Loading...
PC 2003 07 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer; and Kristin Wentzlaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REOUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KERBER BOULEVARD AND WEST 78m STREET, STEVEN HANSEN. Krisfin Wentzlaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Claybaugh: Yeah, you're limiting both to the 8 feet on height that I read somewhere in the report 64 square feet. Wentzlaff: 64, actually it complies with the 64 square feet of sign area. Claybaugh: The latest revision that was submitted? Wentzlaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. And I'm assuming, I don't know if the city forester looked at it or not. I see that they just have pier foundation going down below the frost line for the signage. No concerns about the root structure for the adjacent tree? Wentzlaff: I didn't have any comments on that at all from anybody. Claybaugh: Did she look at it do you know? Wentzlaff: Did I? Claybaugh: Did Jill have an opportunity to take a look at it? Wentzlaff: Yes, I did go to the site. Where the tree is drawn in on the site plan isn't it's exact location so when I walked over there, it looked like it could fit if they wanted to try to make it fit. Claybaugh: Okay. Just so I'm clear, did Jill look at it? Wentzlaff: Oh I'm sorry, no. Jill did not. Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 Claybaugh: Jill did not, okay. Alright, that' s all the questions I have for staff. Sacchet: Any questions Brace? Feik: Just one. What is the date of the revised drawing then? Wentzlaff: The 9th of July. Sacchet: Questions Rich? Slagle: Yeah, just one. What was, if you could put that image up again of that sign. Wentzlaff: Of the original? Slagle: No, no, right there. What am I seeing for the height? Wentzlaff: 8 feet. Slagle: Just 8 even? Wentzlaff: Yep, and then once you add the architectural structure around it, it makes it 10 feet 6 inches. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: Yes. Was there anything mitigated, and this is probably a tough one, but was there anything mitigated in lieu of allowing a monument sign with the original PUD? Wentzlaff: Actually I'll try to answer. I'm not sure if I'll be able to or not but in the original PUD there was no signage proposed at the time. It just said in there that they could each have one, each tenant could have one wall mounted sign. Lillehaug: Okay, that's good enough. Thanks. Sacchet: Real quick. Slagle: Just one more. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: On page 2 of the June 16, 1993 proposal summary, and I'm just curious more for my own knowledge. At the bottom of paragraph one it says staff will detail the reasons for the split vote further in the report. I don't know if I saw that when I went through that in the report and when Steve asked that question, I'm just wondering is there something that we aren't seeing. I tried to go through the pages to find the reasons that staff would have described the split vote. If you don't have it that's fine. I was just curious. Sacchet: It's in the attachment. The June 16, 1993 proposal summary. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Slagle: Proposal summary from the 1993 Planning Commission and it says at the bottom of paragraph one, staff will detail the reason for this split vote. Sacchet: At the end of the first paragraph Sharmeen. Slagle: And I might have missed it but I know I went through it 3 times trying to find if there was some interesting circumstances surrounding this application that would prove in front to know, and if there isn't, that's okay. Just curious. Sacchet: Yeah, well I think it's a valid question. The same what Steve brought up. We don't have any recollection or knowledge at this point? Okay. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Now I have a practical question. Going back to the actual current staff report on page 4. There's a statement, there are currently two signs at the site. One monument sign, one roof sign. And that those must be removed. I don't see a condition to that effect. Is that an oversight that we could add a condition or is there no need for a condition to that effect? Generous: Mr. Chair, those are violations of the current ordinance so we will enforce that through a code enforcement procedure. Sacchet: But it wouldn't hurt to make it a condition in other words. Generous: Well except for this is like a rezoning. You can't have a conditional. Sacchet: Oh we cannot have conditional. Generous: You can put criteria for the signage in there as part of, like any rezoning or design standards but you can't say do something else. Sacchet: Okay. And then, then you'd probably be able to answer that one. The math, we say it's limited to 64 square feet but then at the same time we say it's 6 V2 feet by 12 feet, so the measurement of 64 square feet is really just for the sign where the letters are? Wentzlaff: Yes. Sacchet: Is that how we measure? The structure around it is not included? Wentzlaff: But it is included in the height. Sacchet: It' s included in the height, but not in the square footage of the sign. Wentzlaff: Right. Sacchet: That's only the part that gets the letters? Wentzlaff: Exactly. Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Sacchet: That's an interesting way, okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you. With that I would like to ask whether the applicant wants to come forward and give us your thoughts please. Please state your name and address for the record please. Steve Hansen: My name's Steve Hansen and I live in Minnetonka, but my father owns the building that I'm representing. The only thing about the height, I think we can work with that. I just wanted to clarify that the 8 feet would be the top of the roof, is that what I'm hearing, or would that be the top of the sign? Wentzlaff: 8 feet for height means it would be the top of the sign. Feik: Top of the structure. Sacchet: Top of the whole structure. Wentzlaff: Entire structure. Steve Hansen: So I would just have to reduce this signage down to 2 V2 feet shorter to make up for that. Sacchet: You think that's workable? Steve Hansen: Yeah, I think we can make that work. Sacchet: Anything else you want to add? Steve Hansen: No. Sacchet: Anybody have questions here. Claybaugh: Yeah, I just have a question. Perhaps you can answer the question regarding the adjacent tree. Any concerns for that? Steve Hansen: I guess we'd be interested in not harming the trees. We had quite a bit to work with. Wentzlaff: There was quite a bit of space. Steve Hansen: In fact being that we have to be 10 feet farther back, it will probably put us farther away from the tree...where it's drawn. Claybaugh: That's all the question I had. Feik: I had one. Would you please address the two non-conforming signs and your plans for those and timing. Steve Hansen: Yeah, there actually will not be any need. In fact that's probably part of the, we really had no good way of addressing all the new tenants. Before we just had two tenants in there and there really wasn't a need for a lot of signage with those two tenants. Now, the major tenant has left in October and we've been subdividing it so there is going to be more need for more signs so I'm trying to be a little more proactive before it gets too crazy with everybody doing their own 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 little signage, so I think this will clean it up a lot better and we would definitely remove that immediately. Feik: And I'd like to follow up, as long as you're both here for just a moment. The two non- conforming signs were highlighted in the back. The status of the leasing sign on the roof, is that? Wentzlaff.' That is one of the non-conforming signs. Feik: That is one? And the other one is the. Wentzlaff: The Hansen Home Tech sign. Feik: Okay, that was the other one. Wentzlaff: The actual, the window signs are just fine where they are. They don't require