The URL can be used to link to this page

3 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Chairman Burton called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Uli Sacchet. Alison Blackowiak arrived during item number 2 on the agenda. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer; and Matt Saran, Project Engineer Public Present for All Items: Name Address Bob & Terri Lee Paulsen Cyrus Anders Sheri B. JeffCox Dan Pierre Bill .Coffinan Bruce Carlson Bruce and john Geske Janet Paulson Debbie Lloyd 8006 Erie Avenue 19100 Old Excelsior Blvd. Bloomington Eden Prairie 159l Lake Susan Hills Drive 600 West 78th Street, #250 1440 Bavarian Shore Drive 7325 Hazeltine Blvd.- 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive REOUEST FOR A 50 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE CENTER OF THE CREEK TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOT BLOCK 1, SHADOWMERE, 500 BIGHORN DRIVE, DEAN AND SUE STANTON. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff?. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a simple question. What's the date that that shoreline was established? Do we know? Hoium: The date that the. Sacchet: Yeah, that line. Hoium: That was established in 1987. Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: That was when the original thing xvas platted. So that line was actually put in place before any construction went in there? Hoium: Yes. It was put in place. That was actually put in place in the development contract on one of the, it was actually on the preliminary plat. And it was not shoxvn on the final plat. Sacchet: And that's the binding. Hoium: That's the binding, the most restrictive requirement that we havel Sacchet: Okay, thank you. That answers my question. ButXon: Any other questions? Kind: Mr. Chair, yes. I have a question. In the staff report you address the driveway situation by citing Section 20-908 which allows driveways to be in front, real' or side setbacks. And in the Paulson letter they cite, let's see. what's the number? 20-484 that seems to be in conflict xvith that. Could you speak to that? Hoium: Sure. The Section 20-484, it's for the shoreline. Within the shoreline setback requirements. It goes on to state there's one piece missing. It goes on to state that if no alternatives exist they may be placed within these areas and shall be designed to minimize adverse impact. As the map shows, if we can go back to it. The west side of this lot is a pond and there's no other place to put a drivexvay. Reasonably put a drivexvay into it. The additional ordinance requirement states basically that driveways are allowed in the required side, fi'ont and rear setbacks. It's basically so somebody can get onto their lots. Otherwise they would not have access to the lot if they couldn't go through the front yard. ' Kind: And because this is a shoreland lot, these shoreland regulations apply. But the faCt that there's no alternative allows, lneans that the city can allow it, or needs to allow it. Hoium: Needs to allow it. Kind: It seems like there was another question that was not addressed in the staff report. Let me take a quick peak here. Oh, I'm assuming the reason roi' the, that there ~vas no 60 by 60 foot pad on the original plat is because this was done before that rule, is that right? Hoium: That's correct. This subdivision, the Shadowmere subdivision ~vas platted in 1987 and the 60 by 60 foot building pad is part of the subdivision review was adopted in 1994, which was after this subdivision. Kind: So this is a lot of record. Hoium: It's a lot of record and ifa 60 by 60 xvas required, this would not be a buildable lot. Kind: And then you said something about the setback from the lake is now, they're requesting a variance for What did you say, 16 feet? Planning Colnmission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Hoium: 16 feet fi'om, there's 91 foot from the setback of the, where the proposed structure is to the south. Or tile neighbor's house to the south is 91 feet from the lake. The DNR requires a minimum of 75 foot. Kind: Tile difference is 16. Hoiuln: The difference is 16. It's the City's requirement that goes above and beyond the DNR's minimum state requirement. Kind: So this request would not require a variance from the DNR? Hoimn: No. Kind: I think that's it. Burton: Okay. any questions? Sidney: Yes. A question about the plantings that I see in one of the conditions. What is tile purpose of having the native vegetation plantings? Hoium: To mitigate any surface runoff fi'om the driveway into the creek or the pond. Sidney: Is erosion a problem or runoff or is it just runoff that we're looking at? Hoium: From impervious surface. Sidney: Okay, what's the elevation change between the creek and the driveway. Itseems like it'S substantial. Hoium: Tile creek is at approximately 900. The driveway, 907. 906. 7 feet. Sidney: So quite a steep incline. Hoium: Yes. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Breton: Other questions? Sacchet: If I could clarify one more thing. I want to be real clear about the variance that we are actually looking at. And there is no need anymore for a variance from the creek, so the only request is for the variance fi'om the lakeshore. Hoium: That's correct. Sacchet: And the minimum is 75 or what the closest house, which is 91, fl~erefore the 16. So we're still within the minimum. Hoium: State required. Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: State required, and okay. AMght, thanks. Burton: Okay, this isn't a public hearing but if Mr. Stanton, if you have anything you want to add, you can and then I'd have to let anybody else make a quick comment too though. Dean Stanton: My name is Dean Stanton. I'm the applicant. I guess we've tried to work with staff'to minimize the runoff and also fit tile house on the lot. Tile information we were given originally we thought it was a much more restrictive situation than what it is but we probably wouldn't change-too much. I'm going to live there. I plan on living there for many years. I don't want the runoff to cause erosion. My kids are going to be playing in the lake right next to it. No benefit to me to have all the soil erode away in my back yard. So I mean we're going to do everything we can to minimize any potential runoff. There's a huge cul-de-sac there that feeds into that settling pond and over the last 10 years that structure that was built there was not designed properly so that water's all been flowing into the creek without settling at all in there because tile>.' didn't build it down far enough. So I think working with staff they're going to come in and fix that. That will do more to improve tile water quality there than what our driveway will impact it. But we will put some plantings there. It's in our best interest. Burton: Thank you. Does anybody else want to comment on this? Okay, then I'll turn it back to the commissioners and any comments? Sacchet: I don't mind starting. I think we ah'eady pretty much established last time in our discussion that we don't have a problem with the lakeshore variance on tile basis that the only person _who could have an objection is the neighbor and the neighbor was here himself saying that he doesn't have a problem with it so there's no reason why we should not grant this variance as far as I'ln concerned. Burton: Okay. Deb. Kind: Mt'. Chair, I agree with Uli's comments and I really appreciate staff taking the time and effolt to do a thorough job of researching this. I'm satisfied with what they found and support approving the variance. Burton: All)' comments? Sidney: I agree, looks good. Bmxon: Yeah, my comments are the same. I'm glad that v,,e had the extra time here to clarif), this so there aren't tile issues going forward and I think tile), made a pretty good record last time and I think it's a good report and I'm in favor of this proposal. Somebody want to make a motion? Sacchet: Can I ask one more question of staff in terms of the wording of the actual thing we're looking at? You struck out condition 3 which says, extend the drainage and utility easement. Don't we still need a utility easement? Hoium: The whole western portion of that lot is a drainage and utility easement. It kind of makes an L. The entire western portion is an easement. Sacchet: So it's ah'eady an easement so we were thinking we would actually have to have more easement? Is that when that was originally in there? Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Hoium: That's xvhen we originally thought...extending it further outside of that and we thought there was a 50 foot setback. Sacchet: So we still have utility and drainage easement, that's why it was struck? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: And then the condition 4 you say reduce driveway dimension to' minimize impervious surface rl_lnoff, l just want to commend the applicant for having some steps in done in that context because a condition like that doesn't really do much unless we're specific and we say, xve'd rather not have that parking piece sticking out toxvards the creek. I don't 'know whether we'd want to be specific and still say that or not because it's been basically taken care of. Sidney: Well per the plans. Aanenson: I was going to say, plans and date. Sacchet: As the plans are submitted, okay. So it would include that aspect. Okay. That clarifies so I would make a motion then that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 16 foot variance from the 90 foot lakeshore setback for the construction ora single family home and subject to the conditions 1 through 6 as stated. Burton' Okay, a second? Kind' Second. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 16 foot variance from the 90 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 2. The basement of the home must be 3 feet above the ordinary high ~vater level of the lake. 3. Reduce driveway dimensions to minimize impervious surface runoff. 4. Survey submitted must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 5. Provide buffer type plantings of native vegetation between the driveway and the creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 53 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 4 OUTLOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 3,360 SQ. FT. OF A WETLAND, LOCATED ON THE EAST Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, ASHLING MEADOWS, LUNDGREN BROS. Public Present: Name Address Mr. & Mrs. John Waldron Mr. & Mrs. Jack Gorczyca David Hinners Bob Molstad 1900 Lake Lucy Road 1850 Lake Lucy Road 935 East Wayzata Bird, Wayzata 150 East Broadway Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions of staff?. Thank you. Questions? Sacchet: Yeah. I do have some questions for staff. It talks about wetland mitigation. That's, we will see a wetland replacement plan at some point or how does that work? Al-JaN: Correct. We are. Sacchet: Because there's not much details at this point. Al-Jarl: Correct. And it's a condition of approval that tile wetland alteration i.s, tile plat is contingent upon the wetland alteration permit being approved... Sacchet: So that needs to be approved as far as...okay. And then tile report talks about a drainage swale in the back yard of Lot 44 to be moved closer to the rear of the lot line. I was at a loss. I know it's detailed but I'm kind of curious. If you could point that out Sharmin please. Where that actually is. Al-Jarl: Here is Lot... here is tile drainage swale. Sacchet: ...that close to the lot line so...okay. That answers that question. Another question, the neighborhood next to it, I mean I should say field. R or whatever is next to it on tile east side is where this Emerald Lane would be extended and then eventually would curve around and connect into Lake Lucy, correct? We don't have any indication of a timefl'ame for that at this point do we? Al-JaN: It's going to depend on when Phase II, the Lundgren development will develop. Lundgren is developing tile subdivision in two phases. Sewer and water will be extended with Phase II to the neighboring property. Until sewer and water is available, development of the neighboring parcel would be considered premature. Sacchet: Okay. And so it has to go in steps either xvay. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Tile way they measure lot width I think this is. on tile table on page 12. How do you measure these, and I apologize for asking this question but I'm kind of curious, on a curve? When you measm'e this thing on a curve, what does that exactly mean? Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Al-Jarl: On curve, at the setback line xvhen you meet the 30 foot setback you have to reach the 90 lot xvidth. The 90 foot lot width. Sacchet: So 30 foot in basically where we measure this, okay. And this Lot 25 has only 88 width. Is that a typo or is that an issue? I'm kind of curious. Kind of a picky question. Al-Jarl: The lot width on? . . Sacchet: Lot width which is required to be 90, and in the title it says 88 so I was just curious. AI-Jaff: I consider this one to be oil a curve. Sacchet: Oil, it's on a curve also, okay. So that's why it wasn't flagged as something. AI-Jaff: Correct. If you wish to see that line adjusted, we can... Sacchet: Okay. That answered my question. Thank you. Bm~ron: Other questions for staff?. Sidney: I have a couple questions here. I guess I noticed in the narrative that the applicant submitted that they're talking about retaining xvalls. And I had made a note here that a separate building permit would be required if it's greater than 4 feet. Is that one of the conditions and I missed it? I kind of think I didn't see that and I'm wondering if that should be added. Al-Jarl: It should be one of the conditions. Aanenson: It's standard ordinance anyxvay. It does require, even if it's not in here it's still a requirement of city standards. We can make sure it gets on here but it is...if it's over 4 feet it's engineered. Sidney: Okay. And a separate building permit? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: Okay. I guess I'd like to emphasize that. Another question about condition 23. States the applicant shall include a drainage tile system behind the curb to convey smnp pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. Could you clarify what that means? Saam: That's a standard procedure for every subdivision that's something we require. Due to the clay soils, the predominant clay soils in town, they tend to trap water. And this drain tile system is intended to give the water a release and also to give the homeowners a place to discharge their sump pumps. Again with the clay soil, it traps water and just to prevent flooding of the basement and such. It's a standard procedure. Sidney: Now is this dug in under the sidewalks and that I guess is really what my point is. Saam: Yes. Yep. We have a detail for it that shows how we like to construct it. Typically 3 to 4 feet deep. Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sidney: Yeah, because there's some subdMsions I've been in where tile water is still draining over the sidewalks and that's very treacherous when it's icy. Saam: Sure. sure. That's a good point. That's another reason we have, yeah. To prevent ice build-up in the winter. Sidney: So it's understood that this is dug in under the sidewalks then? Saanl: Correct. Sidney': Okay. Kind' Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions. Burton: Sure. Kind: I'll start with my street questions. The central line of Galpin and Lake Lucy Road, will it move when they're upgraded so that we need to get a greater amount of right-of-way frOi'll one side or the other? Saam: That's a good question. The center line of Lake Lucy will not move. The current center line will be what it's going to be after this development goes through, if it does go through. What vve found in reviewing this development, and maybe the applicant will speak on it also. The center line of Lake Lucy Road. Oh I'm son% did I sa3,' Lake Lucy early? Galpin will stay the same. That one will not change. The center line of Lake Lucy will move to tile south 4 feet. \Vhat we'd like to get is an 80 foot swath of right-of-way on Lake Lucy. That's what we got in the development to the west, across the street of Galpin, which is Woodridge I believe. We'd like to continue that swatch of right-of-way for future upgrade needs so x~'e'd like to go to 80 feet. Currently it's 74 feet. If you split the 74 feet, you'd be at 37 feet for a center line. Well to get 80 feet we have to increase it by 6 feet. Kind: And I saw that was a condition. Lake Lucy you want 40 feet and then Galpin is 50 feet.'