The URL can be used to link to this page

4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Deb Kind MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig ClaYbaugh and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aancnson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; Matt Saam, Project Engineer, and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager . PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Chairwoman Blackowiak made a brief statement on how the meeting would proceed for the evening. DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this iteTM. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. In the Villages design standards it calls for a goal of 35% of rental to be affordable and to this current TIF plan calls for 24%. Could you speak to that? Gerhardt: Yeah. We have been working with Met COuncil and they Will be a little more flexible in allowing us to spread outside the Village on the Ponds to accomplish the affordability factor for that s~te. Kate, has the City Council taken action on the flexibility of that .also? The modification of that? -. . · .. Aanenson: Correct. As we looked at the Livable Community Act and the goals, 'that's one of the points that we made is that it's .difficult in that circumstance, the rental and we have met with the Met Council to discuss that and again that's going to be our goals to try to work in some other areas. And we won't probably be able to achieve all of the rental component. Affordability. Kind: But our role here is to determine whether this complies with our Comp Plan and our design standards for Village on the Ponds and right now the 35% is a gOal? Is that how we should be thinking about that as opposed to that's a hard, fast number because this does not meet that with the 24%. Gerhardt: I thought the City Council modified that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: No. In reviewing with the Met Council, that would be our interpretation of that. It would be a goal we're trying to achieve in good faith effort and that's what their expectation that we're making good faith effort to achieve what we can within the city's financial interest. That it would be a goal. Kind: Okay. Thank you. Gerhardt: So what Met Council has' agreed to that we would have to make up that difference of affordability. Not on the Villag9 on the Ponds but that we would get credit for the Pulte development. If we should happen to do more affordable units anywhere in the community. Some of the developments that Julie Frick has done through Carver County, we would get some credits for that. Any other projects that might meet the definition of affordable we would get credit for. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Anything else? Kind: No. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: What we are looking at as the Planning Cormnission is just the correspondence to the comprehensive plan and PUD. We are not looking at any of the financial implications of this. Gerhardt: That's correct. Even the City Council on Tuesday night will not be looking at the true financials for the development. How that's handled is through a private re-developmen! agreement, which we've hired Mark Ruff to work with Presbyterian Homes to do what is called a but for analysis. And they have to prove that they have the need for city assistance and but for that assistance we could not create those 36 units of affordable. 33, I'm sorry. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Questions? Sidney: My question has been asked. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich? Slagle: I'm going to hold on for right now.- Blackowiak: Okay. Actually I do have a couple questions here. First of all, is this TIF district tied to a specific project? So in other words, if the project does not go forward, is this TIF district ended or what's the status of that? Gerhardt: Yes. We would not create the TIF district. If you remember, I was back here with the Lake Susan Apartments and we approved, had you approve a resolution for that project for TIF assistance and the financials did not work out at the last minute on that district so we did not certify it. So we did not create the district. If that holds true with this project, we would not create the district. And this is a parcel specific. If you look at the map. Ail we have taken into account for this district is the entire Presbyteri. an Homes site. We're not including any other property as a part of that. So all the increment collected from this site would be created from the Presbyterian project itself. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. 1 guess it was my question I guess was parcel specific versus project specific. So if this project does not go forward, nothing happens. No harm, no foul. Gerhardt: That's correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Second question has to do with, and I'm sure that this might be a silly question but property taxes on a non-profit, do they still, do non-profits still pay property taxes at the same rate I mean as everyone else? 'i· - - Gerhardt: This project isn't a non-profit I don't believe. It's a market rate project. Blackowiak: Well it's owned by a non-profit so I guess that's kind of my question is, is how does that affect the underlying the taxes, underlying this whole thing. Gerhardt: No. They will be paying taxes. This is, the Presbyterian Homes is, help me out here Vernelle but I believe they're just going to be the manager of the project. Vemelle Clayton: Well they're curre~.tly going to be owing but they'll probably... Gerhardt: Okay. It will be a market rate project. So under that condition I believe they have to pay full -- property taxes. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess that was my question. You know do non-profits pay full property taxes? And that would be something I'd like to lin. ow. Gerhardt: Most tree non-profit apartments do not. They will sometimes make a payment in lieu of taxes. Or they will qualify for a low income so it's, what is it? A-1 apartments which will pay like 1% versus a market rate project will pay 2% of it's market value in property taxes so they have a lower tax rate. In this case it is going to be fully taxed because that's how they get their increment. If they don't pay property taxes, they don't get any increment. Blackowiak: Well that's I guess, that was my question. I mean if they don't pay fifll, that means something is decreased somewhere along the line so I just want to make sure that I understand where we are with that. So you're saying full taxes, full increments. ' · Gerhardt: Yeah, and it's not money up. front. It's a-pay as you go so as they pay property taxes, those new generated property taxes would go back to make those 33 units affordable... Blackowiak: Okay. That's my questions. Rich. Slagle: Just a couple. Todd, if I may. The TIF, the creation of the TIF if you will, is there a dollar figure that you have in mind that that will end up resulting in? Gerhardt: Well right now we're anticipating to be somewhere in the range of a million to a million 2 would be our guess. And that's about 6 to 7 years worth of increment. That's something we're negotiating with right now. And through this year, the legislators changed the tax structure in how property taxes will be calculated and one of the groups out there that benefited were apartments. They will see a substantially lower tax rate. If this project was brought to you a year ago, we'd probably be here asking for anywhere from 11 to 13 years worth of increment. And because of that rate change we [~lant;ing Commission Meeting -November 6,2001 are now' in the 6 to 7 year window. If you read through the plan, this is called a housing tax increment district and they run for 25 years. And it's our belief that after the 7 years you have 2 choices. You can decertify the district and put it back on the tax rolls or you could take the increment from this project and make other projects in town affordable to help assist other projects. So we have that flexibility. So you can either decertify, put it back on the tax rolls or take that increment of, I think it's roughly about $180,000 a year and create other affordable units in town. Slagle: Having, if I may continue. Having not been part of the TW situation before, I'm going to rely on your input, and can I say you're~.omfortable with this obviously? . Gerhardt: Oh yes. Slagle: Okay. Last question. Do you see any additional TIF, whatever you want to call them, district fundings in this development coming forward. What I'll call Village on the Ponds. Gerhardt: I believe there is one more site for multi-housing on here and, but we've had no discussions on that. I'm sure Met Council would like us to try to get some affordability in there so if there is the possibility, it might be another one of those apartment complexes. Kate, do you know what site that is? Or Bob? Aanenson: There?s two on the west side. East side. East side of the church. Gerhardt: Could you point on the map, just so everybody. Aanenson: This area. Gerhardt: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: If I may ask another question of clarification. So is the timeframe like, you say in the document talks about the 25 year timeframe. Now you're talking that it may be a 6 to '7 year timeframe would actually be sufficient. Is that part of the negotiation that will go on when the financials get ironed out? Gerhardt: Yes. It's called a Private Redevelopment Agreement and in that agreement you'll have a promissory note that says we will promise to re-pay you $1,120,000 if you create $1,120,000 in increment over the next 6 years. So it's called a pay as you go.. If they create it, we will reimburse them. And we can keep up to 10% for administrative' fees out of. that so the operation of the T[F district, we have to do an annual audit on it and there's some reports that need to go over to the Department of - Revenue a~d the State Auditor. · Sacchet: You actually tOuched on the other question I still had. The context that Alison brought up with there being a non-profit organizatiOn behind it. Obviously this only works if they pay taxes. So if they for some reason would put the non-profit framework in place to reduce the taxes, it would automatically reduce the TIF framework, correct? Gerhardt: That's correct. Sacchet: It's an automatic contingency. It's not something that v,,e woald need to formalized because it's built in. Gercta~dt: it's built in, that's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. That's answers it, thank you. Gerhardt: Sure. Blackowiak: Deb. , . · Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I just want to clarify our role, I mean this discussion's interesting but our role is really to decide whether this ~:gnformS t° the comp plan and our zOning districts, plain and simple. Gerhardt: That's correct. Kind: Okay. We don't get to decide whether this a good idea or not. to do a TIF district. The EDA has already decided that it's a good idea. Gerhardt: That's correct. Kind: Okay. Just want to clarify so I make sure I'm thinking of this the right way. Gerhardt: The EDA has taken formal action on it. The City Council is really the body that will ultimately decide if the district is going to be created or not ahd they will be doing that next Tuesday. ' And that's a public hearing. . . Kind: In the staff report you recommend that we approve the attached resolution and there's several resolutions in here but I think I found the one that you think we should approve. Gerhardt: It's the very back on. If you were to turn it right over. Kind: Oh, the very back one? Gerhardt: Yep. Kind: Okay. Now to me that resolution is saying that this body approves the tax. increment district. Really we are approving, basically declaring that it's consistent with the:comp plan and zoning. We don't really, this resolution isn't appropriate for this body, is'that, am I under,standing oUr role right? Gerl',ardt: No. If you read kind of the, .' · . Kind: It's just the very tail end of it kind of a deal? Gerhardt: Yeah. Kind: Okay. Gerhardt: I mean you have to, you're approving the plan and the plan outlines the overall development of the project and so you have to approve the TIF plan, the document inside here and that you're · approving that the development of this apartment complex is consistent with the overall development of the community and it meets the comprehensive plan. That it meets the zoning. That we will be creating employment opportunities. Enhancing our tax base into the future and so that's what this resolution that was drafted by legal counsel is saying. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: That makes sense. Thank you. Gerhardt: You're welcome. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Sidney: I have.one question. Looking at your objectives, on number 6. Affordable rental housing would not reasonably be expected to o~cur within Development District #8 and it goes on. Could you elaborate on that for the reasons? I guess what I'm trying to do is have you explain more about the basis that you believe that there might not be affordable. Gerhardt: Well a good example would be the Lake Susan Apartments. We toured those about a month ago and I think the rents in that area were in the range of $800 to $1200 and we're looking for affordability in $650 to $750 range. So what we're doing with this increment from this project is writing down the difference between that $800 and $1200. And in making those affordable based on state and federal guidelines for the affordability rents for certain incomes of family. And so without this increment, this would not be an affordable project as defined by state statute and the federal government for those rents in the $650 to $750 range. So that's what that statement is saying. Sacchet: So the tax break is just on the affordable units or on the whole thing? Gerhardt: Yep. "['hat's what the 33 of the 161 umts. When you create a TiF district, only 20% of the units can be used for affordable. So that's what we're doing. 20% of the 161 :'s 33 of the units so under this type of TIF district we are writing down sOlely the rents for those units and I don't know if i included · their rent schedule for this, but they're in that $850 to $1200 range. And then in some of the dementia units they have a healthy deposit in the 5 figure area for the individuals to stay in those. So these units. would not require a deposit to be in there. So they would be for seniors. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Alrighty. This item is not open for a public hearing this evening so at this point we need to have any discussion we may want to have and then make a motion. So I'll start with Deb. Any comments? Kind:, I just think that our role is to decide whether this conforms with the comp plan and zoning and I feel that it does, with the caveat that 24% is working toward~ the goal of 35, but it is stated as a goal, Not as a requirement so I think that it complies. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Co~xunents. Sacchet: I'm fine with it. Appreciate you're clarifying some of the aspects that are actually not directly related to what we're looking at but it helps to understand it better. Gerhardt: Not a problem. Sidney: I agree with the recommendation. Slagle: As well. Blackowiak: Okay. With that I'd like a motion please. Piaani ng Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves the attached resolution declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 8 is consistent with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole, and that's Attachment #3. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Resolution 0e2001-01: Kind-mOved, Sidney secOnded that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution (Attachmeilt #3) declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 8 is cousistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 5 to 0, Blackowiak: And this is going to be heard before City Council on the 13th, is that correct? Gerhardt: That's correct. Blackowiak: A week from tonight. Gerhardt: It will be a public hearing. Blackowiak: At that time. Okay, thank you so much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FoR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE LOCATED ON' PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 425 LA_KOTA L___ANE, TIMOTHY WISE. Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions? Rich. Slagle: Julie, just one. Can you tell me in May of '92, was that approval that was denied for the garage addition, was that by the Planning Commission or was that by staff? Grove: For the building? . Slagle: The garage addition. It looks like the house addition was apProved 'but thegarage addition was Grove: At that time I don't know .if it was the applicant who decided not to build the garage addition or staff at that t'.'.xte said a variance would be needed and they dropped the issue. It did not go before - F'lanning Commission, Slagle: Okay. Kate, there's someone in the back who might have an answer. Biackowiak: Yeah, we'll wait for ~.he apl:i~cant t~) come up. Okay. r, I ~lag,e: That's it for right now. Plannh.'_a Comnfission Meeting -- November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: ()kay. Questions7 Sidney: Couple. points of clarification. Sorry I didn't have a chance to call you this afternoon but on page 3, second paragraph.. This development was platted prior to the adoption of our ordioance. Could you clarify which ordinance you're talking about. Grove: The bluff ordinance. Sidney: Okay, bluff. So not setback. It's front yard setback in this case. Grove: When the lot was platted it was before any city ordinance I believe. Aanenso::.: For the bluff ordinance which required the 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff, that ordinance wasn't in place at the time. Grove: At the time the house was built. Sidney: Okay. And then, let's see another one. You included in their packet, well in the report the · mininmm driveway separation is as follows. Can vet: speak to tb.e i,,nponance of that in this application? Grove: At x.'nich point:? Sid~.e¥: Th}'; is zoning, page 1207.. And it ,,vas ~nar'ked thc m. inimum driveway sepacal;.on or ,;, as that :- j tlSt. Grin, e: That was just start'ed from something else pri.oi' to being copied. Tha~ was .just sh,'.~wing ti2at the s~tbacks are there. .- Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, is that it? Sidney: Yeah. for now. Sacche~: One quick question. In terms of you make a statement that this variance would not be applicable to outlets on I_,akota Lane. When I'm out there I actually looked how many of these buildings have 3 car garages already and it seems like most of them indeed do. There was only one other building, ! think it was house number 535 that has a 2 car garage, but [ believe that house is. quite a bit fl~rt, her set back. On your list, do you actually see how fa;' that one is set back, just for our reference. Grove: 5? " Sacche. t: 5.35 I think was the other one. Grove: It's set back 100 feet. Sacct:et: So that's plenty setback so we wouldn't create a urecedent. Okay. 'That answers my question, tl,,an k you. Blz:ckowi:?~:: Thanks. Deb, any questions? 8 Planniag Cemtmssion Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: No. Blackowiak: No questions, okay. Would the applicant or their designee like tO come up and make a presentatioi~.? Please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Tim Wise: I'm Tim Wise. I'm at 425 Lakota Lane and ! don't really have any changes except to the dimensions of the structure. Th:.e plans actually show a 12 by 22 plan, and the analysis shows it as 12 by 20. St> I'd like to have that cOrrected. Otberwi. se I don't have any change to the findings or the recomn~endations. . Blackowiak: Okay, 12 by 20. Can I ask you a question then? HoWdoes that affect, is it set back farther fi'om the front of the garage'? Does it still run parallel to the back? Tim Wise: No. The setback will be 42 feet. And it doesn't change that at all. Blackowiak: Doesn't change that at all? Tim Wise: No. F, lackowiak: Okay. Tim Wise: i thi))k it's just a typ~. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. ' _ . ; Tim Wise: And then the issue with why the garage wasn't put on in '92, that was mv decision not to rut' · it on. Mx, tmdersranding was they allo~ved rne to put the addition on in '92 and because it wasn't coming an5' closer to ,'.he street and neither was the garage and I just decided not to put the garage on at that time.. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Deb, I'll start with you. . Kind: My only question is, staff the 20 foot, is that overhang eaves? ' . Grove: It was a typo. On the plans ii. does show that it's 22._ .. .. · Kind: It shows 22 on the plans.. Grove: Right. Kind: And actually if you're counting the overhang it would be a bigger number. - Blackowiak: Maybe they're counting the overhang with 22. Kind: Maybe. Okay. P, iackowiak: Okay. U!i, questions for the applicant? Plamfing Conmfission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Saczhet: Yeah, quick question if I may. The trees, you have very nice oak tree on the site there. That probably would not be impacted. 'Tim Wise: No, we'd just trim it. Sacchet: Okay, you're just gOing to trim it. You think you'll kind of curve around it? Tim Wise: Yeah, I intend to leave those. Sacchet: Yeah. Just for my own curiosity. Tim Wise: Yeah, I wasn't planning on changing that. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, do you have any questions for the applicant? i"4o. Rich? Slagle: Just one. More to staff ifI may. So in Tim's letter to Bob he states it was approved in '92. He just chose not to follow up on the garage addition but in the staff repot~ it says it was, if I read it right, was pot approved. Do we not lmow for sure? · Grove: We flo not know for sure. I was not heye at the time. From staff who had been here prior, their recol!~.,,:tion was that it was not approved. It was just the addition that was approved. We don't know for s~dre. $1agle: Okay. But nonetheless it would work, [ mean it's not falling outside in any of our }i~nits as to what he can do, is that correct? Other than us granting the variance. Grove: Correct. ' Slagle: Okay. Tim Wise: Actually if you look ar the garage addition, it actually sits farther .back from the' addition that was approved in '92. Slagle: Okay. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, this item is' opel, for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments? Uli, you want to start? Sacchet: ] think it's a pretty clear request. I have i,o problent with it. The finding (c) that staff says, the proposed addition may increase the value of the property. 1 would make that more affirmative. I would say the proposed addition will increase the value of the property, but that's not the main purpose. I support approving this request. B!ackowiak: Okay. Comments? 10 rlam.~..;~. Coimnission Meeting November 6, 2001 Sidney: Yes I gness I agree with staff's analysis and [ do believe there is a hardship due to the topography of the lot as stated in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. No? Deb, any comments? Kind: I agree. Blackowiak: Alright. And I dop't really have anything to add. I do agree with the findings as they're set out in the staff report so with'that. I'd like a motiop.. ' -. .. · Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I make a move that the Planning Corrm-fission approves the request for an 8 fool variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a i2 by 20 foOt. Kind: 22. Saccket: Should we say i 2 by 22 foot garage addition based upon the findings presented in the staff' report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. Kind: .I second that motion. SaccheI moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve the request f{;r an 8 foot variance from the 50 {'oot front yard setback for tim construction of a 12 x 22 foot garage addition based npon the. finding~ presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditiol~s:~ - 1. The applicant shall submit existing and proposed elevations 'for the' garage addition. '['he appiicant shall show driveway access to the garage addition. . ',"he drive, way may not be widened beyond the property ISne. 4. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Kate, Julie, there's no. Aanenson: it wouidn't.-go forward unless it's appealed. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is really Board of Adjustments? Aanenson: Correct. So unless there's an appeal, any person aggrieved of the decision has a right to aFpeai it` withl, n 4 days... - " - i '- .t,~t because :here n couple here, the next two are Blackow a,-,: Ckay. And I guess l ,vas going to ask also the .~ame. Aaaenson: COlTt2C[. Blackowiak:. Okay. They just didn't really say Board of Appeals specifically. ()kay. Thank you very, HII!CD. 11 Planning C::;mmission Meeting- November 6, 2001 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE ._CONSTRIJCTION OF A DE_'CK LOCATED O__.N PROPERTY Z_ONED RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY ANI) LOCATED AT 7000 UTICA LANE, HEIDI CARISCH/VERNC~N HALL. Public Present: ' Name Address ; Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Heidi Carisch & Vernon tlall 7000 Utica Lane Julie (-;rove presented the staff report, on this item. Blackowiak: Okay com~nissioners, any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes. I just, these two pages in the staff report. One has the survey on it and the oth~.r has that list of the setbacks. On the survey, the neighboring homes are set back 60 feet to their existing deck and the' other side .is 65 '~ ~ ,'i~,ht9 to,t, is that - Grove:-Correct. Kind: ©kay. On t!~e. sheet you just rounded :~p to ?0 t'ee~, is that what the ds:al is? Grove: Yep. "_'(ep, it :,vas approximate. Kind: Ir should actually be 63 feet. okay. i just wanted to makesure we l'twA apple} to apples ~oi. ng here: And i:hen the applicant is actually.. 