Loading...
5 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Project Engineer COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Jansen Public Present for AH Items: Name Address Janet & Jerry Paulsen Deb Lloyd OATH OF oFFICE: 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Chairwoman Blackowiak administered the Oath of Office to Bruce Feik. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 32,000 SO. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 5.4 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) LOCATED AT 2860 WATER TOWER PLACE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2N° ADDITION, PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, does anyone have questions for staff?. You're nodding Deb. Why don't you step in. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a couple questions. Thanks for clarifying the impervious surface. I have that question, about the 75% and that must mean that the other buildings are way below if the average is still only 65% or whatever you said it was. Generous: Well they varied the least amount was 56.7% and the most was 75. Kind: And do you know what the applicant's reasons are for the number of parking stalls exceeding, let's see, I think it's by 26? Is that what it is? Yeah, they have 26 extra stalls. Generous: Not their specific reason. It could be that the safety in numbers. I'm not sure. Kind: I'll ask the applicant that. And then there's one other question and that had to do with your comment about the west wall. I've got to see ifI can find the page. I'm looking here. Let's see. I lost it Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Bob. Do you remember where that was when you were talking about the west wall and it's not adorned? Oh, it's in the summary part. Generous: Yeah, it's in the summary. It's also in the architecture. Kind: Well actually the question I have is, it's not included in a condition. The idea of using the three building materials on that west wall and would you be okay with that in as a condition? Generous: Yes. It's in the second paragraph on page 2. Kind: Thank you. The west elevation shall incorporate the three primary materials along it's length is kind of the language I was thinking about. And that' s it. Blackowiak: Okay, any other commissioners questions? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I'm wondering Bob if you could explain how the loading docks will be screened. I see some wall extensions and I guess berming and landscaping is a concern because the building site is really perched up at a high elevation and it will be visible from 5. Generous: I need to go to the grading plan. The site, it will be higher than, significantly higher than Highway 5 and that in itself acts as a berm so the site views will be over the top. You won't see the base of the building specifically from Highway 5, and the loading docks themselves are actually lower than this elevation. There will be a 3 foot berm. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. Bob, the building will be significantly lower than Highway 5, right? Generous: No, it will be higher. Kind: Okay. Generous: But the loading dock will be lower than the edge of the property so it will be sunk below the sight line. The 3 foot berm in this area of the property and then the site runs down and I don't remember the finished floor elevation. Maybe Mr. Richter knows what they're going to put. In the future there will be additional buildings to the north. There's the 20 acre piece on the comer will have a corporate headquarters site so there will be significant buildings there. Additionally right on Highway 5 we anticipate more commercial type uses. Hotel, maybe a restaurant. Office building up there so those will help to screen the back side but the specific screening would be the landscaping berming on the north side of the property. Sidney: And the applicant is aware of that and will be screening as much as possible? Generous: Yes. Well they've seen the staff report. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a few questions. Can you point, you're requesting additional parking peninsula' s. I mean peninsula's in the parking. Could you point out where they are for clarification please. Generous: One on the north end of this eastern parking lot and then two additional ones on the north parking area. That basically is 1 every 100 feet that our ordinance requires. It's a good rule of thumb that we use. Our vehicular use areas require a landscape island for every 6,000 square feet of area and so that's, because it's a 62 foot general width, that's every 100 feet you should see one. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers that one. Then my second question, there seems to be some unclarity in relation to the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In a report you're making a case that it appears that it is within the secondary corridor of the Bluff Creek Overlay, but then you go on explaining that you think well the line is really not applicable anymore because there was some wetland alteration. And that the second rezone should be pushed to the other side of the street there, whatever the road is called. Which all sounds fairly reasonable. My concern however is, who decides where those lines are? I mean it does seems to me this Bluff Creek Overlay boundaries shouldn't just that easily be pushed around wherever we want them or don't want them. So my question is, who decides where those lines really are? Aanenson: That's a good question. This project came in under an area wide review. An environmental assessment document was done on this project. All the wetlands and the forest and inventory was done and a plan was put in place that they are following. When the overlay district was put in place it ignored the fact that this already had an environmental assessment document done and they are following that and that is really the guiding document for this. We already allow these, there's a wetland to be altered with the plan so those have already been removed so the problem with the overlay district ignored that. We believe that the way the rules are in place is what we should be following and that's the environmental assessment document so that's the guiding document. The environmental assessment and it did contemplate the wetlands. All the things that would apply to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and that's why we incorporated saving those properties. These two large wetlands and leaving those as open space, and alteration of those fingers. So it's already been altered is what we're saying. The overlay district. Sacchet: And it was altered by the assessment? Aanenson: Correct. That was the overriding document, so that's the document that we're following. Sacchet: So to answer then the question who decides where these lines are, who makes those environmental assessment sheets? Aanenson: We did when we adopted their environmental assessment. We approved that as part of this PUD. So that is now the framework that we're following. So the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City Council adopted it and those are the guiding principles that we're following. Sacchet: So it went through the whole due process in terms of city approval, council, input from the residents, what have you? Aanenson: Correct. Correct, and how we manage the storm water. Which property we would preserve, etc. Sacchet: Because I think that's a very important point. If we have this Bluff Creek Overlay and we can just shift those boundaries around whichever is convenient or inconvenient, they're useless. I'm ! Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 reassured to hear that there's a process to make sure that it done in a proper way. I have a few questions that then go into actually the conditions that were attached here. I know it's premature to address those. What's the difference between condition 14 and condition 28? They both require professional license in State to sign the plans, Is that actually two different professionals or? Generous: No, one was. 28 was building officials comments and he'll deal more with the building itself and the utilities that serve the property. The other one is with the grading from the civil plan. Sacchet: So it's two different people? Generous: It could be the same person but two different issues they have to address. Sacchet: I gathered it came from different departments but I also gathered it could be the same person. There's another one that's worth asking at this stage. Condition 17 talks about manhole 1. That that is basically where eventually the building will be expanded in the future so why wouldn't we put that in a different place from the start? Is there a reason from your end? I'll ask the applicant actually that question but I wonder whether staff had a comment about that. Saam: Planning Commissioners, I can comment on that. Yeah, I would recommend we ask the applicant. It's my guess that the reason they put it there is because that's where they want the service for the building addition to go in, so they'll just remove that pipe when they add the new building in, but again we could ask the applicant. Sacchet: Thanks. That's all my questions Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Rich, do you have a question? Slagle: Just one question Madam Chair. On the map that was on the overhead screen just a minute ago. Not that one. The one that showed the streets and the lots that had, or the locations Kate. Yeah, there we go. So based upon your comment that a lot of this has been pre-approved in the previous PUD with the Planning Commission, that would say then that we're going to have another lot, I don't remember which one. It may be Lot 1 up above that Outlot A that's going to have the same thing. Where it's been, there was a wetland or something that was understood that we would. Aanenson: That's correct. When this PUD was put together there was a list of uses that could go in there, and then there were design standards that were put in place. There was a wetland alteration. There was also land dedication. The extraction, trails. All that was negotiated as part of the PUD so as each site plan comes in, and Bob has attached for your review, those original framework discussion points so this is what we're measuring that up against. Slagle: And based upon what I saw in seeing this, there's one lot left that will have the same situation where it falls within the Bluff Creek but had some grandfathering clause or something like that in it. Generous: I think that it's the properties to the east that were in the Bluff Creek Overlay. Slagle: East of Coulter, right? Or east of Century. Generous: Century. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Slagle: Yeah, I think this one right up here I believe. Generous: The north one and the south one would have to receive conditional use permit approval because they are still within where the Bluff Creek, we believe the Bluff Creek Overlay District is. Slagle: Okay. Okay, fair enough. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, any questions of staff?. Feik: No. Blackowiak: I just have one I guess clarification Bob on, Deb touched on the western elevation. Three primary materials but if you read down and look at the final paragraph on that same page, it talks about the post expansion elevation having at minimum 2 building materials. So is it 3 or is it 2? I guess what's your recommendation? Generous: Well 3 would continue the material from the other 3 sides of the building. That was just my take of what that elevation looked like. They had the base block and then the brick above and they didn't continue the striping and I would suggest that they continue that striping across. Blackowiak: Okay. It's a wording thing I guess. Fine. Alrighty. We have no more questions. Will the applicant or their designee like to come forward and make a presentation? Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Joe Roth: Good evening. My name is Joe Roth. I'm employed by Park Management Corporation. Right now I live in Medina, Ohio. I'll be relocating to Minnesota this month or this summer I should say. I'm here with some other people. Jim Chokan is our Operations Manager out of Chicago. And Victoria Shen and Cintia Ulloa. Sacchet: Welcome. Joe Roth: Thank you. Fred Richter's here as well is our developer. Fred Richter: And I'll probably speak to most of the questions. And if you'd like me to just give you, I think the staff' s done a good job of giving an overview but I can kind of clarify several things. First off, on the overall plan, I guess I wasn't aware that the Planning Commission really hasn't seen our rendition on a larger color overlay. I just want to give you a little overview. This park went through the city PUD AU. Aanenson: AUAR. Fred Richter: AUAR for '97. It became then a development contract with the city that we would follow certain guidelines and so on. It was a very elaborate process and in that process certain wetlands were actually intensified. NURP ponds were created. We have a central storm water drainage and then the city followed through with several utility and street projects. One of the features of the Arboretum Business Park is it's topography. It steps from almost 50 feet from the lower area here up to the top. The terrace is, which impacts this one. This building will be set at 993. For your reference, Highway 5 at the intersection of 41 is about 990. It raises up to a point about 997 where it intersects with Century Boulevard and then starts to dip down. And that actually becomes the new grading project which... So Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 to answer your question 5 for the most part is on grade with this project. One of the features of the park building 2 is quite a bit lower. I don't recall the exact elevation there but it's probably 15-20 feet lower than this building and hence this lot here will be about another 15 feet higher. The highest point is 1015, which is right by the water tower. So you can kind of get a sense of the topography. One of the things then from a landscape feature, these sloped areas will be heavily landscaped and the park has kind of a built in break-up of the different industrial buildings so it gives it character through the terracing. In addition to the landscaping and streetscape that is part of it' s own package. As far as this project is concern, the two major images, the back corner probably viewed as people enter on Century and then as people come up Water Tower, the real front entrance of the building, which becomes the rendering. So this is the approach coming up Water Tower Place. Front entrance of the building. This is the east elevation, and there's been some discussion about the west elevation. The west elevation, the owner desires an expansion. Well Parker Hannifen is a large corporation that's investing in Minnesota. Making this a major part of the worldwide enterprise and they want this one to expand. As stated we're going from the original 32,000 square feet to 64,000 square feet. There was one question about parking numbers. A lot of that has to do with, we kind of over built the parking to begin with, so their concern is to be able to tear that wall out and integrate their factory expansion. If you look at an elevation of that west wall, we have on the corner the same facade elevations that are to the south and southeast corner and that is the dark burnish block going up to window head height with a brick band and then going into a banding of the burnish scored...about 44 feet, and then we get into the expansion wall which has been detailed as all burnish block. It'd be very easy to accommodate the contrasting colors. So we could make this dark and on top. I think after that adding the brick bands, given the life expectancy of the wall, approximately 5 years, would be kind of a waste of money. And then one other I think mitigating circumstance in this building. This building will be blocked by another building that will come between it and 41. It also steps down so there's a landscape terrace of this wall. It's really not viewed by the public to any great extent and it already has, by virtue of this corner, the three materials at this point. The owner did want to go with metal panels...would be easier to tear down and expand. But they're willing to accept the fact that the PUD and other things don't accept the panels on the basic construction of the building... Other than that we've talked with staff and except on the east facade, the owner is willing to look at a trellis or some recall of this plan over the break area. And then we'll do some more vertical landscaping, larger landscaping between the cars and the building to meet the break-up of that east wall. Other than that, kind of just try to get you started. There might be some other detail questions. There was one engineering question, and I think we'll have to work that out with staff because it gets pretty complex. That manhole 1 gets pretty technical. It has a lot to do with building expansion. Having the right invert for future toilets and so on and they, Parker has in-house engineering. We've already looked at an option of doing it another way but the intent there is just to make sure this building...needs to be expanded. I think the other things, storm water and that are pretty straight forward on this site. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Question about, what does Parker do? We didn't hear about what your capacities are. I heard factory. I hear manufacturing, and I thought I read hydraulics but I wasn't quite sure if I saw that correctly on the sign. James Chokan: Yes, exactly. Parker Hannifen Corporation is located it's headquarters in Urban, Ohio. We're a $6 million company in the Fortune 500. We have 258 locations throughout the United States, and 34 countries and what...we purchased a company at this location in Chanhassen up here about 5, roughly about a year ago. The acquisition was called Commercial Intertech which they purchased a smaller company, CEC about a year before that. This place was actually going to be on the chopping block 6 months ago. A decision was to bring this location back to Chicago and at that time we came up Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 here, took a look at the operation. Saw what this was and decided to move it up to this location. The bought building is leased right now is too small. What we actually manufacture is a metal and steel aluminum block, and it's cut. It's formed and then it's actually shipped all over the world. It's not heavy machinery but it's hydraulic blocks that we have to ship customers like John Deere, Catepillar... That's the type of product we manufacture. Sidney: One question about, do you require any special ventilation or, I'm thinking about rooftop assemblies or whatever that might be different. James Chokan: In this operation we won't need that. Sidney: There will be standard ventilation type equipment. James Chokan: That's correct. There won't be any burnishing or... Sidney: That's what I was wondering. Blackowiak: Questions for applicant? Sacchet: Well actually you did an excellent job answering the questions. One of my key questions was how soon you would be planning to expand and you said it's going to be about 5 years. James Chokan: It's going to be about 5 years. Sacchet: You're pretty confident about that? James Chokan: I'd say, my boss wants it in 3 years and I'm hopeful. Sacchet; You think 5 is more realistic though? James Chokan: ...5 year span. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, and then how to make the east elevation more interesting. You addressed that already. There's quite a big chunk with landscaping requirements. You're fine with that? James Chokan: I don't have a problem with that. Sacchet: Landscape, those peninsula's in the parking lot...an issue for you guys? Fred Richter: Let me point out, and I didn't mean to speak here but what we showed on the plan, I'll just call your attention to it. This was really proof of parking. They probably won't use it. And I think in the interim they would prefer to have the truck maneuverability. If we start to get the islands in there. James Chokan: We actually didn't really want any parking spaces along this line here so that's probably where the extras have come from. We wanted this to be open. Generous: If you pave it you need to put the islands in. If you leave it green, then you wouldn't have to. James Chokan: I see. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Fred Richter: You'll have to fine tune those dimensions to make sure the trucks can make the turn. If we do at the same time...setback and try to get that berm in there and ! tried to...as I stand here...those islands are going to help the situation but. Other than that Bob, we were okay on the islands on the south. Generous: There was one on the end to protect that last stall. Fred Richter: Yeah, okay. Blackowiak: Uli, more questions? Sacchet: Actually I'm almost through here. The two details. One is the thing that you can have wall signage on one of the walls. I think on your drawings you had it on two of them. I don't know whether that's an issue for you guys. Fred Richter: We labeled them as alternate signage~ They would like to, once the building is up, depending on, they have the monument sign, I'll go back to the site plan. They have the monument sign here which is in the rendering. And there's an image out here that kind of, as people come into the business park on Century from Highway 5 and whether or not the sign is going to be in our best interest here or over here, so that can be just one sign depending on how it works out. Sacchet: That's just a detail. And you touched on the manhole. I mean I'm not an engineer but it just seemed funny to put a manhole where then you have to remove it but I'I1 stay out of that one. Blackowiak: Good= Fred Richter: It happened at the base... Blackowiak: Rich, do you have any questions? Slagle: Just two questions Madam Chair. First, Bob are you then comfortable with the peninsula's? You'll work that out? Generous: Yeah, they'll work it out. Slagle: Okay, good. And then sort of tongue in cheek but just want to make sure. So if I look at this nice rendition of the building and you're going to expand in 5 years, we won't have this many trees. Fred Richter: You will have that many trees. Slagle: Okay° Now will those be in danger of being? Fred Richter: No. Again Bob, you've got to understand Arboretum Business Park is, in the metropolitan area and I say this in all seriousness, a very unique industrial development because most industrial land ends up like down in Shakopee or in fairly fiat areas. This was a very hilly, so those trees that are in that rendering are on this hill right here and we can't disrupt that basically. Even when they expand they've got, well I guess right now we're requesting this 64,000 square feet and all that but they would be in the retaining walls and a great deal of expense to maximize it too what basically would be the setbacks. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Then I think when we really get into our floor area ratios and our green coverage, it all works in this park. It kind of grade to these terraces. If you look at our latest building across the water tower to the south, we basically graded to the terraces and everything that falls off of that, you get to the edge of the parking and so on. Slagle: Now is that Heartland America? Fred Richter: Well Heartland and then behind that is the Arboretum... And that whole hill behind Heartland has vegetation growing and will become a bigger feature as time goes on. Slagle: Okay. Well good. Blackowiak: Deb, you have any questions? Kind: Yes I have a question about that parking situation. If you just remove those stalls along that, is that 26? Is it 26 stalls? I mean you've got extra so why not just get rid of those if you need turning radius. Aanenson: That's what he's going to do. James Chokan: There's 30 there and so those weren't even planned. I mean you...so those 30 can go away. Kind: So that would maybe solve your problem and you still meet ordinance with the 82. Or close to it. Maybe you need a few on the side there. And then I have a question about the west elevation. The temporary wall that will be there for 5 years, hopefully less. It's your proposal that to create more interest on there to actually paint the block? Fred Richter: Oh no. No we are, just so you know, we're doing integral colors all the way around the building. I'm saying what we could do, and I'm looking out for their interest cost wide. We could do the banding with this on the lower and then this on the upper. And that's the same thing. What I'd like not to have to have them do is insert the brick banding we have on the east wall and south wall. And I think it's logical because first of all it's removed from Water Tower Place because the building wraps around 44 feet with the windows and the recessed windows and the raised parapet and the other things that they've done to make the building meet PUD guidelines. It is down that terrace from 41 and then 41 will have a building we're hoping within the next year so it really won't be noticed. Kind: My concern is the short term. We don't know how long it's going to take to get a neighboring building and granted you're optimistic that you'll expand in 5 years, but it could be 10 years. It could be never and so I want to make sure that that building looks good for the short term and perhaps the long term. So the net net, if I was to craft a condition, how would I describe that? That it' s 2 of the principle building materials as opposed to 3? Because I think that's reasonable to leave out the expensive stuff or whatever it is but I do think more interest needs to be created on that long expanse. Okay. I think that's it for the applicant. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions of the applicant? Feik: No, thank you. Not today. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 ' Blackowiak: Alrighty, I just had one quick question I guess for Mr. Richter. You talked about Lot, I believe it's Lot 1, Block 1 that you're hoping that it's going to happen within the next year, is that correct? Fred Richter: That would be what I refer to as. Blackowiak: Immediately to the west, correct. Fred Richter: And there has been, just for your knowledge. There was, was that 2 years ago? There was a site plan review that basically was the same as what's currently All About Lights building. And that was...and had the same materials. That was approved for that site. Unfortunately the economics didn't work out. They didn't move ahead with that purchase agreement. I suspect that type of building represents what the market would probably be best for that location. Blackowiak: Okay. Now what is the elevation change between that Lot 1 and is it 15 feet did I hear you say? Generous: It seems like it's 10 feet. Fred Richter: Yeah, it looks like it's 10 feet here so it probably goes, we're 983. That would be 1003. It's probably 1005...All About Lights is about 115, and the Arboretum...is 1015. The base of the water tower is about 1020. Just a little bit of trivia here, it was about 1036 and that was all graded down and then moved to make these sites and ultimately a lot of the dirt was moved to what is called the 5 and 41 comer. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess that's my question for now. So if there are no more questions, this is a public hearing so if there's anyone that would like to get up in front of the Planning Commission and make any comments, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments to make. Deb, why don't I start with you. Kind: Sure, if I can start. First of all I think it' s a lovely building. I think it will be a nice addition to our town and with the conditions that staff has outlined and a couple minor tweaks that you could probably guess where I'm going on those. So welcome. I think it will be really nice. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Do you have any comments to make? I realize this is your first meeting. I don't want to put you on the spot but I don't want to ignore you either so. Feik: Don't want to leave me out? Blackowiak: That's right. Feik: No, I've been up to the site. I've looked at this site and the neighboring site buildings. I think it will be a comfortable addition to what's up there now. It will fit in well. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I'm satisfied with the plan. My questions were answered. I think it looks good. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I like it. Blackowiak: Short and sweet. Slagle: I do too. I guess I have to compliment you all for being here with respect to what's happening downtown tonight between the Twins and Indians. It might be a harder night. James Chokan: I was trying to figure out how I could do this meeting and hit the game. Slagle: Well I think you might be done pretty soon. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I really don't have much new to add. My main concern I guess is I think I tipped my hand a little bit, is the west elevation. I agree with Deb when she says you know, she hopes that the expansion, proposed expansion is in 5 years but I don't want to leave a side unadorned in hopes that something will happen. We have to think about you know our responsibilities to do what's right for the community now so I just want to make sure we're all comfortable with what's happening on that western elevation and I do feel that with a little added interest on the east elevation, that we're going to get a very nice building. So with that I' 11 entertain a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-6 as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development Inc. dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings in the June 5th staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through, oh let's see. Sacchet: 33. Kind: 33, with the following additions. Number 34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length. Number 36. Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as used on the first phase. And number 37. Bob, you can help me here. Maybe this is in one of these conditions but I couldn't find it. Proposing a 37 that says the metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD requirement. I couldn't find, it's on the site plans right now that there's a metal material and there's nowhere in our conditions that prohibits that. Generous: Well in the design standards it prohibits the applicant. Kind: I'll leave it as a condition just to make it really clear to the applicant. Yeah, that primary material. The metal, the primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement. That's number 30. Slagle: 6. Kind: 6, thank you. And then I would like to amend number 15. The condition that talks about the handicap accessible parking spaces. I want to just change it to be more flexible in case you change the amount of parking spots to simply say the applicant shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking spaces. Blackowiak: Okay I have a motion. Is there a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan g2001-6 as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated May 4, 2001, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. . The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the eastern building elevation. o A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements shall be submitted to the city prior to City Council approval. . Additional landscape peninsulas shall be located in the northern parking lot (two additional) and at the north end of the parking spaces on the east side of the building. Trees shall be added in each of the landscaping peninsulas. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. 5. All new landscaped areas shall have irrigation system installed pursuant to city ordinance. 6. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. , A decorative, show box fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square ornamental pole shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded with a 90 ' degree light cut off. Any wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off site view. , A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lames, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. o 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 g904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 10. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 11. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The applicant shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking spaces. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. (It does appear however that exiting from the office area does not comply with the code.) Utility Plan: If the addition is built MH 1 would have to be relocated and piping materials must comply with the code. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The develoPer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance at the time of building permit approval. Grading on the west side of the proposed building needsto be revised to avoid ponding water on the future building site. Move the proposed sidewalk to the west side of the driveway. Also, show this sidewalk on the grading plan. The developer shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Watershed District. 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. Revise the site plan and grading plan to comply with the minimum driveway entrance width of 26 feet. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event prior to building' permit approval. The rock construction entrance shall be increased to a minimum of 75 feet in length as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. On the detail sheet, show the revised 2001 City detail plates for Nos. 1004 and 5207. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 29. Show the location of the existing street lights along Water Tower Place. Also, show the location of the existing catch basins in Water Tower Place, west of the sanitary sewer stub to the site. 30. Show a benchmark on the grading plan. 31. The site plan needs to be revised to show a proposed 5 foot concrete sidewalk following the main entrance out to the southeasterly comer of the site. 32. The existing water stub to the site is an 8 inch service. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer will be needed. 33. On the site plan, label the drive aisle and entrance widths. Also, show the proposed curb radius at the entrance drive. 34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length. 35. Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three Primary materials that are the same as used on the first phase. 36. The primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: .REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 610 AND 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD, CREEKWOOD, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Guy Swanson Jon Lang Randy & Bobbie Schlueter Jeff Kleiner Phil Hanson Andrea & Paul Eidsness Kari Romportl Marty Campion Bill Coffman 610 Carver Beach Road 640 Carver Beach Road 580 Fox Hill Drive 655 Carver Beach Road 621 Carver Beach Road 630 Carver Beach Road 620 Carver Beach Road Otto Associates Coffman Development Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Are there questions of staff? Feik: Madam Chair, I do. 14 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Go right ahead Bruce. Feik: I had a question regarding the 60 foot right-of-way versus the requested 50 right-of-way. It seems to me that 60 feet is significantly larger than what's currently in that neighborhood and I'm just wondering what the long range justification of that is for having a small road to this nature if it doesn't conform with the rest of the neighborhood feel. A1-Jaff: We wanted to show you a subdivision that meets ordinance standards. The fact that there isn't a hardship basically dictated that we recommend a 60 foot right-of-way appear before you. Aanenson: Maybe I can just add a little bit more to that. Staff wanted to bring you, we had a lot of consternation on a previous plat on Lotus Lake. We wanted to bring you a subdivision that met city ordinance. If you choose to do a 50 foot, I guess my position would be that the recommendation come from you and the City Council. So it certainly could save trees but we brought you a plat that meets ordinance. The only question was, there seems to be some ambiguity on the bluff interpretation and we' ve asked for additional survey on that. Feik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb. Kind: Yes, I'm sure I have some questions. I had that question too. I think that's a good point. Did staff encourage the applicant to pursue a PUD because this is such a beautiful wooded area. It seems like it would easily meet our requirements for a PUD. AI-Jaff: Yeah, we talked about a PUD at length. We presented them with the PUD ordinance and we thought this parcel fit the definition of a PUD. There are numerous ways to develop this parcel. Aanenson: Let me add to that again too. There's, we talked about a beachlot. Again based on some past experiences I think the cleanest way and the feeling that some of the developers are getting is just to bring a straight subdivision. It gets convoluted and complicated unfortunately in the negotiation process and we like to see that flexibility. Unfortunately it comes back to staff that we may be giving things away so we came, we asked the developer to bring a straight subdivision that met all the city ordinances. Kind: An option that might be kind of halfway between the PUD and a straight subdivision might be in our control would be to relax the rules on that right-of-way. That 50 foot right-of-way or perhaps front yard setback or both. That kind of a thing. I certainly think this site is worthy of saving more of those trees so, but that's getting into my discussion so I'll skip that. Let's see. Sharmin you mentioned in your presentation that you calculated, or you or the applicant, anyway there's 80 by 80 foot pad for tree removal. I thought our ordinance had 60 by 60 foot pad for tree removal. AI-Jaff: What, and again we just wanted to make sure everything was covered. Kind: So suddenly we're requiring the applicant to replace more trees than what really our ordinance says? AI-Jaff.' What we did was, assuming that you have a 60 by 60 house pad, and assuming that you're going to get that 60 by 60 house, then you need to have equipment that can maneuver around the 60 by 60 house and we thought 10 feet on each side so that gives you an 80 by 80. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: So that's even expanding our ordinance, because it clearly says in the tree preservation part of our ordinance it says 60 by 60 for calculating tree removal. Got it. Aanenson: Right. That is clearly for calculating tree removal. It doesn't mean that's where the house is going to exactly go. It gives us a formula to what percentage could possibly be removed. Kind: We all know about that 60 by 60 foot pad so I'll move on. Oh, at the 50 foot easement from the creek is something staff is requesting and the applicant is being amenable to that but there's no requirement for that. I just want to make sure I was understanding that clearly. Oh, lakeshore setback. I think this is an interesting test of our new recommendation which I wasn't there for in our last meeting but I did read the minutes and it was very interesting. Wow, I think this is a good example of why we should stay with that 75 foot setback that the DNR requires. Just my two cents there. I'm getting into discussion again. I hate that when I do that. Page number 5, for anybody that's trying to follow along. The structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. Show me what you mean by that. Can you show me on the drawing for the plat? A1-Jaff: Okay, this is Lot 7. The structure far exceeds the 75 foot setback. If this structure went in first, am I following? Kind: No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. The question, let's see. Page, I should probably have read the whole paragraph. There is no setback requirement from the creek. However staff has requested the applicant maintain a 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek to maintain the integrity of the creek. In order to meet staff s request the structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. I couldn't figure that out there. Sidney: From the creek. Kind: From the creek? Sacchet: From the creek instead of. A1-Jaff: What this is referring to is the 70 foot setback. Kind: Oh so it's further than 75 feet from the lake? A1-Jaff: Correct. Kind: Ah. A1-Jaff: To maintain the 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek. Kind: I get it. Yep. So that house is actually more than 75 feet back. A1-Jaff: Substantial, yes. Kind: Okay. I'll have to ponder that for a minute. Let's see if I have anything else? Oh, on page 8 under the street section. The second paragraph talks about the current right-of-way for Carver Beach 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Road is 40 feet in width. 20 feet on each side of the street. I'm assuming that you mean 20 feet on each side of the center of the street. Saam: Correct. Kind: And then, if my math is right, here we go. That most of the streets in Carver Beach are around 20 feet, and that' s generous probably. So if you have a 40 foot right-of-way, 20 feet of pavement, that means there's 10 'feet of grass that is city right-of-way on each side of the pavement. Saam: Correct. Kind: And is that about how much is needed for utility easement? Saam: 10 feet will work. Kind: Okay. Just checking. I think that's it. On page 11, number 5. This is in the findings. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. I always, I have trouble with this as being part of our findings. Obviously if you're taking some trees out there's environmental damage so wouldn't you say that the finding is more that this proposed subdivision will minimize the environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: That sounds better. Aanenson: Okay. So maybe I'd like to amend those findings when we get there if that's cool with you. And I think that' s it for staff questions. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Just one question Madam Chair to staff. If I can ask, what was the applicant's response to the PUD? Suggestion if you will, or should I wait to hear from them? Actually I'd like to hear your viewpoint as well. Al-Jaff: They felt it would be easier to go through a subdivision, straight subdivision than it would be through a PUD and having to justify. Aanenson: We would concur with that because the way we've been processing lately, it's become very burdensome for the staff too. Unfortunately and that's something I think we all need to work on but we struggle with trying to justify certain things. Slagle: So in your opinion the cons of a PUD outweigh the pros in this situation? Aanenson: No. No. I think it's the process that we go through. On how we look at things. There's a perception that they're getting more. They're getting something. And we've always perceived it, or the staff has tried to do it in the fashion that we're trying to save something but for some reason there's the perception on the other side. Slagle: Perception on the other side meaning the applicants or this? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: Planning Commission or the neighboring property owners or interested parties that maybe that the balance isn't there. That we've done too many PUD's and we haven't necessarily gotten anything out of, by letting them save a few trees or go closer, we maybe not have gotten enough on the other side so. So, and we've learned that by some of the single family subdivisions so on single family subdivisions we tried to move away from doing that. Certainly there was other applications in this project but we try to say that PUD's are really what they were intended, and that's more of a mixed use project. An industrial park, multi family, which is really the true intention of this. With this project, this is a good question because we struggled with this when they came in. There was other applications. Certainly could have done a beachlot. There's some other applications but I think for them they felt, the applicant felt like this, they' ve met the letter of the law. They have a right to proceed. Kind of take the path of least resistance. Slagle: Okay. Audience: Excuse me, ...what's a PUD? Aanenson: Oh sure. A Planned Unit Development. It's, you develop a zone that allows for the standards to be put in place on that specific project. There is a minimum lot size. It allows some flexibility on lot size and street widths, those sort of things. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Questions. Sacchet: Yes. Definitely have questions. And I'm glad quite a few were already asked. My first question is quite fundamental. We have 3 shore lots, lakeshore lots. Nowhere in the report I see the width of the shore, lakeshore frontage. I think we have a minimum of 90 feet in the ordinance. Do we know how wide those shorelines are? A1-Jaff: If you look under the standards on page 10. The lot width on all parcels is spelled out. Sacchet: So the lot width is equivalent to how much shoreline there is? That doesn't totally add up, does it? Aanenson: You're asking if we have verified that the lakeshore lots meet the requirements? Sacchet: Actually since it's at an angle and the width is over 100 you would think that it's larger than 100 instead of less than 100. Aanenson: Yes. If you would like for edification for the council, we can clarify that so which ones are lakeshore lots. Sacchet: I think it's fundamental enough and an element that we need to spell it out, yes. I do ask for that. Then when I went out there this afternoon I got...I couldn't quite figure out where the driveway for 610 is. Because it's a gravel road so I guess it's not something that you draw lines on a blueprint, is that how it works? But if you can give us an idea, because I was wondering when I looked at that driveway, was that where the houses would be or about where? A1-Jaff: It should lead you to the city's lift station actually. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: No, that's 620. I mean the one further north. I might be confused about the numbers. I mean the one that goes to the lift station is the one that is actually drawn. But the one to the north of the two buildings, there is no driveway drawn and I was kind of trying to figure out where that would be in relationship to the building pads. A1-Jaff: If you look at the registered land survey. Aanenson: It should be the last sheet. Sacchet: Yeah, it's still in there. A1-Jaff: Immediately to the north of it. Sacchet: So it would actually be, relative to the new street and the building pads, where would it drawn would it be? So if I do this correctly and superimpose this in my mind, it would be basically between building pad and the new road, is that a fair statement to make? Roughly. AI-Jaff: It would be within, well the 60 foot right-of-way wraps in this direction so yes. It would be approximately where the house pads are. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright, that answers that question. Then you identified this as an environmentally sensitive site in the report. And I was just curious how did we do that justice in this proposal? I mean if we say yes, this is an environmentally sensitive area, but then on the other hand we come in with a straight forward subdivision that yes, meets all the requirements. But are we in any way doing anything to accommodate the fact as it's stated in here, that this is an environmentally sensitive-' area? Aanenson: It meets the ordinance. There's nothing. Sacchet: Okay. So there's nothing plus minus, it's vanilla? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Straight forward, meets the ordinance. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Well that's a safe place to be, right? Now this street, just to be really clear, this street's going to be a public street. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet; That cul-de-sac. And you already addressed that maybe it could be less than the full width. Now this lot number 7. You know I got kind of dizzy looking at those lot lines. Are you okay? I mean there's nothing, I mean if somebody wants a zig zag lot line and meets the ordinance, then they have a zig zag lot line, is that how it works? A1-Jaff: It meets the letter of the ordinance. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okayo A1-Jaff: The exact wording in the ordinance is substantially at straight angles. Right angles. So you decide whether this is substantially meeting the ordinance or not. Slagle: Well if I can ask. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: Do you think it does? A1-Jaff: Yes it does. Sacchet: Okay. I want to jump into this interesting point about the lake front setback. Because I think you make a pretty strong statement in this report that you don't like what we proposed last time. I think there's actually a very simple remedy to the whole gyration thing that we have in front of us here. We're looking on page 4, for those who are following me. Sequence of which is built what is immaterial. Okay? I think where these got entangled and I believe that's contrary to the intent that we're trying to state what we proposed, is that what happens if the next building is a couple of lots away. It looks like you were interpreting it that if there is an unbuilt lot inbetween, then you just go to the next building. If that's empty you go to the next one and if you eventually have a building, then that' s how you were trying to implement, so it makes a difference which one comes first. Is that how you? Aanenson: The ordinance says you go to the lot on either side of you. That's how the ordinance reads. Sacchet: Okay, because that doesn't work. I think you made that point pretty aptly in this report. However, I think what, at least my understanding was of going into this is that if there isn't something built like in a case here, you apply the 75. And that actually works I believe. And that's probably a separate discussion that we will have to fine tune this, but I think there is a better way to interpret this than you did. Is that enough on this topic? Blackowiak: Did you have more questions or? Sacchet: Yes I have more questions. That's just one point, because we're going after setbacks. We're not going after penalties here, and that is very important fundamental thing. I like to have the more narrow road. This thing about the dock and the water accessory structures. I got lost there. We have this creek coming in. Are we saying that they would have, where would they have a dock? I mean they have a creek, if they want a creek, they can't have a dock so what's the scoop? Can you explain that? A1-Jaff: Staff is requesting an easement over the creek. Actually a 50 foot easement that goes from the edge of the creek. Blackowiak: Sharmin can you move the map a little. We're not seeing, we're not picking it up. Thank you. AI-Jaff: Here' s the creek so if you take a 50 foot easement, or if you take an easement over the creek and require the structures to maintain a setback from it, then this area. Sacchet: We still can't see it Sharmin. 