a permit. Feik: What is the ability of a landlord to post additional temporary signs for leasing in Chanhassen? I'd like that clarified so that if he still does have vacancy and there is the ability to have a temporary sign or something, we at least get it out here and clear. Typically leasing signs available 4 by 8 or something and a temporary nature? Wentzlaff.' Yes, and you need to apply for a permit and roof signs are prohibited entirely. Feik: I understand that, but he would have the ability to replace that leasing sign as a ground based sign of some kind. Generous: Or even a wall sign. It just can't be on the roof. Feik: Alright, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Rich. Slagle: Couple questions. You mentioned that you lost a recent major tenant which caused to sort of subdivide the building if you will into multiple tenants. What are your thoughts as far as the maximum number of tenants you're going to have? Right now you've got 12 spaces. We don't anticipate to see you again asking for 18 or 24. Steve Hansen: No. I think it will be 10. We added 2 more just in case so I think that would be more than enough. Slagle: Fair enough. The other question I have, and this might be more to staff. When we had the strip mall with Giant Panda and what not in front of us, if you remember we had that sign issue and one of the things we discussed was all of the window signs that were being plastered. I'm not so sure that I think that that's aesthetically a nice look when the tenants, so do you have thoughts and staff have thoughts as to how we're going to limit hand made signs throughout the windows. Wentzlaff: I guess I'm not familiar with the other development that you're talking about but in the ordinance it says that 50 percent of window coverage is the limit and I haven't heard anything else besides that. Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 Generous: The city does not permit those so they don't have to come into us for any approvals. As part of our code amendment discussion, maybe that' s something we could look at. Slagle: Well I'm just asking more in the vein of the landlord owner is here requesting something of us, and you know you put out a sign for 12 tenants and then the 12 tenants have their name on the sign and they also decided they're going to you know, plaster the windows with hand made signs. I don't know. Just a thought. Steve Hansen: Yeah, I guess that's kind of why we're, we are trying to eliminate that. Slagle: I guess I'm asking you maybe is if we grant this, maybe you could have some discussion with your tenants. Say hey, we got you a sign out front. Let's try and minimize the signage in the windows. Steve Hansen: Yeah, I think we're trying to make the numbers be the only really the only sign on the doors for the tenants so if we make those large enough. That's why I was kind of thinking of 12 inches for each, but I think we can get it down to 8 inches and still make the numbers work so. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Steve. Sacchet: Expanding on that same idea, and I kind of asked this of staff, they can still put individual wall signs for each of these independent businesses, right.9 Wentzlaff.' Yes. Sacchet: So they can get rid of their little hand signs with sticks and clubs. It's just not very flavorful. Okay. And then one more quick question here, this is kind of a statement also but that sign to minimize the impact to the tree, would you consider instead of placing that at a 45 degree angle, maybe skewing it a little so you don't bring it any closer to the sign. Turn it a little to get your 10 foot separation. Would you consider that rather than moving it towards the tree? Steve Hansen: Yeah. Sacchet: And that's at your option but I would ask that I guess. That you take a look at that please. Steve Hansen: I was kind of thinking well maybe we could just go 10 feet back and that would actually put that farther away from the tree. Sacchet: That could work. Steve Hansen: Not go any closer to the tree. Lillehaug: Anything to make the signs visible because it's tough the signs back there. You don't have too many cars driving past there so. Steve Hansen: No. Not yet. Not yet with the sign maybe a lot. Thanks though. Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 Lillehaug: Yep, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward and comment on this item, this is your turn. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments. Do you want to start Steve? that too. thanks. Lillehaug: Sure, real quick. I fully support it. The building needs a monument sign there to help attract business there. If we could do something else to help out I would be willing to support With limitations obviously but they need some help back there so ! fully support it, Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Slagle: Likewise. Sacchet: Ditto. Bruce. Feik: I support it provided we can get it down to the 8 feet. Sacchet: Keep it at the regulated height, okay. Claybaugh: Likewise. Support it with the conditions staff has in place. Sacchet: Same thing. Okay. Well looks like it's pretty clear. I have one quick question from staff. There's engineering report attached that has two conditions on it and I was just wondering, they are not part of our recommendation because what you said Bob before, that we cannot attach conditions basically. Okay. Generous: As a part of a sign permit review we can address that. Sacchet: Again? Generous: As part of the sign permit review, we can address grading issues and. Sacchet: As part of the sign permit, not part of the PUD amendment. Generous: Not part of the PUD. You're just making the standards really. Sacchet: Okay, so will they have to come back for a sign permit? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And then at that point we can ask that the roof sign and the other non-conforming sign has to go. Generous: No, that's in process now. Sacchet: That's in process now, but then the utility... Generous: This specific permit, yes. We can look at this sign and the tree issue. Grading issues. 7 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Sacchet: Okay. So we surely would like that to be done at that time. With that I certainly don't have an issue at all with this application. I'm willing to take a motion. Claybaugh: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD Amendment /193-1, Section (g), signage to allow the monument sign to be placed at the intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive with the following sign standards, 1 through 6. And do we need to note the attachments as well as part of that? Sacchet: Not really, do we? Claybaugh: Okay. Feik: Second with a friendly amendment please. Sacchet: Go ahead. Feik: I believe on item number 5 we need to change the date to 7-9-03. Is that correct? Wentzlaff: Yes. Claybaugh: It's accepted. Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD Amendment g93.1, Section (g), Signage to allow a monument sign to be placed at the intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive, with the following sign standards: 3. 4. 5. 6. The sign must be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet. The sign must be outside of the thirty (30) foot sight triangle. The sign must maintain a ten (10) foot setback from any property line. If the sign is illuminated in the future, it must be back lit or cast down at an 90° angle. The sign must be built consistent with the plans submitted on 7/9/03. Signage constructed on this property in the future must follow the Industrial Office Park district sign ordinance (Sec. 20-1304) and the original PUD sign package. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: This will go to the City Council on the 11~ of August and will go for a decision there. Slagle: As part of the summary if we can make note that, in Kristen's first presen, tation it was unanimous vote. Sacchet: Very important surmnm~ comments. Feik: And well presented might I add. Slagle: Absolutely. Wentzlaff: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Sacchet: In summary for council, we fully support this application and we think it's most appropriate to have that signage there. We'd like to see the non-conforming signs out and then certainly have the engineering conditions added when it comes in for sign permit, but we fully support the way this is in front of us. Anything anybody wants to add to this for council summary? No? Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR HIDDEN VALLEY TO ALLOW A PRESCHOOL MONTESSORI AS A PERMITTED USE AT THE DISCOVERY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, ASIM H, OADRI. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 8026 Erie Avenue Salfeha Asim 8795 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Asim Qadri 8795 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Rich. Slagle: I can start. The size of the playground, do we know what that's going to be? I can wait. I can wait til later. You don't know? A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Yes. The current zoning, it's a P1 district for the church. A1-Jaff: Actually it's Planned Unit Development. When it was first, back in 1988 we used the P1 zoning. No, I'm sorry, back in 1985 we used the PI zoning. We no longer have that zoning classification. It's equivalent to Planned Unit Development. Lillehaug: So since we don't have that classification anymore, is it just designated something else then? A1-Jaff: Correct. It was rezoned in. Lillehaug: It was rezoned? Okay. And if I would have read this more closely I probably would have seen it. AI-Jaff: If you look at the. Lillehaug: Let me get to my question here. Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 A1-Jaff: Okay. Lillehaug: You give an example of several other churches here. Are they zoned equally to what this church is zoned? AI-Jaff.' Some of them are zoned planned unit development. Others are industrial office park so you've got a mix type of. Lillehaug: So, similarly then. That's all I have. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce. Feik: Yes. In the original submittal way back when, when the church first came in, there was future classroom addition to the north and a future sanctuary to the south. My question stems from the medical facility we saw about a year ago that went down at Powers and 5, wherein it was approved for a second story. There's no sunset provisions on that second story. Is this a similar situation wherein the church could expand without coming back? A1-Jaff: No. They would have to come before you with a site plan. Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if that was a similar situation. Thank you, that's it. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had one question. It pertains to the building type classification. At the time when the structure is built. Titles are asserted to different rooms and then puts it in different building type classification. I understand they need to go and comply with the daycare licensing provisions but has the building department taken a look at it to see that it doesn't affect the building classification. A1-Jaff: Yes, and if you look at the portion that I have titled miscellaneous. Feik: What page? AI-Jaff.' That's on page 4. These are all building official comments. Sacchet: So, just to be really clear about what we touched on. There are recommendations from the building official as well as from the engineering department. Those cannot be attached to our decision tonight because it's an amendment to the Planned Unit Development. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Now is this going to have to come in for something else? A1-Jaff.' No. Sacchet: So how do we. A1-Jaff: They will have to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 Sacchet: That's what I'm asking. So they need a Certificate of Occupancy, and then at that time you verify that these things are in line. A1-Jaff: That's correct, yes. Sacchet: Alright, that's my question. Thank you. Thanks Sharmeen. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and state your case. Let us know your name and address for the record please. And if you might move the microphone in front of you, that would be appreciated. Asim Qadri: My name is Asim Qadri and address is 8795 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 55347. Sacchet: Welcome. Asim Qadri: Thank you. Sacchet: Do we have questions for the applicant? Lillehaug: I don't. Slagle: I don't either. Feik: Someone had a question though regarding. A1-Jaff: The playground. Slagle: Thank you. Asim Qadri: The playground size would be, the State requirement is 65 square feet per child, so that comes out to roughly 2,340 square feet, which I discussed it with the church where we will put the playground and currently if you go back to the slide I'll show you where we put it. It's essentially, initially we were thinking that we'd put it here, but after talking to the church officials, we think that we will put it right here. And there's about 43 feet right here. It shows 43 feet and we can go further down here but what we need is roughly 40 feet by 80 feet. Roughly which is like you know 3,200 square feet. But we will, so given this area and we will hard cover the 65 feet, the 65 square foot requirement. Slagle: And if I could ask, are you the pastor? Asim Qadri: No I'm not the pastor. Slagle: How do you fit in? Asim Qadri: The way I fit in is that I will be leasing the space from the church to provide the service at the church site. Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's interesting. I was thinking you were with the church. Okay, let me ask you this then. Has there, now that there's the talk of possibly putting it behind, at the rear of the church, has there been any discussion with the neighbors to the east? Just to say hey, we're going to be doing this. Any thoughts? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Asim Qadri: I think the mailing has gone out to all the neighbors within the 500 feet. Slagle: But you haven't gone knock on the doors or anything9. Okay. AI-Jaff: I received one phone call. Sacchet: For or against? AI-Jaff: More what is going on and how is it going to lay out. Slagle: Let me direct this question to staff then. And I apologize for having the assumption that this gentleman, you were with the church. Is there a concern on the staff' s part that the church is not here or not presenting this or not, do you know what I'm saying? A1-Jaff: Yeah, they have signed the application. They are fully aware of what's going on. Sacchet: So that would then imply they're endorsing it or. AI-Jaff: They're aware of what's. Slagle: So you haven't heard? A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay. Al~Jaff: And typically, well not typically but quite often you will find an applicant on behalf an owner applying for. Slagle: Okay. I just was thinking of the other churches, getting to Steve's point and I don't know this for sure but I would think most of them are run by the church. Mount Calvary and. Lillehaug: Yeah, that would have been my assumption too. Slagle: Not that it changes anything. Sacchet: It's not a problem it's just. Slagle: Just different. Asim Qadri: My wife has worked a number of preschool Montessori's in various churches and it's a mixed bag where some of them are operated by the church and some of them are operated by people who provide the service. Slagle: Sure, okay. Sacchet: You have another question Steve? Lillehaug: Can I ask one to staff?. Do we set a precedence somehow by doing this? Not really? A1-Jaff: It's the use is, you're permitting the use. When you approve a daycare you don't. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 Feik: You're not approving the...the use, not the provider. A1-Jaff: You don't approve the provider. You approve the use. Lillehaug: Okay. Slagle: And maybe what, it's just a little bit interesting here is like if you go to 41 by the U.S. Bank, is that Kindercare? If you can remember the people presenting to us, if I'm not mistaken, were more the building owner and the developer versus the actual. Sacchet: Right, yeah that's a little different. Any other questions? Well thank you. This is a public hearing so if anybody else would like to address this item, please come forward. State your name and address and tell us what you want to say. Brad Johnson: My name's Brad Johnson. I'm at 8026 Erie Avenue South. I'm right behind, about 2 houses over from where they're going to be putting the potential fence. I guess I just have a couple quick questions. Maybe it's semantics, maybe it's not. The flyer and stuff like that said preschool so I was looking at more like a, you know like a school. Teaching them ABC's, reading and writing, arithmetic, whatever else, but this sounds like it's going to be more like a daycare. I guess which one is it going to be? That's going to be my first question. Second question is, again I also thought it was sponsored by the church and all for it and stuff like that but it sounds like it's going to be a sub-let or are they going to have another company come in, do all the processing and taking care of everything and all the church is going to be taken care of by them, which is going to be done by the church. And then I guess third question that's kind of a real minor question is, the fence itself is it going to be a real, big tall wooden fence? Can't see behind it or is it going to be a chain link fence kind of like Kindercare has? ...I'm just kind of curious about those three are going to be. A1-Jaff: I can answer the fence which is going to be similar to what Kindercare has. Chain link. Slagle: Sharmeen, can you put what we have in our packet, can you put that up? Just so people at home can see. A1-Jaff'. Sure. As far as the daycare and their methods of teaching, maybe the applicant. Sacchet: Would you want to address that? I mean if you would. You're the expert. Brad Johnson: I guess the question is it more of a daycare or is it more of an actual school. Sacchet: Well are you familiar at all with the concept of Montessori? Brad Johnson: No I'm not. Sacchet: Because Montessori is really, well I think they should discuss it themselves. Do you want to address that question real quick because. Asim Qadri: Yeah. Let's see, my wife is the expert. She's going...there's some specific questions that she'd be able to answer. A Montessori is a way of teaching children through their five senses which is a little bit different than lecturing the children. And the children, it's up to them what they're interested in and how they work with the materials that they've got and the 13 Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003 materials are similar to like toys .... my wife has been...Montessori for a long time. Since she was a child...they were 3-4 years and I was expecting a lot of noise and stuff like that as expected of children that age. But when I went in there, it was just quiet. It was quiet. They were just. Sacchet: Doing stuff. Learning stuff on their own mostly. Asim Qadri: On their own. And I was impressed that the children that were being quiet. And the second thing is that they...they have like work stations where they put all the materials and stuff like that. They take the materials out and they put it back. This doesn't happen in my house by the way. Slagle: How do we sign up for this school? Asim Qadri: But...it works so that's the concept of Montessori. To give the children. Salfeha Asim: An opportunity to be... Sacchet: Do you want to step up to the microphone please. Salfeha Asim: I'm Salfeha Asim and I've been teaching in the Jonathan Montessori in Chaska, and that's how my you know, I really wanted to start my own Montessori and you know contribute myself like that. But the classroom is set up in five different, the materials are, Dr. Montessori developed the materials and they are like for senses .... like basic toy materials so they are all set up and put in a different station and they are welcome, the child is not like fixed to, you know there's not the...that they have to sit down and work on one particular. They're free to do everyday whatever they want to, but everything is programmed. It's all programmed for the children it's just like they have that freedom to move. Sacchet: Free falling, yep. Salfeha Asim: Yes. And you know but the voice is, there's an inside voice and outside voice. There's respect. There is basic courtesy. There is working. Everything is there. And it's very different from a daycare environment. Sacchet: I send my kids to Montessori. It's amazing how industrious they actually get. It's remarkable thing and I would say is it a daycare or a preschool? I would definitely not call it a daycare. I mean you can get certainly the kindergarten, and even to some extent get some of the first grades in an Montessori environment. Maybe that addresses your question somewhat. Brad Johnson: Yes it does. I think there's some confusion. The last question is what age range are you talking? Salfeha Asim: It is from 2 V2 to 6. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. Now this is a public heating. Anybody else wants to address the commission, please come forward at this time. Seeing nobody, I'm closing public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Do you want to start Bruce? Feik: Sure, sure. I'm going to come back to something Sharmeen so I can just kind of resolve this. The use of the word preschool and daycare are synonymous? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 A1-Jaff: Under our ordinance, correct. Feik: We're using them interchangeably within this report. Aldaff: Yes. Feik: Okay, so they are synonymous? A1-Jaff: Yes. Feik: So then I would just basically say then back to the commission, remind us that we are approving the use, not the provider. I think it's quite frankly very nice presentation. Thank you very much. But quite frankly to some degree it's irrelevant in that we're in here to approve the use, not yourselves as individual and your service so with that said I'm fully prepared to support this 100 percent. Sacchet: Thanks. Craig. Claybaugh: Likewise. I'm prepared to support the application. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: I haven't heard any negative comments from the neighbors to the east and that's what I was weighing my vote on and I haven't heard any negative comments so I do support it. Slagle: I would say I support it as well with one request of staff that, and I don't have to hear the answer now but I guess I would just ask staff with relationship of the church and this tenant if you will, however that all works out with regulations and approvals and so forth. I mean I just. Feik: Let me ask you why because I mean the church wouldn't even need to own the structure. The church could also be a lessee or, yeah, a lessee in a facility such as this. It's not uncommon for churches to lease their facility. I'm trying to understand why there is some reticence regarding the relationship and stuff. Slagle: Well maybe, since it'd be with children is one of my concerns and citizens, but I think also I'm not so sure that, I know lots of churches that lease their space and services out. Maybe you. Feik: Well I'm just thinking any of the commercial buildings that house churches are not owning the, the church that you go to I think right now is out of the school. And they lease the space, is that not correct? Slagle: No, they're in the new. Feik: Oh, they're in the new one now? I guess I'm just wondering what is the concern with the relationship between the landlord tenant. I'm wondering if we're just clouding it because all we're really looking at is the use, irrespective of whether they occupy this for 6 months or 12 months or 3 days. Slagle: What I would add is Bruce, is that I have yet to see, this is probably the