62 '~'~e.,:,'* 'fro~r~ their existing, porch. Grove: C.'orrect. Kind: And they currently have no deck. Grove: Correct. Kind: And the majority or' the ueighbors do have decks. Grove: Con'ect. Kit. d: Got it. Thank you. Biackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, 1 have a question. What kind of precedence are there,? l'.mean we l-..a,'e obviously ~ookmg just ar the drawing actually put in the ~ta~f report, 'i-he house to the immectiate r, orth ha:; a 3etback that is the same or even slightly less, and it does have the deck the whole width of the house. And th. at troubie:i me a little bi~.. I raean it looks like there's an element of precedet:t involved. Could you touch on that please'? 12 .¢ia,nni;~g Commission Meeting -November 6, 2001 Grove: Well the deck to the north was given a variance. Fhat was the one property' in this area. that has been given a variance. The variance was, they had a deck and they were adding onto it. ~ Siagle: Which way? Grove: Which Way Were theY adding on? They were adding north, not towards the lake. Adding north. It was the same setbaCk. sacchet: They maintained the s~tme setback but theY made it he whole width; okay. I think we need to be very specific. Also that deck, is it a second level deck or first level deck? Not that it ultimately'makes any difference but. Grove: It looks to be a second and, there's a picture right here. Sacchet: Both, okay. And that was, a variance for that was approved in '97. That's pretty recent, okay. That answers my question, thank you. · · Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: No questions. B!ackowiak: No. Rich, anyquemons.' · 0 · . Slagle: Yeah. I have a question. The current homeowners, how' long have they resided in that house? Grove: I do not know.' I believe they are here. Slagle: (/)kay. ~o I'll ask that question..The :reason F. rrt asking thai. is, my next question is, when was the porch put onto the house? It appears as when, in .,:960 when the house was built, it was within, maybe not at that time but current zoning laws, right? 5etba,.ks. Grove: Yep. Slagle: Okay'. The porch obviously is not within the approved, setbacks so at some point a decision was made, and I'm not sure if it was before or after an ordinance went into place. :Do We know? -. Grove: We don't know. '. · Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: We're not sure there Was a building permit. Grove: We didn't find a building perlrfit. Aanenson: There's no record of the building pernfit'for the deck. Back in 1900 there was no planning staff and so we don't. Slagte: We don't even have a history of when that porch was put on. Grove: Correct. 13 Planning Cc, r-omission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Slagle: Okay. That's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Well it sounds like you have a couple questions for the applicant so - would the a?piicant or their designee like to come up and make your presentation. Please step to the microphone and State your name and address' for the record. Vernon Hall: My name is Vernon Hall. I'm at 7000 Utica Lane, Chanhassen. And I don't know, do you -, want to answer a couple questions first. I know you had questions. Slagle: i ~h,nk I can already tell that you probablY weren't there in 1960. Biackowiak: Not making decking decisions at that point, right. Vernon Hall: We've owned the house for 7 years is how long we've been there. So I've seen some of the pictures and I wanted to show the neighbors to the. This is the neighbor's house directly to the south. Again just showing the dec'king that's there because it' s, you were looking on also the site plan that it shows that it's not totally within compliance also. And I just wanted to show also a more update plan of our decking and make some comments on that. This is an updated one of the existing with the whole site plai: of it showing that the existing porch there and the deck wrap around has changed a little bit and then ending in the corner, again it's changing. We're lessening the deck area a little bit on the north'end also~ ?md with that also there's the hard cover, I mean just to make note also that you saw the note in there ['rom the DNR as far as the runoff and concern of that. Right now existing to the sooth of the screened in por,~h ~t's basically solid concrete for at least the size of the porch, if not larger and that would be eliminated. That would become greet,, area, green space there on that. And then this is a bigger plan', just so you get a good view of what we're tal~ng as far as the decking space. And then again it doesn't show it clearly o~1 this because it doesn't have the existing Ir, ut the existing deck that we're asking for woJ.~ld' actually come. back a few feet from what's there now. And from the roof line actually it comes back about 4 feet where the surveyor's measured it. The existing f'rom where the building is so the roof line imngs out about another 3 or 4 feet there. Sacchet: May I ask a question for clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: Are you actually eliminating the lower porch underneath? Vernon iq/all: No. !~ woUld be under the existing, underneath. Sacchet: Okay just to clarify, thank you. Vernon Hall: This would be the screened in porch area there. That would be still there, and again as you can see we'd be eliminating the hard area over there that's all existing now as hard cover. And also then to the n,:>rtl~ side of the house which is iust a slope hill down now that we're planning on to tier that and again to centrol some of the runoff to the lake there. So and also in the recommendations I know if it was approved as far as vegetative screening in place, I mean we're totally willing or even have some plans to' do more of that. Slag!e: If 1 can ask as well. In your request for a variance you mentioned 61 feet. The report says now 62 feet. If l"m tracking right. Do you have any issue with just keeping the porch at 62? 14 Plan:ting Cc~n'anission Meeting- November 6, 2001 Vernon Hall: No: 1 mean again we're going to be regressing back. -Slag!e: Understand. Understand the porch is a little further out than you're talking but just xvondered; 62 - feet i.; fine as well? Vernon Hall: Yes. Yes, and again we're back about 4 feet I think from where it's existing, the roof overhang is now. This is an elevation view, jUst again to kind of show what we're proposing as far as a deck o.n the west side of the lak~?.. An3, questions?- -. . Blackowiak: Okay. Comnfissioners, any questions for the applicant? No? AnybodY? 'You have any e, ther questions? Kind: No. Blackowiak: No, I don't have any at this time: Vernon Hall: Thank you. Blackov,:iak- Alright, this item is open for a public hearing so anybody wanting to corne up and - comment on :his item, please step to the microphone and slate your natne and address. Okay, seeip..g no. one I will close the public hearing. Cornmissioner.~, any comments?- Deb~ Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Our ordinm:.ce states that a reasonable use can be defined as a use made by.t. he majority of.',:omparable property within 500 feet. I get stuck on this every tim_e we go over a variance-' ' . And I think i' tn :;tarting to get it now. The majority of the property-owners within 500 feet have de".:ks, .~: and s~.q. the request is reasonable. And since several of the adjacent lakeshore l~roperty owners have: reduced setbacks, there ~:s a pre-existing neighborhood setback and granting this variance would no~- _. depart downward from those standards. And if we do grant it I would add a condition that the pat;x~ be r.~moveo as a condition in addition to staff' s recommendations. :.- Slagle: You mean the porch? Kind: Patio. : . B~ackowiak: I i-hink the concrete, The impervious. Okay, UIi. Any cotnments? . Sazche'..: Yeah. This was an ~nteresting adventure. When I first looked at this, for one thing when we . get these variances the ideais not that we approve them all. Kind: True. Sacchet: i mean the whole pe.,int, '~he approval of a variance shct, ld b;~ tl',e, exception because why have'," rules otherwise? .. 3'ules if everybody comes and asks fcr an exception and we give them a variance. And then r'ein~, the environmentally fc, cused person, the3e [:uildings are awfully close to the lake and ' frown that angle I was really uncomfortable with the idea to allow further, not necessarily further .- encrt:aclm~ent from the distance but increasing the amoant of encroachment into the natural buffer. However, consider;ng the precedent in the neighborhood I have to agree that in order to be fair, it- has to be considered a reasonable request, reasonable use and based on the precedent I don't think it would be fair ti-: deny it. 15 Piaani% Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Biackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidn,3y: Weii. this was difficdlt 'for me too U'[i, to analyze and !. think I we.,uld I.i. ke to disagree w'ith the . two commissioners who have spoken, and I'll state my reas,.ms. 7[ do believe that staffhas outlined the reasons that there is not a hardship. There is reasonable use of the property, and 15 do have a problem xvith increasing the non-conformity in it and further encroaching into the 75 foot setback and I think that' is such an important setback and we've always talked about that in Planning Commission as being a very important setback which we Sho:uld maintain.. And I think bv doing that, increasing the non-conformity, we are setting a precedence and I really don't want to cross that line so I would feel more cornfortable denying this request based on that. Blackowlak: Okay, thank yoa. Rich. S!agle: I have a thought and a question to staff. _In 1997 when the variance request to the neighber's to the north I believe was granteci,.do we have any information? And if I have received it ~ apologize having just flown in but I guess what I'm trying to think, what I'm trying to find is what was the reasoning in '97 that they granted a variance approval? Grove: We don't have much information. Throe ,va3a't ~'nuch from the minutes of that meeting. Basically it seems that. Aane. nson: TNs was Boa.rd of Adjustn'~ents that ;made .the decision. .- Grove' They were looking at it as replacing an existi~g structure. More Iooldng at it as a repair io vvh~t <,,as ah'eadv existing. Slagle: And fair. to ask, wilhout probably having the ansv:er ,.vas. how did the deck ge!. put there in the ' first place? We see a lot of these don't we? · Grove: Yes we do. It happens. Slagle: Well. let me throw one thought then is we'v,~ had discussions here regarding this setback. And for all who are here who are interested, there' s been lots of debate in the last 6 months about setbacks fl'on~ water. And to the point of where I think we came pretty clear that we w. anted one defined number . and that would apply throughout the city. We were getting away from all the different averages and who :/our neighbors, how far they're back and what not. So in a lot of' ways, I mean this is the number, t mean plain and si~nPle and just trying to think out as to how 1 will go .forward with votes because the more variances we find that have been approved, it really lin-fits us to saying yes because we have to obviously be fair to you.' If your neighbor was approved, and yet you have the dilemma of you just keep creating new precedence because I think if your neighbor had not been approved, I will throw out I think I would vote against it and ~ don't want to be unfair but I think just to try and set fairness tl'n~oughout the city. Because 'we get some doozies of requests That's a good word. My 5 year old a~qd 3 year old would probably get into those but, so I think my ..'..houghts to the rest of the commissioners is, I think i will vote . Ibr the approval but I do so pretty reluctantly. That's all. That'~ my thoughts. B!ackowiak: Yeah, I struggled with this one as well. Looking ar it in terms of' what is the number? Whal's the right thing to do and looking at the property, 1 certainly can see why they would like to have-a deck and take ad:vantage of that entire, that's just a beautiful setting back there. So looking at that I cert~ai'q!,/t~)t,.derstand their reasons for wanting to do that. Yeah, we do have numbers. We do have 16 i>lanning Con,xnission Meeting- November 6, 2001 certain rules. However I think one of the reasons that I look at, look favorably on this would be that the fact that the neighbors did get approved and again whether or not it was a rebuilding or actually a new ,. deck, I don't know they want it classified. I feel that when you go ahead and do something like that and grant something like that, it's hard to say no to the next person just because the number isWt there. So I guess those are my thoughts. It was a hard one but I'll need a motion for ibis. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves a 13 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for, the construction of a 39 foot. Actually I don't want to say the size. For the ~. · construction of a deck based On the fact that thereis a Pre-e×isting neighborhood.standard and ~anting . · . this variance would not depart downward from that standard. And that J.t's 'a reasonable use because the.. majority of the property owners within 500 feet have decks. And I would like to make it contingent on 4: conditions. The first 3 are stated in the staff report and I would like' to add a fourth that says, the existing ratio shall be removed to reduce the hard surface coverage. Aanenson: Point of clarification. Can we use the word concrete. Kind:- Thank you. Existing concrete patio shall be removed to reduce the hard surface coverage. Sacchet: I second that. Siagle: Can t. Doint of clarification'? If I can ask staff. Or actually ask Con~nissioner Kind. Is Ihere a: COliC.Sm of ~- "' ¥;.uat s underneath the deck as far as rocks? I mean obviously yo:~ wouldn't want patio bricks so i mean do you want anything? '- -- ' - Aanensc. m: .Wail part of this concrete patio is off.to the:side.- ~Additional, it's not underneath. It's additional to. ..Slag!e:' No, I understand that completely. What I'm saying. · . Kind: Do 1 want to make a condition what can be underneath that deck? Slagle: Yeah, or what can't be. . Kind: I think the deck is in itself considered hard surface coyerage soreally what's underneat-h of it probably is not a factor. Slagle: Okay. That's all. - B!ackov, iak: Okay, there's.been a motion and a second. We need to vo~.e on this. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 13 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a deck based upon the findings presented in the staff, report and the revised plans-submitted on November 6.. 2001, contingent -apoi~ the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that provides vegetative screen from the lake. Th~ applicant should demonstrate that no additional stormwater should be directed to the lake. 3. The deck may not be enclosed. 17 Planning C. ommission Meeting- November 6, 2001 4~ ~I'he existing concrete patio shall be removed to decrease the amount of hard surface coverage. Alt va, ted in favor, except LuAnn Sidney who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to make one point though. I guess a point of clarification. I feel we should have a maximum Width for the ~eck. I understand you may not want to have a width and length, based on changes in the plans but I'm thinking maybe we need to talk about. Slagle: Da we need to then re-vote? Because it's already been approved. Kind' Right now it has, I put in the motion a 13 foot variance so that means it needs to maintain a 62 foot setback so that really does limit the width I guess. Btackowiak: Okay. I'hat's fine. I just wanted to make sure because you didn't list a specific deck size but as long as we're okay with not going any closer to the lake because that's my point. Kind: Ap.d that's what that 13 foot prohibits. Going any closer to the lake than where they currently are. Sacchet: I'd also like to point out that the revised plat,, that was Shown actually pulled back. Kin& Palled it Lack quite a bit. yeah. Sacchet: So I feel comfortable with that being in there. . Aanenson: Note of clarification again. I guess staffs finding of that would be that yo~,~.r acc, eptance was based on revised plans dated today. We'd ask for a copy of that for the record. Sacchel: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, that sounds fair. Okay, so this item was the Board of Adjustment and Appeals item' so any aggrieved person may appeal the decision of this board within 4 days to the city planning office.. ._ PUBLIC HEARING: . . _REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR TEMPORARY USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO FAMILY.DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6791 BRIARWOOD COURT, SAWHORSE DESIGNERS/ BUILDERS. Public Present: Name Address Noreene Zill Mark Piatkowski David A. Senner J lin Hurt Troy & I,ynne Eggers 6817 Manchester Drive 6833 Manchester Drive 6829 Briarwood Court 6791 Briarwood Court 6791 Briarwood Court 18 .¢ia. nn;,ng Commission Meeting- November 6, 2001 . juRie Grove presented the slat'f report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Rich? I'm sorry, you're still reading but.' - Slagi¢: No, I have no questions. B!ackowiak: LuAnn?' Sidney: No comments at. this time. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet'. Yes, definitely have questions. So oae vou already addressed. In ruder to have a second, third, fourth kitchen in a house doesn't really require any particular permit except a building permit, correct?. Grove: Correct. Sacchet: To have an extra bathroom, same thing. Extra whatever, finish your basement, same thing.. ' o · i~. We have parents moving in with ~.heir kJds; Fanfily. Fan~iiy is pareuts and kids. i really don'~ same fam. ily. i think this doesn't fly. '/guess that wasn't a question. Biackowiak: And your question is? - - . Sacchel.: Why the heck do, sorry the Engiish, why do they need a variance for their parents to live with thsir kids? lt's one family. 'Fhey can get a building permit, build a kitchen. They can build a oath..oom. They can Nfild whate,..'er they want. They can get a building permit 'but not a variance It's not a tnu!ti- fan-d!y house. Grove: According to the zoning, the definition of a single family, well of a dwelling unit in. the zoning ordinance is that it has one of all of the amenities, and this would have two in one specific area. Sacchet:. But that doesn't make it a multi-family house. We don't have more than one family in there. I mean there are lots of houses that have more than one kitchen. Ce_rtainly tons of bathrooms is prettY popular these days. I'm sorry to pounce on that but I don't get the point, i think we're off track with this one,. B!ackowiak: This might be an issue for'future work session. Changes in ordinance. I mean'that might be something ',ye need t°.look at, but. ' : Slagie: If I can ask. So from staff' s perspective it truly is ~n essence a contradiction perhaps, the_e a some confusion around an ordinance that you really have to bring this up to us like you have. Aanensen: It's the state law and we' ve adopted it, corr.°.ct. And they' ve come in and asked for it and comp;led. ~vi!'h ail the requiremems. Slagle: And it basically says. and I apologize if it was in there to read but if two kitchens are in a house Iha: b.~comes then a multi-fmnily dwelhng, is that verbiage? .. Aa.l~.enson:Yes. 19 Plamfing Comn-fission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Grove: Potentially. Slagle: Ok---~.y. Because what I'm... Aanenson: You can have other tenants there too, correct. It':; when you have other people {iving there. You can have up to 5, I agree with Uli. It's a fine line and if we're moving into a rental housing I think this provides also clarity. Protection for them too. It's a City Council has directed to move towards a rental housing. '? Slagle: I guess what I'm getting at to the commissioners though is, here we.perhaps have a situation where, at least initially, at least from two of us there's this wow, this might not even be needed to be talked about like in this forum and we could find ourselves actually going against the State State law, is. that what you Said it is? Which is just opposite of what we kind of talked about recently where if it's State law we really have to try and stick with it or. even go beyond it. Here now we're sort of questioning a State law. So I guess and sort of with Uli's way. Aanenson: Well I guess the other point of clarification is, is it coming the correct way is that what we don't want is 'someone altering the exterior appearance which is critical that you don't have a door that you complex:ely separate, Now it's ~.wo actual separa,'.e dwelling units. The intent is that it can easily be' CO!lVel'i~2,f.i ' ~" b~,._,,, to the one dwelling. When yoh.provide additional parking spaces for the tenants: where yot~' v.s got a separate entrance., separate meters, some of thews..'-: things ',,,'here you could call .and we nnv not know. This is the control, way ,~ve go throttgh. We knew and i-he neighbors U'~ow what's going neat do,-~,: because we do get complaints on that situation. Where pc,)ple are .:'enting our and ?hey provide a separate entrance. Changing the ctiaracter ,.)f l~c:ki:~g, as a single fa,..ni)y ho~ne. Sw-.chet: Nowwe just heard that the ci~aracter of the dweil;r,g does:n:t cha.itge. The utility m~,ters don~t ch,'~a~:e,.~ -,','~,', .~c ''~a would :;upport my case that it'3 really not a multi-family situation.:. '.., Grove: We would concur. Slagle: I guess what I'm wondering if, and this might be easy, is could it just have been decided at staff? · . · Aanenso,a: No. · S!agle: Does it have to come to us? Aancnso:-:: Correct. It's a variance. Requires a public hearing. Grove: Accoiding tc the ordinance. Sacchet: Now here's the real question. Is it within our reach to say this doesn't need a variance? .;~3. F:~.II $(?P,: N'O. Blo.ckowiak: it's Sta~e law is wlmt you're telling us and ,,ye need. okay. :e~r~nenson: It's in the zoning ordinance. You trove ts look at the 4 findings and attach reasonable · " '~r,'1 ;l" h ~. 2O Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. So maybe there's not a lot of room for discussion. I mean we really don't need to discuss a lot and we'll just move forward. Okay. Sacchet: It's a non issue. Blackowiak: Deb, do you have any queStions at this point? Kind: Yeah, for staff right? Is that where We're at? Blackowiak: We're asking staff:~-ight now, yes.- Kind: This new condition that you handed out to change condition number 31 to include this tempOrary aspect seems to address kind of the main i.ssue with that might have neighborhood concern which is this could be rented out in the future. So that's the point of that. · . Grove: Correct. . Kind:. Okay. That's all. . -, .~ Blackowi. ak: That's it? Okay. Would the applicant or their designeelike.to come up and make a presen.tai'.ion? B!ease state your name and address and step t.o the ~nicrophone. · Troy E~.?t.... Troy Eggers, 6791 BriarwOod Court and I'd just like to say that the t'loo~201an that Wa.s -- presented today is the existing floorplan. We:haven't made any changes to that so that's basically what- we're looking at doing. That's all I had. .- · . Biackowiak: Okay, thanks. ' .... Troy Eggers: Do you have any questions for me? Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions -for the applicant? No. · Troy Eggers: Thank you. Blackowiak: This item is Open for a public hearing s0. if anybody would like to make Comments on this, please ~te, p ~o the microphone. State your name and address. ' :, . David~enner: My name. is David Senner. t live at 6829 Briarwood Court arid I certainly think that a couple should be able to irnProve their property for their parents without a lot of variance problems. I think a couple of the questions that I had were addressed by Mr. Sacchet and one was the temporary nature Of the'variance and I Understand that it, if the property is sold that. the variance terminates. - - Because people were wondering about the rental, like you had mentioned. And the other thing was what the definiti~m of single family dwelling was and I'm in agreement with you. [ think that in our co'untry I think ,a'c've gotten away from parents living with fanfilies and I think it's a bad precedent tO set that we have to get ~ variance to a!low that to happen comfortably so. And the other thing is that, what kind Of.. precedent would be set in the rest of the neighborhood if somebody had a variance for their family and pare~>ts to come live with them. And if this is granted, does that set a 'precedent that other homes in that area could get a variance more easily so, I kind of.thi, nk it's opening a can of worms myself. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, would you like to address that? 21 Planning ~?on~nission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Sure. In the State of Minnesota this is the one use variance. Typically you cannot get a variance to a use. You can get a variance to the bulk, which would be the height, the setback, the width, but you can't get a variance to a use. This is the one exception in the State of Minnesota. We' ve had this. ordinance ton our books, the State's had it for, our city attorney said forever which is facetious but it's been on.there a long time. In'the l0 years I've been here this is the first request we've had. Anybody can have their grandma live with them. You can have related people living with you. Anybody. We've got that all over town. If you want a separate facility such as this, there is a mechanism that provides for · protection. That they go throug~ the certain criteria that this board reviews to see if it's being met.. That's the process that this group'is going through. Whether there will be arash of these or not, this has been 1 in 10 years. I don't know. Based on econOmic circumstances, but people can have a member live with them. It's just the separate kitchen facilities and separate living quarters, that's the standards that are in place. David Senner: But what is defined as a separate facility? Because I know people in other neighborhoods in other states that have had kitchens and things put in and haven't had to have a variance though. Blackowiak: Kate, can you answer definition of a separate facility? Aar;enson: They're living independentlY. They're ~ot in a bedroom'on the main floo~' sharh~g the same "Atchen and bathroom. They've got their own liv;.ng quarters. A separate living quarters within the same dwelling. That's how this is being defined. Blackowiak: Okav. David Senncr: I would, I mean a lot of houses have separate living quarters. Biackowiak: Right. That's what 1 was going to say. I know a lot of people that have microwaves and fridges and so on and so forth in their basements but not necessarily anybody living there. Aanenson: Right, and they're living there and that's their permanent address at that and they've got a separate living space. David Senner: Well we've got possibility for a living quarters in our first floor and our second floor. Why not the basement? . . . Aanenson: Again, the intent is that it's Completely independent living. The two can function separately except for the same driveway. That's the in'tent and that's the way our ordinance describes independent dwelling unit. So they're not sharing a conmton kitchen, refrigerator, that sort of thing. David Senner: And what is the definition of single family residence? Aanenson: What I was reading from xvas the definition of dwelling unit. David Senner: 'Yeah. this was a second question. Aanenson: We just have a definition of family. We used to have up to .5 people but that's against State law so definition of a family or dwelling unit is as many people as you want. There's no limit on if you had your cousins and brothers living together, there's no limit on that. That's unconstitutional. And just for point of clarification, if anybody wanted to rent their house.for a year, they got a job transfer to 22 ~ ~annm~ Co:;_~mission Meeting November 6. 2001 Europe fer a yem' or they did a mission trip, people rent their houses all the time for a year or two. That's also another type of arrangement people make. Single family dwelling means a detached building containing one dwelling unit. And again the definition of dwellin, g unit would be that you'.ye got independent iiving so again because this has 2 independent living. Blackowiak: Okay, so 2 bedroom areas, kitchen areas. Aanenson: Right, and the prirn~.?y purpose is to live there. A lot of people have kitchens in their - basement for parties; entertainin"g, .that sort of thing but the primary purpose of this, what they've been totally upfront about is to have somebody living there. It's not for entertaining. It's to have another family members live there. - Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. David Senner: Well we still don't know if their unit is not a single family, right? Biackowiak: It's still a single family, correct? Aanenson: Yes. The ordinance allows/hr this variance to become two independent living units within that single fanfily home. .- Blackowiak: Right. So it remains a single family home. Nothing chap, ges, bt:t as Kate was saying,-State ' law aiiov,,s one variance. Only one excemion to 'the ~.lefinition of a f~milv living in a house. -}lelp me out here I<ate. Aanenson: That:'s ~.,hat the variance is for. q-'o allow more than one ~ndependent living. ~. ' Btacxow:ak: More than o~e independent living area: So nothing has changed with the zoning. It s still a - .single family home. Nothing's changed with that. . David Senner: Well I guess on the proposal that I got, it says variance for temporary use as a two family dwelling. Aanenson: That's correct. David Sonnet: And my question is. ' · B!ack.:)wiak: Two separate living areas. ' David Senner: Is this a two family. . oacc~_,et: Would it be a two unit dwelling? I mean it's like I'm hung t,p on this family thing. Aanenson: ]'here's two fami~ie.s J.p_ there, if we want to c~ll it that, co,;rect. ,That's what the variance is fc;r. Bla. ckowiak: Right, but it's still a single, a residential single family. It's zoned. Aanenson: The zoning has not changed to allow two families there. It only goes with this specific, the applicav_.t and request. And it goes away if their situation changes. 23 Piar, ning Co~mnission Meeting - November 6, 2001 David Senner: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Mark PiatkowskP. Mark Piatkowski, 6833 Manchester Drive, Chanhassen. i'm the President of the Woodridge Heights Homeowners Association. Speaking for several people in the neighborhood, and I do commend you for having your p~rents and your in~laws moving in. It's an excellent opportunity to bond, especially with the grandchildren? although ! do have questions about the temporary use of it. Is it something that goes away at the end of, when they move away or when their parents move out? Obviously our concern as a neighborhood is more vehicles in the neighborhood, more parking for cars for the: grandparents, as well as property values of the neighborhood itself. So there are some confusion in regards to what's written in the document so they're obviously looking for some clarification to that. On the recommendation, on item number 5 it talks about by definition a 2 family dwelling is classified as an R-3 occupancy, therefore I'm not sure what this next thing means. A one; hour separation. Kind: Fire. B!ackowiak: Fire wall. Grove: Building :ode. :. . Mark t:'iatko,,vski: Okay. And there was some cgnfusion ir~ regards [o the lei:ret that was sfibmitted by ' ..-,awao,-se. Ir tall<..'_; about, there was, they do not intend to have a separate entrance to the .'.owe. r ievei. . · _ And on a',~etner letter that sent in to the. Chanl,'assen. City of Chanhassen, line item 4 says, i!'s .trot, I don't know il" it's written correctly or not. It said u.~t~ties. Do they intent", to have separate utiliti:~s inst:~lked'? ' It sous. ds like it's almost asking a question as compared to stating no, they do not intend to bare a' separate address. Obviously we're concerned abeut a' separate' address tbint.:ing two different homes. Obviously it goes into a different type category for the neighborhood... ' ' Blackowiak: Okay. Kate let's see if we can go through his.questions here. No separate utilities. No separate address. Aanenson: Correct. Biackowiak: The variance runs with the parents or to the.sale of the house. Any othe:.' questions I'1ll not answering? Got them all? Okay. · Ki:,d: Oh pa~king was one of them: Blackowiak: Parking. Kind: l-iow many cars are allowed in a drivew%, and parking o~ the street and that sor~. of stuff. Biacko~,iak: As with a single family l,.ome. I mean you can't really' restrict, I mean as long as i;:'s an operable car. you can't really restrict. . Mark F'iatkowski: Right. There are covenants irt the neighborhood which will direct that otherwise and we'll address that if necessary. 24 Plaunii~g Comanission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackewiak: Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, if there's anyone else who ~.Vould like to come up, come on up to the microphone. If not I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please. Rich, why don't I start with you. Slagle: The only thing I would ask is, and I don't believe it will make a change but what the beck. Should we. put cannot versus 'will not in the request for utilities? Aanenson: Sure. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, anything? Sidney: Yeah I'm in favor of granting a variance and I see this as a wonderful opportunity to encourage families to make use of, well an opportunity to have "mother-in-law apartments" in their homes. I think it' s going to be an important aspect of future living for all of us. And I think the one thing that I do - recommend that we add to conditions is that, I'm still worded about whether or not the lower living level could be rented and I guess I'd encourage us to think about adding a condition that would state the living level, lcwer living level will not be rented separately. It sounds like they're able to rent the whole- property but [ wouldn't want to encourage people to think of you know finishing off the basement, adding a sink and renting it out. Of course they do that for college students all the time but maybe not in Chanhassen. I want to make sure that the rental question is addressed so agree with the staff's cov. ditions and the o:,era!l intent o£ granting the variance and would tO recommend to do so. Blackowiak:. Okay,'thank you. Uli. . '-:' '. · .: Sacchet: Well I made plenty of conunents already. It's one of these things where you'd almost rather not' ask and just get your building permit it seems. I still have an issue, I see the State !aw aspect in thi~ and ' if we call it' a two unit dwelling instead of a two famiiy dwelling, I think that clears it up a little bit because it's obviously one family. But I really wouldn't want to set the precedent. Everybody that wants · a .parent to move into their house has to come. get a variance, I mean that just doesn't fly. And even if they want to build them a kitchen or a bathroom or so on, an extra bedroom, and a deck or what have you, k's still one family. Crying out loud. But by all means I don't want to com>licate this .issue further and . please let's pass this quickly. .Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. " . Kind: ! agree with my fellow commissione?s, and I would have a question for LuAnn. Do you feel that the condition that staff just handed out this evening covers the temporary nature of this and would preclude rental as an option? Sidney: I guess I'd like to state specifically. Kind: Specitically. Aanenson: I guess that was our intent, and just to take what LuAnn was saying was that if the Eggers are living there, and so that it doesn't become, that they're 'kind of the main tenant. They have to be the tenant in the house. If they were to move and the grandparents still stayed in the basement, that the two go together. If that makes sense? That was our intent with that language and if you wanted to tweak that, if that's what I'm hearing you're saying, similar thing. 25 Planp, ing Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sidney: Yeah. Just state no rental of the separate unit. B]ackowiak: Uli, another cormnent? Sacchet: Yeah, the condition number 5. Kind: Is not a condition. Sacchet: it's not. It doesn't work. I think the first sentence sho:fld come out. We can say. Kind: I think the whole thing should come out. Sacchet: Well, I think there is some purpose in there. We say it's proposed to be members of the-same family and therefore can be classified as a one family dwelling. I think that's significant. And it actually covers the concern of LuAnn's in terms that it's not intended for rental. I think that would actually be in'plied in that. Blackowiak: Well maybe we can add some verbiage into that to address both the rental issite.and the proposal that members of the same family occupy the dwelling milts, and kind of weave those two together in some way to make 5 a little more clear. Okay, that's possible. Well my only comments are, I certainly agree .with this idea. We're talking tonight about affordable housing and about these other iss~:es arid this is certainly a good solution to a lot of people I think wanting to have parents move i~to thc:ri. Fm glad you came forward and kind of got us talking about this issue, even though it might seem silly to get a variance. I think there is an element of protection and ti~e neighbors that talked, about this [ think brought that forward. Is the reason the city does that is to ensure that people are not going to finish off and rent out basements to just anyone, and this is the reason we have some of these seemingly trivial .I shouldn't say trivial but kind of questionable variance requests. Sacchet: Interesting. Blackowiak: Interesting. There we go. Interesting requests but there is a. reason for them and I think it's for everyone's protection and I think certainly in this case it certainly works well and sort 0f carries .- forward the intent of this statute so, with that I would like someone to'make a motion please. S!agle: If I can throw out something just quickly, and I'm going to make an assumption I believe is 100% con'ect, but I do want to just ask it. I assume this is okay with the parents. Jim Hurt: You want it in writing? Slagte: No, no, Just a nod 0f the head will be fine. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Madam Chair, I can make a motion. ~_~la:ko war: Okay. Kind: I ~nove the Planning Commission approves the request for a temporary use of a single family dvve!ling as a two unit dwelling located at 6791 Briarwood Court, subject to the following conditions 1 26 _Pla:ming Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 throu$'h 5 with a couple changes. Number 3 be changed to what was handed out this evening. Did' anyone read this out loud so that the people in this room have heard this temporary part? Shall I read it. · out loud? Biackowl. ak: Go right ahead. . Kind: .~. will do that. Number 3 now says, the variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is temggrarily permitted as a two unit dwelling for such period of time as the Eggers family and their parents i'.eside at the propertY, or until the home is sold, 'whichever comes first. So that's nmnber 3. And then number 5. I'm. going to make an attempt here at this condition.- It should say, since it's proposed that nc, embers of the same fanfiiy occupy the dwelling units, it can be classified as a one far,nil? dwelling as defined by the building code. Therefore the second unit may not be rented - - .. separately. Oh, and number 2. This is Rich's change. Separate utility services may not be established.'- Sacchet: Can not. ' Kind: Can not. Can not, may not. Slagle: Whatever is. ?,nd: Acttmliy which is correct? I'!1 let you decide that. That's ~ny m~tion. l,t,,,,o;vm~. ,okay, there s been a motion, is there a second? -. Sacchet: Ca.n not, second. . " · Kin.ti mm-ed, Sacchet seconded that the Planning CommisSion approves the request fol- a · -. - .. temporary use of a single family dwelling as a two unit dwelling located at 6791 Briarwood Court, subject to the following conditions: : o . 4~ The dwelling has an appearance of a single family dwelling including the maintenance of one- driveway and main entry. Separate utility services can not be established. The variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically statir~g that the dwelling is . temporarily permitted as a two Unit dwelling for such Period of time as the Eggers family and their parents reside al. the property, or until the home is sold, whichever comes first. Permits for alterations must be obtained from the Inspections Division before beginning any work. . Since it's proposed that members of the same family occupy the dwelling unils, it can be - classified as a one family dwelling as defined by the building code. Therefore the second unit may not be rented separately. Ali ~:e. ted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: This is a Board of Adjustment and Appeals issue so anybody who is aggrieved by this .- decisiot~_ may make an appeal in writing to the city planning staff within 4 days. Thank you. I think at 27 .t .,a:~.mV4 (?ommission Meeting -November 6, 2001 Ibis tithe, I ,_,aid.we'd take a break at around 9:(}0 but [ think it's going to be right now. [' m ahead of . schedule, and there are two reasons for this. One, I would like to take just a quick break, but number two. We were.just given ',4 fairly substantial lei'ter from the applicant: 4 full pages and I would like to maybe mice 10 minutes so the conunissioners can have time to i:ul!y look at this before we start a' :tiscussion ot~ this item because I think it's probably going to be very impo,'tant '~o what's being said. So with that, let's take a 10 minute break. Quick break, read and then we'll reconvene. PUBLIC HEARING: '. ' REOUEST TO AMEND THE LAND 'USE FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO " RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, REZONE PROPER:FY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTA'IE, .A2, TO'SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPERTY INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A PRIVATE STREET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, POWERS CIRCLE, ARILD ... ROSSAVIK. Public Present: Name Address Virginia & Donald Coban '.4821 Jim Kc. ziowski 8'730 Gre, g ls,~,,,i.cr 8'742 Jayme D. & Carol R. Loc }380 Tanv~ Parks 8750 Brenda Hill 1360 . Jackie, Molly & George Bizek 8750 Arild Rossavik-.. Rick Ech~einacht 8740 Steve Buan 8740 Cheryl Dory 8736 Sunset 'Frail Flamingo Drive Flamingo Drive Oakside Circle Flamingo Drive Oakside Circle .Powers Boulevard Powers Boulevard Flamingo Drive Flamingo Drive Flamingo Drive Eob Generous presented the staff report on this itmn. ,_,,~a. ckovvmk: Okay, Deb. Any questions for staff right now.5 Kind: Not right noxv. Blackov,,iak: LuAnn. Sidney: No. Blackow~ak: Rich, do you have any questions for staff? No. Before Igo to Uli, aud anybody who LiP. will ihank ms .for this. How are we going to proceed on this'/' Shoul:.l -we ask all of questious in terms of land use, subdivision, everything'? (;-enerous: Yes. Blackowiak: Just go right down the line. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Generous: Because you'll just be making a recommendation~ ~hether you approve it or den3, it-and it'- goes on so we need to create that record. Blackowiak: Okay ',,,'ell, Uli. Go to it. Sacchet: Yeah,. I do'have a cOuple questions, as You obviously guessed. Two key questions. The land use, when you said it's domino affect. The land use is the first step? Generous: Correct. ~:. - -. · Sacchet: And so if we woUld want to do anything, the land use would have to be in place first? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Now my question is the reverse, could we put the land use in place and deny the rezoning and subdivl, sion or would it be preferable m keep i.t all in on.e Fackage? You understand my question'? Generous: Yes. . · . · . Sacchet: Because the land use. at least by my reading the !'and use. request is the most cooked while the re, zoning and subdivision is a little more questienabie. · · Aanenson: But !egally standing the most discretion you have is..at tt~e chang:,ng o~ the land use. r,sccnune.ndatizm, and that's where yom' stand;,ng sho~ld take place. !fvou conc~:r that ~t should'be,.then you woukt go through the rest of those. Sacchet: So we should do it as one? Aanenson: Correct, but having said that, you should also lo6k to the subdivisio~ because you are going to make a reconunendation to the City Council, while they will make a decision. Whether or not they. concur with you, we don't know but you should review that as a part of~it. Sacchet: So to be really clear about this Kate, we do not want-to split.this thi. ng apart? We want to deal with tills as one thing? , C-c:nerous: Yes. -' . . Sacchet: That's what mY.first One. The second major question I have. the staff report refers to this p:-oposal or something similar to this proposal having been denied in 1998. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: l't doesn't give much more information tban that and my question is, what is different in this prepo:gal here h'om the proposal that was denied in 19987 Generot:s: We reviewed the subdivision. There's nothing different. Sacchet: Tl:ere's nothing different? GCAlgrOtlS: Con-ect. 29 Planning Commission Meeting- November 6, 2001 Sacchet: So okay. Well that probably wilt be a question for the applicant why it should go through now when it didn't go through in.'98. Okay. [ had about a dozen more specific questions but I'll hold off. B!ackowiak: Okay. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, Plaase step 'to'the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, my name is Arild Rossavik at 8800 Powers Boulevard. True enough the application was submitted befor~ and I'll get into what has changed here since the last time and it's basically nor ~hat much of a change on my side. Eiackowiak: Okay. excuse me sir. Could I just get you to pull the microPhone down a little bit. [ think. we could hear. Thank you. Arild Rossavik: I will go back and point to that we didn't do that good presentation last time, and I'm a little bit more prepared this time. I want to go back to, I don't need...T-diking about so much about the planning here and zoniug and stuff like that. Here a copy that you have...City of Chanhassen sends this letter to me in '95 and they said that they...property taxes and they sent also on page 2 here, basically . they have spent about $4,400,000 basically on the project bringing down Powers Boulevard. And in addition to this,.they brought down water and sewer. There's a lift station sitting down right there now for $225,000. Nobody's using it. And this is. this water and sewer is stubbed into the property for 7 lots down there on previous...and for pre-use. Nobody's using it. They also sent me this assessment pages, and you will see my lot here, actually it's Lot-number 2 is projected future units as 0 on it. This is , projection done back in '93. So what I'm trying to do here to get the.city to use it's resources. We have a huge investment there. I see the city as a huge investment there in infrasmicture that's not being used. And we have another problem b~ere on the property, and we have pictures up becau.se we have a lot of mtffic going down on Powers Boulevard now. The city projects in with these last years 10,000 cars a day. This is not the quiet area anymore. And also we have the traffic' on 41 being shut down. All that traffic has now to date moved over to Powers Boulevard. We got. all'the traffic from 41 and even when · 41's going to be opening up, we have no guarantee that this traffic will move back to 41. MOst likely it won't because like the shortcut going down to Powers Boulevard, across 17 and coming down to Chaska. So the zoning of the area definitely changed and I didn't do that. Because of the layout of the property, we have pictures here to see that delivery trucks coming down to the neighbor on the north here, he?s backing up on Powers Boulevard. And it's 45 miles an hour. That's not a good condition to be irt. And these pictures here, he is backing in from the Powers.Boulev'ard. The delivery van. And this is not a good condition. And to top it off here, I got this letter from, we have a copy from BFI. They refuse now to do delivery of waste.from my property. And what is next thing to come up here, LIPS? Federal . Exp,.'ess? You can't do delivery to your property because of they don't want to back out on Powers Boulevard. It's 45 miles and there's heavy traffic. To top it off, we have this picture here. This is the result of development the city did the last time...because they took the culvert away from my driveway and they didn't lift it enough so I have a flooding problem here. And in the winter here, this is what ~/e re looking is pure ice. And even the city acknowledges they have a responsibility for. down there if there's being reconstruction here being done they will, they suggest that we fix that problem at the same time. ~ feel that rezoning will not change the'character of the area. I got townhouses next to me. High density ;.ownhouses are 3 houses down the street. So to put, like you said the PUD to the north and the west, they define the character of the area. And we go back a little bit in the staff report you'll find out this was actually supposed to be low density as a part of the Lake Susan prc, ject back in 1980 actually. · And you can see that front, that's also in the staff repert also. And so the appropriate zoning for this area is RSF, residential zoning. We have just what we call this spot zoning down there. Why...the 2.5 acre minimu,,r~ size actually when the city is in shortage of lots actually? It doesn't make any sense to me. In 30 .,mm.l ,.._, Commission Meeting- Novmnber 6. 2001 addi,:icn oi-' tiffs zoning here, fo:' lots, 5 .more lots affo~'dab!e lots. ActuallY affordable housing, single family housing. The intention is to develop these lots and sell them out for people to build houses .. - themselves on them for reasonable cost. So we definitely lneet the comprehensive plan of affordable housir, g here in Cbanhassen. And we' I1 also increase the tax base for the city. And so fiimlly we can get paid Lack from this huge investment they have on the water and sewer charges. The staff ackaiowledged that the use.is cOmpatible to the area, so it would not...and can accommodate without existing services. Meaning the infrastructure's in place and Would not -generate significant traffic. ! mean extra traffic - compared to what it is now. If ~ou looked, up on a little bit further up there where we have townhouses, there with rather high densitY. The develOpment now and cul-de-sac, they would provide; that would - eliminate the traffic safety arid we won' t have thiS. problem because trucks and my cars and UPS can - come iii arid turn iii around on the cul-de-sac. And if we look back here on this picture here; you can see the cul-de--sac will actually be, -would be where the sign is actually and you see the property line, so I'm giving up all my' land basically for the cul-de-sac. )md rny neighbor to the north there, he would have the ' most benefit from this cul-de-sac because as you can see, he cannot drive into his lower end of his' warel~ouse there. He can't turn around. He has to back out again because the property is' where.the line -" is- The person...up there, he has to drive back agaJ. r~.. So he is, as far as I'm concerned, he's the best benefactor from the cul-de-sac and this development in the first place. There are no'...natural resources ' or physical features that cannot become... We can fit this into the cul-de-sac or the property, asking · ' deve. ioped. The tree in the front and two in the back and I don't see any big issue that they cannot-~e ' accommofla!.ed in the back there. And the reason w~ re not.. unable tr.,...residential, industria! [,se of bis property. It's not an issue here actually. He can go up and as long aa the city approves his busine:_:s tr, t:rt:, .