Loading...
PC 1996 02 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Mike Meyer, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RAISING OF FUR-BEARING ANIMALS, OPERATION OF RIDING STABLES, COMMERCIAL STABLES AND KENNELS IN THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICF~ NANCY LEE. Public Present: Name Address Nancy Lee Shakopee Pat Blood Shakopee Shmmin AI-Jaff presented the staff repo~ on this item. Mancino: Are there any questions? Do any of the commissioners have questions right now for Sharmin? I just have one or two, just kind of big ones. Overall ones. There is no place in Chanhassen where you can take your dog to a kennel overnight right now. I mean this is filling that need. A1-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: And when the public safety finds a stray dog or a stray cat or a stray raccoon or something, where do they take it now? A1-Jaff: Scott County. Mancino: Scott County. And is there something like this in Scott County? A commercial kennel? Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Al-Jarl: I'll back up just one second. At times they do contact some local vets and see if they would keep them overnight. There is a need established in Chanhassen, in Carver County for a Humane Society and I found that out after I spoke to the Public Safety Department. Scott County does have commercial kennels. But there is a need for one in Carver County. Mancino: In Carver County. So this could be the one in Carver County? Al-Jarl: Yep. Mancino: Thank you. Conrad: I had a question. Where did we get the specifications that we're applying here? And most specifically with the, well I'm looking on page 3, item number 4, in terms of setbacks. Where did we get those? AI-Jaff: City Attorney's office. Conrad: Okay. A1-Jaff: They have established criteria for other communities and that was the criteria they went with. Conrad: My only concern, literally a kennel is noisy and 200 feet, which is the biggest number that I see in point number 4, is not much block anything. So I'm just curious if we're within standards of other communities because I know there are complaints with people that have kennels in Chanhassen. They're probably grandfathered in and the neighbors complain all the time. The kennel was there first, and I'm probably thinking of one, but the neighbors moved in later and the neighbors are real critical and you know, noise is the issue. And here we are saying we're going to allow this and I'm seeing some small numbers that really don't protect the neighbor from the noise so my only issue, I'm not looking to be a leader in the metro area in terms of. Mancino: Housing and urban ideas. Conrad: Well no, in terms of mitigating this but I sure want to meet minimums. I want to meet any kind of standards that are out there in other communities. So my only point is, 50 feet or 25 or 200, it really doesn't stop the sound. It will be offensive so that's, and I don't know how to resolve that. I don't, I'm not sure if there's an answer to that. My only answer 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 is that we'd better make sure that, well we'd better make sure that these are the right numbers. Mancino: Okay. AI-Jaff: On page 4, number 7. As far as the night hours. We are recommending that they remain indoors. Mancino: The other one that you could speak to is on number 9. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as identified by the city code or nuisance ordinance. And what does that mean? What is the nuisance ordinance? A1-Jaff: We were actually discussing this one before the meeting and we spoke to Public Safety Officer and what they do is they park approximately a block away from wherever the noise is originating and they wait for 5 minutes. And during those 5 minutes if the dogs will bark continuously, then a citation is issued. Mancino: It has to be continuously or just bark? I know. I'm sorry, we're kind of getting down to the nitty gritty here. Aanenson: That was our question. Does it have to be continuous and it's an interpretation of nuisance. If it's pretty much consistently within the 5 minutes they would... Mancino: I have some more questions to ask along those lines. I think I'll wait until we have our public hearing. Any other questions at this point? Mehl: Yeah, I've got a couple. How close are the existing homes to the surrounding the BF district? Are there any near-by or are they a mile away? AI-Jaff: There is Brookside Motel and there are 8 structures there. Mehl: At the motel? A1-Jaff: Correct. Mehl: Okay. A1-Jaff: And that would be on the west side of this parcel. On the east side there is a used car lot. So it's not a residential use. Then the homes to the north of the subject site are on top of the bluff. And they do exceed 200 feet in setback. Now this is on this specific site. The other site, this is Gedney Pickle. Located to the west of the second site and the seminary site is to the east of the second BF district. Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mehl: Okay, so there's really no residential that's close, that's within that 200 foot area that you're talking about? Al-Jarl: Well with the exception of the people that live at Brookside Motel. Mehl: Okay. Are there any, like I'm looking at number 6 here in the conditions. Are there any standards or guidelines in that area? Again I'm looking at 200 feet .... know what's there if they're a half a mile away. Mancino: You're talking about number 6 on page 4? Mehl: On page 7. Mancino: Page 7. Accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching. AI-Jaff: They would have to keep the premises clean to ensure that no objectionable odors exist. Mehl: What do they do with them? Do they haul them off-site someplace or do they dispose of them on site? A1-Jaff: Yes they do. They have to dispose of them off-site, yes. Mehl: That's all. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to come and address the Planning Commission, please do. Come up and state your name and your address. Nancy Lee: I'm Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I had a quick question... On the accessory structure... I don't know if it can be changed around...maybe a percentage of the property, size of the property or something like that because the plans that we have...that I could subdivide. Mancino: Explain that to me a little bit. You could subdivide? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Nancy Lee: We've got 15 acres out there...and I'd like to see the accessory structures be maybe a percentage of the property. That's what we've done in Shakopee, which I know is different than Chanhassen. If that can't be...Sharmin has explained that we can subdivide. I would like to not subdivide if I don't have to but... Are you totally confused? Mancino: Not totally. Tell me a little bit more, could you describe a little bit of the accessory structures. You said one would be stables. It could be stables. It could be kennels where the dogs or cats are houses. Nancy Lee: Yeah. What we're looking at is, we don't want the horses and dogs together ...they irritate each other...so we would get a separate building for them. My main building right now, what we're concentrating on is a horse kennel...depending on the needs of Chanhassen, phase 2 with another kennel. The stables that we're looking at, 1,000 square feet, if you picture. .. arena, not even holding the kennel area, or the stable area for the houses, an arena is going to be bigger than 1,000 square feet...so an accessory building...as far as what we're looking at is, we're not trying to squeeze...we plan to make them luxury kennels where they have a good amount of space... Mancino: However your principal structure doesn't have a limit, correct? Nancy Lee: No. Mancino: So it could be whatever. There is no maximum. Okay. Nancy Lee: Otherwise that's pretty much what I wanted to say. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public heming. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Questions and comments. Craig. Peterson: I guess I'd like to get a little bit more clarification on the accessory structure as it stands. What was the purpose of limit those to 1,000 square feet? What's the rationale? Al-Jarl: Our current ordinance has a limit of 1,000 feet on accessory structures and we just don't want to see the corrals larger than the building itself. It could be a shed. It doesn't have to be a corral. Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Aanenson: I think the other thing there, if you're looking strictly at the commercial district, we do limit accessories. But if you were in a true agricultural district we do say up to 30% of the, I believe it's 30%, of the property. So if this was strictly agricultural or if someone was going to put a barn or riding stables in, they could go up to 30%. I think that's something we may want to consider. The dilemma they would have is, the question you brought up Nancy, which was a good question. Just make the other building but the problem is you can't build an accessory building without the principle structure and their desire is to build the dogs first so they would have to build the accessory. If you put...like you were suggesting, they can't build an accessory without the principle the way our ordinance reads and that prohibits somebody from never putting the... And I think we can accomplish the objectives but looking at the percentages. If you would give staff some opportunity. Maybe just review that with the attorney's office to make sure that, I certainly don't want to do something that would be detrimental by restricting the site so they can't ride horses. I don't think that's the objective but we also are concerned that, and that becomes such a large building that it's, kind of takes away from the integrity of what they're trying to do too, so I think we can come up with an appropriate percentage. Peterson: I think with that in mind, I think as we move to vote on this, my recommendation would be to work out something regarding the percentage. Whatever is within legal parameters that we have. That'd be my only comment, unless we choose to vote. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I don't have any. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: On the issue we were just talking about. The accessory structure. I really don't mind the lot split, or whatever. I'll let staff figure that out but it sounds like you've got two different uses in a specific case and we're looking at a general case that applies everyplace. Not to their project. Not to their project. So I'm kind of comfortable with what staff has proposed. I sure could be swayed based on more information but, and my other comment is, I'm really, the noise issue bothers me. 200 feet is nothing and the way it reads, 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence. Boy, that would bother me if somebody did that to me. If I was out there next door, I'd be real irritated so I don't know what the right number is, and I don't know how to solve that one but 200 feet is, I guess if you're going to have a kennel it should, and I'm not sure based on where the motel is in this specific case, I'm not sure how close we are but I don't think we need to bother those people so, whether they're renting or whatever. This should not be an impact and so that number makes me uncomfortable and I just don't have a better one. I don't know what to do in that. Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: So would you like to have staff come back and do a little bit of checking on different cities? Conrad: I'm real comfortable, I'm comfortable getting it out of here. I think staff can figure this one out and recommend something to the City Council. We don't have any great comer on the market on wisdom on this one but staff could look at it and bring it to City Council. Again, I guess that's it, I'd move it out of here Nancy. Mancino: Okay, Bob. Skubic: I share Ladd's concerns about the noise and it seems to me this is a fairly small area, the business fringe as it's currently defined. Is that likely to change at all? No. Aanenson: It won't be expanded. Mancino: It won't be expanded. Aanenson: Our objective is to try and reduce it. Mancino: Don. Mehl: Yeah, I agree totally with the comments that have been made here. Beyond that I don't have anything else to add. Mancino: Okay. I just have a couple. To piggyback on the noise and that is, what exacerbates the noise to me is that there's no limit on how many dogs there can be here. I mean I don't know if we're talking about 100 dogs on 15 acres or if we're talking about 300 dogs on 15 acres. And that would make a huge difference in the noise level and the continual noise level so I know that we're limited with horses, which don't make a lot of noise but you know you have what, one horse per acre or two per acre and a half. Something like that. AI-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: So what's the thinking on how many can go on so many acres? Aanenson: Really it's part of the conditional use permit. When they come forward, right now you're just setting up the parameters, the framework for them to come in for a permit. Now when they come in, you're going to judge it by the size of the building. Whether or not you feel like that's acceptable based on that piece of property. That's a condition you'll impose. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Is there a magic number? It's really based on the size of the buildings and we'll have to give you some standards, what we think they should be. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: And that's something that you certainly can put a condition on. Mancino: Okay, great. So that will come back as the individual applicants come in and you can give us some guidance on? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Terrific. I just have two other questions, and I feel comfortable with some of the changes that have been suggested already. Just a real, I guess kind of silly one under, on page 3 Sharmin. If it's unlawful for a person to own or keep three or more dogs or cats, is this anybody in Chanhassen? AI-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: So a farmer? A1-Jaff: Yes. Aanenson: He'd need to get a commercial license. Mancino: Okay. Then under, on page 4, Section 5-20. With Issuance. Number 8. I would suggest just, when it says all dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel operator is not present at the subject property. I would say when an employee is not there. AI-Jaff: Okay. Mancino: I don't feel it has to be the operator. It needs to be a person in charge and it could be an employee. And then under 1 l(b) on that same page. Animals kept outside must have continual access to shelter. Only because if starts raining or snowing or icing. And lastly. I would like to see the accessory, the dog runs, etc, further away than 25 feet from public or private right-of-way. I think that should be set back 50 feet. Otherwise I feel very comfortable about sending this on to City Council too with the other comments. Do I have a motion? Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Conrad: I would Madam Chairman but I haven't tracked your comments so my motion will be real. Mancino: I would certainly add some friendly amendments. Conrad: Yeah, I'm really, okay. I don't understand the motion that staff has prepared and that's what I've been leafing through here. My understanding is that this is affecting fringe business district as well as the industrial district. Is that right? Why, and there's a confusion of the head. That's in here. Why is that in here? Al-Jarl: Okay. The standards for the BF district, as far as conditional uses go, specific conditional uses, are located under industrial. It's standards for business, office, institutional and industrial districts. That's how they are in the zoning ordinance portion of the city code. So we're establishing standards. Conrad: Okay. Just moving them over to business fringe or whatever? A1-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Okay. I get it. That's interesting. So my comments before...say, I'm not comfortable with what our current ordinance says. When I talk about 200 feet setbacks, that's really you know, now that I get what this is. Well I'll make the motion just to get us going here. I'm going to need some help. Basically I'd recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments per the staff report for Article XX. "BF" Fringe Business District, add the Section 20-773, Conditional Uses, which in the BF district for commercial kennels and commercial stables, per the staff report dated January 17th. And really my, per the staff report. Aanenson: Maybe to summarize what we're doing really quickly, if that would help. You're amending the business fringe district to allow commercial kennels and stables. Mancino: Under the conditional use. Aanenson: Under the conditional use. We're adding clarity to the definitions as shown here in bold, commercial kennels, commercial stables. We're clarifying those. And adding these standards, 20-295. Mancino: And. Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Aanenson: And conditional use standards under Chapter 5-22. So that's what we're doing. So we're actually we're amending the code in those specific places. Mancino: Four specific places. Aanenson; Yes. Four specific places. Correct. Conrad: These will not be changing any of the conditions as in the staff report but my comments will reflect what I'd like staff to do between the time that it gets, goes from here to the City Council and one would be to review the accessory structures size limitations. Two would be to review the setback from the neighborhood. The single family residence. Plus I would entertain any other kind of additions based on what the Planning Commission has said in their previous comments. Mancino: My friendly amendment or adding to that would also to be reviewed the number of feet from a public or private road right-of-way. And then also under Section 5-22, under issuance is to just change that from the operator to employee. Conrad: I would agree with those. Mancino: And the last one is under 5-22. Under issuance on number ll(b). Just having continual access so that animals can get in and out. Conrad: I would agree with that. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Meyer: Second that motion. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? Having none. Comad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the City Code amendments to the BF, Fringe Business District to allow commercial raising of fm~-betuing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels, as amended pet' the staff repo~I dated Janum'y 17, 1996 and the following revisions by the Planning Commission: 1. Review the accessory structures size limitations. 2. Review the setback from the single family neighborhood. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Review the number of feet from a public or private road right-of-way. Under Section 5-22, Issuance, change from the operator to employee. Having continual access so that animals Under Section 5-22, Issuance, number 1 l(b). can get in and out. All voted in favor and the motion cea'tied. When will this go in front of the City Council? The 26th. February 26th. Go in front of the City Council. Mancino: Aanenson: Mancino: Be presented. Thank you. JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS~ ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTL~L; AND A VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 5 AND 67 BLOCK 2; THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN-SHOREWOOD CITY LIMIIS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public P~esent: Name Address Martha Cleveland Joanne Dake Dan & Tom Wilder Marc Simcox John Knoblauch Joe Knoblauch 6185 Apple Road 12336 Ithilien 21740 Lilac Lane 21600 Lilac Lane 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka Bob Generous p~esented the staff ~epo~t on this item. Mancino: Is the applicant here? And does he wish to address the Planning Commission please, on these changes and the current, what we're looking at now. In the conditions. If you could respond to those please. John, could you state your name and address please. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 John Knoblauch: Oh, I'm sorry. John Knoblauch, 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie. I'm the developer of the parcel known as Knob Hill. There was a problem in January so now I'm back again. I handed out two plats there and Bob's right about the, I think we've addressed a lot of the concerns that he had referring to future access to the Donovan parcel, and also hopefully solving the road grade situation on the roadway... I'm still unhappy with the...one issue on the plat. Or on staff's recommendation for approval of a preliminary plat. That condition is the 30 foot right-of-way being recommended by staff on the northeast comer of the property, and that's to provide, as Bob mentioned, possible extension or for future connection of a public street to Lilac Lane. This 30 foot right-of-way is what most of the property owners to the east are concerned about and that's why they've taken time to come to a few of the meetings we've had so far and basically it's just based on that one issue. To review briefly what's happened so far. The first review and introduction of Knob Hill came December 6th when we passed out the same information that you're seeing now. And we made some...discovery as far as how future connection to Lilac Lane would affect the surrounding area. I'll refer back to that in a minute. The second meeting took place and the public hearing got completed. The plat was tabled because of the road variance request. I was instructed by a motion and I believe Mr. Conrad to resolve the grade issue and connection issue for future development to the Donovan parcel. I brought in a new plan to the staff that basically met all the city requirements...serve Mr. Donovan's parcel... I believe, is that correct Bob? Generous: Yes. John Knoblauch: So we've complied basically with the city needs to provide access to the east and I have the 7% road grade accomplished which meets, I believe is that staff's city code? Aanenson: Yes. 7% does. John Knoblauch: So basically I feel we've complied with the city's need to provide access. The rest of the staff's conditions can easily be met with the exception of one. That is where the staff is requiring 30 foot of public right-of-way in the proposed tree preservation area. Basically the information speaks for itself but I'll review it with you a little bit. We've got two substandard roads that are proposed to possibly be connected in the future to Lilac Lane and Apple Road... We've got nearly 60 neighbors that don't want to see a thru street in this area. We've got poor visibility area for sight lines. We have a large stand of trees that would be removed in the 30 foot right-of-way area to make it work, and that's not including the two dozen trees or so along Lilac Lane, as I mentioned before. We also have a ravine, a pretty steep drop that drops about 10 feet in elevation and 20 feet at the, in or near staff's recommended 30 foot right-of-way recommendations. The environmental impact of that one 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 area alone is...watershed implications to the pond. I believe it's to the north. We have road grades in here at both intersections that don't meet city requirements. We have neighbors who have spoken out against this right-of-way citing everything from loss of property values... who this public right-of-way is supposed to benefit if it doesn't want it and doesn't need it and to top all this, I mean disregarding any minor issues, we have a city to the north that owns 2/3 of Lilac Lane. The Lilac Lane right-of-way that has issued a... I don't know if anybody disagrees with these facts but that's pretty much the bottom line to where we're at with the public right-of-way. It's very clear, I stated this before that the thru street, if it was needed for the city to function appropriately, it should have been planned for long before the Ithilien Street was put in to the east. Clearly the logical thing should be done, as a condition for the right-of-way should be removed as one of staff's recommendations to the platting of my property... It reminds me of the...both the city and developer in this case, that you can't always get what you want but if you try, sometimes you finally get what you need. In essence the developer, that is me, doesn't get what I want, which is a cul-de-sac on my development. Chanhassen engineering department doesn't get what they want of public right-of-way. I do get what I need, which is to build my home and get my property developed. And staff gets what they need by providing Mr. Donovan access. And hopefully everybody goes home happy. Now I'm not naive enough to think that...compromises can be met at, all the time since everyone in this room realizes that politics plays a big part of everyday life but in this case I'm asking the Planning Commission to do just that by revising the entire community space in the city government which is basically the bedrock of the entire democratic way. As a note, don't get me wrong about my attitude towards the city staff. I've been involved in building over 250 homes over the past 7 years in over 20 different communities. Never have I gotten so much cordial help in trying to accomplish a goal and helping hand and to get basically educated on how to develop this parcel. So I ask for a motion, a recommendation for the removal of the 30 foot right-of-way condition on my property so we don't have to... Then hopefully we will go full steam ahead with a successful development of my great grand- dad's land, Knob Hill. Mancino: Thank you. John Knoblauch: I believe, Dave we said the outlot could be changed? I'm sorry. We have an outlot for the private drive that was mentioned in the report which was not going to be an outlot. Mancino: Which will not be an Outlot A anymore. You are correct. There's not an outlot there anymore, and I think it's actually part of the 26. On condition 26 it says, delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent lots to dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for ingress and egress. Does that make sense? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 John Knoblauch: Yeah. I thought I heard it mentioned before that there was still an outlot. Mancino: No. Part of the condition is to delete it. John Knoblauch: Okay, thank you. Mancino: We have had two public hearings on this but I would like to open this to a public hearing. If you have not come before the Planning Commission before or if you have new information to give to the Planning Commission tonight. So if you haven't had a chance to participate in the prior two public hearings, may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Pete~son moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heming. The public heming was opened. Mancino: Is there anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission that has not? Please come up. State your name and address. Marc Simcox: My name's Marc Simcox and I live at 21600 Lilac Lane. I've been through this process before with other developers so...ax to grind. We went through this process on Teton Lane. Our neighborhood was invaded with...and we're not naive enough to know...5 years on that property...that what the city wants, the city most often gets. I think it's real clear here regardless of the disclaimer that there's no interest in putting Lilac Lane through or no concern about that until the Donovan property is developed but I think that's kind of a surprise to hear that when part of this process is the dedication of 30 feet of property for just that purpose. And I'd just like to pass on two observations. I wasn't going to say anything during this process because I thought it was so obvious that the city staff would pick up on the feelings of the neighborhood and actually look at this development and the possibility that Donovan's property would be developed and I think that's a foregone conclusion. It's going to be developed someday. We all know that. And it appears now that the bulldog hold that the city staff has now on this punching through this street onto Lilac Lane again, as they did with Teton Lane, is not going to go away. It's surprising to me on a couple of points. One is, that it appears that the developer is being forced to provide this property for extortion. I've heard of no, the city not offering anything other than approval of the plat for this property. If there's money or fear or exchange for the property for money, I haven't heard anything about that, and forgive me for saying that if that's true. If it's not true, it simply appears to be an extorted gift to the city in exchange for approval of the plat. One of the things that's different about this development than the other developments we've experienced in our neighborhood, and I would guess in nearly all developments, is that the builder does not usually live in the development afterwards. I remember we were referred to as the neighbors of the Centex development. The developer called us his neighbors and nothing's further from the truth. He 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 has no intention of living in that development. And does not. Mr. Knoblauch intends to live here and raise his family in that area. I think his concern about the neighborhood is genuine. It's really obvious and I think it's well founded as well. I think that during this whole process we got to sit through another discussion concerning the David Carlson development over here off of Powers Boulevard and one of those concerns was, there was quite a bit of time spent on it. I didn't hear was the resolution was at the end but it was over the loss of one tree, and it was a large old oak tree, granted but during this process and maybe it happened after I heard half of the second or third time it came. I never heard anyone suggest. They suggested cutting the tree down as the only alternative left and then grassing it over. I never heard anyone suggest planting another tree, which was kind of surprising. This is a development where we'll lose a lot of trees. That doesn't seem to be any concern of the staff. This is eventually... Another thing that really surprises me is when you look at this whole thing, back and away is more of a, kind of an objective view. Why, when the Planning Commission considers this recommendation to Council, the 30 feet again you're talking about, the requirement. If the city ever did need that, the city could obtain that through condemnation. There's no doubt about that. But why it is that everyone, and I think John made it real clear. I have heard absolutely not one single proponent of this plan with the 30 feet, which is clearly...plan through, from anyone who lives in the neighborhood. Not one. The only people that want this are city staff and city officials. And it's in the vein that a future city need would require the thru street, although cul-de-sacs are littered throughout that entire neighborhood. And they're littered through that neighborhood for reasons of the lay of the land is difficult in some cases but it's one of the things that makes Chanhassen such a desirable place to live. For the peaceful part of the neighborhood and actually gives a lot of value to those neighborhoods and makes people want to live in them. Want to pay school taxes and want to pay city taxes. I can't imagine, well we heard the Planning Commission say that their concern is what's going to happen 50 years and 100 years in the future and again, I'm just incredulous. I can't imagine why every single person that lives in that neighborhood would oppose it now. The people that live in those houses, 50 or 100 years from now, I can't imagine that they would want it. So if we want to think about 50 or 100 years in the future, think about the residents now because we're not talking about an area that's going to increase by another 50 or 100% development. It's almost totally developed. And one other thing when considering this 30 foot requirement that the dedication has. The connection, that's the connection to Lilac Lane. Is that the only thing that needs to be left here is the possible buffer. A buffer between a property that is sparsely developed, I think it's the 1 acre requirements just on the north side of Lilac Lane. There's a large wetland area that's dedicated on the north side of Lilac Lane with drainage from that area and there's just so many environmental considerations to...part of this and I think in the approval of this plan and the proposal, the recommendations to Council on this should take into consideration the desires of neighbors that live in that neighborhood and are going to continue to live in that neighborhood, including the developer, and the actual atmosphere of that neighborhood that 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 would easily be preserved for the future and if the city at some time, 20 or 30 years from now or 100 years from now and Jim Donovan eventually moves on to some other place, that the city could still obtain that property if it was really necessary through some sort of condemnation proceedings or some other resources that they have to put it through to Lilac Lane, and that's the only thing I wanted to say. I continue to oppose that portion of the recommendation. Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Anyone else? I'm Joe Knoblauch. I live at 13017 Maywood Lane in Minnetonka. John's my son. I'm here to tell you not about the development. About my Aunt Marguerite. She died last week. 102 years old. Lived on this property for 85 years. Same place. She came there in 1910 with my dad. My dad was just a kid. Went to Excelsior High School. She lived there all these years. That may not be a record but it's a heck of an accomplishment. 85 years until she was 92 years old. Same property. Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate that. Anyone else? Joanne Dake: My name's Joanne Dake. I live at 1336 Ithilien. I'm just going to read this because I'm really nervous. Mancino: That's fine. Joanne Dake: My name's Joanne Dake and I'm speaking as a concerned homeowner and taxpayer in the city of Chanhassen. We live at 1336 Ithilien with our backyard backing up to Lilac Lane. It's been suggested that with the Knoblauch development and the possible future development of the Donovan property, that Lilac Lane would become a thru street. If that is the case, we've been told that Lilac Lane has to be upgraded and widened 17 feet. We would have a busy street out of the back of our lot...Cul-de-sacs are desired when buying houses... enhance property values of those homes. I think it is a common...I think of Shadow Ridge development ...Lake Lucy Pointe, the one that...and just an example of Fox Chase which has 48 houses and only one entrance and...has 38 homes after the last property... If access to the Donovan property was or is a concern, why wasn't it made possible off of Ithilien. The property at 1352 Ithilien...has the potential of losing 15... If the widening of Lilac Lane has always been in the future plans, why was 1352 Ithilien given the variances to be built on it's present site? Why now are we as homeowners expected to sit back and you take a portion of our property and use...upgrade a road that is not only unnecessary but without the road, property values and quality of life...who live on the Shorewood side of this. At this time Shorewood maintains the street. If Lilac needs widening, who will maintain it? I assume because it has to be widened on the Chanhassen side, that the city of Chanhassen would be 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 responsible and hence more of our tax dollars would be spent on maintaining a road that was never needed or wanted. I can find nothing positive about this plan, but only the loss of property values and quality of life for those who's property...Lilac Lane. I'm not opposed to the Knoblauch development but I am opposed to the city direction that he give the 30 feet for a possible right-of-way for Lilac Lane to go through. I know it's your job to plan for the future and when we do there are many things to consider. I'm asking you to think about how is this going to impact the immediate neighbors, their property values and quality of life. Needless to say, if there's any property that is involved... In summary, access from the Knoblauch to the Donovan property can easily be achieved without doing anything to Lilac Lane. Access from Apple road appears to be the best solution and it's consistent with a number of other... When we moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago we received a...Chamber of Commerce. On the back it reads, rich in tradition and quality. Chanhassen offers a...mixture of relaxing countryside living and metropolitan...opportunities. It's nice to know that places like Chanhassen still exist offering the kind of opportunities and quality of life that are... Come to Chanhassen. A friendly place to live, work and play. I would like to think that what that says is true but when I have to be concerned about lowering property values and the quality of life... If this potential road was going to be backing up to your property, what course of action would you take? Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Pete~son seconded to close the public heming. The public heming was closed. Mancino: Before we go on, Bob I just have a couple questions or comments. On the 30 feet, that everyone has talked about tonight. Could you please go over for us again the reason for the 30 feet. Is it for in the future looking at and making Lilac Lane, take it from a substandard street to a standard street in the future? Is it for access into the Donovan property? What is the purpose for the 30 feet? Generous: I wonder if maybe Dave. Hempel: Madam Chair, thank you. Maybe I could show you on the overhead, if Bob could throw up that general neighborhood overview. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard to the west, and Teton Lane. That was upgraded I believe about 3 years ago as part of the Ithilien development. Lilac Lane was a substandard street actually maintained by Shorewood. The city, as a part of that, tried to enter into a cooperative construction agreement with the city for financing part of the project. There was joint benefit to both the city of Chanhassen and the city of Shorewood residents. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: And that is from Teton to Mill Street, or where was it upgraded? From where to where? Hempel: Powers Boulevard to Teton Lane. Mancino: Okay. Just the first, I don't know how many feet. Hempel: 400 feet maybe. Approximately and then Teton Lane down from the Curry Farm subdivision was also upgraded. Most of that cost was absorbed by the area residents of Chanhassen that were assessed. Also the developer picked up an additional 20% of the assessments and then the city of Chanhassen's general taxes picked up the rest of that. The City of Shorewood did not participate in the funding of that upgrade. So the residents of Shorewood did not receive any assessments for that. Mancino: Because they didn't benefit? Hempel: Well they did benefit. The city of Shorewood, through the assessments, did not want to proceed with the...that road. Anyway, the agreement came up that the City of Shorewood then would maintain Lilac Lane versus the city of Chanhassen so. As you go west then on Teton Lane, it is back to a substandard 24 foot wide maybe rural type street section out there. As part of the Ithilien development there was an additional 17 feet of right- of-way granted or conveyed with that final plat of Ithilien for potentially updating Lilac Lane at some time in the future if it is so desired. The right-of-way is there now. Mancino: It's there now, existing. Hempel: It does not have to be purchased by the city and the burden put onto the taxpayers for that purchase. Mancino: Which is what, which is very standard for us to do when a preliminary plat comes in and we know that we may be upgrading a road? Okay. Hempel: That's correct. And if in the future, if the Donovan parcel develops some other fashion, the road doesn't go through, the property can be vacated or the right-of-way can be vacated and...back to the property owner. Mancino: If we want to use that 17 feet, which the city of Chanhassen has as an easement right now, they would negotiate with Shorewood who is responsible for the upgrade, if Lilac were to be continued to be upgraded from Teton west, correct? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Hempel: That's correct. We would want to work with the city of Shorewood and try to get an cooperative agreement again for funding that project, because most of the residents right now, Chanhassen would not benefit from the road. The Donovan parcel's the only one that would use it. The Ithilien would service from the interior street and not take access from Lilac Lane west of Teton. The city of Shorewood residents on the north side do utilize that road... Mancino: So tell me, if when the Donovan property develops, and it is decided at that time that the temporary cul-de-sac that is put on Knob Hill is not to be continued, because remember we have four options at this point. Nobody's maki'ng a decision tonight whether Knob Hill will go through to Lilac Lane. That decision is not being made tonight. What is being made is that there is a temporary cul-de-sac in that area. Hempel: Right here. As Bob mentioned earlier, that exact location can be shifted back 15 or 20 feet from the property line to allow for a buffer area in there to keep the existing vegetation in place. We typically do put a barricade there with a sign saying this road may be extended in the future to let perspective homeowners know the potential. Mancino: So let's say the Donovan property comes and is developed. The City Council decides at that point that let's make that a permanent cul-de-sac. Let's not, I mean let's still access Donovan property off of Lilac. Let's keep Lilac just the way it is. Do we, does the city still need the 30 feet to be able to do that? From Knob Hill. Hempel: If I understood you correctly. If the Donovan parcel is going to be solely serviced from Knob Hill. Develop in a fashion where the road would extend through into a cul-de-sac and a cul-de-sac made up from this area here. This connection would no longer be needed. Mancino: So you would vacate that? Hempel: That's correct. The area that we're looking at for a 30 foot wide right-of-way is kind of a sliver or a pie shaped piece that's in this area here. There's approximately 18 feet I believe between the Knob Hill plat and the property comer of Ithilien so you've got a very small, well this would be like the property line on Ithilien so in here it's approximately 18 feet I believe. So with another 30 it gives you approximately closer to 50 feet. It gives you enough room to put an urban section street in there. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions from commissioners to Dave at this point on the street? Thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Hempel: Let me add just a point too that the property owner at this comer in Ithilien, there was an easement provided at the last public hearing showing that Mr. Donovan had a roadway easement across that individual's property and again it's an exclusive easement for Mr. Donovan. It cannot be...city for general public use so we are restricted in there to an 18- 20 some foot wide easement. And I heard tonight that Mr. Simcox I believe that the city could in the future go back and condemn that property if in fact when the time came that the Donovan property developed and that was the only access in. The city certainly could do that but at the cost of the Donovan...or general taxpayers in the area to purchase that property. Mancino: To purchase it and go through condemnation hearings. Hempel: Right... Mancino: So that would be, okay. Thank you. Is there any other property that the applicant is dedicating? Are we asking for any other dedication off of Yosemite? Hempel: There is sufficient right-of-way along Yosemite at this time. Mancino: Okay. So we're not asking for any dedication there. Thank you. Hempel: No we are not. Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Don. Mehl: That public street coming through that is definitely going to end in a cul-de-sac. So they will be...turn and back out. Mancino: For public safety. Mehl: Yeah, right. Now the private driveway, private street would it be necessary...Lots 1 and 2. Mancino: And 3. Mehl: And 3, actually 2 and 3. What's going to prevent people from coming down, or just driving down there? Is there a turn around? ...use that street. I'm talking about somebody who doesn't know anything about the neighborhood and they're in that cul-de-sac at the end of the public street and they see this road go to the right so they go up it. Is there a way for them to turn around down there? To back up...in somebody's driveway. Will there be adequate signage telling them it's a private street? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Bob, does there need to be a turn around at the end of the private street or gate? Generous: Only if the Fire Marshal requires it. Hempel: Typically they do place signs out by the street, private driveway and hang the addresses on there for public safety to find out the addresses back there and it is up to the Fire Marshal to determine whether or not the driveway is long enough where he needs to have a turn around back there or if he can back his vehicles out. Mancino: I can tell you on mine, yes. We have a sign that says private driveway and at the end there is a turn around that we have. Mehl: Does the sign keep people out? Mancino: Yes, actually it does. I mean you always get a few who want to see what's back there but I have a bear posted. Mehl: There is, you say you do have a turn around and I don't see what look like there would be a turn around up there. It looks like it just abruptly ends and then there's a pad. The road kind of curves around so the end of it, maybe...get down there and have to back up. Mancino: That may be a condition you'd like the applicant and staff to work out. Mehl: Yeah. I think that ought to be looked at. Other than that, I guess I don't really have anything. I agree with the way staff is proposing this. I think we have to look at it from the standpoint that it's going to eventually develop and the road may, it could be 100 years from now, go through. It may not. But I think it has to be provided for. Mancino: Okay. So you feel comfortable with the 30 feet dedication. Mehl: Yeah, sure. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think it's unfortunate that the driveway to the south of their property couldn't be combined with the drive, than the development here save some of the topography and some of the trees over there. Also the driveways look like they're separated by 20 feet in some sections there... It's unfortunate that didn't work out and I appreciate that it was explored. Would you confirm that if the thru street would not go through from Knob Hill to Lilac Lane until and unless the Donovan property was developed. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Generous: Yeah, the city's not contemplating condemnation proceedings to continue that roadway now. We're just providing development options for the Donovan piece. Skubic: Thank you. And I favor providing the option of putting whatever street seems necessary in the future. I favor the option, I favor the 30 foot easement for the purpose of whatever street is necessary to put in there. I certainly hope it never comes to that but obviously there have been plans set forth to make provisions to get a street improved up to that point and I think this is a continuation... I don't understand what happened to the east of this property with Ithilien. It seems like maybe something could have been done there so on the one hand I say well, it's unfortunate that didn't happen. On the other hand, it's not too late to do some planning here for future provisions. So I'm in favor of passing this onto City Council with the 30 foot easement. Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: What came back is far better than the last time we saw it. Dramatically different. Dramatically better in my opinion. And just so you know from a resident standpoint I totally agree with what you're all saying. If I were where you're living, I wouldn't really want the character changed. The access changed. But also to let you know, tonight is not about the access, really. It's about preserving access to another site later on and just to have options open. And that's really what we do as a Planning Commission is make sure our options are open and when we close it, and we do that. So I think whatever we vote on tonight, it's not to say that's where we want to go. We want to go up Lilac Lane. Tonight it really doesn't make sense to me. I'd probably be saying that's not what we want to do. But on the other hand, the standards that we set and I was kind of offended by some of the things that you said. We do a very good job planning here. We really do. That's why people move out here. And it's because we kind of anticipate the future that people like the city. Obviously you've got a very valid concern and I agree with your concern but on the other hand, our job is to plan. Our job is to make sure that the staff is doing their job and they are doing their job in this respect. Just so you hear my opinion. I think what I see in front of me makes a lot more sense. There are less variances than we had before. ! really didn't like what I saw before. Now I do. The only thing that I really would say on cul-de-sacs and I really don't like temporary cul-de-sacs. It's like saying we're coming through. In my mind, Mr. Donovan was here, said he's never going to build. Well that's not going to, you know he's never going to build. He will. Everybody, we hear that so many times and everybody comes back and wants to develop... But my point is, I don't like temporary cul-de-sacs. I like neighborhoods that have permanence to it and as long as, and I guess this is not going to be in a motion but maybe it's more of a comment to staff is, you know we may have been talking about barricades or whatever at the end and that's just not, that just says we're not finished with the street and as far as I'm concerned we're finished with that street until we have to put access 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 through there so the, I'd like to make that cul-de-sac look a little bit more permanent at there as it butts into the Donovan property. It for sure should be back from the edge of the property. There's just no doubt about that but it should look permanent. And then the other parts of the staff report, I agree with. Mancino: Actually Bob is there a, I didn't see a condition in here about the cul-de-sac. So is that something that we do need to add? Generous: I don't remember seeing a specific condition on that. It was more of a... Mancino: Okay. I think maybe we would want to add one. To have the cul-de-sac is placed 20 to 30 feet away from the Donovan property. Conrad: It's probably what's there but... Mancino: I didn't see it. Mike. Meyer: I don't have a lot additional to add. I guess as a Planning Commission we do need to keep our options open and I think that's what we're doing in this case. Overall I like the plan and I guess I'm in favor of it. I have nothing further additional to add. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I also agree with the recommendations made thus far and certainly parallel Ladd's thoughts about making it look as permanent as possible. I think that is, I don't think that's an emotional response. I think that's a logical response because I totally agree too. Whenever I see that I go well, I wonder when this is going to happen so I'd like to see that as an amendment within the package going to Council. Mancino: Thank you. I think that the revisions to the plat from the last time, it's going to be a great subdivision. I also am concerned, like the neighbors on Lilac about what happens to Lilac Lane and we aren't making that decision tonight. I did on Saturday and Sunday I made some trips in that area and found that I could not get up Lilac Lane from Powers. I tried five times and could not so we have a little public safety concern there. Trying to even get up Lilac Lane. And I'm not sure that I would be in favor, just for public record, in the future of connecting this into Lilac Lane. So I would also like to see a more permanent cul-de-sac. In reviewing the conditions, Bob I would just like you to go over them in a little more detail on condition number 12, and I'm not going to spend much time on this. It's Lot 5, Block 2 instead of Lot 11. And in 21. The retaining walls are Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Generous: Correct. Mancino: And I would also like to add in 22, well actually it doesn't need to be a condition. But I would just like to direct staff and the applicant on Lot 1 and 2 of Block 1 there are significant trees on that eastern edge and if there's any way to pull those homes forward. I mean if you feel that some of those significant trees could be saved, I would be in support of a variance to the front yard setback. And I'd leave that up to staff and the applicant to decide. Otherwise I too am in support of this and I think that the staff and the applicant have worked well to revise the plans and have them come to us so may I have a motion. Meyer: I'I1 make a motion. Before I do Nancy, could you clarify how your second point, the revision that you made. Mancino: On number 21, that it's Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Meyer: Alright. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20 for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of- way, plans dated January, 1996, prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Incorporated and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 27. Amending number 12 to change Lot 11 to Lot 5, Block 2. And number 21. Adding in Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, just to clarify that. And I guess that's how it stands, unless you have anything. Conrad: I'd like to make a friendly amendment, if I can. Add point number 28. Where the cul-de-sac be made to look permanent and set back the appropriate amount, which might be 30 feet, from the Donovan property. Meyer: Would we still have the sign that says this street may be continued through? From the real estate standpoint, which is what I do, you know I can see where people get misled if it looks like a permanent. I know where you come from too though. Conrad: I don't know how to solve that. Meyer: City staff any? Aanenson: We've learned. We've learned that unless you apprise people in every way, shape and form, that they didn't know that it would go through. Conrad: But on the plat. Then we should do that on all access to the Donovan property, shouldn't we? Should we put one up on Lilac Lane too? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Aanenson: There's nobody there. Mr. Donovan's right there. Mancino: It is standard. Conrad: I just don't want to make, excuse me but it may be permanent. It may just be that way and I want to give the neighborhood the feeling that that's the way it is. And I'm not reacting to how the development of the Donovan property is made. I hope they never do it. And therefore I want to make this look, to put a temporary thing in. Mancino: Yeah, it takes away from the value of the subdivision. Conrad: It does. It does. Mancino: It just takes away from it. Conrad: Let the City Council figure that out. Who has the last word on this by the way. Mancino: So Mike, do you accept the friendly amendment of Ladd's, without that addition? Meyer: Without that addition of?. Mancino: Of the sign. Meyer: I would accept it. Maybe we should make a note to them just to see what they say. Mancino: Okay. Do I have a second for the motion, or is there a second? Skubic: I'll make a second. Mancino: Any more discussion? Mehl: I'm just curious. Do we need to add anything to number 23 regarding staff's need to review and develop whatever, appropriate turn around radius at the end of the private drive? Mancino: Sure. Would you like to add that as a friendly amendment? Mehl: Yeah, is that added to the, as another condition or is it an extension of condition 23? Mancino: I think you can do it either way. You can add it to 23 and add a sentence after that second sentence. It says, second sentence says a private street shall be constructed in 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 accordance with current city ordinances. Staff and the applicant will work out a turn around at the end of the private street. Or whether one should be constructed. Aanenson: The current ordinance covers that. That's our interpretation of it...if it needs to have a dead end... Mancino: So are you saying it's not needed? Aanenson: Right. That would be our interpretation. If it needs to say dead end or not a thru street or it needs to have a stake to indicate the address, then we would make sure there's an appropriate sign. Mancino: Glad you brought that up. Any other discussion? Meyer moved, Slmbic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the p~eliminm'y plat for Subdivision #95-20 for 12 lots, one ouflot and associated light-of-way, plans dated January, 1996, pmpmed by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc; and a fix~nt yead setback vmiance of 10 feet and a vmiance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. A minimum 40 foot building setback (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from bUffer line) shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5, Block 1. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. All lots shall show existing trees on building permit application surveys. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted to the city. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 o 11. 12. 13. Submit street names and turning radius dimensions to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 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. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 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. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. 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 basins and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2 outside the street right-of-way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 18. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to city and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 19. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,152.00 and a water quantity fee of $15,226.00. These fees are based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 22. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1, 2, and 5, Block 1, and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 23. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city's street and utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 24. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right-of-way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5, Block 1. 25. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 26. Delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent lots and dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for ingress and egress. 27. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to minimize grading on the site. 28. The cul-de-sac be made to look permanent and set back the appropriate amount, i.e.30 feet, from the Donovan property. All voted in favor and the motion cea'tied unanimously. Mancino: When will this go before City Council? Generous: February 26th. Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for coming. (Craig Peterson left the meeting during the following item and did not vote on the remaining items.) APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL REQUEST A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5~500 SQUARE FOOT APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANT; A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR TWO WALL SIGNS; AND A VARIANCE TO SITE COVERAGE OF 5% TO PERMIT 700/o SITE COVERAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH~ HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICr~ LOT 4~ BLOCK Iv CROSSROADS PLAZA THIRD ADDITION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff?. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Conrad: Yeah. The 5% variance. I think, I wouldn't have a problem with it if we were talking about 1 or 2 but I really, I don't know how to rationalize the 5 Bob. The only way I could rationalize the 5, if we change the whole district back to 70%. The city owns this. It's a city project and we're going to change the standard to 70% from 65. I just philosophically have a real problem with that and it seems that we're doing it because of our convenience because we own it. That's my only comment. Well no. I guess I need Bob to respond. I asked the question and didn't wait for you to respond but how do we rationalize that? Mancino: Well we rationalized it by saying the comprehensive plan assumes site coverage of 70% for commercial development. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: I read the comprehensive plan and did not read anywhere in the comprehensive plan that it assumes a site coverage of 70% for commercial. I haven't found it in the comprehensive plan. I spent some time looking at it and said where does it assume this? haven't found it. And so... Conrad: But I think commercial, our standard is 70 and 30, right? Mancino: Well, for CBD there's no max. I mean the CBD is no max at all, and that's where we said we would have higher density. We would have a lot of parking and not a lot of green space. In the CBD and we were planning on that. And in the business, the general business district it's 70%. In the BH it's 65%. And in the lOP it's 70% but when you get out to business fringe it's 40%. Otherwise it's 65% so we have a real mix. We don't have assumed at 70 from what I found in the city code. Conrad: Bob, do you think the intent of a 65%, 35 split in the highway business district is for buffering? Is that really the. Generous: I think so and to give the view of the green, the open area. Mancino: As you enter the downtown. Generous: Right. Mancino: Yeah. Generous: Now the city could have resolved this if they would have included the land across the street that we're keeping for open space as the green area on the site because we're 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 shifting it all around and the whole thing's going to meet the 65%. But we didn't do that as apart of our subdivision because we are keeping all the land. Part of the acquisition of this property was a deal to purchase the property to the south. On the south side of West 79th and we were going to use that for wetland mitigation and storm water ponding over there and keep, make that an actual amenity for the downtown and entry treatment and natural state. So yeah, we're picking it up on a different property. Mancino: But what about the Americana Bank and some of these others? I mean I think we have to play fair to all businesses in this district and did we require them to come in at 65%? Generous: I didn't check Americana. Cheers is over. The restaurant is over. Over 70%. Mancino: Which restaurant? Generous: The one that's closed. That Prairie. Mancino: The one that's closed, okay. Generous: You know some of those older developments. Mancino: I mean that Cheers area, is that 65%? Generous: No. I looked at it. It was over 70%, but that was an older development. They have a lot of parking lot. Very minimal green area. They went all the way around their building and that's, you know it was a convenience at the time and the idea was to provide all the surface so people could circulate around there. I don't have the exact number. If you'd like, I could calculate all those. Mancino: Well I just think that's a big principle, I mean once we set it and we ask certain businesses to come in, it just seems unfair to business owners to have it not be consistent so. Generous: Right. We couldn't deny the variance on this and just push it off to Lots 2 and 3, which is established as part of it. We did a green area on the site. Because we're really treating this all as one unit. Conrad: Well, I'm just real uncomfortable on this one Madam Chair. It's like we own it so we're going to change the law, the rule, and we forced some others I know to maintain it and I think Bob, I don't really have a problem with the plat. I take the subdivision and it all looks good. You know it's just like, it's fine. It's just fine but a 5% change is big and I guess I could, next one in, I don't know how I'd talk to them. I'd just say, what do you want. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Bob, will you also, oh I'm sorry. Conrad: I'm done. Mancino: Take a minute for me and just let us understand the extra 22 parking spaces that we're going to pick up from Americana Bank. That development. Generous: Well it's Americana, part of the arrangement that Todd or the HRA has worked out with, for these four lots and the Americana Bank so that we could have a more intensive development in this area. The bank closes at 6:00. Their parking lot's empty soon after 5:30. One of the peak times for restaurants in that evening period so they can, they're going to pick up that extra space. Mancino: Are we going to have a problem during the day because I actually went over to Americana Bank and I didn't see 22 extra parking spaces to pick up during the day so I was just wondering if everyone feels real comfortable about that. Generous: We think it will work out. You can't really tell. It really depends on the next two lots to develop and we're trying to work out one user for both of those and if that's the case, then it's easy. We have lots of excess and you'll see, what we don't want to do is you know these parking standards are planned for you know the 95, the highest use hour and most of the time they're vacant. We really don't want to see that on this. Mancino: Sure. I understand the mix. I just want to make sure that everybody was real comfortable. Generous: We think overall it's going to work out and we'll get a lot of, noon hour is the concern. Mancino: Sure. Generous: But we're making it pedestrian friendly so it will get people out of their car to walk there. Mancino: Is the applicant here and would they wish to present please? Make their presentation. Gary Fischer: Good evening. My name is Gary Fischer. I'm with Applebee's International from Overland Park, Kansas. I'll be happy to answer any questions with regard to our operations, the site plan. I have our architect and our civil engineer is here tonight also to 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 answer any questions with regard to the two variance requests that we have tonight. The variance for coverage. We've been working with, we had been working with city representatives on this site plan for some time now to try to get our adequate parking to support our operation. We feel that we've had to make some concessions along the way to get our landscaping and other ordinance requirements to a point where we feel that they accommodate the city's needs. We also are very concerned though about the parking that we need for our operation, to a point where we really would hate to lose any more parking on the parts where we have no landscaping...cross parking that we have with the bank. Potentially that we'll have with the bank and with Tires Plus. And for that reason we're requesting the variance to coverage to the percent of coverage and hoping that you would take that into consideration with future development on the adjacent lots as far as taking it out of there. With regards to the variance on the two building signs. We feel that we do have somewhat of a hardship here in that,considering the configuration of the land and the adjacent right-of- ways. If we were to just place the single building sign on the south side of our building facing the highway. As you would approach the building from the north. Say coming down Market Street. Making a left on 79th Street. Coming around the curve. You would not be able to see the sign on our building facing Highway 5 because of the angle that the street is in relationship to that building. You're actually driving away from the building. As you pass our building and then eventually coming to that curb cut so the signage would not really be visible coming from the majority of the city. Although on the other hand, if you would place the sign on the west side of the building facing Market Street, towards Market Street, you would be not identifying a very important elevation on our building which does face...and for that reason we're asking for two signs. They're not, we feel they're done very tastefully. They're not excessive in size and we feel it's an appropriate request. So if there's any other questions with regards to the site plan... Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this point? Conrad: Just one. Is there, will there be a stop sign between the bank and Tires Plus? The access through there. Is that planned Dave? Hempel: At this point there is not a traffic signage plan but we could certainly look into that throughout the development, similar to like Byerly's or Market Square. There should be. Some sort of traffic signage. Conrad: It's sort of a strange, it's not the perfect access from Tires Plus through Americana because you basically go through the drive thru. Hempel: It's an unusual one. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Conrad: We have to give that some attention because basically the right hand turn there, it's a tough one as you're going out of Tires Plus or Applebee's. The right hand turn into Americana is a tough turn. And then a quick left to get out. If you went back to the north I guess. So again I'm not sure how that works. I guess the only thing we don't want them to do is to drive through the drive thru so I guess that's. Generous: Unless they're depositing. Conrad: Yeah. Well that's right. That's right but it's a strange deal and I think we should take a look at how that access really does function. That's my only comment. Mancino: Thank you. A question. This is the west side and the south side of the building, correct? This rendering shows the south side toward the parking lot? Gary Fischer: Actually what you're looking at here would be the west side. This would be the north side. The sign would not be on this north side. It would be on the opposite side of the building. So this rendering is not accurate as you see it. Mancino: North side, yes. Yes, okay. Gary Fischer: So this is, when you're saying this is north side. You're looking at the... northwest corner. The sign that we're proposing would not be here. It would be on the other side facing the highway which you've got here. Mancino: Which would be the south side. Gary Fischer: Which would be the south side. Mancino: Okay. I'm a little interested on the east side. What does the east side look like? That is where people entered the, the east side of the building is going to be the main entryway to this whole...complex and could you go over that site elevation. It looks a little bit like a, the back of a building. Gary Fischer: Well unfortunately all restaurants have to have, or most buildings have to have a front and a back. We do have the necessity to have a service area for the restaurant where we have pick up trash, dumpster, building coolers, and what we do is typically on the, what we call the back of the building, we have that enclosed in a masonry...wall that matches the building itself. And like I said before, we went through great lengths working with the city to try to come up with a layout...There was just no better way to do it. But like I said, it is fully screened. Done with the same material as the building. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Generous: Mancino: I'm sorry. What is fully screened? I see 1, 2, 3, 4 doors. You have to go to sheet A-11, which is the one right in front of that. Okay. So this is the east elevation? Gary Fischer: Generous: Mancino: Generous: This would be the east elevation. Those doors are enclosed behind this elevation. Oh! Thank you. That's very helpful. In addition, if you look at the first 18 feet 4 inches, staff is recommending that they incorporate a sloped roof element over that. Gary Fischer: That's the coolers here. But there's the plan view. Here's the back... Mancino: Now will you have any sort of decorative lighting here or do anything or any plantings to soften this? Gary Fischer: We can put some landscaping in along there. I believe we have, well the...so we will have some landscaping that will come in along that driveway. Mancino: Okay. Is that part of the condition... Generous: Yeah, they could put some shrubbery up in that area. Gary Fischer: We could put some low shrubbery. I think we have some already in the front. Mancino: I would say some higher shrubbery to soften. Generous: Lilacs. Gary Fischer: We can do that. Mancino: Thank you. Any other architectural questions at this time? Skubic: I have a question...commissioner questioned the colorings and at the time I didn't understand the significance of that until I saw a building come up and that gives a new appreciation of what he was asking. The illustrations here show a matte finish. The colors 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 aren't luminescent at all. Are these renderings accurate of the colors? I'm particularly thinking about the awnings. Gary Fischer: Actually those would be more accurate than the renderings. Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Any other questions? Mehl: I had one. What side of the building will the, is the piping for the gas meters and the electric meters and water meters and this sort of thing placed? It seems like there's, are they ...behind the wall or concealed in any way? Gary Fischer: I believe the water, we have a utility room in the building and that's going to be on the northeast corner of the building. So that any, if there are any of those meters, I don't know that we've picked out a...location but it would be on the north side of the building because that's where the majority, our utility room is right here...Yeah, it is on the north side. The northeast corner. Mancino: Bob, we are not deciding, we are not okaying signage at this point tonight? That will come back to us as a separate item. The monuments. Generous: The general. Mancino: The specifics of the monument sign. Generous: The specifics we're not approving and that wouldn't, they'd be generally like this. Mancino: Okay. Generous: It shows it on that Sheet A-11. Mancino: But again we're not approving this tonight. This monument sign. Generous: In a sense. Aanenson: I guess that's what we're looking for. For direction from you to have the monument sign and that's what they're asking for for the variance on the additional wall sign. To give us some guidance. I mean that needs a decision in there. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Generous: permit. Oh I understand the variance. Okay. So the answer would be yes, you are but they'd have to come in for a separate Mancino: Okay, thank you. Generous: Which would not come back. Mancino: Which would not come back. Okay. Thank you. I don't think there are any other questions that we have at this point. If we do later, we'll certainly ask. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on the Applebee's restaurant, please come up. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heming. The public heming was closed. Mancino: Comments. Mike. Questions. Meyer: Nice looking plan. Really I don't have any specifics. No specific comments. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. I like it. I just don't know how to handle the 65 versus 70. I really don't. I can't bundle it into this site plan. I honestly don't know how to do that Madam Chairman so my concern would be beyond this site plan and back to the entire subdivision itself. But that's not a function of the site plan. In my mind. Mancino: Conrad: Mancino: Conrad: But you would be denying the variance for 70%. My preference is not to do that. But you haven't found a way not to. But I don't know how to solve the problem, yeah. The way to solve the problem is That's one way. The to change the ordinance and to allow all fringe business to be 65%. 37 Planning Commission Meeting ~ February 7, 1996 other way is to give staff directive to try to find, try to squeak out some added the other part and that's chancy. And it's just that I really don't know how to handle the next person that came in that didn't meet our 65%. I'd just say sure. You've got what you want you know so basically I'm, if I go with this site plan it's saying, my new standard in this district is 65%. Mancino: 70%. Conrad: 70%, yeah. Sorry. Mancino: What about sign variances. Having an additional wall sign not on a frontage road. Now that is, they already have the frontage on 79th, which is very visible from Highway 5. Wonderful site for Applebee's. I mean it's just great. Gary Fischer: I'll compliment our real estate person for that one. Mancino: And there is a monument sign on 79th so that when you are on Market and you turn east on 79th, you're going to see that monument sign. It's visible. It's right there. In fact it's out a little way...on 79th from either end. Anyway. So your feelings on the...area for the wall signs. Conrad: I don't think we need one. Skubic: I also don't feel we need a sign variance for the reason that Madam Chair pointed out and I'm also perplexed by the coverage issue that Ladd pointed out. I don't have anything to add to that. I would favor adding to the recommendations that we have landscaping along the eastern side to cover that area which doesn't have very many features to it. Mancino: Don. Mehl: I think a lot can be...northem side. Can't have a sign on the west side. But if we have the south properly done and placed...going to take care of the whole...I had concerns earlier about the placement of the meters and... I know you can't avoid them but you can hide them. I think by putting them on that northeast comer like you're talking about, it's going to hide it. I have seen some good looking buildings that...bad side. You know they've all got either one side...If the red, that looks great. By the way, I think the entire plan really looks great. Great set of drawings. The...looks great. It's going to be a nice looking building. Doesn't the Tires Plus building have red on it? Is that red...red brick? Is that a red roof?. Generous: It's a red brick and they have red trim. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Is it compatible? Mehl: Yeah. How close would that be? Generous: It's a little bit darker. More blood red. Mehl: Will there be any kind of flashing or are they going to compliment each other? Generous: I believe that they should be compatible. It's not, they won't clash and one will be a little bit darker than the other. You also have some depth. It will be nice with the, our interior landscaping will get some green in there too and that will help break it up once the trees grow. Mehl: Okay. I just wanted to bring that up. I vaguely remember the Tires Plus having a lot of red on it. I want to make sure that it wouldn't be something clashing. We mentioned the, I don't know several meetings ago about pedestrian friendly parking lots. And I kind of take a look at the parking lot layout here and I don't know...makes it any more pedestrian friendly than any other parking lot. It looks like people either have to walk in and around the cars or walk on the street. They can't really walk across the little end dividers on each side with shrubberies and trees. I don't know what we can do about it. If it needs to be done but we did bring that up... Generous: There is that, the most easterly islands do have a sidewalk on them. Mehl: Where is that Bob? Mancino: On the eastern edge here...! think some of that has to do with, as we were talking about just the size of the parking lot and how many spaces are needed. Mehl: Okay. Regarding the 65% and the 70% issue. I feel that needs to be taken a look at somehow to...get to that 65 or closer to that. I agree with Ladd. I think there's not a lot of difference between 65 and 70...It's been a number that's been established, I think we have to work to get close to that. I have nothing further. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I think that the rendering looks great. I like the welcoming, kind of the energy level of those two sides and I'd like to see some of those architectural enhancements on that east side to landscaping or I mean you certainly don't want to do, I don't think you want to, what are those things? The awnings, but something that, this is just so wonderful and people will be driving right in on that east side. If there's some way to enhance it and you can work with staff on that. To enhance that east side. My other 39 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 comment about the sign variance is, also I think that the monument sign will give you a presence as you're on Market or coming down 79th from either side so I don't see the reason for the wall sign on the west side of the building. I would like to see some sort of, in this plaza area, standard for lighting. I've noticed that on the western edge of the city where we have some fast food restaurants, there's lighting. Different kinds of lighting. Different heights. Different colors so I would like to see this compatible with Americana Bank. The height and the color of the lights. And I know that there was something about 20 bronze poles with shielded shoebox lighting. I think that's fine but again ,please make it compatible with that whole area. I would like to see staff come back and tell us that the entire, I call it a plaza, can come in at 65%. I don't want to put the onus on anyone but I want to make sure that the entire area can come in at 65% and therefore maybe grant a 70% variance. I've just got to know that it's going to work. Generous: Okay. Well deny the variance and we'll push the rest of the subdivision. Mancino: Okay. Conrad: Deny the variance. Mancino: And push the rest of the. Generous: Because as part of the subdivision we said overall we'd meet the 65%. Mancino: Okay. Gary Fischer: Excuse me. Mancino: Wait until I'm done. Just one second and then I'll let you come up. Bob I can also see in some of the plantings on the south side of the building where you've asked for enhanced landscaping to do something because it's so visible from TH 5, etc. Something with flowering or perennials or add some creative landscaping to it. If that would work with the applicant. Now this will be landscaped by a certified or registered landscape architect, correct? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Those are my only comments. Please. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Gary Fischer: With regards to the coverage permit. Is it possible that the variance, that you could almost remove the variance request from our application as it strictly affects our lot and make it more applicable to the whole subdivision? Generous: Well that's in essence what would happen. If they deny the variance, we're going to have to make up that 2,700 square feet. Gary Fischer: Okay. So it really wouldn't matter whether it's denied or it's just. Generous: Well it does affect the next property. Gary Fischer: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion. Conrad: Sure. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign variance request to permit wall signage on two building elevations based on the findings contained in the staff report. Is that separate? Mancino: I was going to say, do we need to vote on that separately? Generous: Well I set it up separately. Mancino: Okay. May I have a second to that motion? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Conlad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign vmiance request to permit wall signage on two building elevations based on the findings contained in the staff ~epol~. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied unanimously. Mancino: There will be no variance for the sign on the second building frontage. Conrad: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #95-20 for a 5,500 square foot restaurant building on Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, based on the site plan dated 12-4-95 and revised 12-13-95. Eliminating the next sentence. The balance of that sentence in the staff report with the 15 conditions as of the staff report dated January 17th. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: May I add a friendly amendment that there be a subdivision standard for lighting established for not only the height of the pole lighting but also the color of the lights. Conrad: Mancino: Generous: Say that again. You said for the subdivision and I didn't understand that. Well this whole subdivision. It should be compatible. Mancino: Yeah. See they got it. Conrad: I'm...sort of the lowest common denominator here. Remember that. Mancino: And 17, that we add, that the applicant and staff work with adding landscape and maybe some architectural features to the east side of the building. Conrad: I agree with those because they're so specific. Mancino: I want 20 trees. Second to the motion. Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad: Yeah just a little bit. As I tried to rationalize this, one way or another. We're short 3,000 feet and basically we're going to have to find that 3,000 feet and you'd probably pick up on something close, or 2,000. You know everybody's going to feel we tried and we're close and philosophically we can hang in there. But intellectually speaking, if you had to buy that 3,000 square feet, you'd be paying x dollars per foot, right? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: Now intellectually couldn't you say okay. So there's a cost there. Now maybe there's something else that we can get versus that cost that the developer, the building. Aanenson: Sure. Replacement of trees somewhere else. Conrad: Yeah. And that's what I. Meyer: Sort of a trade-off? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Conrad: Yeah. That's. Mancino: Boy you're going to make this complex for everybody you do business with. I mean now we're going to get into. Conrad: This is just a discussion because I haven't been able to figure this one out. I really stumbled on this and I think we're just forcing the, we're limiting the city's potential to sell the balance of the project, which makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I'm not really wild about that or whatever. We may not get the value out of it but we should. And what we're doing is we're letting the current project get away without imposing any kind of cost on this one in terms of maybe additional landscaping. In other words, if there's a $5,000.00 or $10,000.00 landscaping premium here, then maybe we could justify something happening on the balance of the subdivision that doesn't add up to that 3,000 feet that we're trying to get. Okay, that's just my little thinking that would make me feel comfortable but, and maybe this is going no place Madam Chairman but that would be the only reason we would not want to pass what we just made a motion to. That this project should pay a little bit towards a penalty for the impervious surface. Aanenson: The developer being the city. Conrad: Yeah, that's right. That's right. That's where it would be. Aanenson: It's part of the negotiations with Applebee's. They were concerned about, you know the easy way to solve it is to do joint parking and that's where we tried to put the additional sidewalk in. That took out some landscaping. They wanted to insure a certain amount in their purchase agreement. Amount of parking within their jurisdiction or control. So this is all part of the negotiation process. I think what you're saying might, well Bob did. There's another way to accomplish getting that back and certainly we looked at some of those opportunities but we, the city being the developer. But I think in the next piece it's not that... Mancino: Before we get to vote, we're still in discussion. I noticed that on the conditions there's nothing about the conditions that they have to have an agreement between the development to the west for parking spaces. Should that also be in the conditions? Or I didn't see it. Generous: That's part of the subdivision conditions. Mancino: That's part of the, where? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Generous: The subdivision was approved and it said they have to have cross access and parking agreements between the parcels. Mancino: So that fulfills that. Thank you. Generous: So that's contained in a separate document as a part of their purchase agreement. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan//95-20 for a 5,500 squme foot restamant building on Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3~d Addition, based on the site plan dated 12-4-95 and revised 12-13-95, subject to the following conditions: 1. Install aeration tubes in the 8 1/2 foot center islands. 2. Replace the pin oaks with red oaks on the proposed landscaping plan. Provide ornamental plantings in the sodded area in front of the north side of the building. 4. Incorporate trees in the landscaping on the south side of the building. Install three trees adjacent to the western property line west of the parking lot. These trees shall be selected from the approved tree list and must be overstory trees suitable for parking lots. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint the curbing yellow. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location. 7. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement for the property and provide the necessary security to meet the conditions of approval. The applicant shall incorporate a pitched roof element over the cooler units on the east side of the building. 10. Eliminate one of the parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site, eliminate the paving squares under the two Applebee's benches adjacent to the entrance to the 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 building, and eliminate the sidewalk area north of the building to expand the landscaping area. 11. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit for all signage on the site. Signage shall comply with city code requirements. 12. The joint parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 13. Staff recommends that the radiuses on the parking lot islands adjacent to the main drive aisles be increased from 10 feet to 20 feet. 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for adjusting any existing storm sewer manholes and cleaning the city storm sewer system as needed in conjunction with this site development. 15. Rock construction entrances should be included with the site plan drawings. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 16. That a subdivision standmd be established for the height and color of the pole lighting. 17. Additional landscaping and mehitectuml featmes be added to enhance the east side of the building. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied unanimously. Mancino: And when does this go in front of the City Council? Generous: February 26th. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING BLUFF PROTECTION AND SIDE SLOPE SETBACKS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff?. For Bob. Comments. Don. Mehl: I really don't have any. I go along with and support the recommendation. Mancino: Bob. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Skubic: Mancino: Conrad: Mancino: Let's go ahead and make the correction. Ladd. I trust Bob. Let's do it. Your life is in his hands. Mike. Meyer: No comments. Mancino: I have no comments either. May I have a motion. Meyer: I'll make a motion, if I can here. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Bluff Protection ordinance as shown on Attachment #1. Conrad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Bluff Protection o~dinance as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied unanimously. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, a question for you. On the Ward property that's going to go, it's going to be some kind of mix use at some time. At this point it is and it goes right next to a single family subdivision, low density. And it meets C, right? Generous: Yes. Mancino: So that's saying to me that the most buffer that they have to put in between the mixed use area and single family residential low density is 30 feet. Generous: The most, yes. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: That's the most that has to be inbetween. Generous: However we could as part of, the development standards establish the bigger setback. Mancino: Okay. But that's kind of our minimum. Generous: Right. Mancino: And what kind of fence could we require there? How does the fence work into here? Generous: That's more of an aesthetic thing. If you look at F-I, that doesn't provide screening. It's just separation. Aanenson: You don't have to require a fence. As part of a PUD you might say, maybe it needs to be bermed. Maybe there's some sloping existing. Because it's a PUD, you still have the opportunity to negotiation some different. Mancino: So how do the fences come in here? Where are they part of the matrix? Generous: They become, under C. The bottom one. Mancino: Oh, the 10 feet. Generous: But they really get, they're more intensive under D and F-2 and F-3. F-3 is the stockade fence with 6 to 8. Mancino: So I kind of looked at this and I said, but you're telling me we can certainly change this if between the Iow density subdivision and a mixed use area the developer wanted to do 10 feet and then just have a split rail fence. To me that wouldn't be enough. Aanenson: You wouldn't have any flexibility to change. If you had like two single family zones, you wouldn't have any buffer anyway but when we have two permitted uses in a district, you're not going to have much flexibility for changing it. If it's a PUD or something else that requires site plan review, you have an opportunity then to add conditions to mitigate the impact so you can go beyond that. Mancino: Okay. My other question is on page number 3. Section 3, number 3. Existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands, or man-made features such as 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 stormwater ponds which provide physical separation between developments or between a development and a collector and, the only problem I have with that is storm water ponds don't really act as a buffer. Generous: Except for you get separation. Mancino: You get separation but they certainly don't buffer a collector or arterial street. Aanenson: ...noise. Mancino: No. Or lights. So I mean it doesn't go back to the objective, the intent of this so I have some concern with that. Any other comments? Mike? Meyer: I agree with your last comment. I have nothing to add to that at this point. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Just some wording. I've asked this question every time this comes in and I lose sight of it. Bob, without looking at the paper, it's got to be from memory. This is a test. Tell me what a plant unit multiplier is. Generous: It's based on 100 linear feet, you have so many trees, shrubs, evergreens that go in. If based on the width of your buffer yard, it either reduces the amount of trees per that unit. Conrad: So you would multiply the 100 feet and that will tell you how. Generous: How many trees I should get within that area. You know we might look at the entire length and we can get a total number of landscaping and then we can look at adjusting it to take care of it. Conrad: So the definite, here's what we have on 2(c). It says the plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. We haven't told, I guess once you know what it means, then the words make sense. When I read the words, it didn't make sense. I don't know. Basically it's going to force you to explain it to people. And I've talked about this before on that one. Basically you can't read the ordinance and really understand it, or is that just me? Mancino: You have to spend some time with it. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Conrad: I don't know. I guess I'd like to be able to read it and say, I get it. I guess I'd rather have you hand this off to the developer and say, just do it. Generous: Well that's why they have the pictures. Conrad: Yeah. The pictures are really good. That's worth a lot. You're the one that's stuck with it so I'm not going to. I have nothing else Madam Chair. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: I don't have anything. Mehl: No. I don't have anything either. Mancino: I just have two other comments. I have a feeling that (e), (f), (g) and (h) and the Arboretum and the landscape people saying you couldn't do it. I think most of the reasons why these were in was so that in (e), nobody would do a 15 foot buffer because they'd have to put too many plants so they were trying to get bigger buffers out of transition areas because...overall question for you. Very quickly on purpose and intent. Section 2(b). It says, this article doesn't apply to Al, A2, PR, RSF and R-4. What's the density for R-47 4 units. Generous: 4 units, low density. Mancino: Low density. Thank you. Generous: It's those twins. Aanenson: It's those twin homes. Mancino: May I have a motion? Skubic: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending approval of the revised buffer yard ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. Mancino: I'd just like to add a friendly amendment to Section 3, number 3 and that is that we eliminate or man-made features such as storm water ponds so that it reads, existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands which provide physical separation between developments, or between a development and a collector, satisfy the buffering function. Do you accept the friendly amendment? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Skubic: I accept it. Mancino: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised buffer ymd o~dinance as shown in Attachment/41, with the amendment to delete the phlase "or man-made featmes such as sto~mwater ponds" from Section 3(3). All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 3, 1996 as presented. The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at this point for a work session regarding Planning Commission Goals. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 50