Aanenson: He’s here. Generous: Well it’s more up to the individual tenant whether they would build it or not. It adds cost to the unit so. Undestad: But they’re limited to the those locations. Generous: To those locations. Aanenson: Yeah, these are the ones that we’ve outlined so depending on the individual buyer, and they could change over time. One buyer could change it out and somebody else have a different. Laufenburger: Maybe we’ll reserve that question for the applicant. Is that okay Kevin? Dillon: You bet. So then what, you mentioned Bob that you’re concerned about they becoming enclosed but what’s, I mean what’s the down side to the City and the people that are at the closest 675, what’s the down side to all of this? I’m not sure if that’s coming through why there’s a concern. Aanenson: Well I think the issue that the staff had is, when this was presented it was storage units for cars. Now they’ve become a lot more than that. And I’m not saying that’s good or bad. You know it’s been very successful and that’s great, but I don’t want, and you know they’re policing it and I think the applicant will talk to that themselves, how the association polices what’s going on in there. We just don’t want to be 3 years down the road and someone say well how did all of this get on there? You know we thought we were doing architectural enhancements and now it’s kind of moved to the next level and we just want to make sure everybody’s comfortable with the direction it’s going because you know to his credit, it’s gone very successfully but we want to make sure that everybody’s comfortable with how it’s being used and what’s going on out there. Dillon: Okay. And how about a house that you know was built but they didn’t put the deck on it at the beginning and they, would that be treated differently than this? Aanenson: Well this is the only storage unit that I’m aware of that has balconies off them. That’s the question. Are you comfortable with that? And if you are, then great. But I just want to make sure everybody’s comfortable that we don’t have any storage units I’m aware of in the metro area like this and that’s to the applicant’s credit. It’s different and we want to make sure everybody’s comfortable with that but we don’t normally have storage units with balconies and the stuff that’s inside those right now. It’s just very different. We want to make sure everybody understands how it’s being used and is comfortable with that. That’s really the goal. Dillon: Okay, those are all the questions I had for now. Laufenburger: Alright. Dan, how about you? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Keefe: Yeah you know, and I’m not quite sure what the concern is. I think you know, on one hand I think it is expansion of sort of the permitted space if it were enclosed I think would be you know potentially an issue. I think if we have something that was sort of an expansion of this and went sort of further beyond the boundaries of which were originally set as an enclosed space, I think I’d have a problem with that. Having said that, having a balcony which would be on the second story I presume or a deck which I presume or at grade level. Is that where we’re talking about the balconies are elevated and the decks. Generous: The decks would be at the second. Keefe: Okay so, okay the deck is like a second floor, it’s just larger? I’m not sure. Generous: Well yes. They’d be expanding usually, in some of these units they have a mezzanine level and this would provide an outdoor space for that level. Keefe: Right. Okay. Yeah, I guess I kind of look at these as condominiums that you just happen to store cars in, okay. That’s kind of the way I think of them and so if I think of it as just having an extra outdoor space out there that you want to go out and I don’t know, have a Coke or beer or whatever, I guess I don’t have that big of a problem with it. To the extent that you enclose it, then I think you’re really expanding the footprint of the building which I’m not sure that was the intention. I’m just kind of talking out loud a little bit here. Laufenburger: Okay refocus you. Do you have any questions for what the staff has prepared in terms of the report? Keefe: The use of the decks and the balconies, do we know what they’re going to be used for? Anything? Just social purposes? Aanenson: I believe so. Generous: Enjoy the views and. Keefe: Yeah. I presume that the houses across the pond have decks and balconies on them to enjoy the pond amenities. The club house gets used? I presume. They still have gatherings there. I mean. Generous: Yes. They even have a grill there and some tables outside. Keefe: And the operating hours associated with, are applicable to what? Aanenson: Herein lies the, now this is where staff was going with this because I think the neighborhood felt comfortable with the storage units. Keefe: Yes. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Aanenson: Okay. And we understand there’s a club house, okay but now we’re crossing over into that, and we haven’t received any calls on this so you know it’s all about being good neighbors, as with anything, but when you talk about how, your expectation of how the use is being done, and really that’s what this is about. It’s just trying to get disclosure on how it’s being used and not, you know make sure everybody’s comfortable with that because I don’t think, we didn’t envision, I’m not sure the applicant envisioned patios coming off the mezzanine when this came through, you know. Yeah, so we just want to go back and revisit. Let everybody know where it’s going so someone could say we never knew. Well we’re making that public now. This is an opportunity to make it public and they had a chance to comment. If you approve it. Keefe: So but they’re operating hours on this facility aren’t there? I thought it was. Aanenson: Well somebody could be there all night. Yeah. Generous: For the facility it’s 7:00 to 8:00 but an individual tenant user could be there 24 hours. Keefe: Okay. Generous: The building code provides all the fire safety control that you could need for that. Keefe: Right. I’m a little confused on the operating hours. Does that limit what can go on in the museum portion? Generous: Yes, more of that. The common space. Keefe: Yeah. Generous: Any events that they would have. Keefe: Right, okay. Generous: Would be limited to those hours. Keefe: Okay. Generous: But the individual, or you know the club’s meeting, things like that. Keefe: So there’s potential. So maybe this is one of the issues is there’s potential if you have a balcony or a deck, you could have a party at the museum and have a big gathering at the museum and it kind of shut down in a certain time frame because of the operating hours of the overall facility, presumably? But somebody individual now, if they’ve got a very large deck and because they own that unit could go all the time or is that? Aanenson: Right. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: Again that’s part of the self policing that I think you should talk to the applicant how they would manage that, yeah. Keefe: That’s all I have. Laufenburger: Kathleen, any questions for staff? Thomas: Yeah, you touched on it a little bit. I mean I know when this first came through, I remember the first time we had people here from the housing development and there was a lot of discussion back and forth about this being built originally, so no one has, I mean I didn’t see anything in the packet as like anybody sent an email or anything. No one said anything about what could possibly be going on over there? Generous: The only question I remember was are they expanding into the wetland and we said no. They just want to include these decks, and oh, okay. Thomas: Okay. So, well that was just kind of my question because I was kind of trying to gauge how, you know if they just feel like they lost and so they’re not going to push it or question or what so. Okay. Laufenburger: Okay. Tom, any questions of staff? Doll: I was along that same vein as to, do the neighbors care or is it a concern for the neighbors as far as noise. Future noise. Possible noise but it doesn’t sound like there is so. Dillon: They don’t seem too spun up about it. Doll: No. Thomas: Not this time, no. Laufenburger: So I just, my only question, if I may is, you’re classifying this as an amendment to the site plan so this is, it’s not a variance. Aanenson: No. Laufenburger: It’s just, you’re recommending, or you’re offering up the possibility that how the site plan is defined but for it’s use and what can and cannot be built on that site, that’s what you’re essentially presenting. Aanenson: Yeah, and I think part of it too is that out of the first hearing there was a certain expectation, and it’s evolved, and I’m not saying it’s bad. It’s just evolved and I want to give everybody an opportunity to understand that evolution and that they’re comfortable with it before we go ahead, so. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Laufenburger: Okay. I think it’s important that we recognize that whereas we can make decisions about what is built on the site, we are not in a position to make a decision on what can or cannot be done on the site. If they, for example if they wanted to have, if somebody wanted to have a party in their condominium, consume alcohol, anything like that. Aanenson: Correct. That’s correct. Laufenburger: That we have no control over that. The only thing that we can influence is, what we allow to be built on the site. Aanenson: That’s correct. Generous: Correct, unless they under the zoning they try doing different businesses. The retail prohibition. Laufenburger: Okay. No further questions for staff. Let’s see if there’s an applicant that would be. Undestad: Denny? Laufenburger: Tom, go ahead. Doll: You were saying that it was, we can approve or not, or disapprove of a deck structure or add a roof or you know, how do we word that you know or take a vote on something like that because you know, to me this is Minnesota and I you know, screens are nice to have on a deck. I mean a roof is nice to have on a deck. I mean why would you limit it to just a deck and not? Aanenson: That’s your choice. You can certainly. Doll: But how do we as the Planning Commission come upon wording that would, we could vote on? Laufenburger: Procedurally. Dillon: In addition to that, how big should the deck, the square footage of the deck. Is that stated in the thing too? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yeah, the projection out and then it varies by how much of a unit a person. They could buy the whole building and put one along that entire side. Usually it’s the other fenestration they provide that limits the size of… They don’t want to cover up their windows. Laufenburger: Tom, I think to answer your question. Procedurally there will be a time where I will entertain a motion. At that time that motion can be worded as however the commissioner 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 would like to word that motion. You have a couple options here but as we’ve heard from the staff we could change that and we have done that in the past so procedurally we as a commission likely will evolve to that but what we think is the appropriate motion. Doll: Okay. Laufenburger: Okay, we do have an applicant present. If so, would you step to the podium and state your name and address please. Bruno Silikowski: I don’t think I’m going to be able to plug this in so I’m just going to have to use your presentation. Bruno Silikowski. My address is 3615 Zircon Lane, Plymouth. Laufenburger: And are you the owner or the manager? Bruno Silikowski: Owner and developer, yeah. I hate to disappoint you guys but we’re a bunch of 40-50 year olds that go home at dinner time and don’t stay out all night and play. I think what you’re going to find when I go through a few points here is, this is a you know has turned out to be a way higher end than I anticipated. The use is consistent with exactly what I had presented early on. It’s just that the types of people who have been joining us tend to be a little more affluent and want the niceties and even though they may not use the deck or the balcony, they just want to have it. And if they use it 5 minutes out of a month, that may be enough. Maybe use it 2 hours out of a month, I don’t know, but we’ve yet to have an issue where we had any complaints from neighbors. In fact we’ve been having neighbors coming over during our events and complimenting us on how things have turned out from the standpoint of architecture. Standpoint of being a friendly neighbor. And in fact even Jim Olson has commented that he can’t believe that there’s been not a complaint so, so far it’s been going good and I expect us to continue to go that route. Kate had mentioned. Laufenburger: Just for the record, is this the Jim Olson that we know affectionately as the sheriff? Bruno Silikowski: Yes. Laufenburger: Thank you. Bruno Silikowski: Well we hire the sheriff’s department to help us at the events to be able to make sure things go smoothly and the, our fire, Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal comes out and has also been very complimentary. Shows up at our events. Many of the city employees in fact come out and they enjoy it so it’s been a really a good thing and a real creative thing for the city from what I can see, and I hopefully others, everybody else is seeing it that way. The, so just maybe a couple of quick top points. It’s gone better than expected. I mean I really didn’t expect us to do as well as we did our first year. We’ve been about a year and a half now into it and what you see built, and I think you’ve seen some of the pictures, we’re 93% sold already and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are building in a really high quality and high security fashion and people recognize that value, and are coming towards us. In fact so much so that again people are starting to want to build, or add some amenities to their properties, which of 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 course I think you all know helps the tax base as well. In fact this is maybe another quick point to make. If we didn’t do what I was doing, the business that was planning on coming behind me, which is a cold storage, probably would have done about well 3-4 million dollar investment. You know we’re going to be about 22 million dollars on the ground, so we’re roughly, if you look at the tax rate differences, we’re still about 3X of the tax, property tax give back versus you know an alternative so from that standpoint I think that’s creative. We also bring a high number of relatively affluent people who come in. Spend money. Order food. Pizzas are always being delivered at our place to you know grab a bite to eat before, or sandwich, before they take off, so a lot of that stuff has been real positive. What they’ve been looking for are these niceties and this is how the whole thing kind of got started. Why are we here? Couple of my clients basically asked hey, I’d like to build a nice little deck just to be able to sit out and look at the natural view. In fact Bob if you don’t mind going to the ones that shows by the General Mills. I mean the short of it is, can you show the pictures that I sent you Bob? Do you have that? Generous: They’re not on this slide, no. Bruno Silikowski: Can you retrieve your email by chance? I sent you a copy of something. Well look, it’s not important but the point is I was trying to make is, the view is looking straight out at General Mills. There’s not even a house in sight from where they’re planning on putting those decks. Laufenburger: So it’s a view to the north. Bruno Silikowski: It’s a view to the north and that’s, Bob. Sorry. Aanenson: It’s in their packet. Bruno Silikowski: Great. Well if you can glance at the packets, but it would be the buildings, if you look at, Bob on the site plan. Remember I kind of highlighted where the decks might go. Generous: Yes. Bruno Silikowski: Can you go there? Aanenson: That’s the one I was on, yeah. Bruno Silikowski: Yep. So if you look at the ones that are, I guess it would be called D. Up on the screens. Those are the ones that are headed to the north and only those, the ones call D, allow for a little bit