tn'st one I've seen that the tenant, or excuse me the landlord or the owner hasn't been here. 15 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Feik: Okay. Slagle: And I'd just ask staff to. Claybaugh: If I can weigh in. I think it's a relevant issue with respect to, if there's any problems. If there's any problems with neighbors, where do the neighbors go and direct their questions. Who do they direct their complaints to? Who's going to resolve them for them? Do they get tossed back and forth between the owner and the provider? That would be the singular issue but I agree with Bruce that we're here to evaluate the use irrespective of who's providing it. Lillehaug: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Before we vote on this or make a motion. Sacchet: We're not quite there yet. But we're close. Lillehaug: Okay. Well I know you closed the public heating. As I indicated that I didn't see any negative comments from the residents, the one resident is here. Sacchet: Well actually I did want to ask a question of staff in that context. For the daycare operation, that would fall under the same noise ordinance framework as in everything else in the city, is that a reasonable statement to make? A1-Jaff: Sure. Sacchet: And could you maybe just give us a little bit idea of what our noise ordinance is or is this asking a little much. I mean there are certain noise limits that if they're exceeded beyond the property dimensions that are considered a reason that it would be a non-compliance and that would have to be remedied. Is that how it works? Something to that effect. That's what I remember of it but that' s pretty sketchy, and I would say even though we did not get any negative comments, I think I did notice a little bit of an uneasiness of the resident that is here tonight kind of wondering a little bit what the framework is so I really want to make an effort to clarify the framework for everybody involved. For you as the applicant as well as the neighbors so that we go into this clearly conscience what the framework entails. Slagle: Because it is indeed a different situation for those homeowners. You know at this point it was Saturday, you know maybe a Saturday and Sunday you hear some noise and then basically it was car doors probably throughout the week. Lillehaug: Weekday evenings. Sacchet: But while you're looking up, did you find it? Well while you're looking and then my comment basically to this application is that I fully support it. I think it's great to use that structure for something good, and I think a daycare or if you want to call it a preschool, which really it is in this case, is a very appropriate use. I fully support it from my angle. Did you find it Sharmeen? 16 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 A1-Jaff: I found a prohibition basically states no person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, peace, safety, welfare. Sacchet: Okay. Well the preschoolers might learn the meaning of decibels at a very young age. But yeah, I mean if you're interested in that I would encourage you to look at what the noise framework is according to our city framework. With that I'd like to have a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. Slagle: Wait, wait, wait. Sacchet: What? Slagle: Point of clarification. Were there hours, I'm sorry, were there hours discussed in this? Feik: That would be in the permitting process. A1-Jaff: That would be the permitting process but my understanding of Montessori is they provide a latchkey program but I don't know if that is part of. Asim Qadri: It will be. Sacchet: Do you want to quickly address what the hours of operation is, since it was brought up. Asim Qadri: We are thinking of you know 7:30 to 5:30 but the Montessori would start at about 8:00 and it would end at about 3:00, which is the normal amount. Sacchet: It's pretty standard yeah. Asim Qadri: Yeah, pretty standard. We are not, but starting early at 7:30 and ending at 5:30 is to accommodate parents needs. Slagle: Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anything else or are we ready for a motion? I'm ready for a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the Planned Unit Development amendment to allow a daycare as an ancillary use to the church located on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the Planned Unit Development amendment to allow a daycare as an ancillary use to l~he 17 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 church located on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: This motion carries. This goes to the City Council also on the 11th of August. Thank you very much for coming in. Good luck to you. Asim Qadri: By the way, this would be the first Montessori in Chanhassen. Sacchet: Actually I think you're right about that. Yeah, welcome. Feik: Now if we made a requirement that you had to move to Chanhassen would you guys have still done this? Asim Qadri: It was my wife. She that Chanhassen was...and it would be a great place. Sacchet: It's a great place to have a Montessori, by all means... Now in summary for council we fully support this application for preschool or daycare, whatever we call it. We had, let's just summarize the concern that we wanted to clarify what the noise ordinance framework is for the neighbors and also at least one of us had a concern why this was brought by the, why the applicant was here as the tenant that wants the new use and why the owner, the landlord was not here. Is that a fair statement. Slagle: I'm not sure if I'd say concerned. Just asking staff to. Sacchet: Whether that has any bearing. As a commission we decided it probably doesn't have a bearing. Claybaugh: The only point I'd like to add to that is just to the permitting process or at some stage for the adjacent property owners, that they have a clear decisive path to who fields comments regarding that use of the building, whether it's the church. Whether it's the applicant and that there's some process in place for them to field their complaints so there's no confusion. Sacchet: Anything else to add to this one, summary? PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR REPLAT OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, RICE LAKE MANOR INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST 86TM STREET AND TIGUA LANE, 8590 TIGUA LANE, KURT MILLER. Public Present: Name Tony Greaves Many Schutrop Address 570 West 78m Street 540 Lakota Lane, Chaska Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Feik: I've got one. I'm going to address what I guess is Lot 3. In relationship to 2 weeks ago with a drive access directly onto the curve, what are the long term plans of the extension of Tigua, if that's pronounced correctly. I'm not sure. As it relates to how much more traffic, what's going to be, do you think's going to be happening to this other lot to the east. How much more traffic and are you going to be comfortable with the driveway out onto that curve? Because I know last time we had a site like this, there was significant concern up here. Saam: As far as the extension of Tigua, we don't foresee that being extended per se. Feik: But if those other lots were subdivided in the future. Saam: Yeah, there's potential for the large lots on the east side of Tigua, I guess to maybe get one more lot. I believe we have or we've been talking to a property owner now who's pretty much across the street from this site looking at dividing, adding one more lot so we could potentially get about 6 more. Feik: Could those lots be assembled or is there wetlands precluding that from a higher density? Saam: There are wetlands on the south side, directly south of this site on the south side of Tigua which, plus there's 312 coming through. MnDot has purchased right-of-way. So in my mind that really limits the large lots on the south side of Tigua. Feik: I'm thinking more of the east, north east. Saam: Yep, and those are the ones that I said previously