~tt~t will just go on. Proposed st, bdimsion, findings number l. '~ and 5 and 7 need to be adjw,'-: accordingly, as in the proposed additions, No changes need to be made to private, the findings: lt'.s ihe ci',,~'s findings actt,all;~. Arid i3, th.=_, rczoning .findings need to be adjusted to retie, ct that property-can-be develeped within the performance standards of the zoning ordinance and wil1 not dep.reciate ~nd must 15.~rther identify with the rezonir~g is not inconsistent with official city .plan..In conclusicn [.ask the city t9 aciopt the .findings factor and recommendations attached at the end of staff memo, bul make/:!~a, nges trr- - .: parag:'aph (a) and (c) thereof to indicate the proposed list consistent wi!h comprehen'sive plan and can be '-' developed in conformance with the performance standards. I ask for the city then allow me. to wOrk'with the staff to address the various planning issues identified. Questions? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Deb? - Kind: No, I guess not at this time. . . _,taci~o ~ak: Okay. No? Rich, you hiding or do you have an),? . .. Slagle: No: 1 don't tia.ve a que'3tien right ~ow. Blackowiak: No. Okay Uli_ Sacchet: Yeah, Fin going to ask a couple questions. Actually quite a lot of questions. See how far we get. ,$o the question I brought up with ataff before as how is this different to what was b;'ought before the city. was it 3~t years ago. You basica!ly state it's not all that different. It's pretty ranch the same' :;o you agree with sra-£F s assessment of that. Now you me..:~tior..ed some things that are benefits. Making' this development go througil. It's making use of the resources, the sewer. It solves the problem with the access. Ob,,iously you'd have garbage pick-up again. 1 mean those are'important things. And there are be~efits, definitely. And are those the type of things that happened since this came to the cit5 before? 31 Piap..nir~g Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Arild P, os;s:ivik: Well that's Imppened since the traffic has ir~creased and also since we did the presentation last time, I must say we didn't bring in several issues. At that point in time I didn't think ' . about it act,.mlly. So [ didn't bring about the water and the sewer problem at that point in time actually.· Ti-mt was in elace. Sacchet: So are there any other things you can think of that are different in terms of, what I'm trying to understand is this came in pretty much the way it is apparently. A couple years ago it was turned down: Now you bring it back. Pretty much the same thing as it was then. Why should there be the .decision this time'? zxxild Rossavik: Well I just think that the situation has chang,~d a little bit. The city is looking for reasonable housing. And definitely that's definitely changed. Sacchet: Got more developed. Arild Ro,0savik: More development and use existing infrastructure.· · . Sacchet:. You got more traffic. Arild !~o~savik: And more traffic' a}nd the city do~s~',~ t, well the fact is whether vou ever, ii,crease.the tax. 1215 5,,2. . · Sacci'~et. Ok:~y. A iright, 1 think that's reason ~ble a:ts',ve'c, al:it },acking ap, kind of at ,he eri'.l: of this " quesrk.,a, i mcat'., if this came in !ike. ~hat, those coupie years back, ! would a:;sume, that sol~te of the similar recommendations and issues were raised that are beir~a raised.now.. ,, · · Afi!d Rossavik: Yes, but they weren't addressed at that point in time a,.:tuall)'. 'We didn't a,:tc~eSs issue. We just came, I just came to the hc. ariI?g.!asr time Dnd of withou.., me making· -. Sacchei.: It didn't go to this level. Arild Rossa'vik: No., We didn't go to this level actually. Sacchet: Okay, that's what I want to know because. Ariid Rossavik.: It didn't go to this level. Sacchet: On that basis [ w'o~dd like to ask your patience in going through questions because I'd like re get a sense of where you are at with some of tl:ese aspects that staff raises in the context of this proposal. So if you don't mind I'm going'to go through a lot of questions. Hopefully you're quick. One of the issues that staff is raising that the lOts abutting Powers are too small. What's your feeling about that? Arild Rossavik: Well [ don't feel they are too so,all because mey are, l mean the to vnhouses going a lidle bi*, north of the 3 houses, they have much sinaller lots facing the same thing actually. VChat the staff had a problem with before was lhat somebadv would put tow~,houses on those lc>ts because '.ethnically they could go townhouses. You know we're not going to put, we just...because the variance I think is for 8,000 sqcmre foot for townhouses. But I'm not interested in putting townbouses in. We'd put residential-houses. Single family houses so that was the. that has never 'been an issue with staff before that abutting Powers Boulevard because they were basically, they will be facing Powers Boulevard but 32 Planning Coramission Meeting- November 6, 2001 they woWtc,, ~ '~ driving in from Powers Boulevard The:."d be'using the cul-de-.sac and coming in from the back side. ._c,~zcchc:t: Grading significantly intpacts the character of the site. You already Said you didn't fully .agree with that, but yeu would be will;_ng to try to mininfize that. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, of course. Of cOurse. That's just technicality actually. .. .:, Saczhet: Because on the west s{de there was mention that the topography lends' itself to tuck under type · . . of k, ouses. · - - - . gxild Rossavik: Yeah, that's not a problem with me actually that was. .. Sacchet: Impact of Lot 4 with the ravines. A~i[d Rossavl. k: Well, the technical thing I got 3 ravines on my property and there's a little flat thing where actually the house will be. Or actually it will be before that. So the ravines will be back, won't ' affect the-house there but the ravines will be actually not touch the door. And the last time the city was asking an easement on my ravines in conjunction with the park and such, and it doesn't make ap.y differeuce because they will not be touched. Ai~ easement can be.in place... ~ S,.~,~n_t. So savin~ you'd be willing to move that oral,lng site $brwatd east to s~,me extent. . .. . A: J.'~d Rossavik: '.Yes. And they probably can.show k'better than I.can. .. Sacchet: And that's the one on the southwest, isn't it? : .... ... Arild Rossavik: Yeah, Otis is the one on the south, right. · Sacchet: So you'd be willing to move that forward. Now you ~nentioned the idea of easements. Now staff was on this report such as the conservation easement over the westerly part of the property, as well as a drainage and. utility easement of the ravines so what' s your feelings about that? - Arild Rossavik: Okay. The drainage, right now goes on the side here'actuallY and there's no, whateVer. *.hey need to have in that., I don't have any problem -,a:ith actualiv. It's :uqt a technical iSsue more than anything. ' -. · Saccher: H~:.',ing a c0r~.servatiOn easement like the way they're proposing. I guess that's the blue color: .'. i Arild Rossavik: .Yeah, FI1 give the land up. No issue'. Sacchet: Okay, that's what ! Want to hear. Lot 6 could also, 5ou'd also want to move that other easement anti that wouldn't be that big an issue'? Ari!d Rossa. vik: Yes, it should be worked out actually fine actually go I don't see that... Sacchet: So there seems to be not that much of an issue on the west side. It's more an issue on.the east side where th:.,re's certain...accommodations on landscaping buffer and berming. Are you referring to · the townhouses and what it is up north which is a very well taken point. On the other hand we're looking at thc cot,ditioning to the large lot to the south so. 33 Pl.:-mning Commission Meeting- November 6, 2001 ,ad'ild Rossavik: Well even the large lot to the south would be minimized impact because ,,ve don't' have a commo'.q driveway. My neighbor and myself we have a common driveway. The neighbors to the south they ha. ye their own driveway c'ttl-de-sac down there so they'd be minimized impacted. And houses . would not be so far after the first houses down there. · Sacchet: The well and septic system, I assume you're fine with that. Ariifl Rossavik: Yeah, whatever. I'm fine with that...going to be hooked up to water and sewer.' Sacchet: I don't know whether we will be able t° hear from the owner to the north because he's definitely...in th~s. Are you working together to some extent7 Arild Rossavik: Well I have tried to get his attention on this matter and he is here today so he probably., you can ask him yourself about that actually. [ have been trying to send a letter to the effect that he. would benefit from this being here. I think i~e's more concerned about his business actually. How it will affect his warehouse down the road. Sacchet: ...how he benefits. The tree situation. There's a'fair amouni of trees m the staff report that is suggested would need to be planted to establish'the minim.am canopy coverage as well as a significant amount of plantings as a buffer yard. What's your sense'? Ariid Ros:;avik' I have no problem. Whatever it takes. There, will be ',.ninimmn impact on existing trees on ti~i~'; devziopment. : Sacchet: ()kay. What they talk about additional 3 trees. Arild Rossavik: Yes, so I will provide whatever additional trees they' need to have. Sacchet: ,,',,.nd they really have probably the m0'st intense poiflt then what it comes down to is that the . requirement of the cul-de-sac like staff showed that it would have to come back, and really, I mean realistically, looking at this either way it is right now I 'kind of wonder how well accommodated that-Lot number 1, that pad is now with the cul-de-sac going back pretty much with...flag lots. Realistically speaking I think that's not a far fetched assumption. How do you feel'about that? -. · Arild Rossavik: Well, if that's what they' think. But let me just show you something here. Where's an additional plat zoning there and if we go' back to the picture, if We looked at the now picture there, and. you see i'm giving uP mOst of the land and rnaybe I can talk to the neighbor into giving up 3 feet of his land. Then we can move the cul-de-sac, then the c'al-de-sac will accommodate him at a better level and all the way up there. That's a technical issue. Sacchet: Actually that touches on my last question then. Hopefully it's the last one. There is this retaining wall along the cul-de--sac towards the north and when I looked at the property, it does actually look..to that garage from your house...ar~.d the retaining wall will pretty much cut the access from...n0rtlt. A.rild R. ossa'vik: I addressed that issue before wit}t the people who designed this because tnis is a 2 dimensional drawing. It's not the 3 dimensional drawing, so as a matter of fact his boulder will not be affected by the cul-de-sac at all. 34 F!atm:.,ng Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Saccher: So it would keep his drJ. veway .. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, be would keep his driveway on this cul-de-sac. Saccb. et: Well btlt that's not whai' staff put in as i.f this would move forward. You would be reqt!ired'to actually access the cul-de-sac the way I understand the staff report. So I wonder to what extent that is ' possible w:,n the differences of the eleVatiOns. Arild Rossavik: Well it's ~nY understanding, talkingto the engineer when we did the...would not affect this cul-de-sac at all. With .:he original plan,'the revised one it was moved down a little bit actually which was on the first plan. Because that would became a very sensitive issue. They could go out there and pelto: out exactly where the cul--de-sac got but as you can see on the piCture here, the cul,de-sac, [ ' - have enough space on my land to put the whole cul-de-sac on my land. So the only thing, if he gives.up.a couple of feet on his side, then we don't, we can more adjoin the cul-de-sac actually. Sacchet: So you would expect that he would do some grading to actually... Arild Rossavik: Yeah, whatever. I think so. Sacchet: I think that's enough questions right now. Th.m'tk you for your Patience. Blackowiak: Alright, cor;unissioners. Does anybody else ha_ye questions of tSe applicant'? Kind: [ have on~ quick question. You conu-nented that you stubbed in for 6 o:' '? homes on your site :'or water :md sewer. · ' [,[ossa ~ .~.. Yes. ArHd ..... .. Kind.: And I'm looking at this chart' with the assessment roll, and it looks to rne as though you ~nd-yOur neighbors, all pay the same amount, whether you had 4 units, 5 units or 6 units. You didn't pay extra for. 6, as I understand it. Ar;Id Rossavik: Just look at present-assessment. This 'assessed Present assessment on it. Kind'. Present total assessment? Ari!d Rossavik: It's supposed to take, Yes. Present'total assessment because I can't, they can't assessme more. They came out because~I just had 1 lot at that point in time. If you look at that potential futUre units, they didn't say it was6 units there. They said potential future units and my neighbor has 4 .-. potential fi~ture units. Then present total assessment is just for 1 unit. So if you times that by 6 actually, when you get $12,000 or actually $14,000 taxes coming into city just from my property. Seam: Conm'fissioner Kind, if I could add something. Just point of clarification. There's I sewer stub. I · ,,:'amr stub lute ,.'he property to se~,e both, yes. To serve both the northerly parcel and Mr. Rossavik' s. -' Ti~e assessment sheet that he shows is proposed future units that ~,ve used to propose his assessments. We looked at this property and said possibly 6 units in there. You have to do that when you're proposing assessments, a:.~.d like he said, th,..' property to the north was looked a~ for 4 units so he could possibly be asse::sed for 4 units. And just to add, neither he, Mr. Rossavii~ or the property owner to the north have bec:-., assessed yet, and I think I mentioned that in the staff report. 35 Pianninc,. , Co,,runission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Arild Rossavik: If I.just make a little comment on that because his letter here when we would assess' those, we pulled it back again because for legal reasons they couldn't assess us so. Eiackcwiak: Okay, al~y other questions of the applicant? .No? t don't have at;y question:x e!ther.- Thank you. Ari!d Rossavik: Thank you. '., Blackcwiak: Okay, this item is open for a public hearing so if anyone would like to come ur~ bdfore the · ' com,-,~Js~ion,, please step to the nticrophone and state your name and address please. Geo,-.ge Bizek: My name is George B~zek and my address is 8750 Powers BouleVard. We have..the adjoining driveway at the bottom of the hill. At this time 1 do not wish to develop this propd~y: I'bought this prope~y to have some space. It was obvious that it was-laid out to begin with for large lots for a " reason. Because of'runoff. Because of, you look at a topographical map of the area, it's steep.. That's - why .[ bought the propm%,. I don't want it to change and I don't want ~t to be stuffed down my throat that I have ~o change. As far as him referencing my property as a warehouse, a business. He has called you people over3 times to go through my prope~y to see if there was anything in non-compliance with my pi'openy and Cindy with the city did not have any problem with ii. The tiucks bacNng our ortho .. driveway, you ;night, okay the red G&K-truck, if that's a problem with the bacMl, g out of my driveway, i'll qui.: ~etting dry cleaning you know. The r,>ferer,:e to truc':cs ncr deliverin;?: t:) as. l don't i~ave a . .. p.l~.,v,,:~,. '" ' · ,.vlti~..~ fl, a::. The o91y thit~g~ the l:arbage.. :onapa~y, a;~d [ talked to t'?orv, o'.'~r at ~'.I:,.~_ ~.gal'baae:_ " r ~ - ':' ' · ,..~ 1.. compar;v. O vet at BFI because ~i~ey war~t tkem ~mbsidc. T'h:~t's the only :'efere'.~cc thcS,' aaid. stil-! .~-~,i.n.~ to, oick:,~p our garbage but they want it curkside. He's making.a'~ issue otlt of this ro try i:o .... sxvay, IO ~'2[ him tO develop this prope~5. The city must have any records if'rNere's over beea any... accidents thc.re. We have no median crossing there. Ever'vone who leaves our hou,se goes down makes an ilk:lal U-turn on the fit'si curb cut [or the next cul-de-sac, including Mr. Rossavik. ~aow, it's prow:' obvious that tiffs really wash'; meant to be chopped up that small bec:a~se of the ton~,~*raohic, ~,-o ,_ .. layout of th~: ptope~gy. [ think it shoald remain that way and _1 tN'ink I have a bunch of neighbors i~ere with the same lots that feel the same way. . ,- -. Blackowiak: Thank you. Sacchet: Could I ask something? Bla. ckowiak: Sure, quick question. , ,"Catcher: Since you're so much incline ,~ itb: this, if I could just ask a few quick questions. You already express very clearly that you don't like the idea of being forced to develop. I had some other questions here. There's some benefits in this that there is better access to cul-de-sac. Having access to water and sewer, would you consider that an advantage? Gcc);ge ..Bizek: Well water and sewer's the.re already, It's stubbed our on lhe Nope;ry. Sa:chef.: 'Yotx' re not using cit,~ water and sew:er. You have a ,:veil alld sea, tic system, i:,: that con'ect?' Ge.::rge...~i_7.ek: Right. 36 P!anning Cmnrnission Meeting - November 6, 2001 S ac,2.1-~e*,.: e. ~(, it's not really a benefit for you then in that sense.. I mean if tiffs goes through and ,~ou would have to access your property, your home from that cul:de-sac, do you think that would be dOable? I mean considering... George Bizek: If this goes through I'm hiring an attorney and Fro. suing ,:he citY because this is.. Sacchet: You don't want it? George Bizek: I do not want it. ':'._.... Sacchct: You don't see any benefit? George Bizek: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. George Bizek: And the water and ice he shows at the bottom of the driveway in the picture that.- he' put up himself just shows you what kind of runoff we've got. It's a large piece of property. It's all sloped.-- The road does net take the water. Our lots take the water. It takes it down. There's a walk path that they'put ~n. Af?.er-:~. he.a,,y rain, across the ravines on thd back .of bis property, you can see water that ti~ose walk'. ,_. ~ .. paths ar~ ,',vet for a week from the water coming :)ut of those ravines. :i mean that's the a~noum of water. .. [tno~,'''' " · odly. c~e~_, it from our property, it gets it from the de'velop~nent behind us. I'm fine w'_'th it.- i don:t.~ . wfln'~any, change: " · -- . ' , ' . · · . " Sacchet:. You made yourself plenty clear, thank'you. ' --. . .. Slagle: Let )ne. if I may. Black0wiak: Mr. Bizek, could we have. i guess .Rich has go': :t questior; for you. ' Slagle: Just one more question. I hear you. I guess what I'm trying to decide is, is the reason you don't want your neighbor to develop, is it because you are going to be asked in essence, or required to change your dri3,eway '~nto a cul-de-sac.? Because that seems to me the only thing from my, use of your cun:ent . . propmty th,.t will change. George. Bizek: I think it will be a detriment to-the value of... : . .~:. s,tlae use of his land in such a way that you believe Siagle: Okay, that's'what l'mlD'ing to get to. So '*' it's de~-rimentat to your's? . '- George Bizek: Absolutely. S~ao, i,-- Okay. Okay. Blackewiak: Thank you. Steve Buan: Hello. I'm Steve Buan at 8740 Flamingo Drive. Been he're one other time doing this since the last ~'ime. If I could have some of those, one of those maps. The large plat map that showed the area. Gener-3us: The grading or? 37 Plannin2 r, · · ~ ,_.onm'uss~on Meeting - November 6, 2001 Steve Buan: No, the larger scope. To put some of this in a little more context to make some-of the co~ruuJssioners members that haven't been around. I was an original buyer in the. Lake Susan Hills West development, right adjacent to Mr. Rossavik's property. You'll notice the large park area back here was originally guided to be developed. That's wher~ we bought our home, there were potential plans for that. The city backed Out 'of those and decided to not intensively develop this part of the park. They just.put a gazebo in there. Made a fiat area and left the rest of it natural. Large prairie area that's, it's a reverted prairie. Planted to convert it frqm agricultural use. Probably grazing. At the time with a lot of large trees in the bluff area right along .this area here, whicb then also the one large ravine cuts right across. these back lot lines here. Another large ravine comes onto my property and down here. In 1993, summer of'93 with all the rains there was a significant rain storm in June of that year. This ravine on this side sounded like Niagara Falls. The water was just pouring out of all these back lots, across this park and coming down into there. They had to come back and put large rip rap boulders in there to protect the ravine from cutting back into the properties back there. I think the parks commission made some correct decisions in not developing this. They decided to leave this a natural park area. It fits in well with the upland park being in this area. And the transition area down to the lowlands of large lots, not density development still allows a connection to the 16wland park over here. To go in and densely develop all these lots across here, you're cutting off natural corridor of transition of wildlife and also views and other natural amenities that go with this park. YOu therefore are then changing amenities for the entire area, city of Chanhassen. Not.i ust people that live adjacen! to that. That's one issue..lust trying to address some of the things that have been brought up here. The delivery issues I believe they can be addressed throughother means. In fact I can't understand why there hasn't been turnarour~ds mandated.for those_ properties on their property, much like in other cities. You go out to Crystal, New Hope, anywhere t~p there, anybody who's got a front a Winnetka Avenue er a major front, they have a T-shaped driveway where they're mandated to have a turnaround so. they don't back down. There is a turnaround at the bot[om so I don't see that to be a problem. And one major problem. I have, even with the de,,-elopment: if it ever got that far, is those houses being so close to Powers Boulevard, right along here, tha~ i feel it's a detriment to the community. There's no precedence for houses being fronted up into residential si~.gle family homes with their back lots being butted up to there. Yes. these houses are along Powers Boulevard but they front on the side street and therefore it just degrades the quality of the residential single fanfily and adjoining areas. It just doesn':t work. Doesn't work at all. Let me.just conclude my remarks with, and I don't know if this got included in the current pacl(age or not but I submitted with'3 of my neighbors a letter to the Planning Commission in "98 and I'm just going to read it here. In response to notice of public hearing regarding request for rezoning and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, we as interested parties submit the following written comments per this notice. The ravine and bluff topography on the western side of this property and adjoining areas of several other properties is pa,.1 of an integrated, interdependent, natural systeTM. This ecosystem contains a complex biodiversity of plants and animals. Numerous species of tr~es, shrubs, and perennial plants of varying age classes from sapling to dead and decaying are present. Tree and shrub species include white pine, red pine, spruce, oaks, maples, cottonwood, ironwood, cedar, sumac and many more. This plant life system supports a wide variety of animal life, including ground nesting birds, earth and tree cavity nesting birds,' numerous song birds, bald eagles, owls, pheasants, wild turkeys, deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and many ~nore. The city parkland immediately adjacent to the southwest is directed to be a natural landscape park. The ravine and bluff system is a vital and important part of this park. Several species of anita, als and birds utilize the prairie grassland area for food and the ravines and bluffs for shelter. To encroach and damage the ravine and bluff complex would din-finish the value of the park to the residents of Chanhassen. The character of this portion of Chanhassen is defined by the dramatic rise in elevation and stand of large, mature trees. The vertical rise from Powers Boulevard to the crest on Flamingo Drive is approximately 100/ket and is unmatched throughout Chanhassen except the bluff area of the Minnesota Ri~,-er valley. Unique f~atures encompassed within the approximately 3 acres of ravine and bluff structure are a 38 Piann'htg Cc;uunission Meeting - November 6, 200i si~,:~ -' *t',re of this area of Chanhassen and should not be obscured ot encroached upon by fuffher development. Therefore we strongly oppose the proposed rezoning and subdivision of this property. Submitted by Steve and Christie Buan, David and Cheryl Doty, Greg and Shireen Kahler, and Jim and Sue Koz~c.::,skl.' And are there any' questions anybody wdght_ have of me. Biackowiak: Thank' you. C°nu-nissioners, any questions'? No. I would ask, I did not get a copy of t~at in the current packet. ' " -' .~, Steve Buan: No, it was in the las..t.one. - '-. -' . Blackowiak: Yeah, if you Would just get a copy to Kate so that could be included in the paCket that goes :o council. Just written comments. It's nice to have copies of everY-thing s° that council knows what we're seeing. Okay, thank you. la,~me D. Lee: My name is Jayme D. Lee. I live at 1380 Oakside Circle. I'm the neighbor t0 the 'south and I want to state m~ opposition. We have a. large lc~ and it butts against other large lotS, which. maxinfize the appeal of 'die large lot. Privacy, seclusion, unobstructed views. It would be an ungraceful intrusion to stick 6 houses in there, into the'lot in the middle and would severely degrade the-appeal of all cf Ihe ~erdering lots. The degraded appeal of my lot would in turn_ I . , ..... ~eve degrade the value of mv lot. Ar:d what recourse would I have to coIlect fair compensation for my lots. Other concerp, s, !he-re are dmSnitely traffic concern: Currently there are 2 residents that are :'igkt turn only. The 2, aud.'