Loading...
7 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and Deb Kind STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND A HORSE RING WITHIN THE SECONDARY BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, JOHN KLINGELHUTZ. Sharmin AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have some questions Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: First of all, I like clarification of on the blueprint, there is one line labeled Bluff Creek 200 foot primary zone, and then there' s another line labeled Bluff Creek Overlay primary. A1-Jaff: The 200 foot was a line that the applicant, this is the line you're referring to. Sacchet: Yep. A1-Jaff: You can disregard it. The applicant just wanted to demonstrate that they are 200 feet away from Bluff Creek. Sacchet: So the relevant one is the overlay primary line. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: That is the one that by ordinance is relevant? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, okay. That's one of my questions. Then when you said, you made a point that the grading should not be more than 25% slope. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Do we know for a fact that I guess the grade just southwest of the horse ring is where potentially we have 25 % or more. Did they ever actually, with the current plan are we exceeding the 25%? A1-Jaff: We tried to measure it. We think it's borderline. The applicant is going to submit detailed surveys showing the exact slope of that area. Sacchet: It is pretty steep around there, but it seems to get even more steep through the grade so that's something that you're very fine. A1-Jaff: We're working with the applicant on it. Sacchet: And when you said it will be shifting to the south, that would be to avoid that 25%? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Now shifting to the south, that would be shifting down so there'd be a little more room, okay. Would then also the barn shift with it or? AI-Jaff: I think they would have to do that to accommodate the horse ring. Sacchet: ...do you have in your recommendation do you have an idea much it would need to shift? A1-Jaff: We think that it will be approximately outside the tree line that's shown on the plans, and I'll point that out. Here's the tree line. It might be a little bit within the tree line. Or maybe completely outside it. Sacchet: So that will be an additional benefit potentially that it would be less cut into the trees. Okay. Okay. In terms of the grading, this amount of grading is acceptable within the secondary Bluff Creek watershed? I mean it's, when I looked at the amount of grading it seems pretty significant. I mean in some cases like 10 feet or certainly approximately 10 feet. And it's basically taking one hill and moving it around. Is that within the tolerance of the second Bluff Creek framework? A1-Jaff: As long as the grades are below 25%. Sacchet: That's the criteria on that ordinance determines? AI-Jaff: That's the criteria. Sacchet: Okay. Do we know whether, maybe that's more a question for the applicant. Whether there is enough fill between the hill and all the areas that get built up. That' s probably more of a question for you Matt. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Saam: Yeah, Uli I have not received any soil quantity information from the applicant' s engineer as of yet so we can't really answer that question as to the amount of fill required or how it will affect the city. Sacchet: Okay. Is there, it seems it appears on the blueprint that there's a little bit of overlap with the grading into the septic area. Is that significant enough to be an issue or? Saam: Yeah, I just mentioned it in the staff report. It's a good idea not to drive any construction equipment over the septic area. Those pipes are plastic and they're not meant to take loads over them so that' s why it was brought up in the staff report. I would recommend no grading in the septic area. Sacchet: Is it something that from a city point is required or is it up to the applicant? Saam: Oh no, no. Sacchet: If his pipes break it's his responsibility? Saam: Yep, exactly. Sacchet: Okay. The drainage swale that flows to the north, I assume that's that area that gets kind of filled in where it's a little bit of a valley shape. Saam: That area to the south there? South of the small building? Sacchet: Yes, south of the small building. And that' s the part that you were referring to that you want to understand more the drainage patterns? Saam: Yep. Sacchet: Whether it drains north there or more to the northeast I guess that would be. Saam: Exactly. Upon visiting the site I had just some questions as to how it will drain after, or with this proposed grading so that's something I' 11 have to work out with the engineer and it is a condition in the staff report. Sacchet: And then the silt fence, I'm not quite sure where it starts and where it ends. It seems to be kind of coinciding. Saam: That's another good point. That's why We put a condition in there to put a legend on the plan explaining all these different lines. It's confusing to us too. If you look just off the eastern low line of the proposed grading off of that horse ring, there is some silt fence called out there and I think it' s supposed to be that one of those pink lines in there, but we'll need a little more definition. Sacchet: Actually there it's relatively understandable. It's probably that line that curves up and goes pretty much on grade. Yeah, I think we could clarify where those silt fence lines are. Let's see, no that's the questions I have. Just one more question. On the blueprint, I don't know if you can answer that or the applicant. On the blueprint there are those parallel lines between the two structures. Two barns. Like one line goes through the middle of the big barn south and then there' s 3 parallel lines going north. Saam: The black colored lines? Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001 Sacchet: They're all black on my blueprint so the color coding. Saam: Yeah, again that's something I'm not sure what that is. Maybe the applicant. Sacchet: Ask the applicant? Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, just a moment. I'd like to tell our newest audience members. We are on item number 3 for the public hearing of the Klingelhutz conditional use permit. Items 1 and 2 have been rescheduled to July 17t~ so if you're here for either of those items, you'll have to go and come back on the 17t~. Otherwise you're here for the right now. So I'm sorry, go ahead. Do you want to go LuAnn? Questions? Sidney: Yes. I guess just maybe a comment. Uli asked all the questions that I had which is just fine. But I guess I would like to make a comment and I guess one of my questions had to do with giving more direction to the applicant about the location of the horse ring and you answered that about it should be brought south past the, by the tree line further away and I guess I would like to make a comment that in doing so with the applicant that the intent of the ordinance is that within the secondary zone areas with average slopes exceeding 25% shall be preserved and the natural state maintained as permanent open space, and I guess I'm concerned that we don't grade too close. We need to have a good buffer between any disturbed areas of grading and whatever the secondary zone is to minimize that so, if we can understand how much may be needed outside of the horse ring, it's proper. You know what might be disturbed in the grading to work with the applicant to minimize that. Blackowiak: Rich, questions? No. I think I have just a couple questions of staff. Maybe just one. The 25% average slope figure has been talked about. Do any of these slopes near the 30%? I know that's our bluff ordinance. Is that correct, 30% on bluff?. A1-Jaff: 30% is bluff. Blackowiak: Okay, so we're not even close to that. We don't have to worry about that at this point. We're very close to 25, is that what I'm hearing? AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, well I just wanted to clarify that. Stating that, will the applicant or their designee like to come forward and make a presentation? Please state your name and address for the record. John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek Road. This afternoon, because of this 25%, I had my surveyor or engineer actually give me a grade of what is actually out there when he did the topographical map and it's 22.2%. So I don't believe that we need to move that ring. I mean it's within the ordinance at 22.2%. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Yeah, if it's at 22.2, yes. Okay, well that would be something that you could discuss with staff after this meeting but I think it's just a concern. John Klingelhutz: The other thing that I want to comment on, and that is the type of grasses to be planted. I want to have it a yard. I want to be able to manicure it. I don't want prickly ash and all those things in there. I want to plan good trees. I want to get rid of all the elms and the boxelders and the weeds. I don't want that. Blackowiak: Okay. John.Klingelhutz: I mean if you come and look at my yard you see that it's manicured and that's what we want this to be too. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I understand that. Are there any trees on the list of the approved tree list that would work for you or, I mean have you looked at that a little bit or are you just? John Klingelhutz: Well the oaks and all that, that's fine but I'm talking about the other things that are in this list that it's the wild stuff. I don't want it to be wild. Blackowiak: Right. Well I think that that's something that you could work with staff on to address issues that you have with that and find something that's going to work for you both because I think these are suggestions. I don't think you are, Sharmin correct me if I'm wrong, he doesn't have to put all of these in. These are some suggested options that would be encouraged in that area. AI-Jaff: We wanted to stay with native species to the Bluff Creek Overlay District and those are the options that are available to the applicant. Blackowiak: So is there anything that it has a more manicured look that he's looking for? I mean I guess I don't know the types of trees and grasses that well but. Al-Jaff: We can work with the applicant to find. Blackowiak: Find something that would be acceptable to both parties. AI-Jaff: Within the list. John Klingelhutz: The other thing in terms of the grading and the water runoff, after a rain right now there' s, in the pasture there' s probably 3 feet of water at times until the tile system takes it away. It doesn't really run this way. It actually runs more to the south. Blackowiak: Okay, could you show us on the maps? She's zooming in on that so. John Klingelhutz: I need to get my bearings here. The water actually comes, it sets in here and it actually runs this way after... Blackowiak: Okay, so kind of up to the east is what you're showing? Would that be to the east? John Klingelhutz: Yeah, to the east. See at one point I would have liked to have it going that way but, I mean that's not impossible. We have to...but I'm not sure we want it to go that way. Because now it Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 comes off of this, this is a large hill right here. And it runs down this way and it ponds here and after a while it soaks away in a day and it actually ends up here. Blackowiak: Okay. ! think that's again something that you can work with staff on and it sounds like that's not totally defined yet either. Is that correct Matt? Saam: Yep, we'll be able to work with him. We're fine with that. Blackowiak: Alrighty. John Klingelhutz: Okay. Sacchet: Can I ask some questions from the applicant? Blackowiak: Certainly. Do you have anything else you'd like to add right now or? John Klingelhutz: Not really other than there's a lot of dirt to take and there's 120 acres. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a big spot. John Klingelhutz: And this hill right here, I mean that can come down 20 feet. Sacchet: So you, that's actually one of the questions I have. So you think you have enough dirt by taking that hill down and you can move, shift things around so you. John Klingelhutz: I'm not saying we can't move things around. I'm just saying that I'd like to keep it as close to what I have here as possible because it's close to the house and at that point when my little kids are riding horses, somebody can be keeping an eye on them. Sacchet: Yeah my question is, in terms of moving dirt to fill, like you take the hill down. Is the idea that you have the dirt from the hill pretty much still left to fill where you need fill? John Klingelhutz: Right. Sacchet: That's your general approach? John Klingelhutz: Right. And I'd like to take this hill down because it's too high. I mean right now I have a tough time even cutting grass on it and part of it's in the pasture and you can't even drive a tractor on it. Sacchet: Because it's so steep. John Klingelhutz: Because it's so steep. Sacchet: Okay, okay. The idea of cutting less into the trees, what it looks like with the grade, it sounds like you' re okay based on your latest finding. The idea of cutting less into the trees is not something attractive to you. John Klingelhutz: I want to replace the trees that are there. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, I'm sure you're going to build it up and make it look real nice. Those lines that I didn't understand between the two barns, like there' s one line going through the center of the big barn. It goes outside of the barn to the south. I mean of these three parallel lines coming out of the small barn, do you know what those are? John Klingelhutz: No I don't. Sacchet: Okay. And then there was the recommendation from staff to try to maintain like a 2% slope. Making sure it's sloped every little bit. Is that something that makes sense to you? John Klingelhutz: I want that too. Sacchet: You don't have an issue with that? John Klingelhutz: No. Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have from you, thank you. John Klingelhutz: Okay. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Rich? No? I don't have anything either. Thank you. John Klingelhutz: Thank you. Blackowiak: This item is open for public hearing so if there's anybody who would like to ask questions or comment on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Okay, seeing no one we will. Oh, Debbie would you? I don't think so. Debbie Lloyd: I don't know what item we're on. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. We're on item number 3. Debbie Lloyd: I left. Thank you. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Did you want to say anything about this item? Debbie Lloyd: No thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Just checking. Alright, so then I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's time to make any comments that you have. Rich, would you like to start this evening? Slagle: Sure. First of all you have a beautiful property. We drive by all the time and just think the world of it. I had a concern but I think John has addressed it regarding the trees. When I first saw this my thought was, you know why isn't it a little bit further south to avoid the trees but now hearing from him I understand why. The grading, if it's 22.2, which I'm sure engineering and staff will confirm, I don't have on that slope, I don't have a problem with that. I really don't have any issues with this. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any comments? Sacchet: A few comments. I do think this is a great project overall. I'm envious of you. I do believe that it' s important to make sure that we minimize the slope of the grading and try to preserve trees but that can be done in different ways and that's basically your responsibility it looks like in terms of the city framework once we confirm that it's a bit less than the 25%. It's basically in your hands. And you're the steward of that place so that's where it's at. I do have two comments. One is to finding number 9 in the staff report. It says the development of this site will not result in the loss of any features which incorporation of staff s condition. I would like that reworded to say, the development of this site will result in loss of some features even with incorporation of staff conditions because I think introducing that steeper slope and cutting into the trees is having some impact. I don't think it's prohibitive. Again that's in the applicant's hands. And then I would also like to be affirmative in the condition number 1 where it says the applicant adjust the grading limits by shifting the horse ring to the south so there will be no slopes with grades that exceed 25%. Apparently that's already the case but avoiding the slope of 25% seems not quite specific enough. That's my two comments. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, any comments? Sidney: Well, you discussed the points I think that need fine tuning and I think it's a very nice project and make for a lovely piece of property when it's finished. Blackowiak: Okay, and I pretty much agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. I believe that with the conditions that staff has incorporated, that we will be really kind of making sure that we get what is best for the site. That the grades don't exceed 25% so that re-vegetation can be worked out with the applicant and staff so there's a nice mix and he can kind of get what he's looking for. The only condition that I would add, and this may not even be necessary if he does have enough fill on site but I think that we should add that, and I don't want to say standard but the engineering. Any import/export of fill requires appropriate permits. So if and when that happens, if there has to be fill brought in or taken off site, that the applicant would be required to get any appropriate permits and that's just a fairly standard condition so with the addition of that, and I agree with your finding number 9 Uli. That we can just say that it will result in the loss of some features. And that is, or maybe minimal loss. I don't know. I understand what you're saying but. Sacchet: I mean it's also the grading aspect which is fairly significant. Blackowiak: Right. But again I think that this fits within what is there, and I agree with what you're saying so. With that I would like to have somebody make a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval to Conditional Use Permit #01-4 to allow construction within the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District in an A2 District for a barn, shed and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated Received May 21, 2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And I'd like to reword condition number 1 to read, the applicant shall adjust the grading limits if exceeding, if they exceed 25% by shifting the horse ring to the south so that there will be no slopes that exceed 25%. And add a condition number 14 with the standard language of permits being required for importing/exporting fill. Blackowiak: Alright. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #01-4 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in an A-2 District for a barn, shed, and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated Received May 21, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall adjust the grading limits, if they exceed 25 %, by shifting the horse ring to the south and avoiding slopes with grades that exceed 25%. 2. The applicant enters into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 3. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest and Mesic Oak Forest communities of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities"). 4. The applicant shall apply for a stable permit. 5. Show the existing tree line that enters the site from the east. 6. Add a legend to the plan that defines the many different colored lines. 7. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey. 8. Show the location of the existing Culvert and nearby curb cut off of Bluff Creek Drive. 9. Show the proposed finished floor elevation for the small building. I0. Revise the proposed grading within the existing swale to eliminate the ponding of water. 11. Show a proposed drainage swale along the east side of the large building. 12. All disturbed drainage swale areas on the site shall maintain a minimum 2% slope. 13. A wood fiber blanket will be required over the steep slope on the east side of the proposed horse ring. 14. All appropriate permits shall be obtained regarding the importing and exporting of trill material on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. NEW BUSINESS: None. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Public Present: Name Address Teresa Meier 1060 Lake Lucy Road. Blackowiak: I'd like to make two comments on this before we start. First, Commissioners when we do go ahead and go through these items, I think that the simplest way might be going section by section and if we have any comments on a section we'll all kind of make our comments and then move onto the next section. So that way we're kind of all on the same page and it will make it easier for Sharmin to make any comments. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we getting input? Blackowiak: That was my second item. It's technically not a public hearing but if anybody has comments that they would like to make tonight, we will take comments in person tonight or you could make comments in writing. They may be submitted in writing as well so with that, Sharmin would you like to give us your report please. A1-Jaff: Sure. You've been working on this ordinance for. Sacchet: More than a year. A1-Jaff: More than a year. And over this time period what we've done is basically taken your input and incorporated it into ordinances. As well as clarified definitions. The model that we chose is basically similar to that that's followed by the flood plain ordinance. You have flood plain, flood way, flood fringe. That was, it's an established model that works for the entire nation. So that's what we tried to model this ordinance after and briefly I will go, this is an illustration, I would like to make that clear. It is not to scale. It's just to basically show what each definition is. This area is a public right-of-way or street. What you see in yellow is a roadway. It's the paved portion. It includes the shoulder on a street. What you see in green is a boulevard. Within that area you could have utilities, you can have sidewalks. This portion is a private street serving more than one home. It is the shared portion that is also highlighted in yellow. What you see in gray is individual driveways. Again, another scenario for private drive or private street, sorry. And these are individual driveways. These are just individual driveways serving individual properties, and this is a flag lot with a private driveway. The individual private driveway. So with that we began amending the ordinance. Basically the intent is to go through the entire city code and unify the definitions. What you see before you is only Chapters 18 and 20. Assuming that you approve this, we will then go before the City Council with Chapters 1 through 20, so all definitions read the same throughout the ordinance. We struck out certain words. We added new ones. What you see highlighted is added definitions that are used within the ordinance yet not clearly defined and in other areas we have taken out words that we thought are not needed for the definition. How would you like me to proceed with this? Do you want me to go one by one or? Blackowiak: Well I think that maybe what might be most effective is if we just went through section by section and started with 18-1, if you have anything that you'd like to point out to us. Sacchet: Can I ask a question as it relates to the whole thing? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Certainly. Go ahead. Sacchet: First before we go to specific. I just want to clarify two things. One is, this has all been reviewed with the city attorney? The definitions because like last time when Kate presented these things, her point was that the city attorney had found that these definitions weren't in place yet so I just want to clarify that we're clear on the legal side with all these definitions. A1-Jaff: We had a meeting with the city attorney, staff and the city attorney approximately 2 weeks ago and these definitions are at his direction. Sacchet: Okay. That's what I wanted to confirm. Okay, so then the other thing on the other side we had a lot of input from residents, the Paulsen's and Debbie Lloyd specifically to all these different definitions. Did they have some input at this point? A1-Jaff: No. Sacchet: That's what happens tonight basically? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, I just wanted that, I just want to clarify that for the whole thing. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think it might just be easiest, I mean if anybody's got a different idea, jump in but I'm thinking that if we just go section by section. We'll let staff make any comments they have. We can ask questions. Make comments and kind of close out a section and then move onto the next one so we aren't jumping back and forth too much. A1-Jaff: Okay. Blackowiak: So why don't we start with 18-1. Definitions. And if you have anything Sharmin that you think we need to specifically look at, go ahead. OtherWise we'll just start with questions or comments. AI-Jaff: Okay. The only thing I wanted to point out is that the definitions that we've added are used within Chapter 18. Only there wasn't a definition of them here. Within Chapter 18. Although Chapter 18 does reference Chapter 20. That if you can't find a definition within Chapter 18, you can reference Chapter 20. We pulled them in for. Blackowiak: So it' s just basically to clarify and to make it a little simpler to find it. A1-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Well, Rich, anybody have questions or comments? I'll just start with Rich this time. We' 11 kind of go back and forth I guess. No? Slagle: No I don't. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: 18-1, I have no comments. This looks really nice to-me. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I was just wondering if you were, where you were going to include the illustration, if at all, because I think up front it might be useful. Does it make sense to include it in the? A1-Jaff: We can do that. Sidney: I think right when you're talking about the definitions, it would be good to have the illustrations. A1-Jaff: We can do that. Blackowiak: And maybe in both 18-1 and 20~1, definitions. Again, just to simplify and make it easy to find. A1-Jaff: Okay. Blackowiak: I just have one, are you done? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sidney: And I guess right-of-way, is this the legal definition that Roger wishes to use? A1-Jaff: Again, this was at Roger's direction. He has not commented on the final draft. Sacchet: To clarify right-of-way could mean different things than the road, correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: You can have utilities within a right-of-way. A roadway. A sidewalk. Sacchet: Right-of-way. A1-Jaff: Right-of-way. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well I just have one comment on this and Sharmin I told you this a little, right before the meeting started. In the definition of street and this ties me into Uli's comment. It means a public right-of-way or private right-of-way, and then I'd like to add occupied by a roadway. Because you pointed out street, or the right-of-way can be different things so I think you need to just specify that it's the right-of-way occupied by a roadway. Sacchet: That's a good comment. Blackowiak: Alrighty so, we'll just move on from Section 18-I and go to 18-2. Compliance. There's not much there. You must comply. 18-3. Commissioners, just sort of jump in if you want to say anything otherwise I'll just keep going through. 18-4. Any questions? Comments? Okay, let's go to Article II, Section 18-21. Building Permits. Okay, 18-22. Variances. Okay, 18-23 through 35 are reserved. 18-36. Okay, Section 18-37. I just have a couple questions here. A couple comments. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sharmin, we' re talking about in the first sentence, minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on an existing public street or, are we talking about existing private streets? AI-Jaff: Yes. Yes we are. Blackowiak: Okay. Could we add existing there? And also on the next page, in the definition that abut an existing public or an existing private. So we clarify that it's not something new coming in. Okay, Section 18-38. Section 18-39. AI-Jaff: We don't require transparencies. Blackowiak: Okay. I see that. Section 18-40. Slagle: I have a question if I can on 18-39. Blackowiak: Oh sure. Slagle: Are we okay in the 500 feet? Blackowiak: The notification? Slagle: Yeah. Is that not raise any issues? A1-Jaff: State statute requires 300. We already go 200 feet beyond that and if directed by Planning Commission or City Council, in the past on special projects we've gone beyond that. Slagle: Sure, okay. Blackowiak: Okay, good. It's good to hear. Okay, Section 18-40. Okay, 18-41. Oh I have a question. Talking about the final plat application, kind of the second paragraph. If the final plat is not filed within this period, which is one year, preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good cause showing an extension as requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by City Council. Now can that extension be requested at any point in time or do you need to have it be requested before the one year anniversary? In other words, before the final plat becomes void. Or I mean excuse me, the preliminary plat becomes void. A1-Jaff: Typically what we do is 30 days prior to it expiring, we talk to the applicant and let them know that we need to bring this back before the City Council. Blackowiak: Before the one year anniversary? A1-Jaff: Correct. Okay. Well then maybe could we please add some language at the end, after an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the City Council prior to the one year anniversary date of preliminary plat approval. So we really specify that they've got that one year and if they don't act within that one year, either to do something or to request an extension, that it becomes void. Okay, Section 18-42. Questions? Okay, Article I/I. Section 18-56. Section 18-57. Sacchet: Now we're getting into it. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sidney: It includes the flag lots? I believe it does. Blackowiak: It does. Sidney: Madam Chair, one question for staff about that? And we went over this many times about adding the criteria on variance section blah, blah, blah should be met. Now would it be appropriate to list the criteria for a variance at this point or do you always refer back? A1-Jaff: We always refer back to that section. Sidney: Okay. I guess I'm just concerned that if, like individual property owners you know would turn to this. It might be good to write here. AI-Jaff: Repeat? Sidney: Repeat the variance language. A1-Jaff: We hope that they would meet with us prior to such application coming forward. It is a requirement of the ordinance and that would be the time to. Sidney: To go through the requirements. A1-Jaff: Go through all of that. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions? No? Uli. Sacchet: Yes I have a few things too. First I want to clarify that in section (o), private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12 and R-16. So they don't need a variance there? A1-Jaff: They don't need a variance, no. Sacchet: But then the continuation is we crossed out the other districts but then we say districts might be served by the private street. I think we have a little bit of a language issue there, don't we? We have twice with may and twice words but only one sentence. See what I mean Sharmin? Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial districts. Al~Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: May be served, and I think the language. I don't know whether, I'm not a native English speaker but it seems like English doesn't quite work in there. A1-Jaff: Okay. I think we need to take and R-16 districts. Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts. Sacchet: Period? A1-Jaff: Yes. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: And cross out the rest? Or do we want to say, if the city finds... A1-Jaff: If the city finds, so we're taking out may be served by. Sacchet: Okay, by private street because we already said. So we said private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts if the city finds the following conditions to exist. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay that's, I wanted to clarify that. And then I'm so happy to have number 6. That added thing in there about specific building orientation, increased setback. That was really one of the key things I believe that we're shooting for for this whole year. Now in letter (q), that's really the heart of this here. We're talking about flag lots or private streets, should that be plural? Is there an s missing or should we just say a private street? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: We want the s? AI-Jaff: Yes you do. Q? Sacchet: In (q). A1-Jaff: Flag lots or private streets. Sacchet: Okay. And then you already said that by referring back to Section 18-22, if the criteria in there on Section 18-22 is met, criteria is plural. It probably should say are met. I didn't even notice that until now so excuse me. So that is, I bring in where the variance is and I think LuAnn your comment was certainly appropriate. But then on the other hand, 18-22 is not that far away for people to look it up. My concern was just to make sure that it's clearly anchored in that the variance is needed. Now I'd like to ask, that's sort of my key question here. Why did we put the private street and the flag lot together? I think up til the last meeting where we worked through this, we already had it on two separate tracks like parallel so to speak. And here we merge it together and I'd like to know why. What is the benefit or what's the process that led to merging the two into one thing? A1-Jaff: Two things. Number one, the criteria for flag lots, as well as private streets is identical. Sacchet: One doesn't go without the other basically? A1-Jaff: No. They have to meet the same criteria. 1 through 3. Sacchet: Because one could go without the other? Al-Jaff: One could go without the other, absolutely. Sacchet: Actually in your example you have the flag lot, which I believe was a driveway. Not a private street. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: Correct. With a flag lot you're only serving one parcel only. Sacchet: Right, right. A1-Jaff: That has a neck to a public street. Sacchet: So we're saying because it has the same requirements... A1-Jaff: We put them together and we wanted to make sure that both of them go under the variance procedure. Sacchet: Let me take it one step further, and that should answer my question. Because when we look at the following condition exists as required, you have those three conditions. It appears to me only number 3 applies to flag lots specifically. If we look at the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible and inappropriate to construct a public. That should say public...cross out private. We don't want private in there, do we? That's another thing I wondered. On the condition 1 Sharmin. It's unfeasible and inappropriate to construct a public street, then we allow a private street? Or are we saying public/private street really clash of images? Saam: If I could. It also applies to flag lots though. I think so you could have possibly a private street where a flag lot comes off of that. A1-Jaff: Well we haven't had such, I can't think of such a scenario. Saam: Yeah. I'm just saying though, you could have that so then you may need to keep that private in there. At least that's the way I read it. Sacchet: Public/private street. I don't think we have defined. Blackowiak: Maybe an or instead of the slash. Sacchet: I think the, yeah that maybe should say or. Sorry I'm picky here but this is the time to try to get clear about these things. Okay. To construct a public or private street. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public or private street. In making this determination the city may consider location of existing property lines, homes, local or geographic condition and the existence of wetlands. So this applies, does this apply to both flag lots and private streets? A1-Jaff: It should. Sacchet: It actually does. Once we untangle that public/private, it does apply to both, okay. AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: I'm happy with that one. Number 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, bear with me please. It is concluded that an extension of the public or private street system is not required to serve the other houses in the area, improve access. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: This one means you don't automatically get a flag lot. That you need to investigate the other options which include public street, private street. Your third option is. Sacchet: So it does address both, okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Now that answers my question really well. And then of course the last one addresses both and that's clear. Good, thank you. Thanks for bearing with me. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any comments or questions? No. I have just a little question here Sharmin. Uli started with Section (o)1, 2 and 3 and you struck out the up to the 4 lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts. Then we go back to a number 1 and we're bringing those districts back in. I'm not quite following. I need a little help here. A1-Jaff: We're allowing. Blackowiak: We're allowing them in business, industrial, etc. AI-Jaff: Without a variance. Blackowiak: Without a variance. Okay, and then we get down to the number 1. Do we need to talk about when they're allowed in these A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts or how do we get there from? AI-Jaff: In number, I see. Sacchet: It's the second number 1. Blackowiak: Right. The second number 1. Almost the middle of the page. A1-Jaff: Soit's sequencing? Blackowiak: I think so. I'm not quite sure. I was just a little confused because it above in the letter (o) it struck out those specific districts and then in the number 1 below that, the second number 1 below that it added them back and I'm just kind of curious, do we need to explain why they're back there? And I don't have an answer for that. It's more of a question then an answer or a comment. A1-Jaff: These are the specifications for a private driveWay~ Blackowiak: Where we need to say that they would be possible in these districts with a variance or, I mean what do we need to say because it just doesn't flow well to me. And I guess I don't need to belabor it right now but maybe some word smithing between the time that we see it and it goes to council. Uli, do you have a suggestion? Sacchet: Yes, but go ahead Sharmin. Do you have something? A1-Jaff: I was going to suggest that you add it under (q) that they would meet the specifications outlined in. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: That's what I was going to say. I mean since the letter (o) does not relate anymore to this districts, while (q) does. It should be going under (q). Blackowiak: Okay, I'm happy with that. I just want to make sure that we're kind of tying it all together. A1-Jaff: We can do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, any more comments or questions on Section 18-577 If not, we'll move onto 18-58. Alleys. 18-59. Blocks. Sacchet: Are we at 60? Blackowiak: Right now. 18-60. Sacchet: Yes. (a). Lower case a. All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or be accessed. Should there be a be in there? Or be accessed via private street or flag lot which shall have minimum. I think the be is missing. Instead of that crossed out on. Does that make sense? Is that English? Blackowiak: All lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private. Well. Sacchet: Or be accessed. Blackowiak: You could say or be accessed or you could even take accessed via out of there and say or on, just how it was kind of. Or on a public...full required minimum frontage, whether it be a private street or public street. Correct? That's what we're looking for. Sacchet: Right, and they need to be accessed or it's one of the options they be accessed via a private street. Blackowiak: Right. Okay. Well Sharmin we can kind of, Section (a) just clarify in some way, shape or form, all lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance. Sidney: Or on a private street. Blackowiak: Or on a private street, because that's, to me that makes a little more sense. Sacchet: If you go back to all lots shall, number 1... Number 2, be accessed via. I mean if you go linguistically, it all goes back to the all lots shall. A1-Jaff: May I point something out? Blackowiak: Please. A1-Jaff: This parcel. Here is your property line. Here is the front property line on this parcel. It is not on. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: The private street, yeah. A1-Jaff: ...via. Blackowiak: The private drive. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Let's say be accessed then. Not on. Yeah, that's a good reason why not to say on. Blackowiak: I agree. I'm convinced. Sacchet: So we add the word be. Be accessed. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm happy. Any other questions on 18-607 I have one. The lot remnants. Could we further define that? I mean a lot remnant is what? I mean just a little. A1-Jaff: You'll seea. Blackowiak: An outlot or what? A1-Jaff: Let me use the, the road came through. Now granted, these are substantially larger than, this is a fairly small scale. Blackowiak: Right. A1-Jaff: But if it would have created a parcel that was 100 feet long and 20 feet deep, it doesn't meet any of the standards of the ordinance. It' s unbuildable. I would consider that to be a remnant lot. Blackowiak: Okay. Well maybe we could just, remnants that are. Sidney: Remnant lots are prohibited. Blackowiak: Remnant lots? Yeah, remnant lots. Yeah, just switch them around. That's good. Remnant lots. Okay, that's simple enough. Sacchet: Should we say unusable remnant lots? I mean do you want to validate... ? Blackowiak: I think by definition a remnant lot is unusable. Sacchet: Okay, because I was thinking if you have a development of lots and then all except one, that' s a lot. Blackowiak: Not if, not if it's platted as a lot. It would be. Sacchet: It's the one that remains. Remnant lot. I mean it's logical thinking. That's why I'm saying, if we imply it's unusable, maybe it'd help to be... Blackowiak: But the owner would still own it, or the developer would still own it. I don't know. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: It doesn't make that much of a difference. I think if we want to be real clear. Blackowiak: Well think about it Sharmin. Come to a decision before City Council. Decide if you want to deal with that or not. Okay. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. Do you have any comments on 18-61 ? I have one little comment on number 7 near the end. It talks about conservation easements. Generally Sharmin, conservation easements are recorded. A1-Jaff: Again the property. Blackowiak: Again the property. Do we need to mention that? I mean maybe just say that they should be recorded? I mean I guess as a matter of course they are. Is that, is it information that would be helpful? I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I'm just kind of throwing. A1-Jaff: I'm reading it but. Saam: Madam Chair, if I could just add typically easements are recorded so in my mind by definition an easement is recorded. Blackowiak: It's just redundant? Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that I was looking into that. Rich, did you have a question on this section? Slagle: Yeah, on 61. Sacchet: Which one? Slagle: 18-61. Are we on 61 yet? Blackowiak: Yes we are. Slagle: Okay. All the way to the very end, 11. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required, and I don't know if this area, this sub-point talks to the concern that I know I've addressed. Uli's addressed. Craig's addressed, is to how do we guarantee that people adhere to for any damage to trees to whatever, natural resources and I guess my question is, what is an acceptable financial guarantee? I mean what is the folks, the one right next to the church. The old church. What are they putting down as a financial guarantee that those large trees will not be damaged? Is it 50 bucks? Is it 1,0007 A1-Jaff: We receive a bid from the contractor and then we take 110% of whatever that value is. Slagle: So additional 10% to protect. Okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. And if the requirement is to preserve trees before any grading takes place, we require the fencing to go up. Jill Sinclair, our City Forester would go out there. Make sure that all the trees that are supposed to be saved are tagged and fenced. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Slagle: Well let me ask this. One of my first meetings, and Matt I think you addressed it, we voted on what to provide as an escrow or protective amount and we ended up with a minimum, and I apologize for not remembering what it was, but is that what we're talking about here or is that a totally separate, in essence an escrow account? Saam: That was by definition for erosion control. Sometimes those areas cross together when you're talking slopes, trees. You know we want silt fence around the trees so little bit of a gray area but we do have, I think what Sharmin was referring to was landscape escrows. That's just for trees so. A1-Jaff: It's been a while since I looked at the figures but typically it's approximately $250 for a tree. And then you take that at 110%. Slagle: Okay. So, I mean if I can summarize and what I think I hear is $250. 110% so 275. A1-Jaff: Per tree. Slagle: Per tree. A1-Jaff: And it depends on the species of the tree as well. Slagle: Sure. And 275 will get you in essence a starter tree. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Okay. So in essence you know one of these 30 some inch trees that we talked about preserving could unfortunately get damaged, die and'what will replace it will be a starter tree. In essence. Worst case scenario. Aldaff: If it's a 30 inch that was proposed to be saved, then you replace it with 30 inch calipers, 2 ½ inch minimum each so you will have 30 divided by 2 ½. Slagle: Okay. And the feeling is we're pretty tight on that? Okay. AI-Jaff: It's been working. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Any more on 18-617 Let's go to 18-62. 18-63. Surface water management. I have one comment on the second page on the right hand page Sharmin. Second line down. Subdivision will be given a credit for any on-site storm. That should be two words. AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Just clean it up a little bit. 18-76. Any questions? Easements. This is Article IV. 18-77. 18-78. Okay, 18-79. Parkland dedication requirements. Okay Sharmin, I have a question on that. On the second page there' s a table of the calculations. The population calculations. I remember Kate saying that the 2000 census numbers came in and she was really surprised by some of the numbers that she had 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 seen. Based on those numbers and that information, are we comfortable with the numbers that we have in here or should we be updating those as well? A1-Jaff: Single family was at. Blackowiak: 3.7 or something like that. Slagle: I thought it was higher. Blackowiak: Yeah, I remember them being a little higher so I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be, you know if it's 3.7, 7.4, you know what I mean? Whatever it is. I think we should look into at least adjusting this for a current census data. A1-Jaff: I will make a point. Blackowiak: I mean since we're going through this. A1-Jaff: I will make a point of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, that's my comment for 18-79. Now we're into Section 20. A1-Jaff: And before you go over Section 20. Everybody got a copy of. Blackowiak: Adding the (q). AI-Jaff: Again with Section 20, there was no definition of boulevard yet it' s a term that' s used in the zoning ordinance. Clarifying the meaning of driveway. The only addition that you received to date was street. The definition of street. Blackowiak: And I guess Sharmin we could add occupied by a roadway or whatever that verbiage was. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: From the earlier section. Thank you. A1-Jaff: And then Section. Blackowiak: Section 20-1103, which refers back to the requirements. A1-Jaff: Of the variance. Blackowiak: Right, okay. Okay, any questions on those? Sacchet: Yeah. On the definition of the setback. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or right-of-way. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: And I have an answer for you. Sacchet: And within shoreland areas. I'm still thrown by that within shoreline areas. I know there are setbacks within the shoreline area but the way it's worded here is, I felt very. A1-Jaff: Okay, within shoreland areas comma, and put in a small s for setback. Sacchet: Comma setbacks. AI-Jaff: So and, within shoreland areas setbacks also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the OHW. Sacchet: Okay. That does make sense. Excellent. I love it. Thanks Sharmin. Slagle: You thought you had her, didn't you? A1-Jaff: He did have me when he called. Sacchet: I gave her forewarning of this one. Good job. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions or comments on this section? Okay, well. As I said I will open this item up for comments. So if you'd like to come up and comment on any of these fun and exciting amendments to Chapters 18 and 20, please feel free to do so. I would just ask that you state your name and address for the record and if you could go through numerically, similar to what we did, that would be very helpful for us to follow. So if anybody would like to make any comments. Teresa Meier: I'm Teresa Meier and I'm at 1060 Lake Lucy Road. I want to go back to, let's see. It is 18-57. And it goes back to the (q) which I know was brought up before with flag lots or private streets. If you read it and you read the conditions below, I think you would want to take the private street out because if you say flag lots or private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted if the criteria on Variance 18-22 are met and if the city finds the following conditions, the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. I don't know why, if you put private street you' re really being redundant there because you're saying that you're private flag lot or private street may be permitted if the development pattern is unfeasible to construct a public street. But then you're using private in there again. See what I'm trying to say? Blackowiak: Yeah I think, I understand what you're sayingl Sharmin, is this the discussion about the driveway. The private drive versus private street or what are we, when we're talking. Teresa Meier: Private streets on the top and in that condition. Blackowiak: Right. No, I understand that. What do you think Sharmin? A1-Jaff: I know why it's there. Your first option is a public street. Second option is a private street. Your third option is a flag lot. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, I understand what you're saying too. So then maybe in (q) we need to separate flag lots and private streets. And I'm not sure, you know what I'm saying. Just to take that private street out of there. Sacchet: I personally think it would be safer to have it separate, the flag lot from the private street. Just avoid this type of confusion. Blackowiak: In other words, let me just offer a suggestion. Read, flag lots may be permitted in the A-2, RSF, blah, blah, blah district, if the city finds the following conditions exist, 1, 2 and 3. Leave those as it is and then maybe add a condition R. Private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted in the A-2, RR, RSF, etc. And then in condition 1, take out the word private. So in other words, then we have conditions 1, 2 and 3 but then condition 1 would read only, the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. So in other words flag lots is addressing both the public and private street issue, whereas the private street is only addressed by the public street issue. Does that make sense? Sacchet: The same would hold true for number 2, because there we also say private or. Blackowiak: Or public. Sacchet: So the private would come up there as well. Blackowiak: Okay, so then when we talk about flag lots we talk about public and private streets. And then when we go to condition, what would be condition r or Section r, we would talk about private streets serving up to 4 lots. The same 3 sub-conditions, 1, 2 and 3 but take out the mention of private streets on those 3. Would that all mesh together? Is that what you're trying to get at? Okay. Teresa Meier: Yeah. Sacchet: It applies to number 3 also. It applies to all 3 of them, yeah. Teresa Meier: Okay, so we just have to take out the private street mention when we talk about private streets but if we just kept r separate and broke it out, I think that's what you were talking about earlier. Sacchet: Right. I prefer to go that route. That's why I was trying to understand why staff in discussion with the attorney found it beneficial to merge them. I personally think it'd be better to keep them separate. A1-Jaff: Okay. We can do that. Blackowiak: Okay, great. Good comment. Anything else? Teresa Meier: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, and just first off I want to say I'm really disappointed I didn't have a chance to review this until I walked in here tonight. I couldn't, unless I missed something and the Paulsen's missed something, I didn't see it published as an agenda 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 item in the Villager for the last 2 weeks. It was also not on the web site today, and as you all know you asked if we could review this beforehand. We've put in about a year's worth on all of this and there's just a lot of fine detail that I can't even recollect. Blackowiak: Yeah. Okay, just so. Debbie Lloyd: I do know I can address it in writing but I did want to state that because I think that is a real problem with the city is informing citizens and if we've been on top of things, and we don't even know. Blackowiak: Right. Well this item is not technically open for public hearing. I just thought that you know I would like to open it up tonight and I certainly encourage you to do any comments in writing and also Sharmin, correct me if I'm wrong. This was in the packet that went out Thursday so it would have been available up in City Hall on Thursday. Okay. So this was in the packet on Thursday, which is when we all get. Debbie Lloyd: It wasn't noticed. There wasn't notice in the paper and as far as I know there should be notice in the paper. Blackowiak: Not if it's not a public hearing. Sacchet: The agenda was published. Blackowiak: This isn't, the agenda was published. Yeah. Debbie Lloyd: Was this in the agenda? Sacchet: Yeah I'm pretty sure. Debbie Lloyd: Published in the paper? Blackowiak: As far as I know. You know again. Sacchet: I believe it was, but I'm not 100% sure. I usually look in the paper because I look there before I get the package. Blackowiak: Well regardless. Like I said, it was available on Thursday so if you have comments. If you could just go through section by section. Debbie Lloyd: Well I do have. I think we'll probably be addressing most everything in writing. Section 18-37(a). Basically you're exempting lots from having to go through the platting procedure if they're on an existing public street or private street. That does not clarify private streets with up to 4 lots so I think that could be misconstrued because all the way along we say there can only be a maximum of 4 lots there by a private street. So that little clarification is not in that section. Blackowiak: Okay, Sharmin can you look into that? Okay. Debbie Lloyd: Your comments on 18-41 about the 30 day notification. This is just an off the wall comment. I'm surprised the city would want to have the burden of needing to notify the citizens because 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 that is a burden. I think the citizen should be on top of their own, what they want to do with their own property and lot. If they brought it for approval to the city, if they've let it expire I think it's their burden. Not staff to have to follow. Blackowiak: That's a good point and you know I wish that everybody was really on top of things. Sharmin, is this a state law that we're following or where did this come from? Do you know? Sacchet: Service oriented. A1-Jaff: It is a city ordinance. Btackowiak: Okay. I'm just wondering if we're following state law on something or if it's just. A1-Jaff: We don't want, what we don't want to see happen is a preliminary plat comes in. It's approved and it sits and ordinances change and nothing happens with them without a deadline. Blackowiak: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: I mean there's a year deadline I believe for preliminary plat approval. A1-Jaff: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: Also then, Section 18-57 under (b). Blackowiak: B as in boy? Debbie Lloyd: Yes. We take the effort here of defining the width of the streets. Private street has a defined width. It's 30 feet. It's a private street easement of 30 feet. There's requirements in the code, I could dig them up but I'll just leave that as a comment. Blackowiak: Sharmin, any comment on that? A1-Jaff: We can add it. Blackowiak: It could be added to the table, okay. Debbie Lloyd: Under the same 18-57(o). I don't know if it's good to strike up to 4 lots there. That's just only a comment because again carrying that through might be a wise thing to do. Blackowiak: Yeah, I think this whole area has a little more word smithing to do before it reaches council that's for sure. Sharmin, any comments? Ai-Jaff: What we did was we struck out the up to 4 lots in (o) but then we moved it actually to (q). Blackowiak: Okay, that's right. So it has not been eliminated entirely. Sacchet: That's where it really applies is in (q). Blackowiak: Is in (q), okay. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: Correct. Because densities that are higher than R4. Blackowiak: Are addressed. A1-Jaff: Are addressed and there are more than 4 units being served via a driveway. Sacchet: It's a different. A1-Jaff: It just has different classifications. Debbie Lloyd: I'm mostly concerned about the RSF. A1-Jaff: And that is under (q). Blackowiak: Under (q), okay. Thanks Sharmin. A1-Jaff: Sure. Debbie Lloyd: I have a problem with 18-60(a). The original intent of private streets, and I can provide all the lingo back years from when it was approved by Planning Commission and City Council, was not to create the opportunity for anyone to just cut a driveway through their neighbor's lot. Now if there's a 30 foot width, 30 foot easement or right-of-way that helps with the setback, and that's really one of our concerns because you could have indiscriminate driveways, as you'd call them, going through parcels of land and I think we're going to have to write that up a little bit more. Blackowiak: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: Indeed this could be a flag lot ideally. Blackowiak: Could you. flip it up the other way. There we go. Now which one are you referring to? Sacchet: The one with the long driveway? Debbie Lloyd: This is a private street easement as it would be called...or a private drive or a driveway. In order to subdivide the original intent was, there has to be, it has to be, each lot has to meet the minimum frontage requirement. Like you said before, 30 feet is the minimum would be a flag lot and that was designed originally a private street. If you go back to 1990, that's what the council at that time approved as a quote, "private street". I have to tell you that we researched how many private streets there actually are. There were like 4 private residential streets I think that were approved that were never even built on. Most of the private streets, if you look on the city plats, are not really RSF private streets. They're in PUD's and I think that's very different than RSF situation. Sacchet: Just to clarify the example you showed on the drawing Debbie. Basically what were you trying to show Sharmin, the idea of flag lot versus having just an easement to get across, because I know there are situations where people just have an easement and not necessarily own the land, but the have a right- of-way easement. AI-Jaff: State law permits them. We want to stay consistent with the state law. 27 Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001 Sacchet: So it's anchored beyond our grasp. Our reach anyhow, okay. Debbie Lloyd: But in order to subdivide you have to have a minimum requirement of frontage. So that's where it gets sticky. Sacchet: Right, right. Debbie Lloyd: I think there was one other little, yeah back to Section 20-1. Definitions. Lot line means a line of record bounding a lot which divides one lot from another from a roadway right-of-way or other public space. I had a big question there. I can't, I know in my mind it's pertaining to setback. Blackowiak: Or even, roadway right-of-way or other lot. I mean it maybe needs to be expanded a little bit because those aren't the only two possible dividing roadway and public space are not the only two possible neighbors for a lot let's say. We could have another lot. We could have a private space that isn't, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so I agree. We need to maybe expand that just a little bit Sharmin to. A1-Jaff: If you look at the definition of lot, because...we decided to leave it as is. Blackowiak: To leave it separate because you've expanded in the definition of lot. A1-Jaff: Because definition of lot, plats, metes and bounds, subdivision, occupied or intended to be occupied by a principle building, group of such buildings, accessory buildings. It really covers. Blackowiak: Okay. So then you're comfortable just leaving it there because it's defined right above? A1-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. I understand. Sacchet: Understand Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah. Okay, that's it. Thank you very much. I know you're tired... Sacchet Thank you Debbie. Blackowiak: Rich, did you have a comment? Slagle: Yeah, and I can address them Debbie as you sit down. First of all it was, Debbie, in the paper. Upper left page 10, so I just wanted to let you know but my point of making a comment is this. Wonderful job on this, and I know time and effort plus, plus, plus has been put into this. But I have to share to the city staff as a whole my disappointment in what appears to be some serious and sincere efforts by residents who are our customers, point blank. That is who we serve and to hear with their energy and their time they've put into this and I'll be honest, more well versed than I on this commission, and to hear that we didn't even invite them to participate from a month or two ago when I asked that they be involved. I know they gave input, and I would just think we would look at them as an additional resource to further assist us. Now I know that they're not the ones to make these decisions. That's our role and the council's, but I would just again ask for your consideration that they be brought in, in some 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 form of discussion because we've already come up with 3 or 4 points that are raised that at least raise a question for us that we're not directing back to staff and I hope it's nothing that they're doing that's causing us not to seek their input. And again I just, this time I really want to strongly ask that we seek their input. Why not? So, that's all I wanted to say. Blackowiak: And I think we did a really good job of going through this tonight, because it was pretty, not the most scintillating reading at times but it is nice to go through and get comments and that's one reason I wanted to make sure we opened it up for public hearing tonight. And also you know written comments are always appreciated and I think that's maybe even more appropriate than specific meetings which are often not well attended. And then we get charged with not including people and those types of things but I mean written comments I think are always a very good way and it's easy to refer and you've got your comments and if we can go down section by section, I think it really makes it easier and very helpful for all of us because this is not a very easy thing to go through. Not terribly exciting at times. Anyway, I think what we need to do is, do we need, we don't need to make a motion do we? Sacchet: I think we do need to make a motion. Blackowiak: Do we need to make a motion? Sacchet: I'm anxious to make a motion. Blackowiak: With comments and changes and public input and then any other written comments that may come in, you know and just kind of send that all to council. Sacchet: Do you want me to comment on this? Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: I mean I was prepared last time when this came up just for our information, I felt very clear that I would like to pass this through to council so we have something in place for the flag lot and private street aspect. And really the heart of that is two things: One is that we are requiting a variance for flag lots and private streets. We are requiring a variance. And then the other thing is that we specify what type of conditions that could possibly be attached, which we expressed by saying specific building orientation, increased setbacks, so we set an expectation of what we would possibly attach as conditions. That's at the heart of it. But in order to put that in place, I was told at the previous meeting that we have to have all the definitions lined up. I do believe that we lined up our definitions very well. I think it's a tremendous job and it was done in very short time. I think it's extremely commendable. I believe that it' s very appropriate to make a motion to pass the heart'of What we were trying to accomplish, and at the same time we accomplished a ton more. We put definitions in place. We lined up some of the wordings and some of the way this is understood in the rest of the context. And i certainly invite, if there are residents that have comments to make, to make those in writing and I do regret that you didn't have a chance to look at that a little bit beforehand. That is unfortunate. But I do believe that a lot of what we see in front of us is a direct result of your input Debbie and the Paulsen's and I think you have been heard. It's unfortunate that in this last stage you weren't included a little more proactively. I regret that personally but I'm sure you have a chance to give your input still in writing into this process as it is going onto council. And I do think we would want to make a motion from the Planning Commission to pass it on as we discussed tonight with emphasis on those points that we want a variance as private. Blackowiak: Well be my guest. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: So yes. So my motion, if you want me to make a motion, I do make a motion. Slagle: Now you know you can, if I can just point of clarification. From what we learned by the City Council, you can make a motion as discussed tonight, as included in here and that really is it. Sacchet: That's it. Slagle: That's right. Sacchet: That's it. I mean the motion basically that we recommend approval of the attached amendments to Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed tonight with, and I would like to say with emphasis of introducing the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street environment, and by defining or giving the indication what type of conditions could be attached, because that's at the heart of it. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Alrighty. And do we have a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been and seconded. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission of the attached amendments to Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed, with emphasis on introducing the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street by defining or giving the indication of what type of conditions could be attached. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4to0. Blackowiak: This goes to City Council what date Sharmin? Do you have a date for this yet or not? A1-Jaff: I shall do my best. Blackowiak: Okay, but it will be in the paper like it was last time? A1-Jaff: It will be in the paper. Bear in mind that what I'm working on now is going through the rest of the chapters, so at that point 20 chapters will go before the City Council. Kate and I talked about it, whether we should have a work session with them first because. Blackowiak: That would probably be really good to get them up to speed because this is something that unless you spend a lot of time looking at it, it's very formidable. AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. So you'll just keep us apprised of when it's going to council and we would appreciate that I think. Alright. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 5, 2001 as presented. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 ONGOING ITEMS. A1-Jaff: Actually I have one, I' ve heard a comment often from Planning Commission regarding the last CSM building that was built. It's brick with gray block on top. Slagle: CSM? Blackowiak: CSM on East Lake Drive. Or Lake Drive East. Al-Jaff: Right next to Abra. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: And it faces Highway 5. That it looks like it's unfinished. So gave them a call and they came visited the site and they agreed. They're not required to but they're doing it and there are two options. And they were separating today some of the parking lot...painting the existing block with warmer colors. Down below the windows it would be a shade of brown. Up on top it would be a shade of beige. The other option to go with the same color both on top and the bottom. Staff prefers the darker under the windows, lighter up on top. Blackowiak: Boy either way I think we're gaining something so I would certainly encourage them to do whatever works. I think it's great that you made the phone call and. A1-Jaff: They're wonderful to work with. Blackowiak: Great. That's nice to hear. AI-Jaff: Very responsive. Sidney: We had a discussion about painted block before and are they going to, indicated that they'll repaint it when necessary? AI-Jaff: That's one of the things we're waiting on right now. We're going to ask for a guarantee on the paint. Typically they last 10 years, the type of paint that the city will approve. And CSM is pretty committed to their building. I mean they always keep them up. Sidney: Well it has to look good on Highway 5, otherwise they're not... Blackowiak: Great. Well that's nice to hear. Okay, any other ongoing items Sharmin? A1-Jaff: Kate listed all the items that staff is working on. Really your next session is going to be full. Blackowiak: I heard that and Kate mentioned that she would try to maybe get the packet out a day earlier or something so we'd have a little extra time to go over things because it sounds like it is a full agenda so, it would be nice to have it early I think. OPEN DISCUSSION. Blackowiak: Okay, open discussion. I know LuAnn you had something you wanted to talk about. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19,2001 Sidney: A couple things I guess, since the next meetings going to be really long, it sounds like and a full agenda. I'm thinking maybe either the Chair or Vice-Chair might put out a notice and encourage commissioners to call ahead and discuss things with staff. Maybe that could expedite things. So I think maybe the commission should take that on. Blackowiak: Certainly, I will do that. Sacchet: E-mail. Blackowiak: E-mail. Sidney: And then also I guess listening to the discussion following the discussion about the ordinance amendments to chapter, well additions to Chapters 18 and 20, I guess I'm wondering if we have in place an understanding of what is the process for making or suggesting ordinance amendments and I'm wondering if that should be clarified because I was kind of surprised that everything came a public hearing right away, or at least that was my experience and maybe if we talk about dealing with that maybe on a workshop level or a work session level first. And I really think that's the point where we get the most citizen and resident input because I believe the intent of the commission is to be the interface with the residents. We are the representatives of City Council and I think at that point that's where we should have the most impact and the most contact with people in the community. And in that forum that we can bring forth the things that are of concern. Then you move to the next level which might be involvement with staff. Staff will have input and then we move into the public hearing format, and at that point everything should be worked out and it should go smoothly but I think we were dealing, like tonight, you know more in a work session format than really necessary. And I guess I'd like to make a comment too that I was surprised, even though this seems to be an important type activity and we've had numerous discussions about the amendments, I still as a commissioner have received no calls from residents about the amendments to the ordinance and I guess I'm a little surprised about that. Usually in public hearings or anything of that nature, development issues, citizens will call so I'd just like to make that comment. So I guess to wrap up all that blabbering, I'd make a suggestion as to how we approach these in the future and maybe step back and not go right to the public hearing is the first step. Blackowiak: That's a good thought. I mean I think we got a lot done tonight but yeah. Maybe it is more of a work session interfacing and discussing. Sacchet: Well we were lucky that we didn't have a very full agenda. It kind of lend itself tonight for this but it was more workshop than anything. Sidney: And I think, you know what I view our role is, is like I said, to interface and be a direct contact with the residents and then really take the burden off of staff and off of City Council in these kinds of discussions, so anything we can do to help staff and City Council I think we should do. Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Any other discussion? Rich? Slagle: Go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have one thing. And just to add to LuAnn's comment. We're representing the citizens on one hand and on the other hand to council. It works both ways. The discussion I have is, I already mentioned this to Kate and I want to bring it up here for the record that I think it's something we 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 could consider as a city, it'd be nice to have a historic preservation ordinance of sorts. I don't think we have anything along those lines at this point in our city. I don't think it's a really high priority but I would like to add it to the action items that we are working on that eventually address. I do have, and this was brought up to me by a resident and I do have some copies here that were collected for, actually it is on there already. Wow! Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say, it is on there already. Sacchet: Well I don't know it might have been put on based on my comments. Blackowiak: So is that for staff then to look at? Sacchet: I'd like to throw that at staff. It's some examples. Apparently Chaska has quite extensive framework for it. There is something for Bloomington. There is Eden Prairie also has something, and I think it would be a nice, overall addition to our city so I' 11 pass that on. Blackowiak: Well it's on the list so just keep checking these off. Sacchet: I've been heard before I even said it here. That's really encouraging, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Did you want to? Slagle: Sure, just two things that I wanted to discuss briefly, and they're both I guess sort of again reminders of what I brought up but I haven't seen it come back yet. And the one is a discussion I made in open discussion, oh 3 meetings ago or so about sidewalks. And I noticed in Section 18-59 1 almost stopped us and asked, but it says pedestrian ways may be required on blocks longer than 900 feet, or in other areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination points. And I guess I just want to, not tonight but I want to hear in a work session format what staff' s position on sidewalks is because I have yet to see any requirements for a sidewalk and it's again, something that I'm interested in. And then the last thing is, is the idea of a training session and that could coincide with a work session, because I think it' s absolutely critical that myself and new folks here get an introduction to the city, to what staff' s complete role is. Their objectives. How they see things and I laughed with Uli and I laughed with this earlier but a flag lot, I thought they had flag poles initially and you know that could be I'm really ignorant but my guess is most residents when you say a flag lot would be like, you know something to do with flags. And so I really, and to me when I look on these lists, I think training or an introduction is as critical as some of these so I don't know how I go about making a case to get a training session. I'll just keep bringing it up until we get one. Blackowiak: Well I think one good thing is that there are other training sessions offered by GTS. Government Training Service. And I've attended one. Slagle: And I know the benefits but I really want to know. Blackowiak: Specifics, right. And I was going to say Sharmin, do you know if we have any kind of a work session on the books? I mean normally we have 2 a year. A1-Jaff: Kate is working on that. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 , Blackowiak: Okay, because that would certainly be something that I think we all could benefit from, whether we've been on the commission for you know a couple few years or not. Sidney: Yeah, and I think to have Roger there... Blackowiak: Exactly. Slagle: Absolutely. Sidney: Ask Roger those burning questions. Blackowiak: Because I remember before when we did the presentation of the pyramid and discretionary power and what you can and cannot do and levels of decision making. That's very good. I mean that's something we could all, or I certainly could use a refresher course on and I think that that would be good. Slagle: And one more just slide it into that. And that is, from my own experience, which is my own experience in Woodbury, the City Council and the Planning Commission, and I want to use the word often but often, I can't tell you whether that was twice, every 6 months or whatever the number was. They got together in work sessions and talked and I'm hoping that we get a chance to do that, because right now I think there' s, in my opinion, there's an unfamiliarity at least in my role as to council's thoughts and objectives and what not. Blackowiak: And that would be nice for the council liaison to give some feedback to us and maybe at the open discussion at the end of every meeting, where have things gone. You know is there feedback? I mean that might be an appropriate time to talk about it too. Slagle: I'm done, thank you. Sacchet: Question. Are we still getting little summaries from council meetings? Or did we abandon that? Blackowiak: Well I went to the council meeting that was less than an hour long that had to be adjourned because there wasn't a quorum. So that was not, there was not much to talk about. A couple things happened. They did the consent agenda. They did some visitor presentations and that was it. That was basically the meeting so there really wasn't much to report on. That was the meeting I attended which was maybe a month ago. I don't know who went to the last meeting. Sidney: It might have been me I guess. Slagle: I think you and I. Sidney: Yeah, you were there. I guess the only thing I remember was a lot of trail about trail easements and things like that and utility easements. And then also we had the Holiday Station came up and I guess there's going to be improvements and additions... Slagle: You know I should throw out to the group, and LuAnn I think was amazed as I was, and I did call Todd Hoffman afterwards and asked him just from my own position in trying to gain some background. How a house could have a trail easement literally to the wall and you know what his comment was, he goes, they're out there. He says it isn't just this house and I said, I'm just amazed that this just appeared 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 and he said yeah, I mean there's a lot to the story but he said Rich, there are homes out there that the easements go right up, almost to the wall. I mean if that trail was built, here's the wall and literally here's the trail. Right next to their house. It's amazing. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well any other discussion items? No? We are adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bruce Feik, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 8900 AUDUBON ROAD, DENNIS & RUTH CHADDERDON. Public Present: Name Address Chris B. & Leslie Erickson Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon 1831 Sunridge Court 5990 Charleston Circle, Shorewood Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of staff?. Deb, you want to start? Kind: Yes Madam Chair. You talked about moving the septic systems north, and I did not' see the variance, or I'm sorry, a condition for that. Is it in here and I'm missing it? Hoium: I didn't put one in there. If we want to add that, I can attach, add that condition. Kind: So you'd be okay with adding a condition to that effect? Hoium: Yes, we could. Kind: That would be a good idea. And then condition number 10 it talks about the retaining blank, I think it's a wall, must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone. I see the retaining wall on here and right now it looks to be, it's not 20 feet. , Hoium: It's closer than 20 feet. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: It's closer, okay. And it's possible to move that back? It looks like it's holding back quite a bit of contour there. Hoium: I'm not sure. That would be something for the applicant hopefully to answer. Kind: And on page 3 of the staff report you talk about the development of this site can be a tool used to enhance the Bluff Creek corridor. Other than creating a buffer strip, are there any other enhancements that this would? Hoium: Planting vegetation and trees along the outside of the primary zone. Other than the buffer strip, maintaining it. Preserving it. Not going in and doing anything to it. Kind: That's all I have for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a few questions too. First of all I'd like to clarify the boundaries of the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District zone. In the report you suggest that 881.6 contour line should be considered the border. Is that a new element or can you give me a little bit of framework of how that come about? Hoium: Sure. On the official Chanhassen city map, this is how the red is the primary zone. That is how it is mapped on the official map. Based upon the data that the applicant provided, the wetland delineation, the site plan, survey and just going out and doing site inspections, and following, which section is it? Section 20-1555, which allows the planning director to move it based on the information provided, it was determined that it fit more with the primary zone at the 881.6. Sacchet: So putting it at that elevation line is actually reducing a little bit. Hoium: The boundaries? Sacchet: The boundaries. That's in the interest of the applicant so I'm sure they're happy about that. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Now when we're talking about a buffer strip, relative to this 881.6 line, we can't really do a 20 foot because the driveway's very close in some areas pretty much... Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: The septic as we said, if we move it we might be 20 away. The comer of the house will be close to the retaining wall potentially intrudes on it. How much buffer, I mean can we quantify how much buffer we put in there? Hoium: Just based on what we've looked at and the information we've had, I think staff discussed a 10 foot buffer might be able to fit in there. Following the outer edge of the primary zone. Sacchet: So if we could possibly do something like an average of 10 foot or something like that? · Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: Because in some areas it might have to be less. Hoium: Yes. Where the driveway comes into the property, yes. Sacchet: It would not be feasible to have an average of 20 foot buffer, would it? Hoium: I don't think so. It would be tight. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The buffer needs to be from the wetland edge, not from the primary zone marker. Hoium: We are, maybe I'm confused. I thought we were talking about adding an additional buffer on the outside of the primary zone. There is a buffer, 10 foot buffer from the wetland itself. Sacchet: I was talking about, you understood what I...from the primary. Hoium: This would be in addition to the wetland. Sacchet: Now that's a good point. Let's clarify that. We're really clear which one we're talking about. When we said that there's usually a 20 foot buffer required, that would be from the primary zone boundary out. Is that correct? Am I understanding this correct? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. So on that basis it would be fair and equitable to put a requirement on that it would be 10 or 15 foot average from that primary zone boundary? Aanenson: Yes, it's going to be 10 plus. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yeah, because I think if we make a condition I'd like to be Very quantifiable. Now the silt fence is not on there. That's something that should be added in. Hoium: It's actually in place right now. Sacchet: Oh, but it has to be moved. Hoium: It has to be moved outside of the primary zone. Sacchet: Because it's in the primary, so it would have to be moved outside of that primary zone line. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: How far is that one fifty foot along that driveway is actually in existence? That goes actually past that wetland thing or reaching north, isn't it? Hoium: No. It's about right there. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Because the reason why I'm asking, when I went out there I was under the impression that it was actually past the red line figure. Hoium: It's possible. I think it's, do one of the pictures show it. I think it's right in that vicinity. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. And then...that raises another question. When we say that we recommend that the rest of the driveway would have more setback, we couldn't really do too much there anymore could we? Really the damage is basically done to the wetland from there on. It's away from the wetland. Hoium: Yes, that is correct. Sacchet: I just want to clarify whether my perception's accurate. Okay, that's my questions Madam Chair. Thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? Slagle: Just a couple of questions. Dove tailing on what Uli has suggested on the driveway Madam Chair, was there options to explore the driveway avoiding the wetland or is it I mean just said and done that it has to go across? Or adjacent to it? Hoium: Adjacent to it. Slagle: Yeah, I mean I guess what I'm wondering is there a real cost to moving that driveway further north? Haak: I guess I can speak to that a little bit. The driveway was put in prior to the city reviewing any sort of detailed plans. The city had approved a grading plan for the driveway and to the best of my knowledge it wasn't reviewed by myself or someone in my position, so we actually issued a Cease and Desist Order on the driveway just so we could make sure where the wetland boundary was so we could make sure that there was no additional fill. There right now is not wetland fill. It gets real close to the wetland boundary. I think any removal you do of material in that area, it' s kind of a 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other really as far as making the applicant remove the material versus just leaving the material where it is. It's outside of the wetland so I guess staff's perspective was just to cut our loses and try to get the driveway, the rest of the driveway as far away as possible. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: You said this was originally approved in '98. Hoium: Correct. Feik: If I recall the Park and Rec moved the trail to accommodate this driveway. At that time was there any consideration made to how this lot would have been accessed and was there any promises or indication given to the owner of the lot at that time how the lot would be accessed and where that driveway wound go? · Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Aanenson: When this lot was created in 1998 simultaneously, I believe at that time there was a discussion on how that would be accessed. This parcel. Hoium: If I could add. The access was originally a farm access. Aanenson: Correct. So it's been there for a while. Hoium: It has been there. Aanenson: So that was kind of reviewed and as Lori said, we kind of cut our losses. Moving it, the degradation that you possibly could do. Again with the variance with this, you can attach reasonable conditions if you wanted to do some other things as far as mitigation to, for vegetation or whatever. You have that opportunity to attach a condition for that so we've decided that at this point trying to remove it probably is worse than, and that was part of the old farm road. Feik: Thank you. Sacchet: Can I clarify something? Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: That' s an interesting point. So that driveway was part of an existing farm road at one point? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Well that helps. Thanks. Blackowiak: I guess I just have a couple questions here. On the conditions, number 11, I just wanted to clarify, proposed walkout elevation of the home must be 2 feet above the OHW. I'm assuming you mean at least 2 feet? Hoium: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Wanted to clarify that. And the second thing has to do with the City Council resolution back in 1998, condition number 6. It talks about the developer paying full park and trail fees for parcel 2, and I' m not sure if this is parcel 1 or parcel 2. And if this is parcel 2, do we need to have a condition in there saying we need full park and trail fees? Hoium: Yes, this is parcel 2 and that was, I believe that was with the subdivision itself. Blackowiak: Okay. Now do we need to have a separate condition? Aanenson: Those are paid with the building permit. Blackowiak: It's okayed with the, okay. So we don't even. Aanenson: If you want to put it on there, that's no problem. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 ' Blackowiak: No, if it's covered, I'm fine. I just wasn't clear as to whether this was parcel 1 or parcel 2 so I guess that' s where I was coming from. Okay. Well if there are any other questions, then I'll ask the applicants or their designee to step to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Dennis Chadderdon: I'm Dennis Chadderdon. I live at 5990 Charleston Circle in Shorewood. This is my wife Ruth. Ruth Chadderdon: Hi. Blackowiak: Okay, did you have anything you'd like to talk to us about this evening or anything that you'd like to clarify? Dennis Chadderdon: Not really. We're just here to you know, try to see the project through. We'd like to build a home on this lot and think it's completely possible to do. We know about the wetland situations and everything like that. Blackowiak: Okay. And based on the recommendations that the staff has made in terms of shifting possibly the septic fields, I mean how are you feeling about those recommendations? Dennis Chadderdon: We don't have any problem with doing what we can do with the septic system. The existing driveway is in to a certain point right now and continuing it and moving that a little bit north, we don't have a problem with. We've already discussed that with Julie. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Start with you Bruce. Questions of the applicant? Feik: None, thank you. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Deb. Kind: I just want to make sure you had a chance to read all the conditions and you're okay with the conditions staff is recommending. Great. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. The idea of adding a buffer like to that new line of where the primary zone boundary would be, is that something that you think is doable like a 10 to 15 foot average buffer? Dennis Chadderdon: Yeah. From the plans that we have submitted, I mean whatever it takes. We're not, we have no plans on infringing you know anywhere near the wetland. . Sacchet: It probably means some extra planting or. Dennis Chadderdon: I'm sorry. Sacchet: You probably could translate it into some extra plantings on the south side of the driveway, which I would think you'd want to plant something anyhow. And then, let's see. The thing with the retaining wall, making that retaining wall any shorter. Is that a problem for you guys? Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Dennis Chadderdon: The retaining wall on the front of the house? Sacchet: Right. Dennis Chadderdon: No. That, and that was drawn in by the survey people and if I can get away with you know shortening it, I have no problem doing that. Sacchet: Okay, so that's not... Good, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, any questions? No? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So if there' s anybody who would like to come up and speak before the commission, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Leslie Erickson: I'm Leslie Erickson. I live at 1831 Sunridge Court and we live in the lot just adjacent to where the building's going to be going on. And I have just a couple questions. I'm wondering if somebody could define this Bluff Creek Overlay for me. What exactly is an overlay? Blackowiak: Okay Kate, would you like to tackle that one. Aanenson: Sure. What the overlay district does is, it's an additional set of standards so there is the zoning ordinance. There's the zoning ordinance that regulates how you can use the lot. In addition with an overlay district it provides additional rules and regulations that you have to follow depending on if you're in the primary or the second zone. So it's an additional set of roles. And this example, the Bluff Creek is for those lots that are within a sensitive area of the Bluff Creek, and that line follows either a topographic features or their severe slopes. A wetland boundary or creek boundary, or if there' s a significant stand of trees. So this overlay district runs the entire kind of diagonal section of the city starting up at Lake Minnewashta all the way down to the Minnesota River. Leslie Erickson: Okay. Alright. And just to point out where we are, this is our lot here and so our home is here. They're I'm guessing that your home is going to be just right in this little comer. In that area, okay. We're a little concerned, and I don't know if you'll have to bring in a lot of fill up close to our property at all. Okay, good. And then when you talk about constructing the retaining wall, where is that going to be located? Dennis Chadderdon: That's in the front of the home. Leslie Erickson: On the front, okay. Dennis Chadderdon: It will be toward the road. Leslie Erickson: Okay. Aanenson: ...retaining wall right here. That's where we're asking them to cut the...so there's less grading. Again, that's the intent of the overlay district is to minimize disruption. Leslie Erickson: Okay, that's it. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anybody else like to make comment or anyone else have a question? Seeing no one, I'd like to close the public hearing. Commissioners, now's the time to make comments. Rich, I will start with you. Slagle: I would just throw out a thought and that thought is, I mean I guess given what can happen in '98, where we stand today is okay with me. So I had a couple questions just regarding the intent of the applicant and after listening to it I felt pretty comfortable that they're willing to work within the conditions so. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: It was interesting when I went out there looking at the site. I felt it actually is a sensitive area that can get impacted has already been impacted. It's that initial stretch of the driveway and it's certainly good to hear that that was an existing driveway for a farm before. The way I see it, the driveway really goes beyond that little finger of wetland that reaches north so there's not much we can mitigate there. And then the rest of the construction is basically away from the wetland that I think we have a pretty straight image here. I would like to add some conditions though to state that the septic system moves north. I'd like to quantify that a little bit. I'd like to ask that we consider a strip, a buffer strip beyond just the boundary of the primary zone since overall we ask for a 20 foot buffer. If we ask for an average somewhat smaller buffer, that is practical and is realistic in that framework, I think that would be balanced. And also with the retaining wall, I think it'd be fair to ask that there's an effort made to accommodate the standard setbacks in this type of environment. Other than that I'm fine with it. Blackowiak: Okay great, thank you. Deb. Kind: I agree with Uli and Rich's comments. I just have a question for Uli. Do you feel that condition number 1 that talks about the applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer with a minimum average of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge, do you think that covers part of your request? And then coupled with number 14, which asks for a 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain, so that would be in addition. Aanenson: That was our intent, correct. Kind: Between those two conditions, are you comfortable that it's covered? Sacchet: Well in terms of being equitable, I mean one of the efforts that we're making here is everyone treat everybody the same way. And it's my understanding that the 20 foot buffer would be required from everybody else of the primary zone boundary. Is that correct? Hoium: No. Sacchet: No, okay. Aanenson: The 20 foot from the primary, but you have the 0 to 20 so in some circumstances along that wetland it's going to average 0 to 20. In addition to that it's going to be 10 for the primary zone. Outside the primary zone. In some circumstances they're close to each other. Haak: That's what we're requiring. The 20 feet that we get with the primary zone is a 20 foot no grade. It's not necessarily called a buffer but everybody has that requirement. It' s a 40 foot setback from the Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 primary zone so we don't really call it a buffer. We call it a no grade, no impact zone. But it in effect is the same thing. Aanenson: Yeah, so the mitigation is to make it a buffer. Haak: Right. Aanenson: That's what we're saying. It's a no touch zone but what we're implying is the mitigation and what you're saying, you have to landscape that and maintain a buffer. Sacchet: So in that sense you would have a valid point. That that is already covered in the current conditions. Okay. Yes. Kind: That's all Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce. Feik: I just want to say that given previously the city has made some accommodations to allow for this lot, including some significant park and rec changes to the trail head and delay of the trail, I guess I'm just happy to see that it is finally getting resolved and a building going up. Blackowiak: Okay. And I just have a couple extra comments I guess. In the staff report they talked about a 40 to 50 foot paved area on the first part of the driveway, and I hope in a motion we' 11 see something. I don't know if we need to add that but I maybe would like to see that added. That the first 40 to 50 feet will be paved. Secondly, that the septic will be moved north, just like Uli said. Third, condition 11. That the OHW would be the marker and the walkout elevation be at least 2 feet above that. And then finally if someone would like to make a motion and talk about any kind of mitigation. You know when you're talking about 10 to 20 feet, we could certainly suggest additional vegetation or something. I mean I think that would be fair to kind of mitigate what's happening in this area so those are my comments. So if somebody would like to make a motion. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject to the following conditions 1 through 14. In number 10 I'd like to add the retaining wall. The wall must be set back. In number 14 I'd like to read, minimum average 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. And I'd like to add a condition 16, that the septic system will be moved north as much as possible. Kind: I'll second that and I have a couple of friendly amendments if I could. Sacchet: Sure. Kind: You said conditions 1 through 14. Did you? Sacchet: Oh 15, sorry. Yeah. Kind: Okay. Just wondering if you were excluding 15 on purpose. Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: No I didn't. Sorry. So 16 would be the extra. Kind: And number 7. I'd like to add Alison's suggestion. Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit and add a second sentence that says the first 40 to 50 feet will be paved. Sacchet: That's fine. Kind: And number 11, did you say anything about the proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least 2 feet above the OHW? Sacchet: Let's add it. Yep. Kind: And number 14, I just want to clarify. You changed it to say 10 foot minimum. Sacchet: Minimum 10 foot average. Kind: I was wondering if we could make it even stronger and say 10 to 20 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting 100 year flood plain. The buffer must average at least 10 feet? Sacchet: Yes, that would work. I mean we have to allow for areas where it's not going to be 10 foot because the driveway's so close there that it wouldn't work. Kind: If we say average it could be 0 in some spots. Sacchet: Well preferably it'd be more but. Kind: Theoretically. Sacchet: But if we say it the way you just said that it would be 10 to 20 feet with a minimum 10 foot average, I'm fine with that. Blackowiak: Okay, that's different so. Kind: Minimum 10 foot is it means it cannot go down to 0. Blackowiak: It could be a 0 then. Could we clarify please? Kind: Well a minimum of 10 feet. Blackowiak: That's totally different. Kind: That's totally different. I'll try it again here. Number 14 shall read, a 10 to 20 foot average vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. The buffer minimum must be 10 feet. Sacchet: I don't think that's practical. It's not possible. I don't think it is. Please correct me. I mean what I've seen when I was out there, I really think that drive was closer than 10 feet in some areas. So I would say we could say something to the effect that any new grading or construction has to maintain the minimum of 10 foot. I think otherwise, what do you think Kate? 10 · Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well, not to split hairs. We're going by the survey. The survey says you can get 10 feet so we're comfortable with what we put in there which is a minimum. If you want in those areas they can go more, I think that's great so if you want to say minimum of 10, averaging 10 to 20. So if there's areas where they can go more and you want to mitigate that by saying put more buffer in, that's fine. Sacchet: Point of clarification. You're saying that according to the survey they can maintain the 10 foot everywhere? Aanenson: Yes, based on what. Sacchet: Well then let's ask for it. Aanenson: That's what we suggested. Sacchet: Yep. Blackowiak: Alright, it's been moved and seconded. Uli, do you accept the amendments that were offered? Sacchet: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. I'd like to vote on this motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit ~f2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer (with a minimum average of 10 feet) and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The buffer shall be shown on the plans. , The applicant shall provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point so water will be able to drain into the wetland. The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the proposed culvert is accurately sized. 4. The applicant shall install riprap at the downstream end of the culvert in order to prevent erosion. o The erosion control silt fence must be moved outside the 881.6 contour. Type llI erosion control shall be installed as designated on the site plan. . The current, existing portion of the driveway shall be allowed to remain in it's current alignment; however, the remainder of the driveway shall be moved so that no additional fill will be placed within the 100 year floodplain (881.6). , Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit. The first 40 to 50 feet of the driveway shall be paved. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 ' 8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6. , The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881.6) must be shown on the plan as legally described. 10. 11. The retaining wall must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour). The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6. 12. 13. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey. A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bitternut Hickory. The applicant shall submit a planting list. 14. 15. A minimum of 10 feet, averaging 10 to 20 feet vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year floodplain. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision #97-11. 16. The septic system site shall be moved to the north as much as possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO OPERATE A CONTRACTING YARD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,139 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 6.3 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) LOCATED AT 1850 LAKE DRIVE WEST, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 3}m ADDITION, DAYCO HEADQUARTERS, DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. Public Present: Name Address Charlie Melcher, Westwood Professional Mary Makowski Mary Pat Monson D. L. Olsen, Osmonics 7599 Anagram, Eden Prairie 4120 Lakeridge Road 8850 Audubon Road 5951 Clearwater Drive, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Rich, I'll start with you. 12 · Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: One question Bob if, and I apologize if I should have seen this but, concrete company. I see the comment a yard and site plan. What's happening there? I mean I'm trying to understand what the use of this building other than strictly office personnel. Generous: Yes, it's a warehouse building. They'd have their equipment and materials stored inside and then they go out to job sites. Slagle: So equipment being trucks and trailers. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: It's not a batch plant, no. Generous: No. Slagle: Okay. But we're talking backhoes or what have you. I mean it's. Aanenson: Or trucks to carry forms and that sort of thing. Slagle: Okay. So lots of activity. Aanenson: Yeah. This project again was, an Environmental Assessment was done on this entire project, industrial park so this fits within the parameters of the traffic and all that that was studied for this. Slagle: Okay, when you say this business park. Specifically this site here or? Generous: With the Chan Business Center it was reviewed overall through an Environmental Assessment. We looked at the total square footages of the development. Office warehouse. Slagle: With DayCo included, right? Generous: Well no. With office warehouse uses. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Expecting certain types of trip generation. Generous: And so this well within the thresholds that were established for each of the lots. Slagle: Okay. And again, just since I've only been on for a while, those trip definitions, those are cars, trucks, trailers. Aanenson: Sure, just like the post office when they have the delivery trucks go in and out each day. Generally they're assigned a job. They go out for the day. Come back at night. Similar to the post office or any of the other uses with the cars that would come in for the day. Slagle: Okay. I'm just trying to draw the parallel between cars and trucks with trailers and. I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just trying to picture that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Yeah, no I'm just...similar to the post office where they have the step vans and the like. And the delivery trucks that come in with the mail periodic. Slagle: Okay, so we have a sensitive area that abuts literally the property and it is, according to you and to the assessments and studies, it fits fine? Aanenson: Right. Well I think we have to look in the bigger context and that is that when this project came in, as Bob indicated, this is 3 or 4 years ahead of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and when we adopted the overlay district, it cut a wide swath. We said this is the overlay district based on some topographic features have been followed. Now this has the underlying, and we've discussed this has happened before. We know there's areas where there's going to be conflict. This was already given a lot status. Slagle: I understand. Aanenson: With certain design parameters and certain expectations. Then the Bluff Creek came on top of it. So I think that the developer of this property has worked really well to modify, based on his expectation of a buildable lot, and having the additional burden of trying to meet the, that the primary setback line so we think that based on that there's, there's going to be some, have to be some relief to make something happen on this property and it' s reasonable use of the property so we think with that, it meets our criteria. And again, they worked hard to redesign it. This is 2 or 3 different designs of the project. Slagle: Good enough. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes I do have questions. Actually your question was very much along my key question. When I first read contractors yard, concrete company, I saw that in conflict with the concept of light industrial. Concrete's very heavy. It's very big equipment. My concerns were somewhat put at rest when I heard that it's not really a place where much else happens except the trucks go to sleep. It's basically a garage. It's basically a place where it stores. Is there going to be also construction materials there or is it just where the machines are stored? Do we have any inside, maybe we should ask that of the applicant. Generous: Yeah. It's a developer. Sacchet: Okay, of the developer. Then some more specific questions. Did we, at one point was a concern about the articulation of the eastern elevation. Generous: Pardon? Sacchet: The articulation of the architectural interest. Generous: Yes, just on the northern half of it. Sacchet: Right, has that been addressed? Generous: They're proposing the use of landscaping which is an acceptable alternative. We just want to see taller, nan'ower type trees. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, so that's largely addressed but needs maybe a little more encouragement? The peninsula's in the parking, that's just a requirement, I think Saam you explained that with a recent . project. Those peninsula's. Every so many parking stalls we need a peninsula type thing in the parking. Saam: I haven't dealt with the peninsula. Generous: I can address that. The landscaping ordinance for parking lots require that for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area, you have either a peninsula or an island to break up the parking lot. Sacchet: Yeah, and at this point do they comply with that? Generous: No, they had to add one. I believe on the revised plan they did but I haven't looked at that clearly. They needed to add one in the front. They would need to add one in the front drive about where the driveway splits. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then at the end of the parking on the east side of the building, that would do it again. Sacchet: Okay. Now we talked about this 20 foot buffer just in the previous thing we talked about. Here we have a similar situation in that that 20 foot or no touch zone, or whatever we want to call it, doesn't totally work because that retaining wall is outside the primary zone but in some cases probably only a few feet away from it, right? Has that been given any consideration how we would deal with that 20 foot no touch or buffer or whatever we want to call it? Haak: Primarily the consideration on this site is that when they got preliminary approval they did bring material onto the site so that 20 foot no touch zone is all fill, and right now it's weeds. So we're not, right now we don't have a lot of quality there. We do have the high quality trees. It's quite a ways down to the creek and I think from staff's perspective, we don't have anything there right now and a retaining wall would preserve the slopes and preserve the trees so we think it's a good compromise. Sacchet: So basically it has been graded already and by having no touch zone, we don't gain anything. Haak: Right, right. We get weeds. Sacchet: Yeah, well we have plenty of those. Let' s see. I think that' s my questions. Hang on just one second. Yeah, you raised the question about the traffic volume. If this is where all the trucks go to sleep over night, there will certainly be some traffic but it certainly would be very different traffic situation when they are getting materials. Has that been looked at? Aanenson: Well, if you understand what they do. They're in town right now .... they're putting all the trucks in a building because that's been an issue ongoing for a long time. We're very excited about it. The way the business operates is you take your forms out to the site. They're not picking up concrete. The folks come, get dispatched for the day and they go about their business. It's not any different than the other businesses there that are getting paper delivered or having their product picked up and shipped out. It's very similar traffic volume. Maybe somebody comes in once or twice because they have a different route but it' s, you get your job assignment and you're out for the day. It's very typical to some of the other businesses that are shipping products or manufacturing something. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: That's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Good. Deb, questions? Kind: Yes. For clarification Bob, I just want to make sure. The only change, we got a new site plan tonight and I can't look at the whole thing very carefully. The only change is that the building has been shifted to the east. Generous: 4 feet to the east, and the drive aisle widths have been narrowed down so that was able to pull the retaining wall over out of the primary zone. Kind: Great. No other changes that I need to figure out. And then I'm assuming that the western elevation is even less articulated than any of the others and I'm assuming the reason we're not concerned about that as staff is because you can't see it. Generous: No one sees it. It's not visible. Kind: It's totally up against the green, the beautiful green woods area. Generous: Yes. Kind: Great. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, questions? Feik: A couple. You mentioned the parcel to the left is an outlot that has been deeded over to the city. Aanenson: Yes. Feik: Is there any long term plans for the use of that lot at this time that you know? Aanenson: No, it's actually very steep. It's a steep ravine and the intent is to leave it natural. Feik: Okay. The second question, and not to beat it to death but maybe a point of clarification for myself. In a staff recommendation, paragraph a where we mentioned to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1. And then on point number 2 where we then go on to state there's no outside storage. What would, why are we using the terminology of contractor's yard versus office warehouse building? Because there is nothing outside? Generous: Well it's just because of the user. That's how he's classified. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: That's the problem we have right now. All the trucks are outside in his current location. Feik: Right, but for all intents and purposes it will be an office warehouse. Typically office warehouse building with no outdoor storage. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Right. Feik: Okay. Blackowiak: And I'll just like add to that little discussion here. We've heard about bad contractor's lots and this seems to be one that we're endorsing so can you talk to us about why this is good versus why other' s are bad. Kind of like walk me through that briefly. Generous: Why this is good? Well it's an existing business within the community that's trying to expand. They're bringing all their equipment, materials, anything inside a building. Enclosing it so you don't have those site problems or noise problems from having it outside. Rubbish doesn't build up. We think this is a responsible area for them to locate. It is hidden, if you will. It' s way at the end of this Lake Drive West and to the west of it is a preserve, open space area so it' s a, if you have to locate it, that's sort of where you'd like it to go. Aanenson: It's also guided industrial. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Some of the other ones we have problems with are in the A-2 districts. Blackowiak: Alright, good. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And then my second question has to do with the landscaping and the future building area. We have a future building area in front of this T building, and then the landscaping is in front of the future building area. And I'm wondering if there's any reason we would want to have the current landscaping, or at least some landscaping between the proposed building and the proposed future buildings. Since we don't quite know when that's going to happen. Aanenson: I'll let them address that. How they tie together. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Alright, well those were my only two comments. Slagle: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Oh go ahead. Slagle: I'd like one more question if I may from staff. Are there views from the Valley Ridge Trail North home sites that would see this "yard" or location? Because I believe the building that they refer to the Dover building is set back and is a fairly lower, it's more west and south. Blackowiak: That's kind of a landscaping question. If we want to scoot it back a little bit. Slagle: Yeah. I'm just concerned as a homeowner, if you're up there looking down and let's just say there are times where everything doesn't make it inside. You're looking out at trailers. Aanenson: You're also backing up to the tracks there too. Are you talking about from the south? Slagle: I'm talking about from the south. Down at Valley Ridge Trail North looking northward, because I believe a couple of those buildings are not that big. I mean you've got the weather station. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well the Dover building is smaller in scale as far as the height. The post office has the huge fence. And because this is set back quite a ways, the building that would be in front of it would probably be, if anything, would be more visible. Generous: Additionally in the Dover site there will be a second building built into that so there will be 3 buildings inbetween. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Can I add a question...? Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: There was somewhere talk of a sidewalk. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And I wasn't quite 100% sure where. If you could just briefly point out where that would go. Generous: Go on the site from the building in front of the future building site out to, there's a trail that runs down here and then there's a sidewalk down this route. So it would link the site to that. That's one of the issues that the developer has with that. They'd like to put in something on a temporary basis. Because we're looking at making a connection through here. Here's where their sidewalk ends. We want them to continue on on the south side. However they're looking at it that they're going to tear all this up when they build again. They'd like to look at something more temporary. Striping possibly in the 30 foot driveway. Sacchet: And the purpose for that sidewalk would be to connect the new building with the Walking trail. Generous: With the trail and the sidewalk. Aanenson: There's a trail, there's a sidewalk linked by the trail of the overall... Sacchet: Yeah, I'm aware of that trail. Slagle: It's a great trail. Generous: And then it goes down to Bluff Creek to the west. Sacchet: It's to give the people in this new building access to the trail. Generous: Right. We try to encourage that with all industrial developments. It's an amenity the City's worked hard at providing so we want to provide opportunities to the people there. Sacchet: So it's a consistent requirement that we, okay. Thank you. Aanenson: You know I guess in deference to them, they are going to come back with the second phase. There's an opportunity to, when that comes in, to get it but what we're saying is that we want to preserve 18 · Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 that as a condition that we connect it. And what they're concerned about is having to put a sidewalk in and then rip it out down the road. Slagle: When would the second addition be put in place? I mean you wouldn't want that temporary thing for 2-3 years. Aanenson: That's the question. Blackowiak: I think that's a good question for the applicant. Okay, any other questions of staff?. If not, the applicant or their designee would like to make a presentation. Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. Charlie Melcher: Good evening Planning Commission. I'm Charlie Melcher with Westwood Professional Services. And the applicant is out of town so I'll be representing the project tonight. Let's hit the first question that you had with regards to landscaping, being on the property line. South property line. If I could have that plan back. The intent of the developer' s concept for this site is two fold. Is to put a second building that would be either just office or office, more likely whatever fits their guide plan but the office showroom on the front side. And the plan is to have this building about, just under a foot higher than the proposed building that we're showing right now so it would screen the overhead doors on the south face of the building. With regards to the trees that are proposed, and I didn't see them on the landscaping plan but that is shown toward the southern property line. The intent always is when you spend money is to make it be right. It's not to throw it away and trees aren't something cheap to have a truck move so we want to do it right the first time. Our intent is to pave up to this line right here with bituminous and drain to these catch basins. In this second phase, this will be the high point. Where we stop paving now, this will be the high point and we'll have another line of catch basins to pick up whatever water is in here. So that' s, I take that back. This edge of the building will drain to these existing catch basins so we won't have to put another catch basins in here. When we pave this, we'll pave it up to the second building. That handles the savings of not putting curb along this whole side. To put concrete curb along this whole side for a year or two years or three years is absolutely ridiculous. Does the city re-pave their streets with curb every 3 years? So let's think how the city thinks. As far as planting trees, if we plant within this area, we plant anywhere within this area, you're planting in an area that (a), you don't know the footprint of the building. All this back area since it's planned to be, to my knowledge, they could have doors on the back side on an office warehouse. On the front side, they would have all windows and entrance doors to whoever would lease out that space. So we'd have a parking lot in the front. There'd be a green space between the parking lot and the building and you could put shrubbery there but in the back there's no room to put any overstory, understory trees whatsoever. That' s why the trees were put south of the future curb line. And I pretty much, if you go to the storm sewer plan, I pretty much located where the catch basin in the future are going to be. I need two more catch basins to finish this whole job up. We're trying to think this thing through very thoroughly and cannot do it twice. Who knows. You know with the economy the way it is, this building could get built out in the next 2 or 3 years. It's hard to say exactly what date it's going to be but the owner has somebody that's already interested in the project but he needs to get his going before he can go and try and get this other guy interested because the other guys are not going to spend any money on designs until he gets his going. With regards to the sidewalk, the issue really comes down to what the layout would be in this area of the curb line to the turn curb and the parking if there would be either facing the building or facing this island would be between the two buildings. Which would have, that would house that sidewalk in the future. So the developer has come to the city and said, why don't we, we've got a wide drive. It's 30 feet wide. We only need to have a wide, 26 foot wide drive in there. Why don't we strip a 4 or 5 foot area in there which we could sandblast later when this future gets developed. We 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 wouldn't take the pavement out, we'd just sandblast it and then we'd put our curb in where it needs to be and we'd pave this, the rest of this side out the way it should be. This isn't meant to be an access for the public. It's an access for people that work for him to get down to this park and take their 20 minute walk at lunchtime. The people that come in the morning are usually out of there by 7:30-8:00 with their trucks so it's not like they'd come and go. Each of their drivers doesn't come and go 5 times a day or 3 times a day. They typically come and go once or twice. So there isn't a whole lot of traffic coming in here in conflict with individuals walking and trucks and cars and what have you. It's really, it's a low traffic area. Those are the developer's thoughts. They do make sense. We could, besides striping it we could put a note on the plan that says, future concrete sidewalk or 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk and then it's on these plans and then the next time they come in for this other development, we're tied to that. Rich, I think I missed one of your questions. Slagle: Actually if I can just have a brief overview of DayCo. When you talk about concrete, I'm sorry for not getting this but are we talking like boulders? Are we talking concrete? Charlie Melcher: One ton trucks. Slagle: Okay. Charlie Melcher: You know that carry low, flatbed trailers that carry forms and Bobcats. Slagle: Okay. Gotch ya. Okay. Charlie Melcher: And if they come in the middle of the day and they need to pick something up, they may stop for a half hour, pick that up. Load it up outside the building and then they're on their way because really they aren't making any money outside the building. They really have to come and go. And that isn't, normally they come and go from their site and they go to another site, to another site. So they don't usually come back. Slagle: Very good. And then on the second building you mentioned a potential other user or? Charlie Melcher: Absolutely, yeah. Slagle: Okay. So this site will be in addition to a showroom, could be? Charlie Melcher: This site, this other building would probably be an office showroom. Probably. And it could be broken into 4 users so you don't know with office showrooms. Slagle: Okay. I'm with you. Sacchet: Can I ask a few questions? Blackowiak: Yeah, do you have anything else to add or should we just start asking some questions of you? Charlie Melcher: Feel free to ask questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: You specified it could be 2-3 years for the second building. It's totally undefined at this point? Charlie Melcher: Absolutely. Sacchet: It could be 10 years. It could be 1 year. It could be never. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of no outside storage, is that, that's not an issue? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe it's an issue. Sacchet: Okay. To put a little more interest to the north half of the eastern elevation, staff mentioned that you're planning to do that mostly or with landscaping. I think staff's position is that it should be somewhat taller trees or skinnier trees that go more up than in the width. Is that an issue for you? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe so. No. Sacchet: I think that's all the questions I have for you. Thanks. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: Don't have any questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Bruce, questions? Feik: No, thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, I just have a couple questions. When you're talking about the ultimate buildout of the first, the future area, where do you think that that is going to be accessed for construction? Do you feel that they'd come off the bituminous or do you feel that they'd come off the main cul-de-sac? Charlie Melcher: If, as I see it, they would share this entrance and on the western side of that entrance there would be an island that loops back and starts the parking and drives to the future building. Blackowiak: Okay. I mean I guess specifically construction entrance. Do you feel that you'd have the construction entrance off the bituminous or would you probably just go off the concrete? Off the front. I guess I'm getting at the whole idea of the trees because you could do a curb cut easily right off the center of the future building. Charlie Melcher: I'm missing your point. I'm not sure where you're talking about. Look at my pen and tell me if I'm right. Blackowiak: Right, yeah. Could you do a curb cut right there to come off or would you be coming straight up? Charlie Melcher: I don't think we'd do a curb cut. Aanenson: I don't think the city would permit that. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher: I think we'd share the entrance. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're coming up, across the bituminous and going that way. Charlie Melcher: Yeah. Blackowiak: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out because as I looked at it, it was like, I was trying to figure out the easiest way to get in with heavy equipment because we're talking about. Charlie Melcher: There wouldn't be heavy equipment in the second site. I mean there'd be, there might be a little bit, vans or something that may come and deliver medical supplies or whatever is part of their. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, I'm talking about construction of the second building. Charlie Melcher: Oh, during construction of the second building. Blackowiak: Yes. Charlie Melcher: During construction of the second building they would have a rock construction entrance. Blackowiak: Right. I'm just curious where that would be. Charlie Melcher: It would be at the approved part of the second set of plans. We haven't gotten that far. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what I'm trying to figure out where that might be because we're talking trees in front. Personally I'd like to see something a little bit between the two buildings so I'm just trying to figure out. Charlie Melcher: I would say that we wouldn't even do it. We'd probably take a rock construction entrance. Share the entrance we have and do a rock construction entrance off this pavement once you get into the site. Then we could just, everything that's along the southern property line could be left just as is until that curb gets cut in and the less disturbance, the further we get away from the cul-de-sac, the better off we are. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just wondering how much destruction there's going to be to the bituminous as you come in because that's probably not going to be a real good thing for. Charlie Melcher: There's a concrete in there so we should be in good shape. It's part of the design. Blackowiak: Okay. So you feel comfortable with. Charlie Melcher: It's required by city standards. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I'm just curious. Then you have the trucks coming in. I mean it's great to say you have it on the plans but to actually get the drivers to stay where you tell them to is often another story totally. 22 · Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher: That's true. Blackowiak: Yeah. Charlie Melcher: But as long as the trees are there, they'll stay away from it. We'll have silt fence up. It will be toward the site so they won't have access to the trees on the southern property line. Aside from that there will be a rock construction entrance that will get them to wherever. I'm not really sure. You know at some point they'll probably have access from the north to the site, and at some point. Blackowiak: Which is why you don't want to do any type of curbing there, I understand that. Charlie Melcher: Yeah, and at some point they may have access just off the cul-de-sac until they start really doing the forming of the curbs and that sort of thing. Blackowiak: Yeah. Which is kind of like the last step anyway so. Okay. And I had one more question here. Of course I'm not going to find it. I'm not seeing it right now. I may, if I find it I'll come back to you. Sacchet: While you're looking may I ask one more question Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Go ahead, yeah. Sacchet: In terms of that landscaping on the southern edge along the path there, would you be open to considering increasing the amount of plantings there some? Charlie Melcher: There is discussion of putting I think 2 more trees or something on the north and 1 more on the east or something because of the shift in the landscape. It' s in the report. Sacchet: What I would be targeting is to have a little more of a buffer along that path from the start. Charlie Melcher: That would be something that staff, we could work with staff on. I mean I don't do the landscaping plans but I see what you're talking about. It's a high density on the north. Sacchet: Right now these trees on the south side are about 40 feet apart which is really generously spaced. If we start thinking of this in terms of more of a buffer to the path that goes past and potentially to some extent the neighborhood to the south, I think it would be reasonable to ask that they would be closer maybe and some additional shrubbery and things planted in there. That's basically what I'm considering here. Charlie Melcher: We could shift some vegetation. We could work with staff on that, absolutely. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you: Blackowiak: Okay. Well I'm not finding my question right now so we're just going to move on. If there are no other questions of the applicants, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to add their comments to this item, please step to the microphone and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, you can make your comments. 23 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 . Kind: Madam Chair, I have a quick question of staff before we get rolling here. The southern property line that Uli was talking about, I'm assuming the reason the buffer plantings are so sparse is because the width of the yard is so large. Is that right? Generous: And the type of buffer that's required between industrial and industrial, it's not that great. Kind: Would the plantings be increased with Phase II, when the buffer yard becomes narrower? Generous: Only in depth. You would get some landscaping with the parking lot area as is required under the parking landscaping ordinance. But I don't think we get additional ones as part of that site plan, no. Kind: Because I'm wondering when there's a new building, all of a sudden the buffer yard is much narrower and then would more plantings be required. Aanenson: They'll have to meet their own landscaping plan when that comes in, yeah. I mean we'll hold them to the same standard. They'll have to supply a landscaping plan that we review. Kind: The reason this just came up now is that I didn't realize on page 7 of the staff report that the southern property line is not addressed in the planting schedule at all. And I am wondering if that meets ordinance or not, but I'm assuming that our condition that says number 5, that a revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements to be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval would cover the southern property line as well. Generous: Yes. Kind: Thank you. Feik: I have a quick question for staff as well. The applicant made a comment regarding the southern curb line of the parking lot. Looking at the revised plan, has that curb line been removed in that plan? Charlie Melcher: It's never been there and the reason why is it never will be there because I started wrong on my statement. There are really no catch basins except for the lower dot catch basin on that future building. It's all going to drain to the existing, what will be the existing catch basin shown on the plan now. So there will never be. Feik: Okay. But your point number 23, where you reference concrete curb and gutter is required around the entire parking drive area of the site. Aanenson: Right. That's an issue I believe that he's saying that they disagree with. They think that it's premature to put that in at this time. Feik: Okay. But you're suggesting it goes in? Aanenson: It's difficult for them to hear you when you're not at the microphone. Thank you. Charlie Melcher: I think the intent is to have all sides curbed. And when Phase II gets built, the outside will be curbed. So we're going to meet pavement with pavement there. It's never going to have curb there and that's why it' s not shown in our plan now as part of Phase I. So it' s not an issue of circumventing the ordinance or the requirement. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well it is. The ordinance requires it. I mean if they want to give some relief or give you a timeframe or post security, I mean it's a requirement. Feik: Well and that was one of my questions as it related to the curb and to the sidewalk. Is it possible to have a requirement in the permit that if they haven't started construction or pulled a permit for the second phase within 24 months, it's got to go in? Aanenson: I'll let Matt address that. What he's comfortable with. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. I would recommend an escrow. We do that sort of thing all the time where we give a time limit. We state, give us cash. If it isn't done by then, then we have the security in place to go ahead and get it done. I mean we talked about the economy. I believe one of the commissioners said it could be 10 years. It could be never. He agreed. We don't know. We hope the building goes in in 2 years and that they don't have to rip out curb that they just put in, but we don't know. We have nothing to hold them to so, I would recommend a security. Feik: Escrow or letter of credit? Saam: Escrow. It's easier. The cash is more readily available. Slagle: Speaking of cash, if I may ask staff. I noticed on the parks and open space, it says the development still owes park fees in the amount of $3,000 per acre. Anybody have a feel as to what that dollar amount is? Aanenson: Which condition number are you on? Slagle: It' s on page 8. Very bottom. Park fees shall be paid at time of building permit approval but the way I read it, it's still dollars owing. Generous: It's about $18,000. Slagle: $18,000 today? Blackowiak: Yeah Rich if you'll look at condition 11. Yeah, I think it spelled that out. I was looking at that one too. Slagle: But I wanted to make sure that there was no other dollars in the development itself, not just this site. Blackowiak: Oh, good point. Slagle: Is there? Blackowiak: For Phase II. I mean this is for the entire site. Not just specifically Phase I versus Phase II. Generous: No, this is for the site. Once it's used, it's used. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well are we ready to make comments? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Sure. Blackowiak: I'll start with you Bruce. Do you have anything you'd like to add or? Feik: I would like to see a requirement in for the curb and the sidewalk. If it's not in in some minimum period of time, that we have a mechanism to follow-up and have that put in. I think that' s very important. There's no real indication of when that building may or may not go in so I think we need to the ability to put that in there. That's my only large concern. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb? Any comments? Kind: Yes. I agree with Bruce. I think that's a good point. I think it's an attractive building. I like the side that faces the cul-de-sac with the windows and the materials look nice. I really appreciate having the vehicles enclosed in a garage. I think that will be a nice addition to the city. Conditions that I would be interested in tinkering with a bit have to do with number 8. Adding a sentence that says that plantings would be acceptable for breaking up that wall that we have an issue with. Number 18 talks about the sidewalk. I think by bituminous would be acceptable. I don't think it has to be concrete. And then number 23, I definitely agree with Bruce that we need to put some language in there about escrowing funds and I like the 2 year time limit. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I think it's an appropriate use for that site. At first I was a little wondering about, whether that was possibly considered that light industrial but I do believe it fits in that. I think the applicant has to be commended about how quickly they found a solution to get that retaining wall out of the primary zone. I think that was done very well. I agree with all the comments that were made so far in that I would like to see that a temporary sidewalk would be sufficient initially. And I would not want, necessarily want to insist on the full curb on that, what is it? The current south edge of the impervious area since it's obviously temporary, but I do think it would make sense to have some sort of security in place like an escrow. And I would most definitely want to see a condition to increase the plantings on the south edge along that path. I would, based on the so far the cooperation that the applicant has shown, I think it would be acceptable to put a condition in that has staff work with the applicant to increase the plantings so that it has more of a buffering function for that path and potentially the neighborhood to the south. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich. Slagle: Just two comments. Obviously it fits within the area as how it is zoned. I would ask for us to just consider going forward with these types of requests is we think about the 500 feet. Because as I look at the map, we are capturing 5 residents on Stone Creek, at least from what I see is the mail list, and none from the neighborhood to the south. So unless folks are watching, this will all take place and they won't know that this has been approved. If this is the complete mail list, I think it's about halfway through and most of it city were owners or interested parties so I just want to throw that out. That there could be a fair number of residents who might have had interest in this so if we can talk about that in the future. And the only other thing I want to say is on point number 2. No outside storage or material or equipment. Boy, I hope we stick with that and I hope the applicant feels the sensitivity, especially if there are homes within maybe 1,000 feet of this location. That's the only thing I want to say. Otherwise I think it's fine. 26 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Before I make my comments. Kate, do you want to address the 500 feet? Are we, we are over the state requirement when we do 500 feet, is that correct? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you want to just talk a little bit about that briefly? Aanenson: Well I guess in this circumstance, is more always better? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure as far as what's on the other side of that. Do you get the southern end of Pillsbury, which is on the north side. The people that are in the Valley View, Valley Ridge subdivision were concerned about the Dover building. That additional. Again, when we did the environmental assessment, all the neighbors were involved in that. The post office and when going back and putting in a retaining wall. Is there homes adjacent to that? Yes, but I believe that from the Stone Creek and the topography change, it's going to be heavily screened. Again that's why we felt with everything indoors and the look of this building. Slagle: Actually as I saw this, Stone Creek was, other than noise, was the lesser of the two concerns. I actually felt more that the southern neighborhood would be affected for those homes that look over, what I'll call the post office and Dover's. Dover's is a small building. I run that trail and. Aanenson: Right, sure. Sure. Slagle: And there have been other situations and it's more for other ties but I think we should explore, maybe it' s, if there' s opportunities to expand it to 1,000 feet if the situation deems necessary. Aanenson: Sure. Well, yeah. Blackowiak: Well and like you said Kate, you know is more better? I mean it is listed in the paper, and I mean we do have mechanisms to get this information out but as long, I think as long as we're exceeding the guidelines for doing the 500 foot notification, at least. Aanenson: Right, as far as you know, it is a permitted use in the district. The variance is from the primary so what' s our level of discretion? I guess we could talk about that too but. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well I just wanted you to get that in. My comments are basically, the building I think looks good. I'm glad that we could move it, shift it to the east a little bit. I think, I believe I am happy with the revised landscape. I'm not positive about the southern line, and I don't know if I will be tonight at all. The point that I was trying to make is if we're going to have a single access off of the cul- de-sac, and there is a possibility to do some landscaping or a trail that would not be disturbed. So if we've got those opportunities, I think we should possibly explore those. I'm comfortable with not having a curb and gutter right away between the two buildings simply due to the elevations. I mean if you look at the contour lines, the catch basins seem to be, from what I can tell, the lowest points, so I am a little less concerned about having curb and gutter immediately, but I would agree with, you know whether it be a 1 year or 2 year timeframe, that if something is not happening on that southern portion, that we should probably get curb and gutter in there. And I think a concrete company is just the perfect person to put that in there so I' m not too terribly worried about the cost of that. I mean it' s not unreasonable to expect that. It's part of our code and if we have a reasonable time frame in there, I think we're okay with that. And I'm not even positive about the trail. I know the nature of the business. I can understand the idea 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 that not a lot of employees might be using that, but by the same token I think one of the goals of our city is to try to get some connectivity and try to get some people to be able to access trails that we have invested in. So that's really I think an important goal for any plan that we look at. So with that, I'll ask for a motion. Feik: Actually Madam Chair, if I could. Blackowiak: Sure. Feik: Sorry. If we did allow for the, for the lack of another way, would you require some sort of erosion control on that southern edge? Either a similar sod or silt fence in lieu of that. Would we need to include that in this at this point or would that be taken care of later? Aanenson: Well there are some other options. Unfortunately we haven't discussed them all with Matt and it"s really an engineering call. You could do a temporary bituminous curb. The concern is that you have everything is seeded so you're not creating a lot of sediment going into the pond and then up to that location obviously with next to the primary zone. So that's our intent. Feik: Do we need to address it tonight? Aanenson: Oh I guess what we'd like to say between now and when it goes to council, we think there's some alternatives that we can work with the developer. Again, even if it's a temporary bituminous, something that's satisfactory to engineering that there are some other options that we can present besides doing an escrow, letter of credit. We'll give a list of alternatives to the applicant and provide those when it goes to council but we want to make sure that we're not allowing sediment to run into that. And there is a grade issue so we'll look at that closely. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. So somebody like to make a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback. Is that still accurate that 15 foot? Generous: Yes, that was revised based on. Sacchet: And to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. With emphasis on no outside storage. Blackowiak: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second that. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit ~2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3ra Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. 2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted. The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be shown on the grading plan. 4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: We need another motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review //2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 33. With the following changes. Number 5. Add a sentence that says, applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. Number 8 1 would like to add a sentence that says, this is the condition about articulation on the north half. I would like to add a sentence that says, tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. Number 18. I would like to add, this is sidewalk condition. I would like to add a sentence that says bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. And number 23, I would like to reword altogether. I'll take a stab at this. So it says, temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'd like to have a friendly amendment. Blackowiak: You need to second first. Feik: I second. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, now you can make your amendment. Feik: I would like to amend that 18 also be subject long term to the concrete sidewalk. That if it is not built, that the sidewalk does go in. That bituminous isn't permanent. Kind: Let me think. I was proposing that that sentence stay there as 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. And then add a sentence, bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Feik: But if Phase II isn't completed, we need the language that you put into 23 to tie that to 18. Kind: Yeah. Do you have an idea for that language? Feik: As referenced in 23. Kind: Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built within 2 years. Feik: That'd be great, thank you. Kind: From building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept those amendments? Kind: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review g2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: - A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is permitted on only one elevation. 2. The retaining wall shall be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. . The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a total of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree for a total of 13 trees. o A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. . If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. 7. All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed. . The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. 30 · Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site. The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and pond inlet of the existing 48 inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern property line in order to minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond. Park fees in the amount of $18,926 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval. 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. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event prior to building permit approval. Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must be Type 3 heavy-duty. Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building. On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302. Also, show the benchmark used for the site survey. Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per city detail plate #5301. Add a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. Bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de- sac to be built within 2 years. Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan. Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility easement. Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West. Utilize the existing 8 inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shaft escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Replace the casting on the western most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive over type grate. Revise the plans to show the following: a. The existing pond along with the NWL and HWL. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 b. Existing street light locations in Lake Drive West. 26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided. 29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 30. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe. 31. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 32. The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10 foot clear space around all fire hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR FENS; AND ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR CREEKS. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Uli, you're smiling. Go ahead. Sacchet: Ah yes, I have a few questions. Well first of all I want to thank staff for responding so promptly to our request to look at this issue. I really appreciate that. So basically to sum up what you just presented Lori, nobody is impacted to end up with lots that are a goal to build on? There is still plenty of buildable space left. That's basically what you just said, right? Haak: Yes. We looked at all of the parcels we could find, and this is kind of a better map I guess. Of the actual parcels. The other issue that arises in this area is that there's just a lot of wetland out there and if you've ever driven past the site on 212 or gone on the Hennepin County Regional Corridor, you can see that very easily. And so the constraints that are faced by these property owners are greater than, are 32 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 already greater than what we're looking at now. If for instance there is a parcel up in here that for some reason doesn't show up on some of the city maps. And that is primarily wetland already and so even with our current wetland setback of 100 feet, with the first 50 feet being buffer, that lot is probably unbuildable anyway and has been without a variance. And so really why we're tightening things up a little bit, basically the perspective of staff is that we're positioning for future development and we wouldn't be hindering development of the existing parcel. Sacchet: Now my second question, I think the 150 feet was actually a figure that was mentioned to us by the DNR people when we were out there and it makes sense that you use that in your proposal. Now being more the environmentally focused person, I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could we do more? And the reason why I' m saying could we do more is, looking at your documentation in your point 11 you state that buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 and 300 feet beyond the wetland to retain wetland dependent wildlife. And that to me kind of was a trigger that I would say well, why would we not go further than 150 when it says it needs 200 to 300 feet in order to actually protect the wildlife. Can you address that please Lori? Haak: Certainly. If you' 11 notice, it' s kind of mincing words here a little bit but I' 11 get into it anyway. That says 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. Traditionally fens are located within a wetland basin and so you're going to have wetland on the outside of the fen. Currently our wetland standards, and we haven't amended, we weren't amending those. Our wetland standards are 100 foot setback for pristine wetland with a 50 foot buffer. If that' s something that you would like to pursue, that' s a different avenue really than we discussed and that we would get into, if we just applied it to pristine wetlands it might get us into a little less trouble if we started doing that for other wetland bodies we would start getting into trouble as far as buildable lots. Sacchet: And that confuses me a little bit as an answer Lori because basically what you're saying is well the fen is within a wetland so why would we even need a fen setback if we already have the wetland setback and we assume that it's wetland around the fen. Can you just clarify that please? Haak: Yeah. Let's see, we'll go back to the diagram I guess. Let's see, in this particular instance we have, and it' s a little bit difficult to pick up on the monitors, but we have the fen color if you will, comes down along this bright pink line. Sacchet: Very close. Haak: Right, and there is not a whole lot of space between the fen in that area and Assumption Creek. So there's not a lot of wetland there. Sacchet: So, and I don't mean to interrupt. So in that case then we could say there are instances where there is very little or maybe even hardly any wetland on the edge of the fen which then would come back to my initial question. Why not require more than 150 feet if we say it needs, it says in the report. I believe it comes from some sort of accepted study that it needs 200 to 300 feet to protect wildlife. Haak: We're scared. To be quite honest, there's not a lot of precedent. 150 feet really seemed like something we could get our hands around and we're looking for, the goal was protection. It's up to you, if you're not scared, go for it. But really, looking at something without a lot of precedent, without a lot of precedent that's what we were looking at. We didn't want to get into the takings issue and we were being very cautious of that. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Basically with a balanced approach and then see what the reaction from the community is. Haak: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's fair. That's a good answer. Thanks Lori. Haak: It's the best one I can give. Blackowiak: Deb, you were also on the tour. Why don't you go next. Kind: Yes. Speaking of community, I noticed that nobody was mailed notification of this being on tonight's agenda. The property owners that are affected probably should be notified directly. Haak: That is one thing that I picked up real late. Again, being real honest. And I did think of that. I would also like to get you some feedback for the, from the DNR. From the Lower Minnesota Watershed District allowing the planning commissioners, and potentially the council members who weren't on the tour that perspective as well. And so what I, I was thinking about it a little bit before because I noticed we were talking a lot about public hearings earlier and what I would really like to do, because I think this is an important issue. I'd really like to see this go ahead to the council if the Planning Commission is supportive of it and I don't know, maybe Mayor Jansen could add some, a perspective as to whether or not we could do something at the council meeting as far as a more advertised public hearing for those, particularly directed at those residents. That is one thought that I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Mayor Jansen, do you want to, would that be an option for the City Council to hold a public hearing if people were further noticed about this specific item? Or would you like it to come back to Planning Commission for the public hearing? Mayor Jansen: Well I definitely agree with getting it notified to the property owners, and I guess I'm less intrigued with having the public hearing move onto the council in that we've really tried to establish the policy that our public hearings are being held by this body versus council. They can always come and speak at the council, but I like the idea of any adjustments or any comments that they need to make maybe being handled here and then to your point, any comments you're still feeling like this commission needs to hear from the DNR. I'm hearing that maybe a second meeting would be helpful on both of those issues. Aanenson: And the Watershed District. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kind: Okay, so with that I guess I would like to table this probably and invite those people to come and speak. Blackowiak: Good. Okay, but let's just make sure that the commission members can make their comments and then we'll still I think open it for a public, do you think we should? Kate, give me some feeling here. Should we wait until people are noticed? I suppose it would make sense just to do it all in one fell swoop wouldn't it? Yeah, you're right. Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Mayor Jansen: If I might add, if you do have people who did come this evening to speak to this, you would give them the opportunity and not inconvenience them to the second meeting. I don't think procedurally that's a problem. Blackowiak: No, you're right. Bruce, do you have any comments? Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. Blackowiak: Get commissioners on record here. Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. As I understand there's no MUSA services to that site. Haak: That's correct. Feik: And that's not slated until 2015. Haak: Correct. Feik: What is the future zoning of that? Is that commercial? Haak: Currently it's zoned A-2 and Rural Residential. And that's shown on this map. Feik: But the future zoning once MUSA is. Aanenson: Institutional. Haak: Yeah, office institutional primarily over the site. Feik: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to see how that setback would impact future use. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich? Slagle: Same questions I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, did you have another question? Sacchet: It looks like we're kind of in the comment section already here. Blackowiak: Well actually let's just do the questions and then we'll go through public hearing. If anybody would like to make any comments this evening, and then we'll. Sacchet: That' s fine. I'll wait'for comments. Blackowiak: Okay. I do have a question of you Lori there before you go back. We, look at my notes here. My notes to myself was compare Assumption Creek setbacks with the fen setbacks. Now, in the fen setback we're talking 150 feet. The trout stream we're talking 125 feet, and then 100 in a couple of cases. Can you explain to me what the difference is and why it's not just a set number for the whole area? 35 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Haak: The primary reason for that would simply be the approach that the city has taken in the past. There is a sort of precedent established in the way the numbers were developed and the way they exist currently. It's not, as I indicated before with Commissioner Sacchet's question, not a whole lot of, we did have a basis. There is some precedent and these things were derived from, basically from the precedent that you have in front of you with the other cities and other agencies. So it's not completely random. There is some method to our madness but we did stick pretty closely to the precedent that we have established through the other, the limited precedent we have. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my second question has to do with specifically the creek setbacks. We have for example natural environment lakes, unsewered at 150 feet and then you're asking for trout streams at 125. Is there a reason that you didn't ask for 1507 I mean, from a water perspective, you know stream versus lake. Help me out here. Haak: Yeah, that was a policy decision. Primarily again looking at buildable area on some of these lots and the existing setbacks on those. So more than the ecological perspective, that was more of a policy decision on our part. Blackowiak: Just to make sure that the buildable lots remain so and. Haak: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. That answers my questions. Deb. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot. I did have one question. On the second to last page of the fen report there is a table from the city code book. Would that too need to be revised to include fens? Haak: No, I believe what we were adding would be a section 2 under that entire 20-406. And so it would be, yeah it's a letter (c) so it would be right before 20-407 where it has the wetland alteration standards and basically what that would do is, in part relieve us from the work that it would involve in going through there. And partly because it is such a special requirement and it is of a very unique nature. We really wanted to call that out in the code as well. Because it doesn't really fit into some of those other requirements. Kind: The reason I ask is the other 4 are laid out neatly in those two charts. Pristine, natural, ag/urban, utilized and it sure makes sense to have another column that says fen and just fill in the appropriate information. Haak: It's something we could do. We thought that it would work very well to have it as a letter (c) just to call it out. But certainly that's something that's negotiable. Blackowiak: So since there's only one fen in the city, I mean am I correct in saying that I guess? I mean one area of. Haak: Right. Right. Kind: So I'll re-state it. It's your view it's not necessary to change the chart? Haak: Precisely. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: Got it. Thank you. Feik: Madam Chair, one more quickly. Are there any approved subdivision lots or anything similar to the first item of business that we had tonight that would be affected by this change? And if you don't know of any, could you research that before this comes back? Haak: There are some lots of record that are located within. Aanenson: The Hesse Farms. Feik: Would they be of similar circumstances as of the first agenda item wherein if we did make this change we made those lots relatively unbuildable? Aanenson: Well we wouldn't make them unbuildable. They'd probably be given an exception or something like that. Lots created prior to so there wouldn't be any additional. The effects on it now would be further subdivide or something that would come in the future. Feik: I'm just trying to figure out what the impact is for the present owners. I mean based on what their plans are. Haak: As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the lots in this area of the fen and the creek already have a lot of wetland on them so chances are they're not buildable anyway without a variance. Or some sort of other permitting. The main ones that we're looking at are the one, the second one I showed you this evening. The parcel that had the seminary building on it. This small parcel here which will actually come before you in a couple weeks, and we're working with some additional conditions. It's not within the proposed revised setbacks so it doesn't affect this piece. This one would fall in the same category. There would still be a small buildable area there. So primarily we think it's addressed. I can look into it in more detail. Feik: Thank you. Slagle: If I can ask just one more. That brings up a question if we're going to see something coming up on one of those sites, is there anything happening with the seminary site that we're aware of? Haak: No. We did have a proposal at the beginning of the spring for a use of that site. That land user is no longer looking at that application on that site. So right now, with the exception of that parcel, staff is not aware of anything going on in this particular area. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well, this item is open for a public hearing tonight. Please be advised that if you do want to speak to this item, there will be a second public hearing when we get some more information so that will be noticed in the newspaper and on the web site, but if there's anybody this evening that would like to comment on this, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I hadn't planned on talking about this but Bruce, you brought up a point about the zoning of this land. Without my code book I couldn't go through but it appears to me that impervious surface could be an issue because with industrial 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 land, don't you have a higher percent of the land that can be impervious surface than let' s say residential. And impervious surface I would think would have a big effect on the runoff and everything in this area so it might be something you want to look into and consider possible zoning changes if it's such a scarce resource. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kate, that's a good comment. Maybe we want to just kind of consider that when we see it again. If there are any ramifications for us. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to comment on this item? Okay, if not I think I need a motion. Sacchet: How about comments? Blackowiak: Would you like to make comments before we close? Sacchet: I'd like to make comments, yes. Blackowiak: Certainly, go right ahead. Then we can make comments and just realize that we will be able to do this again when it comes before us so. Sacchet: Yes, but I think I'd like to make comments that are relevant at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, go right ahead. Sacchet: First of all, I definitely would like to encourage staff to consider. I mean if we have to stress this point of that it needs 200 to 300 feet setback to protect the wildlife, to me it would be reasonable to make it a 250 foot setback. And since we're taking the temperature of the people that are going to be affected by it, I think that would be a reasonable thing to shoot for. Then I'm a little bit disappointed that we can't pass it. I thought it was a good idea that the council could have the hearing over it. I understand the position so I'm willing to go along with this with the idea that we consider a larger setback at the same time. I do believe that we also need to consider larger setback for the creek in the context that it should be at least 150, but we need to be sensitive to the lots of record and so we, I think as we're looking at this again with the bigger figure that we should re-visit the issue of how does it affect the existing lots because it'd possibly be great if you could go more than 150 with the creek setback. But we have to work within the framework that's possible. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Any more comments? Kind: ...the 150 mark be mentioned as desirous and so I'd be interested in where that came from. Haak: For the creek setback? Just for my clarification. Kind: I'm not really sure what it was for. It just stuck in my mind. Sacchet: We didn't really... Kind: And so I'd be interested in hearing from those folks if they can't come to the public hearing, maybe get some written statements from them or whatever. That's what I'd like to see happen before we see this again and I think we should table it so that we can notify the property owners and some of the people that were on the tour. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any comments you'd like to add? Feik: No, I can wait. Thank you. Blackowiak: No? Rich? Slagle: I'll wait. Blackowiak: Lori, I just have one comment. I was not able to make that first tour but I would certainly like to do a second one if you were so inclined so I guess you know if you're going to notice property owners, maybe at the same time if there happened to be a day you could pick just to say, you're a property owner. I' 11 be here this day. Come if you want to walk. I mean that might be kind of neat just to get some of the property owners down there to take a look at what's actually going on down there and maybe give them a little bit better understanding of what we're trying to do by this. So with that I would like to have a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission table the staff's recommendations for the fen and for the Assumption Creek setbacks so that property owners may be noticed and pertinent environmental resource people that were at the tour can also be noticed. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the ordinance amendments creating setbacks for fens and creeks so that property owners and pertinent environmental resource people that were on the tour of the Assumption Creek and fen can also be noticed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: It will be tabled and I'm sure we'll just, it will be in the paper and on the web site so we'll know when it's happening again. Mayor Jansen: Madam Chair, if I could at this time. I would just like to thank Commissioner Kind and Commissioner Sacchet for taking the initiative to bring this forward and direct staff to look into the sorts of significant protections for our community resources. I commend you for having that sort of initiative and moving forward something like this so thank you and I'm sure the rest of the council would thank you also. (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 6800 BRULE CIRCLE, NICK GASSMAN. Public Present: Name Address 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Steven D. Bloom Sandy & Nick Gassman 6781 Brule Circle 6800 Bruce Circle Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? Uli, go right ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question. This space around that building. On the back side, which would be the west side, there are some retaining boulder walls and on the south side, I think the neighbor has some wooden retaining walls and I just am interested to get a sense of where they are. What's the distance? How far is the wooden retaining wall, the neighbor's land. How far back is the rock retaining wall to the west from the house? Hoium: The applicant might be able to answer this better. From my understanding the boulder retaining wall is approximately 16 feet back from the house. And the retaining wall on the side of the property line, if we could focus on the site plan itself. It is approximately 5 feet inside of the neighbor's property. Sacchet: 5 feet beyond the property line roughly? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers that question. Let's see if I have another one. I think that answers it, thank you. Hoium: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions? Feik: What's the approximately elevation difference between the two lots? Hoium: I do not know. Nick Gassman: About 12 feet. Feik: What does the staff think about the ability to screen? Is there the ability to screen this from the neighbor' s view? Aanenson: That I think was our principle reason for denying the variance. It's pretty imposing. Feik: Thank you. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a question about the intent behind side yard setbacks. I'm assuming that there were historically fire reasons for having side yard setbacks. How about movement around the structures? Is there any reason regarding that? Hoium: As far as fire hazard or? Kind: Just to access to the back yard. Is that part of the reason why we have 10 foot. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Hoium: To keep a separation between the buildings. So there is access. Kind: In this case on the south side though, the separation between the buildings is huge because it's a side yard and a back yard. Hoium: Correct. Kind: And then there's that retaining wall, but the retaining wall does limit the movement around the structure so I'm wondering if that's a part of why we have side yard setbacks in case you need to access the back yard and that sort of thing. Hoium: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Any questions? Slagle: I will ask it of the applicant as well. Was there discussion of this addition being put on the back yard, assuming that there was 16 feet of? Hoium: The applicant could answer this question. I had mentioned it and from my understanding it wasn't feasible from the outline of the house itself. Inside of the house itself. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Nick Gassman: My name's Nick Gassman at 6800 Brule Circle, Chanhassen. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I do need to clarify some of the things. The west side, where you come out of the west side of the house, it's about 14, a total of 14 feet because there's an angle where the boulders were. Those boulders are there to protect full grown trees, for root systems and all that. There used to be a wood wall there. Not unlike the dividing wall between my neighbor Paul Dragsten. Okay. This wall right here is, if you were to see the smaller bushes on the top row, there's about 5 feet there that is actually would be my, what would be considered my neighbor's lot and that's where we've staked and the lot line runs. The wall really limits effectively that's where Paul's lot ends is at that wall. I mean that's as far as using, maintenance. I take care of everything on the top. You know I have for 14 years and so technically the way the lots were drawn, that used to be one big hill that ran to Choctaw and then they had two lots left, this is before I got there, and they came in. Dozed the dirt and just chopped that hill. That used to be a natural incline. Boom, put the wall there. So the wall is, it's not the greatest looking thing in the world but we live with it. Now as far as putting the screen porch on that south side, it really isn't imposing. I think I heard imposing. I've talked to Paul about it. I talked to my other neighbor that-actually looks at it. Okay, and Paul Dragsten wrote me a letter of recommendation and said this is cool. We've talked about it. I know it' s going to be a screened in. It would have been a different issue if I had put a shed roof. If we're talking about a shed roof. Where you're looking at roofs. What we've got here is a minimal structure. It's a roof that runs at the same angle as my roof line now and it's all screened. It's clear screen. There's no side walls. There's no siding. And it will be integrated as constructed by my builder to be as natural as it was put up the day the house was built in '79. So it won't be imposing. I have lots of old shrubbery there. Lilac bushes and some other things that will be there. And if I need to put up arborvitaes or something like that as more of a natural, all time winter thing, I' 11 be happy to do that. I've talked to Paul about that already. But the, do you have any questions so far? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Ah yes. Nick Gassman: Okay. Somehow I knew that. Looking at you, you're looking at questions. Sacchet: Yeah, just one. We actually have a copy of that letter from Paul Dragsten in our packet so we're well aware of that. The issue we have to deal with is the thing with the hardship because we have to treat everybody the same. So we have to live by our rules. And it seems like there are alternatives, and one alternative would be to make the porch shorter. Much less wide. Another alternative would be, and the staff report points it out to try to acquire more land. Maybe the strip that goes up to the boulder wall. Another option is to put it in the back. I mean how do you feel, that's my question, how do you feel about other. I understand that's the best place. You want a screened porch on the south side. That's where the sun comes. That's where it makes... Nick Gassman: Well and if you see that wall, there's no windows. There's no light. That's the largest part of my house and that goes, it funnels right into the dining room. Or the living room. The dining room is broken there. And it's closed. Sacchet: I understand. You don't want to look...alternatives. Nick Gassman: Well we talked the alternatives. I talked to the builder about the alternatives and we talked about originally building out that west side. It just doesn't integrate to the side of the house and you've got to move, because where the kitchen sits and where the dining room is located, there's just no clear flow pattern into the house and so we thought okay. Maybe we can wrap around the corner. Again, that becomes a real problem visually because you get more roof and it's, so we went back to that south side. And then a functional screen porch, especially when it's going to be, my house is '79. You guys appreciate, I've got a lot of small rooms already. An 8 foot screen porch is so skinny and I have a broad side of my house here. You know it runs 28 feet I believe from end to end and then the porch would run, it'd be 4 feet on either end, if you center it, so it'd be 20 foot. And that gives you depth. I mean pace off 2 paces and you're banging your nose against the screen so you understand it's functional and-appearance wise, size wise, it just wouldn't be attractive on that side of the house for that type of skinny. When you talk about, you want to maintain your visual aesthetics for the neighbors as well so that nobody really can see it because of the height differential when you walk or drive down Brule. When you look up you really can't see anything up there. I don't know how many of you folks have actually walked the property. I think Deb came out today and. Sacchet: I didn't walk it. I was on the street. Nick Gassman: So you couldn't really see, yeah so it's a perfect spot for it and given the fact that we do have a little, to use discretion and that there's exceptions to every rule and there's no opportunity to maybe look kindly upon this variance request, that's what I'm here for. right now so that we can go ahead with this project. Slagle: You had mentioned there was comments by another neighbor who I assume would be to the west of Paul, who sees it more. Nick Gassman: No, he doesn't see it at all actually. Tom Lauby, his grade is at the same level that Paul Dragsten's is but he's farther west and he's got additional hill, additional shrubbery, trees. He has no visual sight line to that. 42 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 Slagle: So it's your belief that Paul really is the only one who will see it. Nick Gassman: Absolutely. If you're sitting on Paul's back deck, his house folks is about 40 to 50 feet from where that porch will be to where the back of his house is. If you look at his lot. His lot' s right here, okay. And his house is almost to the front of that lot. And my house, well you can see where it is, so there's that very large distance so it's not like I'm looking into his kitchen or anything like that but then he's got a small deck out there. But he was the first person I approached. Are you okay with this and he's the one who's actually, was more aggressive. Go ahead and go to the variance and build it the right way and where you want it so. Been there 14 years. I have no intentions of moving. My kids are leaving. I don't need a big house. Slagle: So if I hear you're suggesting to the inside of the wall that we see on that picture, that would be your living room area on the other side of this or dining? Nick Gassman: Right. If you're on the, if you go to the west side is the dining room area. If you go the right side, it' s the living room area and right, if you were to follow that window down, that' s approximately the middle and that's where I would punch in a door. And so it's double, it's a skinny 48 inch French door that would swing out for light and air. Slagle: Okay. Just one last question. In the back, if you were to come off, which I think you just described as your dining room I think, or living room. The back of that. Yeah, where the new French door, which I'm assuming is what would go into the house. Nick Gassman: Yes sir. Slagle: You're just saying that it's not going to work in the back yard for. Nick Gassman: No, because the way my dining room is and the way the kitchen comes in, it doesn't work. Just the way the interior of the house is set up. It's kind of queer because I have a, if I didn't, if I rearrange the whole lower level and got rid of the mud room that connected to the family room and move the kitchen and turn that around. You know we went through that whole exercise and it' s, I'm taking a $15,000 screen porch and turning it into a $100,000 remodel. Not a good idea. Feik: I had a quick question. Did you consider making some sort of a screened access way that might have been 6 or 8 feet wide that would adjoin to a screened in porch that would be off the back? So that you would sort of merge one, the views out of the one side but yet accommodate the larger deck where it would not. Nick Gassman: No I did not but it gets back, it's to the larger screen and the way it's situated or would sit on the lot and the house itself and the way you'd have to position the roof, the shed roof, the visual impact. It wouldn't look like it was a well designed part of the house. We want this to be as minimal impact and just like it's been there for the 22 years the house has been standing. It's why no three season, no four season. No windows. No heater. You know, just a screened porch. Very basic. Feik: One other quick question. What is the elevation of this deck over the existing ground? How tall is it? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Nick Gassman: It's on the ground. It's not really a deck. What it is is two series of like they're not foundation. They're like platforms. They're like little platforms. It's like a 4 by 6 framed in box that's laying on the ground by my, so in the winter when I walk. Feik: No, I mean the new screened in porch. The floor, the elevation of that floor, how high is that above the ground? I'm trying to figure out how much higher that is than the existing turf. Nick Gassman: Okay, I understand. Feik: It doesn't really show and I'm just trying to get some idea. Kind: It's about 2 feet. Nick Gassman: And that would be high. I mean it's maxed. Just the way it's got to tie it into the main. Feik: Okay. So the drawing is relatively to scale, that bottom portion. Okay, thank you. That's all I had. Nick Gassman: It will be very, very close to the ground. Would require minimal skirting. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this item, please come up. State your name and address for the record. Steve Bloom: My name is Steve Bloom. I'm at 6781 Brule Circle. I'm across the street from Nick. My interest in this is that I'm Nick's cigar smoking buddy and I don't particularly like the site because it's surrounded by trees so much so that it's not imposing on anyone, I can speak for the neighbors. You really can't see it, but it is really the only place that he could put from the inside the house in terms of how it works. Our neighborhood is 44 homes. We're an association. We have beach front property that we share. Anybody's business in our neighborhood in everyone's business. I think that the entire neighborhood was notified. I'm going to assume that nobody's had a problem with the proposal and just by self imposing and neighborhood gossip, because we share the beach and do parties and such, it really is not intrusive on anyone. Again, this picture right here, if I could, it was taken from a place where you can see the side of the house but really from the road and just about anyplace I could think of, other than the Dragsten's back yard, you really can't see it so I'm thinking that' if Nick doesn't get the variance and he has to build the porch 6 feet or 8 feet wide instead of 12 feet, it's going to look the same from anybody's perspective. I think the issue as to whether there should be access to the back yard's a pretty solid question, but I don't know. I can't really address that. The standards that we've set in the neighborhood are around value of the homes look. Neighborhood character if you will, and of course safety for the children. Everybody has 2 and 3 children in their neighborhood. So to that, you can't see it. And two homes were next to each other with the same space, I could see that it might be somewhat intrusive but since there's so much space into the next yard, I don't feel that that's. You know we talk about reasonable use. I moved out here from the East Coast and I didn't know that the state bird was the mosquito and I kind of feel like, as I moved into the neighborhood in the middle of the winter, had I had another opportunity I might have looked for a home that had a screened in porch. My wife and I constantly talk about whether we could do it in our own home and I don't think we have figured out how to do it. I think it's a great opportunity and it does bring value to the neighborhood. To the house re-sale value and I think it's an important thing to have. And those are basically my comments. Just from a homeowners perspective. It would be unfortunate if there wasn't a variance given, if that' s the right 44 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 terminology in that we support each other in the neighborhood. We had a variance I think that was approved not too distant past in the Weatherby's home where they added some decking and it was something that, it is visible from the common property that walks, there's a walkway behind and everybody supported it because we support each other in the neighborhood. But it was a lot more intrusive. And you know I hear the comments about 25,000 square foot construction buildings and putting a new home and I don't even know what I heard around fen but it was very complicated. This is real simple and it's not, it won't bother anybody so if you could see the way through it, that would be great for me personally. Thanks for your time. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot I did have a question of the applicant. How do you propose to get around your home if the screened porch is approved and one of your boulder's falls off? How do you get a heavy equipment back there to 'repair your retaining wall? Nick Gassman: Well the builder, the boulder builder, he assured it never would happen. We do have another access around on the other side of the house. I have a small shed that is portable. I mean you'd have to drag it but it' s moveable so there' s access around that, coming from the north side around, and from the family room and back through. You could get a Bobcat down there. Small front end, there's plenty of room to get in if something, don't say it, tragic like that would happen, but that boulder wall's not going anywhere. We'll all be dead before that wall moves. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this item? Seeing no one I will, did I even open the public hearing?. Kind: I'm not sure. Blackowiak: I don't know. Well I'll open the public hearing if anybody else would like to comment. And if nobody did, I will close the public hearing. I can't remember if I even said that. I'm getting fired. Okay. Commissioners, comments. Rich. Slagle: I can start. Question to staff as a preview to my comments. Was this mailed, and I don't see a list of the mailings on this one? Hoium: Yes it was mailed. Slagle: Maybe I'm missing it. Blackowiak: I too am missing it. Slagle: Okay, but Julie it was, right? Hoium: Yes it was. Slagle: Okay. Okay, good. You know in today's world they can be very selective in who they mail to. Aanenson: There's probably about 40 names. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: Fair enough. Boy, this is a tough one. I mean I think we all are, I'll speak for myself, emphasize with you. The issue is is we have the codes and we can grant variances but boy that hardship issue, it's tough and with staff and their recommendation to deny it, I just haven't seen yet the reason to change that. I'm just being honest. That' s my comments. Blackowiak: Uli, why don't you. Sacchet: ...I definitely sympathize with, I mean is this the perfect place to put it. On the other hand I'm not convinced that all the alternatives have sufficiently been explored. Staff I think mentioned 3 alternatives. The one with the wrapping. One with making it shallower and there's also reference to a similar situation where one of the neighbors had a similar project, ended up getting a couple feet of property from the neighbor so that the setback wasn't encroached on. Now basically what my position is is very simple. I think from our position from a planning commission, we don't have the latitude to make exceptions in that sense when things are this clear. We have to go by the code and based on the code I think I cannot say that there is a real hardship demonstrated because I have a hard time considering it a hardship that you can't have your 12 to 14 foot porch when you can put a 8 foot porch in and also wrap it around the house, or if you buy a couple feet of property from the neighbor to do it the way you want. I think the latitude of making an exception like that is made, it's on the City Council level. Not on the Planning Commission level and I feel therefore compelled to go with staff recommendations and passing it onto the council to review it because you can appeal it and then the council looks at it and the council does have latitude to look at that. I would however very much recommend that you explore the alternatives a little more to have that whole picture in front of council when you do that. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: Madam Chair. I too am worried about setting a precedent with something like this. The applicant does have a reasonable use of the lot and not having a screened porch is not considered a hardship, although I would consider it a hardship if I didn't have one so it' s, I can empathize with it. I do think there is a hardship in that the size of the lot is substandard and the home was built before the current setbacks were put in place. I think there is hardship there. If this was a reasonable use as far as what's required to make the lot useable so I don't see not having a screen porch as being a hardship. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I'm loath to deny a request such as this based strictly on the hardship issue. I know we would be setting precedence but it seems to me...our blessings and permission to vary from the guidelines. I think there's things that the homeowner could do such as making it maybe more irregular shaped so that he encroaches on the one corner 2 feet less. But I would, if I were the homeowner, I understand his position and I would hate to have it denied strictly based upon setting precedence regarding the hardship issue. Kind: That is why we must deny it. Feik: I know. And I agree with it. Blackowiak: Yeah, and it's unfortunate that, and I've said this before. We often see things that we'd love to say yes, let's go ahead but we as a commission are bound to follow ordinance and if there's not a hardship demonstrated, we cannot deviate. That's just bottom line. However, the City Council does have that leeway if they so choose and I would certainly encourage you to appeal this variance decision 46 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 within 4 days, which is the legal time line here, because I'm sensing that's the way this direction is, this vote is going because unfortunately we again, in my opinion I guess, unfortunately we have to follow the letter of the law and if it doesn't meet the hardship requirements, we cannot approve it so, based on that I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Okay Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest corner of the proposed porch and the 2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast comer of the same proposed porch based on the following, 1 and 2 as stated and add a third one. It appears there are alternatives to put a porch in place that need to be further researched. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion made. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest corner of the proposed porch and the 2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast corner of the same proposed porch based on the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3. It appears there are alternatives that need to be further researched. All voted in favor, except Feik and Slagle, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 3 to 2. The variance is denied. Kind: Is 3 to 2 enough? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes. You have to have 80% to approve so commissioners who voted no, would you like to make any further comments for the record or have you stated what you needed to? Slagle: I tell you why I voted nay was to the, was it a third item? And maybe we should have asked if there were comments on the additional, that's why I voted no. I didn't think we needed the third item. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: I have no comments. Blackowiak: No further comments Bruce, okay. So, for this item it's, I have to read this. Any person aggrieved of the decision may appeal a variance decision within 4 days of said decision. Kate, could you maybe either speak to the applicant or have somebody speak to them on what the process is for them to appeal this decision since I'm assuming they will do so, and I encourage them to do so. Okay. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,800 SO. FT. AUTO SERVICE BUILDING LOCATED ON WEST 82Nr~ STREET, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, ARBORETUM SERVICE CENTER, MIKE SCHLANGEN. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: Sure. Blackowiak: Bruce, why don't you start. Feik: You said that this site, and I may have misunderstood. This site was excluded when the original PUD was issued for the surrounding properties? Generous: It was included under the rezoning when the parameters for development were established. However it was an exception to the subdivision that included the rest of the development. Aanenson: The city held the property. It was excluded from the development. Feik: The city owned the property so the tree count on this existing parcel did not, was not a factor in making the previous decisions for the PUD? Generous: Correct. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: Just to clarify too. Again the city bought the Wrase property with the intention of putting the water tower on this site. As it developed the water tower moved off the site and so it's a potential developable site. Feik: My concern was that the trees were part of a previous arrangement as related to the PUD surrounding it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I have a question when it comes to the city owning a piece of property like this. Is this something that the city, City Council, city administration is supportive. I mean the whole bidding process. Aanenson: There is a purchase agreement that the City Council has to approve and that is scheduled for a City Council meeting so that' s outside of your perusal but yes, that will be handled by the City Council purchase agreement and the sale. Blackowiak: So it's really not, we don't even care who owns it is bottom line. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: Is we need to just go ahead and look at what's here and look at the project and decide if it meets the criteria we're setting. Aanenson: I just want to give you the background of, you know we bought the property from the Wrase's who weren't willing to sell. We thought it didn't make sense to leave that out and just leave them as a remnant and to rezone that. And the purpose of buying it was to put the water tower on there. As development progressed, the water tower got moved to a different site. Blackowiak: To the east, yeah. Aanenson: And we sold them some of the property to the Citgo to make that work and this is kind of a remnant piece. And looking at it, we felt it ties into that piece for access. It's a small building. It matches up well with what's there. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? No? Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. As I talked with you before Bob on this already because I had a lot of questions, and I'd like to revisit some of those so they're on the record. My first question was, is there a reason, if so what is the reason, that auto service was excluded from the PUD? Generous: Well as for the overall project we were looking at, we didn't want to .make this an auto mall site if you will where you had a dealership and then all the related businesses that came in. And had we opened this up as an overall development for that, that could easily have happened. We thought that this was a good, the overall development was a good office industrial project with some corporate headquarters and office warehouse space. However we were also looking, we didn't look beyond just the perimeter. We had 4 lots that we said could develop commercially. The Wrase property wasn't one of them at the time. However in looking at the potential, the constraints on that site, it doesn't work for office use. The access is bad. It's the 2, another auto related development and so that we said, maybe it makes sense to go and make this change. Aanenson: And the other use of looking at it is smaller. It may lend itself to something like fast food which we didn't want down there, which wants a high visibility. This is a use that we felt, with the relationship of the existing Citgo, could survive without the visibility that somebody else may want. Sacchet: That answers my question. Thanks. The next question. The visibility from the south to me wasn't real pleasant thing that the Citgo site also needed...and obviously this is going to be quite a bit higher. It will be more visible and I wondered, the south elevation, the back part of it, that' s got to be fairly visible from, if you drive north. Coming from the south side of 41, correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And the back part where those garage doors are, it's pretty blank. The upper half of it. Generous: Yes, it has the brick top and bottom. Base of block. The darker block. Sacchet: Does staff think there is enough architectural interest on that facade? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Generous: Well we were looking at the landscaping and depth to eventually fill that in. We're requiring additional landscaping on the south side of the parking lot area. Sacchet: That's on quite a steep slope, isn't it? Aanenson: It could use additional banding or something. Generous: You could probably put a band in it, yeah. That would help to tie it to the front. Sacchet: That answers that question. The retaining wall, the low retaining wall on the north side, that's concrete block retaining wall? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: That's the material? Now that's far enough away from those trees that we're trying to preserve that...concern. Generous: It looks like it's outside of their critical root zone. Sacchet: Okay. There is recommendation by staff to add 5 additional deciduous overstory trees. Would that be on the south side or where would that be? Generous: Most of them were on that south side there. I believe some are on the east. Sacchet: It specifies that there would be some shrubbery on the south side. I don't think it was clear that it's deciduous. Generous: Part of the buffer yard calculations. Sacchet: It's not necessarily specified where it's at? Which side it would go at this point. The grading, the movement of dirt is pretty severe on this site. We're basically talking about digging into that hill by Lot 1, what does it say 30 to 40 feet. And that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it puts the building lower. Generous: Right. And you can get a little bit of screening for the parking lot area. Sacchet: Now on the south side there is a stretch where the grade will be excessive on the requirements of 3 to 1. Do we know how that will be mitigated? Generous: That's on the property to the south. I think it was approved as part of that site plan. Sacchet: So it wouldn't be mitigated? Generous: No. It'sbeen. Aanenson: It's in place. Generous: Yeah, it's in place. They're revegetated. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: That's not how I read this blueprint. It looks like the steepest part is on the top with the new grading. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners, maybe I can add something. We do have a condition where, and they're showing proposed grades along the south side less than 3 to 1 in some areas. I think there's a condition where it says either comply with the 3 to 1 requirement or install a retaining wall. We also mentioned that any off site grading you' 11 need easements, that sort of thing for it. I believe they own both properties though so that shouldn't be an issue. Sacchet: But at this point we don't know... Saam: I think it's correct in the condition. If the condition is accepted whereas they have to meet 3 to 1 or install a retaining wall. It's in black and white. Sacchet: Okay. We also ask him for the parking stalls to be a little bigger in the turn around. Do we know how that would be mitigated? Saam: No. I haven't spoken with them but maybe Bob has or the applicant can answer that. Sacchet: One of our site plan findings criteria, preservation of the site in it's natural state to the extent practical by minimizing tree and soil removal. Staff believes that we meet that sufficiently? Aanenson: Well if you want it to develop, I mean you're going to have to compromise somewhere. Sacchet: Now the thing with the trees. I have an issue with the tree inventory. It doesn't, it's not consistent. I mean the trees on the south already...basically newly planted. On the rest of the survey the trees are I think minimum 6 inch. Generous: It's a 12 inch. Sacchet: So at this point we don't know which row of trees on the north side would be counted for relocation at this point? Or how many of them? Generous: No. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.- Slagle: A question to staff. I noticed on page 2 in your proposal summary, I think it is, bear with me. The second paragraph at the bottom. You mentioned the developer is still finalizing the amount of property that is being purchased for this project. At a minimum they will require all the land being graded for the project. Is there anything that we should be concerned about? I mean we're looking at a survey of a particular site? Anything that, would there still to be an amount determined.- Aanenson: Bottom line is the approved site plan has to meet what they're purchasing or vice versa so that will get reconciled at the council to match up. That it meets the setbacks. I'm assuming that's... Slagle: Okay. Yeah, that's exactly. Okay, that's all. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, do you have any questions? Kind: Not at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce? Feik: No. Blackowiak: Okay I just have a couple quick questions I think. On page 5 on the bottom it talked about no surface water management fees. Can you explain that to me? It says because it didn't undergo the subdivision process. Why is this exempt? I don't quite understand. Generous: Our Surface Water Management fees are actions that are taken as part of the subdivision review process. Aanenson: So are park and trail. Generous: Right, and this isn't a subdivision. It's an existing lot of record. So we can't take those fees. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, I guess I'm not, I mean I understand but I don't know if I'm convinced. Noise, loud speakers, etc. I know in the past we have had conditions, especially with auto related businesses regarding the fact that there can't be any loud speakers, no outdoor loud speakers, things like that. Is that a condition that we should be looking at adding to this project? Generous: I didn't think it'd be an issue but if it's something that concerns the community, it's definitely appropriate to add it. B lackowiak: I'm just thinking in terms of consistency with auto related. Maybe it's something we should look into and again that might not be, the neighbors might not mind but then again they might. Who knows? Hours of operation. Are we concerned at all about that? It's another issue I know we've had with auto related. Generous: Yeah. You run into the nuisance ordinances if it gets too late at night and generally that's more in the residential area that has a direct impact and this is in an industrial park. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, those are my questions right now. Alrighty. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make any comments? Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development and Dan Beerman, the Associate Architect and Mike Schlangen, the building owner are here with me tonight. I think staff did a good summary. I might just clarify one issue, if I could look at the grading plan to talk about the slopes and some of the landscaping. First, maybe to give a background. Just as an orientation, the corner here is at 1000 at 82nd Street and Highway 41. The floor level of the convenience store is 994. This is 1005, the floor level approximately at the proposed building. The buildings to the north, the two office warehouse buildings, office showrooms are 1015 and the base basically of the water tower is 1020. So retaining wall is here and we're having 3 to 1 slope here and then the existing slope here to develop these terraces. And then landscaping wise, we're saving the row of mature deciduous and pine trees up in here and reinforcing the 52 · Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 landscaping on the existing slope. Looking at the slope diagram, as a point of clarification, when we met with staff we added 20 feet to the purchase. Subsequent to that Mr. Schlangen has added another 15 feet so we will have the 3 to 1 slope on this side and we will save the mature line of evergreens in this area with a small retaining wall. Aanenson: Can I just comment on that real quick Fred? That goes back to your question Rich regarding the slope. Our point was if you're grading it, you should purchase it so that's where the line was moving back so whatever they're grading, what they need to get the 3 to 1 slope is what they need to purchase. So it wouldn't affect the building setback or anything like that. It's just a slope easement so. Fred Richter: And one clarification in the staff report was a 10 foot, I believe that would be standard kind of turning radius of this last stall. Having maneuverability, that will have to be incorporated if we don't get a 3 to 1 slope. Then there will have to be a small retaining wall on it so that's some fine tuning. I think from a practical standpoint and clarification, we would like to keep this existing slope that's already in and stabilized and there's a lot of the trees established there. We would propose reinforcing these trees. I think that was a point of clarification on the landscaping because we really do want to reinforce the trees here because in the rendering that was a sincere effort to kind of indicate how that view from 41 does get some screen here, albeit the slope reaches a high point and then falls off straight. We will look at it with staff, whether a shrub or something line there helps too. But the intent is, if you want to hand me the perspective I'll just reiterate that. This is a view from Highway 41 down about at that 1000 level looking up at the 1005 and then this is that reinforced south slope. Develop a screen for the parking area and the overhead doors. This is the mature tree line of the deciduous trees between this site and the site to the north, and the actual water tower is back in this area here with some larger trees at it's base and that would also be reinforced in the !andscaping plan. So I think those are just the overall. Aanenson: Yeah, I'd just like to add one other thing too regarding slopes that Mr. Richter is talking about too. If you recall the consternation we went through with this entire project was regarding the fact that it needed a lot of earth movement and what we finally struck the balance is that we would have a lot of plateaus. And that's how we would accomplish the varied heights of the buildings and that's how this is working right now. You can see the stepping up of the buildings. Instead of going and mass grading, and that' s where we spent a lot of time. Whether we were going to go back to housing or whether it should be industrial because we guided it industrial and said well, if it's going to be industrial, how are we going to make it work without grading it. So that was the compromise that was struck so there are going to be steeper slopes on the site but that was the flexibility that was given to allow the height difference and reducing the grading amount. Blackowiak: Well commissioners, are there any questions of the applicant or is there a further presentation? Any questions of the applicant? Get him back up here if we need to. Sacchet: I think he pretty much answered my questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Well this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to comment on this matter, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mike Schlangen: Hi. My name is Mike Schlangen and I'm at 1941 Melody Hill Circle in Chanhassen. A couple of the questions that you had, as far as loud speakers. We won't have any loud speakers outside the building. We will have a communication system somehow inside the building but not outside. Hours of operation will be less than what the Citgo is now which is 6:00 to 10:00 Monday through Saturday and 53 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 7:00 to 10:00 on Sunday so those are the two questions. I don't know if anybody's got any other questions for me. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions of this applicant? Slagle: No questions but you have a great Citgo there. Blackowiak: Okay, would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you'd like to make comments. Deb, would you like to start? Kind: Sure. I agree that the use of this site for an auto center is compatible, especially with that Citgo nearby. And it's a nice design and I support Uli's idea of adding, or I don't know who's idea it was. I think it was Kate's actually, of adding an accent band just to minimize the height of the building. I think that subtle change would help it visually reduce the height of the building but I think it's a nice looking building and a good addition to our city. Blackowiak: Okay Bruce, any comments? Feik: Yeah, it's fine. I welcome you. I think it's going to be a good addition to that corner. My only minor concern is the broad definition of auto service maintenance, versus operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. Would that include auto body shops? Would that include, I mean auto maintenance. Aanenson: The beauty of this PUD is that we can be specific and if you're uncomfortable, then please be more specific. Feik: Auto maintenance is fairly broad. Aanenson: Sure. Be happy to narrow that down for you because we wouldn't want that either if this went away so if you want to give us some direction, we'd be happy to work on it before it goes to council. Feik: I would say certainly, where you've got in the first or the second line of the first paragraph. Auto service centers engaged primarily in supply of goods and services generally required in the operation. It is intended that... Aanenson: If you want to get more specific than that. Feik: Is a Tires Plus kind of a thing? I mean it could become fairly broad if we, with maintenance of motor vehicles. I just want to make sure we know what we're getting. Aanenson: Sure. We'd be happy to make that, work with the applicant and make sure that's narrow enough that you' re comfortable. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, while we're talking about this. As I read the amendments, it talks about amending the PUD to permit an auto service center on the Wrase property. So we're just talking to an amendment at this specific site, is that correct? Generous: Correct. 54 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: So we could not go to any other site within the Gateway Park? Generous: They would need a separate amendment. Blackowiak: So does that help at all for you? Feik: No, it doesn't actually. I just want to make sure we understand what we're getting. Aanenson: Right, I agree. Feik: If it' s a, could a Firestone go in there under this definition? I think it might be able to and I just want to make sure everybody understands that that is a possibility and if you do or you don't have a concern with the Arboretum being across the street with the kinds of noises that you might have with a Tires Plus or a Firestone. If you' re comfortable with it that's fine. I just think we need to make sure that we understand what, how broadly this is defined and that we're okay with it. Because it's more than just a retail Pep Boys. Blackowiak: Alright, good point. Rich, do you have any comments? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yes, I have comments. First of all I do agree with the fact that an auto service use is appropriate here. I support that amendment to the PUD. I think the framework is well set. I share your concern that we wouldn't want a body shop there, but car service I think is well explained in the staff report makes sense there to me. I would like to see a little extra interest on the south elevation like a band up there over those... I do have some issues though and I want to cover those briefly in my comments. When I first looked at this I was very unhappy, not that being a planning commissioners has anything to do with being happy or unhappy but I was very concerned about the situation with the trees. Basically on this, I don't know what this drawing is called. The one that shows the trees. There are 70 trees shown and 32 are X'd meaning they're going to be cut. 23 evergreens and 9 deciduous. And then it shows 38 as saved. It's unrealistic that they're all going to be saved. At least 4 of them are this grading line right through the, more or less the middle of them so basically it's a 50/50 tree loss with an extreme grading so I took issue that this did not meet our preservation of the site...practiceable by minimizing tree and soil removal. However, when I went out there I realized that the damage had pretty much already been done in terms of the trees. Most of those evergreens are in terrible shape. Most of those large deciduous trees have been damaged when the building was burned, as the fire department had their exercise out there, so I felt that mitigated my concern somewhat because it's basically mined. However, I found a new concern in that the tree inventory's really totally inconsistent. All those little trees on the south, because it's not evident on the plan that they're little. All those trees on the south side that don't have.., saved tree site, are basically little trees that have been planted with a diameter of maybe an inch, maximum 2 inch. While on the north side there is a whole area where right now we only have 3 evergreens shown, where there is probably at least half a dozen to a dozen trees that are significantly bigger than any of the trees that are shown on the south, and those are the trees that I believe staff is referring to that some of them could be moved. Again, not all of them are very good shape. Some of them are. And I think we would have to be very clear to identify what's there and that should be moved. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Maybe say should be investigated, and I don't know if that's good enough but under the circumstance I think I'd be willing to make a condition that staff work with the applicant on identifying those trees and make sure that we know which ones are going to be moved. That it's a clear situation. Also I want to request from staff that before this goes to council, that this tree inventory is a little clearer. Frankly it' s misleading at this point. To me it's borderline that I would ask to table this. But since I'm the more environmental person and I don't think it would go through, I'll try to mitigate this so that's a definite concern. Also the current plan doesn't really show how the width of those stalls in the south will be widened. How that turn lane goes around. When the applicant presented, I understand there will be facilities, turning features that goes into the west side of the property with a retaining wall and those trees there so I don't have a concern with that. That's a reasonable answer for that one. I'm willing to settle with the amount of grading, or soil removal I should say for the advantage that this building's going to be tucked in more so that we get something out of that. But I think it needs some work before this can be presented to council so I would, in order for me to be able to support this going through to the commission here, recommend approval for the council, I'd like to pass conditions that clearly state that all trees marked saved need to be saved. Need to have tree protection fencing around, because I think...grading lines very close or into them. I would like to specify that staff would work with the applicant to identify the moveable trees and that they would be moved. And that the tree inventory be more accurate. Consistent. Not misleading. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have any? Kind: I think I already made my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. You were kind of nodding there so I wanted to make sure. Okay. My comments are fairly similar. I was a little concerned about amending the PUD for a specific use since I went back to my little old file here and pulled out my preliminary PUD stuff and it specifically said no auto related. And as I looked at the site and went out there, for this instance it does make sense. I don't know what else you could really do with that site. The access isn't great. The, even the visibility isn't great. I mean there's going to be some, you're going to see it but you're going to probably already be by it by the time you really see it so unless you drive the area on a fairly regular basis, I think you might not even know it's there. One comment I do have, and I guess I didn't really, I neglected to address it in my questions or comments earlier was an item in the report on page 3 that said the site is not conducive to pedestrian access and I don't know if I really agree with that statement. We've got a place where you may, if you work in the area, be dropping off your car and it probably will take some time to get done. So I'm thinking that maybe we should look into pedestrian access of some Sort because it just makes sense that if you drop your car off, you may need to have to walk back to work or you may have to walk over to the gas station to call for a ride or whatever. You may want to just take a little walk while your car gets the oil changed for a half hour or whatever so Kate, go ahead. Aanenson: I agree with you but the issue is the grades between. We've got retaining walls. 3 to 1 slopes. It gets difficult to get. Generous: You need a stairway. Aanenson: Yeah, you could maybe put a stairway in. Blackowiak: Well I mean maybe I'm just saying that maybe before it goes to council we could look into some options because I don't know if I necessarily, I mean it might not be easy but I think we should look into it because people will be dropping their cars off and I think that we, if they want a little walk or 56 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 something and time to wait for their car, I think that we should utilize the trails and the paths that are already existing in that business park because I think that's a real neat feature in that park so. So I'd like to see that explored before it goes to council. I guess aside from that, my issues about noise and hours of operation were addressed and I'd like to have a motion please. Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to planned unit development, PUD//92-6 to permit an auto service center on the Wrase property... Blackowiak: No, I think it should just be one at a time. Sacchet: Okay, that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'I1 second it with a friendly amendment. To add a condition number 1 that auto body repair is prohibited. Sacchet: Accepted. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD ~92-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with the following condition: 1. Auto body repair is prohibited on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Okay next motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan //2001-8, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated 5/4/01, subject to the following conditions 1 through 36. And I'd like to modify some of them. I'd like to modify number 12 to read, the developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the north property of the site. That's period. That's fine. And we could say appropriate smaller trees. I mean that's up to staff and the developer to identify those. And number 17. Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off the southwest corner of the parking lot. Tree protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. I'd also like to add a sentence, silt fence and tree protection fencing will be removed after construction. And let's see. An additional, number 37. The applicant will work with staff to add additional architectural-interest to the south elevation. That's probably specific enough. If you want to make it more specific, go ahead. Number 38. Staff will work with, or the developer will work with, well I don't know which way you work. Or both ways or together. Whichever comes first. But to identify pedestrian access to this site. Okay? And I'd like to add a condition number 39. Staff will work with the developer to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate. I believe we already covered the moving of the trees. Saving...trees. Okay, that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: I'd like to make a friendly amendment if I can. I don't know what number you're at Uli but I'd like to specify that no outdoor loud speakers will be allowed. Sacchet: That's accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan g2001-8, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated 5/4/01, subject to the following conditions: o 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. 2. The grading plan shall be revised to show the placement of silt fence. 3~ All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4~ The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that off-site ponding will be adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 5~ The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. . 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. 8. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. o Add five deciduous overstory trees adjacent to the parking area and specify species in the plant schedule. Submit revised plan to City. 10. The applicant shall plant a minimum of 30 shrubs between the south property line and the parking area. The locations and species shall be noted in a revised landscape plan. 11. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to grading around all trees to be saved. 12. The developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the northern portion of the site. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Add the following 2001 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans: 1004, 1006, 3101, 3102, 5203, 5300, and 5301. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site. Add an approved fence on the top of all retaining walls over 4 feet in height. Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off of the southwest comer of the parking lot. Tree protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. Silt fence and tree protection fencing must be removed after construction. Add a benchmark to the plans. Any off-site grading or construction will require easements. Revise the slopes along the south and east property lines to meet the City's maximum slope grade of 3:1 or install retaining walls. A private utility easement is required over the portion of the water service that is outside of the property limits. The property has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the property is subject to city sewer and water hook-up and connection charges. The 2001 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,144 a piece. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit being issued. A cross access easement is required over the shared portion of the TH 41 driveway access which serves both the subject property and the Citgo property. Increase the length of the parking stalls along the south side of the building to be 18 feet long and provide acceptable turnaround areas at the east ends of the parking lot, as required by City code. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc. b. Show one standard size for all manhole structures. c. Delete the retaining wall that is shown on the property to the east. On the utility plan: a. Include a note near the watermain connection that says, "Restore Water Tower Drive With Heavy-Duty Bituminous Section (See Grading Plan)". b. Add north arrow and bar scale. c. Show the proposed water pipe easement. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 d. Under the Construction Notes add, "Ail connections to existing manholes shall be core- drilled". e. Rename the proposed storm CB2 to CBMH2. f. Rename MH1 to STMH1. g. Revise existing MH4 invert to be 988.35. h. Add a storm sewer schedule. Invert for the existing sanitary manhole is 992.65. Show one standard size for all manhole structures. Lower the storm sewer line between CBMH2 to STMH1 so it's below the rim elevation of STMH1. i. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc. 27. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 29. The access aisle for the accessible parking space must be a minimum of 8 feet wide. 30. The service area toilet room must be adaptable as required by Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 31. A 1 hour fire resistive occupancy separation is required between the service area and the ' customer area. 32. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 33. The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process. 34. 35. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. A post indicator valve (PIV) will need to be added to the water line going into the building. This is to shut down fire protection in the. event of an emergency in the building. 36. Add a hydrant on either side of the main entrance onto the property. One hydrant is not sufficient for this project. 37. The applicant shall work with staff to add additional architectural interest to the south elevation of the building. 38. The applicant shall work with staff to identify pedestrian access to the site. 39. The applicant shall work with staff to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate. 40. No outdoor loud speakers will be allowed on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU WINDOW, SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A 4,882 SQ. FT. CULVERT'S RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 2m~ ADDITION, WAYNE RISER & ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Robert Savard Kelly G. Walker Luke Fowler Steve Kneeland Mark Clarey Vernelle Clayton Wayne Riser 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 422 Santa Fe Circle 13500 James Avenue, Burnsville Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions of staff. Go ahead. Feik: Have you discussed with the applicant how the western portion would be treated if the drive thru were denied? And what would be changed on the plans? Generous: We pointed it out in the staff report. We have discussed it with them and I'd like them to make their presentation regarding that whole issue. Feik: Thank you. I guess that was my one big question. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: Yes, they know we want a bigger seating area. Feik: On the south side. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: South and west side. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, you want to go ahead? Sacchet: Yeah, a couple quick questions. So you say that part of the building to the north where currently there are no windows is basically office and storage? Generous: Well there's different areas but the most northerly portion has an employee break room in it and so they could put a window on the west elevation. Yeah, it shows up as break room on the south end. That's actually the west elevation. And then down in that office area, they could put another window in. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: I'll ask that of the applicant. I guess that's... Now in terms of the landscaping, it appears that a fair amount of landscaping to the north and northwest is actually in the wetland area. What' s the city policy of doing planting in wetland? Generous: It's their private wetland. It would have to be natural plantings. Sacchet: But they can plant, did anybody look at what they're proposing? Whether that's appropriate for a wetland. Generous: Both Jill and Lori reviewed this. Sacchet: Okay. It says there's some additional grading needed outside the property limits. Is that like at the entrance or? Saam: Yes, I can address that. It's on the south end on the site plan. They're showing some grading. Bob mentioned that turning radius at the end of the drive thru. Sacchet: Okay. And then we have a condition here, you're requesting that they provide some as-built plans before they get a permit to do this. As-built plans of what? Saam: Did you want to address this? Aanenson: Go ahead. Saam: As part of this, the approval of this development, there was a requirement which stated that the developer and his or her engineer must supply us with as-built plans. What those are are plans which shows what pipes are in the ground. The size of those inverts. That sort of thing. Basically a record keeping. Sacchet: But that would be for other sites around it, not for this particular site? That's what I'm trying to get clear. Saam: Yep, yep. It's for the entire development but since it hasn't been done yet, we typically hold up building permits for developments until that's done. Sacchet: So that's standard procedure? Saam: Correct. Sacchet: We're not holding this one piece of property hostage because something's missing for the remaining whatever many. Saam: Well we've done it before. It's standard in the city. Sacchet: Hold some development up? Saam: Yep. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. That answers it. That's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, you have any questions? Kind: Yes I do. In the staff report you attach the PUD development design standards and in there it specifically says that no free standing fast food was allowed in the PUD, yet you support this. Can you explain that? Generous: Well we didn't look at this as a typical fast food establishment. Those are the food's already prepared. You come up. It's ready to go. These you make specific orders and then you have to sit down and wait and they actually have waiters, people that bring the food out to you and by definition that's a restaurant. Kind: Okay. I've been to the Culver's in Navarre. It's very similar to fast food, but you're right. There's a minor distinction there. I've got to flip around here to find my questions. I know I had another one. Oh, the EFIS material is also on the columns that have been added and therefore they're in foot and hand traffic areas. We' ve had some discussions about whether that's a durable material in those types of locations. What's staff feeling about that? Aanenson: I think as an accent material I don't see it as a big problem. It's really a minor portion of the structure. Kind: Is stucco more durable? Aanenson: Than EFIS? Yes. Yes. Generous: Yes. Kind: I'll ask the applicant about considering changing that material. I think that's it for staff. Oh, the windows that you were talking about Bob on the west elevation. Is there a condition in here that talks about that or is that something you're proposing that we add? Generous: ! thought it was in there. Kind: I didn't see it but I did kind of a quick read through so that's something that, assuming the applicant is amenable, that we should add as a condition. On the west elevation. Generous: Yes. Kind: That's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions of staff right now? Slagle: Not right now. Blackowiak: Okay, and I don't either. Alrighty. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up before the commission? Please state your name and address for the record. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Good evening commissioners. I'm Wayne Riser. I live at 13500 James Avenue in Burnsville, Minnesota. I'm the developer for the proposed Culvert's project and I'll be happy to answer any questions. We have one of the things that Bob and I did visit about with up front and is that we will, it will be necessary for us to, in order to go ahead with the project, to have the drive in feature. If we cannot accomplish that, why we understand but would preclude us from going ahead with the project. There are presently 136 Culver's in the system. First one being built in 1992 and they have tried 2 of them without the drive up feature and unfortunately that business that that brings is enough to make it financially impossible to do it for us, or we could not finance it because the numbers just wouldn't support it. Other than that, the windows that Bob talked about adding, he and I have talked together. We'd be very happy to add that. I think it would be an enhancement to the project and also we would love to enlarge the size of that outside seating area. That seating area, the tables are, the tops are terrazzo. A ground terrazzo top with a concrete base and there's a nice umbrella over it so we have a very nice patio area when we get done with the project. We'd be very happy to do that. The columns, now the two columns where you come in are concrete split face block and the reason we did that was just as you said, to get away from the wear. Now the reason we went to EFIS on the other was to create some contrast in the building. We thought it would give it a richer look. All those are set back. If you would look on the footprint, so I don't think there will be a problem. I believe also from my limited knowledge of building, that EFIS will stand up as good or probably better than stucco. But if you would prefer we could go like, you know all concrete split face block all the way. Actually that would cost us, we think a little less money but we think the EFIS gives you that contrast and a richer look. And I'll be happy to address any questions. That's just our thinking. Our thinking may be all wrong. It's been wrong before so we're happy to try and cooperate you know where we can. The only real big point I think that we, the only problem we have is that we have to have the drive thru or we just can't go ahead with the project. It's just unfortunately that would stop us. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions for Mr. Riser? Sacchet: ...more as a drive thru because you're putting us in a tough spot. Wayne Riser: Yeah, I don't mean to but unfortunately that's the spot I'm in too. Sacchet: It works both ways, I understand. I had a few small questions. So an extra window wouldn't really... Wayne Riser: No it would not. There's one that was tried in a heavy pedestrian area in Wisconsin Dells and it did not work. Sacchet: I mean I've seen your type of business. They usually do have a drive thru so I understand where you' re at. Wayne Riser: Unfortunately I think the rest of our project is nice and that's the one piece of baggage I guess we bring with us. There's really no way to overcome that. Sacchet: The other thing is just kind of a curiosity thing. Just like half the building doesn't have windows. Wayne Riser: That's where your kitchen area and storage. Sacchet: That's where you make your custard? 64 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Actually the custard's made right out front. That's part of the marketing ploy. We want the people to see the ice cream coming down the stainless steel. You know we're trying to get them to eat more. Just like the old pizza places where they used to make it in the windows. Same thing, but the back area is, you know there's two. A refrigerator cooler. That's in the building and of course your prep line as they call it and your storage area so that really can't have windows because it really is nothing you want to see. Sacchet: You don't consider yourself a fast food? Wayne Riser: No we do not. Because when we come in, number one. Nothing's made ahead of time. It's all freshly made. You come in. You order. You pay and then you take a number. Sit at a table and a waiter, well waiters may be a little bit high class name for it, but someone. A server. A server I think would be more appropriate. A server comes and serves you. So that's how it works, and actually in the drive thru portion of it, quite often when you get to the window, the order's not ready yet. You pay for it and pull head and in a moment or two someone brings it out to you. And so it's not a real fast drive thru. It's a slower process because it's a higher quality item, we think that we serve. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Riser? No? Okay, Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: Thought I'd never get here. This is just like the good old days. Blackowiak: I was optimistic. Vernelle Clayton: We used to be here, I remember 1:00 one time. Blackowiak: No, no, no. We're not doing that. Vernelle Clayton: I'll talk fast as you know I usually do. It's been a long time in coming for this parcel. In case, two of you are new and Uli you weren't around either but originally this was going to be Famous Dave's and then it was going to be a Ruby Tuesday. We've entertained most recently 3 different proposals, all of whom, all of which would have required a drive thru. One was a bank, which would have required a much more massive drive thru. Two cars plus an ATM lane so you could really see it. We've even, this fellow has been so cooperative, as you've probably guessed from looking at the plans as we originally saw them to what you're seeing tonight. It's quite a difference, including even cutting back the roof over the drive-up area so that it wouldn't be obvious that it's a drive-up. It's hardly recognizable as a drive-up. One of the other folks that wanted to be there was a Dairy Queen, and as all of us know, everyone in town essentially has been saying when are you going to get us an ice cream place. Wayne doesn't particularly like it when I compare him with Dairy Queen because his ice cream is so much better, but also we concluded in looking at Dairy Queen's fairly much more rigid requirements than they used to be for building design, that this was a much better fit. We also concluded that ice cream was definitely something that we wanted to have in the Village, even if it is frozen custard. And it's a great addition to the mix that we already have and the mix that we think that we'll be having as you see some plans unfolding for other parts of the project. There is a need for a mix, there's a need for more restaurants. There's a great synergy that occurs when you have more than one place, several places to go for food, and it's something that you really need for a successful retail and shopping experience. So we' re pleased to have them and we are very much supportive as the folks that have been working and showing you all of these plans working to get a really nifty project. We're very much supportive of having the drive thru there from the perspective that this is definitely a pedestrian oriented project and 65 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 we're doing everything we can to protect it, the location of this drive thru does not impede upon any pedestrian traffic. Originally when we first brought this through, and I'm sorry to keep doing this with the p's. I'll step back a little bit. When we first brought the project forward we didn't know who was going to be in the, within Village on the Ponds. Shortly after we began the process we had a very good clue that St. Hubert's was going to be there and very soon thereafter we had a very good clue that Americlnn was going to be there. Americlnn is here tonight as a matter of fact. We have the CEO and his right hand person and Mark Clarey, the construction coordinator. Steve Kneeland, I should have mentioned your name and the CEO is of course Luke Fowler who most of you have probably met. So we appreciate their being here. They're a part, a major investor in the Village on the Ponds. Invested both in AmericInn and Houlihan's and as you'll see within hopefully the next few weeks or so, another large, very large part of the project that they're undertaking. They're also a part of the overall group that is coordinating, has an option on all of the rest of the Village on the Ponds project so they're very supportive of this project. They have a major investment already and have committed to making more and feel that this is something that should be done for the project. As I said, we didn't know much about what was going to be happening over there when we entered into the PUD agreement. The staff at the city recommended that we not do anything that would encourage fast food and drive up windows. We were fully supportive of that. We didn't picture that as part of the project either. And it was good probably to have that at the outset. At this point though, this is the only parcel that possibly could have one. We don't feel that this puts the project in any kind of jeopardy. As I say, we like the product and we think that's a benefit to the project. We had hoped, as a matter of fact, to have brought to you two other projects before this project came through so you could see the credibility of my statement that this would be the only place where we would be apt to be having the drive up window. As a matter of fact on the application we're applying only for this particular, this site has a lot, it's own lot and block number. It was platted as a part of the Village on the Ponds 2nd Addition which is not the entire project that we're needing to get you're the as-builts. It's just the 2nd Addition, and that was done as kind of one site plan if you will. The parking lot was always intended to be shared. There's some engineering, some site grading that's been done. The site that we're talking about tonight has been rough graded and a couple of catch basins are in and that's why they need the as-builts so they can see that we're tying it in on this project. So, and now I've lost my train of thought but in any event we had hoped to bring, I think I was about to tell you that we hoped to bring a couple of other projects that actually are larger than this to you so you could see how it would all fit and see that there's going to be a whole lot going on there. We do, what I have instead of actual applications, are some, is a copy of some site plans that Mika Milo, our architect for the entire project and as you noticed in the staff report, he is the architectural review committee and he' s supportive of the drive thru as well. I think he visited with staff last week on that subject, or earlier this week. The plans that we have were done by Mika for Medicine Marquettes' use in going to the national market for national retailers. Is your screen jumping like this or is it just on the one? Kind: It's doing the same thing. Vernelle Clayton: Oh, I feet sorry for your eyes. Well in any event, this is the site that we're talking about and this looks very much like what you' ve always seen for Village on the Ponds, although I noticed Bob we need to get you a new site plan with Houlihan's in the right place and things like that. This project, this is St. Hubert's. This whole southwest quadrant is the one that you've been hearing for a few months now that Presbyterian Homes is going to be doing, and we reviewed their most recent plans with them last Friday and hopefully they'll be having some site plans to visit with the staff about on this in a couple of weeks. Some engineering done hopefully in about 3 weeks and with some final revisions on this building, hopefully we're going to, they're pressing to try to get this in in about 30 days. So as you can see there will be no drive thru on that one. This building, we're going to be insisting that there be a 66 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 retail segment on the comer. Oh incidentally, there will be some retail on at least this much, and maybe their restaurant open to the public here on this comer so we're insisting on some key things here which is there be retail on anchoring each comer. That there be activity across the street from this. This will be retail on the first floor. Needing some retail to lead down to the Bookoo Bikes. He's depending on some more retail. Now that I've introduced this comer, that's the next, within the next short while Luke and his group will be having a really nifty proposal for this project. This comer. Won't have any drive up windows. We'd have a restaurant here, restaurant here, maybe some other food, some other space and so forth. That leaves this and that's what we're, one of the portions that the marketing is really focusing on. We've got a couple alternatives. Doing this building 80 feet deeper, 100 feet deep depending on what kind of requirements the tenants have. This is our only big building that someone, one larger tenant could have, or two could have a reasonable good size. So we don't want, we don't need, we don't plan for any drive up windows. Now you know some new invention will come along and they're going to have to drive up and pick it up and they'll prove me a liar and everybody will love it but we don't plan for it and we don't think it's going to come. So that's, we have some of these pages that any of you are welcome to come and take a look any time you'd like. This is a view from the pond looking southeast. This being St. Hubert's down here. This being much less a pond than it currently looks. Is there anything you can do to, well anyway. I won't talk about the pond. A lot of frustration. This is another view. Starbuck's being here. This is where Culver's here. Actually with dimensions and the roof line that they have. The larger building here. Retail here .... and that's Houlihan's. So we get kind of excited about this when we think about it. This is the building across the street from Starbuck's. This is a picture from skycam of the four comers. This being...and this would be residential and retail. So that's about as far as we've gone. That's what we're taking, that's what we're peddling on the street from coast to coast. So it's kind of fun to be here. It'd be fun to have been here with all 3 and then you would have seen you know kind of how it all fit and why we feel so strongly that this is not going to be in any way detrimental to the project. If you approve it this time next year we can all sit down to frozen custard. So if you have any questions, I'm here. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions? No. Thank you. Come on up. Luke Fowler: Hi. I'm Luke Fowler. I think I know most of you. I'm the owner of Northcott Companies and Americlnn' s. Our headquarters is right at the pedestrian bridge. We also own the Houlihan's and the Americlnn and for those of you that don't know, I'm also on the Landscape Arboretum Board. I have known Wayne Riser for about 8 years. He's a franchisee of our's and I would just like to say that I think from the City of Chanhassen' s point of view, from the point of view of somebody that offices here and likes to walk around, I'd love to be able to walk down to Culver's. I know as a practical matter that Culver's cannot do things without a drive thru. And I can assure you that Wayne Riser, and we will do everything to make sure that if you do allow that, that it is a aesthetically pleasing so that you don't see cars lining up and that kind of stuff. And I think it can be done pretty easily. It would be a great addition to the city so I hope you vote in favor of the variance. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any further comments by the applicant? Okay. This item is open for public hearing, so anybody wishing to comment on this matter, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. And I'm the closest residential neighbor to this development in almost every aspect. And I want you to know that I believe in being a good neighbor. I've been at almost every Planning Commission meeting regarding developments at this site and I wish you would put them earlier on the agenda. You don't know how many times I've been here past 11:00 p.m., but at any rate. My concerns have always been issues about 67 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 the environment. About the noise. About the litter. About the traffic. And I've spoken to Mr. Riser. Spoken with Mr. Fowler. I speak to Vernelle all the time, and a lot of my initial concerns have been addressed. The one that the developer has no control over is the traffic and the speed. And although Vernelle has promised and assured us that the traffic will go slower in the future when there's more development, my question is what happens if it doesn't? As it is now the traffic has increased significantly on Lake Street. And I look out my front window and I see Mr. Fowler's building and I'm very pleased. I look out my screen porch and I look at the Starbuck's and Building 4 and I'm very pleased. The only thing I am concerned about is the traffic. Now I'm not sure that this is the right place to ask, but in the event that we complete all of the development on Village on the Ponds, I want to know what will be done to control the traffic. As it is now by design, the width of the street is narrower. The roads are curvy you know in order to try and slow down the traffic, and I'm here to tell you it's not working. As it is now with the swim school there, there are a lot of parents with young children who are in harm's way because of the speed of the traffic. All you have to do, and I know that most of you go to this site and look and take a look at the street. We have young people, or old people. I can't tell. All I can do is hear their vehicles laying 30 feet of rubber on the pavement within Village on the Ponds, and that concerns me a lot. As it is right now my property has Great Plains Boulevard in the back, Lake Street on the side and Marsh Drive on the front. So at this point it's, I hope you'll hear my concerns. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry, I promised I wouldn't talk a lot but I do want to back him up on the traffic and I wonder if we could ask you to look into that. I asked a couple years ago if we couldn't have the streets patrolled a little bit more and a slower speed limit. Slower posted speed limit and I was told that we couldn't, but I wonder if you would look into it and see what it would take to have it. It's something to do with the proximity to Great Plains Boulevard and it's proximity to 5 and how you have to gradually slow people down, but it was not our intent to have such a high speed limit going through there. Mark Clarey: Hi. I'm Mark Clarey. I'm with Northc°tt Company also. Just one quick thing with regard to the pedestrian traffic. In my conversations with Mika Milo, the overall master architect or design developer, my opinion and our feeling with regard to the pedestrian traffic is that the drive up window will not greatly affect the overall pedestrian traffic because that traffic then is off of the main street travel. It's no different than pedestrian traffic coming into the Americlnn, coming into the current Houlihan' s, coming into the Starbuck's, Quizno's and so on. People undoubtedly are going to be driving into this area, particularly in this state with our snowfalls and everything else. There's not that many people that are going to travel across Highway 5 to get into this area. Once they're within the confines of the property, it's a different situation then and that's why we don't feel there's going to be that much of an impact on it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Susan Bix: Hi. I'm Susan Bix and I live at 311 Sinnen Circle and I also bugged Vernelle too, but I used to live in the Linden Hills area and I moved out to Chanhassen because of the Village on the Ponds and having a place to walk to in the suburbs I think is just wonderful so I really support the idea. And I wasn't sure about the idea of the drive thru, and I'm still not but I do like the idea of a family type restaurant that's real accessible and if, you know if there is a stipulation about the fast food, I think it is a nice mix because there's a lot of families in our area that I think would really benefit from that and so I guess it sounds like the overall affect of the drive thru isn't as, what I was picturing of a Burger King or 68 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 something. So I think it does sound like a nice mix. Although I did ask about the calories of the frozen custard. Blackowiak: Thank you. Kelly Walker: Good evening. My name is Kelly Walker and I live at 8090 Marsh Drive. I'm neighbors with Bob Savard and I also look out across the way to the Starbucks and this whole development area. I moved in within the last year and was not aware of all the goings on that were coming to this whole on the ponds area. I am also concerned mostly with the traffic. I don't have a personal concern with the Culver's per se. I am concerned with the traffic and the patterns of flow that we're going to have and the times of the day we're going to have them. I do think that the whole ponds area is going to want to cultivate a positive image with the neighborhood and the pedestrian traffic and I know currently to try and get across Great Plains Boulevard at this point to just go to Starbucks can be a major affair. Mostly because of they do not have a stop sign, etc. and I'm sure those things can be addressed and probably are not a personal issue here but I think that it does need to be reviewed. And I also think that besides noise you also in the evening hours have car light problems with young kids in the house. We get a lot of lights going through the rooms and that kind of thing and it's just something that I would like to be taken into consideration. And with drive thru traffic you're going to have a higher volume than you would with a sit down type restaurant. I have nothing against Culver's. It sounds like a lovely place. I don't have a nay or yea for the drive thru per se but I do hope that the traffic considerations are taken into consideration. Thank you. Susan Bix: I'm sorry, I got side tracked. I forgot. Does anybody know, is there going to be something about Great Plains. I keep hearing that there might, you aren't going to be able to turn out of there or something. I didn't know if anybody knows. Blackowiak: Matt, would you like to speak to that? Saam: Where specifically are you talking? Susan Bix: I thought somebody said at Great Plains and Highway 5 and that you aren't going to. Saam: No, that will always be a full access, lighted. Traffic signal. Susan Bix: Somebody at the comer there where they're selling the, or moving the Legion mentioned something about that. That you' re not going to be able to. Saam: That's another issue. Blackowiak: Yeah. I think you're talking the in/out to the Legion right there. Susan Bix: Oh, the light at Great Plains and that's still always going to be? Saam: Oh yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Are there any more comments? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, who would like to start? Deb, go right ahead. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: I'll go. I'm probably the biggest Culver's fan up here. I drive all the way to Navarre when I get a hankering for a lemon ice and I think it's a wonderful restaurant and a nice addition to this town. Hopefully I won't have to drive all the way to Navarre. Architecturally I thought that the improvements were quite nice. It was very helpful to have in the packets the typical prototype restaurant. I think the improvements that have been made are really nice and I agree with the architectural review committee that the plan is appropriate for the Villages. I also agree with the architectural review committee that the location and the screening of the drive thru is acceptable. And architecturally I think the applicant should reconsider the EFIS. Maybe go a stucco, but I do agree. I like how it's kind of solid in those areas so I would probably think about adding a condition that you consider a more durable material but it does make sense to me how you placed it in not high traffic areas. I think that's a wise solution. Regarding the drive thru, while I like the concept of pedestrian friendly environment in the Villages and definitely support the intent and I really believe that we will be able to accomplish that in the Villages, I do think we need to consider reality. And it is winter here half of the year. There's not going to be a lot of pedestrian movement during, from November to March. And the drive thru is really helpful in those times of the year. And that our community has many, many young families and Culver's is a family friendly restaurant. It's got more affordable pricing and the drive thru aspect is important to young families who don't have the time necessarily to stop. It just gives another option. I believe the exclusion of drive thru's will not encourage more pedestrian movement. It will just encourage people to go elsewhere. I believe that drive thru's and the notion of being pedestrian friendly are not mutually exclusive and could be compatible with careful design and therefore I support amending the PUD specific to this site in the way that we did on the last item for us. It was site specific. So that we don't have drive thru's. I don't see us amending the entire PUD to give carte blanche for drive thru's but specific to this site and I would want to include conditions regarding visual impact and pedestrian movement. Overall I think it's a nice plan and I'm looking forward to having it closer by so I don't have to go to Navarre. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any comments? Slagle: I do. Having been now a resident of Chanhassen for 3 years I am able to bring some, perhaps some ignorance, but perhaps some objectivity to this and I have to tell you, I think the development is just awesome. I've heard nothing but good things. We love Culver's. My company does work with your company and enjoys that very well. But I have to tell you this area to me is just a jewel and I think a drive thru would be the wrong thing to have there. I believe that the site, I would love to see a different restaurant just to be honest with you. A more of an upscale, and I'll give you an example. Today I was at Starbuck's in Golden Valley, and there's a development there just north of 5 and I think it's Winnetka. Wherever it is. Just right off north of 55 and it was just neat. The way that they had the archways and the different shops and retail outlets and lots of people, and not lots of cars. And I have to tell you I sit at the Starbucks on the patio very often, probably 2 mornings a week, and there is a lot of cars going through there. I have to be honest with you. And the way that that development is laid out for streets, when I saw those beautiful renditions of what it's going to look like, I'm going to be interested to see how the traffic patterns will fall within those renditions and what not because right now if you sit at Starbucks, there are lots of cars cutting across Starbuck's parking lot to get to what you might call the main center, and then a shortcut to maybe get to 101 .... everything else about this is just perfect except the drive thru. Whereas a sit down, that doesn't sound like can work, so I'm just going to have to tell you I'm on the other side of Deb but with all due respect. I just think it's a great, great area. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. 70 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: This is a tough one...couple places I've seen, not just the Culver's they have drive thru's so I understand your business point. And then we can ask, well how is this different in terms of the PUD versus the...with the car service thing. Well I do believe there's a difference. I do believe that in this case the no drive thru has been anchored into this PUD very fundamentally for the purpose of making this very pedestrian oriented. But I do believe it has more weight in the frame of view than before with car service. I believe that as such it's a policy question...City Council and for the Planning Commission be more in the framework of applying the established ordinance, as much as I like custard. I would have to say I'd be hard pressed at this point to recommend the drive thru because it's contrary to the overall intent. Now yes. I do admit, and I agree with you Deb that you make it site specific, makes it more palatable The site where we're trying to do, you put in a very good complex Vemelle. I mean you did a very good...but at this point I think I would want to pass it on to council to make an exception and support staff in their recommendation as far as the drive thru is concerned. I would like to see some additional conditions to the site plan approval in that I think there's an issue about speed, traffic. I mean we could be harsh and put in speed bumps. That'd slow it down. They're actually, you know those things that come out from the side when there's a little snow, there's quite a few people probably damage there.., effective speed bump, but maybe we could do the real speed bumps that everybody gets affect, not just those trying to mb the comer. I would also like to see staff reviewing those plantings to the northwest for wetland appropriateness. And I think that's my comments. Yes, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Brace. Feik: I guess I'm the contrarian on the panel tonight. I don't eat ice cream. I apologize but those pork sandwiches you make are really good, but I just can't do ice cream. My concern with the drive thru is the queuing. I've been to the one in Navarre a number of times. Driven through. My brother lives in Maple Plain and it's very convenient. My concern is getting a handle on how many cars can realistically be queued up prior to the window and where they are going to go after the 7th, 8th or 9t~ car. And is that going to be. Aanenson: That's one of the things that staff did not look at because we recommended elimination of that and that goes back to Rich's same comment. We believe there's only stacking for 3 so, we need to look at that. Feik: I have a real concern with the queuing as it relates to the pedestrian friendly. Aanenson: Well just backing out of the other cars in the rest of the area. As a similar problem with Taco Bell so we would have concern with that. Wayne Riser: Could I Bruce? Feik: Certainly. Wayne Riser: As far as queuing. There are a spot for 4 cars to pull up once they've pulled to the window. Feik: That's after the window. Wayne Riser: Oh after, okay. You're. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Feik: A lot of room in McDonald's out here but the queuing I'm going to guess is 20 cars long at lunchtime. Aanenson: Right, that's my concern. Wayne Riser: We've not experienced a problem with that. We have of course some very high production restaurants in Milwaukee, Madison and now in Chicago area, and to date that's not been a problem in any of those. You know in front of the queuing, and we do, that' s one of the things I remember I mentioned when I met with Bob. I said I have to have 4, once I pull past that drive up. I can't make it with 3 and you've been there enough to know that I can't. We can make it with 4 and we have that in the plan. But we've not had a problem with queuing in the back and we've been in some pretty high productive areas. And we do feel this would be a very high productive area too if we're permitted to have the facility. Blackowiak: Thank you. Feik: I have another very quick question for staff as it relates to the definition of fast food. You said that if it' s pre-prepared it is fast food. If it' s not pre-prepared it' s a restaurant. Is that the dumb dumb version of the definition? Aanenson: What's the old fashion A & W where they bring it to your table. Feik: That's, but you know what? That's not made ahead of time. That's a restaurant. Aanenson: Right. It's the shade of gray. Feik: And so is Quizno's and so is Subway. Kind: They're not fast food. Aanenson: Our definition was adding the drive thru and that's why when we put this together, we clarified that further by saying the drive thru window to discriminate. Feik: Okay, thank you. I'm done. Blackowiak: Those your comments? Okay. Well my comments are fairly similar to Uli right now. I do believe that this is a policy decision for City Council. Village on the Ponds came before us, and I was on this Planning Commission when it came before. Actually I think started Planning' Commission right after, right kind of in the middle but I've been here and one of the big selling points was it was a pedestrian friendly, new urbanism, lots of neat ideas going around and the decision was made at that point in time to do this PUD and to promote pedestrian access and not to have drive thru's. And that's a decision the City Council at that time made. I think that' s, if that decision is going to be changed, it's a decision that this City Council has to make and that we as a Planning Commission are bound by what is currently written, and I don't really want to get into policy choices at all. Traffic is a big concern for me too. I'm wondering how the counts that we did initially with the original concept for Villages would be changed if there was a drive thru because I think that would skew those numbers and I don't know if we have that information, and I don't even know if, I wouldn't be comfortable making any kind of decision tonight without having that kind of information. What kind of additional trips are generated by a drive thru, etc. And that's the kind of information I think that would be helpful when this goes before City 72 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Council because it will go before City Council and that would either, that would just make the decision I think a little bit easier. I'm not ready to make a policy decision tonight so that being said I would like somebody to make the motion please. Sacchet: I want to preface this that I really would...for the Planning Commission I'm making the motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried for denial 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 4-1. Deb, would you like to add any further comments? Kind: Mostly I just want to raise a flag to the City Council that I think they should consider changing the policy for this specific parcel. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, I need another amendment please. And a motion. Excuse me, whatever. It' s late. I'm sorry. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site, well I'd better not make this motion either. Never mind. I have changes to it that wouldn't get approved. Blackowiak: Let's somebody else be brave. Slagle: Let me ask this question. If the applicant has already said that without the okay for the drive thru, the plan won't go through. Do we need to address this other? Blackowiak: We do. I think we need to address the site plan whether we approve it or not. We have to make a recommendation so it can go to City Council. They do with it as they please. We're just making, based on what's in front of us tonight. Sacchet: Well I'm willing to make a motion. I've made most motions tonight. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc. dated 6/13/01, subject to the following conditions 1 through 22. I'd like to add the condition number 23. Staff will review plantings to the south and west for wetland appropriateness. And number 24. Aanenson: Windows on the west elevation, is that the one? Sacchet: No, are the windows already in there, right? Aanenson: No. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. Windows will be added to the west, north part of the west elevation as discussed with staff. Is that fair? And then number, is that 25? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Traffic will be evaluated as to, huh. We don't want to talk about the drive thru since we didn't say that. Aanenson: Well, we're going to ask for it anyways. Generous: With or without. Sacchet: Staff will research traffic impact and means to slow down speed. Is that fair? Something, can you word it with something like that? Based on our discussion, I think the intent is understood of what we're after. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on the plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc., dated 6/13/01, subject to the following conditions: . The drive thru facilities shall be deleted and converted to a pedestrian window and an expanded patio/seating area. The drive aisle south of the building should be narrowed creating and expanding the patio/seating area. . 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. 4. The applicant shall submit revised plans that include no additional wetland impact. o All areas between paved areas and wetlands shall be revegetated per the planting plan that was approved as a part of Villages on the Ponds. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that ponding will be adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. The applicant shall either adjust the proposed flared end section to discharge into the center of the pond or demonstrate the rationale behind the proposed alignment of the flared end section. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain perm/ts from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Add the following 2001 City Detail Plates to the detail sheet: 5203,: 5215, 5300, and 5302. Also, show the most current revision of Plate No. 3102. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must'be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. No building permits will be issued until the City receives as-built plans for the development. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner(s). Revise the western slope off of the drive thru area to show either a maximum slope grade of 3:1 or to install a retaining wall. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing utility pipe information inCluding: pipe type, flow direction, slope, inverts, etc. b. Add a storm sewer schedule. c. Show all proposed contour lines. d. Show the NWL and HWL of the existing pond to the north. e. Revise the plans to comply with the minimum drive aisle Width requirements of 26 feet wide. f. Show rock filter barriers around the two existing Catch basins. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as- possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The applicant shall eliminate the staking and wiring instruction detail in the landscape plan entitled "tree planting - guy wire". All signs shall require a separate sign permit. Staff will review plantings to the south and west for wetland appropriateness. Windows will be added to the north part of the west elevation as discussed with staff. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 25. Staff will research the traffic impact of this development and make recommendations to slow the speed of traffic. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 4-1. Deb, any further comments? Kind: Same as before. Blackowiak: You like custard. Okay. Kind: I love custard. Blackowiak: Alrighty. This item goes before City Council on August 13th. Thank you all for waiting so patiently this evening. Vernelle Clayton: Can you clarify the last condition regarding the speed of the traffic. Blackowiak: I believe it's to do with. Vernelle Clayton: The overall traffic? Blackowiak: Overall traffic... Sacchet: There are two aspects of this Vernelle. One is the aspect that was raised with the Village on the Ponds, the impact of drive thru has not been looked at. Vernelle Clayton' Yes, I understand that. They can crank that out. Sacchet: The other aspect was the concern brought up by the neighbors in terms of the... Vernelle Clayton: Okay, and if he follows up on my question was that probably would suffice because that's a city street. That's not our street. Sacchet: Yeah, and the city will do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. NEW BUSINESS. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, new business. Do you have any new business before we get to...? Don't pack up yet. You cannot leave. Aanenson: Real quic~y. We do have a full agenda for the 74. To let you know, Westwood Church did come in. So that's out for comments right now. 67 acres. We also have Gary Brown in for a site plan amendment. We'll also be reviewing the design standards and we have received comments on the design standards so I think you'll be pleased with that. And so then on the 21st, I talked about the 7th or the 21st doing a work session. Because the agenda had to be noticed for the 7th and we already had quite a few 76 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 items on, I didn't want to make it such a lengthy meeting as we had tonight so we'll block out time, if that works for everybody. We'll publish it for 5:00. Work session 5:00 to 7:00 and we'll have a dinner and then we'll start our regular meeting. And for that meeting we'll put the fen and the creek setback on. That will give us a month to do that. Kind: 21st of August? Aanenson: August, yes. And then we've got some, just code amendments. Other code amendments are on that night so it shouldn't be, the deadline for that closing is this Friday but right now we don't anticipate, we're not working with anybody that we anticipate coming in so I think that will work out fine for a 2 hour work session. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. CHANHASSEN LIBRARY - PRESENTATION AND VERBAL UPDATE BY MS&R. Pat Mackay: My name is Pat Mackay. I'm with Meier, Scherer and Rockcastle Architects from Minneapolis. I'd like to thank you for sticking around and not sending me home with my models and drawings disappointed. The library as it exists, the library design as it exists right now in mid to late schematic design. I last updated you on the progress of the library design on March 20th I believe and since that time we've met with the community groups, the library building committee, City Council and library staff and we've gotten to a siting, and actually beyond the siting to the building design but I'd like to talk to you about the siting as shown. Right here you can see on the black and white handouts that we' ve given you, we' ve got the library building located toward the west end of the parcel and pushed as far as we believe if practical to the north. Just toward City Hall. There were a lot of factors informing this. One of them being, taking advantage of the existing green space and the newly freed up green space that will be made available with the demolition of the building on the east end. We're also trying to create something of a civic courtyard or plaza between the library and the city hall, getting a good relationship between them as well as addressing access to the library from the west off Kerber. There are 3 parking lots. Right now the count sits at about 100 cars in 3 lots. One on the west. An upper parking deck coming off the northwest parking lot, and a lower covered parking lot underneath the parking deck. We're trying to maintain a strong relationship between the city hall and the library and kind of a biaxial relationship across the site. You'll notice since the last Planning Commission meeting there was some discussion about whether or not to maintain the thru road of Coulter Boulevard, and between the public opinion, the building committee opinion and the City Council opinion, the mix maybe germane to the previous conversation of traffic and pedestrians was seen as kind of a...to that. We can go into the interior design of the library but I guess maybe it's more appropriate to view it here. We've got this exterior aerial perspective. I'm showing the mass as it will sit on West 78th and Kerber here. Here's the curb cut which is essentially the same spot where the Coulter Avenue curb cut is right here at city hall. And this is the elevated parking ramp right here. I guess in the interest of brevity, if anybody wants to pipe in with any questions or concerns, I can just leap into that right now. Blackowiak: Great. Yeah, let's. Sacchet: Two real quick questions. The parking deck, currently that parking area goes out about how far? Pat Mackay: Currently it stops right about here. Right about here. Right about halfway north and south and it's a different configuration where the parking needed to end so. 77 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: And the parking underneath goes to where that line goes across? Pat Mackay: Exactly. That's the goal. If we're over and cost issues provide. Right now we're a little over our target of 90 to 95, and we're having structural engineers kind of give us a range. We don't want to over build the parking just to over build it if cost savings can be used in the remainder of the project. Kind: Madam Chair. The second level of the parking deck, will it have access to the second floor of city hall? Pat Mackay: Not directly, no. Not as planned. Kind: And I'm assuming that this library, from the elevations it says one story building so that doesn't make any sense? Pat Mackay: Yeah, that's part of the marching orders of kind of meeting with the groups that we've met before, I can summarize real briefly. One is a one story building at approximately 32,000 square feet. The parking deck along Kerber Boulevard. Holding the library as tight as possible to Kerber Boulevard, and as far as north as is practical while still allowing kind of a graceful parking and pedestrian entrance. The entrance as you can see is right here. Under a canopy. You can see that best on the model and somewhat on this aerial perspective. But here it's a view from the northwest. Here's the parking deck. It's not a ramp. There's no car access up and down. You either enter up here or you enter down here. There's no inbetween. The only access inbetween is a stair on access with the entry right here. Kind: So there's no street access. You know we're having this pedestrian feel, pulling the building towards the comer but yet you can't enter the building from the street? Pat Mackay: Right, for security. Given that most the people are going to be showing up in cars. It was a tough choice to make. Libraries are the kind of building where you want only one entrance, as you folks tend to go out unsupervised. Blackowiak: So help me out. So if you, how do I as a pedestrian, if I want to walk to the library, do I have to walk, if I'm coming from the east, which is the way I'd be coming, because that' s where I live, how do I get there? Pat Mackay: You walk either in front and around or up and through. What's not shown on this model or the plans because it's not specifically our preview and the design is also not started, is this is a very nicely landscaped, almost two parks here. Two plazas. One is kind of the more larger, flatter, up to the street and the other one is a little more intimate civic but the idea is, as we're going to be developing through the process with the landscape designer, is an easy and graceful pedestrian access from this comer where they enter the block up to the front door. It' s going to be a goal of the landscape design. Blackowiak: Alright. And then there is a sidewalk continuously. How about in front of city hall? There is one right now? Is that going to remain? Pat Mackay: That would be re-configured. Re-landscaped. Right now it serves city hall and parking along Coulter. When Coulter goes away, some of that access is going to need to be refocused. There's going to be landscaping here and it's more of a plaza type area. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: But I mean I would be able to for example walk there. Pat Mackay: Oh yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Blackowiak: Okay. Let's say I was driving and I came off Kerber Boulevard, then do you have to, I'm not seeing a turn around. Let's say I want to drop some people off. Do I have to go into the lower level of the deck and then turn around all the way or what do I have to do? Pat Mackay: Yes. There's also a pull out here that's not represented on this model, developed near that same question. We're going to have a pull out drop off where you can, whether we vacate the first two stalls here to create a quick, kind of short circuit traffic. So we're investigating that with our parking lot. Blackowiak: Okay. What about handicap accessibility? You're talking about a parking deck. Are all the handicap spots below then? Pat Mackay: They're going to have to be down here or possibly in this pull up. We'd like to reserve this pull up loop, come around very close to the front for book... Blackowiak: For drop off's, okay. Yeah, because I'm just thinking if you've got anybody that wouldn't, had a handicap. Pat Mackay: They' re going to have to be concentrated right in here. Blackowiak: They would have to be lower level, okay. Okay. I have a question for Kate maybe or whatever. We've got proposed design standards for the city now. How does this, how do we apply them? What's our next step here? Aanenson: Well pulling it towards the street meets that criteria. I guess you know what needs to be articulated is that other space, the plaza and how you draw that in to the street presence. The sidewalk. Whether it's a sidewalk that comes and... Blackowiak: Yeah, it seems like if you don't know where the entrance is, you're going to have to look really hard to find it. Aanenson: Yeah, it's defined through here or something like that. I guess there isn't any civil's on this yet so there' s the storm water ponding and some of that sort of in formalized landscaping that. Blackowiak: That we will eventually see? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Pat Mackay: Yes. Yes, it's kind of a show and tell. Blackowiak: Okay. Pat Mackay: Our take on the entry is that that's been kind of a persistent problem, just kind of given the nature of the site. Multiple accesses to it and the fact that you really don't want to be pulling people off 79 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 78th unless you have the parking lot and then the building. It's our belief, and maybe it's best stated...who kind of states they're not going to, if they miss the, if they have a hard time finding the entry the first 15 seconds, they're not going to keep driving and go down the road to the next town library. They need to find the front door once and we believe the way that's addressed with the parking and the accesses here and the vertical prominence and even the horizontal prominence of this covered canopy, which extends far out beyond the conditioned space of the building, this is kind of a flag which you may remember from some earlier designs that we showed when the library was adjacent to city hall and the center, we faced a similar problem. Where is the front door and that's been the persistent question. We believe we've got it in practice licked to the point where somebody's not going to not be able to find the front door twice. They may scratch their head a little bit because it's so close to the street here the first time, but if they drive up. The parking design and the landscape design, everything is going to be done to reinforce that this is the library entry. Blackowiak: Okay. And just one final question for you and then I think everyone else needs to jump in. Bikes. You know we want to again, pedestrians, bikes. Get people there and not necessarily depend on cars. So have you thought about bike racks? Pat Mackay: Yeah, they're peppered throughout. It's something, Scott Botcher was a big proponent of you know, you spent a good deal of effort and money on regional bike trail system and the new library needs to be a node of that. The landscape design, some of the options shown rather seamlessly. Out here it's spaced for pedestrians as well as bikes. We had previously shown a traffic turn around there to, we had shown a traffic thru way and then a traffic turn around and really it wasn't received very well and I think for good reason and, but bikes are welcomed. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, if anyone has questions, let's be a little more informal. Sacchet: One more question. Those canopies, you call those for sloped areas. Is part of that like skylight or how does that work7 Is that functional7 Function besides just being a shape accent? Pat Mackay: It plays on some of the interior program elements of the library. Really the only free flowing, or free flying canopy is right here on the entry. The others are simply curved, half barrel roofs. And they kind of align themselves with different program functions in the library. The meeting room, the entry spine, a large east/west access here which is, to answer your question, yes. It's clear story with high windows along here. Feik: On the north side. Pat Mackay: On the north side. Sacchet: The vertical parts is skylight. Pat Mackay: Right. Sacchet: And it's full height inside? Pat Mackay: Yes. It's about 24 feet. Sacchet: Okay. And that's true for all 3 of those areas? 80 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Pat Mackay: Yeah, here, here, here, and here. A barrel vaulted spaces on the walls on the sides are more heavy masonry. The remainder here is a very light curtain wall system so there' s a lot of emphasis on natural light here and then the more solid parts it's more of getting in the light from above and washing across the ceiling. Blackowiak: Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Thanks for waiting us out. So then Kate our next step is we'll just wait for it to come before us. Aanenson: Next evolution. Mayor Jansen: Pat, did you have the materials with you this evening? Pat Mackay: Yes I did. Mayor Jansen: Just to flash them by...the type of material was the other point we thought we should get some of your input from. Because it will go back to building committee to comment and issues. Pat Mackay: We're looking at, maybe you can see on some of these elevations. Let me give you a typical elevation. On the screen here. But we're looking for the masonry masses. What we'll call...we'll call it Carver County brick. That's the majority of these taller portions here. The barrel vaulted shapes as well as the canopy supports. The canopy as shown here really isn't accurate. The plan hints at a more defined design but, and we're continuing to work on that. Aanenson: So Pat, that's not a, it's not'your standard brick. It's a jumbo or? Pat Mackay: It's jumbo length but standard modulate. It's called Norman bond and what it does is, if you' re familiar with Roman brick, it' s kind of one step taller than Roman brick. It' s the same 3 1/8 height as the brick behind you and on the outside of the building but it' s 1 ½ times longer than a standard bond. Or standard modular brick. We feel it just kind of gives a nicer proportion. We've got in the pallet we're looking at, we're looking at a little bit more differentiation than...is on the outside of this building. But still enough character in common as the related buildings. You can see on this elevation then in the lighter portions, the curtain wall and aluminum window glazed portion, we're looking at a bronze anodized aluminum window frame. Slightly lighter than this. We're looking for not the standard dark brown. It's truly...and underneath the windows on the outside, the jury is still out. We're investigating both...and the windows are seen from the outside but glass appeared as black and this is the way that we' re kind of trying to give the illusion of being a more glassy. Playing off of the brick piers that you see on some of the elevation portions. The flat roof portions are built-up roof. The barrel vaulted portions we're looking at copper right now, which in this climate would start out as this bright penny and patina to, not unlike the maple leaf behind you. There are treatments to get it to a green patina, and I guess we could look. One of the things that happens when we say copper is people tend to invariably start to see dollar signs and one reason we're looking at it right now, copper is a very easy deduct alternate. All the details, the materials required for copper are the same as a standing seam roof and the alternate is a simple one sentence proposition with the drawings. But at the same time we don't necessarily feel that we' 11 have to go there. We have a similar building in the past with copper accented roof and the change order on a building without the same size going from coPper to standing seam is about $6,000. That's using 1993 dollars but pretty small premium for a material. Mayor Jansen: You were saying a life expectancy of the copper is significant. 81 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Pat Mackay: About 100 years, yeah. The life expectancy of looking good. They'll probably last as long but it's like a pair of shoes. You spend $200 on a pair of shoes that looks bad in 10 years or in a year, and it doesn't do you much good. The standing seam metal roofs tend to kind of chalk out in 10 to 15 years. Copper will tend to only really look better with age and we're looking at 50 to 100 years on a standing seam metal roof. Blackowiak: Alright. Any other questions? Comments? Again, thanks for sticking it out. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. OPEN DISCUSSION. Kind: Okay, open discussion. Just a quick thing. A couple of the items on our agenda tonight seemed to not be able to understand our buffer yard charts and they were way under. We have simplified those, haven't we? Aanenson: Yeah. Kind: And people still aren't getting it. Is there anything we can do to make it so that that's not an issue for people to hit our ordinance, or are we just going to always have it be conditioned that they need to meet our minimum standards and you have to walk them through it? Generous: Well we can walk them through it... Kind: It's just an ongoing problem. Okay, that's all. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 82