larger. In other words there’s a natural limitation onto it because once you get above 12 to 14 feet, now you’re starting to talk about some serious amount of engineering that has to go on to build a whole deck up, so it’s really going to be self limited and the architectural requirements that we have within our by-laws actually are self governing as well. We require everyone to follow a standard so that the look is consistent and the look is the high quality. We require a structural engineer to design and have signed off. We require the City to, we require them to get a permit from the City so there’s a whole lot of check points along the way to make sure that it’s done right. It’s done consistently and it’s done professionally. I don’t 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 know how much you guys want me to go on but we’ve done like I said, I’ve done pretty well with this whole thing. The question that I have for you is just can you support us? I mean bottom line is we’ve done well but I’m not kidding myself. This is a challenging environment. The economy is really hurting a lot of people. We happen to be doing pretty good, which is good for us but there’s a reason why and we focused on the right kind of trigger points for people to be, why they bought. I’ve got two guys who bought into that one building. The first arrow on that north thing there. They’re actually pretty angry with me because they think that they can’t build a deck and that’s why, the whole process got started and I asked Bob, I said Bob what do we need to do to, and I talked to Todd and talked to Kate. Just said what do we need to do to sort of clarify things and I did ask questions because we know, you know frankly precedence is there. We have a deck that connects between those two buildings. We have 6, what we’re calling balconies, and so the precedence is there so I was kind of, kind of a little bit blind sided when I heard the City say no. That’s, you know we’re going to do a gut check here and so that’s why I’m here and that’s why we’re kind of going through a process but you know don’t look at this, well you need, I guess the thing I’m asking you to look at is this is a natural evolution of a high quality product. We’re adding some amenities that have been extremely creative to the look. The architectural features and also is allowing me to continue to be successful in a, I think what I consider to be extremely difficult economy. So that’s kind of the big picture. If there’s any questions or, be happy to. Laufenburger: Alright. Would you just wait for a second. I think we may have some questions. Bruno Silikowski: Yep. Laufenburger: Mark, let’s start with you. Do you have any questions for the applicant? Undestad: Yeah. The discussion about the enclosing on there. Is that, do you think that would be an issue for your clients out there if it was. Bruno Silikowski: No. I just don’t see it. Undestad: They don’t need them? I mean if there was language in there that said no, you can’t enclose these things. Bruno Silikowski: No, I mean we have got so much wind coming off of that open area. There’s no bugs. There just isn’t any so what reason would you have to enclose it? Bob, do me a favor. Go to that last picture that I showed the ones with the roof over the top. That, I wanted to highlight that because that’s actually a commercial building over in Excelsior. It’s Bayside Marina. If you’re guys familiar with it and so, you know the look has got a high quality finish to it and that’s kind of the look we’re trying to create and one of the things that somebody asked, you know is this going to be helter skelter? No. Every unit along those buildings, along those two buildings to the north will have that. That’s me designing it. That’s part of the way I’m going to sell the things. There are real stringent architectural controls that I have, because we want to kept he integrity of the campus in check, so to make a long story short and answer your question directly Mark, no. I couldn’t, I couldn’t even imagine that being an issue. Having a 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 little bit of roof overhead does make sense. You know just from rain and things like that, and it looks architecturally very pleasing. Laufenburger: Anything else Mark? Kevin? Dillon: I didn’t have any questions. You answered my questions about the consistency and the only, you know so I’m inclined to support you on this because I think I do get the big picture you’re after but you know as we’re talking we can modify these things. We might want to add the consistent look and feel in even though it says you’re going to mandate. Well, we will too. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah. Yeah, and you know just a quick point. We’ve gone way beyond in terms of adding the architectural features, even than what we originally presented to the City and it’s because we view that as beneficial, and it has helped us to develop a product that people want. Laufenburger: Okay. Dan, you have any questions? Keefe: Yeah just one. Your association rules, you know are you anticipating that they’ll limit what you can sort of store out on the decks? Bruno Silikowski: Absolutely. Absolutely. Keefe: Right. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, we have very, very specific rules about that. Keefe: One of my concerns, I don’t have an exact view of you know, of sort of the viewpoints and visual points that you know somebody crossed you know the pond. Was looking out and they like what they see now but now okay now we’ve got balconies. Oh, there’s a statute of something I don’t like sitting out there, you know. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, but I appreciate what you’re saying. We’re really sensitive to that kind of stuff. In fact we don’t even let people leave their cars out overnight. Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. Laufenburger: Kathleen? Thomas: I don’t think I have any questions. I appreciate your trying to be a good neighbor to the neighborhood that’s you know, that’s around there and trying to do what you can do to ensure, everyone seems satisfied so I’m still thinking about it on the fence but you know we’ll work through it. Bruno Silikowski: For what it’s worth Kathleen we actually have two neighbors there have now joined us. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Thomas: That’s good to hear. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah. Laufenburger: Tom? Doll: I just congratulate you and the buildings are beautiful and I think it’s a nice thing for the city to have a storage facility of that beauty I guess. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, thanks. Doll: So I have no questions. Laufenburger: I do have a couple questions and comments. You said that you’ve been successful. It sounds like the success is determined by the response of your customers, isn’t that correct? You said 93% occupancy. Bruno Silikowski: Absolutely. Laufenburger: Do you have people that, when you build more structure, do you anticipate that you’ll have more people lining up there as well? Bruno Silikowski: Um yeah. In fact we’ve just completing one of the, it’s about a, it’s just under 17,000 square foot building and we’re maybe a week away from completion and we’ve already pre-sold some of that. And then we have another building that the City hasn’t seen yet but it’s about, getting ready to be submitted for another building to be launched so yeah, and that’s all driven by demand. I don’t build, one of the things that we agreed on early on was this was going to be a phased approach because really it was a new concept around, not just here in the cities. We’re talking about throughout the country. So it’s a very different concept. We did the best we could in terms of anticipating what it would be like. We were pretty close but it’s just gotten actually a little bit better I think in terms of the amenities and what people were looking for, so to answer your question is yeah. We’re going to continue to build. It will be based on demand and I do think there’s still a chance that I may add an additional building yet this year. Commission another building this year. If not then we’ll probably launch 2 more buildings next year. Laufenburger: Okay. You spoke about unique concept. Is there anything like this anywhere else in the metro area? Bruno Silikowski: Well you know it’s a derivative of a very, very basic concept and you know the storage condominiums have been around. These storage condominiums tend to be kind of the metal pole barn. They don’t have any amenities. Don’t have fire suppression systems. Don’t have floor drains. Don’t have water. Don’t have any kind of really plumbing. They don’t have, they have very minimal amount of electrical. In fact the ones that I’m aware of use an open flame or what they call an Resanor heater in these things and actually I, every common sense, you know gasoline and open flames don’t mix. We went, and so if you look at their 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 history over the past 5 years, and I won’t name any names but over the past 5 years they actually had 2 buildings burn down because they don’t have any way to stop a fire when something starts or some kind of incident happens. And we went the opposite direction. We focused on safety and security. All of our buildings are fire suppression. Not only in every garage but in every, all the rafters. We have floor drains. We have water. In floor heat. It’s electric. It’s very efficient. Over the blow heaters. You know I don’t know if you, just as a quick point. It warms the objects so your vehicle stays warm. Not the air so it’s a very efficient way of going about it and it’s a great way for vehicle storage. You want lack of humidity in these things. So that. And then we look at the exterior structure. We use materials that are, that you find on luxury homes. Hardy plank. Stone. The only thing metal on our buildings are the roofs for 50 year roofs. We built it for high quality. Every building is Wi-fi’d which means all our cameras, security cameras, currently there’s 34 of them up. We’ll have 49 of them when we’re all completed and it’s all web based so you can be in the middle of China and literally check in on your possessions if you so choose to. Laufenburger: And obviously that’s a valuable element of what you’re selling to your clients. Bruno Silikowski: It’s a very important part of people’s decision making is that knowing that what they have is secured. It’s also gated. The gates going in sometime this week, but it will be gate essentially community for the members, and every once in a while we’ll open it up to the public for our open events like we do. I’m sure you heard about the Cars and Coffees. Laufenburger: It just feels to me like you really don’t have a storage area because I think of a storage area as that place where things rest between the house and the dumpster. Whereas what you are providing is an opportunity for people to really live out their passion for their high end automobiles or, that may not be the right word. Their classic automobiles. Or any automobile that they feel is worthy of their investment. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, even to extend that to any vehicle. Some people really enjoy RV’s. Some people like boats. Some people like motorcycles. Some people like cars. So it’s a wide variety but I will tell you that the underlying business model is storage, okay. So that you have a place to keep your things. But then we’ve taken it and layered on some things which allow for that common interest to be shared with others. So it’s kind of created a community of sort of vehicle enthusiasts where, and that’s why this is happening where people want to hang out. They want to hang out with one of you guys if you had your car there and let’s talk about the ’67 Mustang you just got and what you did to it and you know it’s pretty funny. You’ll see somebody changing their brakes or doing some kind of work and you’ve got 3 other guys standing there with a beverage in hand watching. You know offering advice. It’s just the way it is you know and it’s turned into a lot of fun. I tell you the other thing that’s really amazing to me is it’s become an extremely family centered place. If you go on the web site sometime. You’ll see all the photos. You’ve got people pushing their baby strollers around. The husband and wife hanging out together. We have six couples that are literally, they hang out together while they’re there. We’ve got one guy who put a Sport Court in the back of his garage. While he tinkers with his cars, his boys are playing basketball. You know so how cool is that right? And the wife loves it because you know dad’s with the kids and so we’ve really kind of created something that’s so different that I don’t think anybody else in the country has really kind of thought of this. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 There are like I said, little derivatives here and there. They seem to go either to one end, which would be the really low, cheap. And then the other end would be the kind of champagne toting crowd and that’s just not Minnesota you know so we found a really happy medium and it’s worked. Laufenburger: I just have a couple more questions. Can you talk a little bit about the hours? You said your, your facility is open from 7:00 to 8:00. So that’s when the facility is open but owner of a condominium can be there any time. Bruno Silikowski: That’s true. Laufenburger: How do you, just talk a little bit about how you distinguish those hours of use. Bruno Silikowski: Well, you know during the business day there are people coming in and out and instead of having the gated, the gate all closed up and limited, not have anybody come in. We’re still in sales mode so we do want to open it up and let people come in and look around and talk to us and make it easy for them to come at us. But when we don’t have somebody around, we don’t want to have that open access so that’s why it closes down and yes. A member can work into the evening if he would so choose, but you’ve got to look at history. So far there has not been a single call. There’s not been one nuisance of anything, including my own members which are really, these guys have a lot invested. I mean some of these guys, I kid you not have a half million dollars invested in their garages, and so they care a lot about what’s going on and if it’s a nuisance, if it’s too much noise or if there’s something going on that they don’t like, they’re going to talk about it. Laufenburger: So they can, they have access outside of 7:00 to 8:00, the owners have access to the condominium but not to the common areas, like the club house and that sort of thing? Bruno Silikowski: It is locked. Laufenburger: It is locked, okay. Alright. Let’s see. You spoke to the, your view about the enclosure. How about the roofs? Bruno Silikowski: I think actually, I think as I mentioned I think architecturally it adds a lot. It adds a lot and it’s something that you just don’t see. It takes from just a deck that’s tossed onto the side of, or a balcony that’s tossed onto the side of the building to turn it into an architectural feature. I know that the City has thought that the balconies we placed on are nice architectural features. I think that’s nothing compared to what we can do with the look that we’re trying to achieve with what I showed you. The roofs themselves, it’s more of an architectural feature than anything else. Sure, it provides a little bit of cover in case there’s some rain but I have zero concern if you guys say that you have no possibility of enclosing it. I have no concern about it because that’s not how it’s ever going to be used. In fact if somebody gets out there and uses it you know an hour a month I’d be shocked. I really would. I mean it’s just not what’s happening out there. But everybody wants something cool and different and those differentiating features are what drives people to buy the units. I mean that’s the reason why we put the windows in. People love it and that’s, and also I’ve getting, I’ve got 6 units that are left in 2 of the first 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 building. I can’t move them because nobody wants them anymore. They want the ones with the windows and these features. So hopefully that answers your question. Laufenburger: It does. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Keefe: Yeah, just a quick one. Have you thought about you know kind of a sister facility? I know some of these other ones around the country have a track and some of those things. Are you contemplating that or, I thought when you originally came in here maybe there was some discussion. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah. Honestly there’s two pieces to that. I am looking at another piece of property out on the east side of town that will do, kind of be an annex to what this is. So we’ve gotten a lot of demand from different parts of the cities. You just have to, I mean I have to be smart in terms of where I place it. There needs to be enough affluence around the area to be able to support the game plan. The second thing with the track you’re bringing up. That was something that was an article that was written about me several years ago. I do have 565 acres under contract but it’s a good hour from here so no worries. But it’s something that is no where near ready for launch given the economy. I mean we’re just, I’m just not going to do it. Not until things get more stable. Keefe: Good. Bruno Silikowski: People need to have a little more disposable income for that. Keefe: Okay. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Bruno Silikowski: Thank you. Laufenburger: We will close the public hearing at this time and bring it back to just among the commission members. I think what we’re, just to help promote the discussion. I think we’re looking at, do we approve the deck’s balconies with the guidelines that the staff has suggested or do we not approve that? And if we modify it, some things to consider, do we modify it by including the roof? By changing the enclosure descriptions? Whatever, so we, I think we’ve got good information. Now we can make our recommendation. Tom, let’s start with you. What’s your views on this? Doll: I would say that I would think that roofs and screens would be, if they wanted to do them, I’m in favor of it. Laufenburger: So you feel. Doll: For the deck and. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Laufenburger: For a deck and balcony you feel like it’s okay to allow them to do a screen enclosure and a roof. Okay. Alright. Doll: And I’m for a deck so. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Kathleen, any questions or comments? Thomas: I’m still not 100% sold on the deck option. I see the goodness of it and I think it would probably enhance the building. I feel like if you’re going to do a deck, I don’t know that it would need to be enclosed. I don’t, I mean I kind of see his point as, would that really completely be necessary? I don’t know. And I kind of, I mean if we go through with the approval of having a deck, I would rather just see it maybe just have a roof and just be a deck, roof. Why does it have to be more than that? You know. Laufenburger: And remember that the distinction the staff is using, balcony is defined as a smaller architectural type structure and the deck is a bigger. It would be even temporarily used for. Thomas: More used for out, yeah. I know. Laufenburger: Outdoor use. Okay. Alright. Dan, how about you? Any comments? Keefe: Yeah, you know I’m leaning towards approving this. I think in terms of the second piece. You know in regards to condition number 4, I would be in support of just striking the second sentence in number 4 which then would allow for the roof structures. But it wouldn’t be allow it to be enclosed. Laufenburger: And we already heard the applicant say that he wasn’t concerned about enclosing the deck, is that correct? Keefe: But he would like the roof. So that was kind of the, I thought would achieve that. Laufenburger: Would you have a concern about whether the roof and the deck would be aesthetically consistent with the rest of the building? Keefe: No, I mean I think he has to come in and get a permit and reviewed and it sounds like he’s trying to maintain a level of standard which appeals to a certain you know clientele which may require that and I think the City has input in regards to that effect…to review the plans. Laufenburger: Okay. Keefe: Is that correct? Aanenson: Yep. Laufenburger: Okay. Kevin, how about you? 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Dillon: I’m all in favor of this. I think we should approve it. I think we should allow roofs. We should allow it to be enclosed, but the only other language I would like, and it’s I think because of the high end nature of this, people are going to require it anyway, but whatever it is we decide upon here that it’s just consistently applied, both in look and feel as well as you know context. You know size. You know depending on the unit, across the building so that’s it. Laufenburger: Kevin are you, are you comfortable that the city planning department should be involved in the scrutiny and evaluation of those structures or are you comfortable that the owner has the scrutiny to do that? Dillon: I think it should be up to the owner. I mean you know we are, you know we’re all big kids and you know I mean if it, this doesn’t require a variance. I mean it just has to go by the regular building codes and all of that stuff. It shouldn’t be subjected to anything extra than that. So whatever