that I could see possibly 4 to 6 more lots coming in there. Feik: That looks to be about a quarter section or something. Just kind of the way it lays out. Saam: Yeah I think it was 40 acres that was, yeah so that' s. Feik: So I mean if a creative developer were to come in and assemble it, it could be a whole lot more lots. Saam: If a what? Feik: A creative developer came in and assembled the lots, you could probably get 60-70 lots up there. Al-Jaff: I don't believe that is a possibility only because there is Rice Marsh Lake. And to the northeast of this overall subdivision there's quite a bit of wetland. This is an environmental lake so you need 40,000 square feet per lot versus your typical 20,000. There are a number of things that will come into play. Feik: Okay. I'm just concerned with it, that we're going to be comfortable with the driveway coming out on a curve. In the long run. Saam: Yeah, in the long run we are. We'd like to see it aligned either with the existing one right across the street or, where is that Mak? Okay, this is the lot that we're talking about right across 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 the street. It's right here is the driveway. I don't know it doesn't show up good on this plan. There is another plan... Lillehaug: It's labeled bid driveway. Saam: Yeah, it's on the other side, Lillehaug: It's on this sheet also. Feik: It's further north. Further north around the curve. Saam: Yep that's it right there, I'm sorry. So here's the bid drive, so we'd like you to have it aligned with that existing drive or, and the applicant can talk to this, if they want to turn this lot pad or house pad down in this area and then get it more on the straight away section. I think for sight distance it would probably be better here. You're dropping down and see better around the curve but maybe the applicant can speak to that. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Feik: That was the only question for now, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. Claybaugh: What is the speed limit on Tigua? Saam: It's 30 1 believe. Claybaugh: And staff is looking at addressing some of the drainage issues for Lots 1, 3 and 4, I'm assuming through the customer grading. Saam: Yes. And we've requested runoff calculations to ensure that the existing storm sewer in Tigua Lane is sized correctly. Claybaugh: Alright. Looks like there's plenty of areas for swales on Lot 4 and 3. On Lot 1, any concerns with it going onto the adjacent property? Are you satisfied that they'll have enough room to custom grade that and contain that within their own property. Saam: I believe they've be able to custom grade it to swales along the lot lines, and we do have drainage and utility easements, even on the property to the west so that will all. Claybaugh: That's all the questions that I have. Sacchet: Questions? Rich. Slagle: I'll let Steve ask any questions. Lillehaug: I'll go first then. I'm going to pick on you Matt for a little bit here. You know when I pick on you but can we discuss the lift station here a little bit. We got a small lift station, 2 inch force main for it appears to be at this time anyway, for only 3 lots. Can you kind of discuss why we need the lift station and also hit on, there's another sanitary system to the west and discuss if 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 we've looked at options of tying into that sanitary sewer system. Compare it to the gravity versus force main and, I mean force main is expensive to the city to maintain and. Saam: Yeah. Well the existing sanitary that's on the site is in the northeast comer of the site. The elevation or the invert elevation, where that pipe comes into the manhole is higher than the lowest floor of all three of the new lots. So we can't gravity flow to that existing sewer so we had to lift to it. Lillehaug: How about the other sewer? Saam: Yeah, however there is a manhole at the intersection of Mission Hills Lane and West 86m. I think it's about 200 feet possibly to the west. I believe that invert, we did look at that. That is low enough to service, however the construction cost, tearing up the streets, that sort of thing, we gave the applicant the option either, you can either install a lift station, which is costly, or you can go and rip up our whole street. We'd like to avoid ripping up the street whenever we can. That's why we've asked them to put the lift station in the boulevard. Put the pipe in the boulevard so we won't, we can limit the amount of bituminous repair. That sort of thing. Lillehaug: Who pays for the future maintenance of that lift station? Saam: It' s a public line so city maintenance staff will upkeep it and city dollars will. Lillehaug: Okay, and then comment on the typical maintenance, just generally. Gravity versus a force main with lift station. I mean the cost. Saam: Oh it's definitely more attention needed to a lift station. I think twice a year, don't quote me on that but I believe it's twice a year our guys pull out the pumps and check them all and do all that sort of stuff. And then at least twice a week they go around, we have 30 other lift stations in town. They go around and check flows to make sure they're still working, that sort of thing. So it is more of an upkeep per se. Lillehaug: And cost on the city as a whole and not just these residents, correct? Saam: Yeah, I guess you could say that, yep. However this station, like you said, I mean it is a small one so. Electrical power, that sort of thing, there wouldn't be a huge demand on this one. I'm sure the pumps won't have to be very big. Lillehaug: How many other similar size lift stations and force mains do we have in this city that are comparable to this and that service you know 3 residents? Saam: I don't know of the correct answer. I would guess this is probably the smallest one. I haven't heard of one like this before. I mean the other options Commissioner Lillehaug would to require these houses to install in-house grinder pumps. Basically little lift stations or little sump pumps for their sanitary sewer in their own basement. That's something the city has tried to stay away from in the past. We don't like to recommend those. When problems happen, they're privately maintained so when problems happen, residents will call us and it's kind of like well, you're on your own and we don't like, we'd rather have them be able to flush it out into the public right-of-way and then let us take care of it from there. Lillehaug: So you said that other sanitary system will, it is low enough. The invert is low enough and it's only 200 feet away? 21 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Saam: If you give me a second I' 11 double check that. I have the as-builts here. Lillehaug: Okay, and then the distance also. I mean 200 feet is not that much. Sacchet: Which side of the street? Which side of the street too. Saam: Yeah, it's right in the center. Slagle: As you're looking at that Matt, the thing I would like to ask is, is just the difference in the cost. I mean it sounds like the applicant had his choice and he probably chose the lesser of the two, but if we're talking you know, it's not night and day, certainly it might offset the future costs of the city by maintaining our lift stations. Saam: The exact costs I don't have in front of me. We could look at that and maybe the applicant has weighed those costs, I'm not sure. Sacchet: We can ask the applicant what the reasoning was. Lillehaug: And then while you're looking at that, there are 3 watermain services crossing Tigua Lane, and that distance is about, I don't know, 100-150 feet. That will be impacted on the roadway. So that's anticipated to repair that roadway under this plan. So that would be similar construction, you know adding 200 more feet onto the west of that sanitary system. Saam: What's the question? What's the 150 feet, I didn't follow that. Lillehaug: Where the watermain services have to cross Tigua Lane. Saam: Yeah. Lillehaug: We're already disturbing Tigua Lane, about 150 feet of Tigua Lane. Saam: Those will just be 10 foot, you know...it will only be 10 foot like trenches in 3 spots so basically patches in the street whereas the sewer, you know we like to keep that in the middle of the street. If we're going to put gravity in, so that, you'd be clearing out 10 feet on each side that way. Lillehaug: In a special circumstance would the city allow, it appears on West 86th Street there's a boulevard there that looks to be about 40 feet in width. Would the city in a special circumstance allow that sanitary to be placed in the boulevard? And not underneath the roadway. I'm just trying to get around this force main. I don't want to pay for this lift station for the rest of our lives here. Saam: Yeah. You know keep in mind we do have 30 other ones. Lillehaug: Right. But I mean this is one less... Saam: The invert of that manhole to the west is approximately yeah, okay I misspoke. It's about 891 or 892 so that wouldn't work either. That's why we need to go with a lift station. Feik: It'd be down to what, 8? 