2O Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: This area is technically protected. Our ordinance does not allow structures to encroach into easements. Sacchet: Correct. A1-Jaff: This is dry land. There is an existing bridge over the creek. Should the applicant decide to have a dock, then they' could do that via an encroachment agreement should they decide that they want water oriented structure. Sacchet: And they could do that without violating the 50 foot, is that what we're saying here? If they go across the bridge, is there enough room for that? AI-Jaff: The bridge is existing. Sacchet: Yes, the bridge is there but I'm saying, if they would have, they would come in to say we want a dock on the other side of the creek and we want a house to store our jet ski or whatever. Could they do that without encroaching into the 50 foot setback from the creek? Okay. Okay, that answers my question. A1-Jaff: No. Briefly they might be able to get in this comer. Aanenson: Right, but you want a 10 foot dock setback. What we're saying is that as part of the easement we would put in a condition in the easement agreement of what limitations they would have to that. Whether it be a dock or boathouse or whatever we attach to that with that lot. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers my question. Aanenson: We're asking for that easement. We're not requiring it so we want to give them the flexibility to say we want the easement. That that area is protected. They don't go down there and grade it or whatever. But in addition what would give them the right to cross the bridge and use it for a dock. Sacchet: That answers the question. We can get back to that when we get to discussion. The driveway to Lot 7. Be careful you don't fall into that drainage pond when you go there, right? The idea this goes along the lot line there between. Aanenson: It'd be real similar to the one we just saw at Big Horn. Similar situation as you come along there. Sacchet: So that's cool? That can be done? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Trees. I really have a hard time with those trees. First of all, that's a very important question. When you did this measurement of the tree coverage and all that sort of stuff, did you include what would be custom graded? I mean did it include the building pads or did you just include the grading initially? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Al-Jag: This is where the 80 by 80 came in. We wanted worst case scenario on these lots and if you look at this plan, these are 80 by 80 boxes. We also requested that the applicant reproduce a driveway. Between the driveway and the 80 by 80 house pad, or tree removal limits you should have a realistic calculation as to how much canopy you will lose. Sacchet: So the figures that you put in the report are based on 80 by 80 on every lot being cleared? A1-Jaff: Correct,' as well as where the road is going and there are certain areas that are a given. Sacchet: And while we have this picture up, I've got another question with this picture. That finger of grading that goes down between Lot, is it 5 and 6? I don't quite understand why that has to go that far in there. Al-Jag: I believe there is an existing. Saam: Commissioner, maybe I can add something to that. They're proposing to grade, if you look on the grading plan, between Lots 5 and 6. They have one contour. I think it's the 934 elevation that they're tying in way down from the back yard of Lot 6. That's what I would guess it's for. Sacchet: Yeah, alright. Saam: Do you see it there? Sacchet: Yeah. Saam: That thicker line. Sacchet: Yeah, that is actually the grading line. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, that answers that one. Alrighto Sorry to keep you so long. Streets. You were proposing to have the stub street to the north and you're proposing that, as Lot 4 in that. Why Lot 4? What's the rationale? A14aff: I believe it's opposite of. Sacchet: Opposite, yeah I mean opposite of Lot 4 on the street there. I was just trying to understand how we arrived at that particular spot. A1-Jaff: Sure. The neighboring property to the north has an existing house and two accessory structures. Assuming that the applicant or the northerly property owner decides they would like to maintain their existing structures, then you take a 30 foot setback from the edge of the westerly most coruer of the garage. This way you meet the ordinance requirements. You're not creating an unconforming situation. This will be a 60 foot right-of-way. Also there is a retaining wall in this area. We're trying to avoid the retaining wall. This will leave you substantial depth on this parcel to create at least 2 lots. Sacchet: So it accommodates the existing situation as well as the new development and the possible future development? You try to kind of find a balance between all 3. That's a good answer. Appreciate that. Coming back to the trees once more, there is a drawing that has trees sort of inventoried semi legibly. Or less. Is there somewhere in an actual analysis in terms of what stays, what goes? I mean did somebody tabulate it? 22 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: The city forester tabulated all of the numbers. Sacchet: That would be interesting to see frankly. And I certainly agree that half the trees going down is environmental damage but I think that's pretty much, that's it for fight now. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well most of the questions were answered. Actually all the questions were answered. I have none left to ask but I guess one comment about the tree inventory. I guess I'd really like to see the significant trees called out. The diameters of the significant trees and I think that will help council decide on how front yard setbacks up in there modify those or the street widths. And really call out, especially those 100-200 year old oaks if there are any. A1-Jaff.' Okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I may just one additional question. On the stub street, which would be just west of the retaining wall, number one. Have we talked to the occupant of the northern piece, or she is okay with that location? And then secondly, is that retaining wall an issue for safety with respect to a stop sign or people using that as an entry and exit into the neighborhood? If there's a retaining wall, I don't know how high it is. AI-Jaff: It's approximately 2 to 3 feet high. Saam: Yeah, I was just going to mention on the retaining wall. That's something I missed honestly until after the report went out. Typically we don't allow those in city right-of-way so prior to final plat I would recommend that that be removed, and I think we could work with the applicant to accomplish that. Blackowiak: Well actually I don't have any questions of staff at this time so I'll ask that the applicants or their designee come up and make your presentation. Please, state your name and address for the record. Bill Coffman: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bill Coffman. I'm the president of Coffman Development. With me tonight I have one of the land owners, Kari Romportl and Marty Campion with Otto and Associates, our consulting engineers. I would first like to thank staff for their hard work on this project as I feel that we have looked at this in almost every way possible. Yet we are ending up with a variance free application that is fairly straight forward and by design I guess. We concur with the staff report and agree to their recommendations as to the conditions of approval for this variance free plat, yet as indicated in the report we do feel that a 50 foot fight-of-way would be more appropriate, and I guess we should at least consider that at the council level if that's the appropriate time. First we feel that this 50 foot right-of-way would be in fact more compatible to the surrounding neighborhood, as mentioned earlier. Second, we would in fact be able to save an additional 10 feet of trees in the rear between our homes and the homes to the south. Third, the required number of trees in the replacement program worked out with the city forester would in fact decline. Yet we would be willing to plant the entire 24 replaced trees in order to not imply any sort of a financial benefit to this potential variance if that's what, if that is in fact the direction that the Planning Commission or the Council decides to go. And the last reason that the 50 foot variance may be an option would be that would also give the Romportl's an opportunity to potentially live in their home while their new home on the lake is being built. In summary we concur with staff's recommendations on this design. It's a very good design, yet we feel we could do a little bit of tweaking to make it a little better. Save more trees. Be a little bit more environmentally sensitive by grading a little bit less if we could in fact adjust some of 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 the house pads forward, but quite honestly we' re looking to this commission for your guidance, your input and your suggestions and myself and Marry Campion would be available for any of your questions. Thank you= Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Slagle: Not right now. Sacchet: Yes, I do believe I have some questions of the applicant. One question is relating to the area with the retaining pond, which is currently part of Lot 6 1 believe. Bill Coffman: Or 7. Sacchet: Or 7. 7, excuse me. Is there particular reason why you wouldn't consider making that an outlot? What's your thinking that you include it with, I mean were there advantages or reasons to go one way or the other from your end? Bill Coffman: You know I'm not really sure. I'll defer to Marry to that question. He's the engineer on the project. Marry Campion: Good evening. Marty Campion. Civil engineer with Otto and Associates. Question relative to a retaining wall on Lot 7? Sacchet: No, my question is relative to the NURP pond on the west side of Lot 7. Just south of the cul- de-sac. You have that area is very unbuildable because there's steep slopes. There's going to be a storm water pond there and so forth and my question is, would it make more sense to make that an outlot to where this is tacking it to what this one is tacked onto Lot 7. Because I think one of the reasons is the driveway's going to go through there. Not the edge. Marty Campion: I'm not sure what purpose an outlot would serve. Blackowiak: Staff do you want to, do you have an answer? Saam: I could jump in here. I think what Uli might be getting to, in other plats we require over ponds. I know in Ashling Meadows outlots being dedicated to the city. In this case we would require an easement over the pond so I don't know, I kind of leave that up to planning if they want to grab it as an outlot. Either way we' re going to have rights over it. Sacchet: So the easement would basically fulfill all the needs that you have... Marry Campion: The easement gives the city the rights to enter and clean or do whatever. The outlot would eliminate or decrease significantly the amount of frontage that that lot would have so. Sacchet: Well that's a reason. Marty Campion: Giving the outlot is a benefit in one case but it goes back to the variance free submittal. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. It kind of ties into the new issue that came up from staff with the possibility of a bluff situation on Lot 6. And then I guess we have to wait to see the outcome of that question. That may further influence how that goes. Marty Campion: And that may. We agree with staff's earlier assessment that we don't believe there's a bluff there but we will work with staff and go out and investigate on site. Sacchet: Still I don't know whether it's a question for you or him. The thing I brought up about the dock and water accessory structure on Lot 7. What's your vision with that? I mean to me it's a little bit of a tricky situation, but it's basically that lakeshore front there is mostly creek. Bill Coffman: Right. Well we I guess, we're giving you the 50 foot setback or easement area just because it was a request but we do want to make sure that we're able to have in place those encroachment agreements ahead of time that we can in fact use our lakeshore. That we're not giving away the use of the lake to one of our important lake lots. Sacchet: So your vision is that Lot number 7 would have a dock on the other side of the creek basically? Bill Coffman: That's true. Sacchet: Possibly some sort of a shed or something. Bill Coffman: Correct. That is correct. And then that would be available through an encroachment agreement that was specified in the staff' s report. Sacchet: Okay. That clarifies that one. I believe that's all the questions I have for the applicant. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Not at this time. Blackowiak: None? Bruce? Feik: Not at this time, thank you. Blackowiak: Deb? Kind: Yes I have a question. Blackowiak: Oh okay. Kind: On page 2 of the staff report, staff notes that Lot 7 has a peculiar shape. Could you explain what' s driving that? Is that the lift station? Is that the 60 by 60 foot pad requirement? A combination of both? Bill Coffman: I'll let Marty talk to that issue. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Marty Campion: Actually it's a combination of all the above. It's the lift station. It's the easement that's in place for the force main, sanitary sewer and water main and it's the topographic configuration of the property. Kind: If the 60 by 60 foot requirement for Lot 8 was taken away. Would that line be able to be straighten out? Marry Campion: 'It would be more straight but on the north side of the 60 by 60 pad is also the lift station. So that's dictating somewhat where that pad location is going to lie. Kind: I' 11 attack it a different way here. If that line was straighten out, would there be a reasonable building pad left for a home on Lot 8? Marty Campion: With the homes that they would expect out there and the lift station I don't think, the lift station and the easements, the in place easements eat up a pretty good chunk of that. Aanenson: And we do want additional easements, just so you're aware. That's also driving it too. The city's asked for additional easement to expand that and solve some problems. Kind: I couldn't quite get my finger on what was driving that funky shape. Bill Coffman: I've got something to add to that. It is somewhat dictated by the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8, but realistically when a home is designed, the garage probably will tuck up into this area to a certain extent. So the home realistically won't look like a 60 by 60 square. The garage will probably be a little bit pushed to the north and that type of thing. So we probably could not straighten that line, yet we could make it a little more straight. Kind: And would that be desirable from your point of view? Bill Coffman: Yes it would be desirable, but yet we would not be able to get the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8. Again variance free. Kind: Got it. Aanenson: Let me just comment again, with the lift station there more than likely, and we talked about this as a staff, the garage is going to want to be on that side. Kind: Of course. Aanenson: And we do need to solve a problem there so. Kind: Cool, thank you. Blackowiak: Any more questions? Okay. Well I don't have any questions right at this point. This item is open for a public hearing so if there are any people here who would like to speak about this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 26 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Dean Preston: My name is Dean Preston. I live at 606 Carver Beach Road. I'll show you my property on the map. Right here. So the builders and the planners for this project have been extremely good to us from the standpoint of keeping us informed as to what they're doing. Our concerns through this whole thing is that we bought this property last year and we bought it because of the way it is. It's natural setting and the trees. We're basically in the middle of those trees and our concern has been, and we voiced it to them, is that the properties as they come along here don't spoil that for us you know behind. And our particular opinion is that if a 50 foot easement instead of 60 for that road increases our chances or keeping that kind of pristine, the way it is right now, we're all for it. Carver Beach being as it is with a fairly narrow road system down there, it certainly is not going to be detracted by the fact that you lost 10 feet there. And I do want to say thank you to those folks that have been doing this and for keeping us in the loop and making sure that we're not getting what we bought destroyed by what they're doing. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dean Stanton: Hi. My name's Dean Stanton. I was before this Planning Commission a few months ago. We live at 510 Bighorn Drive, right across where the house is and we're in the process of building a home right here right next to the creek. I guess I want to applaud the developer on, it looks like a nice development. I would say that it is a beautiful parcel. Anything you can do to narrow down the road, save more trees, I think is a good route to go. My only concern is that our house is going to be right here, and while it seems like everybody's concerned about having 75 foot setback from the lake for a house, there's only like a 10 foot setback for a boat shed and if there's a boat shed put on this point here, that point sticks out into the middle of the lake. It' s viewed from the entire lake side. I think from a community standpoint I would have a problem with that. That's just my opinion. Everybody's entitled to a dock, but having a boat shed right on that point is going to ruin our view being next door and I don't know, from a community standpoint, being that far out in the lake, what it does to the community. Lotus Lake is one of the nicer lakes out there because you've got, it's mostly wooded. You don't have a house every 100 feet that's visible from the lake without a tree so that I guess would be my concern. That with part of the easement process was that you could put a boat shed, what kind of structure is that going to be. Kind of a lot of pressure there I think with the looks of that point. Like I said, that' s my own. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sharmin, or Kate, would you like to comment on what type of structure could be there? Because I wasn't thinking that it could be a boat shed. AI-Jaff: The ordinance defines it as a water oriented structure. Now it could be a shed where you put your life jackets in and. Aanenson: There's a maximum square footage. Blackowiak: Okay, so what's the maximum square footage? Aanenson: 250 square foot. Blackowiak: 250 square foot maximum. Okay. Aanenson: I guess what we're struggling for is we're asking for an easement over the creek. Blackowiak: Right. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: It's not a protected creek. We're just asking for that. Otherwise he has a right, whoever owns that lot, he or she to put a... Blackowiak: I guess my question has to do also with footings versus permanent versus temporary. Can it be-a permanent structure with slab and footings? Aanenson: Yes, yes. I think that's what we'd like to do is negotiate too, what I was talking about is the height and some of those things, maybe make it a little bit more stricter but it' s still workable for them. That they'd know what kind of they're looking at there as far as that. If we put the easement in place, these are the things that would be acceptable. Put some criteria in place on that. We could have that in place for the council. Blackowiak: For the council meeting? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Alright, great. Dean Stanton: It's all the soft soils there and like this year, half of those wet. Aanenson: And it may need a greater setback or something like that. Those are things that we can look at and, so it's not sticking out so far. Some of those sort of things we can look at before it goes to council. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Dean Stanton: I guess that's just a general comment for the lake as a whole. Everybody seems to be so concerned about whether it's a 75 foot setback or the ordinance that came around what, 93 or 94 where you're trying to average it between the neighbors and everything, but yet you can have any kind of a boat structure within 10 feet of the water. That doesn't seem to really make a lot of sense. And I think in the ordinance it is just used for boats. You can make it twice as big versus if it's just for skis and things like that. It just seems to be at odds with the overall theme of the lake of trying to keep the front view of it as natural as possible. Blackowiak: Thank you. Frank Filko: Hi, I'm Frank Filko. I live at 550 Bighorn Drive, which would be probably this. Right in this area right in here. The question I have is from the topography here, this is a pretty, quite big drop off here. What's being done here more for a washout and drainage with rains and all that if you're going to be clearing the trees and all that? Aanenson: That is an area that we're saying that may possibly be a bluff. Our original interpretation was that it wasn't. We're asking them to go back and re-survey it. Specifically those points. Frank Filko: What do you define as bluff? Aanenson: A gradient of 30%. Let me back up and answer the first part of the question too. We do require erosion control being around the house so, and that's something out there, and stabilize that and the intent is that they're not back in there clearing. That's why we have the limits for the grading. That's 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 why they're being custom grade so we don't have that problem, and we're also required to put the erosion control up. I'll read you the definition so I don't misquote it. There's three. A slope and rise of 25 feet. The grade of a slope from the toe of a bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averaging 30% or greater. So you'd take that length and figure out the 30%. So that's where we're saying we looked at the grading plan. We want to make sure so we've asked them to re-survey that specifically that area to see if it meets that criteria. Frank Filko: I mean that area is probably a 15 plus foot drop off. Where it goes on that side and the trees down below. Aanenson: Right. And it may be 20, and we want to make sure that it doesn't exceed that 30% so we've asked them to survey it and they' ve agreed to that. Frank Filko: I concur with the rest as well and if anything can be done to narrow that road to leave that area of the trees down that are in place would be wonderful. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I think Commission Sacchet's earlier remark is well taken, if I understood him right. That they should demonstrate that they do have the full 90 foot width at the 90 foot setback line, which is not explicitly stated on the plat. It appears that they meet that requirement but I think they should demonstrate that as required by the ordinance. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen and I didn't have an opportunity to really review the plat on this but there are a couple of quick questions. I think Jerry addressed one. The lakeshore width must be measured at the ordinary high water line, and although I believe on the plat it' s measured at the survey line and that' s a real technical point of difference but I think we have to get on track to make sure that's always done. And I don't know if the meander line is on the plat, which is 2 feet above that ordinary high water line. I don't know if there's a soil report with permeability and slope, considering how high this land is. Slope needs to be considered. That has affect also on the driveway grades for each individual lot. And the final point I want to make is I wouldn't confuse the 60 foot right-of-way with the actual pavement entering the site. I think the city should question giving up 10 feet of right-of-way. It doesn't mean that that's where you build. I mean if you're going to give a variance for the width of the right-of-way, you could give a variance on the setback requirement on those lots instead. Thank you. Blackowiak: Anyone else? Andrea Eidsness: I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live at the property just to the north here. 630 Carver Beach Road, and I guess I have not had an opportunity to really look through the report and communication between my husband and I is less than what I'd like right now. I've been traveling a lot and am pregnant so I haven't been, I'm probably not up to speed on this as much as I should but in listening to the comments that were offered tonight, I just have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that we haven't, or that I'm not aware anyway that we've given great enough consideration to using the existing road that's there so that we're not demolishing additional trees to put in the new road. There is an existing asphalt road that goes down to the pump station and I guess I'm not clear on why we are choosing to eliminate that road and create a new one destroying trees in the process. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Would you like to answer, talk about that right now or? Let's give staff a chance and then why don't you come on up. Or would you rather not talk? A1-Jaff: Let me point to the, number one the applicant was trying to accommodate the neighboring property and increase the distance between future homes and their existing home. They're also looking at how potentially these properties could develop. That's one of the. Saam: I'll add something Madam Chair, also I would guess their engineer looked at topography. Accommodating walkout type homes which everybody wants and so I would guess that's another reason, but like Sharmin said, we worked. We kind of looked and planned for this whole area and for a future street stub to the north, it seems to make better sense to put the street there. Blackowiak: Certainly come up. I didn't want to say that you couldn't come up. I just thought the staff might want to answer questions. Denise Preston: Sorry, just kind of jumped the gun. Blackowiak: Come right on up. Denise Preston: Denise Preston, 606 Carver Beach Road. I live right here, and at this point we have a lot of isolation which is why we bought the property this last year. We haven't even owned it a year yet. So when the plans first came to our attention, there was a great deal of, in our estimation, you would decrease our property value a very high amount if this became a public road. When they were discussing this development and said that the road would be further north, that would maintain the integrity of our property while still allowing them to develop at the least amount of disturbance to us. So that was one thing that we've been very concerned about and those were the first questions we started asking when we heard about this. Where was that road going to be? And there is an existing road there now but you also see that it goes through the properties that will be developed, so there would have to be movement there in order to allow for the access then. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Randy Schlueter: Randy Schlueter, 580 Fox Hill Drive. I've been in this area 25 years and seen a significant amount of trees being taken down by developers. Nothing wrong with that but you've got to have a place to live, but has there been any provision for adding trees to, just'a ton of them that's going to be removed by the road and the new road. Could you answer that? Aanenson: It' s a condition of the staff report. Bill Coffman: It's our intention to replace at a minimum of 24 additional trees that we'll work out with Jill, who's the City Forester. In addition to that there will be many machine moved trees that we'll be able to pull out of the woods through the road area and so forth that we can save as well and, because we want to maintain the wooded nature of the site as much as possible as well and we'll be able to harvest some of the smaller trees that would be normally taken out. We can move them so they will in fact be saved so we are agreeing to maintain at least 24 trees moved, if not many more. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kari Romportl: I'm Kari Romportl and I live at 620 Carver Beach Road and we are one of the developers, which for those of us that don't know us, we do live there. We have lived there for 4 years. We' ve very concerned about losing trees and frankly I think a lot of the city ordinances have driven more tree loss than what we would like to see so I just wanted to clarify that point. That we do live there. We do watch the owls in the trees and we do have a vested stake in that property and we're not just a developer so I just wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Can I ask you a question, Madam Chair? If I may? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: So you're actually planning to stay there? Kari Romportl: Yes. We're the Romportl's with the 50 foot. That isn't so much important for us to be able to stay while we build. It's more the preservation of trees, so we've lived there 4 years. We plan staying there. Sacchet: So you'll be actually one of those people in one of these new developments? Kari Romportl: Yes. We'll be in, I don't know what lot number. Lot 9. So we are staying on the property and. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you. Kari Romportl: So we have an interest in all those trees too so. Jeff Kleiner: I'm Jeff Kleiner. I live at 655 Carver Beach which is just up the road from there. I've been there 23-4 years now. I don't have any questions about the tree removal. I've seen them at the other developments. My one question is about the lift station. If it's going to be able to handle all the extra flushings and everything like that. Because it does get a lot of traffic during the winter and backing up and they do have a pump truck here that goes there very frequently in the last 20 years. That's all I have to worry about. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, do you want to clarify that a little bit? Saam: Sure. Yeah, as Kate said, staff has met and discussed the capacity of that lift station. We met with the utility superintendent. We do plan in the future to upgrade that lift station because it does overflow at certain times where effluent may even go into the lake and that's certainly, it does. Okay, that's something we would like to see remedied and fixed. That's why we're requiting the additional easement so if we need to increase the wet well in that lift station for the additional capacity, we have the easement in place. We can go down there and do the necessary upgrading. We're also recommending an easement for access to the site and the developer is willing to comply with that so. Blackowiak: So then is there a plan in place to upgrade now? I mean it sounds like it's sub-sized as it stands. Saam: Well the utility superintendent would like to go out and do it in a couple weeks but this is long range planning. We haven't gone, Teresa hasn't gone to council with anything yet on that, but that's coming I would say in the next couple of years we'd like to see a project there to upgrade that lift station. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Jeff Kleiner: Is there any way you can do that sooner? I mean if it's overflowing now and going into the lake, it seems like it's already exceeding it's capacity so either there's more homes built in there, why would you look at delaying it further? Aanenson: I don't know if it's a capacity issue. It's an electrical problem. When we have power go out, that's when the problem occurs. Right now we do not have an easement to that property, so this plat is solving some other problems that we can take it to the next step. Besides getting property easement to the site, we also will get the easement for additional space on the property. Again most of the problem is when there's electrical failure. That's when the problem occurs. Jeff Kleiner: You don't have a generator? Saam: Yep, it's very loud. Jeff Kleiner: Well that versus...before the houses go out? Saam: I'm not sure of the timing on what goes out first. I would assume if electricity goes out to houses, it's out to the pump station and vice versa. Blackowiak: Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to tha Planning Commission on this issue? Paul Eidsness: Hi. I'm Paul Eidsness. I live at 630 Carver Beach Road with my wife who I apparently don't communicate very well with. I thank the developers for keeping me informed on what's going on. .... I don't understand whether or not you folks are going to go with a 60 foot easement or a 50 foot easement. And I'm not sure how that impacts us. Will the road go closer to our property here if there' s a 50 foot easement as opposed to the 60 foot? Will the road be essentially 10 feet closer to us? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: The road itself will be the road. I mean Matt. Saam: Not necessarily. If we would go down to a 50 foot right-of-way, we want to center the road in the right-of-way so now it would move as Deb said 5 feet. Blackowiak: So it would shift. Aanenson: 5 feet, correct. Blackowiak: 5 feet to the north. Aanenson: The pavement surface, right. Paul Eidsness: I guess I would prefer to have the road stay where it is then and I would opt for the 60 foot easement, at least with respect to this stretch here. I don't care what happens down in this area. But I understand...Romportl's to some extent in whether or not they can live in their existing home...and I wouldn't want to get in the way of that. But I do like to preserve the integrity of our parcels here because I think in the future whether it' s us or the next owners of our property, they may want to develop that area. And I'd just as soon have the road stay where it's drawn. Clearly these lots are quite large here and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 I'm just a little bit afraid that with the road even closer to our properties here, it's going to become a little bit difficult to make these properties a little bit less sellable. That's all I have to say. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Come on up to the microphone. Dean Stanton: I've got one question. The roads coming in to the development, what size are those currently? Aanenson: 40 feet and 20 feet. AI-Jaff: 40 feet and the pavement is 20. Dean Stanton: So why wouldn't you do the exact same thing that's feeding into the neighborhood? If that road's only for 9 homes, why do you have a small pipe coming in and then a larger pipe just in front of those 9 homes? A1-Jaff: To meet ordinance requirements. Dean Stanton: Is it possible to go to a 40 foot, just like the incoming roads? Saam: Sure we could. That would be well below the standard. Our standard is a 60 foot right-of-way with a 31 foot wide street. Here we're saying we'll allow them to go down to a 28, and they proposed 60 foot and I think that's up for debate tonight. Dean Stanton: But why not 40? Just because it's the standard? I mean this is an environmentally sensitive piece of land, maybe we should just meet the standards of the surrounding area rather than what's in existence for new pieces of property that are out on flat prairie. Saam: And I think that is up to the council and Planning Commission to decide. This is what the applicant has proposed to us. Aanenson: That meets the ordinance. Saam: Yeah, it meets city ordinance. I'm not going to tell him what to do. What to propose. If he wants to go for a variance, he's sure welcome to. That's his right. Dean Stanton: Okay. Do you think he'd get resistance on that variance if they do reduce that or how does that pay in? Saam: I guess we would have to look at that. Review it in a little more detail. I didn't look to see if, you get into things like grading. Would a sidewalk work? Room for easements. Small utilities. Blackowiak: Thanks Matt. I think we don't need to really get into that right now. Let's, you know that's not the issue before us tonight so we'll just kind of focus on the application before us. But I'd like to offer some time if anybody else would like to get up and speak. Make sure that everyone's had a chance to make their comments. If everyone is finished then I will close the public hearing and ask for commissioner's comments. Bruce, would you like to start? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Feik: Yeah, that'd be fine. Thank you. I guess I've been to the site. I quite frankly agree with the width personally, irrespective of some of the other goals city engineering has in respect to the history. I would like to see it narrower. I think it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. I happen to agree with to some degree with the last gentleman' s discussion regarding the rationale of putting in full curb and gutter, street width, sidewalk and everything else in a little landlocked area for 9 lots. So I would like to see the road narrower. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I agree with Bruce and I would support a 50 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot front yard setback so we could save more trees. I think that the City Council clearly can do that. It's stated in our ordinance that you can approve, grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and if the findings are met in the variance section, this is on 18-21 on page 999 of your ordinance book. I think that this would meet those requirements, especially the hardship is not a mere inconvenience because it would be the city requiring the developer to save more trees and that would be the hardship so I could easily support that variance. There's several other conditions that I would want to consider making amendments to. Number 26. I would like to see the applicant post a sign stating the street may be extended in the future. This is that stub street going to the north. That's my favorite condition. I'd like to add that to number 26, just to make it clear to everybody that's moving there. That that street will be extended probably. I'd like to add a condition that says that the applicant has, since they have shown that they can do a variance free plat, that they may revise, if they desire, the shape of Lot 7 and 8 so that it has a more straight property line. I'd like to see them have that option at least. Get rid of that funky lot. And Sharmin's condition that should be added about getting a new survey to determine whether indeed there is a bluff on Lot 6. I support that. I would add a condition number 33. I don't know what it would be at but that prior to final plat the retaining wall should be removed from the right-of-way. I liked LuAnn's idea of identifying the significant trees. And a couple ideas that came from the people who spoke, which good job people. That we specify that prior to the City Council meeting the applicant should work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures. And revise also revise the plat to show the 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and at the building setback line. And I'm not quite sure what to do about that lift station. I guess I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners comments about that. And I think that's about it for what, for my comments. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: Although I would like to compliment the residents. That was an excellent discussion. Very intelligent comments and questions. One of the better discussions I think I've participated in on a commission meeting. Also I guess I'd like to encourage staff to, as we're talking about changing dimensions on the street, also setbacks of the houses. I'd like to see those options laid out in a plat so that council might be able to look at that. I think we need to be able to visualize that and also relate that to significant trees. Aanenson: I think we can tie those two together. Sidney: Right. Aanenson: If it makes sense. Sidney: And then also you'll have the bluff survey done so that I think will be really helpful as well, so to provide some tools for City Council I think would be a good idea. 34 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: I have about 12 reason in my mind why I think this should come back. I think this should be tabled at this point. There are too many holes in it. I think we need a clear tree inventory. We need to know where they are. What they are. Which ones go. Which ones stay. I think we need to document the shoreline measures. I believe that we should have a condition that that lift station gets upgraded along with, if not before that development goes in. I do think from having looked at it early this afternoon, there's a good chance that it is 25 feet drop at 30%, meaning it would be a bluff, which introduces potentially quite a variable for Lot 6. I do believe that since we do state that this is an environmentally sensitive site we haven't really done anything particularly to do justice to that fact. That' s important. And to at a minimum reduce the width of the road and work out solution that works for all the abutting residents. I mean that's something I think that needs to be worked on. That's not a straight forward thing, but I think we need to do something. We need to work with the developer with possibly getting more input from the neighbors if you think we need more, and do something to do that better justice. I do think we need to have clarity here how we apply this lakeshore setback situation. It's actually slightly embarrassing if this will be the final report. I do think we need to be clear about this stuff with...where is the balance, and I really appreciate that they're willing to consider that 50 foot setback from the creek because it's not a DNR protected creek. And find, where's the balance. I mean it's what. I mean this is not clear enough for me that I would want to send it to council. I don't think it's cooked enough. Then I think I have a few more reasons. Oh, I really don't agree with the finding number 5. That there is no environmental damage. Half the trees coming down in a heavily wooded area is definitely environmental damage in my book. Condition number 12 has kind of a funky sub-clause. Letter C. The private utility system could not be reviewed. The plans did not contain enough details. Well, so what are they? I mean in order to plan to pass this onto council I think we need to have that little better determined. I do agree with I think Commissioner Kind suggested that we work on straightening out that zig zag lot line a little bit. See what can be done there. I think that needs to be improved, and also then the issue that came up with the retaining wall in the right-of-way. That all adds up to enough reasons to me that I personally feel this should be tabled and should come back with these things a little further defined. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Madam Chair, I'm of the same thinking I guess as Uli. I'm concerned about the tree inventory. Concerning about what is to be taken and what is to be replaced with. I have to be honest with you, I'm very concerned about that lift station. I mean if we're pumping, or overflowing water into Lotus Lake, the comment, and I understand how it was made and why it was made but it' s a long term project, or long term planning. I have a concern about that and before I was, felt comfortable voting on this along with the bluff question, along with the tree question and a few other things, I just don't have enough information to make what I consider to be a solid decision and I certainly don't want to pass this onto council and have staff and council spend a lot of time working on some of these questions, which I think could be addressed within this forum so I would tend to agree with Uli on this. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, before I make my comments I just have a quick question. If indeed it's a bluff, I mean Sharmin, Kate, it changes everything. Am I correct? Aanenson: We said we'd eliminate the lot. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. And I'm sure that for the applicant and the developer that that would be a huge change and might be that if it's doing a project and not doing the project, and I'm making assumptions so. I'm just kind of wondering what's that going to happen. Aanenson: We've talked to them. They know that that's a possibility. I mean we do subdivisions all the time where a lot's dropped between now and council. That's fine. I just wanted to make a comment on the lift station too. That's not the obligation of this developer. It's a city problem so the nexus there doesn't work. That's a City Council issue so you know. Slagle: Pardon me Kate. While it might not be this applicant' s issue, we are asking for approval of a subdivision that will actually bear, it will require things from that lift station and if that lift station has occasions that it's not performing, I'm trying to think common sense wise why. Mayor Jansen: If I may Madam Chair, may comment. At this point the direction that staff will end up going in is really taking a look at the lift station and bringing a proposal forward to council. We'll need to take a look at the CIP and I'm sure Teresa, as she comes back from maternity leave, will be on this issue as to what all of the nuances are that are occurring on the city side that we need to address. But to put that burden on the developer at this point, it's a city project which is what staff is trying to communicate here. We'll need to take this into our processes and address it as a city project within the CIP. Slagle: If I may Madam Mayor, if that was the only concern amongst this proposal I would have no issue with that. But it's one of. Mayor Jansen: I'mjust mentioning the lift station. It's just the lift station. Slagle: I'm with you. Mayor Jansen: As a city project. Sacchet: May I have a point of clarification Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Certainly. Sacchet: Isn't part of what we are tasked to evaluate, review with this sort of framework. I recall at one point it is whether the development is actually, what' s the term used here. Premature, because if the required infrastructure is not in place, it would be inclined to conclude that it's premature to put that development in. If we don't have appropriate facilities to accommodate sewer from this development, is that not part of what we have to look at? Aanenson: Yes. I'm saying we're issuing building permits up there in other areas that are serviced by this so I'm saying we've got to be equitable in how we're... Sacchet: So it's not this particular subdivision? Aanenson: Right. I mean I'm just looking at the equity issue. Blackowiak: Yeah, you know. It's down to the equity issue. I look at the subdivision before us and what we have before us tonight is something that has no variances and the question that we have is, does 36 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 the subdivision before us meet ordinance requirements? If it meets ordinance requirements, then we have to, is my reading of it, then we must approve it. That is what our city ordinance says. If we have an ordinance in, or if we have a subdivision in front of us, it meets requirements, it must be approved. Slagle: If it is complete. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: And my point is that I feel there are too many incomplete elements at this point that I would feel it's right to pass it onto council. I'm not questioning whether it meets ordinance. What I'm questioning is, that there is a lot of elements that are not complete to the point that I feel it' s appropriate to pass it onto council. Blackowiak: Specifically the tree inventory? Sacchet: Yeah, I think I had about 10 or 12 of those particular, what I would consider incomplete items. Sidney: I guess my thought would be, could those be included as conditions? Sacchet: I think it would be premature. I think it's too many. I'm not trying to be difficult and I know you'd like to move ahead with this as quick as possible. I don't know where we are with the 60 day rule. Blackowiak: We are, deadline is July 3fa. Aanenson: And we don't have a meeting. Sacchet: So we don't have a meeting to accommodate the 60 day. Blackowiak: Correct. Aanenson: Or we could put it on in 2 weeks. Sacchet: We could put it on still in June. Okay. I would still maintain that it would be better from the viewpoint of the needs of the city and what I believe our task is in front of the council to fill these 10 or 12 gaps a little better before we pass it on. That's my position. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just, I'm struggling because I'm not sure if I, I mean I understand your position. I just don't know if I'm of the same mind at this point because we have something before us and the question is completing this I guess. You know is the tree inventory going to help us? Yes, we'd get more information. Would it help us make a decision on what's before us? No. Sacchet: I agree with that. Blackowiak: Would the fact that it's environmentally sensitive, that's a given. However it has, that has no bearing on what is before us. Sacchet: How about the bluff?. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: In terms of the bluff, yes. That's a definite, but if the developer understands that there's a potential loss of that lot, then they lose the lot if it's a bluff. Slagle: But with the lot that they lose be the one, proposed as it stands now or would this development be redone? Aanenson: I don't think you can pick up an extra lot. We've looked at it. I think it'd be very difficult to try to pick up an extra lot. I mean the lot's going to go. Those other lots on the other side, I mean are large. And let me go back to the tree inventory. It meets the tree ordinance. We can give you more information but the lots in the plat meet the tree. Sacchet: I agree with you Alison that the tree thing by itself would not be a reason to hold it up. However, considering the bluff, it all adds up a little bit. I mean...by itself wouldn't be a reason. But we have, the bluff thing is quite another question. The way we're applying the lakeshore setback thing is very loose to say the least. Blackowiak: The lakeshore setback is 75 feet and that's, I think staff was trying to make a point in the way the report was written. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd like it rewritten. Blackowiak: Well but whether or not, the thing is it meets the ordinance requirements of 75 feet. Sacchet: Right, it does. Blackowiak: Okay. My reading of it yes it does. So I mean as I look through, I mean I guess I'm disagreeing with you because I'm not seeing issues that are unresolved. I'm seeing, it doesn't meet ordinance. That's the question we have to keep coming back to. In my mind. Siagle: With no variances. You've got the setback or the easement. Blackowiak: That's not, they did not propose that. Slagle: Staff did. Blackowiak: No. No. That's something that a couple people have talked about but it's not in the report. It's a 60 foot easement. No variance there. Slagle: Clarification. When you say some people have talked about, meaning? Blackowiak: It was in the staff report. They said that would be a possibility that there'd be some trees saved but because this an application with no variances, that they were not going to go that route. Now whether the council would like to visit that issue, and grant variances will be a totally, that will be up to the council but like I said, we have to look at the application before us. Slagle: And the application before us, I've heard that they want the 50 foot. Blackowiak: No. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Slagle: Okay, so they're okay with the 60 foot? Blackowiak: Yes. Slagle: Okay. It's just the desire of others and maybe members here. Blackowiak: That there would be some opportunities to do 50 foot and that might be something to consider, but they are not requesting a variance for the 50 foot easement. Slagle: Okay. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might add as far as what council in general might be looking at, and might find favorable. We have had discussions about reducing the size of some of these roadways, so if you go the direction as some of you have spoken to, of the 40 foot, if staff can work that out, within your recommendation, if the commission wants to make that sort of a recommendation, what I'm communicating is I think you will find a council that's amicable in that direction on an environmentally sensitive piece of property this way. You can make that recommendation. Blackowiak: That would however be a variance and I'm, well I suppose we could make that recommendation that you consider it .... from public safety perspective I don't even know if they would go for that but. Mayor Jansen: What I'm communicating is that if you want to make the recommendation, have staff look at it before it comes to council, it would be appropriate. That's I guess my point too is I think we need to look at what we have before us. Make the recommendations that we see fit. In other words, council please look at ways to increase, it's to save more trees. To decrease the easement. Possibly to look at...changes. Look at the lift station. Look at the setbacks. I mean I think that we can just say to council, you know what. It meets, as it is right now it meets our current subdivision requirements and if you'd like to go ahead and make some changes that you feel would be appropriate for the area, then that would be the place to do it. Slagle: I'm comfortable with that. Kind: Madam Chair, question about this timing issue. Kate, you suggested that this could come back to us on the 19~ of this month? Aanenson: Right. Kind: And then would that give it enough time to go to council? Aanenson: We can ask for additional time if we want to look at the lot. I guess my point is, they've got the number of lots on there. The only question is would it be one lot less. They can't add any more lots because you' ve given approval with so many lots. The only question would be one lot less and you feel like you have to see it to have one lot less. That's my question. Sacchet: No, I don't think we need that. Aanenson: We want to demonstrate whether or not that's a bluff and we've asked them and they've agreed that they will re-survey that. We will meet them on site to validate that. That was the only area of 39 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 gray that we found. That we want to make sure that there is concurrence on. We'll make sure on the tabulation, the lakeshore lots are there but we did measure all those and all checked and we'll make sure they're on the survey. Verified. Signed by the surveyor when it goes to council. But we can ask for additional time to put that on when it goes to council to make sure those comments are translated. Blackowiak: Okay, well I think what we need to do then now is to get a motion and we certainly can give some direction. Kind: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. Blackowiak: Give some direction. Kind: What I'd like to do is make a motion to approve the preliminary plat the way it is and then I would like to make a second motion regarding the variance so we can vote on them separately. Does that make sense as a way to go? Sacchet: There is no request for a variance. Blackowiak: There's no request for a variance so we cannot vote on that. We make recommendations to council so you can include as many conditions as you'd like. Kind: Okay, I will add it as a condition then. Here we go. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2001-3 for Creekwood for lots as shown on the plans May 21, 2001 based on the findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 30 with the following changes. Actually I'd like to make a change to the findings first. Point number 5, revise the finding to state the proposed subdivision will minimize environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads so that's the finding for number 5. Moving back to the conditions. Let's see, I'll take them one at a time here. Number 12. (c). The private utility system shall be reviewed prior to going to council. Reviewed by staff prior to going to council. Number 26. I would like to add a sentence after the second sentence that says the applicant shall post a sign stating that this street may be extended in the future. And a new condition number 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. I'll note to my fellow commissioners that this is an optional thing for the applicant. Number 32. The applicant, let's see. Here we go. The registered land, a registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 by 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house pad cannot meet the standards, the tot shall be eliminated. What number was that, 32? And I had some more. I had some more. Here they are. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. Number 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. Number 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. That's my motion. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: I'll second it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: Oh, I was going to add that variance stuff in there. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Kind: I have a friendly amendment to myself. Sorry guys. I'm pretty friendly to myself, aren't I? I'm trying to figure out how to word this because I had it kind of in the mind of a variance but add a condition, I don't know what number we're at. Are we at. 36 was the revising the plat to 90 so I'm 37 I think. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. Aanenson: Can I get clarification on that? I think I understood too you wanted that to tie into the significant trees when we're looking at the variances. If there's a reason because they're significant trees, tie those two together? Kind: Sure. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, is there any more discussion? Sacchet: Can I make a friendly amendment? To your 35, you're talking about accessory structures? Kind: Yes. Sacchet: Can we put the dock into that package? Kind: Sure. Sacchet: And did we decide we're not mentioning the lift station? Kind: Yes. I decided not to mention that in here. I suppose we could, since I threw in that variance that City Council consider it, we could. Do you have some language on that Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I think at a minimum I'd like to see something that the capacity of that lift station needs to be evaluated from a city point of view in view of this new development. I think that's definitely a responsibility that we have in the context of this development. Kind: I'll accept those friendly amendments. Blackowiak: And I assume you accepted your own, right? Kind: I accepted my own. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Is there any more discussion? I have one point. I believe number 33 you had about the retaining wall, that doesn't apply yet I don't believe. And Matt, correct me if I'm wrong. It only applies when and if the street gets extended to the north. Is that when you were talking about potentially... Kind: That stub is part of the conditions. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Correct, but the retaining wall is on the Eidsness property. Saam: Yeah, any retaining wall within the right-of-way.., Blackowiak: Has to be taken out. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you for clearing that up so we'll just leave that as is. So we have a motion and a second. Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~r2001-3 for Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated May 21, 2001 based on the amended findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall correct the lot frontage on Lot 5 to 127 feet. 2. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. 3. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. , No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. 5. All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. 6. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations. 7. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided. o A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. o Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed storm water ponds. 10. Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's structures. The applicant will not be assessed 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 $17,514. 11. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 12. 13. 14. 15. a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species and locations. b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Building Department conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. c. The private utility system shall be reviewed by staff prior to going to City Council. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. bo 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 the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance g9-1. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. e. Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property. With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy//29-1992. Copy enclosed. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat approval by the City Council. The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot square area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. Prior to final platting, storm 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 utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water 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 HI erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond. A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be extended in the future. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 44 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 28. Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. 29. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 30. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat. 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shah show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. 32. A registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 x 60 house pad shah maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house cannot meet the standards, the lot shah be eliminated. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shah work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. 37. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of- way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. 38. The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new development and the existing neighborhood. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried 5 to 0 with 1 abstention. Blackowiak: The motion carries 5 to 0 with Uli abstaining and would you like to explain why you're abstaining. Sacchet: Yes, I do think that the responsibility for the Planning Commission would be to refine a little bit before passing it to council as discussed before. Blackowiak: Okay. So the motion carries and this does go onto City Council the 25th of June. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. OLD BUSINESS. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: ...for your edification, I'm sorry I didn't put in a cover letter. I put the design standards in. The old draft that showed all the strike out's and hopefully I got all your's and then I put the new one in without the strike our's so it's easier to read. That's scheduled for July 17th so that gave you plenty of time to review it. It' s also out for comments to the Chamber and some of the same business people we sent it out to before so that gives them plenty of time to review it. So please hang onto those and save those for the July 17th meeting, but I just wanted to give you plenty of time. If you want to look at them when you're out driving looking at buildings, whatever. Give you some time. As long as we're on old business. I'm just going to jump ahead to some of my stuff before we get to 4 and 5. For the June 19th we have two conditional uses in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. One's a home and one's a barn. Then we also have Dayco which was tabled because we didn't notice it for the conditional use in the Bluff Creek. And then the private street discussion will probably be on too. And then we do not have a meeting on July 3rd. And just to let you, if anybody has a conflict in the summer, if they could let me know because we do have a few things on the 17th. I know Bruce has already told me he has a conflict. Kind: June 17th? Aanenson: No, June 19th or July 17th. Kind: June 19t~ I'm on vacation. Sidney: Possible for me too. I don't know yet, Fm sorry. Sacchet: June 19th or 17 you said? Aanenson: July 17t~. Sacchet; Oh, July 17th. One or the other. Aanenson: Yeah, just let me know. Just to make sure we have a quorum. Again, because we don't have a meeting on the 3rd, there will be probably more items coming in yet. For sure we'll have the library and redesign standards ono We'll see what else comes in. They've got a few weeks left so. Alright, that's it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: HOUSING FORUM. Aanenson: Yeah, put this in your packet. Just for your edification. I did put a summary of the two groups. Going to sit down with the council and strategize a little bit where we want to go with this. I just wanted you to see kind of, give you an idea of the flavor, come to a consensus of the comments and who was there. I know Uli came to the first one. Kind of what direction they were going. I think it's interesting seeing the last part, kind of who can help. What can we be doing? Look at that kind of big picture sort of thing. Again, keeping this in line as we move through some of our ordinances and some other developments. But working on putting something together for the council and then summarizing and also as we're getting some of the new census data, it's a good opportunity to talk to you and to the council too and show you where we're at with demographics so that you see things...one teaser in that set. Our household population actually went up significantly. 3.4. We were using 2.9. Big anomaly so 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 we're looking at that. What implications go with our population projections so, yeah. Interesting so we'll come back with that and be looking at how some of those demographics, where we go and kind of revisit that and looking at some housing strategies and how that plays out so. That's all I had on that. LIBRARY UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: Kate handed out the latest plan, and our conversation had been to bring it before the Planning Commission just to give you an update on what the council, as of our last meeting, has approved for the architect to go back and work with as far as the approximate location of the footprint of the building. So that at least you can see where they're working from. Architecturally it's still going to be, of course being worked on but we had taken all of the information from all of the public hearings. From the building committee. From council and this was the rendition that was arrived at, trying to come up with more of an adjacency to Kerber Boulevard so that we have that street feel to our downtown. Still have some of that adjacency to City Hall. And coming up with a park feel between the City Hall and the library building so that there is a gathering area between the two buildings. And leaving as much of that green space as open as possible. You' 11 see on that top Xerox there's a dotted line where at one point the building had actually extended out to that point and council had requested it get pushed back as much to maintain that green area as possible. Right now the calculation without the green space inbetween the two buildings, just the open pad that's left is more than an acre so it is a very large piece that they're managing to maintain. And we've asked them to come back to us too with a calculation of that green space that's inbetween the buildings so that we know what the total total is. And as Kate mentioned, she has scheduled the library public hearing for the Planning Commission for, was that July 17th? Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: For July 17th. Aanenson: And before that maybe there was another meeting, we were thinking about putting it on your second meeting in June but we wanted to wait until they had another meeting of the task force with the group to talk about materials because we don't know... We wanted a little bit more evolution before we look at it. I think the form is shaping up really good. Obviously there's going to be some tweaking on that, but I think, do you know when that meeting was Linda? The 24th is sticking in my mind. It can't be, that's a Sunday. Mayor Jansen: I don't have it on this calendar. I'm thinking we ended up with the 27th. Aanenson: That sounds right. It's like a Wednesday. That sounds right, because it would have been after the Planning Commission meeting... Mayor Jansen: Yep, for another public meeting. Aanenson: ...kind of honing in to more specific on the exterior design. I think with the location is certainly a significance to the Planning Commission too, what that looks like and the green space. But when we look at this for a public hearing, there's not everything is going to be in place. What we're trying to provide another forum for input on that. And there may be some variances. We want to pull it towards the comer to warm that comer up but I think after that meeting there will be a little bit more, correct me if I' m wrong, evolution about materials and a little bit more on the look of the building. We' ve already seen some different iterations. That's kind of evolving right now so we want to get it as 47 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 close as possible but it is fluid but to give you a chance to comment and again provide an opportunity for the community at large to comment in the July meeting so. Slagle: If I can ask a question. Having attended the council meeting where the architect reported it, what a month ago, month and a half ago. Is the idea of a front entryway off West 78th dead? Aanenson: Well I guess my recommendation was, in looking at this. This is just my personal recommendation.' I think it'd be nice to have a sidewalk that pulls you across as you look at this area here to get...to City Hall. While it might not be the front entrance, it gives you a sense of entry and that's kind of what we' re looking at, and maybe for security and those type of things, it made sense with the parking lot over here but you add the drawing to that. A sense of entry, so those are some of the tweaking that I think we can provide, input too and so. Sacchet: So they're actually following our downtown rules in terms of close to the street and parking in the back. Aanenson: Yes. Right. Right and preserving some of the open space. Sacchet: That's very commendable. One thing I don't understand is this dashed circle in front of City Hall there. Mayor Jansen: There at one point had been a cul-de-sac proposed. Sacchet: So that's a possibility basically. Mayor Jansen: No, it actually was nixed in favor of having more that gathering space in front. What they were demonstrating to us was what they had changed from the previous proposal. They had pulled that cul-de-sac out and moved the building back away from that dashed line. Sacchet: So there is no possibility that would still surface? Mayor Jansen: Correct, it' s been removed. Yep. Sacchet: Good. Good, thank you. Aanenson: So again, that's kind of where we're at with that. OPEN DISCUSSION. Blackowiak: Open discussion? Sacchet: Yes, I have two open discussions. One of them is fen setbacks. It appears that we as a city could do more to protect fens in terms setbacks. Kind: Fens. Aanenson: I thought you said fence. Then I realized you were in the seminary fen. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: ...whole bunch of DNR and all these people that know exactly all the good stuff, what's there, and it became apparent pretty quickly in the discussion that there are issues and then that in terms of what we could contribute from the city side to help protect or better protect. I guess it's all relative. It's not black and white, is if we would put an ordinance in place to have extra setbacks that apply to fens. And apparently there are precedence where they use 150 feet setback. Right now for us a fen would be a pristine wetland and such I think it's a 100 foot setback. And I would think considering the rarity of, I mean this is a tremendous thing having this fen within our city limits. I would compare it to, there are two cities in the whole world that have rain forests within their city limits, it's Rio de Janeiro and Singapore, and I do believe that as we move forward in time these things are going to become much, much more important and people are going to have much more of an appreciation for this type of thing so I think we should do everything we can to contribute to protecting that asset that we have down there. They had a map, these DNR people of the significant areas that are left that are significant in terms of nature, in terms of hydrology and all that wonderful stuff, and it's like a few dots on the map. And that south area there with the fen, our fen was one of the biggest dots in the whole area. Obviously the Minnesota Valley was where some of these dots were somewhat concentrated but the fact was that our fen was one of the biggest dots on there. So I would propose that staff would draft an ordinance, something that we can pass relative fast because the clock's ticking pretty fast down there in terms of people wanting to build stuff and so forth, so that's my discussion point number one. I don't know, do you want to add something since you were there too Deb? Kind: The only thing I would add is, I'm wondering if there's anything that city staff could do to work out access agreements to enter the properties to maintain the fen. These people that were at the tour are very interested in getting rid of the buckthorn for instance that' s starting to encroach, and if there' s anything the city can do to broker some sort of deal where the landowners would allow people to come on their property to maintain the fen. And I got the impression from, I think it was Lori who suggested that the landowners seemed to be receptive to doing something like that. And I'm just wondering how you implement that and whether the city can work on that. Aanenson: We can work on that, sure. Sacchet: I do believe Lori was very open to the idea of pursuing... Aanenson: Yeah, she's talked to me about both of those issues. Sacchet: That's my discussion item. Discussion item number two is postcards from Miss Rosie's. It's unfortunately more sad than funny. It's pictures of the trees that got cut around there and I voiced my concern earlier in the discussion of the area there south and the Arboretum, what's it called, Arboretum Industrial Park or what. There seems to be, at least what I've seen, some unclarity in terms of where are really the delineations of this Bluff Creek watershed overlay or whatever we call it. And I think we have to be, we have to make an effort to be very clear where those lines are. And then also pursue it. I mean there's no point in having these type of protective measures if we don't follow them and so we need a clear framework. I figured those pictures would show that a little bit because there are questions exactly where this protective area start and where does it end. Aanenson: Jill and Bill, from engineering will be walking that. We've got some requests from neighbors in Longacres to walk that to see exactly. They're out there every day checking. They are following the plan. As indicated the city sewer project is along the edge of the wetland and some of MnDot's so we're walking with them and showing them which trees are, that's why we try to save significant stands. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Staff had been pretty clear, at least to council that though they were trying to step our project as well out of the trees as they could, because of the topography, it was going to impact this tree line. So even as we as a council were negotiating for as much to be saved as possible, I have to say that staff was very clear to us that it was part of that city project and they did act then on the next development to try to be more aggressive in how they treated the city project to maybe have less of an impact on the area. Aanenson: And that' s part of the reason we wanted, and the council wanted to get control of that so go back and reforestation so we have that buffer. Sacchet: Yeah, I mean this is not meant as criticism... Aanenson: No, I understand. Sacchet: ...and I really think we need to look out for. Aanenson: Well I think there's a misunderstanding when there's development that we're going to be saving all the trees. I mean we walk every project and I can take you up to Longacres. I could take you to Highover, half the trees come out in all those subdivisions. It's impossible to develop without tree removal. Sacchet: Absolutely. Aanenson: So we always try to say what can we save, because we've learned through our past projects the best way to save trees is in stands of trees. Where there' s no development. That's why we do the density transfer. That's why we say those are the significant stands we're going to save. And everything on top of that is icing on the cake, and we're working really hard with the developer to accomplish that. Sacchet: Well that was my discussion item number two. I don't have a number three so. Blackowiak: Anyone else? Kind: I do Madam Chair. When I went out to look at the two sites that were on our agenda tonight I noticed that there was a proposed development sign at one. It actually had fallen down and I'm told it got put back up and down several times, and the Arboretum Business Park one did not have a sign in it and I looked up in our code book and I discovered that that is correct. That we have two different rules depending on if it' s a subdivision or if it' s simply a site plan review. And I was surprised to discover that and I was wondering if it was intention or if we should bring them in alignment? Aanenson: We still notice then within 500 feet so property owners, obviously Steiner's the major property owner up there. Obviously nobody else came on that. Those tend to be the ones where, maybe you could tell tonight, where the most communication occurs and we try to meet with people ahead of time and answer their questions but we can do that. I'm just not sure we'd get many more people. Kind: Right. I was just curious. I didn't realize there was a different standard depending on what type of development it was. I know that we' ve kind of harped on that over the years that, where' s the sign? Where's the sign? 5O Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Aanenson: And the subdivision for example in Gateway, here's where you're setting up all the framework issue. That's where most the discussion is. Once a building goes in, I mean people feel comfortable. Kind: And that was the subdivision so that would have been posted at that time, so yeah it does make some sense. I just thought I'd bring it up because I noticed it being different in the two places. And then the other question, or issue I want to bring up, and maybe this not the good time, is this issue about the lakeshore setback and the decision that was made two weeks ago by this commission and how it was applied tonight. Is that something that we want to revisit a little bit? Aanenson: Well the council's still getting that recommendation. It's on their next agenda next Monday night and we'll show them this case. Again I think Uli and I disagree on the interpretation of that but we're following the letter of the law as per Roger's interpretation and so we'll let the council decide exactly where they want that to go. It's up to them now... Kind: I'm curious mostly if my fellow commissioners feel like they would make a different choice now after seeing tonight's situation applied. Sacchet: It wasn't applied. My point is that it wasn't applied. Kind: No, because that's not ordinance yet. Sacchet: Yeah, well the point is I think it was a very fundamental thing that was applied in a different way. Frankly the way that doesn't make sense. I mean there's no way this will ever pass council. Kind: I guess my point is, after reading the minutes from 2 weeks ago, and I was totally on track for this averaging the 150 foot maximum with the 75 foot neighboring. In fact I e-mailed Lori that idea so I was really kind of surprised that the commission came up with it all on their own without me being here. And after thinking about it more I have come full circle back to the 75 foot DNR requirement being the most fair for applying across the board. Slagle: Thank you. Thank you very much. Kind: And I noticed Rich was the lone person who I probably would have voted with 2 weeks ago and I was just curious is the other people on the commission have regrets about their decision 2 weeks ago or not. Sacchet: I definitely don't. I think it needs to be put in the proper framework and what we were concerned is that we accommodate a transition between the older type of the... Aanenson: That's not how the ordinance reads. The ordinance says, you will look on each side. You can't discriminate because sometimes it's 5 years, 10 years down the road before another house comes in. Sacchet: Yeah but Kate, I think where the hole that we fell into with this example here is when there's lots inbetween. I think that's something we didn't address in our discussion when we discussed this. And I think we should address that point rather than just make the whole thing look so absurd and nobody's ever going to think it makes any sense whatsoever because it doesn't in that context. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Aanenson: I see every permit that comes through and that's what I'm telling you, it doesn't work you know. I mean if we want to bring you every one for the next and you can see how it works and how it doesn't work, we'd be happy to do that too. Sacchet; Well yeah, I mean I understand. I mean and that was really part of the discussion too. I mean the thing itself is not what works or doesn't, it's us. That we apply it and I mean you obviously demonstrated with what you presented to us today that you guys really don't want to apply it, and that's fine. I mean that's your... Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, if it's difficult to explain to the homeowner, then what's the point? I mean, it has to have some sense and some rationale basis to it and explain to somebody that's easily understandable or what's the, then why have it? Kind: I'm sorry I brought it up. Aanenson: o..they want to remand it back for further consideration. Kind: At least I got my thoughts on the record so. Slagle: Madam Chair, I've got two things if I can. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: The first is, and I don't want to continue it tonight but just to throw out for people's consideration. With respect to trees and what not. In our meeting last time where we talked about the building, the Klingelhutz I think or whatever is going up there and there was a question as to well the tree's going to be x feet from such and such and you know we'll sort of do our best to protect it or whatever. And then I think Commissioner, well Craig sort of agreed with me like you know, it' s sort of vague and in reality a lot of that isn't practiced and you end up having root damage and trees get, and so that carries into my second point and that is, and I only speak for myself but I do know we have 4 commissioners that have at least, that have under a year and a half or two years experience. And I want to really encourage staff and the council to consider putting on, with their appropriate staff, city people, a half day seminar to new commissioners about roles because if you remember we came up with legal issues with Roger and I made the comment of why in the world are we considering something if it doesn't have a legal backing. You know if the attorney of the city has made a comment or has not commented that this is for all intensive purposes legally defendable, then why is it in front of this group? And things like that I want to ask in a forum that is more educational than public, if you will. So I want to encourage, just like council members do where they have an orientation, I really believe it would behoove the city and the staff to have that. Thanks. Aanenson: We'd be happy to do that. Feik: I'd agree. Blackowiak: He speaks. Okay, anybody else with a discussion item? We are adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson 52 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53