that means. Laufenburger: And any of these structures staff, for example the deck, it would be subject to building codes, is that correct? Structural? Safety, things like that. Keefe: Number 3 says that. Your number 3. Laufenburger: Any other questions Kevin? Dillon: No thanks, no. Laufenburger: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I’d have to agree too. I mean I like the package and I think just looking at what they’ve been doing out there, I don’t think there’s any concern about somebody’s going to put up something that nobody’s going to like. I mean the things they’ve been adding, it is looking nice out there so. I think as far as even the enclosures too that, given what’s going on there, you know initially my thought was, they don’t really need to enclose them. More of a concern that you get one guy that’s going to want to put screens up. One guy will put some Anderson window. Somebody else has a different kind of window but I think the way they have it going on here, you know their review board and the association of the City, I think there’s enough eyes to make sure everything’s going to look nice on there, either way they go so I’d be, more or less be in favor too of just striking 4 altogether. Laufenburger: In other words removing the restriction of no enclosure and no roofs. Okay. Alright. It appears that we are, we’re generally in favor of the amenities that the owner wants to allow or to present to his clientele. We may differ in viewpoints on roof structures and enclosures. So our job is to provide a recommendation to the City Council. We can choose to use the language that’s in the proposed motions or we can modify that. Is there any guidance we need from the staff on this Kate? 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Aanenson: No. Well make your motion then, if you are going to strike one of the items or modify it, so you’d say subject to conditions 1 through and however you modify 4… Laufenburger: Alright. So what I’d like to do is, I’m looking for a motion and I would like the motion to, I’ll allow you to take a minute or two if you want and structure the motion so that it incorporates what you would like to see. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Laufenburger: Alright, Mark. Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Site Plan for Auto Motorplex, Planning Case #09-13, permitting the installation of decks in the locations highlighted in the staff report subject to conditions 1, 2, 3, and 5. Dillon: I second that. Laufenburger: Alright we have a valid motion and a second. To approve the amendment to the site plan with restrictions 1, 2, 3 and 5, excluding the restriction of the language of the decks and enclosures. Is there any further discussion? Now’s the time if you’d like to. Alright there’ll be no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Undestad: Aye. Dillon: Aye. Laufenburger: All those opposed nay. Keefe: Nay. Thomas: Nay. Keefe: I didn’t hear you. Say yea or nay? Laufenburger: I’m going to ask that we vote again with the hands so there’s no question. Dillon: So what’s the issue? Laufenburger: No, just record the vote again. Aanenson: Yeah. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the site plan for the Auto Motorplex, 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Planning Case #09-13, permitting the installation of decks in the locations highlighted in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall comply with the conditions and requirements of Site Plan Planning Case #06-34. 2. The decks shall not encroach into or above any easements. 3. Deck structures will require a building permit. Required submittal documents include: a. Design (and signature) by a professional structural engineer. b. Revised civil drawings by the respective design professional. 4. Deleted. 5. If decks/exterior balconies are to be constructed, the City will need to review the plans to determine if a fire sprinkler head will be required under the deck/balcony. All voted in favor, except Keefe and Thomas who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Laufenburger: Motion carries 4 to 2. Keefe: Can I just make a comment in regards to you know the reason for denial on it is simply related to the enclosures on my behalf. My preference is to not have them enclosed. Thomas: I would, same thing going too. Laufenburger: I think it’s important that we convey to the City Council the vote and it’s up to them. They can, they have the choice of either accepting our recommendation and they can also modify it. Keefe: They need to understand the reason why. Thomas: Yeah. Aanenson: And just for point of clarification. This is moving forward. Next Monday is scheduled for City Council. Laufenburger: Scheduled for City Council Monday the? th Aanenson: Next Monday. 24. th Laufenburger: The 24. Aanenson: That’s correct. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Laufenburger: Okay. So if the applicant or any member of the public would like to be present at that time. Alright. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 21, 2009 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Aanenson: I did include in your packet, the council did hear a number of items at their last meeting. If anybody had questions on those. I’d be happy to address those but. Laufenburger: Alright, motion to adjourn. Dillon moved, Undestad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 32