22 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Saam: You'd need it to be at least 3 to 4 feet below those basements to get under the footings and have enough...plus yeah, 200 feet so either way we'll need a lift station. And this is then the shortest route to go around to the northeast so my mistake. I misspoke earlier. That elevation to the west isn't low enough. Lillehaug: What do we do when these other parcels develop, are developed? Saam: Well the ones on the east side of the street that Commissioner Slagle is concerned with, there is sewer in all their back yards down in the low ground near the lake and in those wetlands there. So they can connect to that or extend up their own private service off of that. Lillehaug: I'm running out of questions. Claybaugh: Is that a bad thing? Lillehaug: Well it is, I'm trying to shoot this lift station down but. Saam: Don't get us wrong, we'd like to not have to put one in. We see it's only serving 3 houses but we really don't see any other options other than those grinder pumps which we don't like to have people have to deal with them. I mean if their electricity goes out, we're stuck so. Slagle: So Matt, quick question for you. So you don't foresee any future development from any of the other lots that would require using the lift station? In other words, you aren't going to come up 3 years from now that hey guys, we've got to increase the size of this lift station because of whatever. Saam: We looked at, at least our department looked at the lot directly to the south. There's a lot of wetland there and MnDot has approximately half of that parcel for 312 so in our opinion they won't need to connect to that. And even if they would, there's the sewer still to the east there, so with future lot divisions we could have it extended. Sacchet: Is that it for questions from staff?. Lillehaug: Do we anticipate extending that sewer for any of those leftover parcels from 3127 Is this premature? Saam: Potentially it could be extended. With the application that I think we have in now, I haven't reviewed it yet but maybe we look at extending it at that time. That parcel has a public sewer main in it so that's really another issue. Sacchet: Well I have one more question. I was going to hammer on this lift station too and it's just, it's a little hokey but I guess we don't have a better possibility right now. What scares me a little bit is this seems like this is meant to be a permanent lift station. It's my understand that a fair amount of the lift stations we have in the city are temporary for when the sewer actually gets extended and the lift station will be necessary and it will become a gravity. In this case it's lift station period, is that correct? Saam: Correct, yep. The only temporary that I know of is up I think near you in Highover there. 23 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, that's a temporary one. My other question, which is a little out of character is about the trees. The canopy. We're asking for minimum canopy coverage but there is no canopy there right now, so how can we ask for tree preservation when there are really that many trees there now? I mean a couple of them are being cut. Like if we look at right now there is basically according to the calculation, no canopy is lost. I don't think that's necessarily true once the houses go in, but can we still hold them to the 25 percent minimum canopy requirement? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: We can. Just want to be real clear about that. Thanks for clarifying. A1-Jaff: There's a subdivision. They have to maintain that minimum. Sacchet: They have to fit into this framework, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. With that I would like to invite the applicant to come forward. State your name and address and if you want to tell us your story, or anything you have to add from your side, please come up. Marty Schutrop: My name is Marty Schutrop and I'm not the applicant. I'm representing the applicant because he' s out of town. I will be the purchaser of the lots once they are approved by the City Council. Sacchet: Okay, so you're a developer? Marty Schutrop: I'm a builder. Sacchet: A builder, okay. And your address is? Marty Schutrop: 540 Lakota Lane. And so I'm basically representing him here and I just read the packet today so I'm kind of... There's on Lot 3, the comment that you were saying about Lot 3 and the driveway. I don't know who was commenting, was it Matt that was commenting or somebody was saying push the house over, the house pad over to the south. I would prefer to put the driveway on the high end of the lot because it does slope up dramatically there. So I don't want to be restricted to where the driveway goes in there, so that's one stipulation that would be something that I'd want to look at. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. Claybaugh: Could you explain on your comment about the driveway for Lot 3? You said you'd like to justify it to the north end. I guess in looking at the site plan that I have in front of me, I wouldn't have a problem whether it was justified towards the north end of the lot or to the southwest as long as it was to the extreme edge of the curve on Tigua. Marty Schutrop: Yeah the only thing is if we went to the other route, this lot we're proposing as a daylight lot. Lookout windows and that would be, and I would want to put the lookout's on here. Claybaugh: So at this time where would you anticipate that driveway, just based on what you told us here? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Marty Schutrop: Toward the high end of the, or to the, that'd be the north. The north side of that lot, yeah. Kind of where his comes down there. It would be kind of conjoining with that, so it would be. Claybaugh: Okay, so it's out away from the... Marty Schutrop: Yeah, I agree. I don't want it to come straight out on the curve either so that's not the right place for it to come out. Claybaugh: With respect to the main over the, the force main and that is an awful small forcemain. And what was your position, your personal position as a builder... Marty Schutrop: And again Matt was the one who said that we should probably go with the lifters. We looked at doing that down at the other end there and the other issue is we were going to have to try and justify it to the neighbors tearing up the street for the amount of time it would take us to put that in and closing that down. Claybaugh: So just so I'm clear, the elevation that you pulled up, the invert elevation for the other sanitary to the west is too low based on the basement elevations that we have for those three lots? Saam: Actually it'd be too high. Claybangh: I'm sorry, too high. Pardon me. Saam: Yeah. Clayhaugh: So that is not an option? Saam: Not without a lift station that way. Claybaugh: Okay. Feik: Is there any excess soils to raise the pads? Marty Schutrop: No. Right now the, where the grades would be, our driveways are going to end up being at about a 9 percent grade right now I believe, is that kind of where we're at, which is 10 percent is the maximum grade for our driveway so... Claybaugh: Right, the garage elevation pads are up pretty high. Marty Schutrop: Right, we can't raise them up any higher than what they are right now. I mean I'd love to because then we could do daylights on all these lots. Claybaugh: As the potential builder for the lots, what was your perspective on utilizing grinder pumps in lieu of the force main? Marty Schutrop: Well I agree. I don't think homeowners want to deal with that and they never maintain them anyway. They only maintain their sump pumps you know. They let them burn out and then they call me when their basements are flooded. Something that I wouldn't want to sell to a homeowner. 