? Saam: Correct. Kind: And does the 50 feet give us enough rooln to have turn lanes off of Galpin? Saam: Yeah. I looked at that. We believe it does, :>,es. Kind: Because one of the plans, I can't relnelnber which one it is, shows the turn lane jumping over tile sidewalk. Let me figure out which one it is here. On 2 of 6 feet along Galpin. It shows a bituminous trail and then underneath of that is the turn lane as part of it. I'll wait til you get it out. Saam: Are we south of the proposed access or north of it? Kind: North. Saam: The acceleration lane then are you speaking of?. Planning Colnmission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Kind: Well I think it would be, wouldn't that be considered a turn lane onto Lake Lucy Road? Saaln: Currently with this plat we're not proposing to put in a turn lane onto Lake Lucy Road. Kind: Should we be considering that? Saam: In the future if the County turns back Galpin Boulevard to us, which rumors are they will. We'll receive fimds at that time to upgrade the road. Then we would look at putting in a turn lane and we probably would do it at that time. Kind: And is the 50 foot xvidth right-of-xvay enough to allow for that? Saam: Yes. Yep. As I said, I looked at it previously and it appears that there's plenty of room to put in an additional turll lane and to include the bituminous trail. Kind: Do we want to have the applicant put the trail further to the east so that doesn't need to be destroyed when Galpin is upgraded? Saaln: Yeah. That's something we'll tweak that a little in the final construction plans. We'll probably slide the trail to the east, and yet keep it inside the right-of-way. Kind: Sounds good to lne. And then I'm assuming Park and Rec concluded that trail access by creating this, I don't knoxv what you call this, stub trail to get it up to Lake Lucy Road.. Are they thinking that bikers and people walking will go up to Lake Lucy Road and cross Galpin at that point? If they want to go south. . Saam: They're hoping. Yeah, it might Seem a little weird that you'd go north to get south but yeah. Kind: I don't think that's very realistic. Saam: Yeah, it may not be. In looking at it with the Parks Director, he ah'eady has a trail system oil the west side of Galpin and the existing trail system in Lake Lucy. He wanted a connection to that. We thought the easiest would be to run it north instead of trying to cross Galpin. That could be a condition if you want to have us look into that. We'd have to check with the Count5,. It is their road. Kind: I think that makes sense. It just doesn't seem very realistic that anybody's going to go north to go south. Saam: Sure, and I agree. Kind: And then my dead end street condition that I always like to add. I assume you're okay with that. On the internal streets, that they may be. Saam: Yep, this road will be extended in the future. Kind: Yep. I'm kind of getting famous for that one. I think that's it for Matt. Question for Sharmin. I'm assuming that the brown lines indicate the 60 by 60 foot pad on there? I just haven't seen it shown that way before but they fit in there. Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Al-Jarl: Con'ect. Kind: Quick flip here. I think that's it for now. Sidney: Mr. Chair? One more question Sharmin about Outlot B which you're proposing be turned into a lot. Is there alU' obligation that the applicant must turn this into a park or some kind of recreational area or is this just that they've. AI-Jaff: That's what tile applicant is proposing at this time. Sidney: Could it become 2 lots if they wish? Aanenson: They'd have to come back and subdivide it. Sidney: They would. Aanenson' Yes. Right now it's left as an outlot. If they're going to make 2 lots, they'd have to come in and demonstrate that it makes 2 lots which would require another public hearing fol' subdivision. Sidney: Okay. Burton: Alison. I know you got here late but do you have any questions? Blackowiak: Actually I do but can I save them fora moment? Breton: Sure. I have a question or two. Tile proposal that park fees be collected in lieu of land dedication, and I know that's not really our area. It's the Park and Rec but was it discussed, that issue discussed, do we know, at Park and Rec? The reason I bring it up is because that we have tile other issue we recently looked at. the other plat. Pulte that was an issue, and members of the public wanted to have the land instead of the dedication. I'm just wondering, was that looked at by Park and Rec? Aanenson: Yes, they did meet. AI-Jaff: Yes, tile>' met. It's on page 9 of your staffrepo~t and they reviewed this application and that was their recomlnendation. Burton' Okay. Kind: Mr. Chair that reminds me, I have one more question related to parks or trails. Burton: Go ahead. Kind: I'm wondering if it makes sense to explore the option of extending that trail to the south. Kind of dove tailing on what I xvant to check with Matt about, the trail along Galpin. Extend it to the south so that it would join up with future neighborhoods to the south instead of crossing Galpin to go to a neighborhood on the same side of the street to the south. Is that something wo~% exploring with Park and Rec? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - Februm3, 20, 2001 Al-Jarl: The trail along Galpin Boulevard was studied in depth when the existing trail was put in. What we have attempted to do is provide the link betxveen the neighborhoods internally. You will need to fill more xvetland if you put in a trail, but as it stands, and if you look at the comprehensive plan for trails in the city, the trail along Galpin fulfills that requirement. Kind: Okay, and the internal, you're talking about on Rudy Lane. There's a sidewalk that xvill theoretically connect to the neighborhood that may be developing to the south in the future. Al-Jarl: To the south or to the east. Kind: And then I noticed on the comp plan that there's a trail system that brings everybody to Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Al-Jarl: Correct. Kind: Okay, I'm going to get rid of that one. Thank you. Burton: I had another question but I answered it myself. Blacko~viak: Mr. Chair, I think I'm ready now. I have a few questions and please bear with me if they've been asked and answered already. The first one had to do with Lot 53. The proposed Lot 53. Is that still a part of the plan as submitted that we're looking at tonight? Aanenson: The applicant is requesting approval. Staff is recommending that it be removed. Blackowiak: Okay. Second question. The outlot and the wetlands, are we still looking at the outlot, as the wetlands being part of the actual residential lots or has the applicant changed_at all? Al-Jarl: We've talked to the applicant about this and what, the last conversation we had with them, they indicated that they are willing to expand the outlots to encompass the entire wetland. So it will be separate. Blackowiak: So the homeowners would not own any pm1 of the wetland. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Blackowiak: Correct, okay. And then my final question has to do with Galpin. At some point in the future I'm assuming Galpin may expand to 4 lanes. Is that a fair assessment? Saam: 3 to 4, yeah. Blackowiak: 3 to 4. Have we taken into account right-of-way acquisitions, distance of homes from proposed a 3 or 4 lane Galpin? It looks like we've awfully close on some of these and that's why I guess kind of wondering if we've made sure that that's not going to be a problem in the future. Saam: Sure. Right-of-way acquisition, yes. One of the conditions was to give the city 50 feet of right- of-way from the center line of Galpin, which would increase the current right-of-way from I believe 83 feet to 100 feet, which is what we have on the other side. On the west side of Galpin. We have 50 feet. We'd like to continue with that 100 foot swath along Galpin for future upgrade purposes. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. So does the plan as we see it then show that 50 feet over' the lot lines and the size has changed based on that? Saam: On Galpin it does sho~v the 50 feet. It's a little confusing because the current parcel boundary or property line is shown and then the proposed one is shown in a lighter green I think it is inside of there. And that is at the 50 feet. Blackowiak: Arid is it the 17 feet, is that the little, what tile little 17 dox.v~{ there is? Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson' Can [ go back to tile trail crossing question? If it does go to 50 feet, that's why we want to take the crossing of the trail up to a controlled intersection which ultimately that would be. You don't want to cross mid-block. That was why the park commission recommended the trail going north. Ultimately you don't want to have a trail crossing mid-block because it's not the 4 way stop. Kind: It's riot a natural place to stop, correct. Yeah. Aanenson' That's why the recommendation was to oo north, it's inconvenient but it's safer'. Kind: And nobody's going to do it but at least they know they're taking their chances, Aanenson: And tile pattern's developed to go that way where it's safer ultimately and whatever that time fi'ame, whether it's 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, that pattern's in place. That was their recommendation. Saam: Another issue is the current grade of the trail on the west side of Galpin is significantly lower than the road so you might have a steep slope isstle if you'd want to put a trail on there. Kind' My point is it's riot realistic to go north to go south and nobody's going to do it but if kids cross, if there's no crosswalk there, then people knoxv that they're taking their chances to it. If there's a crosswalk there then they tend to rely on it and that would be a more dangerous situation. Aanenson: Right. Well I think you xvant to take them up where there's going to be a 4 way stop, or at least stop at two of the streets. On Lake Lucy, where it's a controlled stop. Kind' Makes sense. Burton: Okay, any other questions for staff?. Sidney: One question Mr. Chair. This application came in as a standard subdivision and since I've been on the Planning Commission it seems like we've been doing PUD's. Why a standard subdivision in this case? ...acceptable or encouraged? Aanenson: The last Lundgren subdivision was probably done in the early 90's. Since then most of their homes now have 3 cat' garages. We have had problems with thc smaller lots, getting 3 car garages on it so it was our recomnmndation based on that, some of the pinching of the wetland setbacks, that we 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 wouldn't accept the smaller lots. There's been some problems so that was our recommendation to do a straight subdivision. Sidney: Now is there more of a benefit to the city? Aanenson' Well I think the concern was, since xve've gone to the larger home styles on these, that you need to have the lot big enough to make it work. If they want to do a PUD and still have larger lot sizes, that would be okay too. But that's generally not what happens. Even though they say they're going to put a smaller home on, then you get a buyer and then we're trying to put the square peg in a round hole so we wanted to have the larger lot size. Burton: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning Commission? Can you please state your name and address. David Hinners: Good evening. My name is David Hinners. I'm with Lundgren Bros. Bob Molstad with Sathre-Berquist Engineers is here as xvell. I want to thank staff for an excellent report. I don't have really too inuch to say and I'll be brief, as I've been asked to be. The only thing I would ask is Lot 53. We're very aware of Section 18-57(1), which limits access onto collector streets as well as arterials and high density streets. High traffic streets. However, given the fact that, I'm going to approach this. It's basically cut off by this large wetland complex in here. The only, and a grade separation. The elevation here is loxver in grade than here. Some of our earlier concept plans did show a road coming down through this area which would have allowed access to this parcel of land. But we were asked to not access that which we acquiesced and obviously we did not. However we think that this lot is still workable. In fact on this drawing here we show a plan, a house that we actually construct. This one was recently constructed in Foxberry Farms in Medina. What this shows is, this is the, this red line here. This line I'm trying to... is the current right-of-way of, the south right-of-w'ay of Lake Lucy Road. As : Matt pointed out earlier, the rights-of-xvay of the neighborhood to the east. Excuse me, t'° the west, Woodridge I believe, something to that effect. The right-of-ways don't match up. The north right-of- l'l~nt-u- y to way did but the south's do not. Nov,, we were obligated to provide 40 feet of 'o" ~f wa but in order help the city and in order to get this inequitable right-of-way situation resolved, we've giving up 6 feet in order, so that the 80 foot right-of-way swatch is continuous all the way through. So even with the 6 foot dedication, with the 50 foot setback to Lake Lucy, plus taking into consideration the 40 foot wetland setback, we can make a house work. The driveway slope here we have at 9.4%. Granted that's steep. It's over 120 feet. This is a walkout style home. It's walkout elevation is at 970. The reason v,,hy we wanted to get that basement up was in order to be above any sort of a 100 year flood plain. Based on the current elevations out there, the water would have to rise 6 or 7 feet in here in order to get into the basement of that house, and before it would get in there it would be out on this road. Again as I said earlier, 18-57(1) states that for a proposed subdivisiOn there will be no direct access from a lot onto a collector street. We also think that paragraph (o), which talks about private streets, might provide some relief for that, given the fact that one of the conditions is that we have a difficult access getting to it from our interior streets. Hence city code allows for consideration of topographic and wetlands and other natural features as a guide. The private street would also serve no other parcels and that it would only service this one lot. There are numerous private driveways on Lake Lucy Road. Granted they're much larger parcels than this but we would like to, at least have the Planning Commission consider not deleting that. It's not going to be a deal breaker but I'd prefer that it at least be considered because I think we meet all of the criteria. The question was asked why did we not come in with a PUD. We didn't come in xvith a PUD because we don't like to ask for variances. We know and understand the past difficulties that perhaps this committee has had, as well as the city on trying to put very large houses on minimum lots and homeowners, perhaps there's some here tonight that have asked for variances for decks and so 13 Planning Comlnission Meeting- February 20, 2001 forth. With this plan, because of the natural topography of the site and the fact that we're respecting virtually everything oll the site, because of our design and the way that we've approached this project, we didn't think a PUD was the right way to go. Our lots are amply sized so we don't believe that this board or tile city should be burdened with the variance requests and so forth. I'm rambling on. I said I would be brief so that's basically all I had to say. I'd be happy to ansxver any questions that you might have. Sidney: Mi'. Chair. Burton: Go ahead. Sidney: A question about Lot 53 and the house that you are showing. Does that house have a deck attached to it? David Hinners: It does. Sidney: Does that fall within tile setbacks, so we're okay? David Hinners' ...This is called an end load. This is an end load house meaning that tile car would actually come in this xvay and drive straight into tile garage in that fashion. It's a very common deal. Tile deck is over on this side of the house. This particular plan is called a Fairfield. I brought this plan. I mentioned that this one was built and I thought I would show you what it looks like. This pat"ticular garage is the way you more traditionally see it facing tile street. On the plan that I've got, this unit basically turns this way so it faces that way. But as you can see it's a very handsome house. It's quite large. It's 86 feet wide. It's 34, 38 feet deep. Sidney: How big is the deck? David Hinners: 14 by 14 is the way we typically build them. Sidney: Okay. Burton: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have quite a few questions fi'om the applicant. First of all tile comment that Outlot B would have to be platted as a real lot because you put things there. You don't have an issue with that? David Hinners: I have no problem with that at