~ do from. · 'm-.d .,~. to time se,, them doing a U-turn at the opening itl front of our OaksJde C-ircle and I' m concerned :that il: we h._._,ve mc. re residents there without, with c, nly right turn, right turn, that we're going to have' more - peop!e tm'm:'~g U-turns there and it could present a dangerous s:tuatioq where people are stolmia,_, in' the !eft lane to mm. ~o take a U4t;rn there. Also I'd be concerned about children, the shape of Oar propers, y, ' o g has a ~-oin~,.M corner which ~oes up into that v,,..jy excellent Mid iand that was just talked about. ;Ar, d.i world be concerned of children going up throe to play as they. would want to. Perhaps it would present a liability to me if they would hurt themselves on my property. Would. that mem~ i would have to p. ut up fences on my propen.y? I'd have concerns about that. An,,, questiop,'s? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? No. Thank you very much. Brenda Hi.II: Brenda Hill and I'm at 1360 Oakside Circle, so I'm 2 lots down to the south. And I want. to state my opposition also. The reason that we bought the pla.ce, our homestead that we. bOught is beca. use .of the large lot. Because of the scenery out in back and there's a lot of wildlif, e and stuff like that: Ithink it would bc :letrirnenta! to .our prc, perty as well. Looking o.',a my back window, seeing all those houses;. that's act what it was meant for. Itwas'meant roi- a large lot and that?s why we bought it. I oppose:' .3 · .: Blackowiak: Thank you. Rick Echteinacht: Rick EchteinaCht, 8746 Flamingo Drive. I purchased my home 2 years a-go. It was after the last decision was made that this area would not be developed. I'm up behind the lot being . considered ~,'2~' change and just like the previous individual stated, the ,dew that we have, the wildlife that gces i.hrougi~ our back yard and down I.hrough that area .;s something ti~at we Ic, oked at when we were purchasing this home. And it was kind of o~tr understanding when we purchased the horne that this decision hacl been made previously and I don't see any change basically from xvhat was decided in 1998 a~,d I would oppose this change. Any questions? Blackowiak: I don't think so, thank you. 39 P[:~.n:lit;g Cocmmssion Meeting -November 6, 2001 'Donald Coban: My name is Donald Coban. 1 live at 8821 Sunse! Trail..[ live over the top of rhehill.. I :vas, or we were one of' the first houses in the whole neighborhood. There was a neighbor to us when we built back in '75. 'We have 2 V2 acres and the reason we picked that spot was the large lot. Just big enc;u, gh for wi]at we wanted to do. And as things grew up sound the ,~.rea we became large lots and that wits really great because we could see anything we wanted to ,to. As you can se.e, we've got a pretty good spet up there. 'We've got the park area adjoining us and it looks pretty good, so I agree with.some of the things that the other people have said here. We're going to kind of suffer with the animals.and things that go through our proPerty and we can see out in the park. I just, I don't want the project to go through fo~ the same reasons w~discussed back in years before. Another little comment I'q,e got to make is that the:' co,wunented about 10,000 cars a day. That means you're going t.o see a car through there every 6 seconds. I don't believe that. That's 24 hours a day. It just doest~'t come out right. Any qne~fions? .. Blackowiak: i don't thirtk so. Thank you ve0' much. Arild Rosiny.:<. I'd like t.o make a comment on.. Blackowiak: You know, let's let everyone have a chance then if you'd like to come up again, you know as a pub!ic.hea~ing, that's alright. .. · . 'Virginia Cohen: Nil,' name is Vi'cginia Coban ai~.d Don' di&~'t ask one question ti~e,t I v. octld li~<e tO ask. -. M.t'. i¢.os,.~,/ii,: Ceeps saying that this is fr.;' Iow cc, s~ t~,_,ttsi;xg and I ,vou}d like 'to ask liin~ what l~e intends-ti) ch,:.;'? I:o~' il,ese lots, and if it dov;s fit into the riffordable t~.oui, i~,g guide!iTnes. Bl~tc;:,.~w~al.'.: Okay.. I think we !! have him ar~sv~er theft when hc comes back up. . Virginia (:oban: Okay, thank you. Biaci~c, xtiak: Okay, is there any of ti~e ether neighbors who'd like to .g:-'~r up a~td add anything else'? '. IF' not, Mr. Ros~vik, why don't you come up. Oh, excuse me. Carol Lee: Hi. My na~ne is Carol Lee. My husband spoke a couple minutes ago.. There were a couple' c.f things in the materials that were passed out that in looking over them earlier this evening 1. feel are' in error. There is a letter in the materials that is a 1996 letter from an engineer who states that there is not a wetlands:issue in the area. In 1996 late, and 1997 there werd significant changes n*tade in the roadway on Pewers Boule,,ard.' .4_nd Mr. Bizek told you that there is a runoff issue in the spring, during the rain . storms. In om area ourselves we find that the front'area by the road is. so soggy in the springtime that it's difficult :o mow. So I would submit tl',at that letter dated 1996 is at this peint in time inaccurate, partly becauss of continuing runoff area and because there was the road worked on after that which that.letter does not reflect. In addition on page 5 of the materials that was passed out, there is a recommendation that states that in order to control some of the drainage, that berm should be placed on some of the facing prot:ertics on Powers Road i'm assuming that that would include our place which ~s south of the prc.?er[y and to slate a berm on that material woul0 further be detrimental to the drainage of tl~3.t ,'i.zinity . a!'10 ',ve:Jld als(., be detrimental to our property value. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aar_,cn~on: Would you like us to respond to thai'; Yeah Kate, if you have anything to add right now. 40 Plant:mS Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Lori's the person that does wetlands. It's her opinion there are no wetlands. We would concnr th¢',.'e are drainage issues. We pointed that out. Two separate issue. The drainage issue. The- buffering is required along a collector street. It's part of the lav, dscaping, ordinance, and that was one of the issues raised with those lots is that the lots were deep 'enough to' acconm~odate that. They woulOn't access onto Powers.' That's not allowed but that they have enough screening in the back yard. through the berming. We wouldn't berm on somebOdy else's property, but that they provide a noise barrier, lights; that sort of thing, along Powers.Boulevard.. ' · : . Blackowiak: Okay. - - Santo: Kate, just to add something to that. Miss Lee's concern was that we would tnake her property berm also. No, we obviously won't do that. Blackowiak: Okay', thank you. And Kate, now you're differentiating between wetlands and gullies, which I think this letter did to a certain extent. Aanenson: Con'ect.- And as by state law, as a wetland as classified by state law. Wetland Conservation Act m~d the drainage issue which would have to be worked through if a subdivision was to go forward.,: B!ackowi:;k: Okay. which is not to say t.h. at the~e aren"-t drainage issues but it's technically not defined as' a wetland-is what we're .:;aying. ,' · ...... ' .... Aa~':e_~,son: Correct. - ,. Blackowiak: Okay', great. Is there anyone else before i give Mr. Rossavik a chance to respor:d? :[ guess' to a couple taings. Why don't you step.up to the mic. Oops, sorry. ' · George I~izek: I'd just like to address the issue of the cost of the lots.' When he approached me to give me to develop the lots, he was giving me different figures of what these lots would sell for than the ones that he's applying to the city. ,. Biackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rossavik, why don't you just come up right now and if someone else wants to add something, they're just going to have to come after you. . .. Arild Ressavik: Just to address the issue of why did the city bring down Powers Boulevard in the first place. It was nothing Ii.kc if nothing changes. But the fact is, we have all 212 coming out now stopping at 4 right now. 't'he next.development there is PowerS Boulevard. It's going to be an access road. It's going to be, these figures I have from the city for 10,000 cars a day. They don't come from me. And they can be as early as 5'6 years down the linel So either my neighbors like it or not, it's going to be heavy traffic on that road there. And also this turning around they're talking about, well most traffic will go dowu'and hit 212 and go towards Minneapolis so by turning it won't be a serious issue actually at that point in time. I understand they don't like change.-Talking about the pricing on the property.. What i have in place is actually with the homeownms. They're the people who's helping out people. They put a coo. ple of thousand dollars down of their own pocket money, and they could call their own contract could help from them. They set uP a plan for that so we have about, becoming somebody goes in and appraise the property. }low much it's woah and then they'll give it, they come up with a couple thousand dollars so {hey ca:: build a house there, and they have about 20% in equity the day they move in. That's the goal of my planning there actually. That's the reason they don't need big mortgage payment. Pay-no mortgage insurances. So this is actually the best way I don't have any pricing on this thing because you 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 know [,ricing changes. It is an approach that I will not be involved with. I will provide, if it's being improved, I will, these lots will be available for sale. Not to develop for but for single persons to purchase these lots actually, and would go up and see what the price.is going to be basically based on the b,~st deve!%,ment cost there and whatever actually the market value and point is they will have 20%" equity... Blackowiak: Okay. And Mrs. coban had a question, I'm sorry. What was that question again Mrs. Coban. did vou have a question about? Virg;,nia Coban: ...how much h~'was charging. Blackowiak: Oh; what he was charging so we, okay. Arild Rossavik: Like I said, we have to work...that would determine the price of the lot. Virgin::a Coban: My question was whether it fit in with the guidelines of affordable housing. Arild Rossavik: I don't know what affordable is. This is going to be'single family housing. · Biackow~ak: Alr:,ght Kate. what's affordable housing? i mean it's very m~likelv. Aancn:~on: I B lackc_,wiak.: i. 34. Ariid Ress.~ivik: 134 in Ci~anhassen? Blackowiak: Wcii that's the Met Council guideline for affordable, for a single family house. Whether. Arild Roksavik: It's going to be very tough to get in i can tell you that but i mean it will definitely be. Iow, what normal pricing would be in Chanhassen. Blackowi'ak: Right. That's what I'm saying. You're not going to be subsidizing anybody er anything? Arild Rossavik: No. · Blackowiak: No, okay, Slagle: Madam Chair, may. I ask one question of the applicant? Is this plan that you've proposed the only plan that you would be willing to accept? Arild Rossavik: No. I'~n fle×Jble you know. Single: Let me be more specific, in ttamber of sites. Arild Rossavik: Oh, lots on the property? Single: Yes. 42 _[.' ~ana. no Conunission Meeting - November 6, 200i ri- ' Ar';.Id Rossavik: _ hat s flexible. I mean it's the city loss more than mine because they lose the tax revenue basically and it would just bring the cost up to get a lot actually. Because the. development cost is going to be the same. It's about $150,000 to bring in the cul-de-sac. That's money I have to come up wi*.h And aisc,, after I have come up with all the money, l have to give it to the city as a public street." Slhgle: Okay. Blackowiak: That's it, thank yo,.u. Okay, seeing no one else I am going to close the public hearing. Kate, before I go any further, I knoTM I~.said I'd do something at 9:00. What are your feelings on issues 6 and-7? Aanenson: The applicants are ready. They're here so. B!ackowiak: I know. Aanenson: It's up to you. The by-laws say 10:30 1 believe. Blackowiak: By-laws say 10:30 and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page on that. Alright, well that being said let's yeah, let's move forward with this. Commissioners, we need to make our comn:..enrs on this. Deb, why don't you start. "- Kited: l' ii keep my conu-nents br:,ef. I think long and hard before ! make coinp plan, land use chang¢'s and ~.bis is clearly gui. ded as rcs';.dentiai large lot for the future. I really dop...'t see a compelling reason~ fo, burro a, Crz:ig Peterson' s, my mentor's terminology to change that designation. .' ' Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uii. Conunents? Sacchet: Yeah, couple quick conunents. Obviously this is a bit of contentious situation we have here. i' do want i-o conm~end staff for being sensitive to the natural aspects T¢ topography, tl-,e trees, the slopes' and all that. I appreciate that. It's difficult to untangle certainlY the two lot~, the one to the north and this : one. i do believe it would be, in terms of our te .rminology, sPot zoning .... those lots and it would'n6t blend in. I do feel that the subdivision is not really feasibIe. I don't personally have a problem with the variance request for a private street or the access part. The rezoning sounds fairly okay. Actually rezoning, does not sound alright. It's the land use that Sounds relatively okay.. I do see that there are some problems. In one of the letters that came from the appl. icant, actually both from his lawyer I . believe, it was pointed out that these large lots are ananomaly within an area:of a lot of single family and :o the nortt', even n-tulti-family situation. I do believe th0ttgh that it's become very clear tonight with all the different neighbors .that spoke up~'that it is a cohesive area within that parkland and the large-lots' so that we have to be sensitive to:that. I don't think I can support passing this at this'point. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah ! look at the request for a land use map atnendment and I do have problems with that, as preceding c(:mlnissioners have stated. There's no compelling reason that I can see that we should change the land use, tbr this particulm area. It would change in rny opinion the character of the neighborhood. I can sea in the future if the number of lots might be reduced, that might not be such a problem. I do think that the encroachment into the drainageway, which we're talking about, and I guess I'd encourage staff' for council to maybe do a short drainage 101 course on this particular site because that seems to be an ' iss~e. I believe staff has characterized it as a significant drainageway which should not be encroached upon. And as Uli stated, this does provide a connection point between parklands, large lot does serve a 43 Plam:ing Corn'.mission Meeting - November 6, 2001 puG, ose. here and for us to spot rezone [ think would be a real problem, so I would not support this. believe this development would be premature. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Siagle: i 'have some thoughts as well as a couple of questions for staff if I may. The development to the no.,'th, the townhornesl What was that zoned prior to being moved into? . Aanenson: Lake Susan? Probably all A-2. Or agricultural. A-l, A-2. Slagle: Okay. So just a hypothetical here. If the applicant here today was not this gentleman but the other gentlemm~ on the north lot, my question is what wo~dd we be thin'king? You know. Because we have talked as a group, now I'm addressing the co~mnission. We have talked as a group about the fact that in the future there will be changes. You know as reality sets in, as we're going to hear from another -applicant on some other changes. Go with the times. And as I sit here and think of Powers 'Boulevard, it's going to be a busy road. And the development of tl:e city' is going to start going south.. So we will have a pc,)cket if you will, of large lots that will be at some point in the future surrounded by neighlz<)rhoods that many of you live in. It's obvious}y to the large lot owners that doesn't apply,but to a lot of the neighbors who spoke. So I'm again just !tying to think of tha!: in a !ong term approach s.o I'm. nor going ro stick with, and i- respect the. thou?,ts of we don't wmt to get int'~ changing the zop. ing~' least encc;'araging that. But i do think that We have to be open to that. The question that '[ threw out.-to tl':~: ap.,?iJ,:r,.:-~t of a development that was not quite as packed ir~..['mjust lettii'~g the group knew that if':,t wa:; a dif£erent application I woul:t have at least some more opcsnness ',o it. Uo with all that said, ~ approve it now but l"m also .j:~st throwi~:g out for tl,e ,'esidents here today., at least this person: comnfissioner believes that as time goes on that will.be developed at some point. A~d premature is probably the best word that I can think of right now, Out i'd just e~courage everybody co be talking - because.that will happen at scrne point. 'So with that said, that's enough. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree with my fellow conm~,issionerr, that at this point I th:ink it'is prenmture. I do believe that there is a real relationship, I mean the only way that I would even consider it would be that the two, 8750 and. 8800 came in together. And then at that point in time we could look at. how to best pceserve some of those natural features because by 'going ahead with 8.800 before 8'750, in' - other words before the lot to the north, i think' you're losing some opportunities and losing so:ne of the possible connectivity between the parkland on the west behind the lots, and then the parkland to the east of Powers Boulevard. So ~ think that you. ~. ow if and when these lots do come in, it needs to be together. We need to look at overall how it can work and how we can kind of keep some kind of a trail, or son-to kind o! an open space going through that. But yes, it is premature, i believe it's premature. So i. wo~ld not suppor~ a land use amendment at this po'int in time. With that I would like to have a motion. ]~n fi?ct I need '3 moticms. So jump in. Sacchet: The Planning Cormnission, well let's make it all in one. The Planning Commission recommends. can do it all in one. Blackowiak: Can we take? We don't need to do them separately? 44 Plan,,ting t_. ~n'muss~on Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sa,:,chel: I move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment. from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low.Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks as well as the Plannl. ng Commission recommends denial for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF,- Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. and the: Planning Commission recmmnends denial of the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-t2 ' creating six. lots 'for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zon:,ng requirements. And I would like to comment, to emphasize Conunissioner Slagle's comment that inevitably it will be developed at some point and I hope that at that point our discussion here with :. · this will allow you to bring a'pr0posal in that'g going t° be.,. Blackowiak: Okay. There;s been a rnotion. Is there a second? , _Kind: l'll second tlmt. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission reCommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Iot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks as well as the Planning Comniission recommends denial for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential.for-Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks; due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and th'e Planning Commission recommends. denial ot' the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12-creating gix lots:for the Powers Circle Addition subject ~.o not complying with the land use designation and 'zoning requirements. All voted in ~avor and the ;notion carried unanimously 5 to 0. ' ' . - Bla::!<owiak:. This item goes to C. ity (.ounc0. on November 26~'. 'Fhan-'.c you" ' -' a~, for corning. - K}nd: Mt, dam Chair, can I clarify that with staff? - '-- " .u.,ackewmk.: Sure. Kind: I just want to clarify that that little caveat that Uli added.at the end was not part of the motion." Sacchet:' That was a cormnent. : , ... · Kind: That was a comment that was made before'it was seconded. - A.anenson: Let the record show that. -'- . .. .. . . PUBLIC' HEARING: ' REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO VILLAGES ON THE PONDS TO PERMIT FOUR (4) STORY BUILDINGS WITH A · MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET AND THREE (3) STORIES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET AND AN AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE A FORMULA FQ_R CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ViCE VERSA,' VILI,AGES ON THE PONDS 1, LLC, LOTUS REAL_T_Y SERVICES. .. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Biackowiak: Okay comnfissioners, any questions? Rich? Siagle: I'1! start. 45 Planning CoJnmission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: He raised his hand. Slagle:. I raised my hand on this. Bear with me Bob. ~ want to understand this in lay~nan's terms and' j~ist bear with. me The original plan, let's call it the concept of Village on the Ponds, I' m reading here in 1996 it called for 322 dwelling units. Are we on track for that or is this request that we're seeing today allow, and I'll ask the applicant as well, allowing for a lower goal or is that still on target? Generous: Well actually we Wou!d be able,.potentially be able to get more dwelling units 4,ithin the project because the senior housing counts for less dwelling units. But we're right on, we're at 161 units in this project. There is 162 across the street.so we're right on. target. Slagle: Okay. The question i had on the center, what I think you determined or showed as one. · Generous: Sector I, yes. Slagle: Sector I. Explain that description of how you.see that center? You said pedestrian, was that right? Genero~.,.s: Right. Sbgle: Okay. And we're still proceeding algng that line? Generous: Right. We have, as part of the design standards there's actually a build to requirement. -We. want to crests a public realm so wide sidewalks, 14 to 18 feet with street furniture and places for people to gather. . ~,~e landscaping. Decorative lighting and so we want to try to create a sense of place in lhat ' core, at that inter:;ection. And we anticipate that all four corners will have very similar design elements in them. We have, well on this southwest corner we have the bus shelter and then there will be like the little, courtya[d area adjacent to the building. And then a connection through to the parking behind. ., Slagle: Okay. And prefacing this, and my commissioners know this...not having been part of this .when it first came, I wasn't able to hear a lot of these things. Last question before I continue with the applicant at some point, in our schedule we have a request to amend the PUD for 4 story building. Number 7 on our agenda is to approve a plan for a 4 story building. Are those synonymous? Meaning if 6 doesn't get approved, is 7 going to happen: Generc, us: They would have to either get a variance or reduce the building height. Slagle: So 7 is made on the assumption, as on our agenda item, that 6 is approved? Generous: Correct. .haneI~.son: You're just going to make a recommendation. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Not necessarily because it goes to council. Aanenson: You just need to make your recommendations independent and send them onto the council, but you're right. There is implications. 46 Pla:mir:~ Commission Meeting- November 6, 2001 Slag!e- 6 needs to happen from our group. A recormnendation for '7 to then be recommended, we wouldn't. Blac}~o ~ ....We wouldn't say no to 6 and yes to 7. Slagle: Gotch ya. Okay. Just trying to see... Blackowiak: It wouldn't make sense I guess. It's getting late. We could, who. knows. LuAnn. ..- - . . Sidney: Nothing. .. Piackowiak: Uii, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. Your pulling your trip generation numbers frorn this Trip GeneratiOn 6th Edition Institute of-Transportation Engineers. Is that a generally used accepted authority in the industry.? Generous: Yes. ' Sacchet: lust wanted to confirm that aspect. The answer is ye:.;, to that'? One thing I don't understand is, '- we increased the capacity of these buildings by ! floor, but we don't seem. to increase the m~mber-of trips versus before and after that change. How's that work? Generous: Differen! trip generation rates. ,q. aneoson: Seniors.' Saccher: T!-~.e senior nature of_.. Generous: Yeah. Because of this dementia units have .32 trips per unit. Sacchet: Hopefully they don't drive, right? Generous: Yeah. But they do have people that will visit and also the employees that come in, and so ' those are accommodated in our trip rates. .. Sacchet: '7 i~ey might tb~get where they're driving. .. . Generous: That's why the bus?is there. Sacchet: And a similar question. When you have your total square footage, in.the previous table before the change it 'was 391,000 and noWwe are at 372,000. Similar question. Why are we less when we have more floors? Genewus: Because we converted square footages to residential dwelliltg unils. As -c, aa of the original-' }'Lq) they were, that was a footnote to this table and we just got fid of the t'comote becaase we used it.. 'We put residential in Sector IV and no office in. Additional office in Sector I: but it reduced the total sqoare foetages. _Racche.'.: Alright. And also you checked your math in the table against. 