25 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Claybaugh: Okay, and with respect to the lift station, the force main and the rest of it, the developer's boring the cost and the city maintains it after a set period of time? Is that correct? Saam: Yes. Claybaugh: So obviously you believe in that because you're. Marty Schutrop: Well you know we didn't want to do a lift station either because we're going to end up paying for that cost which I think was going to be more than if we were going to have to gravity feed it, and then you've got the street. Claybaugh: Oh clearly, okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Any more questions for the applicant? Steve, no questions? Lillehaug: You wouldn't consider having them all, or getting rid of the basements so we don't need to have that lift station? Marty Schutrop: Only if it's multi-family and you let me put 10 units in there. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward to address this item, please do so now. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Claybaugh: Okay. Comments, let's see. The driveway issue on Lot 3, this seems to be a non- issue. The square footage on the lots, certainly they've got it proportioned or it appears to be well. Again as it's been pounded through the discussion thus far the big issue is the force main and the limited size of it, the necessity to place that infrastructure in place to serve just 3 properties but through the discussion there doesn't appear to be a better alternative so if, I support it in it's current form. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Bruce. Feik: I support it as well. I would also like to see that driveway moved to the north as far as possible. Sacchet: Rich? Slagle: No comments. Sacchet: No comment. Steve. Lillehaug: I support it but I just want to remind staff to take a look at that lift station. If those parcels to the south and southeast are developed in the turn back land from 312 or whatever through there and sanitary sewer is extended, and if we could possibly get rid of this lift station in the future and tie up with some sanitary that's extended, that'd be great. I'd also like staff to double and triple check to make sure we can't find a sanitary to the west. Other than that I just don't like the idea of putting that small lift station there but it looks unavoidable so I would support it, thanks. 26 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I don't have too much to add. I think it would be reasonable to make a condition about that driveway on Lot 3, just to be clear. And yeah, if there's anyway around this lift station by all means and I think it's a good idea to ask staff to double check and look at this very carefully before it goes to council. With that, anything else? I'm ready to take a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision gO3-11 for Rice Lake Manor Second Addition for 4 lots as shown on plans dated November 19, 2002, subject to the following conditions 1 through 14 with an amendment 15 being added. That the driveway serving Lot 3 shall be located to the north as far as reasonably possible. That's my motion. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet: Question. Possible friendly amendment. Should we say that driveway should be to the northeast or to the southwest edge of the lot? Feik: Well if he goes south then he' s going to lose his lookout. Sacchet: Yeah, good point. Okay, that settles it. No, that's it. We have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g03-11 for Rice Lake Manor Second Addition for 4 lots as shown on plans dated November 19, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. City Forester conditions: ao The applicant shall submit a landscape plan showing a minimum of 12 trees to be planted. A minimum of two (2) deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The applicant shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in the rear yard areas. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 prior to any construction. 2. On the grading and utility plan: Show all existing and proposed easements. Label each of the new lots as custom graded. Show the rear lookout elevation for Lot 3. Show the location of the existing wood fence. Show the existing sanitary service to Lot 2. Show and label the existing 8 inch DIP watermain in West 86th Street. Add a row of silt fence in back of the curb near the existing sanitary manhole. Move the lift station to within five feet of the common property line of Lots 3 and 4. 3. All plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003 Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. Proposed runoff rates for the site must be submitted to ensure that the existing storm sewer is sized sufficiently. 6. The lift station will be designed by the City and paid for by the developer. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance. Since the applicant is now proposing more units than what was previously assessed, the three additional units will be charged a watermain lateral connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is required to install the sanitary and water services to the property line of the proposed lots. 10. Drain tile is required to be installed in back of the curb on Tigua Lane. 11. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,898 and a water quantity fee of approximately $4,969 for the proposed development. AT this time the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $6,594. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Building Official conditions: Soil reports must be provided for all lots where fill soils are placed or soil correction work is done. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 14. Park and trail fees shall be paid as required by ordinance for the three new lots only. The total fee based on 2003 park fee requirements is $2,400 per lot or $7,200 for the three lots, payable at the time of final plat recording. 15. The driveway serving Lot 3 shall be located to the north as far as reasonably possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: And for summary for the council, we fully support this subdivision. It complies fully. We have concern however that we share pretty much I think all of us about that lift station. We would really like to see a solution that could be accommodated with gravity for the sewer and not needing a lift station, just for three lots. Also in view of possibly more lots coming in, that's something that we ask staff to look into, what the possibilities are in terms of possibly having 28 Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003 more lots that could tie into that and double check that really can't be gravity going to the west. Anything else you want to add to the summary? No? Alright, that's it. Thank you very much. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feik noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 1, 2003 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29