alt. Itl fact on our final plat, which we now have ready to submit. It's a little early but it is shown as a lot and block. We had shown it as an outlot because itl some cases the tax entities, if you platted as lots and blocks, sometimes the tax entities will look at it, because they don't see all of this. All they see if flat with lines and they look at that as one great big giant lot and they get taxed for that. Nov,,, because this is a homeowners association owned site, each of these 52 or 53 lot owners will be 1/52nd or 1/53rd owner in that site and so what we'll do is a company a letter to the Carver County tax authority pointing out that this is an outlot. It's owned by the HOA and that the value of this lot should be spread out amongst the owners so that that value on that lot should be very minimal. If it was an outlot it would be... Sacchet: I understand. There was a comment in the report that Lot 46 needs a little tweaking. Did you do that itl your revision ah'eady also? 14 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 David Hinners: Yes sir. Sacchet: And you already answered the question that the lot lines were adjusted so they don't include wetlands. David Hinners: Con'ect. We pulled these lot lines back from here to the, through the property so that all of the, in fact here it is. Perhaps this shows it. This is before, and this is after. Now those outlots, this one, this one and this one will be deeded through the homeowners association. We don't have a problem doing that. The question I would ask is what if we didn't have a homeowhers association, would we deed it to the city? Sacchet: And yeah, obviously there would be drainage and utility easements over these wetlands. That's pretty standard. You don't have an issue with that, do you? David Hinners: I have no problems with that at all. In fact ~ve typically will place a covenant over those wetlands restricting certain. Sacchet: And one thing I found kind of funny, probably because I didn't fully understand it was the situation xvith the trees. You made a statement that only like 9 or so significant trees will actually go away and ! noticed a lot of them aren't, all the smaller ones you basically replant so you don't have to do. David Hinners: We don't have many trees on the site. Sacchet: But what I'm worried about is over there towards the bluff. You shoxved some significant trees that stay but then there's grading all around it and even retaining walls. I think that's very unrealistic that. David Hinners: That was a mistake. Sacchet: It is a mistake? Okay. David Hinners: This tree right here is clearly in the grade. We're shoxving it as a saved tree. That's a mistake. It should have been taken out. In fact Jill, the Environmental Resource Coordinator, in her tabulations she excluded from the saved trees, the trees between the walls. This tree as well as the 33 inch ash tree that we plan on staging it up here. So all of those have been taken. She's already assumed that those aren't going to be saved, although we're going to try to save them. That one and these m,o over here. So they're not even in the count but we still plan on trying to... Sacchet: So if the tabulations stay were already taken out. David Hinners: Right. So if for some reason they get whacked xvhile we're building the house or something, they're ah'eady taken out. Sacchet: And you try to save them as much as possible. David Hinners: Correct. Now in fact on these right here, we've done from a double to a triple wall. Sacchet: By the bluff there, okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20. 2001 David Hinners: Yes, we've moved these walls tip closer to tile rear of the pad so that these trees now exist behind the walls, downhill of tine ',',,ails. Sacchet: So tile:>' have a real chance potentially to make it that way, okay. And Lot 3 is going to be kind ora contention point obviously. Bear witln me. Yeah, I think that's all the questions I tnave. Thank you. Burton: Okay, any otlner questions for tile applicant? Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public bearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Okay. If anybody.' ',vould like to address tile Planning Commission on this proposal can approach tine podium and state your name and address. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton' Okay. Sacchet: That was fast. Burton' Comments? Anybod3.' want to start? Kind' I can go. I'd like to talk about Lot 53 first. I agree with tile staff report. I tlnink that that is an unrealistic lot. Especially ',vlnen I lnear tlnat tile grade of the driveway is going to be 9%. That just seems like it's puslning it a bit. And also it, just fi'om what fine applicant sho',ved, it looks like it's going to be tight right up to tile back setback and I ttnink most homeowners v¢ould desire a deck offthe back oftlneir lnouse, not oil the side. So I agree with fine staff report on that and I would like to change tile approval to be 52 lots and not 53 lots. Wtmt else here? And then leave in condition 17. I agree with the condition to expand the right-of-way to 50 feet, so I'd like to leave that in there. And condition number 26. Be£ore going to the City Council I think that new plat should be submitted that shows the lot lines not extending into tine wetlands. I think that's critical. And that I'm assuming that tine lot sizes have been re-calculated on that plat as well. Okay, I like to ctneck my assumptions. At tile dead end streets, I'd like to post the sign tlmt talks about tlnat ttney may be extended in the future so we don't run into problems there. I would like tlne applicant to consider including benches in the totlot areas. I'm becoming famous for that condition too. And ttmn I'd like to add a condition that talks about a clear communication disclaimer and require tlmt home buyers sign a disclosure statement ttmt includes information about the future upgrading of Galpin and Lake Lucy and information about xvetland buffers and have tine disclosure include an actual plan that shows the home placement and what area would be available for future deck and porch or patio expansion, and include all the setback lines. What I'm interested in, and whether it's realistic to have, who should keep these disclosure statements? Should they be submitted to the ciD,? I guess that'd be my preference. Sacchet: I would think so. Kind: Just trying to avoid future problems that this commission has seen. ,And then I like LuAnn's idea of adding a condition, just to make it clear, that tile applicant needs to be aware that the retaining ,,',,ails require separate building permits. 16 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Sidney: If greater than 4 feet. Kind: If greater than 4 feet. Noxv I've said all that and I'm going to say it all again in the motion. Oh well. Burton: Any other comments? Uli? Sacchet: I think it's a very clean proposal. I do believe that Lot 53's not viable though. I really don't like it personally. Not just because of the access. I mean you have to do a lot of fill in there. You're filling in 10 feet in some places at least so you're pretty much creating a hill in an area. And it seems pushed. If we have regulations that xve could prevent it I would vote for that. Other than that I think it's very good. The condition I'd like to extend a little bit is the silt fence. I'd like to make sure they come doxvn.., but other than that I think it's clean. I think that the wetland is treated very fairly and there's an effort made to preserve the trees. As far as the development goes, I think this is a very clean approach. I like it. Sidney: Yeah Mr. Chair. I like the proposed development as it stands. I guess I do have a problem with Lot 53. I don't think it's going to work. The applicant said that they're well aware that homeowners don't like to go in to the city and ask for variances and I can see this is a case where there would be plenty of opportunity for people to ask for variances so I'd really discourage that lot as they've planned it. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Yep, Mr. Chair. I.agree. I had pretty much the same issues as my fellow commissioners. I don't like Lot 53 either. It just, it doesn't fit. It's an island onto itself. It's not any way connected to the other 52. It seems like an after thought to lne. ! say take it out. It ~vould need a variance for the driveway anyway so I mean, you're talking about variances and how you don't like to get them so, we just omit it. We don't have to ask for a variance so let's get rid of that. I'm comfortable with the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. That xvas one thing that concerned me. That as long as we have that figured in, put the calculations, I am ready to move with that. And then one of my big points here was that the lot line shall not extend into wetland basins and I would not support that in any way if they did. But as long as they're taken out and they're not in the wetlands, I can support this. So those are my comments. Burton: I think I pretty much agree with everybody's comments. I think it's a nice project and it wasn't really that tough to review it. It's a pretty straight forward subdivision. I think the staff did a nice job of laying it all out. I agree with everybody's comments. I'm not really going to waste time going through those all again. One thing that I would note, is I do think it's curious that nobody came forward pushing for dedication of land for parks when that's been pushed for on other projects like Pulte. I think that this is fine the way it is but I just wanted to note that and with that, if somebody wants to make a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. I'I1 make the first motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #00-5 to rezone 40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family for Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated Received December 15, 2000. Burton: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Kind: We need a second. Burton: Sorry, I jumped the gun. 17 Planning Comlnission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, second. Burton: Any discussion? Good, ilo. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that tile Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #00-$ to rezone 40 acres of properW zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family for Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated Received December 15, 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously S to 0. Burton: Okay, that is approved. Next motion please. Kind: Mr. Chair. I'll make the motion tile Planning Commission recolnnlends approval of the preliminary plat Ibr subdivision #00-15 for Ashling Meadows for 52 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received December 15, 2000 subject to the following conditions 1 through, let's see. What do we go to, 35 with the following additions. I want to make sure y'ou noted that it's 52 lots, not 53. In that original pm1 there. Okay, I would like to add a condition number 36. That dead end streets shall be posted with signs that say this street may be extended in the future. Number 37. The applicant shall consider including benches in the totlot areas. Number 38. To ensure clear communication the applicant shall have each home buyer sign a disclosure statement. The statement shall include information about hmn'e upgrading of' Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Boulevard. Information about wetland buffers and the disclosure statement shall also include a plan that clearly shows the home placement, tile area available For future deck, porch or patio and all setback lines. Number 39: Applicant should be aware that retaining walls greater than 4 feet require a separate building permit. Sacchet: Do you need a second first before we make comments? Blackoxviak: Yes. Sacchet: Then I second. And I have a comment. And one is a question. Since we say now 52 lots, with that Outlot B, what's happening with that? Is that going to be a lot which brings it back to 53.9 Aal'lensoll' No. Sacchet: Okay. One fl'iendly amendment. Kind: Yes. Sacchet: Condition 25. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, as delineated wetland edge and shall be removed upon completion of' adjacent construction. I want to make sure these tilings come down. ' Kind: I agree. I agree. Sacchet: Because they're an eyesore. Burton: Do you accept the amendment? Kind: I accept that amendment. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Burton' Any other discussion? Kind' Any other atnendments? That's it. I have an amendment. Number 26. I meant to say before going to City Council, applicant shall submit the revised plat that shows lot lines do not extend into wetland basins and the recalculated lot areas. Do you accept my change? Burton: Okay. Do you accept ),our oxvn change? Kind: Yes I do. Burton: All), discussion? My only comment would be, I think the disclosure statement's a good idea. I think it's a little odd but I support it. Kind: You don't like it? Breton: I like it, I just think it's kind of odd. And we haven't done it I don't think before. Kind: I kind of xvant, I want to do it though from here on. Burton: Yeah, it seems alright. So that's it then. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminm? plat for SubdMsion #00-15 for Ashling Meadows for 52 lots and four outlots as shown on the plans received December 15, 2000, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a develoPment contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the propm%,. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Wetland Alteration Perrnit #00-5. The proposed drainage swale in tile backyard of Lot 44 shall be moved closer to the rear lot line. This will ~ninimize the amount of drainage easement required. . If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City xvith detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. 5. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. . The proposed drainage area in the southeast corner of the site shall be routed to the southwest pond and adjacent wetland instead of to the northerly pond. This will better follow the proposed drainage pattern sho~vn in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional information and revisions are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, stonn sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities 19 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. easements ,,',,ill need to be dedicated on tile final plat over tile public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosio'n control fence around the perimeter of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for' tile steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. Prior to construction commencing, each of the existing wells and septic tanks will be required to be capped and/or removed per state health codes. Sanitary sewer for this development shall be designed to serve the neighboring properties to the east. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to establish a sufficient sewer depth to serve the neighboring properties. The property has not been previously assessed for' sewer and water hookup and connection charges. As per' city ordinafice, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 and $1,723, respectively. In addition, since tile property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,011 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 will be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges will be waived contingent on tile developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at tile time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with tile City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at tile time of final platting. Tile applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in tile form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted w'ithin the public streets contingent upon tile developer entering into an encroachment agreement with tile City and that tile configuration be acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. The applicant should be aware that tile lnaxiinum allowable street grade is 7%. Areas with a street grade greater than 7% should be revised to meet the criteria. Existing driveway entrances to the site off of Galpin Boulevard shall be removed. Lot 53 shall be deleted and Outlot C be expanded to include the northeast corner of the site. Increase the amount of platted right-of-way fi'om the centerline of Galpin Boulevard to 50 feet in width. Likewise. increase the alnount of right-of-way fi'om the centerline of Lake Lucy Road to 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 40 feet in width Revise the preliminary utility plan to show the proposed sanitary sewer pipe size and ensure that all of the sewer manholes are a minimum of 10 feet deep. Also, add an additional sanitary manhole along Topaz Drive at Station 3+00. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the existing 18-inch culvert that enters the site in the northwest corner. Also, show all proposed easements and add a 1.egend. Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Carver Count), and comply with their conditions of approval. Tile applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge frOln homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge and shall be removed upon.completion of adjacent construction. Lot lines shall not extend into wetland basins. Prior to going to City Council, the applicant . . shall submit the revised plat that shows lot lines do not extend into wetland basins and the recalculated lot areas. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge si~s, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Based on the proposed developed area of 35.25 acres, the water quality fees associated ~vith this project are estimated at $28,200 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $69,795. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runofffrom the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing ill accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,995. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: 21 Planning Commission Meeting - Februau, 20, 2001 31. 32. 34. 24. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to shoxv a minimum of 323 trees to be planted. Minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings shall be met. 25. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the fi'ont yard of each lot. 26. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in buffer yard and rear yard areas. Tree preservation fence shall be install at the edge of the grading limits on lots 20-23, 27-28, block 1 prior to any construction. According to tree preservation plans dated 11/30/00, all trees on Lot 23, block 1 shall be preserved by the developer/builder. Any trees removed on tots 20-23, 27-28 in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of2:l diameter inches. 27. 28. 29. Building Department conditions' a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. b. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections DMsion before building permits will be issued. Fire Marshal conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant will be required. It is to be located on Topaz Drive approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Galpin Blvd and Topaz Drive. b. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. c. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen Cit5, Ordinance 9-1. d. The proposed street names meet approval with the Chanhassen Fire Department. e. Fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. This protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. f. Submit radius turns and dimensions for the cul-de-sacs with center islands to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal to approve. If the cul-de-sacs are to have islands, "no parking in cul-de-sac" signs will be required. Park and Recreation conditions: 24. Full park fees be collected in lieu of land dedication. 25. The applicant provide the necessm5, trail easement or outlot and construct an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail connector from Topaz Drive north to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Trail fee credit shall be granted in consideration for this condition. 26. The Cits' Engineer's office shall ensure that the 8 ft. wide bituminous trail connector is located far enough away fi'om Galpin Boulevard to ensure that a future mm-lane or widening of the road can be accommodated. The lot depth for Lot 46 shall be adjusted to maintain 125 feet. 22 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 35. Outlot B shall be replatted as a lot prior to issuance of a building permit." 36. That dead end streets shall be posted ~vith signs that say this street may be extended in the future. 37. The applicant shall consider including benches in the totlot areas. 38. To ensure clear communication the applicant shall have each home buyer sign a disclosure statement. The statement shall include information about future upgrading of Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Information about wetland buffers and the disclosure statement shall also include a plan that clearly shows the home placement, the area available for future deck, porch or patio and all setback lines. 39. Applicant should be aware that retaining ~valls greater than 4 feet require a separate building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Burton' Okay, do we have another one? Sacchet: Alright, I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-5 for Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated Received December 15, 2000 and subject to the folloxving 3 conditions as they are. Blackowiak: Second. Burton' Any discussion? Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-05 for Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated received December 15, 2000, subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). Eight copies of a wetland replacement plan shall be submitted to the City for review, comment and approval by the City and other agencies prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. , Tile wetland mitigation area shall be constructed prior to wetland impact occurring and shall meet the City's buffer strip and structure setback requirements. o Tile applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 23 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 28,821 SO. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 8, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions roi' staff?. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions. South is a park. That kind of peaked my interest. And where is the park? Aanenson: Across the street. Sacchet: That whole area is park? Okay. Aanenson: Tile apartlnents that were approved are over on this side. Sacchet: The apartments are further east? Aanellson: Correct. Sacchet: That's what I was trying to establish. If there was enough area. Trash enclosures. They're missing, correct? Al-Jarl: Correct. Sacchet: Any, I guess it's more a question for tile applicant. Tile retaining wall has to wrap on the. is that tile south side? Basically instead of it coming straight out it has to wrap so it doesn't get into the easement, is that the idea there? Al-Jarl: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then we have an issue in some places with the 30 foot maximum of the driveway and ill some places 26 minimum of the drive aisle. Can you point out where...for me please? Al-Jarl: Sure. This portion meets tile ordinance requirements which is 26. These are the 24 right here and staff' is recommending that they be widened to 26. Sacchet: And where's the 32, place where it's too wide? From the staff report I wonder where there's an area where it's actually too much. Al-Jarl: Oil. This actually. Sacchet: \Vhere it comes in. Al-Jarl: Where it comes in. Sacchet: There it's too wide. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Al-Jaff: 36 is the maximum it can be. And I don't recall the exact width but it exceeds that. I can measure it. Sacchet: I just want to know where it is. That answers my question. In terms of the parking on the south side, I mean it's kind of on a hill and then it goes down the road. So there is really no way of screening the cars... I mean considering it's a park across the street, that's why I'm bringing this up. Al-Jarl: Typically they require screening through a berm and landscaping. A be~Tn is not an option in this case due to the grade of the site and it drops by 8 feet. What the applicant is doing is putting in landscaping. Sacchet: Trees. Al-Jaff: Trees as well as shrubs. Sacchet: Okay. And this is kind of a silly question again. If there is such a thing. The handicap parking, does it matter which side of the handicap parking the space is? The open space because it's kind of one way or tile other? Saam: Not for ADA requirements, no. Sacchet: Okay, it doesn't, okay. And on the plantings, I don't -know if somebody has that answer. The boulevard trees. Tile trees along the roads. I didn't see what species they are. Do you know? Aanenson: That was put in with the Lake Drive West project. We could check on that for you. Sacchet: And then the lots along the little stub street. Same thing? Aallellson: Yes. Sacchet: I was just curious because. Aanenson: That was part of the street improvement. Sacchet: So that's not part of this development? That's part of the street thing, so that's why they're not identified. Okay. Yeah, that's all the questions from staff. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions for staff'?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, I have one question that's related to parking. It's something that came up today when ! was at Southdale. That their stalls are very narrow and I have, I should have gotten a tape measurer out to measure what they are. Since the applicant exceeds parking, would it be appropriate to allow them to get rid of a couple spots in order to make all the stalls wider? Less door dings. Al-Jarl: They are wider. Kind: They are wider than your normal one? I'll ask the applicant that when he gets up there. That's all. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Burton: Any other questions for staff'?. Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning Commission? State your name and address please. Mark Undestad: Mark Undestad. I'm at 8800 Sunset Trail in Chanhassen here. With Eden Trace. Kind of the last one of the list here, aside fi'om the gentleman behind me here but that's wrapping up the industrial park. The parking stalls, they are a little wider than the regular ones. These are 9 foot. You're required to put 8 foot. Kind: Okay. Mark Undestad: And nobody likes their doors getting dinged. Kind: That extra 6 inches would have made all the difference today. Mark Undestad: But parking, you know we really wouldn't want to get rid of the parking. As we've been finding in the park out there, we're getting more office tech, showroom, not so much warehouse use anymore out there and we need more parking's required in these buildings so we're actually smaller footprints to get more parking. The trees that are out in the boulevard no,,,,', there's a mixture. It's some ash and lnaple and oak that ""'as put on in the boulevard initially and then we're adding to that around the site obviously. Aside fi'om that, any questions? Burton: Questions? Sacchet: Yeah. I have 2 questions. I'm curious about this trash enclosure. Mark Undestad: Yeah, everything's supposed to be kept inside. Sacchet: I1'1 the building? Mark Undestad: Inside the building. Sacchet: Is that realistic? I mean I think I'd be a little uneasy about that. Mark Undestad: Yeah. no I am too. We just sent memos out to a couple of tenants down on Mallory Court that have some things outside yet and they need to get them inside. The new Microboard's building that they have going on right now, there are no drive in doors. Nobody can have anything outside so there's a large common area inside the loading dock areas, which is the same thing we're going to provide on this, in this area. There will be a large loading area in here that's dumpsters and recycling and all that stuff will be kept in there. Like the Microboard's building, we're painting the walls, the ceilings, the floors. Making it as clean and nice looking as possible... Sacchet: So can you point out where exactly you would have that trash? Mark Undestad: Inside the building. Sacchet: Right in there, inside the loading dock? 26 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Mark Undestad: Yeah, it's going to be right in here. We'll cut out an area in here so there will be interior loading dock doors for... Sacchet: Okay. Then that's a plan. Then I have kind of a picky question. The top of your fagade, the light part, is that block or what is it? Mark Undestad: Yeah. It's all, it's a combination of rock face and smooth scored blocks. Sacchet: Because I was a little confused when I looked at the fagade drawing, it was shown as block on top of there so I want to make sure that that is not an oversight. In that situation in the past when little things like that, then all ora sudden it's there and it's not what was meeting. Aanenson: It's up there. Mark Undestad: These show the rock face. The different rock face colors on here. The lighter band will be alternating rock face and smooth score. The same for... Sacchet: You see what confused me is this here, going all the way up. Like in, I think it was in a little draxving, this xvas like blank and then in this one it shows actually rocks. Mark Undestad: Yeah, all rock face all the way up. Sacchet: So this is all rock, it's just a lighter color rock and doxvn here you have the darker color rock. So it's those two guys sitting there? : Mark Undestad: Right. .. Sacchet: So okay. Mark Undestad: Alternating rock face. The rock face all the way up. We'll slip a smooth score in every now and then. That gives it that 3 dimensional look on there so not just a straight flat face going all the ~vay up. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that addresses my concerns, thanks. Burton: Okay. Any other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. One question. Uli's question about the building materials reminds me, inside the U. I'm assuming that that is the same material. On the plans it didn't call it out specifically. Mark Undestad: Yeah, no it's the same look all the way around. Kind: That's it. Blackowiak: Okay Mr. Chair, I have a question. We've got, right after this we have a hearing on Lot 7, and as I look at these two, your Lot 8 and then Lot 7 afterwards, can you tell me how the U's match up? Do you know how it goes? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Mark Undestad: Yeah, we've spent time together on both lots to get this all to work out. So trucks can get in and out of there. Blackowiak: So it's pretty much straight across? Okay. Okay, and then do you know, and a second question fox' the next applicant, how much longer the south elevation of Lot 8, of the Lot 7 building is than your building? You probably have no idea. What's the distance between, of the north elevation of your building? Mark Undestad: The distance of the north elevation? Blackowiak: The length of it.. yeah. Mark Undestad: From here to over here? Blackowiak: Oh is that north? Sacchet: North is this way. Blackowiak: So would this be the north elevation? Across the U? That's what I'm looking for that distance. Mark Undestad: 240 feet. Blackoxviak: 240, okay. Okay, thank you. Burton: This is a public hearing. Mav. I have a motion to open the public hearing. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody that would Tike to address the Planning Commission, please approach the podiuln and state your name and address. Okay. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Okay, then we're onto comments. Anybody like to start? Sidney: Well it looks straight forward to me, although I kind of have a feeling like we've seen this building before. But I have no problems with the design or anything like that. Well designed and I noted that there is more than adequate landscaping, which is one... Burton: Thanks. Other comments? Sacchet: Yeah, just one thing that still irks me a little bit. By widening the drive aisles are we going to get less space for landscaping on the east side? A1-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Or a little less landscaping between the building and the parking lot or how does that? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - FebruaD' 20, 2001 Al-Jag: It's 2 feet only and xvhat they could do is, well you don't need it. On this side what you'd end up doing is maybe reducing it by 2 feet here. Sacchet: Okay. How about on the east side? AI-Jaff: That would, noTM remember that this yard could be reduced further. Sacchet: Okay. And then there's less room for trees. Well it's only 2 feet. ! think it's a moot point. It's · not worth talking over. I think it's a very clean, good proposal. I support it. Al-Jag: And if the applicant needs to reduce the size of the. . . plan. Sacchet: Well that's why I was bringing it up. Al-Jag: I mean it ~nay be a couple of feet in this direction or a couple of feet in this direction. Sacchet: But that xvould have to be mitigated based on the conditions. Al-Jag: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, ah'ight. Well I'll let you sxveat over it. Burton' Any other comlnents? No? Okay, I think it's a nice project and I think it shows that the applicant made an effort to comply with the city's ordinances and I think it looks pretty.nice. So we need a motion. Sidney: Well Mr. Chair I'll make the motion, if that's okay. The Planning Commission recommends - approval of Site Plan 2000-1 for a 28,821 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated received January 19, 2001, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 24. Kind: Second, and I have a fi'iendly amendment. I'd like to add a condition number 25, just for clarity. That the interior of the U shall utilize the same building materials as used on the other exterior elevations. Since it was not called out specifically on the plan. Sacchet: Can you say that again? I lose you. Sorry. Kind: The interior of the U shall utilize the same building materials as used on the other exterior elevations. Sacchet: Gotch ya. Alright. I'm for that. Burton: Any other discussion? Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-2 for a 28,821 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated received January 19, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 1. Revise tile plans to remove the proposed retaining wail fi'om the public drainage and utility easement. 2. The proposed storm sewer along the north property line, which drains to tile south, shall have a 20-foot wide private utility and maintenance easement recorded over it. 3. The maximum slope fol' any handicapped parking or drop-off spot is 2%. Revise the handicapped parking spots on the east and west side of the building to comply. 4. The shared access drive must be enclosed in a private easement. 5. Tile developer shall apply for and obtain a permit fi'om the \Vatershed District. 6. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed bf' tile City Engineer. 7. Revise the site plan to comply with the maximum drive aisle width of 36 Feet. Tile drive aisle shall correspond with tile one shown on the grading plan. 8. Tile applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations fora 10-year, 24-hour storm event prior to building permit approval. 9. Add a storm sexver schedule to the utility plan. 10. On the detail sheet, add City Detail Plate Nos. 2202 and 3101. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in tile state of Minnesota. 12. On tile site plan, include the name of the street (Upland Circle) that tile lot is accessed fi'om. Also, include Upland Circle and Lake Drive West on the location map. 13. A 20-foot wide private utility easement shall be recorded roi' tile water line. which extends into Lot 7. 14. Revise the grading plan as follows: a. Show the location of the existing driveway off of Upland Circle For Lot 4. Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. 25. Show the location of the existing streetlights on the east side of Upland Circle. 15. 16. 17. The drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. One ground low profile business sign is pem~itted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 mo b, eo 18. C. 19. b. do eo h. area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria: All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff shall be provided prior to requesting a building permit. Building Official Conditions: The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by desi~ professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The oxvner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal conditions: A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Submit radius turns and dimensions for parking lot access to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal to review and approve. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of"No Parking" fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991, and Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire code. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. Post Indicator Valves (PIV) are required. Please indicate location for review and approval on utility plans. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. An additional fire hydrant will be required. See attached site plan for location of hydrant. Comply with the Inspection Division water service installatiOn policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler 31 Planning Colnmission Meeting- February 20, 2001 20. 21. supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Depm~tment/Fire Prevention Division Policy, #36-1994. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fh'e hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention DMsion Policy #47-1998. Copy enclosed. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Street lights consistent with Lake Drive West wilt be at 200 feet intervals, staggered fi'om one side to the other. The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters nmst be screened by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 22. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. 23. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with tile city and provide tile necessary financial securities as required for landscaping, 24. All loading dock doors shall be painted a color to match the proposed building." 25. The interior of the U shall utilize the same building materials as used on the other exterior elevations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 26,040 SO. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, P.O.S. PLUS, INC., THE DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions for staff. Sacchet: Yeah. I do have a few questions. First I-have a comment on page 3. Second paragraph there was a cut and paste from the previous proposal for this proposal. Now these projecting columns, can you describe them a little more? I mean what you're trying to recommend. Because I can't quite picture it enough yet. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: The applicant will address this further. We just don't want a fiat wall. Sacchet: Yeah, that is probably a good idea. Concrete stoop on the north side of the building be removed. That's, can you point out on the plat which one that is. Please. Al-Jarl: Right here. Sacchet: Okay. There's a door there? Okay. Yeah, this is a staffquesticJn. There is quite a good number of trees that you say this plan is deficient. That there needs to be more trees. There's no room for them. Al-Jarl: We believe that there is room for them. Now please remember that our ordinance, and I had this discussion with Jill Sinclair probably, well it was this afternoon. We have a 30 foot fi'ont yard setback. 30 foot of green. You will be able to accommodate those trees. Also, these trees are shown as the site that potentially...exceed ,vhat will be out there. Sacchet: So initially. Al-Jarl: They're probably 20 years old. Sacchet: So it's quite a forest out there huh? AI-Jafl: If you stagger them we believe that tl~ere will be enough room. We also think that they need to demonstrate that there is no room. In our opinion there will be enough space for them. Sacchet: Okay. And that kind of leads to my other concern, and I'd like staff's opinion too and tl~en also the applicant's. Right now xve have some significant trees planted ~vhere they have proof of parking, or how do we call that.., isn't that a conflict? A1-Jaff: Jill and I had this discussion again this afternoon. What we were thinking is plant some of the trees within the area that is immediately adjacent to the building. However, let's assume the need presents itself and they need to put additional parking. What we will look at is there's no net loss of trees on the parcel. One of the thoughts that we had which made me think of trees and...in this area. There is no proposal whatsoever to disturb this area in the future. This way you would take advantage of the years of growth for those trees. They're not being disturbed. Sacchet: So yeah, this has been thought through basically. Al-Jarl: Correct. Sacchet: I don't mean to second guess but it was a concern I had definitely. Now in terms of this proof of parking. According to the ordinance, or what this is, it requires unique characteristics and/or documented parking demand. Which one or both or how does it apply? Al-Jaff: Well the applicant knows. Sacchet: So we should let the applicant speak to that? 33 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Al-Jarl: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine with me. That's all tile questions I have. Thanks. Burton: Any other questions for staff? Would tile applicant or their designee like to address tile Planning Commission? And can you please state your name and address when you get to the podium? Victor Perlbachs: Good evening. My name is Vic Perlbachs. I'm the architect of record fi'om the Design Partnership Architects in Minneapolis. And I do want to say that i think we have been working with staff,, as Sharmin has pointed out and I think that we've made some improvements. Good suggested improven~ents to the landscape plan and the building itself. And what I have, [ guess what we're proposing to do is to project, we have these pilaster look across, well around all sides of the building but predominantly on the elevation in question. And we're proposing to project that 4 inches out fi'om tile face of tile wall. From grade level up to this stone medallion feature that happens every time one of the pilasters goes tip to tile roof parapet. And we're also, ifI might just review some of the building materials. I'll start with tile fl'ont of the building. We are putting in brick tip to a stone band and then the rock face block. Two colors of rock face block. Tile stone medallions. Stone cap. This projection of the building and then aluminum finish material at the top coping and the entry canopies. Those materials do go around to all four sides but we drop the brick fi'om the non public face sides of the building. I do have a computer printed image of the view of the building fi'om the common drive entry from Lot 7. And it shows some of the architectural relief and projections of building tile canopies at tile sides and parking dock so. And we did understandably so, that the landscaping shown here is rather rnature and we are working with staff to, on the north and east.., and I think that's a very good suggestion.to get this planting along here and carry it around to the east side and also. Although I have worked oil numerous jobs where the)' have been able to transplant 20 foot tall spruce trees so, there would be an opportunity to move those ill the future... Are there any other questions regarding the columns or anything else? Burton: Questions for the applicant? Sacchet: Yes Mi'. Chair. First of all could you address a little bit the parking needs. Like our guidelines says that there needs to be unique characteristics and/or documented parking demand that justifies not doing the required, so if you could speak to that a little bit, that would help. Victor Perlbachs: The business is predominantly a sales, warehousing and then re-assembling, re- packaging and shipping of computer related goods. Sacchet: So you kllow what kind of business is going to be in there? That's already established? Victor Perlbachs: Yeah. Yep. Steve Shipley: Do you want me to? Victor Perlbachs: If you'd like to, sure. Steve Shipley: I'm Steve Shipley and I'll be building the building. It's a single use building and so we have basically 14 employees and so to go to 45 parking spots, you know it seems like file plan looks better with some of the trees and grass rather than the asphalt. And hopefully I won't ever have to do that. That's not my intention. So we figured with the 28 parking spots, that's basically 2 times more than we actually need so that's the reason for that. 34 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Sacchet: So you'll be the occupant of the building? Steve Shipley: We are the ones. Sacchet: Are you occupants or owners? Steve Shipley: I will be the owner leasing it back to my corporation. Sacchet: Okay. So changes are you're going to be there for quite a while, that's basically why I'm asking that. Steve Shipley: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Steve Shipley: I have a business noxv in Chanhassen that I lease and we've outgrown this space so. Sacchet: Okay. That sounds convincing, thank you. I don't know which one of you would be able to address the other question about the tree situation. I'm still a little bit uneasy about this tree situation. It seems a~vfully crowded. Now you've touched on it briefly just a second ago but can you go into that a little deeper please. Steve Shipley: I know that we do have a landscape architect working with us on this project that-has been working with staff and I'm not party to exactly what was discussed over the last day and a half but I've been assured that we're making progress and that there won't be a problem. _ Sacchet: Well I'm happy to have your assurances. I think that's the questions I have for you right now. Blackowiak: Aside fi'om projections of the brick on the east elevation, or actually on all the elevations I guess, what else have you looked at doing for the east elevation and specifically let's say the eastern half of the south elevation. Those are the two that I'm most concerned with. Victor Perlbachs: So you're concerned with this? Blackowiak: Yes, exactly. Because I think those will be not only most visible fi'om neighboring tenants but also from Lake Drive West and those apartments. I think that's kind of what they're going to see. Victor Perlbachs: I think what our attempt was, that through the use of color and the actually burnish block band, rock face block, two colors of rock face block and stone medallions, that that would be acceptable because the function of that kind of a building is purely warehousing. There's some high rack storage on the inside right up against those walls and there really is no, there's no need to have any other kind of relief in terms of glass because they'll be covered up. There's no, any setbacks in the building xvould cause a problem with forklift traffic and accessing the goods that are stored there. Blackowiak: Yeah I understand. I'm just sort of, I'm concerned about the outside. You know what the people are going to see and I'm just wondering what we can do to make it a little more interesting because the west elevation looks great. The rendering you had, and I'm assuming that was kind of from the southwest. It looked great but I am worried about, as you come from the east and are driving west 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 along Lake Drive. what you're going to see. I'm just wondering if staff's concern is, or am I just off base on this or. Victor Perlbachs: I think, ifI might just add that I think as you're coming up Lake Drive, you're looking up. You're going to see, you're going to be screened by the neighboring buildings and some of the natural vegetation I think that's down here. And you really won't catch much of a view of that side of the building probably from that perspective. Unless you were right on the site itself. Aanenson' Would you like our opinion? Blackowiak: Yes please. Al-Jarl: Well Lot 7 sits at a substantially higher elevation. Here's Lot 7. It sits at a substantially higher elevation than this parcel. Lot 1, Block. This is the Andreas Building right here. And one of our COllcerl-ls was, as you approach heading west, this elevation is going to be clear in fl'ont of you. Hopefully between tile landscaping as well as tile projecting columns you would be able to introduce some variation. Our ordinance allows variation through architecture but also landscaping. And staff believes that by incorporating a mix of both, landscaping as well as tile columns, you will be able to break up that wall. Now when we first started it was just a blank wall and we believe that we have been able to make quite a bit of progress. Sacchet: If I may jump in. Do you think there's enough of a variation in that v,;all to actually accomplish what you're trying to accomplish? Al-JaW: As compared to the previous. Let's use the previous building as an example, tile answer is no because with this one you have windows v,;rapping all around. You have tile canopies at entrances. There is contrast with the color variation so you have more variation with this one than you do with this one. Sacchet; On tile other hand that one is ftwther set back. I guess that wouldjustify relaxing a little bit that criteria, but then again my question is, do you think considering it's further back, and 3,es it's less architectural interest than the building that's closer to the street, you know to Lake Drive, does this satisfy what you were trying to accomplish in terms of adding interest? Al-JaW: I believe if we add the landscaping and with the projecting columns, yes. Sacchet: And would it be a reasonable assumption to make that with all these additional trees that are required on the property that...quite a few more back there as well. Because I think ultimately the trees is what's really going to make a difference. More so than those 4 inch whatever's. Not to put those down. If you're a couple hundred feet away the 4 inches aren't going to make much of a difference. Al-JaW: There's...you can always improve it. Sacchet: Well I don't mean to put it on you to figure out what is the number...more we have to decide here. Blackowiak: Yeah, and I realize it's a totally different use of the buildings too. I mean that's something to consider as well but I just want to make sure that as you drive down the street and, that we're getting what we want and that it's going to look nice and it doesn't have to be a duplicate of what's on the corner 36 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 but yet I think we still need to make sure that we're getting something that's not going to be an eyesore and people are going to say gee. You 'knoxv why didn't you, so. Alrighty. Sacchet: Got a question. Since we have trees and we have those 4 inch protrusions, what else could we do? I mean what else could we possibly do to make this thing more interesting? ! mean ! don't know. If anybody has a good idea, I would like to 'know. Awfully quiet. Based on that we can assume we did what we can, right? Blacko~viak: Well I don't ~vant to get into architecture of it, but maybe a different color. I mean there may be some options. I don't know that, and that's all I'm going to say and I don't want to specify what those should be because that's not my job. But I'm just saying, if we've explored it, if the staff is happy. If the applicant's happy, then okay. I'm a little more comfortable. I just want to make sure we're getting a good product and that's my concern. Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? Sidney: One quick question. What is the material of the columns that you're, the projections on the board here? Is that the rock face? Victor Perlbachs: Oh it is the two colors of rock face and then the square 2/3 of the way up to the top is that center so. Sidney: Okay. Burton: Any other questions? May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody would like to address the Planning Commission on this project, please approach the podium. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Okay, then we're onto comments. Anybody like to start? Kind: Sure MT'. Chair, I'll start. I think it's an attractive building. I like, especially what would be considered the fi'ont, which is that, essentially that west elevation. I think it's very nice. It was helpful to see that 3 dilnensional drawing and that gives you a good feel for what it's going to be like. I agree with staff. I'm somewhat concerned about that east elevation but I think the applicant has made a nice effort to address our concerns and having the medallions and kind of breaking up the space with the color changes. I think it does a nice job of that. I would definitely like to see the landscaping increased on that side, and I guess that would be my question of staff. Are you comfortable that what the landscaping buffer requires for that would be sufficient for breaking up that wall? Okay. And that condition we have in here for approval, which is number 25. And that just talks about the north and south property line. Sacchet: 27. Kind: 27. I guess to 27 I'd like to add something about increasing the landscaping on that east side. So other than that I think it looks like a nice project. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Burton: Anyone else? Sacchet: Yeah, I have two comments. I at first was a little uneasy with this because of the parking situation and the tree situation but seeing that it's very clear what the use of the building is going to be, and it appears that it's going to stay that use for a while. For a long while, it doesn't seem a very transient thing that's going to go in there. I think it makes sense. It's xvith the conditions that are there. I do like that, this condition number 27 is kind of open ended because I'm, I do think that east side looks a little dismal. Quite dismal. Very dismal. But with putting a little more ti/ought into it, I don't know fi'om the architectural side there is much more we can do. But certainly with the landscaping and since there's quite a nmnber of trees that will have to be added, I think that that will help overall. That's my comment. Burton: Thanks. Other comments? Blackowiak: No. I agree pretty much with what's been said. I do like the building. If we can beef up the east side a little bit. more power to you. I mean that would be nice. I think the landscaping will definitely help. I like tile idea of proof of parking. Even though my husband's in the asphalt business, you don't have to put it there. You know leave it green so yeah, I like that. Sidney: A few comments. I'm okay with the plan. I agree with Deb's comments about seeing if we can't add a. well add to condition 27 about increasing the amount of landscaping. I don't think the building is glamorous but. well oil that side but I think more trees would help. Burton: Okay. My comments are the same so luckily going last I don't have to add anything. So I'm open to a mot/on. Sacchet: Yes Mi'. Chair. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-01 for a 26,040 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassel~ Lakes Business Park 7t~' Addition as shown on the plans dated received January 19. 200I, subject to the folloxving 27 conditions. With two fixes. Number 3, add silt fence along the northerly property line and add a rock construction entrance to northerly driveway for the duration of construction. That's with the idea that it gets taken down promptly when it's over. And then number 27, the applicant shall introduce additional architectural relief along the east elevation of the building as ,,,,,ell as more landscaping. More trees. How do I sa3, that? Kind: Add additional landscaping? Sacchet: And added further landscaping. The meaning is certainly clear. Kind: I'll second that and I have a fl'iendly amendment. Sacchet: Please. Kind: I'd like to add condition 28 which is similar to the one I added to the previous applicant and that is that the interior portion of the U shall incorporate the same building materials used on other exterior elevations. It was not called out on the plans, because it's a reasonable assumption but I like to spell it ot~t. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: It's a reasonable condition. I accept that. Burton: I'm sorry. Kind: I seconded it. Burton: Okay. Sorry. I'm not catching these seconds. Any other discussion? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan 2001-1 for a 26,040 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated received January 19, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the plans to remove the concrete stoop from the public drainage and utility easement. 2. A 20-foot wide private utility and maintenance easement is required over each of the storm sewer lines and the proposed xvater line from Lot 8. 3. Add silt fence along the northerly property line and add a rock construction entrance to the nol~therly driveway for the duration of the construction. 4. The maximum slope for any handicapped parking or drop-off spot is 2%. Revise the handicapped parking spot on the west side of the building.to comply. 5. Each of the access drives must be enclosed in a private easement. Also, include a concrete drivexvay aPron on the northerly access drive. 6. The developer' shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Watershed District. 7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 8. Revise the site plan to comply with the maximum drive entrance width of 36 feet. The driveways should correspond with those shown on the grading plan. 9. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event prior to building permit approval. 10. Add a storm sewer schedule to the utility plan. 11. On the detail sheet, add City Detail Plate Nos. 2202 and 3101. 12. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 13. The existing water stub to the lot is 8" in size. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer is required. 39 Planning Colnmission Meeting - February 20, 2001 14. A 20-foot wide private utility easement shall be recorded for the water line which extends into Lot 7. 15. Revise the grading plan as follows' a. Show the location of the existing driveway offof Upland Circle for Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. b. Show the location of the existing street lights on the east side of Upland Circle. 16. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. 17. One ground loxv profile business sign is permitted pet' lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street fl'ontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the folloxving criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. ConsiStency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed fi'om the residential section south of the site. o Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be pe~unitted on the sign, i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff shall be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 18. Building Official Conditions: a. a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. b. The east portion of the north wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction as it is closet' than 20 feet to the property line. c. c. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. d. d. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 19. Fire Marshal conditions: a. PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the fire service water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. b. A 10-foot space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to 40 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991, and Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. d. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. e. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34- 1993. Copy enclosed. f. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention DMsion Policy #36-1994. o Comply xvith the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #47-t998. Copy enclosed. h. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Policy//4-1991. Copy enclosed. i. Submit radius turn and dimensions for parking lot access to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal to review and approve. 20. Only shielded light fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. 21.The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 22.Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment must be screened from views. 23.The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 24. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to meet minimum requirements of overstory tree plantings for boulevard and parking lot landscaping. 25. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for buffer yard planting along the north and south property lines. 41 Planning Comlnission Meeting- February 20, 2001 26. The city may require installation c?/'the additional pc~Hci;?< spaces whenever a need arises. 27. The applicant shall introduce additional architectural relief and additional landscaping along the east elevation of the building ." 28. The interior portion of the U shall incorporate the same building materials used on other exterior elevations. All voted iu favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON DOGWOOD LOTS 1-10, BLOCK 1, SUNSET HILLS ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND LOTS 1-5, BLOCK 1, GETSCH ADDITION AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ZIMMERMAN FARMS 1s~r ADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Nmne Address Scott & Maren Vergin Amy Adamson Barbara Freeman 7311 Dogwood Road 733 ] Dogwood Road 7431 Dogwood Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. It talks about this, how many lots is it? Number of lots specifically, and then the south one it says a portion of Lot 1. Block 1. I got a little bit of problem with that. A portion of, that seems not very specific. Generous: Well, the portion of that parcel that's westerly of an imaginary line for the extension of Dogwood Road. It shows up better on tile location map which is the second page of the report. There's the line that extends down from the end of the cul-de-sac. That's not there. That's just an arbitrary line drawn oil a lnap. Sacchet: So at this point that square is part of the whole stretch. Generous: Right. It's part of the property to the east. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. So the portion we're talking about is. Generous: Westerly of that line. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Is that clearly enough defined so it can't be misunderstood? Generous: Well that's why I tried into the recommendation west of a southerly extension of Dogwood Road. Sacchet: West of the southerly extension of Dogwood. Now that you explain it I understand it but to be honest before I didn't. Okay. Generous: And I don't know exactly how that happened. I think that's hdw it was broken up. It was an extension of that line. Sacchet: Okay. Well I understand it now. In the table of the lot sizes, the front is that last lot, that's 300. That's not 30 is it? The table on page 2. Generous: Well on Dogxvood there's only 30 feet of frontage. Sacchet: Oh. because that's only how much is actually on the road? Generous: Yeah. Sacchet: That's why 30 feet. Okay, because it's like the comer. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: On the cul-de-sac. Generous: Exactly. Sacchet: Got it. Ah'ight, that answers my questions. Thanks. Burton: Any other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Uli was talking, it's the same lot that Uli ~vas talking about, is currently zoned, that's the Zimmerman Farms 1st Addition. Is currently zoned rural residential. Generous: Correct. Kind: And the guided land use is rural large lot. So that particular lot is in sync. Generous: Correct. Kind: Complies with what our intent is. So theoretically we could leave that one lot out, because that one does comply. Sacchet: So why would we want to include it then? Generous: Well it was because the rest of the property is guided residential low density. I was just trying to make them all. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Be consistent. Generous: Right. Sacchet: Because that's the pm'pose of the whole exercise, alright. Burton: Other questions? Kind: That's it. Bm~ton: Bob. would this have any adverse affect on any of the current residents that's rezoninoo Generous: No. Tile land use amendment alone, it will bring their land use in to compliance with their zoning that exists, except for tile rural residential. Bmxon' Okay. Any other questions for staff?. Kind' Yes. I guess I do have one more. I just wanted to make it clear that. because I'm assuming that these lots are subdividable with the cuin'ent zoning, which is residential single family and that changing this land use has no affect on whether they're subdividable or not. Generous: Correct. They x','ot:ld have to comply with ordinance requirements. There's some steep slope issues out there. Tilex' would have to provide urban services to subdivide further. Kind: Because another option to bring this in compliance, tile land use and tile zoning would be to change tile zoning to rural residential, in which case they... 2 ~ acres. Generous: ...non-conforming, yes. Kind' Yes, so it makes more sense to go the other direction. Sacchet: I have another question if you're done. Burton: Go ahead. Sacchet: How does that work when we give a different zoning to two pa,-ts of the same lot, because that;s effectively what you are doing here? if we say that only the southwesterly portion or we call it southerly extension of west of the southerly extension of Dogwood, pa~'t of that lot is in that zoning. Generous: If you left it large lot you mean? Sacchet: Well, I'm not quite understanding how that works when at this point tile lot of record is that thick long chunk and now we're designating a part of it as something separate than the rest. Ho,,,,, does that, doesn't that create conflicts or possible confusions? Generous: Well you'd have to develop them differently. The stuff that's currently guided, guided for large lot would have to comply with the 2 ½ acre minimum lot size. The rest of it could go to 1 to 4 units per acre. Because it's guided lox',', residential lox,,, density. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Then do we know xvhether the owners are fine with this? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: There are people here tonight on this issue. Sacchet: Okay, I'll wait and hear any comments we get. Aanenson: This is one of the neighborhood meetings Bob did a couple ni~,hts or so. Sacchet: I would like to hear from the neighborhood. Or the owners preferably. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I guess I have a question, now that you are talking about this a little bit more. So help me out here. This lot, Zimmerman Farms 1st Addition. In other words we have a lot that... So it's that plus that, okay. And that's what I xvas thinking. And so we're trying, and you want to have, can you have two different zonings in one lot? You can. I know, and you're just making me think and I have to walk through it in lny head. I don't knoxv, I like that. I'm just, huh. Okay. I'll listen to the comments of the neighbors. Burton: Well then let's open it up for public hearing. Can I have a motion? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission, please approach the-podium and state your name and address. Barbara Freeman: I;m Barbara Freeman and I live at 7431 Dogwood. And my property is LOt 7, which originally xvas 7, 8, 9 and 10, and I guess I just want clarification. If that's changed to low density, does that mean that ! can have up to 4 units on that property? Generous: You'd have to go through the subdivision process and then xve would determine. You need a minimum of 20,000 square feet per lot with 90 feet of lake frontage, 90 feet of street frontage. Aanenson: Plus sewer and water. First step. Barbara Freeman: Well I don't plan to build 4 houses. Generous: The zoning's already in place for you to do that. This land use amendment doesn't impact that. Had we rezoned the property, proposed rezoning to rural residential, then you would be restricted in the number of units you would potentially get. Barbara Freeman: Another question. I'm not sure what the extension of Dogwood is that you're talking about. Generous: It's an imaginary line just to show where there's a separation between land uses. Barbara Freeman: You are not planning to extend though? Generous: No. 45 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Barbara Freeman' Okay'. Those are my questions, thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to discuss this one? Maren Christopher: I just, you know to her question. I'm Maren Christopher and I live at 7311 Dogwood Road. Could Crimson Bay Road get extended if the Brandt's, who are not here tonight, have said th%, want to sell off this other portion of their property. This is where they live. This is where their house is. This is just all farm fields and they want to sell that and dMde {t into other lots. If that happens then could Crimson Bay Road end up coming through and connecting to Dogwood? Aanenson: I can make a comment on that. When Crimson Bay went in, that discussion was held. The council made the decision at that time not to connect those two streets. I'm not willing to make that recommendation. The traffic, the City Engineer may. I doubt it. Someone would have to go itl and acquire additional right-of-way. The City wouldn't be the one to participate in getting that right-of-way. Someone developing the property because xve do not have the right-of-way to make that happen so I'm not sure what the will of the city would be to make that happen. There are other alternatives xvith Westwood coming ill, providing an additional outlet onto 41, which may be another option. Maren Christopher: I think what most of us are concerned about, anybody can speak for themselves but I think most of us are concerned about ail of this property and ail of the talk about it being developed. And we live in this really quaint, little whimpy area with a rural road and I guess we're all just a little nervous about everybody selling off and tile gentleman that lives here we heard has already sold and they're planning to develop his. We heard that the church may sell back this portion. The big house here, the guy that owns that is possibly keeping some acreage here, 5 or 6. He's not selling this property that he'd want to develop across the road fi'om our's and I think that's just, it just 1hakes us nervous. Changing all the zoning. I don't know. that's what I think we're mostly nervous about. Aanenson: Maybe I can respond to that. At tile neighborhood meeting that Bob held, probably over a month ago, Teresa Burgess was at that meeting too talking about that. We understand and that's why' the street wasn't connected. The uniqueness of that Dogwood area. Similar to what we have in Carver Beach. It is a unique area. We also have some septic problems up in that area. We are providing, if the Pulte project goes through and tile council approves BC-7, BC-8 extension to Westwood Church, there are pending development parcels. Parcels that want to petition for sewer and water. Does that mean sewer and water xvill come down there? Possibly. It's not our intent to change the character or force anybody to develop but we do have some problems that we're trying to address and given our alternative, and the best alternative is to provide municipal services. Speaking of Teresa, and I believe this was conveyed to the neighborhood, that we understand the uniqueness of that road that they're on right now. We want to preserve the character of what's up there. It's heavily wooded. It's a very unique area and we want to work with that and since it is a dead end street at that end, trying to provide another access, another alternative for development potential in that area. Burton' Okay, thanks. Anybody else? Jennifer Newell: ...I'm just wondering. I'm Jennifer, 7550 Dogwood Road. And I'm just wondering if, what direction do you think city water and sewer would come in if they start? Okay, if it comes to the church. 46 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Aanenson: It's coming in this way down Tanadoona. The church has looked at a couple different alternatives. You're right, there are people looking at these properties for further subdivision. If there's property that's subdivided.., so there are other alternatives we're looking at. Jennifer Newell: ... Okay, and so when you do...transferring it down the road. Aanenson: There are other alternatives too... I would recommend, there are plans in place with the city engineering. You might want to check with that too. Jennifer Newell: Alright. With this changing of what we've got here is not going to affect the land across the street fi'om us, is that correct? Gellerous: Correct. Saam: Correct. Burton: Anybody else? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing xvas closed. Burton: Discussion. Sacchet: Yeah. I think it's important to put your concerns to rest what. we're not really changing anything. What we're doing is w-e're lining up t~vo aspects. One is the'land use and the other one's the zoning so that they actually are the same, Right now they're not the same. As a matter of fact they're in conflict xvith each other so that's why staff bring this up and makes this proposal that we make these things match up. I mean it's not going to change really what's out there: It's going to line up the Zoning - and land use xvith each other. That's my understanding what xve're trying to do and as such I think it's a good thing. I'ln a little uneasy about this south lot. This big lot where xve end up having one quarter, the quarter by the lake in one zoning and the rest is another. I can see for consistency purposes how it make sense to do that. So I'm a little unclear what I would recommend for that south lot but other than that I think it's a reasonable thing to do. It's cleaning up something that is obviously in conflict with each other. Burton: Anybody else? Blackoxviak: Mr. Chair, I agree. That south lot is really giving me fits right now. I guess philosophically I'm not in agreement of splitting a lot into different zoning. It just doesn't make sense to me in my head because to me that almost is, it's almost like making a development decision for a property owner. I mean if a property owner wants to come in and develop a lot and get, request a certain zoning, I almost think it would be easier to work with that person and look at the entire lot and see how everything best fits together. But to give part of the lot one zoning and part of the lot another zoning, I don't 'know if that makes a lot of sense to me. So I would almost think that we could, well I would be maybe more comfortable totally excluding that Zimmerman Farms 1st Addition lot and just leave that as is because at this point it does meet current zoning. It is in concurrence with the land use so at this point I don't see the real need to change that because we're splitting a lot and I guess I just don't. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Aanenson: Just for the record, that lot is owned by Dee Brandt. She did speak to the. She didn't have a sitter for tonight and couldn't be here. She supported the staff repom I just want to make that part of the record. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: She's aware of the split. Blackowiak: Yeah. Well that's fine. I'm just saying that personally, I m~an it's one lot so why are we starting to split it down regardless of what the property owner wants. I mean, I don't know. Sacchet: And where do we draw tile line? I mean right nov,' tile line is lined up with middle of that dead end circle there that if we would potentially at some point want, the idea came up if it would be connected to tile Crimson Bay Road, then the lille would be drawn twice. It would have to be what? 10- 20 feet further over to the east. So that's why, yeah. Blackowiak: And I also would like to say that I really would not favor the extension of Crimson Bay Road because I think that's going to open a whole new can of worms, especially with Westwood Church going in. People would be using that as an opportunity to access Highway 5 and not get on Highway 41 and the traffic would just, it would just be unbearable I think for those neighbors so I would say, for xvhat it's worth, I know we're not talking about extending Crimson Road right now but boy, I sure would not favor any plan that would facilitate that because that just would be so bad for the neighborhood. And I don't know about that Zimmerman Farms lot. I think I prefer almost to leave it out. Kind: I'll go next. That was where I was going also was to leave off the Zinql'nerman lot because that one does comply and I think it makes sense for the rest to be changed to residential low density so I support that proposal fi'om staff with tile deletion of tile Zimmerman Farms. Burton: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess I agree with tile staff report. I'm looking at the shading on the staff report here and looking at what's west of Dogwood and what's east and I guess I don't have a problem with that. Split it along there as the zoning. Burton: I agree with LuAnn. I'm not concerned about rezoning the southern lot. The owners all had notice of the public lneeting and notice of this hearing. The owner of that lot supports this. Nobody spoke out against it. I'm not aware of any reason of concern fi'om tile lot about this rezoning. In fact the owner supports it and it may even be beneficial to the owner if we do it. And I don't it's odd that a parcel could have two zoning designations so I think it's fine the way it was. And I support the staff repot1 too. So we need a 1notion. Blackowiak: Well I see where this is going to fall. Sacchet: I think a little more discussion because I'm kind of in the middle. I can see it go through for consistency and I can see holding up because it splits the lot. So we kind of have a tie as a matter of fact. I'm undecided when it comes to this. Because I don't want to be a detriment to the owner of that lot by not including it in this zoning. But then on the other hand I share the concern. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Burton: It would most definitely be a detriment if it wasn't rezoned, wouldn't it? Because this gives them the opportunity to develop more parcels. Generous: They'd get at least 2 lakeshore lots. Burton: Right. Otherwise they could not. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: By leaving it, it could not be subdivided. Burton: You'd only have one lakeshore lot. You could have 2 if you redo this. Sacchet: So it would be a detriment to the cmTent owner if we don't include it at this point? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: But depending on what your point of view is. It could be a detriment to the lake to subdivide it and add another lake lot. Sacchet: Yeah. but you could say that's kind of unfair. Everybody around it gets it. Kind: Not to the south. Those are all large lot. Sacchet: They're all large lot? Aanenson: They'll probably never have sewer and water. Burtoll: Well hoxv are they guided? Kind: Large lot. Aanenson: They're on septic and wells. Blackowiak: My point is, wasn't this the glitch ordinance amendment? In other words, we were supposed to go through and figure out what didn't comply and rezone all those things that didn't comply. Kind: This complies. Blackowiak: Here we have a lot that I don't think is in any question non-compliant. I mean everyone agrees it complies with what it's zoned right now so why are we changing? Aren't we supposed to just go and clean up things that don't comply and then, is it our job to be proactive and rezone? I don't know. I don't think it is. I mean my understanding was this was glitch ordinance. Or not glitch ordinance, but you know, does it make sense. Is the land use consistent with the zoning? If it isn't, clean it up. Otherwise I mean why. Burton: If we didn't include this the owner of that southern lot could come in and ask for a rezone. Aanenson: Absolutely. 49 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20. 2001 Blackowiak: Right. Right. Burton: Then I'm fine. Blackoxviak: See I think that they should actually colne in and ask if it's not in, you know xvhat I'm saying? If it's in compliance, I say we leave it. I mean I don't think ourjob is to be proactive in changing things if they're in compliance. Without a compelling reason. Sacchet: lfI can clarify something. If we don't include that Zimmerman Addition piece, that lot would be bundled in xvith the large lots on the south. The Crimson Bay. I mean it would be like an island to itself. It would just, we would draw tile line over the no~% of that lot where tile two zonings butt into each other. Run it on the south and yeah I think that should be, I think that for me se~les it. I would then say not to include it. Burton: Okay. Blackowiak: And if they want to colne back in and petition for rezoning, then so be it. Then we look at it more, you know overall as a single lot as opposed to a lot with two different zonings. Sacchet: So are we ready for a motion? Kind: Mi'. Chah' I'll make a motion.- I nlove the Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use Map Amendment of Lots I thl'ough 7, Block 1, Sunset Hill on Lake Milmewashta and Lots 1 thl'otlgh 5, Block 1. Getsch Addition. fi'om Residential-Large Lot to Residential-Low Density. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Burton: All3.' discussion? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use Map Amendment of Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewashta and Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Getsch Addition, from Residential-Large Lot to Residential-Low Density. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7305 GALPIN BOULEVARD, PID//25.0101300 AND 25.0101600, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Bob Shultz Doris French Jan Maryska Jeanne Gilbertson 2166 Baneben'y Way 2189 Banebe~W Way West 2175 BanebelTy Way West 2170 Baneberry Way West 50 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Matt Bosin 7757 Buttercup Court Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions for staff. Sacchet: Yeah, two questions. Access to the property. Would that be from that private street to the townhouses there? Generous: Baneberry Way West would be the future access of the site. And I attached right at the back of the staff report there's a little private street. Sacchet: So the access would be fi'om that side? Generous: Yes. There's a ban'icade up and this road would be extended in the future. Sacchet: Well I'm confused, what about that's, it's a private street. Generous' Right. Sacchet: That has no bearing? That's still the access for it? Generous: Correct. That's what we worked out as part of our review of the overall development of that area. _ Sacchet: Now in terms of how' much of that is iu the BluffCreek watershed, you said it's about a third. Generous: No, that was an estimate. It would actually be up to the developer to come in and show us where that line should be. Sacchet: Because that's my main concern with this is, with this Bluff Creek watershed aspect, there is the density transfer element. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So if xve say we change this from low density or mediuln density, can then the developer come in and get a density transfer on top of that? And say, and then in the end it becomes effectively high density? Generous: Well the actual building may be but the density transfer is only for the units that they could have provided had the overlay district not been in place. The creek actually runs north of the south property line so there's some undevelopable land south of that and there's some undevelopable land north of that. Sacchet: So wouldn't that be better to leave it low density and then with the density transfer, it could become medium density? Because if you make it medium density now, then with the density transfer it's effectively becoming high density. Generous: We have no ordinance that permits that. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Explain please. Aanenson: It's the same situation as Pulte. You can't do a density transfer in the low density so if they come back in and we say we're not going to let you do the density transfer, then we're back to xvhere we are. Where you can't use the tool. Sacchet: You're saying we cannot do density transfer with low density? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: We can only do it with medium? Aanenson: Correct. Because you only have three zoning options in low density. The 15.000 square foot lot, the 11.000 minimum, average 15 or twin home. You can't do...which is more than likely what it would be. Sacchet: So, I should probably pass it on but. So if we do make this medium density, I'm trying to follow this logic. Then we make it possible that there can be a density transfer based on the context of the Bluff Creek. Aanenson: Your question is, if there's x amount of upland area, and they want to transfer, could they instead of' putting 6 units on there, could they now put 12. Sacchet: Right. I mean it seems like we're going in one direction already as much as we probably want to go and then they can go another whole couple of steps that direction based on the transfer on top of it. Aanenson: The other resolution is to do what we recommended two years ago and that's to amend the PUD ordinance to allow, in the low density, which was our recommendation. That's in the glitch that's been held up. Sacchet: To actually aIIow density transfer to low density? Aanenson: Correct. For some circumstances in the Bluff Creek district or the like. Sacchet: That would make more sense here to me personally. But I've talked enough. Aanenson: That's an option. Burton: Other questions? Kind: No. That was my same question. Blackowiak: Well I guess I have a couple questions Mr. Chair. In the staff report it says that when Walnut Grove was being reviewed the city stated the Hennessy prope~ty should be developed as a townhouse project. Does the city and city staff still believe that? Aanenson: Yes. That should be consistent. Again, if you look at the topography of that, you've got the creek running through it. It's a pinched piece of property. You've got 2 homes backing onto a collector 52 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 street. Really for tile benefit of the property it should orient and give you better access back through the subdivision. Blackowiak: So maybe the back of the, you're saying the back of the homes go towards. Aanenson: Right, put the buffer back on Galpin and then that creek comes up here. Most of this is in the Bluff Creek overlay district.., create a better buffer there. Blackowiak: So what would be then your ideal density in that? I mean let's say that we have a density of transfer in a PUD that you can use in the residential low density case. What are you looking for in there? Aanenson: Total number of units? I don't M~ow what the exact acreage upland is. I couldn't say without looking at it. If you wanted us to come back and give you some more detail on that, that's probably. Blackowiak: Yeah, because it sounds like xvhat you were saying about you being able to use the density transfer tool and tile PUD for low density residential, is really xvhat we're looking for in this because I don't xvant to get into a situation, like Uli said, where you can have a medium density designation and then they can use the density transfer tool to bump it up higher than we had anticipated or higher than we hoped to develop. So I think we may need to take a look at this a little more closely so we don't get in something we don't want to get into. Sacchet: If I may add another question to this. Obviously this is a PUD next door. Aanenson: Con'ect. Sacchet: But is that density there relative to medium or is it relative to high? Aanenson: 5.7 Generous: It's medium, 5.7. Sacchet: It is medium. Because that's what I was going to say, if it's already high there too then it would be. Aanenson: Correct, but the question is, what's the ultimate unit mix so I think we can spend some time looking at that, but that's why we recommend the medium because the other's 5.7. But does that mean this ends up being 8, and that's what I hear you say your question is so... Kind: I have the exact same concern. I think we should look at amending the PUD ordinance as another way of addressing this issue. Aanenson: Again it's product driven. I mean if it's a townhouse as opposed to a stacked unit, that's going to affect some of these but we'll take a look at that. If you want to table this, we're the applicant. Bmlon: Well should we get some comments? Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 53 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Burton: Anybody that would like to address the commission, please approach the podium. State >,our name and address. Doris French: I'm Doris French and I live at 2189 Baneberry and what I'm wondering about was the road. The road's owned by the association. Maintained by tile association. If there's a development put in at the end of the road, is that... Aanenson: They'd have to do ail association. Somehow work that out. Be part of the association. Generous: Share the cost for maintenance and clean-up and all that, yeah. But they would have to pay for the extension as part of their development. Doris French: That was my only question. Matt Bosin: Good evening. I'll try to make this short and sweet. My name's Matt Bosin. I live at 7757 Buttercup Cotu1. I'm actually tile President of the Walnut Grove Townhonm Association. My concern is of the sallie here. Is in regards to that road. Not only the extension and whether or not, it's obviously that parcel of land is an island. You're saying access is mainly coming fi'om our private road. That road is designated at 15 miles per hour. There's kids, dogs, you know and now you're going to put another sort of section there. I'm a little concerned about that. I mean in regards to shared cost because it's a private road. You know the association, our association dues go towards maintaining that road. That goes is ah'eady narrower than a commonly city street. That's why xve have ilo parking on it. On the street at all. And also, [ mean there's 168 units in there now. My concern-is that Wit becomes destined for medium density, that it would be townhomes or something of that nature and the fa,cade of whatever was the developer, would be close to what exists there now. Because if it's completely different, you're talking, i£you're talking 8 units, 12 units; however many units you're talking about ill that land, it would just look odd. Then is that road, Baneberry West going to extend into Galpin? Getlerous: No. Aanenson: No. That's why it was extended. Matt Bosin: Because obviously' out of that development, with they're coming right down that private road to try to catch Arboretum Boulevard. Btu~ton: That won't happen. Matt Bosin: Those are/ny' concerns. I sort of agree with what I'm hearing here is that it be Iow density PUD. I don't want to see it go fi'om medium and then have a developer come in and all of a sudden come for a variance and say, I want it high development. Until there was an actual plan there, I don't see the need to, without further investigation, rezoning or so forth here. Thank you. Burton: Okay, thanks. Anybody else? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: All3,' more discussion or I think we kind of had... Aanenson: We'll waive our 60 day. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Burton: Do you want to make a motion? Sacchet: Move to table. Blackowiak: Second. Sacchet moved, Blackosviak seconded to table the Land Use Map Amendment request for the properly located at 7305 Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and th~ motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. NEW BUSINESS. Burton' Kate, any new business? Aanenson: Thank you. Did you get this in your packet? Sacchet: Yes. Aanenson: Great. There were two articles. I'm hoping that you, if you haven't had a chance to look at, the one on architecture on... Blackowiak: The photos? Aanenson' Public libraries and park buildings and hoxv important they ~vere. And then there was a great m~icle on design guidelines too so if you get a chance. I 'know you just got it and you have a lot of other reading material but this is a good magazine and I hOpe you get a chance, at least glean it a little bit. Burton' Okay, thanks. Aanenson: I xvant to tell you on the March 6th meeting we do have a variance and a couple of code amendments. Again those are precipitated by landscaping requirements. Burton: Excuse lne, can you guys go out in the hall please. Aanenson: Then so we will have a meeting then on March 6th. And the just a reminder, the March 5th you're meeting with the City Council at 7:30. I'll send you another e-mail just to remind you. Blackowiak: Please do. Aanenson: They will be interviewing. I think they're going to break down the interview for filling the one vacancy now, because there's a time crunch to do all the interviews and then maybe wait 2 weeks and do the vacancy for the commissioners that expire. Filling Craig's seat first. Getting those interviews going and then do the additional interviews that need to take place. So, we're setting those up. Kind: So no decision has been made there? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Aanenson' No. But it is scheduled for their next council meeting. As part of their work session they would be doing interviews, but the critical one they're trying to get filled is tile vacancy one and then tile other ones don't actually become void until April 1st but we'll get those underway too. Blackowiak: So will they use the same pool of applicants that we've ah'eady interviewed? Aanenson: Yes. Then on the February 17 meeting, Pulte was tabled til March 12s'. The Crestview subdivision was approved. That was the lot off of Galpin. Kind' How about Benson? The variance. Sacchet: That was approved. Kind: All approved? AallellSOll' Yes. Generous: Tilex' limited it to a rambler. Sacchet' Oh tile>, took it down frol'l! the tower? Aanenson: Yeah. to a rambler. Meeting all the setbacks. Generous' Setbacks with tile impervious surface variance. Sacchet: That makes sense. Kind: \Ve considered doing that too. Aanenson' That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 16, 2001 as presented. OPEN DISCUSSION. Kind: I have a couple items for open discussion. Lakeshore setbacks. It's come up a couple times recently where tile neighboring structures are so much further back that you just couldn't possibly meet tile average between them. I'm wondering if we should take a look at the language of our ordinance for that so that, so we have some clarity on what to do there. Painted block is another thing I'd like staff to take a look at it. As to whether that's allowed in our city or not. I couldn't find anything in the ordinance book about it and that was part of my rationale for inside the U. Making sure that that's rock face block and not just painted cinder block. Because the new CSM buildings on Lake Drive East have painted block inside there and I couldn't find anb<hing in our ordinance that actually prohibits that and I'm wondering if we should take a look at prohibiting that. Let's see. Oh, also in our ordinance book there's, I couldn't find anything where we put this limitation on tile Ashling Meadows. That it can only' use the upland for lot size calculations and you cannot include wetlands as a part of your lot. I couldn't find an3.' ordinance in there that says that. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 20, 2001 Aanenson' If you look under density, there's a net and a gross and it tells you what the definition is. If you look under the definition section of net and gross density. Kind: Does it say in there that you cannot use the wetland? Aanenson: Yes. Also in the comprehensive plan, when we went through our code amendment ~vith the Met Council, because some communities count densities on gross. We're one of the few that do net and xve specifically leave in our comp plan for the Met Council, we took out right-of-way. Public. If it's private, it counts with your density, and wetlands. Kind: Okay. I'll maybe give you a call and find, because I couldn't find it in there and I saw that staff's recommendation xvas for that and the applicant was ~villing to do it so I think it was great but I just wanted to make sure that we have that in our ordinance. And then the other question I have is, ~ve have our staff that's 15,000 square feet and then the next size up from that is 2 ½ acres. Can we have solnething inbetween? Generous: You can have a 1 acre RSF. Kind: Is there such a tiling? ! mean could we create something like that? Sacchet: There's no reason why it has to be limited to. Kind' To one or tile other. Itjust seems like a huge difference between the txvo, and I'd be interested in staff' s perspective. Aanenson: If it's so.mething where you're putting municipal services, I just don't think that's going to happen based on the land values. The way the cUrrent zoning says is we allow the compressi'on of the 1 per I0 still applies if you're outside the MUSA. You can go as small as 15,000 if you can get the 2 drainfield sites. So there is flexibility. We've seen some that are under 1 acre. The rest in an outlot until such time as they can get services. But for a 1 acre, you can certainly do it. I think in these lots, if you look at the average on this one, which by the way was the staff's recommendation to do a straight subdivision. That suggestion wasn't made by the developer. And I think he agrees there were problems. That if you looked at that average lot size, which I don't have in front of me right now, those were larger. Again it depends on... Kind: They're all 20,000 or more. Aanenson: Right, and the prototype of those homes, you can see the one he put up there, are a little bit bigger. Not always 60 x 60. That one was what? 40 x 80? Yeah, so again a little bit different so they're colning in with a different style. Again they're trying to get different market points too. But yeah, I think they were a little bit larger. Maybe closer to 20 average. Kind: That's it. Okay. Sacchet: A question is that Whitetail Cove thing, is that gone or is it going to come back? Aanenson' The applicant is working with the developer to take that entire property out. If he could, they have a contingency they would like to keep it as one lot. The developer. If he can find a buyer for the one lot then it would remain as one lot. 57 Planning Commission Meeting- February 20, 2001 Sacchet: Get a quantity discount for getting that big of lot. Aanenson: An expensive one lot. Blackowiak: That's a nice lot. Aanenson: Very nice lot. Sacchet: In tile same context. Aanenson: So excuse me, just a follow-up. So I think their contingency runs out somev,'here in August so if it doesn't get sold it will probably come back for a subdivision. Sacchet: In the same context, our resource department on a few things, like in this context also and one of the other things we looked at tonight, are there any aspects we need to look into based on the points that were found by tile Paulson's? Aanenson: I don't believe so. Sacchet: Sure appreciate your support. Burton: Okay, anything else? Chairman Burton adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 58