47 Ptmming Cormnission Meeting -November 6, 2001 Aa2enson: Somebodv did. Sacchet: Somebody did. That's ,.ny qilestion. Blat aow,,tk. Deb, ),es. Kind: I foxed a chart. Let's just say that. Sidney: Oh Madam Chair. I do'have a ~uestion. '.. Biackowiak: No, go ahead. Kind: W~m't me to keep going ;:ts long as I'm speaking? Okay. I've got to chew my little hot'tart hem: Okay, sorry. The old standards allowed 50 feet in Sector I. The new standards allow 50 feet. in Sector I. So it's really the definition of story that is being changed. Just'want to make sure I'm track/ng'here. A!so, in our eld standards it stated tha~ retail and office buildings, let's se:e. Oh it didn't state, it doesn't' say anything about office on the first floor. In our old ordinance. That's a new thing? I'm sorry, I'm - confusingmyself and I' tn probably confusing everybexty else. This is on page 4 of the desigTt standards vcherc, it talks aboUt building i.,~eight. (;encee;us:: 5"es it v/as. '. Kind: And i tl-,ought the :anguage about first floor, retail m'fic,~. buildir, gs '~'tti~O,.tt ;.'esi,tier,ce,; abo:,,5 " shoul:i be li:~Jted to '2 stories but that's the o,~lv mention of retail and office on the first ftc)or. The new- -- one talks about, in Sector I we want to have residential with street level commercial or office in Sector t' i'~' we're going to allow tNs 4 story thing. So ihat's new. Gel!, I didn't even t~o'~ice that until just,now. Sc,wy abou~ that guys. . ': Aanenson. ' 'l .. I ]at ~; to make sure we get the cotmnercial on the: first ,qoc¢ which was the intent. Kind: And when ! read that I take that to mean that the entire first floor should be retail, or commercial office. Blackowiak: Should be. Kind: Shoaid be? Could bee Poaion of'it?" Aar~er~son: Substantia Kind: YeaIL What's staffs feeling on that? What was your intent by this language? Generous: 'Well, not that we require: the entirs first floor to be. The Presbyte~'ian Homes is an example. 'We negotiate that on each one. ! don't know. we could come up with the criteria. : Aalmn~',c,n: ;. !hinK we si~ouid pu! something in there. Ki::d: i- do too. Should it be a percentage or'? Aanenson: As soon as we put a number, we're not going to hit it so [ don't know. 48 Planning Con,mission Meeting -November 6, 2001 Ki':.~.d: Okay. - Aanenson: ...something we can get fi'om the attorveys to put something in. Kind: 1 m.,...k that's Jt for staff. Yes, that's. Oh! Would you speak to how, 'if we shift commercial to residential, or residential to commercial, how does that affect our tax base? Generous: Well that's a big assumption. I doubt you'd go from commercial to residential. Siagle: Wait, that's not what you asked, right?. - Kind: ! said either way. . Slagle: Yeah, what's it do? Kind: What does it do to out' taxes'? Generous: Well apartment units pay mor.e,,or~they're based on the ¢.ommercial rate. They pay 2% I btu ieYe. Kind: Sc it's a wash'? Gcncrcus: Pm'ei:ty much. You do have a iow higher valuation for cbmn:etc:~a! but then you have-lo',a, er · story builflil~gs, so. . Aanm?svn: You can. get more der, sitv so. ' " Kind: h~teresting. Okay. That's it for my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well I had a question about what's driving this whole discussion about the trip generation rates and :;quare footage. And then talking about the total square footage for Sector I. And it seems to me that being able to not, well that's not a good way to state it but, to not have to do another EAW is a driving force for this. . . Aanenson: Well I think there was also a'commitment that we would stay within certain parameters.- .,_..rta~n design parameters for that. kind of our guiding principles and certainly there was a commitment level on the traffic. We've heard time and time again from the residents so we certainly don't want to exceed the traffic level. That's not our intent. What Our intent is to go back and examine as the uses have filled in and we have more kn°wn's...certain other things that are driving that but we want to be able to provide as we move along some of that flexibility as these come in. So we don't want it to exceed the ultis~..ate approved trip generations. That's not what we're trying to do. Sidney: And then based on the numbm-s that you 'ha'~e h~re, you're able to meet that? Aanenson: k_.OiTeC[. Xidnev. Right. o- 49 Plato:lng Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: That's the bottom line. Sidney: Right. Slagle: If 1 can ask. Is there a, on staff' s part, is t'here a desire or an expectation that can be stated that it will not exceed those? Aanenson'. Yep, that's fine. I think what you're saying is maybe there'd be an intent statement through this intended through this PUD amendment that the intent is, and just as I stated before, put something in like that? Is that what you' re looking for? Slagle: ! need to think how do !. say this? Again, in my short term here, this project has had more changes and updates than any project I've seen. Now albeit that'.s a very short window, so what I'guess I'm asking is, is there some ultimate goal that we have for this development that is in essence, I don'.t want to say concrete but I mean it is sort of there. And everybody now understands what the playing field is as times change. I keep hearing as times change. We hax, e this ultimate traffic trip generation goal. Am I going to hear 6 months from now that that now needs to change because of XYZ? And I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just trying to get an idea of what's happening here. Aanenson: We certainly don't want that to happen. This has been a long term project. It's pretty-cutting edge when we put this. Not a lot of people doing this at the time. So based on the knowledge we had at the time, and the expectations, we put together design standards..As this has evolved, and we' ye recognized some things that we needed more strength on. and just for example the ambiguity of saying . you can go 50 feet but you can only be 4 stories. 3 stories. We're recognizing some of that. I can't predict what, you know we know some of the other things that are coming in. I think you'll all be .' plea.sed with that. There's going to be use that we had~'t anticipated but we're not trying to do that. Slagle: Sure, and that I appreciate. I'II just throw one thought :)ut for just toss around.. We have a lin-fited space. We have some interesting roadways. We've heard descriptions of what traffic does and doesn't do, okay. I mean I'm just thinking as just plain Rich Slagle from Chanhassen, that area can only handle so much traffic. I don't know what that number is. I'm assuming it's this trip generation figure that we've come up with, so I guess I'm just asking staff that, is there one area that we're sort of going to put that cap on and make, I don't, make's the wrong word. Encourage the developer and others to work within that, leaving that alone. Aanenso~: Correct. Since this was approved, we're still at that number. That number has not changed. ' But what we've done is say within that. mix, as long as you don't exceed that nmnber, we're allowing cer'~ain mixes to occur. [f you have more assisted living, then maybe you can bump it up here but we don't want to exceed that overall. Slagle: Okay. Cool. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate I just, maybe it's Bob. Can you walk me through a little bit on these allocation, the reallocation conversions? How are you getting these numbers? I mean assuming the new ones are correct, and you know 1 don't even care. You're getting these based on traffic? Generous: Yes_ I tried to equate everything to trip generation rates, and then there's ratios that you can develop between different uses. And so if you divide the trip generations for apartments by retail you get a factor. And so that's what we used to, and then you have to bring it to a common denominator. If you're going from residential to conm~ercial, then you have to go from unit to square footage. And so I 50 Pianning Com[nission Meeting - November 6, 2001 di.d al! tile malh on a spread sheet to come up with those numbers and .then we rounded it to the nearest 10 to make it easier tbr everybody. · ' ' ~ They Aanenson: .),nd that goes direclly to me heart ofR.Jch ~ question, wanted to ci:ange and we said - we're not going to change ii' we .U~ow we're going to increase traffic so we had to co;ne up wJlh a methodology to back fill our Position that does thJ. s Support that, and that's exactly what this Chart does. That's why we support that. : Slag!e: And I only say this in je:;st' but is that the Same Source as the Culver's numbers? . . Aanenson: That was supplied by, they supplied that number. Siagle: There was confusJ, on on those numbers. .o Aanenson: They supplied those numbers. This was our methodology based on standard applied trip generation. To give you some ~ationale basis to make the decision to-swap within. · . , Blackowiak: Okay. So then. I mean just for example 1 residential apartment unit equals 2 elderly independent units. That came from a book? -. . · Generot!s; No. .Bl-~ckowi:dc Where'd thal come fi'om': Generous: Tl',.ey show a trip generation. A.a apartment unit has so many trips that it genera~es. _E'~deriy housing has so many trips. "' Biacko-~;.ak: Haft as many basically. Generous: Yes, r.'.er unit. Blackow.i. ak: Okay. Generous: And so I did all those ratios for all the uses to come up with this conversion.chart. Siagie: Congratulations first of all. I mean good.job of putting this tOgether. -. .. . Generous: And again it Was b,~ck to, we wanted a rational basis t¢ do that. Kind: And I checked his math. Aanenson'. We were audited. B!ackewia!,:.: Somebody had to do it, rigl:t? Kind: It worked. It worked, he was right. Blackov.'iak: Well my second questiol~, is dWelling Units. I wrote down 322. I'm seeing that a couple :!iffere}~t places, and then I thought I saw another place. Where did I write down 433? Where didthat number come from? Was that in this one or was that in the next? It could have been in the next. 51 Plannin[~ ~_.,c,h_mlss~on Meeting- November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Original PUD. Blackowiak: N~;. ~,. wasi,,'l originsl. It se, ems like we're getting mo~e d'~:.e,~ing ti:lit..-; and I'm wondering · ~,'he:.'e t'he_v're coming fi'om. Generous: ~,¥el| there ia a potential if they converted because the residential they're proposing doesn't. use all their allocations. There'5 like an additional 90 units or 80. I don't remember the number right ~.OW. Blac:ko,,,-iak: ()kay, ~naybe that's where it's c. oming from. Explain that to me. Help me out with that. (.,k~,y. We slaxed with 322 dwe~iing units for the proiect. Generous: Because they're converting some of those apartment units to elderly housing and assisted . housin,g, they're not using as many. - Blackowi::k: So you can't sa,, you've got moo,: units. You have fewa:,'.' ~rip units or i'don't l<t:ow hc;..,,.v you'd ;v::mt .:o i-'u,: ~i~at. But it has to do with driving. Genero',ts: Y-es. Blackowiak: The-~,,'hole thing, it's traffic. Generous: Traffic is there. Blackowi. ak: It starts specific units. Okay. So then I guess-my question is, if you're talking about,, tell B'.,.Ct abou~ ~ i- 00 , V~llla~ . ~ a ~ . , , ,h,~., ,~nits. , , are ¥ot,'. talking about this extra 90? % h~re anal netting this number? (_ienerot~s: ¥4eii that, if.).ou do the math just on the'residential, they're providing, what Js it? '.7 l. Nc), 20 dementia unit:; which are 3 to I. ratios st: tha't's 7 antis instead of 21 so you picked up 14. . . Blackowiak: Picked up'? Generou:;: Well you haven't ttsed 14 units for trip generations. No, it's more trips. Slag}e: ',.Ve r~eed a c~ty acccuntam here. Blackowiai<: 'This is just, sorry. I'm sony but I just, I had a real problem with this whole. r'.i, ...n,.too.~. ....... ~;[ .... nece is total number of units. Yes, you can get more but the senior housing would count less against those units. If that explains it. So you're still at the, trips that you generate with 322 units, if you ~,,t,.d the to!al units developed, they d be the same. Theoretically. 52 E'lanni ag Co~mnission Meeting- November 6, 2001 Siagle: Vernelle, do you have more answers? Blackowiak: Don't e~,en go there Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: I'll wait. Blackowiak: Okay so, I'm just ~ondering if we're going to get more units or if it's, how many units are . . we going to have? '"... -. . . Aanenson: You possibly cOuld get more units. B!ackowiak: Do we want more units'? Aanenson: Yes, that's a question you have to. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what I mean.,. Okay.-Well. I'm not going to go there right now. Does anybody have any more questions for staff?. We'd better move on here. Alright if not, would the applicant or the designee like 1o make a presentation? Name and address please. Vemelle. -. . . :- : ' Veme!le Clayton: Vernelle Clayton at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I would rather, I'm comfortable with:his.: We're. comfor?able with everything that's been suggested to be approved. We don't have any questions." and I would rather just answer your questions rather thaa speak to this. Because I'd like to have a chance fez thes.r, gu;-'s to get on. So if yot:'ve got any questions/.'1! hang around. ['1l .,;,it down if yon-don't-. , .. . Bla~.k-',.~w~,,k. Okay comnfissioners, questions for. Uli. Sacchet: ! have one question Vernelle. In what's being proposed here for us to rec, mm, md-apprOval fi>r, it. says in Sector I, 4 stories residential with street level commercial and actually before it was 50. feet,. Retail office buildings without residences above shall be limited to 3 stories, 40 feet. However what you're actually planning to do, according to the next thing which we hopefully still get to talk about; you' have 4 stories that is all residential, and you have 3 story where the first floor is partially commercial, is that con'ect? . Clenerous: Yes. - ....... .Sacchet: Is there a reason why, are you 'asking for more flexibility there or why this discrepancy between. what you're actually' doing and what? -' Vernelie Clayton: We a~tually were more specific in our request initially to focus just on this project. I think staff thought it would be better to have a more general standard. Aanenson: Can we answer that question? Sacchct: · Aanenson: There wasn't street frontage. Our intent was street frontage. That building that's forward doesn't bare street frontage. Generous: The internal street. 53 Planning Connnission Meeting - November 6,2001 Aanenson: Internal street frontage. Generous: It has I01. Aanenson: The'part tt5at we're talking about is frontage here. These buildings...that frontage. Kind: On 101 it does. ., Aanenson: Right, but that's not the access to the street. Where we're trying to get the retail part. Where you' ve got the pedestrian. Generous: Where you' re parking right in front. Vernelle Clay'ton: Our main concern is this corner. Aanenson: Maybe it needs to be clarified in the.amendment specifically. The streets. Lake Drive. Sacchet: I think it's...when we go to get specifics of the proposal. I just wondered whether there was something I'm overlooking and you answered it, thanks. B!acko',viak: This item is open for a public hearing.-So if anybody wouid like to speak to the. Planning Commission, come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no. c,r~e i' ii. close ih:; public hearing. Commissioner;;, comments on this. .. Slagle: I'll'stare l'mjust son of confused. I mean truly, and I guess what i'm, and I'll own some of this that t just need to get more in depth the history of this development. And we'll have coffee sometime.. Because I'm still not clear on exactly what is intended other'than I understand the s'~ories has chap_ged. You know stories as in buildings. So I understand that but truly, I mean and based upon some of the questions I'm hearing, and I'm just asking this out loud. Do we as a commission have a pretty good understanding of what's happening with this deyelopment? And if the answer is yes, then I have a lot of work to do. But I guess I'm just wondering, it just seems that we're rai'sing questions and they're legitimate questions, and I almost. Here's my fear and this is where I'll end this. Is [ have a fear that. we're now being asked to approve this, in what I think a rather short Order, and then coming along in · possibly 10 minutes is to approve what I'll call a fairly major development in this city. And I think I'm getting by the pace of what's happened in the last half hour, they want this approved tonight. And I'm just tt~owing out as a concern to my fellow commiSsioners, is everybody okay with what's happening here and thc pace? And if the answer is yes', then we'll proceed but just throwing that out. Okay. 'You don't have any answer it now. I'm just throwing it out for consideration. Sacchet: Should we make comment to this? Slagie: You don't have to. Blac,t:owiak: This is comlnent time. Satchel: I would like to nmke a comment to this because.I think it will be overstatement for me to say that I under'.;tand the whole framework of this, but what I do understand that there's some flexibility needed and fi'om the memo that was passed out tonight, I also understand that the City Council support's that flexibility to be put into this framework. I do think. 54 Plm;::ing Comrmssion Meeting- November 6, 2001 Siagle: If I can interject. Sacchet: Yes. Slagk:: I believe 2 of ti~e council members were not present. Sacchet: Correct. I do believ~ that, I personally am comfortable with this framework. I don't think needs much deliberation. It Cer(a!nly doeSn't mean that I.expect everybody to feel the same. . . T_) 1., ~'- .;, o~acKow,ak. LuAnn, what about, do 2/ou have any your comments? Sidney: Yeah ! think, you know we're faced with the situation where this area is developing slowly ' I - think Kate has stated that already. And we are going to see changes. We're going to have'applications come in that are very attractive and in this case we have one that's going to be presented to us ho. pefully tonight for development and it seems reasonable, a reasonable use for the land. And stepping back and looking at the intent of the PUD, I believe it still fits the standards and we' ve had to make a few c. hanges here. A lot of math that we generated to make sure that we're still within the limitations of the trip - ' generation. Then we're talking about adding another story, which I don't think is a significant, these are, insignificant changes so the spirit and the intent of the PUD is still there and we're saying thru ,~.-e ha:to a · ,,cry attractive development that's being'proposed. That we'd like to make sure that we incor?rate so i-. don't have any problem. .' ' : ' g.,lac,~.ow~,.x.,, Okay, Deb. ..~ tus is still 50 feet. Whether we Call ~; 3 sr0ry Kind: ! agree with LuAnn. We allowed 50 feet before. ,v - · :.,.r 4 story, it re. ally doesn't make any difference to me. 1 would like to see some language: put'in' regarding what we expect for a~,~et level cormnercial/office. Whether we keep it flexible and sa-', a 'portion of the first level needs to be retail office c,r do we waut to put 25% of that needs to be at least' -25%? Blackow~ak: Or a ma~iorityV 51%. I mean. Kind: Whatever. S:~cchet: Then on the issue, considering that it's going to.be: sPecified in the plans we get to see. . . Kind: 'l'he plans that we.are going to see currently have about 25% as retaiVoffice cn the street level frontage,. 29%? Okay. Vemelle Clayton: I would appreciate it if you could leave it up to the, you're going to see the plan tonight.. . whlr'~ ...,h at this point is anticipated to have the least amount of retail on the street. I really don't want to open the door to having less than what we really what for the rest so if you accept 25% here, - v...hi.::h reailv' kind of works for a number of reasons, including the drop., m~-c,, I don't want to have ~o fight tl'~e hattie with every applicant that comes in for another building to see if they have a standard where they only have to be 25% on the street. Kind: Wc could for instance say a majority needs to be a retail office and then make it an eXception for the one that we're about to see because of the memory care units need to be on the first floor or whatever ::l'ie reasoll is. 55 ?].51Illli[i~ C.c, mmission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: 1 think that'd be fine. Just one other point. We did talk to some of the neighbors. This is one that is.. ,it could be the 4 stories. They are concerned about views, They'd. like to see the top of the steeule. I think 'we meed...:Jo if we're going to be a Iii'de tnore specific, ~ thiak it'd. be nice 'if we left th'-~t one. The ;':eight !i.mdtation on that building that is; ' ~s~ right next ~o ~he ::esidences. I know Vernelle . stated that she doesn't want it but I think it's better if we put in the amendment, as long as we're a.n~:nding it, that that be limited. Vernel!e C}ayton:! don't have a problem with your limiting the height here. ! just didn't want to have ' . eve:'~ybody come.., and say on these buildings they oniy have to have 25%. .e~ar~.~'hson: Correct. I raised that too. ~' agree. Kind: Right, right. But we want to put something in there about it. Aanenson: Well one approach we talked about is it had direcz frontage onto, name: the ,specific streei'. Thai would alleviate this particular. Kind: Oh, wkh pedestrian sidew?,lk frontage. Correct. Those would fit, yeah, in:emai streets. Kfl:d: l-t:.ts what pe:'cent a majority ofcommerciai,'retai! o~ ':he. first iloo:'9 C~r con~mercial/ofli0c, ~' sorry. .,,'~ta,qe',._. . [,et me throw something out ti~ere. And Vem¢:ik~, I k,:ow exactly w?,at you're a. sNng for that flexibility but mv question is, is let's just say 'this paixicular applicant that ,vt-~ II see next has o very' legi:imate reasen not to have much, that would make sense for whatever re. ascr',. At so, ne poipl' as the · develol:,ment continues, those requirements are going to.have to be in place because, or otherwise you.' 11 end up with the last 2 applicants being told that their develop~nent has to be 100% just to make that, whatever figure it is. .. Ven~eii~ Clayton: That's my point. We don'~ want you to... S!agle: Oh just this one? ~ erhe~=e Ciaytor:: Right. Aanenson: Right. Slaglc: Okay. Kind: Suggestions. Sacchet: X. ean, he~'e's a suggestion. Could we make this aspect of this coi.-rn'nercl, a! reql~ire.. [bat they have specific area rather than the whole Sector I? Wottld that work? Bl¢;cl~o,.viak: Yeah [ was ~w)ndering if we could just do, is it Outlot F'? Is that xvh. at it's call,ed'? Gene,"ous: Yes, or Lot 1, Block 1, 7th Addition. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Vemelie Clayton: This one is currently Outlot F. To be repiatted. Sacchet: So if we make this pm~t applicable just to ret~r to Outlot F, would that'accomanodate your concern": Aanenson: 29%. The remaining shall be, and then whatever number you put in there. Blackowiak: A majority. !... Kind: Ama. iori_ty. Biackowiak: Which can be from 51 to 100 percent. I mean and that allows some flexibility. Kind: Okay, was I still cmnmenting? I think we should also add in an intent statement to, I'm calling-it the. footnote but it's really the paragraph below the sector tot-aIs under number 5 where it talks about the building square footages may be reallocated between sectors inbetween uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, and we probably should put some intent in there. With the intent to not increase tr~.:ffic i~.~ the development so that our Planning Director knows what the intent is. Somethingiike that. That'.~; it.. Black,)wiaik.' My comments. This is.just a very ctenfushtg thing. [ understand the height thing... 50 fee'~ 5() feet. ' 3 ;:.r 4 Stories, I don't have a problem with that. ~t understand the idea of keeping tiaffic to a - certair, level. The extra numbers really ki.,3d of threw me for a while. Signage, [ do not feel, that we. should thai:ge any signage requirements. 20 feet is plenty and ,[ think that that needs to just stay And I thiak that we need to also consider, I don't know if we ~,ant to'do this on specifically cn this outlor or ~: :, c-:,u[d we Consider this as height changes on this outlot only? :Or do we say .ha.. i~eight:cha~aes are okay in: Sector I except on, hew dc,. we achieve-that? _ ' Aanenson: Except for that one lot? Blackowiak: Excer, t for that one lot. Is it.just that one l°t or are there other lots? Aanenson: I would just, if we could say except for... Adjacent to Great Plains, lot. · Generous: At Pond Pro~nenade. -- -. .. _ Aa'..~enscn: ~e-n, we should call that out. The neighborhood. giackowiak: Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying'to say. 'We need to either say you know, it can only be on Outlot F or it can be everywhere except for this other °utlot and I don't, or the separate lot.and I'm not sure wha, that is. BottoTM line is it' s, overall I understand the height thing. The numbers, I could b~ave a week a~2d probably not get these all figured out but. Siagle: Let ~,ne ask, are we in danger, i shouldn't say danger,_ but is there any concern that if we approve this for the height and we just get some more clarification time-to allow whether it's through mee.tings 'or 'you guys providing more information. There's no concern. Is t,hat okay to do? i mean there's no danger ir,..that path, right? Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Well let's just move on here. I think are we ready for a motion? Are we close? 57 Pl2:nning ,,ommlssJon Meeting November 6, 2001 Sacchet: I'm ready for a motion. Kind: Go Uli. Sacchet: Okay. 'I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending section d. as. follows, and 1 through 5 that is~:,, With let's see there's a couple fixes. The height, actually'it's the number of stories aspect. The he!ght really don't change but the number of stories for the building on the nor~.heast co~ner. Staying with the old framework, meaning the 3 and 2 story. And with statement on the numbe.,' 5 identifying that the intent is not to increase the total traffic loads. Deb, can you help me splice in that percemage of connnercial please? - Kind: Yeah. I'll second that and I'll make a friendly amendment that the parens of number 3. You're suggesting that number 3 be as stated in the staff report right now? · . Sacchet: Yeah. with the addition of excepting the multiple stories of the northeast lot. Or building. Blackowiak: On Promenade and Great Plains. Sacch.:-,'i': Right. That that would stay with the 3 and '2 rather than go to the 4 and 3 stories. ; Kind:. t_Jkas. So we could, I'm ~rying to figur~ out where I woald add this sentence. Here's my .s,Jggestion first for a condition. And maybe it's even totally a separate condition, f don't know. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must hage commercial/office on the majority of the street.. -frontage. ' ' ' Let's ,'~accnet: make tha~ a separate. Blackowiak: Cmmnercial, office or retail? Kind: What did. I put? Blackowiak: Commercial/office. Kind: Co~,-p, merciai/office. Isn't retail commercial? ac~.he~. ~:es it is. Blackowiak: i thought we had. Okay we have commercial/retail or office/service. I guess maybe. Kind: Maybe commercial/office or retail. On the majority of .the street frontage. And just have that be a separate condition? Sacchet: Yeah, I would recommend that. Kind: Maybe that makes life easier. Sacchet: So that would be number 6. Unless you want to splice it into. That's clear. 58 i:iar.,niug f".ommission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: 'Yeah. Put it in there wherever it makes se~.se. Aanenson: And did you want an intent statement in your motion. Kind: Ar:d the inte.~t, UIi did add the intent staten'tent. That was in his-inotion. Okay. Blackowiak: Uli, do you accept that amendment?. Sacci~et: Yes, I do accept it. ' :.... '-. :Satchel moved, Kind secOnded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the.. am:.mdmen~, to the Planned [Init Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending, -'~ -' section (d) as follows: ~ -'- d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height'. ' The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual-lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent. - - 2. More than one (i) pri.ncipal structdre may be placed ,-m one (l) platted iol. The maximum building height shall bc~ Sector i - four stories (residential with street level 'commercial or office) 50 feel (retail and office bmldings without residences above shall be limit.ad t_o three stories) 40 feet, except for flJe lot on the northeast corner of Promenade Pond -.a:~d Great Plains Boulevard shall be limited to three stories and two stories respectively;, . Sac:mr 1I - three stories/40 feet; Sector 1ii - ~hree stories/40 feet; and Sector IV- four stories/50. feet. BuiJding height linfitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, ap.d other architectural and r°of accents. o Sector I Sector II Sector Iii Sector IV TOTA I_. The maximmn building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g. pedestrian passageways, except- 'for the church and residential only buildings. ' - The following table shall govern the amount ef building area 'fOr the different uses: Com_mercia~ Office/Service .h~stitOtional Dwelling Total Square Retail (sq..ft.) · (sq~ ft.) ' (sq. ft.) Units - Feet i14,500 -' 83,500 0 160 - 198.000 .- 60,000' ' 14,000 0 0 74,000 0 0 i00,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 162 0 174,500 97,500 100,000 322 372,000- *lnclt:d<-:s 47,200 square foot. i.06 unit m__otel. . Building ~uare f0otages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the P!ar:ning DJ}actor, with the intent not to increase the total traffic loads. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses. I Residen.tial apartment unit = 0.32 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) unit. 59 Pianning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 I Residentizi apartment unit = 0.52 elderly (independent) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square 'feet of retail. I R~;sidential apartment milt ~- 440 squme feet of institutional. 600 square feet of office/service = t residential apartmenl unit. 4,110 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of.retail. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 160 square feet of retail = 1 residential apartment unit. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000;.square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1.000 square feet Of institutional. instance shall more than 27.000 square feet of additional institutional building s'q,oare footage be reailocated without an amendment to the PUD. 6. BaiM~ngs adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority Of thc street frontage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unammously 5 te 0. - -'. B!.a':.kow:a,~: I ms goes to City t_ ouncii Nove:nbe. r '~ '~' Bt?.ckowia!..: '-" "' ,,_;t<.a;,. Do ,ye need agre,:rne, nt to go be.yo,~d 10: 30? Aanensc'n: Sure, if you-want to. Biackowiak: i mean [ don't know. I'~',tjust as.".-2ng. ',"m not sure. Yr:u decide if you wan[. 'Should we stay tili l:OO? Do you w:-mt to set a time limit or til we fall asleep? Okay, let's lust move on!hen.. PUBLIC HEARING: , REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS ". CONSISTING OF A FOUR-STORY, 90 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS AND A THREE STORY, 73 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, A-.TOTAL BUILDING AREA OF 254,100 SOUARE _FEET INCLUDING UNI;}ERGROUND PARKING AND APPROXIMA_.TELY 9,000 SOUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA ON A 5,11. ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMENT (P~ LOCATED_AT .THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND MAiN STREET, VILI.,AGES ON THE PONDS SENIOR LIVING ,_.AMPUS~ SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS. · , Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions o,~' staff? Rich, why don't yo,.~ start. SI.:~510: ir.qob, just a couple..Ks ! look. at the plat if 'you wi!i of this deve~iopn'.~ent, and seei,~g, where the5, are going-and seeing that it calls for commercial space, albeit not as much as originally intended. Where would the parldug be for ',:hose commercial users? Could vou help me out? Right smack ir, the middle of it"? 60 Planning Con.mission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Gev,_e:'ot:s: And out in front. We have short term. There is, probably for the tenant owners theyke going to have underground parking that they'd be able to access so they leave the SUlface parking available for customers that come in- Slagle: So if 1 can ask, and ! apologize if I_should ka~ow this but irJside, what I'll cai! the interior of these buildings, how man)' parking spots are in there'? Generous: Oh, I'd have to count them. It's on the site plan. -. ; $1agle: Just rough. Vera¢:lle.Clayton: 83. Slagle: 83? Okay. And then the commercial would be basically, if I'm looking at this, so Ilke the. southeastern and the eastern and northeastern part of it. - '. Generous: It'd be the entire frontage. Slagie: Okay. And then how many parking spots do you see to ~l~e southeast and i guess east? I mdan is the:'e ~ nmnber? " ' ' Generous: Southeast?' Slaglc: Well, I'm twing to fig~rre if 101, so this seoond b,il~!ing sort of facing St. H0be~.'s.-Or~ the street, t5-20, 25, somethJng to that effect? '. Genero:;s: Yeah, around that. On one side...so about 30 on b~>th sides. Siagie: In a sense, fai~ parking. Vemelle Clayton: Not an excessive amount. Sl~gle: But fair. Okay. · Bl.nckowiak: Okay, is that it? LuAnn? ... eah Bob, excuse me.. I guess One thing I was noti¢ingand it was not highlighted at all, or- Sidney: v. di:.:cvssed that I could tell is the underground parking numbers. Did you, do you have that, is it in here? Generous: They do provide it, I calculated the numbers. They actually exceed what our parking requirements would be. The breakdown. Sidney: I guess that that could be. Generous: They have a total of .20'7. 83 are or~. grade. '72 are m~dcrground in Building i and 52 iii Building II. a,dney: Yeah, that might be useful to have that in the staff reporL 61 Ptar,'0. ing Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 S;~.cci~et: i have 2 questions. I actually had 3 but I was able to count, there were certain vinyl colors even though 3 pretty much look the same, or 4. Now the thing with the windows, the window types. That seems a little open ended...little bit more. Generous: Well we were looking at planter boxes; in it. Some shutters. Ivlaybe some round tops or half rounds on top. Sacchet: Accent type things? ., Geaerous: Yeah. A lot of windoTM accents. We wanted 1~o really give them. flexibility. Sacchet: It's just a suggestion and they can. Generous: Yeah, they work with us. Sncchet: Not really specific. And then my second question, it says here there are 2 urban wetlands. I can only see 1 really there...said in the report there was 2. oenerot~s: _ !~ere s 1 wetland up in the northwest comer of the ·site. ~,\nd then another one in the southwest corner. ::~at s wetland tot)? Generous:' JS_':i~.ht. That's a wetland on the end. Sacc'l'~et: And so that was my actual question is by m.'.~ving that pond from ~he, what's ff, at'northw,,:st ;:exc ':o the wetland, we actually move to this small, er wetland which 'is actually nice. .. -. Generous: Yeah, it opens up the southern exposure into St. Hubert's so it wii! improve that. Sacchet: ...okay. That's my questions. Thanks. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: The roof type, this might be an applicant question but' maybe you know. The roof shingle type, is ,"ha~. an arci:ite::tural shingle or is it flat? Can you tell which I prefer? - .. Geae. rous: Yeah, that's an applicant· Kind: I'll ask the applicant that. As to what it looks like. The vine recommendation for the garage level is basically to break up the Wall, because it's still going to be brick. It's basically just to kind of break it up, because it could be a pretty tall wall. tn~. buildin~ too. There's a patio area above so thai- will (;eneroc. s: The. y created on the south end of help. Kind- That looks really cool. Gene. tous: Yeah, to soften that edge. 62 Piaani,';g Comrnission Meeting -- Novernber 6, 2001 ' Kind: My concern is that we're not going to be having this rock face block on the base, like we do in the apartments across the street. - Gc:nemus: Right. And we're working on those. Kind: You:re already working on thal, good to heart' The palette that was passed around, 1 agree. I - would iike to see more boldness in the colors. I' m getting into commenting here but does staff feel it would be okay to achieve that bOldness if necessary with. EFIS or stucco kind of material? Because this is kind cf in the accent area of t~e building. '. ; . . Gen:rous: Well I think that's an acceptable alternative. Actually when we'loOked at the elevation initially we: th,ought it was a stucco finish because. Kind: I thought it was too by the drawing, the renderings looked like stucco. Okay, I was just curious if we thought it would be an acceptable way to achieve-that. Okay. Plantings~ Oh: meters and utility boxes .are net shown on these plans, as far as I can see. Did you talk about that at all? Generous: No. The applicant, their architect could probal~ly. Kind: Mostly what I'm interested i~ is how they weu!d be screened. 'I'Ve sidewalk that suggesting in ti',c conditions, yo~.t're suggesting,, co'aid you point that out where you're o,'ug,oesung,' " -.that. that goes again. Generous: ~'~i~:n!tv one of them would be coime-cti.,m from here ou: to I eke D~ ,~. And the othe.r, one · -'* -~-~, .I~ .~ --- wc:~,;Id cc.n,~ect actually both buildings out to main sireet. - . '" '. '. _ · Ki~;d: So ther,:~ is a sidewalk there already though? .- : Generous: Yeah. but you don't have this connection to get people'across. So we'd have to have head ramps here and here, and one there and there. And so someone could acruai!y do a loop within there if they wanted to. - Kind: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Slagle: So you could, if I can ask, are you continuing that sidewalk on the first building down to the. ' '.,o~.,th? Generous: Yes, that.wOUld come here and then come. across at the top of the ramp down into the parking Kind: The Building II, how do you propose to get people out to that roundabout? Generous: They would have a connection tight I~ere. Plus there's this Pass tbrough right in the comer to' get people .z.~t to that intersection. · Kind: Okay. - r,~ackow~:..k: Actually [ think ~nost of my questions were answered, except getting back to the whole: sidewalk thiag. Is there currently a sidewalk on the south side of Lake Drive? 63 Plam'Jng Comp. fission Meeting - November 6, 2001 - :_.~..n...~:' .~,.o,~.._~, I don't, believe se, no. Blackowiak: Okay, because I didn't, I don't really see one. Is that, on this side right here. - I'm talking abou,L Kind: What's this? ,, Blackowiak: Yeah, I dor~'t know if that's a sidewalk or what that is. : Kind' What's the checkery llne?' What's that checker pattern along? Gm;erous.: That would be. a sidewalk that is do~.e as part of the subdivis:ic,,n for this. Blackowiak: Okay, and that will happen when this. part of' the development approval they' re required-to do that. Blackowiak: Yeah I was too, but then I'm like, I'm curious as to when it comes around, if vou look at the, let's say I don.'t even ko. ow. Nortl~west or po~hem most point o1' ~he building. Look at the comer. Go u[; a lilt. le bit more .of Building I. The~e. Now is there going to be any way to ~_,et around back:? Is' tt~c. re going to be a sidew'alk or where7 .l rnean i' see the same .,¥idth of line. Generc, us: Ti:ere':.; a sidewall:_ here. -; . [41. '.- ~, ~ ,~;c~t:~,'u:<: Vv'ell what is the same width of line'7 Do.yeu'have any ideas or, that? Kind: is that ,t trail? No? Blacko.wiak: I don't .Umw. Generous: Well that's, yeah. I believe that's intended for a trail or sidewalk to this patio area on the back side. Blackowiak: Well no actually, on the fourth page of the plans on the landsc}Pe plan it looks as'if something is continued around about the' same width 'as the t~ail ,or the sidewalks. K.~:m: Aion,d 1.01. Blackowi~k: Aiong 101 and [,m just wondering what that is. Generous: When 101's realigned there will be another trail.. Biackowiak: So thai. will be e:/enmally a trail :'tght there? Generous: Blackowiak: Okay. Well that's ¢ood. Alright, well that was my b/g, my major. Okay, so any other qucsli,-ms of staff? No? Alright, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the ~ecord. And thank you for :;!a;,'ing ~p so late. 64 Piatming Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Alan Black: Thank you. I'm Alan Black, SeniOr Housing Partner to Presbyterian Homes. _We're at 3220 I.ake Johanna Boulevard in Arden Hills..Thank you for the opportunity to come forward and respecting ' your tiJne. !",'e got maybe just a very brief background of who the applicant is. Presbyterian Ho~nes.has been in the metropolitan area since the early 1900's. About ! 930 providing care to about 3,000 residents in the metro area. And we provide exclusive care to older adults and we have a continuum of care responsibility in our mission and that is to provide care to people of all levels of need. The history has started with nursing homes. More progressively.over the last 10 years we've been developing assisted living, independent living...conimunities throughout the metro area, and this project represents a continuation of the strategic plaii"to serve those, residents 'in the southwestern metro area. -We continuously find ourselves in conversations With people who Want to exPand those services and as we - look at this area here, we felt there was a strong need. That need is pred0minap~t When you begin to look - al. how nursing homes have evolved, we have...misplacement of nursing homes throughout our metro area. When they were developed, which was during the early 1960's, a distribution of older adults :were- not in Chanhassen. This whole southwestern quadrant. As a result many of the care related options.are. not available in the community and our focus is on providing and creating greater continuums. This project represents an opportunity to do just that with both the assisted living and the independent.living. Even the assisted living further defined in providing some memory care so our goal is to try to use residential options rather than institutional options to create-service options for people. Places foraging' in p!ace. This will relate to some other campuses we-have that will provide you the skill care piece. We · b. ave campus¢:; in Minnetonka, Spring Park, Bloomington, and so this will be a continuatiOn o[ the spoke of what we're doing so we're glad for the oppo~unity to provide housing and services. With. that I think you ve seer~ our project. I heard some interesting dialogue about trips and .. a 'like to reaffirm and maybe add sc, me addi,ional comfort in that about the average age of the people that we serve, even in our' .. - independent living is about age 82, and I-saw that there was'no distinguishing made between the various , types of seni. o'.,' housing. Our's being kind of a service driven model. We probably have even fewer - drivers, 'fewer trips than may be most typical non service related senior housing so we get some conffo~' . there. We don't have a lot of residents out of memory care driving. However we might surprise Some .:-" people wi,h tha?. in that we do have couples who continue to provide care to a spouse, who may be - -" occupants of an assisted living facility and I think that is one of the opportunities that we're glad lo have is to keep.families together. So we might have some unusual situations to speak of but I think they'll be re.~.sonable. We knew that you wanted to address specific questions and we thought rather than going ' · through the 53 recommendations, maybe we'd point out a couple that we thought were maybe worthy of some additional discussion, and not necessarily resolution here tonight. But just an opportunity to exl:.ress our interest in continuing some dialogue to make sure that our project can comPly. Meet with' your approval. And under the recommendations, we Wanted to go through th~ vines that we talked about. We thought those were.probably pre.cipitated by Concern fibout making sure that this building .has an . aesthetic appeal that.doesn't reflect those buildings that maybe has not hit the mark for you in the past. ... We wot:id concur. We Want to have this building attractive. It's a focal point away from the church and. some of those areas. We'd like to explore continuously with staff those items that could make that, for example we're using extensive amount of brick in that area rather than rock face block as an example. If we're going to cover it up with vines, we might want to come back and say you know, is it really a good' idea to use brick in those areas. Or maybe there's some other ways to approach it, but we would just.like tl,.e opportunity to continue to work with staff and come back to you with some alternative .ideas. We have some other folks here with me tonight who will be available prior to the City Council meeting who 1' think may have some interesting ideas and if some of those ideas has merit we'd like to have some - flexibility' besides the use of vine as the sole method. Number 7. Additional fire hydrants. We're a little cm~cerncd about how those are going to impact us in terms of parking. We want to make sm'e that we have certain~y adequate amount of fire suppression capacity on the site, but 5 additional hydrants has botl, impact to us in terms of both site and cost to the project. We'd like to expIore that to make sure that 65 Planning Conmfission Meeting - November 6, 2001 l.h..at in fact is the right number and maybe as ~ve look at some of our building type constructives, then that number may want to change. So we'd like to keep that item just open for discussion. Item number 24. We jumped way back. We certainly appreciate the level of detail. We're not sure that we'-ve been througl', this before in a project so we're stretching ourselves here to try to anticiPate which ones are the ones that are really important 24 and 25 I'd like to put together in our wetland buffers, and the concern we have today is we're not sure exactly where the definition of wetland buffers are, but the 40 foot setback in number 25, from the edge of a wetland buffer, we're somewhat concerned and if I could just point, to the area right in here, we're not exactly certain where the wetland might be, and if this current building actually meets that. Arid. I don't know if staff has looked at that. If we.think we're in : . complim~ce. Blackowiak: Excuse me, Kate or Bob, do you have any comment on that one specifically? Generous: No. I've had discussions with Lori. I thought that was a utilized wetland, and I'll have to clarify that with her. Alan Black: So if it'd be reasonable we'd like to just continue to leave that one kind of open and see if we're okay under that area. This wetland has been kind of a hard one. We do have some decking and so · forth and we have some trails through there and we wanted to respect and ~..ot create a requirement that :ye can'.t currently meet. Number 35. We concur. We'd like to continue, it sounded like from Planning Corn_mission, you:re wanting us to work .with staff towards those things that can add architectural detail. And since number 35 is not well defined, we want to understand that ourselve.; bec~,,use there's a need for us to try to design a building th. at ~,orks and also pt'!.ces in so we'd like to continue ~:o work with st'.iff but right now we're not certain which level of responsibility we would have and star'f would have and frar~kly reach a conclusion there. And then lastly number 44, public drainage and utili, ty easements be requi~ed over' the public's storm sewer line. Minimum easements shall be 25 feet, and we just haven't had a chance here to look at that and see if we're in accord with the current site plan to do that. I'd be our intent to do that but we just want to make sure that our current project meets that. I think we condensed c, ur's down to 5 or 7 items out of the 53 so we didn't react negatively to any of the recommendations. We want to continue to fine tune and work with staff on these items if we may. And with that I would pause and try to take questions and we have our architect here, co-developer and contractor Mark Eckloh and housing construction and see what we can do to answer your questions to get the project. We're glad to have an opportunity to get to this level of detail tonight. Blackowiak: Ah'ight. Okay, commiss!,oners. Questions of the applicant. Deb, .*,.tart out. Kir,,d: Two questions. The shingle style, is that an architectural style or. Alan Black: I believe those are fiat shingles and I think the nature of it typically because tl~e elevation heights we're at, it's our perception that may be a very, very expensive item and we're not sure on a 4 story building at this location that.there'd be any opportunity to see those. If we were down into a lower scale building, I think that would have a lot of merit but we're just not sure that that would be the best place to spend the dollars on this project today. Kind: What sort of precautions can you.take to make sure that there's ~.ot that ripple effect in the summer and is there a certain kind of felt that can be used to limit that or? Alan Black: Okay thank you. Maybe I could pass that question to this is Mark Eckloh. 66 P!an:fi:~_g Conxmission Meeting- November 6, 2001 M.qrk Eckloh: My name is Mark Eckloh: I'm with'Senior Housing Construction. Co-developer on the project. And I live in Chaska. To answer your question specifically, with the height of these buildings, typically what we have is fairly iow roof styles on the main body of the roof, Probably in the range of a 5:12 typically. Because of the height of the building we're usually fighting the foot restriction of the. 50 foot height to begin with. The second ann° is ':'hen you look at the elevation of the building, we do not xvant to draw attention to that big mass of asPrmlt so typically by trying to lower that and make that less of an appearance is our goal. To answer your question specifically about the rippling effect, this is an. XP25 fiberglass shingle which is completely different than what's on residential and because of the thickness of it and because of th'e fire requirements, the fire code requirements to this shingle, you don't ~.-. get that :'ipplir,.g effect that you are referring to that you see in residential C0vstruction. Kind: Th~,re's a few apartment buildings around too ti~at get it too.' Mark Eckloh: Okay. Kind: So that's my concern is I want to make sure it's a quality looking building, because, it really is.-. ' And I sure would hate to have the shingles detract from that ..... · M;~rk Eckloh: We do have some feature areas through, on the entrance to these areas and these lower root' areas that are proposed to be a different type. There was some discussion about, and co~wect rne 'if l'n~ . Wrong Ward, that there was some discussion about a standing seam metal roof on some of these areas so :~c.,me o~ :he lower areas that_ you see on the model, there ~vould be. where we would spend t~ morl'e~. a.n,:l. :~.a?:r: a focal point of the root a.s opposed to the breader 'flat area up on top. .. Kind: (?kay'. And then meters and utility boxes, that sort of thing. HoTM do you propose. ' M.ark Ecklob: One per building. Kind: Goe per building. Mark Eckloh: One here, one there. All the utilities are paid for by Presbyterian Homes. It's included .in the residents rent. Kind: And are they outside? Will they be screened fi'om public view; or are they located inside?- _ Mark Eckloh: I don't know how Chanhassen handle~ their meters per se but iypical!y With One On.each buikting, ti~ey're usually some kind of.fashion on the outside but they' re not objectionable. It's not.like they ~:ave a whole 'bunch of them. I don;t ,h~ow how they do their water meters. Usually tha~' s some. type of remo-ce so there's just a counter ot~ the exterior of the building so it's pretty, not a big item. Bup we only have one per building. . . Kind: Okay. That's al!. Blackowiak: That's enough? Okay. Ult. Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. Making the colors a little bit more of a contrast. Do you have an issue with that? Mark Ecklob: We have no issue with that but I think in reality in trying to be totally honest with both . staff nad with council I think there will be a difficulty in finding a lot of colors. As you look around our 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 n:figi2borhoods, unfortunately or fortunately, however you :,iow it, most people seem to pick beige -' colored sidings so if you go to a vinyl manufacturer, which we can bring in 4 or 5 different manufacturers that make vinyl, you Mil find no dark colors. ! don't want to lie to you and say that there's a dark geen out there. Tbcy don't maize it. There's ilo demand for it. You don't see it in any of your neighborhoods: Sacchct:' I don't, think it has to be said to be dark. Jukt a little more contrast I guess that's what. - Mark Ec~oh: We're certainly not opposed to that, provided it's one of the normal siding. 'We don't want to. h:,ve [~ special order a Product. We want to be able to use the normal vendors but there.really · isn't much of :, selection and as ~,0u look at most of our new ,:~.eighborhoods unfortunately, there doesn't seem. to be a broad selection of color in the vinyl' s. " ' Kind: Sor,"v to interrupt you Uli. You tilt on the point t . tc. rgot about. Would you consider using a . different material? .-' .,,,a., ~ Eckloh: Well stucco is a tremendous cost difference to us obviously than vinyl. We focus when we designed this building originally, we focused and were given direction both by some of the'people at city staff and also with the architecture group to focus on brick, and we have put an extensive amount of. brick a~,d .v,'e do have a lot of areas and obvio~.~sly t. his is in c,.:ference to the project across the s'treet, · Where there :s a lot of c~t face. blo~zk that's exposed. We 1-,ave none. We've cove~ed, we have a lot:of . garage area fi:at shows on this because of the elevations of thc. se buildings and we've.., brick. And the' other thing about for us is that the siding ~spect, and this may seem small but for senior housing the si:.!ing aspect is ;:ritical because ,.ve're tryi,g to make it.!ook t'esidenti,'A and feel residential.' We ti:ese elder l.'.eople to feel llke thev're irt a residential home, not some type of institutic, naI hon-te. eYen ;.t~ottgt) you see stucco homes, brick and stucco tends to look more institutional than sidiag'sr; we ir,; .: to kt~e:~, 5. sldin,r, as.peer to the home just because v,e like the aspect of trying to make it fzei mc;re " residential. So i[ guess to be honest with you we would ~ike to avoid going to stucco if at ali po..',sib!e.' We don't see that as a benefit ro tbi. s project and we wovhl rather do other treatments i~t terms of aw'rdags;' or windows or those kind of things than stucco. · ' Kind: Okay, thank, you. B lackowiak: 'uh.r' Sacche. t:" ' $ ea,~. A!t these units are ooing to be rental units, eorrect? Alan Biack: All the units are in a rental unit and the progi'am here provides that residents aren't signing .' lo~tg term leases.. They;re a 30 day leas~ requirement so. .~ Sacchet: 7hen just to really briefly touch on this, and the Milo Architecture Group letter there was recommendation to give it a little more of a. modern twist. Make it a little more contemporary. 'Probably some of those would be accomplished bi" having a little mere contrasting colors and the window accent elemep, t.~ itm'oduced. Is that correct? Alan Black: t think th~'ough the staff rect_ Lun,mdatio. is '~c: have here, there'~ some ~deas to modernize it through the use of windows, awnings, some c~loration and so 1 think we' I1 accomplish Milo"s...I think so anyw3y. Sacct;et: That's all my questions. 68 Planning Co~nmission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowizk: Okay. LuAnn. S;.dney: I guess a question about your lighting plan. Could you explain that'? You know light fixtures, exterior lighting. Mark Eckloh: You got us. In terms of interior lighting, we were told that there was a need for shoebox, . you know the standard box lighting that just goes down in terms of the parking lot. In terms of the decorative lighting on the exterior of main street and Lake Drive, I assume that we would be-matching whatever ~.s going on throughoU~..the balanCe of the Project,_but apart from that we don't have anything specific. If it worked with council, or Planning Commission I'm sorry, we-Would prefer the decorative- lighting interior as well. Most of our projects, we like the old fashion. lighting and we like that but I know there':~ objections to communities not to having. We think when yOu talk about all these buildings and trying'to put features in, to put those ugly shoebox lights is a problem but we realize that we have to respect other people' s space as well in terms of that but we prefer the decorative lighting in terms of the interior space, as well. If we could do that. · · Generous: Go for it. It's pernfitted under the design standards:.' Sidney: Yeah,' I think that would really enhance the project.- - · '. Blackowiak: Rich. , cc,no~tiomng, trying to think of the, the air conditioning avd ~,e~-:a:~,e:~' Just. one questk~n regarding the air ' "' ' .17. ,"1 ' ' ,um~ce !3t:r mere s no exterior units or anything like that? There i:;? Well. then I'm trying to see. · . Alan Bi a~..,: Ti~e plan for the independent nvmg building is a product tYpe. you may refer to it as a magic ' pack Or :~ky pack and there is some exterior grills and:venting that comes out. However by tl:,e way they've designed it~ that occurs, and I don't know if this plan w.~uld even show it. It actually occurs out on :i~e balconv areas. Would you like to try. toshoW,-do we have that on our plans, on an elev~ition here? Mark Eckloh: Al's one plan behind. 'It's a 4 pipe system which means that it has all centralized heati, ng and cooling so that there is a massive chiller unit, but it's built into a roof top scenario so there-is not.a' . chiller unit sitting on the ground. There might be a scenario where there might be one or two small air : conditioning units, and that heat that central core area, but that would 'be no bigger in terms t-han what the hi.?' conditioning unit you have sitting at your current home, but the chiller is designed to go on the' roof area over on Building I1 there. .. . -. . . . .. c,'..dncy: Not screened? .~ Mark Eckloh: It's all screened, yes. You wouldn't see it. That's correct. There's a mansard roof, and then it creates a flat spot inside so.visually you can't see the chiller unit. Blackowiak: I guess I ~,on.~ 't have any questions right now. Do you have anybod~ else that's interested in ' presenting? : Alan Black: Just one quick thought in terms of all your con'cerns about height. The 4 story building is actually 8 fo:et lower in elevation than the 3 story building. The way the topography-works out, the 3 st:,,r,j buiidi~.,g is 8 feet higher so even though we have a 4 story, building, if you look closely.here, and this is an actual scale model, the roofs are basically the same height. So because of the way the topography of the site works, the 4 story building won't appear to anyone looking across from the area 69 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 over to th(: northeast, or coming in, the building won't appear any higher from the interior of the project than the 3 story building just because this building sits 8 feet lower on the site to begin with. So I think it helps alleviate those fears about the height scenario. Blackowiak: ! have a question ~hat just made me :think of something, and I don't know if it's'for you or for staff,ot.c Hubert's building. How high is that and how will this compare with St. Hubert's? ' Generous: I think they're 40. It depends which level you look at. It was 2 stories. Blackowi3k: I'm just wondering if you, let's say you stood from the north and looked and St. Hubert's would be down to your left and then these buildings would be to your right:. ' ' ~ I mju, t kind of curious how they would compare. '. Vernelie Clayton: ...tonight for that same reason. I drove over there specifically to try to figure that out. It's so far down...It's really hard to know. Aanenson: We could puli the plans and find that out. Blackowiak: Yeah, that'd just be interesting to find out how it's going to, you know how it's-going to kind oi' set up in the entire. Aanenso'a: To see what St. Hu'Oert's did, look at this. l*hey were concerp, ed :tbout that... Clayton: Yeah, they were requested tO accommodate it. Aanensc. n: "f'o make sure that they're not blocked completely. B!ackowiak: Okay. so th.y re comfortable? ;~5 anenson: Riaht. Mark Eckloh: In reference to 2 again, if you look at the model. What we've done, and this is the.end . that's closest to St. Huber*,'s and also the end that's across from Bookoo Bikes. What we've tried to do is we've actually lowered the end of the building there so it's not 4 stories on the end of the building. This is actually 3 stories, and we've got the same scenario on the Bookoo end of the building. That we're dropping the building, down so that visually it gives the effeclt of being closer and not so imposing in - ~erms of the buildings that are in proximity to it. So that we have tried to accommodate that by lowering thc end of the building ¢tnd giving a fee.l'of being a floor down. I don't know where we are in relation to the acma! pitch of the church roof. I think we're fairly close but i know we're substantially under the ' steeple to ~he point of the roof. We aren't even close to that. Blackowiak: ()kay. Alan Black: Kate had mentioned also at one time in the project's planning we actually had this portion of ?he assiszed li~ing building as a 4 story structure and one of the conwnents we got back f,:om the church ,,v'.~s they were concerned about the elevation of that and so at the request, we cut that down to a 3 story structure so I think they're comfortable with that part of the elevation of that. Biackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Well this item is open for a public hearing. So if anyone would like to come and comment on this, please do so. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, time for comments. Deb, would you like to start us out? 70 Plannin~ C:'.,ro_mission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: Sure. 1 iike the building. 1 think it's really attractive. ! agree with staff though. I'd like to see it a" lit. tle bold=r, more closely to this rendering. This is always a danger with me to show me a rendering, and I like them ti:e way they are so, .I don't know. I'd like 'to see you get closer to that and I think E-FIS wotdd be an '.acceptable material because it is really an accent area. It's not a foot traffic area where that seems to be, a problem material. A. couple other points that were brought up. Let ~ne double check here. I agree with tl-..e staff's recommendations for conditions. I'm not quite sure what to do with some of the requests of the applicant. The vines on the brick, I'm fine With the landscaping being used to screen so maybe. change that language to landscaping plants shall be planted.. That's kind of redundant. How about'". landscaping shall be planted in the' areas where tbe garage elevation of the building is, I think we can give' · fi:em some flexibility. Bla.ckowiak: Work with staff. Kind: Work with staff. The standard work with staff. The fire hydrant thing [ think we could say' -. adflition,21 'fire hydrants may be required, and the applicant shall work with the-Fire Marshal to determine wl'~ere they're Iocated. I'd be fine with softening that a little bit. The 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer, direct staff to check on that. I guess leave that condition there. Leave it the way it is and just"get answer3 to that before J~ goes to council. And then number 35~ that'~ the conditio~ about window-types and half bay w~ndows. I don't, really know how we can make d~at more clear tonight. [ think we Should do ou:' s~an6ara work with staff condition there, because I do hke the idea of getting, especially on ,the. z.~,pemahy I ' Phase i building of inco¢orating a little bit n'tore interest i~ the windows on that building -~ '" think w~3uld be nice. I love the Building H, the European flavor i-here..It's very nice. And then Fd l~ke to a{,o a condition about screenint~, utility, bexes, air ¢opdl" '*:,.,onms' '~. any el' that kind of stuff on ground.- level defi~titely needs to be screened. Nice prQect. ' Blackowiak: Alright. Uii. Sacchet: Ditlo. Blackowiak: No way. Okay, LuArm. Sidney: Really an outstanding project by an outstanding company. This 'is, you know I think what the- intent was for. Villages on the Pond, we're seeing a good example of that andas a former commissioner would sv:y, good four walls and it really flows threughout the whole buildings. So I really commend ' everyone fi)r working on this. I agree with Deb's conzrnents about, you knoTM maybe a 'little bit more: ' boldness in the colors may help give.the European vernacular feeling to the buildings is what I wrote down. Bm reai!y great~ I made my comments and so I'll pass it along to Rich. Slagle: I think it's great: I mean I understand the comments of my fellow conmtissioners. I'm not as. sold on the diversity of the difference of coloring. I think it looks great. Blackc. wialc: And I agree. I certainly like the projecl. I think I'm g!ad we stayed te see it this evening. it's iate !.,:?t it certainly was worth the wait tonight, i like it a lot. Recommendations. The conditions ~ .. tl'::,.r were of covcem to you.. 1 mean basically work wi_tl~ staff. I know that tltey cart be worked out. and I have no worries about that. We have two nmnber 52's and a number 53 we have to renumber at the end; . A little houseke.eping thing. Kind: Oh yeah, there's a couple typos too. 71 Plann. ing Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 .[.~l.~ .~ .... -.. . · ,..c.,,ovw.:,k. ~'~.ah. but it's late and we're not going to..worry about that so. Ail and all what'.s important is I think it's a great project. I think everybody agrees here so with that I'd like to have a motion please.- Satchel'. 5~eah Madam Chair, I'd like to tnake a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval oF Site. Plan #2001-i3, plans prepared by Korsupsky, Krap. k, Erickson Architects dated ' September 14, 2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 54 with the following fixes in 4, sub- number 6. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping or vine type plants to be planted in . areas and so forth. Number-7. Additional fire hydrants may be required. Number 25. Work with staff to" determine the required setback. :'.Wetland setback for structures. Number 33 should say furniture, enough furni, ture. Number 35. Applicant shall work with staff to' incorporate additional Windows and. so forth.. Number 44, i'm going to leave. &nd then you recall that Deb, weii you can'do your own 55. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? ,.:met: Fll second and I have a couple friendly amendments Uli, I"-m sho~'ke.d. Nmnber 28. You 'need' to add a sentence that says silt fences shall be removed upon project completion. . · Sacchet: Ob thanks so much. Kind: T(?u've welcome. Nurab:r 34, t would !ike to add a sente, nce that says, since the siding areas are for ~'.cccnt only. EF[S or stucco x,/,zuld be an accept'.-~bk: alternative in ('>rder to achizve bolder colors. you ,,,'an~. to ac.copt them one by one? - - - . . Snccm-._: Yep, no, no, no. I accept them all. .. Kip. d: Okay. And then number 50 needs your silt fei:ce sentence as well. Silt fence shall be ::en'~ov?.'d frr.)tn project upon temple:ion. At~d then the re-numbering thai Aliso.~. talked about. And then number 55. I'd like .to add a cenditie,~. 'Or wait, what are we up to? Yeah, 55. Ground air conditi0ni.ng units, utility boxes, and meters shall be screened with landscaping and/or with the same building materitds'used on the main structures. Sacchet: Yes. Accepted. Blackowiak- Okay, a motion and secon:t. Satchel moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of'Site'Plan #2(~01-13, .plans prepared by Korsunsk.y, Krank, Erickson Architects, dated September 14, 2001, sm}.iec, 'to the following conditions: . The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee 'erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Sire 'plan approval is co!:tii'~gent on final platting of ()utlc;t F, Villages. ~m the i?onds, to a block and lot designation. Pedestt-ian cc, nnections shall be provided fi'om the interior parking 1o~ to Lc, th Lake Drive .qnd Main Street. 4. The applicant shall make the following corrections to the landscape plan: 72 P_'.anni~g Commission Meeting- November 6, 2001 o . 10. t2. 15. · o a. Add 9 grey dogwood. b. Plant 13 Redtwig dogwood instead of 6. .c. Substitute 2 Green Mountain sugar maples for 2 Emerald Queen Norway maple. cl. Plant 7 Black Hill spruce instead of 6. e. . All changes, pertain to the landscaping proposed along Highway 101. f. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping' or vine type plants to be planted in areas where the garage elevation of the building is exposed, including the southern end of:; Building I and-the southern end of Building Ii, .on the west end of , Building H, and :adjacent to 'the.retaining Wall. - . Shredded bark mulch shall be placed under the line of JapaneSe tree lilacs proposed along the . terrace facing Lake Drive. A strip of sod siva!! be laid along the sidewalk. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. .. , Additional fire hydrants may be required on the inner parking portion of the project. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire hydrants. · ~x. 10-fi)ot clearance space ;nust be maintained acound fire hydrar.,.ts, i.e. street lamps, trees,.- sh.rubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire nyorants can be q'~fickly located and safely operated 'by firefighters. Pursuant to cnannassen-t:,,_y ©r,,'iinance #9-1.. - - Fire lanes and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal -for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire !and signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Pre ',,e~. ti on Divi si on Pol icy #6-1991 'and Section' 904-1; 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code.' ' A PiX,'' (Post Indicator Valve) is required. Contact'Chanhassen Fire Marsi~ai for exact !.ocatiom Pm'sua, nt.to 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. ... - Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regardi, g premise: identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. Comply with water service installation policy', for commercial and industrial bUildings. PurSuant to Inspe'ction Division Water Service Installation Pol'icy#34-1993. Copy enclosed. Comply with the'Chanhassen Fire DepartmentWire Prevention Division Policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhas'sen Fire Department/FirePrevention Division Policy #36-1994. Co.r~aply with the Chanhassen Fire DepartmenffFire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhasser~ Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Pc. iicy #4-199 I. Submit design specifications regarding -vehicle access over the underground link cormecting the two buildings. This tunnel design should support the imposed loads of Chanhassen's largest fire apparatus. 73 P!annir.,g Con,mission Meeting - November 6, 2001 16. 18. 19. 20. 2!. 22. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Sub,mt radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal foL' review and approval. The inner courtyard area should be designed for fire apparatus access drive-through. The buildings must be protected with auto~natic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The proposed ;building areas are over the allowable area permitted for Type V One-Hour construction, area separation walls will be required to bring t. he building 'areas in compliance. with the code. Building #1 is not permitted to be four stories high if constructed of Type V One- · Hour construction. The proposed 13R fire sprinkler system cannot be used for area and/or number of story increases. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation' stops and all common use facilities.' All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces. :i. ispe:':;ed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Mitmesota State Building Code · Cha p~.cr 1341. A i'l\,' (Post h.,dicator Valve) must be installed on the domestic/fire suppression water service'. · Thc building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division 'to- · di~;cuss.plan review and permit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable' area issu-~s need. to be addressed as soon as p.ossible. ,. . . A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained. or established around all wetland basins. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction .of city staff and shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall work with staff to determine tim required wetland buffer setback for structures. The rate of discharge from the 'proposed development shall not exceed pre'development runoff. rates. The appliCant shall provide r, torm water calculations to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed development. Existing drainage and utility easements should be vacated and new drainage and utility easen-~ents should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Type III silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence shall, be removed upon completion of the project. Erosion control blankets should be installed on all areas with slopes 3: i or greater. 74 F'iannir~g Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. 3g. 39. 40. 41. 42. 45. 47. 49. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards.' A separate sign permitis re'qdi:'ed for' each sign. The monument sign located in the northwest corner of the site at the corner of Lake Drive and Market Boulevard must; at a minimum, identify the Villages on the Ponds development. The applicant/developer shall install site furniture throughout the Project including benches,. planter boxes, tables, chairs, etc. 'I'Ve 0pplicant/deve!oper shall work with staff to prepare a final color pallet with greater . . differentiation in siding colors. The number of vinyl siding colors is limited to four colors. Since the siding areas are for accent only, EFIS or stucco would be an acceptable alternative in_ order to achieve bolder colors. ,.: Applicant shall work with staff to incorporate additiot~al window types such as bay, half-- :ound, round, and !talianate as well as window acce~ts such as plant boxes, si~utters, balconies, decks: grates, canopies, awnings, trellises, recesses, embrasures, arches, hmettes. ' ' ,~ !0. 24 hour·storn,t event. ~;uiz mi:' s;torm sewer design calculattor.., for a year, ,.~ the i0 and 10O year storm event. - pond design: calculations *'~ ' A4,1 the following Cit~,' oCt..hanhass,..n Detail ?ia~e Nos: ',-'rap :or -, ., . ..... . ,.,,~_. 3 .~10,, 3108.3109: 5300:. 5301. 5302, and 5313. The minimum drive aisle width is 26 feet. Revise the plans to comp!y. The applizant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regularity agency permits. Retaining walls must be designed by a registered engineer and require an approved fence at the top of the wall. . .· . : Ail plan sheets muat b.~: s/gu. ed by a registered engineer. .. · The two proposed rock construction entrances are required to be a minimum of 75 feet in ~ongth. Public drainage and utility easeinents wilt be required over the public storm sewer line. The.- minimum easement width'Shall be 25 feet. Add a stcrm sewer schedule to the plans. the utiiity plan revise CB 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 to CBMH ~ 6, 7, 8, and 14. i-~lan and profile views are required for all of the public storm sewer. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 75 t ,.,t,).~,g Cc. nmfission lVleeting - November 6, 2001 50. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. This eas~ement shall cover the pond up to the ! 00 year high water elevation. The easement over the existing pond.will ,~,,,x-c to be, vacated as a condition of site p!ac approval. .' 5i. 52. Type III: heavy duty silt fence shall be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter, barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). All silt fences shall be removed upon comple{ion of the project. · Connection to the public utility lines will incur hook-up charges against the lot. The 200 I. ·: sanitary' sewer hook-up charge is $1,322 per unit. The 2001 water hook-up charge is $1,723 per.. urSt. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. 52,. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading. · 54: Add a legend to t.he plans. 55.. On thc site plan, shew the dimensions of the.parkirtg sta!l~q, a:cess aisle..< and 4_riveway wiclths. '.' . 56, Grout~',J. air conditiouing units, utility boxe% ~'nd meters shall l~e screened with !andsca with the same imildil~g materials used {m the maiu str~clures- All voted ia ['aver and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. .. .. · Blacko,.vixk: Gee; to City Council on Novemlzer '26°'. Thank you ~o much again for waitinh:.~ · 3lng .-.. APFROVAL OF MINUTES: UIJ Sacchet noted the. MinUtes of the Planning Commissian meeting dated October '2, 2001 as presented. ONGOING tTEMS: Aanenson: We do have a meeting on the 20t~. We have a subdivision and a couple of code amendments ~o we will have a meeting. Blackowi,',Jk: Subdivisior, and what? . Aanenson: Two code am'_mdments. Sc; we will have a meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m.' Submitted by Kate Aanenson Con'rmct~ity De vet opment Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 76