Loading...
Untitled 19t— Z CL a. CITY OF CHANI3ASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: fz'�1/99 8/1/00 CC DATE: 1/10/00 8/28/00 CASE M 98-12 SPR By: Al-Jaff PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review to allow a i 6,680 SqaMr fbut %aass, oom and a 2,000 iibrmy 40,000 square foot addition to an existing building and a Variance to allow a 30 foot Front Yard Setback, Chapel Hill Academy. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 7707 Cheat Plains Boulevard, located south of West 781h Street, East of Frontier I Trail, and west of (great Plains Boulevard. Chapel Hill Academy 306 West 78th Street Chanhassen, NIN 55317 Attn: Dan Blake 988-8202 ACREAGE: 4.58 Acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family & Vacated Chan View S - OI; Office Institutional, West 78th Street, Old St. Hubert's Church Cemetery. E - RSF; Single Family & Frontier Trail W - CBD & 01; Central Business District, Colonial Square and O Institutional, Country Clean. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains an existing church, 2 houses, 2 garages, and playground. There are a number of mature oak trees scattered oN the easterly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Public/Semi-Public I K cril W 78th Chapel Hill Academy janamy f0, August 1, 2000 Page 2 On June 22, 1998, the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit #98-1, with a variance to locate a modular structure 8.5 feet from the northern property line for Chapel Hill Academy. One of the conditions of approval required the applicant to submit a complete site plan application no later than one year after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Another condition stated that the Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council or until the expansion of the school is completed, whichever comes first. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 3, 1998, and the plans were submitted on August 31, 1999. The applicant has given the City an extension to process this application by January 25, 2000. On January 10, 2000, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. The directed the applicant to return to the Planning Commission and submit revised site plans and elevations for the gymnasium and the north elevation. They also requested alternative building materials. At the January 10, 2000 City Council meeting, staff pointed out that the city is at the end of the time period needed to process an application. The applicant stated, "Hereby grant you whatever it takes". Staff has scheduled this item for the August 28, City Council meeting. Staff met with the applicant and we note that all the significant issues have been resolved. The staff report has been edited to reflect changes. New information will appear in bold The applicant is requesting site plan review approval for the construction of a 40,000 square foot addition f 6,680 squate foot classtoorn mid a 2,000 Square fbot fibtary additim and a 5 foot front yard setback variance to allow the addition to be located 30 feet from the front property line. The addition is planned in 4 phases. The first phase will include a 16,680 square foot classroom and a 13,300 square foot gymnasium. The total area of the building after all phases have been completed, including the existing building is proposed to total This is the first phase of -a 77,260 square foot expansion. The 16,680 square foot classroom addition is proposed to be located along the south portion of the site, adjacent to West 78th Street. The 13,300 square foot gymnasium is proposed to be located along the northwest corner of the site. fire-2,000-squar foot f ibi at y addition is p, oposcd to be located along die mcstern portion of the site (see shect Pf 1 f ). The majority of the site is zoned OI, Office Institutional, while the easterly portion is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family District and is within the Highway 5 Overlay District. The site is located north of West 78th Street, west of Great Plains Boulevard, east of Frontier Trail, and south of vacated Chan View. The site has an area of 4.58 acres. Access to the site is gained via Great Plains Boulevard. The site contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom building, 2 houses, 2 garages, and a playground. Chapel Hill Academy Janumy-1-6, August 1, 2000 Page 3 Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three months. This site has been discussed on several occasions as part of Vision 2002 and Old Town. Design concepts were generated for the area. They are as follows: 21. Form a compact center by creating a series of rooms throughout the downtown. 22. Complete pedestrian connections that lead to and through the downtown. 23. Create a distinct downtown district through architectural forms and the shape of vegetation. 24. Reinforce the sense of the street as a room by reflecting the setback of existing buildings in new development. 25. Locate buildings close to the street, with parking behind or beside the buildings. 26. Create a strong relationship between buildings, pedestrian spaces and the street. 27. Offer pedestrians safety and convenience by providing entries from both streets and parking areas. 28. Select building practices and architectural elements to reinforce the historic character of West 781h Street. The site has some challenges, however, the plan for the school expansion was designed to meet the design concepts enumerated above. The existing building was built in phases and as each phase was constructed a different building material was used (brick, wood, fluted block, and glass blocks). The goal of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance, and build an addition that blends in with the area. The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three four phases. It is possible for this project to be completed in 5 or 10 years. At this time, the intent is to complete phase one within the next two years. This phase has to blend in with the existing building, provide a transition and set the framework for the ultimate expansion. The proposed addition uses rock face block along the base of the building (below the windows) and brick over the remainder of the structure. The colors include the same shade of red brick used on the base of the western elevation of the existing building. The applicant will then introduce a gray projecting windowsill topped by beige bto& brick. The color combination will blend in with the existing building since the west wall adjacent to the proposed phase one expansion is glass. The problem Mlates to die siM of the 8 x f6 inch block. We explained to die applicmit that such inatetials are acceptable in art The size of the block shoufd not exceed is proposed to have dimensions of 4 x 12 inches and have a smooth face. Entrances into the building are well defined with a projecting pitched element. Windows surround the building with the exception of areas screened by trees. The gymnasium was discussed at length. The school is a one story, low profile building, which is proportionate to the residential area. The gymnasium is equivalent to a large box two story building. The applicant located the gym along the northwest corner of the building. This location sits 8 feet below the Chapel Hill Academy janamy f 0, August 1, 2000 Page 4 single family homes located north of the subject site. The applicant also introduced projecting columns and windows to break up the wall mass on the gymnasium. The landscape plan shows 4 evergreen trees along the west side of the gymnasium to break the wall mass. The gymnasium is proposed to utilize block along the 27 foot portion of the building (west and north) and brick along the south elevation. The east gym wall is proposed to have a smooth painted finish. At this time, the gym is proposed to be a detached building. When Phase II (the cafeteria and new main entrance addition) is completed, the gap between the gym and the main building will be closed and the east gym wall will become an internal wall. The use of block on the west and south elevations is acceptable since the applicant is providing screening through the use of increased landscaping and added architectural elements such as columns and windows. There is an existing Service Driveway via West 78th Street. This driveway will be closed and replaced by two service drives via Frontier Trail and Great Plains Boulevard. The plans do no b1zovv the location of thc trash enctosme. The trash enclosure is proposed to be located along the north side of the property and utilize block as the exterior material with wood doors to match the building. An existing chain link fence is located along the south and southeast corner of the site. This fence will be removed. In order to accommodate the expansion along West 78th Street, the single family home and detached garage, located north of the existing play area, will be removed. The play area will replace the single family home and the addition along West 78th Street. The plans reflect a fence around the relocated play area. The applicant intends to use a chain link type fence. We encourage the applicant to use a more decorative type fence. The ultimate expansion of the site will reduce the size of the parking lot drastically. At the present time, there are 132 parking spaces, which far exceeds the needs of Chapel Hill Academy. The ordinance requires one parking space for each classroom or office room, plus one space for each one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium. ft is the applicant's the temaining phases appears for bite ptan approvai. Sitice die Planning eonnnission , the applicant submitted a breakdown of the gathering spaces in the building at the time of ultimate expansion. It appears that the site will require 72 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 84 spaces. Parking will still be examined to insure compliance with the ordinance as future phases are reviewed. A sidewalk is located along the southern and eastern portion of the site. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail is approximately 3 feet wide. The sidewalk along West 78th Street is 6 feet wide. Approximately, 150 feet of the sidewalk along the southeast portion of the site, facing Frontier Trail is missing. In order to complete pedestrian circulation around the site, the applicant must construct that portion of the sidewalk. Plans submitted by the applicant reflect that connection. Chapel Hill Academy iminary-f6, August 1, 2000 Page 5 There are setback variances associated with this application. The ordinance requires a 35 foot front yard setback. The site is located within an established neighborhood with buildings that maintain a substantially reduced setback. In order to reinforce and reflect the setback of existing buildings, reinforce the established character, and be consistent with the Vision 2002, we asked the applicant to bring the building closer to West 78th Street. The building maintains a 30 foot setback from West 78th Street and 32 feet from Frontier Trail. While there is no hardship to justify this variance and it is purely an aesthetic and design issue, staff is recommending approval of the setback variance to reflect the established standards of this area and to implement the vision of the 2002 study. The overall concept plan is well designed. Staff is recommending approval of phase I, and the master plan of the Chapel Hill Academy with front yard variances with conditions. BACKGROUND St. Hubert's Church has had a presence in the community that dates back to its early history. It has operated as a church and school pre -dating today's ordinances and requirements. On November 3, 1975, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for the parish of St. Hubert's to erect a complex consisting of a rectory, parish offices, meeting rooms/classrooms and a church structure. This involved the relocation of the church from the south to the north side of West 78th Street. In 1997, St. Hubert's Church completed a new structure in Villages on the Pond and vacated the complex located on West 78"' Street. Chapel Hill Academy leased the space to operate a private school. They needed additional classroom space to accommodate the increased number of students. The ultimate plan is to construct an addition over the next few years. They requested approval to locate a temporary classroom building on the site until they completed their addition. The City Council approved an Interim Use Permit, which allowed the temporary classroom for a time not to exceed 5 years, or when the expansion is complete, whichever comes first. The approval was also conditioned upon the applicant submitting a Master Plan and application for the site within one year of occupying the building. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the Interim Use Permit. HIGHWAY 5 STANDARDS A meandering berm with landscaping, 2-4 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the south and southwest portion of the site. The building is located 70 feet from the north, 32 feet from the east, 30 feet from the south, and 185 feet from the west property line. As mentioned earlier, this development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay District and must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Office Institutional District Chapel Hill Academy iminary f 0, August 1, 2000 Page 6 Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high -quality architectural and site design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: The architectural style is unique to the building but will fit in with the area character. The existing building utilizes several materials. The new addition will provide a new image that will gradually transform this area by updating the image, bringing it closer to the street, unifying the materials on the building, yet maintain a low profile neighborhood character. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. Samples of the materials as well as a rendering will be available at the meeting. Staff believes the color scheme is proper for the building and the area, hovyevei, the use of an 8 x M inch iough face, bfuck is not acceptable and must be reduced to a maximarn size of-4- x-1�er. The use of a combination of block along the base of the building and a 4 x 12 inch brick over the remainder of the building will allow the building to fit and blend in with the neighborhood. The site is level. A revised landscaping plan incorporating staff's recommendations will provide an increased number of plant materials throughout the site. The berms and landscaping materials will be concentrated along the southern portion of the property. Landscaping around the rest of the property will include boulevard trees, parking lot landscaping and buffer plantings along the northern property line. Some of the mature oaks and maples, many over 20 inches in diameter, will be saved maintaining the traditional look of the property. A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. A detailed sign plan which includes lighting method will also be required. WROM 0110111101 In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing Chapel Hill Academy iatntaryi6, August 1, 2000 Page 7 tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the exception of the front yard setback. The reduced setback was requested by staff to bring the building closer to the street reflecting the reduced setback of other buildings within the neighborhood and to meet the guidelines set by the Vision 2002. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. The use of a 4 x 12 inch smooth face block will create a harmonious relationship between the proposed building and existing buildings. Chapel Hill Academy ianuary-i 0, August 1, 2000 Page 8 Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan and variances with conditions outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. The nature of this variance is to allow this site to blend in with the existing neighborhood. The majority of the structures within the area maintain a setback that ranges between 10 and 30 feet. There is an established standards and granting the variance will allow the building to fit better within the neighborhood. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The difficulty or hardship is not self-created. A standard was set in this area and the building needs to conform to that standard. Staff advised the applicant to build the addition toward West 78t" Street to comply with the vision 2002 guidelines. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Chapel Hill Academy Janrndrq -I6, August 1, 2000 Page 9 Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It will not increase the traffic. The plans propose a series of additions to the existing Chapel Hill Academy site. Phase I of the proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition and the gymnasium. This addition will have very minimal impact to the City's existing infrastructure or street system. However, the remaining proposed improvements in the master plan will affect City infrastructure and traffic circulation. These items are not addressed in this report, but will be as future phases are. submitted for approval. Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in a loss of some of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to be filled approximately two feet to match the existing building elevation and then slope towards West 78th Street and Frontier Trail. The plans propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will also be required. Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line from the catch basin at the intersection of Frontier Trail and West 78th Street to the interior of the site. The applicant will need to supply the City with pre- and post -drainage runoff calculations and verify that the existing City storm sewer system in Frontier Trail can accommodate runoff generated from this expansion. In addition, the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of- way permit from the Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan, no surface water management fees will be applicable. Chapel Hill Academy ianuwT-1-0, August 1, 2000 Page 10 According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed with the proposed addition. If additional utility service is required from West 78th Street or Frontier Trail, staff will need to review and comment on the plans. The applicant may be responsible for additional sewer and water hookup fees at time of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water hookup fees based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to accommodate the expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will dramatically impact traffic circulation on both Great Plains Boulevard and West 78t" Street. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding a right-in/right-out only at West 781" Street which staff believes would not propose a traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the right- in/right-out for better traffic delineation. Minimum landscaping requirements include 2,744 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 11 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along W. 78t" St. and neighboring property lines. The applicant's proposed landscaping, as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees, is shown in the following table. Vehicular use landsca e area 2,744 s . ft. 10,200 s . ft. Trees/ parking lot 11 overstory trees 6 10 overstory trees W. 78t" St. Boulevard trees 14 overstory trees -712 overstory trees 1 per 30 feet South buffer yard B - 20' 6 overstory trees 012 overstory trees (75% of total shown)* 9 understory trees 2 9 understory trees 15 shrubs 015 shrubs North buffer yard B - 20' 5 overstory trees 0 5 overstory trees (Including residence in NW 8 understory trees 8 understory trees corner) 12 shrubs 012 shrubs 75% of total shown _:L�,. r__ .... �.. ^ico/ ,.F •I.e o.i nlonrinnc AhnNino *According to city butter yard oramance, the project developer is iesponswie �. r or y 111. V, property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. Shown in table is the 75% required. The applicant has a deficit of plantings in the following areas: one tree in the parking lot, and two boulevard trees, . There is limited space on the site to Chapel Hill Academy 3anuaiyi O, August 1, 2000 Page 11 provide the required plantings. The applicant has provided a satisfactory number of trees considering the space limitation. Staff recommends that the proposed landscape plan be accepted. applicant inctease plantings in order to meet z1fininrain ordin netits. Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than %2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. COMPLIANCE TABLE - OI DISTRICT Ordinance Chapel Hill Academy Phase I Building Height 2 stories 1-story Building Setback N-15' E-35' N-50' E-32' 5-35' W-35' 5-30' W-185' Parking stalls 30 stalls 89 stalls Ultimate Parking 72 stalls 84 stalls Parking Setback N-50' E-35' N-55' E-260' 5-35' W-35' S-30 W-20'* Hard surface 65% 58.8% at ultimate expansion Coverage Lot Area 15,000 square feet 4.58 acres The zoning ordinance requires a 35 foot parking setback, however, this is existing parking and the applicant is improving an existing situation. On December 1, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this application with conditions. Issues raised at the meeting included: Parking: The Planning Commission questioned the fact that the building is being increased in size while the parking lot is being reduced. Staff explained that the previous use, which included Chapel Hill Academy jmmarp f 0, August 1, 2000 Page 12 a church and a school, required the parking. The proposed use will require substantially less parking. Staff also explained that it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to the city that parking requirements are being met. Since then, the applicant submitted a detailed letter providing a breakdown in square footage of gathering places after expansion is completed. Based upon these numbers, the building will require 72 spaces. The applicant is providing 84. Size of block: The applicant proposed the use of 8'x16' block. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant utilize a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. This size will blend in with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Elevations: The Planning Commission was concerned with the north elevation facing the low density residential area and expressed that they will be critical of the design. They were also concerned with the design of the gymnasium building. They concurred that the proposed Phase I addition fit the busy downtown On January 10, 2000, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. They directed the applicant to return to the Planning Commission and submit revised site plans and elevations for the gymnasium and the north elevation. They also requested alternative building materials. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan review 498-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan, as shown in plans dated received July 24, 2000 , with the following conditions: 1. hictease plantings f6t buffer yaid areas in oidet to meet otdiriatice requilernents; 2. frictease plantings for boulevard trees in order to triect utdinance requirements.- 3. frictease plantings fol parking lot arca in Lrdcr to meet ordinance rcqiffi-cm�-� 4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. 5. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre -and post -development storm water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion. Chapel Hill Academy . immmyf6, August 1, 2000 Page 13 7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. 8. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. 10. Building Official Conditions: a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout. b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. 1 l.Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. 12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail m_ Street. The nevv sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The nevy sidewalk should connUct vvith the student entimice on the east side of the proposed addition. 13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. 15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the same as those used on the new building. 16. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. 17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary Chapel Hill Academy January-10, August 1, 2000 Page 14 financial securities to guarantee site improvements. 18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed. 21. The existing driveway along West 781h shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to match existing curb on West 781h Street. 22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. 23. The modular units must be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the classroom addition along West 78th Street. 24. No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, will be permitted within any of the areas designated as Phases II, III, or IV, unless the exterior walls are included with the remodel. 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated November 23, 1999. 2. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated November 22, 1999. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated November 22, 1999. 4. Memo from Dan Blake, dated November 23, 1999. 5. Application. 6. Letter from Dan Blake, dated December 29, 1999. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated December 1, 1999. 8. City Council minutes dated January 10, 2000. 9. Letter from Dan Blake dated July 20, 2000. 10. Plans dated Received July 24, 2000. f 1. Ptans dated received August 3f, f 999 and revise"' plait dated teceived january 6, 2000. g:\plan\sa\chapel hill chapel hill academy expansionIdoc 4 * MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner CRUSE FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineerzg/ 690Cih,Center Drive, POBox 147 DATE: November23, 1999 Cbanhasserr, Alinnesota 55317 5 SUBJ: Review of Chapel Hill Academy Expansion Phone 612.93esora 7707 Great Plains Boulevard General Tar 612.937.5739 Engineering Tax 012.937.9152 Public Safeq Fax 612.934.2524 Upon review of the plans prepared by Westwood Engineering dated September 1, Mee 1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations: The plans propose a series of additions to the existing St. Hubert's site. Phase I of the proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition. This addition will have very minimal impact to the City's existing infrastructure or street system. However, the remaining proposed improvements in the master plan will affect City infrastructure and traffic circulation. These items are not addressed in this report. GRADING Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in a loss of some of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to be filled approximately two feet to match the existing building elevation and then slope towards West 78t" Street and Frontier Trail. The plans do propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will also be required. nRAINAGE Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line from the catch basin at the intersection of Frontier Trail and West 78t" Street to the interior of the site. The applicant will need to supply the City with pre- and post -drainage runoff calculations and verify that the existing City stone sewer system in Frontier Trail can accommodate runoff generated from this expansion. In addition, the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of-way permit from the Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan, no surface water management fees will be applicable. I1TILITIFS According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed with the proposed addition. If additional utility service is required from West 781n Street or Frontier Trail, staff will need to review and comment on the plans. The The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, qualit}, schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks, A great place to live, work, and play. Sharmin Al-Jaff Chapel Hill Academy Expansion November 23, 1999 Page 2 applicant may be responsible for additional sewer and water hookup fees at time of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water hookup fees based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. STREETS Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to accommodate the expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will dramatically impact traffic circulation on both Great Plains Boulevard and West 78"' Street. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding a right- in/right-out only at West 78th Street which staff believes would not propose a traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the right-in/right-out for better traffic delineation. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre -and post - development calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion. 2. The applicant shall obtain from the City a constriction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. Anita Benson, City Engineer g:\eng\dave\pc\chapel hill.doc 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612,937.1900 General Fax 612, 937.5739 Fngineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 W`eb its MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff FROM: Steve Torell, Building Official 1 r DATE: November 22, 1999 SUBJ: Site plan review for: Chapel Hill Academy Planning Case: 98-12 SPR (file 2) I have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments. These should be included in the conditions of approval as necessary. 1. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout. 2. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. 3. The other issues are too numerous to mention but include exiting, allowable building areas, and types of construction. These are significant issues; the owners and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss these. G/safety/st/memos/plan/chapelhill The City of Chanhassen. A growing communiq with clean lakes, qualir, schools, a channinz downtown, tbrivin f businesses, and beautiful Darks. A Qreat Place to live, work, and Plan 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Cbanbassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 MEMORANDUM General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612,937.9152 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Public Safeq Fax 612,934,2524 11%b wwro.ci,cbankwen.nrn.us FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: November 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Request for a site plan review to allow an expansion to the existing building on property zoned Office Industrial and located north of West 78"' Street, East of Frontier Trail and West of Great Plains Boulevard, 7707 Great Plains Boulevard, Chapel Hill Academy - Planning Case: 98-12 Site Plan Review (File 2) I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. if additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. 2. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. -Asa]ety\ml\plrev iew98-12 The City o f Chanhassen. AQrowinQ community with clean lakes, quality schools, a ebannine downtown, tbrivinf businesses, and beautiful parks. A Qreat place to live, work, and play. 11/23/99 09:01 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES Ca001 November 23, 1999 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen Minnesota By fax Q 937-5739 Re; Chapel Hill Academy — Site Plan approvals Dear Shanuin After much discussion and review of exterior material for our proposed building additions, we have concluded at this time to stay with the all masonry exterior as originally proposed. All material is propose, to be 8"xl6" colored rock face block with matching mortar color. We will use a precast "sill" to delineate the base block from the top block. We will also be adding the detailing at the two-story gym walls as Bill Lawrence showed you. These plans will be to you by the end of today. We will continue to evaluate the costs and the look of smaller masonry block and/or "utility sized" brick construction for the upper portion of the walls. I also understand that you discussed phasing with Bill. It is our intent for the City of Chanhassen to reviev the phasing as presented in the architcetural plans originally submitted. The initial phase one is the southerly classroom wing, Phase 2 is the Gym addition. As I mentioned, phase one and phase two may be constructed at nearly the same time. I appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review process. Sincerely, Chapel Hill Academy Daniel A_ Blake Director I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: C kc peA Hill A&,,Jv- tc� OWNER: Saw.e— ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ���sse� M� SS 311 TELEPHONE (Day time) Q?7- 8 Zo Z Mr. Z)ah Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Z.S0 4- '%0 ^ 6 Subdivision' TELEPHONE: ____ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" (and Bounds, 0M0 no SUB/Metes ) TOTAL FEE $ __&�>___U ATist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NDTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME C hibrad, LOCATION _ C.//`�ci LEGAL DESCRIPTION Se U PRESENT ZONING 01 REQUESTED ZONING C7T p PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION l v b�ic (n�(- C- REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION �y�l«� �v►�r - P��lr`c REASON FOR THIS REQUEST _ COST S I+e (/j nis appncauon must oe completed in tull and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should. confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that i am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible fotcomplying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hail Records. �� 3( Signature of Applicant Date $n Signature of Fee Owner 3Da e Application Received on'-6:2L,, 7 Fee Paid Lr,i� . Receipt No. 5 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meptIMM If nnf rnnfOr-IaM 0 -14N. —... -411._- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for APPLICANT: Chapel Hill Academy an Expansion LOCATION: 7707 Great Plains Blvd. NOTICE- You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area: The applicant, Chapel Hill Academy, is requesting site plan review to allow an expansion to the existing building on property zoned Office Institutional and located south of West 78th Street, east of Frontier Trail, and west of Great Plains Boulevard, 7707 Great Plains Boulevard. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 18, 1999 ARLIS A BOVY PAUL F & RITA M ROJINA CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY 7339 FRONTIER TRL 220 77TH ST W 306 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PHILIP R HILLMAN ESTATE ETAL BERNARD & HELEN KERBER MARK A PEARSON C/O NANCY E HILLMAN ETAL 221 77TH ST W 207 CHAN VIEW 4900 NINE MILE CREEK PKY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 DONALD A & JUDITH M SCHMIEG DANIEL W & AUDREY E FUELLING GREGORY J & KAREN J ODASH PO BOX 397 222 77TH ST W 221 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS C/O THIES & TALLE MGMT INC DANIEL J & JEANNE M BURKE RONALD & ELAINE ROESER 470 78TH ST W 225 77TH ST W 222 CHAN VIEW PO BOX 250 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD F MCCARVILLE LINDA LENORA KEELER BARBARA A HAMILTON 3349 WARNER LN 304 77TH ST W 224 CHAN VIEW MOUND, MN 55364 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANNA IVERSON VIOLA BUSCHKOWSKY PATRICIA ANN BERKTOLD BOX 1 206 78TH ST W 226 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LP JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS BLANCHE M SCHUTROP C/O THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES 220 78TH ST W 302 CHAN VIEW 470 78TH ST W STE 260 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX GEORGE P SHORBA PO BOX 730 222 78TH ST W 306 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA FRANCES M JACQUES & MARY GOETZ 21101 OAKDALE DR 308 CHAN VIEW 225 78TH ST W ROGERS, MN 55374 PO BOX 44 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 G L B PROPERTIES LLC GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK JAMES M & PATRICIA D MARTIN 1831 KOEHNEN CIR 225 78TH ST W 3740 UNION TERRACE LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 PHILIP R HILLMAN ESTATE ETAL WILLARD & KATHRYN PAULY C/O NANCY E HILLMAN ETAL 7721 FRONTIER TRL 4900 NINE MILE CREEK PKY PO BOX 8 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN E & KAREN M KRAEMER KEITH R & LISA KUPCHO 7703 ERIE AVE 7723 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY E JANSEN ETAL STEVEN R NELSON 7720 ERIE AVE 7725 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD A & ELIZABETH MNUSTAD PAUL G EIDEM &ANDREA F GRIFFITH 7721 ERIE AVE 7727 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD DEAN A ROERICK & JENNIFER L STODOLA 7791 ERIE AVE 7604 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD D & MARY GOETZE DOUGLAS J & WENDY K SUEDBECK 7610 FRONTIER TRL 7605 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES S JR & DIANE D BURANEN CARLOS M MARROQUIN & KIMBERLY L MARROQUIN 7616 FRONTIER TRL 7606 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & CHARLENE BOGDEN WILLIAM P HANSON 7617 FRONTIER TRL 7607 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD & KATHY GAVERT TRACY L & JANE M MESSER 7701 FRONTIER TRL 7608 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY A & KATHLEEN A SCHROEDER DOUGLAS J KOCH 7720 FRONTIER TRL 7609 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES M & PATRICIA D MARTIN 3740 UNION TERRACE LN PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 JOHN T BUSCH & GARY M CHRISTENSON 7607 HURON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN H & BEVERLY J RICKER 7608 HURON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JASON L & MONICA A LEMCKE 7609 HURON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT T & SUSAN J WELLIVER 7611 HURON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 12/29/99 11:09 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES [a001 December 29, 1999 Ms. Sharmin A]-Jaff, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen Minnesota By fax @ 937-5739 Re: Chapel Hill Academy — Site Plan approvals Dear Sharmin, Your staff report dated December 1, 1999 identifies parking as an item to be evaluated with the future phases of approvals. The proposed master plan relies on the assumption that the proposed parking layout and quantity meet the City's requirements. I would like to get staff acceptance of the master plan parking scheme as part of our initial approvals. The ordinance requirement is for one parking space for each classroom or office room, plus one space for each one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium. The current auditorium including aisles, excluding the stage, is approximately 6300 square feet (42 parking spaces). The master plan calls for a reduction in the auditorium to about 4000 sf. (27 parking spaces). The master plan gymnasium is 6300 square feet (42 spaces) and the master plan cafeteria is 2600 sf (17 spaces). The master plan has 22 classrooms and approximately 8 office rooms. Basing the parking requirement on the largest meeting area, the existing auditorium or the future gymnasium each require 42 parking spaces for a total of 72 required spaces. The proposed master plan parking layout provides for 84 parking spaces. While this exceeds the ordinance requirement by 12 spaces, it does not meet the actual needs for special programs held throughout the year. We are confident that the nearby municipal parking plus adjacent on -street parking will adequately handle these special event parking needs. Additional on -site parking could be provided on the eastern portion of the site, but that would require removal of existing mature trees and is not desired by Chapel Hill Academy, or the City. T appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review process. Sincerely, Chapel hill Academy Daniel A. Blake Director Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Kathy & Larry Schroeder 7720 Frontier Trail Dan Burke 225 West 771h Street Dan Blake 306 West 781h Street Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: That begs the question. It doesn't seem like enough. We're growing and reducing parking. There's a lack of logic. Al-Jaff: Right now, and we've been monitoring this every time we drive by. It's not scientific the way we have been monitoring the parking lot, but I have not been able to see more than 30 cars at any given time and I'm talking about the times when kids are dropped off or picked up and at that time the teachers are usually at school as well. So there isn't a parking problem out there today. Peterson: We'll double the size. Al-Jaff: We're going to double the size. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to us that with the ultimate expansion of this site the parking will still be adequate. Aanenson: Can I just add one thing? The original use was for the church, which is going to a school use with different standards and I think that's really why we're allowing it to be. The church had an overlap... Peterson: Are you inferring or stating that they have convinced you that 84's going to be enough? We have to do that now because we can't start this and assume that 84 is going to be enough. Al-Jaff: One of the things that we have talked about is activities. Evening activities that will potentially generate additional traffic for a concert or a game or after school activities. We have a parking lot right across the street and then the Medical Arts parking lot is available also. In the evening those parking lots are pretty much empty. So is there an alternative? Yes there is but at this time with this proposal, with the classroom addition, there is enough parking. I don't have, we don't have enough information at this time to tell you what the ordinance requires with the 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 ultimate expansion, but it's going to be pretty close. One of the things we talked about when we were discussing old town was having the addition come in this direction to cover the parking lot. However, this would mean losing more parking spaces and there was an option to put the parking on this side. We wanted to separate the parking, vehicular area from the residential area so, and it would have also meant cutting down large number of trees in this area so that is one of the reasons why the addition came to the northeast side. Sharmin Al-Jaff continued with her staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin, did you want to include a condition about the size of the block? Al-Jaff: Condition number 19 reads the applicant shall use a smooth face block not to exceed 4 x 12 inches. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm sorry. On the variance part, my understanding. Just make sure I've got it right. The City's asking that they move it closer to the street. The applicant. Aanenson: Well I think it was mutual. Burton: It's mutual? Okay. Okay. Aanenson: And we believe it's consistent with the neighborhood standard. Burton: Okay. A couple questions about some of the conditions. On condition 14, we talked about the detailed parking and built in lighting plan. Is it necessary to add language that says that which complies with city ordinance requirements at the end of that? Or is it. Al-Jaff: Sure. Burton: Condition 16 talks about a fence. Aanenson: Can we go back to that one moment? Burton: Yeah. Aanenson: I think too, based on where this is, I think they want to have something that's residential in character too. That was one of the things we talked about in the old town plan as far as height. So it may be something you want to look at in a different phase because they're not doing that parking lot. No changes at this time to the parking lot so that may appear in a different 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 phase. Is that correct? So that might be something, that's a good point. I think that's something that we'd want to look at. The neighborhood situation. Burton: On the condition 16's talking about fencing around the play area, and I wasn't sure or I didn't know if the City had an ordinance dealing with fencing around play areas. I think this came up at a recent one too and I can't remember what happened. Aanenson: Chain link is acceptable. Burton: But do we have an ordinance on that or no? No? Aanenson: The only ordinance on fencing is if it's adjacent to a street where you may block sight line and that's generally where it's more opaque. So under the circumstances I don't believe. Burton: Sorry to keep rattling off these questions here but the, we have the right -in, right -out suggestion by engineering and it looks like they had incorporated that but I don't think it's a condition and I'm just wondering kind of out loud here if that should be a condition. Al-Jaff: It's not part of the, they're not planning to put in the right -in, right -out with Phase I. Burton: They're not? I'm looking at a map or drawing here that shows right -in, right -out right there. Al-Jaff: Yeah, it's part of the ultimate master plan. At this point with Phase I, the only change that's takiu place as far as the driveways go is closing off the driveway, the service driveway off of West 78t' and putting in a new driveway off of Frontier Trail. Burton: Yeah, I guess I have a question for engineering as to whether we should require it at this point with the addition of the Phase I here that it be right -in, right -out. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I put it in the staff report just to make everybody aware of the overall master plan. How it was going to impact traffic and that we foresee that a right -in, right -out would be acceptable at that location of West 78th Street. It's my understanding that there are no improvements or changes going to happen to the existing parking lot out there so at this time it would not be appropriate or necessary to include that as a condition. We just wanted to make the applicant aware and the commissioners aware that sometime down the road it will happen. Burton: Okay. Kind: Mr. Chairman, while we're talking to engineering I have a question about that removal of that existing drive. Would the applicant be required to get rid of that curb cut that's on West 78th and replace it with a regular curb? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, that's correct. We would require a full restoration of the boulevard and curb along the street. Similar to what's out. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Kind: Should that be a condition? Hempel: Typically we require a construction and right-of-way permit any time they're working out in the city's right-of-way and we would address it through that method. Kind: Okay, thanks. Hempel: Good point though, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: A question... I guess in past applications when we've had a demolition we've had a condition stating that the applicant should obtain... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I don't think I can address that one. It's more of a building issue. They may require some sort of a demolition or removal of the modular units so. Sidney: Correct. Do you think that's redundant to... Aanenson: I think it puts them on notice. That's fine. You can just leave it open and say secure any necessary permits. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have one Mr. Chairman. Ultimate buildout shows a 43.2% hard surface coverage compared with 65% under ordinance. What are they at right now and what do you feel about 43 %? Is that? Al-Jaff: It's in compliance with ordinance so they exceed what ordinance requires by 20% so it's truly not an issue. Blackowiak: Just for some reason to me it just looked like it was. Al-Jaff: More than that? Blackowiak: Yes. Much more than that. Al-Jaff: It is for the play area and then you have all of the green space around it. Blackowiak: Okay, good. It looked deceptive. The next question, I think you characterized the sidewalk along Frontier as being substandard. Would this be an opportunity when the Chapel Hill connects from West 781h to Frontier to do some upgrading at the time of the demolition? Because you know that there's probably going to be further degradation of the sidewalk when 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 you've got heavy machinery going across and that type of thing. Do we need to address that as a condition? Al-Jaff: When I went out there three times to really look at what are we going to lose in the process, there are some mature trees that add so much character to that area. So it's a choice between an upgrade sidewalk or mature trees. Aanenson: Let's clarify upgrade. Talking width. There might be some ... that are damaged but as far as making it the standard width of 5 feet, that would change the character by the loss of the trees. It's our recommendation narrow. There's some substandard areas that's something else we can look at. Blackowiak: Okay, I was thinking it was just sort of in general substandard. Aanenson: Well we can certainly look at that and make that recommendation. Blackowiak: About another condition. Do we want to add a condition that the modular building seemed to be removed upon completion or is that addressed in a prior condition? Aanenson: I think it goes back to what LuAnn was saying and we're just going to cover that by adding a condition that secure any necessary building permits. Blackowiak: So that covers the removal of the modular buildings then? Al-Jaff: On the Phase I sheet that shows what they are going to accomplish within the first phase, they are showing that they are removing those modular buildings. That's why we didn't put it down as a condition. Blackowiak: Okay. I just didn't want them to move them and not remove them so. And I think that's it for me, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Music room backs up to the neighborhood so how do we manage sound? Al-Jaff: One of the neighbors says it's there now. Conrad: Is there special acoustics in that part of the building? Are there doors that should, we have to manage that and it doesn't matter if it's there now or not. We just have to manage that. It's a bigger, I'm assuming it's a bigger music area and it's more important and blah, blah, blah. So that has to be managed for future neighbors, or the current neighbors. Going back to something that was said, Kate. You talked about condition 16 and the fence. Your condition 16 says show the type of fence. Staff report said decorative but we can't enforce decorative, is that what you said? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Aanenson: No, I said a chain link is permitted currently. Conrad: It is permitted but decorative was what the staff report said we'd like. Al-Jaff: Correct and it... Conrad: Chain link, my definition chain link is not decorative. Let's make that real clear. Aanenson: Like wrought iron or something like that. Al-Jaff: That we encouraged. Conrad: Encourage but that's not in the staff report so I'm assuming we can't, we can't enforce that. Al-Jaff: That's true. Conrad: We can't? Al-Jaff: We can't enforce it. Conrad: The service road to the north, how is that buffered from the neighborhood or do we treat that like an alley or what is the, what are our standards for the service road that goes in there Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I really didn't look in too great of detail on that part of it yet being that it's a future phase. I guess I apologize for not addressing that. Conrad: Okay, it will be an issue when it comes in. I like the footprint a great deal, and you're not asking for whether I like this or not right now but I like it a whole bunch. I think there's some really good things. What I don't like are not part of what we're approving tonight, and I don't get involved with design but I really don't think that, and I think the applicant's going to have to persuade me in the future that this is really fitting the neighborhood. I like the south elevation. I think the elevations that are working for the city are really good and those elevations we can approve tonight. I think those work. In terms of our conditions, fitting into the neighborhood. Making it work with the neighborhood. I don't buy it yet and somebody's going to have to, I don't need to belabor the point. I'm making the point right now. That the east elevation, if that doesn't fit to the neighborhood other than a low profile but everything else says it's really different from the rest of the neighborhood. I like the trees. I think you're doing the right job protecting the trees on that site. I don't think the chain link fencing is doing us any good over there other than we need fencing for those areas but my point is when it comes back, I'm going to be real critical of the north elevation. Anything that's facing the neighborhoods. They don't look to me today like they're fitting. Okay. I think the elevations that are being approved tonight fit. They fit the busy downtown. They fit the commercial side of our business. In Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Those are okay. They're fine. There are constraints but I don't, what I'm seeing in terms of the long range is not acceptable. Aanenson: Can staff just comment on that real quick? I guess that's part of what Sharmin was trying to frame up is that what we're doing tonight is setting in place some other, you know trying to unify the theme and location of the addition so while that first phase may work, it has an implication for the rest of the site. Conrad: Okay Kate but. Aanenson: But I guess I'd ask you to evolve that a little bit further. Conrad: Well you've done a nice job or the applicant has on the south elevation. There's some break-up. There's some elements that are reflecting roof type. Not a flat design. You know we've got a flat roof here. We're putting a flat roof in and that doesn't reflect the neighborhood. You break it up on the south elevation that faces West 78th Street. I think that's good. And so you've got the flat but you've broken it up with some architectural detail which you do on all other commercial projects that come in to this city. Then you take the north elevation that faces the residential area and you're saying well it's because it's their back yard we may be able to let this work. And because maybe it's probably down 6 feet or from whatever their elevation is, it may work. I could be persuaded on that but it's not very pretty. Doesn't fit right now so based on how you set me up in the staff report, what we're trying to do in the old town, it doesn't work. On those elevations so I would be critical on those elevations. I want it to work. I want it to fit into the neighborhood. I want those additional details. They may even be non-functional which I don't like but they may be non-functional but they have to reflect or echo the neighborhood and maybe it's just going to be a different staff and applicant presentation at that point in time to show me how it will break up the visual and trees break up the visual and that might work for me. But again, I don't want the applicant rubber stamping the long range future because I'm not here. I think the staff and the applicant is presenting on the brick, I think that's fine. But I think we just need to take another look at those two elevations in the future. Peterson: I feel like we're doing our pre -vote. Conrad: Yeah, and I'm sorry about that. Peterson: No, that's fine. Because I felt, my comment to Sharmin before you made yours was, I'm not convinced I like any of the elevations. I think, as I looked at them and whether it's the presentation to me or whether it is missing something. I think it's probably a little bit of both. I think after your comments Ladd I look at the south elevation and I think, I do like that the best. I don't know whether I'm all the way there yet because the gymnasium's still a lot of building there. Without, and I can't, with the drawings that I've got, I really can't get a good feel as to whether it's broken up enough or whether we can do more in there. But I didn't feel good about what I saw and I don't know whether it's the drawings that aren't there or I just can't put the pieces together yet. But something is missing. I don't know what. I will in the next 20 minutes. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 play. The last thing, I guess I'd like to ask if anybody has any questions before I talk about exterior materials because I'd like to address site plan or building footprint issues if that would be okay. Peterson: Questions so far? Dan Blake: Okay, that's just fine. I want to talk a little -bit specifically about exterior materials and I know that this is an important issue to the city and it's important to us as well. Our obligation to comply with the ordinances to be compatible with their surroundings and use appropriate materials. There isn't anything specific in the ordinance that says small brick, big brick, block, stone, glass, whatever it be. If we were in Eden Prairie, it would be easier because their ordinance is more specific. So our charge is to be compatible. There is very little brick in the residential next to us. Mostly siding. A little bit of stucco. The residential to the, the apartment buildings as you go to the west, and the closest one is stucco and brick on the corners. As you go further beyond that it's wood siding with brick. The adjacent commercial uses are siding or, the visible side we see of the strip mall ... across the street, which I think is a fairly unfair comparison for anybody to try to match. That building was built some 100 years ago or so. We struggle at Chapel Hill with what can we afford to pay to provide an education to students. We tried to come up with a plan that was mostly functional but hopefully wasn't distasteful. You know there's architectural elements, some of these little metal roofs that stick out there, that serve absolutely no function. We know that that was important to the city to add those kinds of things to the picture. They cost money. That means that something else doesn't happen. Brick versus block is a big dollar item. Look around at what's being built. The use of colored rock face block is very common these days. Certainly more in industrial applications but you have it in your downtown. Not whole buildings but you have portions of it. The new or relatively new Waconia High School is built completely out of rough face block in an 8 x 16. The big picture that Sharmin holds up, that's what a block, that's the size of a block. You have that size block in your town all over the place. The new CSM office industrial building on Dell Road that is adjacent to single family is being built out of that kind of material. It adds a lot to our cost and it means if we don't go that route, it means we have to reconsider what we can do. How much building we can build. How fast we can grow. And whether we can even, whether we ought to even try to exist in this location. I really do understand the city's desire to start something that is very desirable in this location and that this is, sets a trend not just for the rest of our building but for any other redevelopment in this end of downtown. And if somebody wanted to contribute the difference, we'd love to put all brick on the building. And maybe we would end up doing it anyway even if you approved a rock face block scenario because we don't know how much money we can raise yet to do that, and I'd certainly be willing to make a commitment to try to make that work. But I doubt that I can come back later and say well now go to block if we've agreed on a brick material for now so. My first choice would be that we approve, that the City approves a, allows the 8 x 16 block material, rock face block with the color schemes as shown. And that we make a commitment to try and figure out how to accommodate as much of the smaller materials as possible. And thoroughly investigate the cost of such. Let me just explain a little bit on a construction side. Generally, especially on a gym wall like this, generally that wall is a masonry construction. If I build it out of rock face block I build a block wall. The outside is the outside, the inside's the inside. If I am required to put brick on it, I build a block 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 wall and then I build a brick wall next to the block wall. The brick costs almost as much as the block and it serves no purpose other than decorative, which is a purpose certainly. But the block is structural. Becomes a structural and an outside finish in one piece as opposed to two walls next to each other. And that's why the cost is so much higher. It's not the cost of these bricks versus these blocks. It's two walls versus one wall. As an alternative I would be willing I guess to offer, if we were to look at, you can go back to this picture. We could go with rock face block in the reddish color and along the bottom, all along the side ... and we'll go with the brick and the lighter color on the side that ... along 78th Street ... back wall, the side wall and the back and then the back around the building be the block material with the color scheme to match so that from a distance you can't tell. But from close up you obviously can and I think that's true and a worthy point that from a distance it's difficult to tell block versus brick. With the types of materials available to day, but obviously from up close it's a different feel. I know that your job as a city is to try to set flavor and tone for the, what's best for the city as a whole. We just have to be careful to not regulate things out of existence. You know there's a building there now. It's built out of 4 or 5 different materials. I don't know if you consider it an eyesore or not. I guess we thought it was okay enough to buy it. But that's what's there. It doesn't make the newspaper that this is just a horrible building so as much as we'd like to build the ideal, maybe other alternatives don't have to be bad. I guess I'll leave it there. That was a lot and answer any questions anybody has. Peterson: Questions? Thank you. Kind: Actually I do have a question. I was waiting for Ladd. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the applicant or for you. I was wondering if you considered bus turn around areas, having that be separate at all on this master plan? I know that we're just, we're looking at the master plan and specifically Phase I but. Dan Blake: Well the bus turn around or the concept was really what drove the additional parking lot connection to West 78th Street. It allows a bus to turn in right, follow the edge of the building. We do have some busing. Not a lot of busing. Most of our stuff's still carpooling. We only get busing from the District 212. 112. People and I think it's one or two buses total. So it's not like a typical elementary school where there's 12 buses lined up. We have one or two, so that's why we wanted to create a smooth flow for the buses to drop off at the curb side. Why the sidewalk plazas and then straight back out and form a loop so not internal to the parking lot but we try to create a nice loop for that. Kind: My concern is people who are doing the car pooling, fighting with buses to get to that curb but you anticipate future use won't even be that much busing or? Dan Blake: We don't think there will be a lot more busing because it's not available, it's not really available to us from outside the district. Our students are spread around Eden Prairie, Minnetonka as well as Chaska -Chan. What our design is if you look at the master plan is a whole bunch of sidewalk and curb side that follows that whole edge of the parking lot intentionally so there was a lot of bus and parent space for drop off and pick up. We also have designed into the plan a main entry and then like a young grade classroom entry so there are two 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 wing which was basically a 30 foot by 30 foot classroom and a 12 foot corridor and a 30 foot classroom next to it. It got out to that point. We've got some of those little architectural extensions out there and that's where the variance came in. We were working to put a bunch of the building out that direction. We didn't go as far as maybe staff wanted to so that's the reason for the variance is to bring it closer to what else is out there. I guess sometimes we use what else is out there as a reason, the excuse for the variance. In this case maybe our design was to match what's on both sides of us. Even across the street that building is probably in the neighborhood of 10 or 15 feet from the property line. So I guess that's the why. Right now if you were to ask us can we live with 35, it would drastically alter the entire design because I can't cut 2 or 3 feet off of those classrooms and still make them functional so we would have designed it very differently if we thought we were trying to strictly adhere to the design standards. Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Larry Schroeder: I'm Larry Schroeder. I live at 7720 Frontier Trail. We're right on the corner that would be the northeast corner of the property. We're the neighbors of Chapel Hill. We've lived there for 30 years. There's always been a school there. I have no problem with the kids, the music room. I kind of like it. I open the windows and it's god awful but it's nice music. It's kids. So I think Dan and Chapel Hill are doing a great job. I have no problems with it whatsoever. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Dan Burke: I'm Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th which is around the corner on 77th Street. From the designs that I had seen before, I think this is a great improvement. It does a nice job I think of cutting the block diagonally. Setting the back side more residential. And the front side more of the commercial side. I think by doing that we really will be able to get a nice division on the block and in the neighborhood. My concern is in the lighting on the back side. I would like it to be more on the residential, we have much more of a dark neighborhood and would like more down lighting versus broad lighting. That's my. Peterson: Anyone else? Close? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one? Blackowiak: I'll jump in. I agree with much of what Ladd said. Although we're just looking at Phase I this evening, I do think we have to kind of look to get an overall flavor of the project FM Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 because what happens in Phase I is going to directly affect Phases II and III and I don't think we can take Phase I without at least considering the other, the implications on the other phases. The north and east elevations do seem to be lacking. South and west look good. There could be some more interest. I do realize it is an OI zone. I understand that. But we also need to understand that it's in the Highway 5 corridor. We can expect a little higher quality standards. And we also have neighbors to consider and it is a residential neighborhood so I don't think it's being unrealistic to ask for more interest and to try to make something that the neighbors are going to be happy with and the city will be happy with too. And I think, when I say city is the community. Not just the city staff. I think you're going in the right direction. I do like it. Specifically regarding the block. I don't know that I feel comfortable requiring totally smooth face block, and I'll throw this out. I might say maybe, we set a percentage. Maybe 50% or something. I certainly can understand that the smooth face block on the gym might be cost prohibitive and not necessarily expansive. But I think there are trade-offs to be made if we go that route and offer smooth face block on a portion of the building. Then I think that in return it is fair to expect some increased interest on the northeast elevation. I don't know exactly what that would be. I don't want to tell you what that would be but you know, as long as we can all work together I think we can come up with a nice product. Overall I don't have, I really don't have any problems. I think that the staff report adequately addresses the issues that I have. And at this point you know, given my comments, I'm very comfortable with what I see. Peterson: Other comments? Kind: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I'll jump in. I agree with Alison's comments regarding the brick face. I think it's important to get it to be not that industrial size. I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to have just the buff colored areas on those elevations, on the one story elevation be that 4 x 12. Is that the size? And that that bottom red, the rock face. Just kind of throw that out as a possibility. I kind of like actually the contrast. I don't know. That might be a compromise way to go. What else? But I do feel strongly that it needs to be that smaller size on the bulk of the building. I agree with that big time. What else? I'd like to see more windows. I understand the energy conservation aspect. Maybe that doesn't really apply to this phase but on the future elevations I think that would be something that I'd like to see, especially on the gym. I think it's very common to have those high, I call them kind of skylights and to get some natural light in the gym. I'd like to see that on the gym. But that's future so whatever. And then I have a few suggested additional conditions that I'd like to throw out for discussion and see what the rest of the commission thinks of them. That we, number 16. I know Matt said something about this, with that fence. And we talked later about the chain link aspect. I think because we're in the Highway 5 overlay district that we could request a higher quality fence because of where we're talking about. And maybe the language is that we strongly encourage the applicant to use decorative fencing or I don't know. If that's a must thing or not. I'd be interested in other people's comments on that. But the chain link fence that's there has got to go and I'm glad to hear that it is going. Right along West 781h Street. And then the other addition that I'd like to add is the possibility of mixing the brick. I'd be interested in other commissioners' thoughts on those two things. Peterson: Other comments? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman ... I do like the building... I agree with staff s recommendation... almost industrial looking... Kind: Mr. Chairman, I forgot a couple things regarding pedestrian friendliness. The sidewalk that's being added along Frontier Trail that connects up with our cute little 3 foot, will be extended down to West 78th Street. I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to add the proposed addition student entrance on the east side had that sidewalk go directly out to the new trail. I'm just thinking for pedestrian access to the student entrance that it would be silly to walk all the way down to West 78th and then go back up to the student entrance. So that sidewalk I think needs to be added there. And then also for future phases, I'd like to see a sidewalk along Great Plains on the east side. I'm having directional problems tonight. On the east side and I know that's a future phase but I'd just kind of like to put that out there for part of the master plan. Al-Jaff: West side. Kind: It would be west side? Peterson: East side of Great Plains. West side of the building, east side of Great Plains. Kind: Are we talking about the same place? Okay. It would be on the east side of Great Plains Boulevard. Right? Peterson: West side of the building. Al-Jaff: West side of the building. Kind: Yep. And that's probably a'future phase. That's all for now. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple brief comments. I think it's a very nice project and welcome addition, well it's already an addition to the community but I think these are nice improvements to the school. I again mirror the comments of my, of the other people on the commission. I can't really weigh in on the materials on the size of the blocks. I don't have a very good, personally a good idea of what visual impressions would be so I really can't add anything to that and I'm not sure how I feel about it because I don't really have a good grasp of it. With respect to the lighting I do think it's important that we make a condition that it has residential character, especially on the neighborhood sides. I do want to add that I do like the phases that we're looking at. I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight and I think that the comments on those were good. I guess that's really it. I don't want to repeat everything everybody else said but those are my general thoughts. I think it's a nice project and I think the staff comments are good. Peterson: Others? P1:j Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Conrad: I'll just, I probably segwayed, or I probably said what I believed in half hour ago. It is a good project. The footprint is right. The variances are right. The variance is correct. That's the right thing to do. Phase I is good. It's everything else that we're not sure of, which is a make that a real positive signal. I think everybody here is concerned with the sides facing the residential community. It's not where it can be so you're okay in Phase I. I don't see that changing your long range plan. Us approving Phase I tonight but it does say the long range plan has to be altered in terms of its architectural detail as it's projected or presented to the neighbors. I think whoever makes the motion has to really deal with the brick issue. I haven't heard anybody really deal with it very well yet and I'm not the one that's going to deal with that so ... or come up with an absolute recommendation on that. My last point is on the gymnasium. I'd really encourage you to when that gets built in Phase II I think it will be fairly critical again because you're bordering neighborhoods. The neighbors and we'll want to see how that does fit. It's a bigger wall and I'd really like you to encourage you to look at the smartness of putting windows on that. And that's way beyond my scope of expertise but lighting and a gymnasium, I've been in those that are lit and it helps. It helps. It would also help break up that wall I think so that's just a future to what's presented tonight. I would hope that somebody would give clear direction in terms of the brick. Peterson: My comments about that dissimilar to my peers. Architectural interest is a consistent theme we've heard. Certainly one that I still have. Secondly, I am genuinely not comfortable with the existing asphalt roof. I mean, and I don't have a resolution to that. It's a very unique roof now and we're basically boxing around it and ... that's the best alternative. —convinced that it is. Drawings now don't do it justice as to its unique drawings here ... as a normal pitched roof and it looks distinctively different than what the drawings are... And I don't know if there are any alternatives but it will be interesting to see other versions that may... As it relates to the brick, I feel strongly about using the smaller ones, primarily because of, the smaller I believe have more of a residential feel to buffer, nicer transition versus a larger being an abrupt commercial kind of a... The property CSM is doing, I wouldn't want the CSM building in this neighborhood. CSM isn't in a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. We have issues and possibilities that go along... I'm offering more —than I am positive but I've got, with those final comments is there a motion and a second please? Kind: Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion can I just get a feel from my fellow commissioners as to how you feel about the larger block on the reddish portion. Or do you think it should be all. Peterson: I think it should be all smaller brick but that's one opinion. Kind: Okay, I'll venture a motion here. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy master plan as shown in plans dated August, received August 31, 1999 with the following conditions. 1 through 19 and then I have a couple amendments and a couple to add so here we go. Number 5, these will be conditions that Sharmin has that we don't have in front of us. So the number 5 will be the changes that Sharmin had. Number 10, add a (d) that says obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. Number 12. Add a sentence at the end that says the new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the WE Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 proposed addition. Number 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. Number 15. Show the location of the trash enclosure for Phase I and the materials used to build the trash enclosure should be the same as those on the new building. Let's see, number 16. Show the type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. And then number 19, Sharmin will you read what you have for that? Al-Jaff: The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. Kind: On Phase I. So we don't have to deal with the gym aspect at this point? Al-Jaff: This would reflect this... Kind: Let's have 19 be that way. Number 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner will be removed. Or shall be removed. I guess that's a better language. Number 21. The existing driveway along West 78`h shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to match existing curb on West 78`h Street. And number, I'm up to 22. A detailed sign plan. We didn't talk about so I'm just throwing this one in here freelance. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. And number 23. The modular units must be removed. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: I'd second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion to that? Conrad: So the block issue is per staff recommendation? Kind: Correct. Peterson: Other discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy master plan as shown in the plans dated received August 31,1999, with the following conditions: 1. Increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. 2. Increase plantings for boulevard trees in order to meet ordinance requirements. 3. Increase plantings for parking lot area in order to meet ordinance requirements. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. 5. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre -and post -development storm water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion. 7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. 8. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. 10. Building Official Conditions: a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout. b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. 11. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. 12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall be connected to the sidewalk along West 781h Street. The new sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition. 13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the same as those used on the new building. 16. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. 17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement -with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee site improvements. 18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed. 21. The existing driveway along West 781h shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to match existing curb on West 781h Street. 22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. 23. The modular units must be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS. Peterson: Any old business Kate? Aanenson: Yes. I have old business. AT&T tower has been continued until December 131h They have acquiesced and they are redesigning their tower to fit some sort of a cross theme. We haven't seen it yet but they figured out a way to make that work so we're very pleased about that. Unfortunately we haven't seen exactly how it's going to look yet but it should be coming in this week and it will be going to the City Council on the 13cn Sidney: You said the... Aanenson: Yes. The tower next to the church. It will be incorporated with the cross in the design. We don't know, we haven't seen it yet. Peterson: A 300 foot cross. Sidney: That's what I'm thinking it's going to be. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999 Aanenson: Yeah, we haven't seen it yet. Then I believe there was questions last time when I wasn't here about what was going on with Pulte. The Council did reconsider it for conceptual approval so it still has to go through, back through another public hearing with you regarding preliminary approval and as a part of that we're working hard to come up with some different designs on the homes that you made suggestions on. The different types of products so there will be five products so we're working on that. So that's kind of the status of some, the old business. I have quite a bit of new business if we can jump to that. NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: We had tabled tonight the Lake Susan Hills Apartments. Sharmin's been working hard on that. It's now been called, just to break up the confusion with the other apartment building which appears to be back on track too, it's now called Powers Ridge. Unfortunately the other one had the Lake Susan name but somebody else got it. So that one's called Powers Ridge right now. Just for your edification, I don't know if you received notice of that but there is a neighborhood meeting at St. Hubert's tomorrow night regarding this project. We haven't seen the revised drawings. Sharmin's been working hard on the one building that faces the majority of the neighborhoods, we've asked them to break it up. It does have underground parking so we asked them to put a break in the building. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, Powers Ridge is Lake Drive and north of like Osprey and that other one? Aanenson: Right. It's between Powers and Audubon. Yeah, and that's the one that's on your agenda tonight. It was pulled off and the reason was is we wanted some different architectural changes and they were meeting with the neighbors again tomorrow night at St. Hubert's. I believe it's 7:00. If you were interested in that I can give you the time if you want to call me. So that's where that one is. We are working on the Freseth property. That will probably be coming in January. That's the property between Mission Hills and just south of the new St. Hubert's. South of Rice Marsh. Eckankar is coming forward. We're working on an environmental assessment document doing a master plan for that entire project. Conrad: What is that? Aanenson: Ultimate campus for their entire property. Conrad: You've seen it? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Bigger than? Aanenson: Yes. It will be a big project. It's in phases. I mean right now what they're coming in with is an office building. Part of the property was guided institutional, which does allow those types of uses. Part of the property is also, to the north of the site, is residential so we're going to 01 City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000 Resolution #2000-01: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 7"' Addition — Project No. 99- 18. e. Resolution #2000- 02: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 5"i and 6"' Additions — Project Nos. 99-15 and 99-16. f. Resolution 02000-03: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Springfield 2"a, P, and 4"' Additions, Project Nos. 97-20, 98-7 and 98-6. g. Resolution #2000-04: Receive Feasibility Study; Set Public Hearing Date for Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement — Project No. 97-11. h. Resolution #2000-05: Approve Temporary Permits to Construct for TH 5/West 78"' Street Improvement Project No. 97-6 amended to add Parcel 215A. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 13, 1999 - City Council Minutes dated December 13, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated December 1, 1999 k. Resolution #2000-06: Approve Resolution Establishing Procedures Relating to Compliance with Reimbursement Bond Regulations Under the Internal Revenue Code. 1. Resolution #2000-07: Approve Resolution Designating Signers on City Bank Accounts. M. Resolution #2000-08: Approve Resolution Modifying Personnel Policy Regarding Comp Time for Exempt Employees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 16,680 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Dan Blake Steve Barnett Dan Plowman Kathy & Larry Schroeder Sherry & Bob Ayotte 306 West 78"' Street 8709 Chanhassen Hills 6490 White Dove Drive 7720 Frontier Trail 6213 Cascade Pass City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 Sharmin Al-Jaff: Just a brief background of the application. In June of 1998 the City Council approved an application for temporary classrooms. It was an Interim Use Permit format and as a condition of approval was that one year after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the modular classrooms, the applicant for Chapel Hill Academy needed to submit a complete site plan application. And five years after Certificate of Occupancy the modular units would need to be removed or when the expansion has taken place, whichever comes first. So the site plan is before the City Council. The applicant is requesting a site plan review application approval for the construction of a 16,680 square foot classroom units and a 2,000 square foot library addition. And a 5 foot front yard setback variance to allow the addition to be located 30 feet from public right-of-way. This is the first phase of a 77,260 square foot expansion. This addition is proposed to be located, Phase I, located to the south of the site and facing West 78"' Street. The site contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom buildings, two houses, two garages and a playground. There has been numerous studies done on this site and this area of the city. It is within the area that is referred to as Old Town. It is within the 2002 Vision for the city so again there has been a lot of concepts and studies done in this area. The existing building was built in phases and as each phase was constructed, a different building material was introduced to this site. That was one of the challenges that we had to deal with as we started working on this expansion. Materials that you can find on the existing building include brick, wood, fluted block, and glass block. The goal of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance and build an addition that blends in with the area. The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three phases. It is possible for this project to take 5 or 10 years but at this -present time the intent is to complete the classrooms over the next 2 years. The proposed addition is proposed to utility rock face block and I can pass these around for the City Council to look at. The colors include same shades of red brick that can be found on the existing building. Specifically on the base of the western elevation of the existing building. The color combination will blend in with the existing building. Especially when the area located west of the site is, this is the area we're talking about. Right now this area is mainly glass. Therefore it will blend in. Councilman Senn: Just a point of, these are the rock face block, right? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. That is the material that the applicant is proposing to utilize. Councilman Senn: These are? Sharmin Al-Jaff: These are. What you're holding. Councilman Senn: Okay, so these are the rock face block. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, and this is basically the roof color and the flashing color. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, and what's this? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Nothing. Decoration for. One of the issues regarding the materials that we need to bring up deals with the size of the block. This is an established area of Chanhassen. The applicant is proposing to use block that is 8 x 16 inches, and this is the size of an 8 x 16 inch block. Typically you'll 4 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 find those on warehouses. This is the size of a typical brick that you might find in the surrounding area. The church across the street utilizes this size brick. What we're suggesting to the applicant is maybe they can utilize what we call a utility size brick. It is pretty much the height of a siding that you might find within that neighborhood. It is also twice the size of a brick that you would find in that neighborhood as well. Councilwoman Jansen: Do you know what the actual dimensions are of your jumbo, your utility brick? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Yes. They are, with the mortar it would be 4 inches by 12 inches. Councilwoman Jansen: That one's 4 by 12? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Yes. Mayor Mancino: I think that's one of, that's on condition 19. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sharmin Al-Jaff: So this is the only issue that we really have with the materials on the building. The size, it needs to be a smoother face. It needs to be compatible with the surrounding areas. Entrances into the building are well defined. There is a projecting pitched element on them. Another issue that required quite a bit of discussion deals with the gymnasium. Overall this building is a one story building. It is in a residential neighborhood. As you get to the gymnasium portion, you're going to a two story box basically and there isn't any other word to describe it. What we agreed upon was to locate it, locate the gym to the northwest corner of the site. This area is 8 feet lower than the existing residences to the north. There will be quite a bit of vegetation. There are some mature trees in this area and that will create that building. As far as location on the site, it is probably the best location for a gymnasium. One of the questions that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting was the parking. To date there are 132 parking spaces. With this plan the building will pretty much double in size, yet they will lose half of their existing parking. Remember that this site used to be used as a church. Now it is a school. We calculated the number of parking spaces that they would need with their ultimate expansion and as per figures that were provided by the applicant they would need 72 parking spaces. They are providing 84 parking spaces. So they have more than they need as far as parking. One issue that might become a problem would be special activities. If there were concerts, then there are parking spaces, public parking spaces around that area that the school could utilize. Final issue we'd like to touch upon deals with the setback variance. The ordinance requires a 35 foot front yard setback. This site is located within an established neighborhood with buildings that maintain substantially reduced setbacks. We wanted to reinforce and reflect the setback of the existing building and reinforce the established character of the neighborhood. The setback would be 30 feet from West 78"' Street. 32 feet from Frontier Trail. There isn't a hardship. We're not going to try and justify one. It's purely an aesthetic reason. And with that staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Sharmin. A couple questions that I have, and if other council members have questions. Could you go over our review tonight is on the addition of Phase 1, but you want us to also review the entire kind of site plan and give general comments to it? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Yes, please. City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Could you review with us the Planning Commission's general review of it? What, did they have any concerns? Again, not just on Phase I but of the master plan. So that we don't need to be redundant if the Planning Commission has already given some. Sharmin Al-Jaff: They liked Phase I. They liked how close it's going to be to West 78`h.. It will provide a pleasant, which is something that they have been looking at, and wanting to see with this application. Parking was an issue in their mind. They couldn't understand, well they questioned the reason why they are doubling the size of the building and reducing the parking in half and I explained that earlier. The size of the brick was extremely important to them. They unanimously agreed that this is a large size block that does not belong in the residential neighborhood. They indicated that it is preferred. However, this is a compromise that will blend in well within that neighborhood. Mainly as staff mentioned earlier, it is the same width as the siding. They were extremely concerned with the elevation facing the residential area. As far as future phases go. As well as the gymnasium. They wanted to see more relief and more architectural features on the elevations facing the residential neighborhood. Mayor Mancino: So they weren't so concerned with location and what was going on there, but they. just wanted more architectural interest on that north elevation and on the gym? Is that, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Sharmin Al-Jaff: That's an accurate statement. They thought overall the layout of the site plan was very good. Commissioner Conrad raised the question of the location of the music room and when the kids practiced they might disturb the neighbors, but the neighbors that were at the meeting thought it amusing. Mayor Mancino: Wait until they practice and they're out of tune. Just kidding. Okay. I just want to make sure that we understand their concerns. Sharmin Al-Jaff: One of the things that the applicant did a good job with was they tried to leave the area that faces Frontier Trail neighborhood in it's present condition to the extent possible. There's minimum tree removal in that area. One of the original thoughts we had was to push the building in this direction towards Great Plains Boulevard. Basically that will result in screening in the parking. However, they would be short of parking and would need to locate some in the area facing Frontier Trail and we didn't think that would be a good option. Planning Commission agreed that the current layout is the best. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? I'm sorry. Excuse me Dan. Were there any other questions for staff at this point? From council members. Councilwoman Jansen: Not right now. I can wait with mine. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dan. Dan Blake: Thank you Mayor Mancino and Council members. My name is Dan Blake with Chapel Hill Academy. I also brought with me a couple other parents who happen to be on the Board of Directors and city of Chanhassen residents here tonight. If you have any questions regarding our school in general, we'll be glad to try to address those and obviously specifics of this plan when we get to it. Chapel Hill Academy is a non -denominational Christian school that has been operating for I think 28 years now in the southwest metro area. We moved to Chanhassen a couple of years ago in the old St. Hubert's school and church building. We currently have 323 students in kindergarten through 8"' grade. 53 of those students are Chanhassen residents so we're generally Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka kind of areas where our students come from. We are planning a building to accommodate 450 students, and that would equate to two classes per grade from kindergarten through 81h grade. I'm going to review D. City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 from our perspective this whole master site plan and then I've got two issues that I'd like to focus in on. Obviously you're all, well it's reasonable to assume that you're all familiar with the location of this site on the east end of downtown. What we are proposing, minor correction to the staff comment as far as the building size. The property is about 4 '/2 acres. We're proposing a total expansion that gets the total building to about that 77,000 square foot number. It's roughly 38,000 square feet now and we're coming close to doubling it to 77,000 total square feet. I think you all have a picture like this. I like this better than the site plan. I don't know if it works good on the overhead. How far can we zoom in on that? I'd just like to review the existing building. This is the existing classroom building that was actually built first on this property. The church addition generally sits down in this end. Our plan is for a classroom wing, one story addition along West78th Street. A gym building fronted by a one story locker room, office area. And administrative addition in front of the existing church building and some expanded and reconfigured classrooms along the back side. When this master plan is completed, nearly every bit of the old building will be covered up or rebuilt. This area is the area that most remains in it's existing condition with the existing roof but the outside walls are proposed to be reconstructed to match the existing building. As Sharmin mentioned, we have not identified exactly what our time frame is to make all this happen... the modular classroom buildings. The gym is somewhat substandard and we'd like to see that improved and that's why a new gym addition is desired. I'd like to point out some of the, how we envision the site plan in this master building working is that facing diagonal across the street from the old, I don't know what you'd call it. The Village Square and Town Hall and the Dinner Theater, we've got what will be our kind of a main entrance. Highlighted with a peaked roof, canopy. We've got a secondary classroom entrance into the classroom wing. We've got an activity entrance into the gym building. Included in this master site plan in our mind but nothing that you're reviewing today is our desire eventually to acquire the rest of the properties on that block for additional open space. We designed a plan that fit on the land we own, but have been working with the neighbors to acquire on a longer term basis some of those additional properties that would eventually expand the open space on the property for just recess and you know when we talk about transition to the residential, at some point space will be quite a bit of the transition. The first of the two issues that I want to talk about is clarification on the master plan versus Phase 1. When we submitted this application it was my intent that it was for the master plan and Phase 1. And really all the phases. There are some details in the phasing that made it difficult for staff to review it and we, our answer to that was that we weren't prepared to tell you exactly how each phase was going to work. You talked a little bit some general comments. I guess I need as specific as we can be because this plan is what we'll now go to with contractors and architects to figure out costs and figure out how we can go about building it. You know some of the details are potentially minor and not cost issues but if they're much more than that, it is a significant issue so as much direction on the overall plan as we can get, and if that's difficult, I guess I would ask what additional information do we need and I'd rather extend this process if we had to to get clarity on what's acceptable and not acceptable on those future phases. Second item, and appears to be the issue of the day is the exterior materials. The existing facility, as Sharmin mentioned, I counted seven different materials, including wood siding. Including glass block. Translucent glass panels. Painted metal panels and two different types of brick on that building. One of the criteria laid for us in the ordinance would be to be consistent or compatible with the existing building. I don't know how you do that when there's so much variety other than it's all kind of a dated, dark brown color. That's the only thing that's a little bit consistent. We have proposed two different colors plus accent of rock face block on this building. And architectural detailing in the form of some roof elements and some columns that stick out. Things like that. Those architectural details I guess where I attempt to comply with what we understood to be the city's vision for their Highway 5 corridor and pitched roof elements and things like that. Serves very little function for us but something that we showed in an effort to comply with what we believed to be the regulations. The property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned, this is a school is an allowed use in that zoning. The zoning district is not specific with regard to material types or anything like that. It does require an additional setback adjacent to residential and I believe that would be the attempt in the City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 zoning ordinance to deal with the transition issue is a greater setback adjacent to residential than office institutional against another type of use. The property is also within the highway corridor overlay district which I believe all of downtown Chanhassen is. My understanding is that the standard in the code that we're expected to comply with, and I'm going to read it and you've probably all read it but, is the creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features with special attention to the following: materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. The word I pull out of all that is compatibility. Obviously a very subjective term -because it's different than consistent. The surrounding materials range from very old, detailed brick work in the old church building. There's also a garage on that church property that has siding. The old Town Hall has siding. The Medical Arts buildings to the west had rock face block at the base and siding above. The existing Kenny's strip mall center, whatever you call that has some brick but mostly siding. The Country Clean building has siding. As you get to the south, excuse me, northwest part of the site we get into the residential and there's an apartment building. That's a stucco building with a brick on the corners. At the north edge we have three single family properties that are all wood siding. Most of the siding in this area is 8 inch siding and not the, maybe the more charming, smaller lap siding. As you go around to the east, again the entire single family neighborhood is primarily siding. Some stucco houses. Some have brick or stone trim accents on the houses. The highway AC 1 or Highway Corridor District speaks about high quality design. Things like that. It also states that specifically that major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally textured concrete, cast in place or pre -cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent. The code then goes on to say the following may not be used in any visible exterior application and provides a list of materials that are not allowed. It specifically does not not allow a decorative block. Or rock face block or any other term for block and materials of those sizes. Why do we care? Well it's mostly because of cost. We are a parent run, volunteer, primarily based organization. Like most of those kinds of organizations, certainly don't have any extra money to deal with. We're trying to provide a quality education at as reasonable price as possible and cost is a big issue. And I think one of the things that we're able to instill in our students is that, while the facility isn't totally unimportant, it's not the most important thing, or not even close. We spent many years in a building over in Eden Prairie that at first glance people might have said, well this is barely suitable for a school. How does it work? Yet I don't think the students ever noticed that they were in a building like that. And I don't, also don't fault the city for wanting to see as good looking of a product as they can in their downtown or any area of town. But I would ask that the city consider very seriously what the ordinances say and how we comply or don't comply and not just what the city would like to see down there. If the city would like to see something more than we're required to build, and can figure out a way to help us do that, well we'd love to do that. We have no problem with any kind of upgrades, but we need to be fiscally responsible to our people. One of the biggest issues in the cost of a block construction versus a brick construction is how the building gets built. A block constructed building is basically laid up blocks with decorative face on the outside and a finished face on the inside. And you've got an integral masonry wall. Typically one single wall construction. If you build, if you put brick on a building, you build a wall either out or wood or metal with sheathing or masonry, and you lay up a brick wall next to that. And you basically are building a double wall. In the case of a taller wall like a gym, you'd build a block wall and you'd build a brick wall attached to it so it's not just the difference of attaching a big square versus a little square. It's building one wall versus two walls. I'd also like you to consider seriously that there, to my knowledge, is no neighborhood opposition to the block type of material. I believe that the Schroeders are here today and may, if given the opportunity, speak. They've told me that they're not opposed to the block material. Actually Mr. Schroeder said well that's really what's next to our house right now. The back half of that building is an 8 x 16 block. It's fluted. It breaks up that size a bit but that's what's there, rough face block. The city has approved rock face block all over the place. Certainly this site is unique but every site in Chanhassen is unique for one reason or another. I prepared a handout. I don't know if you have it. I don't want to read through it but if you all 8 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 tell me you have at least have this sheet that talks about, gives some examples of existing materials. I'm going to focus on a couple. To me the most obvious is the CSM office warehouse that's under construction right now. That building is between 24, it's about 24 feet high, 27 feet high at the corners, 100% rock face block. It's adjacent to single family. Fairly high priced single family. Happens to be across the city line but I don't think the city would ignore those people just because it's across a city line. There is berming inbetween. There's about 70 feet to the property line and berming between the parking lot and the property line. The berming shields the lower third of the building roughly, but standing on the ground most people can see the upper two-thirds. I'm sure from their deck or second floor building window they can see just about all of that building. And they're comparable distances to residential as we are. The town square, Oasis Market center, the rear of that building is 25 feet or less I would guess from the property line of single family homes. There they put up a fence and some bushes or some old bushes that existed for a long time as the buffer so to speak but that's an uncolored rock face block base with some siding at the top. The St. Hubert's gym, comparable size to wall heights as we'd be building for our gym. Those are pre -cast concrete panels with 16 inch squares. They're also right next to single family. The same kind of distance as we are. So I think the City needs to treat us the way they've looked at other applications in the past. We believe that we meet the standards called out for in the ordinance. This is clearly not a PUD and therefore additional negotiations on these kind of items is maybe less appropriate than it might be under a PUD situation. The staff did recommend a 4 inch by 12 inch brick alternative. I guess I think that that's kind of the normal size brick used in most buildings these days other than a single family house with brick trim and a fireplace in the inside and the wall right behind you there. But that jumbo brick is pretty common place and I don't think if you looked at the Byerly's center you'd ever say oh that's where that really big brick. Those kind of buildings typically have that size brick and again that's spelled out on that little handout. Some of the areas around town. I guess I'd like to summarize by saying, I think it's unfair and a bit punitive to ask Chapel Hill Academy to establish a trend or a set of standards for that end of the redevelopment of that end of downtown. At our expense at least and that's a burden that we're not sure we can handle. Given all that, you know we ask for your approval as submitted tonight and if not, we would ask for the opportunity to re -look at this with some other alternative material such as siding, which clearly would be the most similar and compatible but I don't think is really what makes the most sense. And the second alternative would be some kind of a stucco exterior, which is also quite common in the city and could reasonably be considered compatible with some of the adjacent uses. We have stucco buildings on a couple of sides of us. Given that long and winded spiel, I'm open for any questions. I hope you'll look at this as fairly as you can. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dan? Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I do have one if I could. Dan, when you were speaking to the Planning Commission within the Minutes, going again over building materials. At one point you had proposed an alternative that you could potentially look at as far as doing the big blocks along the lower portions of the building and alternating that with the smaller blocks then above. Is that something that you're still open to looking at as far as an alternative? Dan Blake: Certainly if you told me that, if that or all brick, absolutely. That wouldn't be our preference but I think that the gym wall is the highest concern for us because of the way that construction works there. It's also quite a bit back from the main street. A couple of scenarios that I could think about that would work, if we want the rock face block band along the bottom, the dark red all the way around, and then the one story building with a brick material and the two story building, part of the building that half of it's shielded, is with all block, I think a scenario like that would, I guess to me that's a reasonable compromise. I have trouble quantifying the cost of that I think from a construction standpoint. A scenario like that makes sense so would we consider it? Yes. It's not again our first choice. What we proposed is our first choice but sometimes you... Z City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Sometimes you don't get that. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: So you would look at other alternatives. I'm concerned more about you. Not the materials tonight but what you said at the very first, your first point. And that is about the master plan. The master site plan. That really has me concerned right now because the Planning Commission did not go into any sort of real look at the master site plan and I'm just wondering if this should go back to them because when I read here, and I'll just read you a couple comments that Ladd Conrad made about the gymnasium and Matt Burton made about not feeling comfortable with the north elevation, etc so what I would hate to have us do is to go ahead here and give a few general comments as a council, and then when you come in to bring in your site plan for another phase, let's say it's the gym and they're going to want windows added and they're going to want articulation against that north elevation. That concerns me because that goes right to your bottom line. So I'm, my inclination, and talking about it with council but you also need to tell Dan is that, you know reading the Minutes, the Planning Commission did not really take a real good look at the site plan. And in fact said they didn't feel comfortable with it, the master site plan, especially that north elevation. So I don't want you being ed in the wrong direction and then coming back and you know having all these changes. So I'm wondering, what's your feeling first? Dan Blake: Well I think to some degree you're absolutely correct. That the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: There are very few comments. Dan Blake: They looked at it. Certainly when we talk about things like parking, which obviously is a master plan issue. And they did make some comments like I'm uncomfortable with, or I'm comfortable with the sides I can see but I'm uncomfortable with the back side. And if you look at, you know what's in your packet, this kind of elevation, it's very difficult to tell what that building's going to look like. There's a lot of relief that you can see on this little three dimensional rendering that you can't tell on that picture. Mayor Mancino: So what I'm asking is, if you bring in those site plans and they say we want you to add windows, like I know Ladd was talking about the windows on Bluff Creek Elementary that are higher there. They were also talking about, I mean Matt Burton says I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight. So you know I read comments like that and again, we don't want to mislead you. Dan Blake: Well, as much as I never want to delay anything, timing is not the most critical item to us right now. We were hoping to get a building under construction this spring/summer. It all depends on our financing. Whether we will or not anyway. You know when they make those kind of comments, and at the Planning Commission meeting there's not a lot of time, sometimes there's not a lot of interaction. The Planning Commission is just discussing things. You know I guess I would ask the follow-up question. Well what kind of additional architectural detailing do you expect on a back side that's up against mostly trees and who are we trying to protect? If my neighbors don't care, you know,that it looks any better than what we're showing, does the city really care and things like that? So. Mayor Mancino: Well, obviously neighbors move and we as you know have to think of longterm and we have to think about the community and the neighbors that are here now or are going to move, etc. So Scott, do you have anything? 10 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 Scott Botcher: I agree with the Mayor. I think there's some concerns from the members of the Planning Commission as to the long term plan and you know I'd hate for it to come back and kick you in the rear, quite honestly. And so would you. Dan Blake: Right. Scott Botcher: I mean you've got a financial plan you're trying to put together. And I think what you said is probably very true. I mean you're more financially driven than calendar driven. The thing that I would say, and Sharmin has heard this many times, and it's premature but I'll say it now so I can say that I said it. Especially in a residential neighborhood, and that is an attractive drive there from, well I believe it to be, from 101 to the clock, you know towards the Dinner Theater. We need to make sure that we ratch it up instead of set our standards to what's there. I respect the economics of it but you know we want to constantly work to raise the bar, and unfortunately that does involve everybody, including the school. But I guess to get back to my point, I don't want to see any HVAC as I drive by. I just noticed on the rendering there and on this stuff here, there's none of that contemplated and I know we're a little premature but when you're doing your calculations and you're doing your planning, have a parapet roof. Have them hidden. Have them somewhere. Keep that in the back of your head. Dan Blake: For the record, that's what we're showing on our one story building is, I don't know what that top height is. 15 feet or something. So we're showing a parapet all the way around it as opposed to a specific roof top screening. Scott Botcher: Again, because that's the kind of stuff that's really simple and it's pretty basic for any city and if you guys haven't planned for it, that can be another economic hit. Mayor Mancino: Dan, do you think you could give more specifics to the planning department to bring it in front of the Planning Commission in some of those areas where they felt uncomfortable, etc? Can there be some more specifics that you can deal with? And have this go back in front of them as a real master site plan review. And they can review at that time materials and maybe you can show them alternatives to those materials also. Dan Blake: I can do that. I'm willing to do that. However, I don't think we would show them, I think the specifics are there. It may be hard to visualize on a plan view elevation, or a elevation view what those elevations look like. We felt it was a need to dress up the side you see from main street. I guess I don't think adding some of these decorative roofs and things like that on the back sides of the building, you know it's not a service drive kind of back of the building like your Oasis Market center. It's just windows and a couple emergency doors and probably some sidewalk connections. We do have a service drive back there to get to just a back side of the building but it's not like a loading dock. Mayor Mancino: Dan, I don't know what all their concerns are and that's what I'm trying to say. Dan Blake: I understand. Mayor Mancino: That I don't want to assume they're just thinking of one or two things, when we don't know as a council. And again, we're just trying to be proactive so that you don't come in front of them on each site plan and say, now wait a minute. And they can come back to the minutes and say but we told you we didn't feel comfortable about it. Any suggestion from council members? Dan Blake: Okay. We're willing to do that. City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that direction? Dan Blake: Well I think, I guess I can agree that it's a good way to bring it back in front of the Planning Commission and further discuss that issue. I think that the size of the brick took up the entire discussion and therefore it didn't, there was no focus on those other issues. Maybe now that you've had that discussion, now we can talk about what is the issue of the back side and what exactly would they expect to see on any other elevation. That's fine. Mayor Mancino: And a general. Councilman Senn: I think that really makes sense. One of the very difficult parts of looking at this is when you start trying to compare what you're approving with the first addition with the whole, it's very, very difficult. Whether it be landscaping and trees. Whether it be building materials. Whether it be hard surface coverage. I mean all those issues. I mean a lot of them really aren't spelled out here as to where we are and where we end up. So it's real difficult to sit here within creating I'm going to say an endless number of surprises... Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: It does seem like the prudent thing to do and I know that they did speak to a considerable number of issues that more so addressed the master plan, just in general to give you a feel for it but realizing that you really do need the specifics. If it is windows, work that through with them and so forth. So I certainly appreciate your patience with the thought of needing to go back through the system but I do think it might be best. Mayor Mancino: And I also think at that time you can address some of the materials in more detail with them. If there are other suggestions that you have. Okay. Councilman Engel, anything? Okay, thank you. Sharmin Al -Jaffa We need an extension on the time line to process this application. Mayor Mancino: Dan, could we have an extension? Dan Blake: Hereby grant you whatever it takes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much and thanks for everyone who came tonight. And so it will go back and be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a little more detail for the master plan. Appreciate that. Roger, do we need to do anything more formally? As a council. Roger Knutson: Not on that other than postponing, you'd be postponing or tabling action. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we need a motion to table? Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think a motion to table and refer it back to the Planning Commission would be in order. Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I please have a motion. Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table and move it back to the Planning Commission. 12 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the site plan review to allow a 16,680 square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition to an existing building and a variance to allow a 30 foot front yard setback for Chapel Hill Academy and to review the item back to the Planning Commission for master site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING, 105 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR US WEST WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE. Public Present: Name Steven Mangold Pat Conlin Mike Reyer Eugene Sigal Mike Dalton Pete Keller Address 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 416 No. Fairview, St. Paul 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 4153 Hallgren Lane 6760 Country Oaks Road Sharmin Al -Jaffa Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. First thing I would like to do if 1 may is outline the ordinances that govern this application. The ordinance states that in residentially zoned districts the maximum height of a tower may not exceed 80 feet. Whenever there are multiple users on a tower within a residential district, then we have an exception and that exception basically states that the limitation of the height may be increased by 25 feet. The third section that governs this application deals with locations of towers within residentially zoned districts and it specifically points out that it may be placed on church sites when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as ... the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and a site plan approval for the construction of a 105 foot cross designed monopole communication tower. The tower is proposed to be situation south of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. This is the church site. It is proposed to be located south of the church site and west of Highway 7. The actual pole height is 93 feet and is proposed to have two 6 foot tall tubes. These tubes will be vertically stacked and inside them the antennas will be located. The overall height of the tube again is 105 feet. When we looked at this site we looked at the surrounding area and the setbacks of the residentially zoned units in this area. What you see highlighted in green is existing vegetation. It's a natural buffer. This is the proposed location of the tower. The setback is proposed to be 105 feet from the neighborhood to the south, and it exceeds 380 feet from the neighborhood to the east. Our first, there isn't any buffer within this area. It's really wide open. When we looked at this site overall, we thought the best location would be immediately behind the church. What happens as you go behind the church is the grades begin to drop substantially. Two things that the ordinance highlights. Number one, you cannot have a structure between a main building and a right-of-way. So that would have required a variance. Second of all, as you move the tower down the hill you're going to need a height variance. So that's two variances that you would need to grant for this application. And what this location would have done would have been to screen the base of the tower. With the proposed plans they're not proposing to remove any of the existing vegetation. And they are proposing a landscape plan. Staff is recommending that the trees be 10 feet in height at a minimum at the time of installation. You can't screen a structure 13 July 20, 2000 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Staff Re: Chapel Hill Academy Master Site Plan Review Application History: On August 31, 1999 Chapel Hill Academy submitted a request for Master Site Plan Review for the 4.58 acre site located north of West 781h Street, west of Frontier Trail and east of Great Plains Boulevard. The property address is 306 West 781h Street (also referred to as 7707 Great Plains Boulevard.) The site is the old St. Hubert's Church and School and has been occupied by Chapel Hill Academy for the past three school years. It is the desire of Chapel Hill Academy to expand and remodel the existing facility to accommodate a K-8 school of approximately 420-450 students. The enrollment for the 1999-2000 school year was approximately 323 students. We currently have 4 classrooms in the modular classroom building on the property. A condition of the interim use permit for the modular classroom building was the submission of a master site plan for City review by September 1999. The initial submission was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1999 and by the City Council on January 10, 2000. The City Council tabled the Site Plan Review and requested that it be sent back to the planning commission for a more complete review. Master Site Plan: Chapel Hill Academy proposes to add approximately 40,000 square feet to the existing 36,000 square foot structure on the property. The improvements generally consist of the addition of a gymnasium, a classroom wing and new administrative and main entrance areas. Also included in the master plan is the complete replacement of all existing exterior walls and windows. It is anticipated that the entire plan will be constructed within the next 5-10 years. The current request is also specifically for the proposed phase 1 improvements. If the scope of work or proposed details for phases 2-4 change from the following, additional site plan review(s) will be needed by the Planning Commission and Council. Phase 1: Phase 1 will consist of the construction of the 16,680 square foot classroom wing and a free standing gymnasium building as well as adding a fire sprinkler system to the entire existing building. The two existing homes will be removed from the property and the playground will be relocated. A temporary trash enclosure will be constructed on the east side of the building at the location of the existing dumpsters. The material will be wood fencing and will be colored to match the existing wood siding in that area. It is our intent to start phase 1 late this year to be complete for the start of the 2001 school year. The schedule for the future phase will be based on funding availability. Phase 2: Phase 2 construction will involve the addition of a new main entry, a cafeteria, and administrative areas, which will physically connect the phase 1 gymnasium with the existing building. Parking lot reconstruction will be included with phase 2 construction. Phase 3: Phase 3 construction will involve the interior and exterior remodeling of the north and east portions of the existing building. Phase 4: Phase 4 construction will be the re -facing of the west and east exteriors of the existing classroom building and additional interior improvements. Modular Classroom Building: This building was installed in August of 1998 and is permitted by the City through June 2003 or until the expansion of the school is completed, whichever comes first. The modular classroom building will be removed with the phase 2 construction or by June 2003, whichever comes first. The phase 1 construction will block the view of the modular classroom building from the west and south. The view from the north is minimized by the hill, the view from the east is blocked by the existing building. Neighbors: We have met with the neighbors numerous times in the past years regarding our proposed expansion plans. Very few neighbors attended the previous planning commission and council meetings. We believe that the neighbors are supportive of the plans as proposed. Future Expansion of Property: It is our desire at some future time to acquire the residences that are within the block bounded by West 77"i, Frontier, West 780' and Great Plains Boulevard. At this time, we have tentative verbal agreements with some of the property owners that they will give us the first opportunity to purchase their properties when they decide to sell. The residences would be removed and additional open play space would be created. The current plan does not rely on the acquisition of these adjacent properties, but it is designed to take advantage of the additional open space in the future. At this time, it is not our intent to add additional building onto the possible expansion property. Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 1999: At the planning commission review of this proposal, the discussion focused on what was then called phase 1, which was the proposed classroom wing addition. There was some discussion regarding the balance of the proposed site plan as well. The planning commission discussion and comments focused on a few major themes. The commission was comfortable with the general layout of the site and the proposed intensity of use. The commission was in favor of the proposed setback variance. The commission generally liked the elevations presented for the south and west sides. The Commission was generally concerned with the elevations presented for the north and east sides. The commission was generally concerned with lack of architectural detail on the gym building. There was considerable discussion regarding exterior material and alternatives were suggested. The Commission recommended approval of phase 1 with a condition of all brick exterior, but left open the possibility of alternative materials for the future phases. City Council Meeting January 10, 2000: At the city council review the Council expressed concerns that the planning commission had not thoroughly reviewed the entire Master Site Plan and that Chapel Hill was at risk of not knowing what to expect for the future phases if only phase 1 was approved at that time. The Council tabled the action and referred it back to the planning commission to "have this go back in front of them as a real master site plan reviem";. And they can review at that time materials and maybe you (Chapel Hill) can show them alternatives to those materials also." Plan Revisions: In response to the comments from the planning commission and council, the following plan revisions have been made: • Windows have added to the west and north elevations of the gymnasium. • Architectural detail (bump out columns) has been added to the west and north elevations of the gymnasium • Significant window and door glass has been added to the north elevation at the cafeteria adjacent the gymnasium • Windows were added to the classrooms at the north elevation • Additional building "jogs" were introduced to the cast elevation • Additional windows were added to the classrooms at the east elevation • Exterior material were revised to primarily brick with rock -face block at the base and at the gymnasium Exterior Materials: The original proposal called for an all rock -face block exterior. The staff recommended all brick. The planning commission discussed exterior material alternatives but recommended all brick on the first phase. The revised proposal is for a consistent base of rock -face block in a color and height to match the existing brick base of the existing classroom building. The exterior surface above the bottom of the windows on the one-story portions of the building would be buff colored brick. The upper surface of the gymnasium addition is proposed to be rock -face block in a buff color to match the brick. The larger (8"x 16") units at the building base are architecturally appropriate and are consistent with other new buildings on West 78 h Street. The block base also ties in the single -story materials with the taller gymnasium exterior. Brick construction requires the construction of a masonry (block) or framed wall which is then faced with brick. Block construction on the gym will allow one single wall to be constructed with the block forming both the interior and exterior surfaces. The gym building at St. Hubert's is pre -cast concrete panels formed with 16" squares. The property is zoned OI. The OI district does not have any specified exterior material requirements or prohibitions. The property is also within the HC-1 Highway Corridor overlay district. The standard set forth in the code is: "Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: Materials, textures colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses" The HC-1 design standards state: "Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally textured concrete, cast in place or pre -cast panels, decorative block or approved equivalent... The following may not be used in any visible exterior application..." no mention of rock -face block or decorative block as prohibited. The standard is compatibility. The existing building is constructed of brick w/running bond (south), brick w/stacked bond (east and west), painted metal panels (south), translucent glass panels (south), glass block (east and west), fluted rock -face block (church building) and painted diagonal wood siding (church and rectory bldg). The surrounding properties are constructed of a various material from stucco to brick to block to siding. Due to the variety of material on -site and surrounding the property, it is extremely difficult to determine what is compatible and what is not. Staff has suggested that a utility sized brick would be a compromise and is "pretty much the height of a siding that you might find within that (the adjacent) neighborhood. The attached detailed analysis of the neighboring exterior materials points out that the vast majority of the siding in the adjacent neighborhood is in fact greater than 8" wide. The analysis also points out that only 3 buildings in the area have a significant amount of brick and none of those are single family properties. The City has consistently allowed the application of rock -face block and/or utility sized brick on buildings in the HC-1 district, many are adjacent to residential areas. The attached list identifies recent examples. There are very few, if any recent examples of the use of the older, smaller sized brick. Chapel Hill Academy and our architect have presented and discussed other alternatives exterior materials with staff. Stucco and horizontal siding could be utilized and would be consistent/compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but staff has expressed a desire not to use those alternatives. We are confident that the current proposal for a combination of block and brick exteriors is a fair compromise between the City's desires and the schools obligations that will result in a project that will greatly enhance the existing property and will be an overall benefit to all of Chanhassen. RECENT EXAMPLES OF EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN THE HC-1 DISTRICT CITY OF CHANHASSEN January 10, 2000 Town Square (Oasis Market Center) Approximately 25 foot setback next to single family residential Lower 8' uncolored rock -face block 8" x 16' Siding above Wood fence at rear property line (adjacent to single family) St. Huberts Gym Approximately 50 feet setback next to singlev residential at east Approximately 27 foot tall flush walls. Pre -cast textured concrete w/ 16" squares St. Huberts Church and School Approximately 50 feet setback next to single family residential 100% brick 4" x 12" Swim School (under construction) Approximately 30 feet setback next to single family residential Primarily rock -face block 8" x 16" CSM Office Warehouse (under construction) South of Lake Drive at Dell, Approx 70 feet setback next to single family residential 100% colored rock -face block 8" x 16" Approx 24 feet tall, 27 feet at corner entrances Approx 15 feet (18 feet at corners) visible from street level in single family residential CSM Office Warehouse North of Lake Drive, south side Hwy 5 Approx 70% colored rock -face block 8" x 16" Approx 30% brick 4" x 12" Mortenson Building (under construction) near Hwy 5 walkway 100% EFIS (Stucco type material) Car Wash on Lake Drive Approx 90% brick 4" x 12" Approx 10% rock -face block 8" x 16" Goodyear on Lake Drive Approx 90% brick 4" x 12" Approx 10% rock -face block 8" x 16" Abra Auto on Lake Drive Approx 60% Brick 4" x 12" Approx 40% Stucco (or EFIS) Byerlys Center in Downtown 100% brick 4" x 12" Tire Plus near Market Drive Approx 90% brick 4" x 12" Approx 10% smooth colored block 8" x 16" Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis The attached is an inventory of the exterior materials of the homes and building surrounding Chapel Hill Academy, including all homes in the "Old Town" neighborhood. A total of 58 buildings were inventoried. Photos are provided for all buildings adjacent to Chapel Hill Academy and along West 78`h Street. Summary: • 72% (42) of the buildings have no brick on the exterior. • Only 5% (3) of the buildings have significant amounts of brick, none of those are single family. • 9% (5) of the buildings have exposed 8" block • Only 31 % (18) of the buildings have siding less than 8" wide. 3 N o0 [$ ❑ N N C► OL N C N £o� ot•L N~ N E ❑ toLL m -to M -DAY 8123 PILL a N ❑ N (� I Zf.t El litL Ztl. ❑ LZtL •1.L Jalluo,,i E J _J } LLJ LU 0 O_IQ QU 2 Q U 'PM8 Sulald WOO M t V n�4 Chapel Hill Academy Page 1 of 11 Neighborhood Analysis 202 West 781h Street 5" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' 206 West 78th Street 8" siding 3 rows of 8" block at base no brick 7791 Erie Ave (West 781h Street side) 11" siding no brick 7791 Erie Ave. (Front) 11" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' Page 2 of 11 Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis 220 West 781h Street 8" siding no brick 222 West 78th Street 11" siding (main house) 5" siding (west side) no brick 224 West 78th Street 6" siding no brick 225 West 78th Street 3" siding no brick Page 3 of 11 Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis 7727 Frontier Trail (west 781h street side) 4.5" siding no brick 7725 Frontier Trail 4.25" siding 2.75" brick at garage piers 7724 Frontier Trail stucco exterior (house) no brick 8" vertical siding (garage) 7723 Frontier Trail vertical wood siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis Page 4 of 11 7722 Frontier Trail 6.5" siding 3 rows 8" block base no brick 7721 Frontier Trail 8" siding no brick (front) 2.75" brick (chimney) 223 Chan View 12" siding no brick 221 Chan View 11" siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis Page 5 of 11 224 Chan View 8" siding no brick 22X Chan View (Frontier Trail side) 4.5" siding (new) no brick 7720 Frontier Trail (front) 6" stone no brick 7720 Frontier Trail (Chan view side) 10" siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis Page 6 of 11 7701 Frontier Trail 4" siding no brick 302 Chan View 11" siding no brick 304 Chan View Stucco exterior No brick 304 Chan View 10" siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Page 7 of 11 Neighborhood Analysis 306 Chan View 8" siding no brick 7616 Frontier Trail (west 77`h street side) 8" vertical siding no brick 304 West 77th Street 10" siding no brick 7610 Great Plains Blvd. 11" siding 2.75" brick Chapel Hill Academy Page 8 of 11 Neighborhood Analysis 410 Chan View (Great Plains Blvd side) stucco exterior 2.75" brick at corners 7720 Great Plains Blvd (Country clean) 8.5" siding no brick Colonial Square (Great Plains Blvd. Side) 4" siding 20' squares no brick Colonial Square (front) 4" siding 20" squares 2.75" brick Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis No photo No photo No photo Page 9 of 11 Old Village Hall (West 78 street side) 4.25" siding no brick Old St. Huberts Church (west 781h Street side) 2.75" brick Garage at Cemetery (facing West 78`h Street) 8" vertical siding no brick 207 Chan View est 10" siding no brick 206 Chan View est 10" siding no brick 204 Chan View est 12" vertical siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Page 10 of 11 Neighborhood Analysis No photo 205 Chan View est 12" siding no brick No photo 203 '/2 Chan View est 12" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' No photo 203 Chan View est 8" vertical siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' No photo 202 Chan View est 12" siding no brick No photo 200 Chan View est 10" siding no brick No photo 201 Chan View est 4" siding 8" block at base no brick No photo 7706 Erie Ave est 8" siding no brick No photo 222 Chan View est 8" siding no brick No photo 225 West 77th est 4" siding no brick No photo 221 West 77th est 5" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' on garage and left side No photo 7701 Erie Ave est 12" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' No photo 7703 Erie Ave est 8" siding no brick No photo 207 West 77th est 5" siding no brick Chapel Hill Academy Neighborhood Analysis No photo 205 West 77th est 12" siding no brick No photo 203 West 77th est 12" siding 2" brick at lower 3' No photo 201 West 77th est 12" siding no brick No photo 7721 Erie Ave est 5" siding 2.75" brick at lower 3' No photo 7720 Erie Ave est 6" siding no brick No photo 7609 Great Plains Blvd est 12" siding 8" block at first floor (77`h side) 2.75" brick at first floor (front) No photo 7608 Great Plains Blvd est 12" siding 2.75" brick at lower 2' Page 11 of 11 r Z 0 Lt! CITY OF CI3AN8 SSEN STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PC DATE: 8/1/00 CC DATE: 8/28/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 8-29-00 CASE #: 00-8 SUB By: Al-Jaff/Hempel:v Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.17 Acres into 4 single family lots, Arvidsons Addition Southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road Mike Arvidson 5595 Timber Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 (612)474-8086 Cliff and Pat Woida 6398 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 (612)474-8998 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.17 acres DENSITY: 2 Units per Acre Net 1.8 Units per Ace Gross SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been posted on site since mid June. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. . 65th St. iew Dr Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND On April 17, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied this application. Following the decision of the Planning Commission, the applicant withdrew his application. The current proposal is the same as that submitted in 1996 with the exception of the following: • Different applicant. • Existing house to remain. • The proposed private driveway has a bubble. • Minor variation in lot area. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. _ The average lot size is 21,918 square feet with a resulting net density of 2 units per acre. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private driveway and serve all four lots. There is a home on the existing parcel, which is proposed to remain. The existing attached garage is proposed to be removed to eliminate a rear setback variance and a new garage is proposed to be built. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site has mature trees along its westerly portion. One of the main issues of concern is access to the site. Back in April of 1995, in conjunction with the Golmen-Hoff-Golmen subdivision, which lies directly to the west of this site, Melody Hill Road connection was discussed. Some alternative development possibilities on the subject site and the adjoining parcel to the north have been explored by staff. The Assistant City Engineer explored these alternatives which will be discussed in detail further in the report. Staff informed Mr. Arvidson that we will recommend the parcels be served via a public street vs. a private driveway. This will provide the opportunity for the other adjacent parcel to subdivide as well and improve access to the existing neighborhood. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only Mr. Arvidson's parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcel. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative, which includes a public street. Therefore, staff recommends that the subdivision be approved contingent upon the extension of Melody Hill Road. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the parcel to the north will have limited subdivision potential. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 3 The city did receive a petition from the neighbors requesting the city not extend Melody Hill (see attached letter). We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.17 acre site into four single-family lots.. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 21,918 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, a shed occupies proposed Lot 1, and a barn occupies proposed Lot 4. The single family residence is proposed to remain, however, the attached garage is proposed to be demolished and a new garage that meets setback requirements, is proposed to be built. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory structures prior to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a nonconforming situation (the shed and barn on Lots 1 and 4). The applicant should escrow funds with the City to guarantee the removal of the structures no later than one month after final plat approval by the City Council. If the applicant fails to remove the structures, the City would contract to have the structures removed. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. WETLANDS There does not appear to be any wetlands present on -site, however, staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 2.17 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $1,736. The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 4 Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed S WMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family/low density developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $4,296.60 fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. STREETS The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City Code 18-57(N), the construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57(0). This section permits construction of a private street if the City finds the following conditions exist: "The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street". Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible from an engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the existing 900 foot long deadend on Melody Hill Road. It would also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to school facilities. The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road are very level and fairly void of significant tree cover. Additional street right-of-way was dedicated for Melody Hill Road west of this site with the subdivision of Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition in 1996. "After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to service other parcels in the area, improve access, or provide a street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan". Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions. The parcel directly to the north of this site (Dorenkamp) has the potential to further subdivide into a total of three lots (see attached plans). The Dorenkamp parcel would be able to utilize the public street for future lot subdivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the Dorenkamp parcel will be limited in development potential to a private street as well. Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood and school property. Melody Hill Road has a street grade in excess of 10% in some areas. This makes winter driving fairly difficult. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 5 "The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas". There are no wetlands or forested areas on the site. The plans propose on grading approximately 75% of the site for utility and street extension and house pads. Construction of the public street would not reduce or increase the lot grading, however, tree loss may be slightly greater in the northern part of the site with the extension of Melody Hill Road. Staff believes that this subdivision proposal fails to meet city ordinance necessary for a private street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide pedestrian access to the school facilities, and provide the Dorenkamp parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of site utilities and impervious surface necessary to serve both parcels. Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the property. The City would have to be petitioned to extend Melody Hill Road and costs assessed to the benefiting properties. There is sufficient right-of-way west of the development for the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the Planning Commission and City Council members may recall, there were discussions about the extension of Melody Hill Road with the Golmen Hoff Golmen plat which resulted in additional right-of-way being dedicated for the future street extension. GRADING & DRAINAGE According to the site plan, approximately 65% of the parcel will be graded to develop the house pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has redesigned the plat layout with a public street (extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road). The revised plat requires removal of the existing house. The amount of grading is approximately the same. All the proposed dwellings will be rambler -style homes, i.e. no lookouts/walkouts. The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of the proposed site grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an east, west, and north direction. Additional runoff from this development is relatively small in comparison to the existing conditions. No additional storm drainage improvements are proposed nor are any recommended as a result of this development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are substandard to the City's current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In the future when streets are reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed accordingly. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 6 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Murray Hill Road. Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the west side from Melody Hill Road to the city water tower. The existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and water. The plans propose on extending.a common sewer and water line along the private street to service the four lots. All utilities in the subdivision will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. All utilities should be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction final plat approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public utilities and conditions of final approval. If the plat is approved without a public street, a 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is constructed, the utilities will fall within the street right-of-way and no additional easements will be needed. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a result of the development, three of the lots will be subject to hookup charges at time of building permit issuance assuming the applicant installs the mainline sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill Road should be extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted, the Dorenkamp parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which the City will own and maintain, thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water and sewer systems in which one system would suffice to service both parcels. If the applicant installs the utilities along Melody Hill Road, they will be entitled to compensation for a portion of the utilities. When the Dorenkamp parcel develops and connects to the system, the City will collect connection charges. In return, the City would refund a portion of the connection charge back to the applicant. This scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't ready to subdivide at the time utilities are provided. As proposed, connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require temporary closing of Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction techniques such as a construction box or creating a temporary bypass lane in the boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the residences at the end of Murray Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended. EROSION CONTROL Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will also be required. The final grading/development plans shall include a rock construction entrance at all access points. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 7 PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park -and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 21,151 142.89' 150' 3 073 0' 10' Lot 2 21,896 138.85' 166.65' 30730' 10' Lot 3 22,023 124.74' 172.01' 30730' 10' Lot 4 22,605 155.50' 150' 30730' 10' It should be noted that these tabulations would change if Melody Hill Road were extended. Lot 2 will be considered a corner lot and have 30 foot setbacks from Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road. The remaining sides are 10-foot setbacks. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has not submitted canopy coverage calculations for the site, therefore staff has calculated approximate canopy coverage. Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Arvidsons Addition development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 94,525 SF or 2.17 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 65% or 61,441 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 46% or 43,482 SF Proposed tree preservation 33% or 31,193 SF ■ Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 8 The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 12,289 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 14,747 SF Total number of trees to be planted 14 trees A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Plantings should be divided between the four lots as follows: Lot 1 four trees, Lot 2 — two trees, Lot 3 — four trees, Lot 4 — four trees. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The site is fairly level and will require minimal alteration for development. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure except the property should be accessed by a public street per city ordinance. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 9 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approved. The proposed_ subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will require the extension of a public street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Addition for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated received June 30, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The existing home shall be removed from the right-of-way by the developer. The developer shall petition the City to construct Melody Hill Road between Murray Hill Road and the current terminus of Melody Hill Road. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing a project to construct Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill Road. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 10 city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and PCA for extension of the utility lines. 4. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the utilities are extended along Melody Hill Road, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of installing the utilities when the parcel (Dorenkamp) connects to the system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to reimburse the applicant their fair share of the cost in providing utility service to the Dorenkamp parcel. 5. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall dedicate a 40-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the final plat. 6. If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the City's private street ordinance. Cross -access and maintenance agreements will be required to maintain access. 7. During utility and street construction, provisions shall be made to maintain at least one lane of traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road. 8. The applicant must plant 14 trees in development to meet minimum canopy coverage and reforestation requirements. Trees must be from City's Approved Tree List and be of minimum sized as stated in ordinance. Replacement plantings will be divided among the lots as follows: Lot 1 — four trees, Lot 2 — two trees, Lot 3 — four trees, Lot 4 - four trees. Reforestation plan must be submitted prior to final plat for city approval. 9. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits prior to grading. Fencing shall remain in place throughout the construction. 10. Building Department conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. b. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Arvidsons Addition August 1, 2000 Page 11 11. The existing garage, shed, and barn shall be removed no later than one month after final plat approval by the City Council. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition. 12. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 13. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The new road servicing the four lots must be given a street name. Submit the proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. Submit cul-de-sac radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. C. If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses. 14. The proposed residential development of 2.17 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $1,736. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $4,296.60. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. 2. Public hearing and property owners list. 3. Memo from Steve Torell dated July 18, 2000. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 25, 2000. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 17, 2000. 6. Memo from Lori Haak dated July 24, 2000. 7. Letter from Sharmin Al-Jaff dated June 19, 2000. 8. Letter from Thomas and Neysa Winterer dated received July 24, 2000. 9. Letter from Greg Golmen and Junei Hoff-Golmen dated July 22, 2000. 10. Letter and Petition from Andrea Scharff dated July 24, 2000. 11. Letter from Richard McFarland dated July 24, 2000. 12. Letter from Rich and Linda Nicoli dated July 21, 2000. 13. Planning Commission minutes dated April 17, 1996 and letter and petition from Charles Spevacek dated June 20, 1995. 14. Preliminary plat dated received June 30, 2000. gAplan\sa\arvidson sub.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: LJ�� A IM I S O /J ADDRESS: SI-(O%a= wood M /v` 5 33/ TELEPHONE (Day time) 6 Id - yt % q - iv CITY CECKAWA'SSEri m'ECEIV F D JUR 13 2000 EHANWAQUA HLAWI�. _ -..,,r G�_i FF q PA We i Deb OWNER: 4"''= ADDRESS: 6.3% 14 u P� R �Z J.-i t L L TELEPHONE: G f d • LI) Comprehensive Plan Amendment , Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign 51/�5 0, U c> Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNA-R/WAP/Metes and Bounds, 400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* G 06 TOTAL FEE A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. — Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Parcel APPLICANT: Michael Arvidson Into 4 Single Family Lots LOCATION: 6330 Murray Hill Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Mike Arvidson, is requesting to subdivide a 2.17 acre parcel into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 2000. Smooth Feed SheetSTM IND SCHOOL DIST 276 261 SCHOOL AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL L & ANDREA K SCHARFF 2300 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT E LEE III 2250 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD & LYNDA K NICOLI 2280 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KAREN SIGNE PETERSON 2240 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT J CRISTOFONO MARGARET A CRISTOFONO 2210 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MITCHELL M & SUSANNE B KANTER 2220 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LYNDA M KUZMA 2241 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK T & ANNE K GINTHER 2231 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PERRY C HARRISON 2221 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 51600 CLAUDE W & KAYE L BENSON LORRAINE S CLARK 2211 SOMMERGATE 2161 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER E & LISA J STAUDOHAR 2204 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREG GOLMEN & JUNIE HOFF-GOLMEN 2220 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS G & NEYSA L WINTERER 2210 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & JOANNE F LEWELLEN 6340 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK L & CAROL J RIESE 6320 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL C & MARGARET L BUCHN 2191 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN THOMAS FAVORITE II SUSAN LEE FAVORITE 2080 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD & BARBARA D ATHERTON 2082 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DON & K KELLY 2081 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN R & NANCY H LIBERG 2091 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD D & JOYCE H MCFARLAND 6341 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT E LEE 6261 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THEODORE DORENKAMP II & BONITA JANE DORENKAMP 6370 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CLIFFORD E & PATRICIA E WOIDA 6398 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAYNE E POPPE & JOYCE SLATER POPPE 2090 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN G & DENISE G ARTLEY 2098 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HARLAN & ELEANOR JOHNSON 6340 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HARRY DAVID BAERT 6300 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 frpl,na rr r•�rr•� n,.1 ,d 1..L„Ir ___-. rw in(el ®09Is aasel slagel ssaappd ®AH3AH a JOHN J & JUNE A HAMSHER 2081 MELODY HILL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG R & CATHERINE JOHNSON 2071 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ANN S FARNI & JULIE FARNI TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6454 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN J & LYNNETTE J DELUCA 6484 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GILBERT & JILLENE KREIDBERG 6444 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CEJPO BOX 14 CHANHA SEN MN 55317 City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 Date: July 12, 2000 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Request to subdivide a 2.17 acre parcel into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition, Mike Arvidson. Planning Case: 2000-8 SUB The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on June 30, 2000. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 1, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July 24, 2000. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you.so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments City Engineer b. City Attorney fc�City Park Director Fire Marshal `Building Official f.'Water Resources Coordinator %g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6..'Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources �elephone Company (US West or Sprint) %9.,hectric Company (NSP or N4N Valley) 10,Triax Cable System 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us lul11u[.);7_"L 11Pul TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: July 18, 2000 SUBJ: Review of proposed subdivision: Arvidsons Addition Planning Case: 2000-10 SUB I have reviewed the plans for the above subdivision and have the following conditions and comments: 1. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. 2. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. G/safety/st/memos/p lan/arvidsonsaddn The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, duality schools, a charminQ downtown, thriving businesses, and beautifd Parks. A Preat Place to live, work, and Plan CITY OF MEMORANDUM CHONSEN TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Sr. Planner 690GiyCenter Drive, POBox 147 FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 DATE: July 26, 2000 General Fax 612.937,5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Arvidson Plan Public Safety Tax612.934.2524 Land Use Review File No. 00-16 [t eb wivw ci. chnhassen. inn, us Upon review of the development plans prepared by Roger Anderson & Associates dated June 30, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations: STREETS The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City Code 18-57(N), the construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57(0). This section permits construction of a private street if the City finds the following conditions exist: "The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street". Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible from an engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the existing 900 foot long deadend on Melody Hill Road. It would also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to school facilities. The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road are very level and fairly void of significant tree cover. Additional street right-of-way was dedicated for Melody Hill Road west of this site with the subdivision of Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition in 1996. "After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to service other parcels in the area, improve access, or provide a street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan". Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions. The parcel directly to the north of this site (Dorenkamp) has the potential to further subdivide into a total of three lots (see attached plans). The Dorenkamp parcel would be able to utilize the public street for future lot subdivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the Dorenkamp ' The City of Chanhassen. A powinQ community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channinz downtown, tbrivinf businesses, and beautiful parks. AQreat place to live, work, and play Sharmin Al-Jaff July 25, 2000 Page 2 parcel will be limited in development potential to a private street as well. Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood and school property. Melody Hill Road has a street grade in excess of 10% in some areas. This makes,winter driving fairly difficult. * "The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas". There are no wetlands or forested areas on the site. The plans propose on grading approximately 75% of the site for utility and street extension and house pads. Construction of the public street would not reduce or increase the lot grading, however, tree loss may be slightly greater in the northern part of the site with the extension of Melody Hill Road. Staff believes that this subdivision proposal fails to meet city ordinance necessary for a private street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide pedestrian access to the school facilities, and provide the Dorenkamp parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of site utilities and impervious surface necessary to serve both parcels. Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the property. The City would have to be petitioned to extend Melody Hill Road and costs assessed to the benefiting properties. There is sufficient right-of-way west of the development for the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the Planning Commission and City Council members may recall, there were discussions about the extension of Melody Hill Road with the Golmen Hoff Golmen plat which resulted in additional right-of-way being dedicated for the future street extension. GRADING & DRAINAGE According to the site plan, approximately 65% of the parcel will be graded to develop the house pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has redesigned the plat layout with a public street (extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road). The revised plat requires removal of the existing house. The amount of grading is approximately the same. All the proposed dwellings will be rambler -style homes, i.e. no lookouts/walkouts. The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of the proposed site grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an east, west, and north direction. Additional runoff from this development is relatively small in comparison to the existing conditions. No additional storm drainage improvements are proposed nor are any recommended as a result of this development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are substandard to the City's current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In Sharmin Al-Jaff July 25, 2000 Page 3 the future when streets are reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed accordingly. Staff recommends that the Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP) be paid in lieu of water quality or quantity improvements. Currently, SWMP fees for single- family residential developments are $800 per acre for water quality and $1,980 per acre for water quantity. These fees are due to the City at time of final plat recording. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Murray Hill Road. Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the west side from Melody Hill Road to the city water tower. The existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and water. The plans propose on extending a common sewer and water line along the private street to service the four lots. All utilities in the subdivision will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. All utilities should be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction final plat approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public utilities and conditions of final approval. If the plat is approved without a public street, a 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is constructed, the utilities will fall within the street right-of-way and no additional easements will be needed. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a result of the development, three of the lots will be subject to hookup charges at time of building permit issuance assuming the applicant installs the mainline sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill Road should be extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted, the Dorenkamp parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which the City will own and maintain, thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water and sewer systems in which one system would suffice to service both parcels. If the applicant installs the utilities along Melody Hill Road, they will be entitled to compensation for a portion of the utilities. When the Dorenkamp parcel develops and connects to the system, the City will collect connection charges. In return, the City would refund a portion of the connection charge back to the applicant. This scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't ready to subdivide at the time utilities are provided. Sharmin Al-Jaff July 25, 2000 Page 4 As proposed, connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require temporary closing of Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction techniques such as a construction box or creating a temporary bypass lane in the boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the residences at the end of Murray Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended: EROSION CONTROL Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will also be required. The final grading/development plans shall include a rock construction entrance at all access points. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The existing home shall be removed from the right-of-way by the developer. The developer shall petition the City to construct Melody Hill Road between Murray Hill Road and the current terminus of Melody Hill Road. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing a project to construct Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill Road. 2. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the City a stormwater L.onnection fee per city ordinance in lieu of constructing any on -site drainage improvements. Based on current fee strictures, the stormwater quality and quantity fees are $1,736 and $4,297, respectively. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and PCA for extension of the utility lines. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the utilities are extended along Melody Hill Road, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of installing the utilities when the parcel (Dorenkamp) connects to the system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to Sharmin Al-Jaff July 25, 2000 Page 5 reimburse the applicant their fair share of the cost in providing utility service to the Dorenkamp parcel. 6. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall dedicate a 40-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the final plat. 7. If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the City's private street ordinance. Cross -access and maintenance agreements will be required to maintain access. During utility and street construction, provisions shall be made to maintain at least one lane of traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road. jms Attachment: Revised plan layout. c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\cng\dave\pc\ai-vidson.ppi-.doc SOMMER GATE MELODY HILL - - - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION EXISTING LOT LINES 5l of op ono I I I I �I I � �. ,Q I l I ! I � I LOf I IS CITY OF Cllrilllit SSE MEMORANDUM 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal General Fax 612, 937.5739 Engineering Fax612.937.9152 DATE: July 17, 2000 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 SUBJECT: Request to subdivide a 2.17 acres parcel into four single-family lots on Web www.ci.ehanhassen.mn.its property zoned RSF, residential single family, and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition, Mike Arvidson. Planning Case: 2000-8 SUB I have reviewed the proposed plat plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. The new road servicing the four lots must be given a street name. Submit the proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 2. Submit cul-de-sac radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 3. If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses. ,0sa(ctOm1l1)1rcv2000-5 The City o f Chanhassen. Agrowing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thrivinv businesses, and beautiful narks. A ,reat place to live. work. and )Iav CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator W DATE: July 24, 2000 SUBJ: Arvidson's Addition Engineering Fax 612.9379152 Upon review of the plans prepared by Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Public Safety Fax 612.934,2524 dated June 30, 2000 and the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak, Web ivivwci.cbanhassen,mu.us Inc. Surveyors received June 30, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There does not appear to be any wetlands present on -site, however, staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 2.17 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $1,736. The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family/low density developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $4,296.60 fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The City o f Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play, Sharmin Al-Jaff July 24, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The proposed residential development of 2.17 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $1,736. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $4,296.60. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. g:\eng\lori\admin\planning\Arvidson's Addit.doc SWMP FEE WORKSHEET DATE July 24, 2000 FILE NO. 2000-8 SUB PROJECT Arvidson's Addition Site Area in Acres WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY Assessable area ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2.17 2.17 Single Family Residential FEES Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 800.00 2.17 $ 1,736.00 Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 1,980.00 2.17 $ 4,296.60 CREDITS ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL PRICE PRICE SWMP FEE SWMP CREDITS $ 6,032.60 TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 6,032.60 SWMP FEE SWMP CREDITS $ 6,032.60 TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 6,032.60 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ;n Center Drive, PO Box 147 nbassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 neral Fax 612.937.5739 -leering Fax 612,937.9152 e Safeq Fax 612.934?5 24 I1-11-w ei. ehankissen. nin. its June 19, 2000 Mr. Michael Arvidson 5595 Timber Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Arvidson: We are in receipt of your Preliminary Plat application for Arvidsons Addition. The plans dated received June 9, 2000, are incomplete and as such cannot be processed. Your application will be placed on hold until additional data has been submitted (ie; grading, drainage, erosion control, house type, utilities, tree removal, etc.). Attached is a copy of the subdivision ordinance and the data required for a preliminary plat application. We also need to clarify that the 60 day time period in which an application must be processed, will not begin until a complete application is submitted. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ext. 120. Sincerely, Sharmin Al-Jaff Senior Planner , Sharmin AI-Jaff 1UL 2 4 2000 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Subdivision of Parcel Into (4) Single Family Lots at 6330 Murray Hill Road Dear Sharmin, This letter is a follow-up declaration of our (our family & our neighborhood's) opposition to the City's current plan to connect Melody Hill alongside of the above mentioned subdivision. This extension of Melody Hill will greatly diminish the quality of life we now enjoy. We believe that the majority of the residents along the west leg of Melody Hill chose to purchase homes here because of the limited access to their properties. Tom was told by one of your planners that our safety will be enhanced when Melody Hill becomes a `through -street.' We are aware of past efforts by the City to take this action in years past. The last time this happened the residents put together a petition to demonstrate that this was not acceptable. Frankly we will continue to petition this effort until it is finally resolved to reflect the desires of the residents in this neighborhood. As regards the specifics of the subdivision you told Tom that Michael Arvidson proposed to have his subdivision be serviced by a private drive that did not meet any of the City's ordinances. Tom suggested that you (the planners & engineer's of Chanhassen) do a study to see if a regulation sized cul-de-sac would meet the needs of the new subdivided lots and the City's desire to safely be able to access these new residents. We looked at the diagram that was sent to us and cannot conclude how the street extension will help with Mr. Arvidson's efforts to create (4) lots out of this 2.17 acres. It appears that at least 1/3 of his land will have to be dedicated to the proposed extension in order to comply with the City's request. It seems logical to us that you will be greatly limiting Arvidson's ability to divide up this property into reasonable and appealing lots. Finally we need to mention the City's failure to adequately inform our neighborhood of the City's plan to go ahead with the Melody Hill extension. Your maps and announcements do not mention this anywhere. The neighborhood grapevine reports that this is not the City's only plan for increasing traffic in our quiet little part of town. We are hearing of a link to MMW from Melody Hill westward to the middle school's property. Perhaps it could be an overflow parking lot that would be accessed via Melody Hill that we have been hearing about? We can just imagine the change for the worse heading our way if these plans see fruition. We invite you & the entire City Council up to visit with us in our current picturesque front yard which should remain so, as you will see upon your visit. The bedrock of liberty - the acceptance of self preservation; the bedrock of socialism the diminished respect for the individual. NRepectW ours, s G.& NLerer j-ResidCents of 2210 Melody Hill Greg Golmen & Junie Hoff-Golmen 2220 Melody Hill Chanhassen, MN 55331 July 22, 2000 Sharmin AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Subdivision of Parcel Into (4) Single Family Lots at 6330 Murray Hill Road Dear Sharmin, We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the city's proposal to connect Melody Hill to the above mentioned subdivision. This alteration would greatly reduce the value of our current setting. We purchased, as did all others on our block, our house believing it would remain a safe quiet street. We are very upset to hear that the city actually believes this change would be for the better. The attempts to put this road through in the past has always been met with strong opposition. We are certain that the consensus will be the same in this case. This plan will benefit no one with the possible exception of Mr. Michael Arvidson who will actually be losing a good portion of his land to road. We believe there are better options, such as a more appealing cul-de-sac, that should be explored. We are also very disappointed in the city's failure to communicate to us of the plan for this extension, along with a possible link to MMW from Melody Hill. This would also be a great blow to the property values in our neighborhood. As long time taxpayers of this city we want our voices to be heard. We will not accept a change that will affect the quality of our lifestyle that we enjoy in this city today. Respectfully, y :do E'er Greg Golmen and Junie Hoff-Golmen 2220 Melody Hill Andrea Scharff 2300 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 July 24, 2000 Chanhassen City Hall 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN Attn: Sharmin Tel: 937-1900 ext. 120 Dear Sir or Madam: As h will. be unable to attend the August 1, 2000 meeting discussing the development I was made aware that the developer is not a proponent of this measure. I also made a survey of my own neighborhood, and found strong opposition. I believe, as do many residents of my area, that the measure would create an unnecessary stream of traffic in a sedate neighborhood. I have circulated a petition in my immediate area which opposes making Melody Hill a through road. I received official notice of the Arvidsons Addition by mail on Thursday, July 20, and called the Planning Commission at 8:00 Friday morning. I received a call back from the Commission Friday afternoon stating their intentions. I was then asked to have any petition ready for the City Council by Monday. I am worried that this short notice may have been intentional. July 24, 2000 Page 2 Enclosed is the petition, which is meant not to impress with its number of signatures. Only one member of each household was asked to sign it. Rather, it should be seen as a representation of households in the area. I did not speak with anyone on Melody Hill Road who would support the extension. I spoke with everyone who was home in the period of time I circulated -the petition. Please consider strongly the desires of the residents most directly affected by this plan. Sincerely, Andrea Scharff re signing this petition, please take the time to read over its contents PETITION We the residents of the Melody Hill area, near the site of the proposed Arvidsons Addition development project, would like to express our opposition to the extension of Melody Hill Road beyond it's existing boundaries. We do not wish Melody Hill Road to become a through road. PETITION-• •- Michael and Andrea Scharff, 2300 Melody Hill Road, Chanhassen, MN 55331 SIGNATURES Please print your name and address and sign your name. Name Mild Te/J,S e A/ Signature t �C Date 7W_J ,�U Address �J7S M�'�dCL �� 4aAle C�,CA/!/J4 5eV • Name I� � �NN Address 3 77 ' d0 e • Name Address (0 k, 7-?t-CYC u Signature (_A 1T 2A- L�_)G- Jb Y Date 1 Z I b O Name �d `� Signature ell Date 7 lot 1 IC6 Address • Name • Name JJ khie Address ZZ�_ 6 Address 2. ( • Name Address 2 1 / ` P-10 aJ 1d • Name_,&no\ r2 R Sc I U4 + Signature Address a 30 0 ReJ oJ,y _ TI i l l Kvak . (�t'iGGek 27 C5 Signature �) Date 1 rSignature C,l � ��.t"a,�, Date i1 Y�Clr� c�,0 f'�N 5533 � Date r Before signing this petition, please take the time to read over its contents We the residents of the Melody Hill area, near the site of the proposed Arvidsons Addition development project, would like to express our opposition to the extension of Melody Hill Road beyond it's existing boundaries. We do not wish Melody Hill Road to become a through road. ETITION SPONSOR Michael and Andrea Scharff, 2300 Melody Hill Road, Chanhassen, MN 55331 SIGNATURES I Please print your name and address and sign your name. • Name_ Ma)- _-k 1 An& l l.Zn n 2f 4 Signature '�_I�A Date Address oQ , 5 a M D off. K � 1 [1 • Name Y /J SVd tSignature Date Address • Name ► /C j� cp� Signature �Ul� . Date a Address QV_Z50 • Name ` Address • Nai Address • Name Address /l . Cxrp 1. my 5�3 Signature 1 �� �� tm Date Signature • Name Signature Address_ • Name Address_ • Name Signature Signature Date Date Date Date Richard D. McFarland Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer INVESTMENT SERVICES INVESTMENT BANKING July 24, 2000 Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Commission Members: My wife and I will be out of town on August I" and the purpose of this letter is to support the application of Michael Arvidson for the development of property at 6330 Murray Hill Road. We live at 6341 Murray Hill Road which is across the street from the proposed development. We are impressed with the plan and we are impressed with Michael. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard D. cF RDM:ca P 0 i- G ) 2000 Dain Rauscher Plaza (612) 371-2834 Dain Rauscher Incorporated 60 South 6th Street Fax (612) 371-7755 Member NYSE/SIPC Minneapolis, MN 55402-4422 Email rdmcfarland@dainrauscher.com 7/21. /00 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, City of Chanhassen, fax 937-5739 FROM: Rich & Linda Nicoli, 2280 Melody Hill, 474-3729 RE: Proposed subdivision of parcel into 4 lots by Michael Arvidson I am sorry we will not be able to attend the public hearing on August 1. We have lived on Melody Hill for the past 23 years. We do Support this subdivision from the information we received from the present owner of the property. We are strongly opposed to any attempt to make Melody Hill a through street with this property and understand this plan does not do that. Please contact us if you would like more information or if the plan does include Melody Hill going through the property. Thanks for asking for our input and the invitation to the hearing CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT* Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, and Jeff Farmakes u I DILI 1 :1 DII-R-WER '.M DION FRM STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al- Jaff, Planner I1; and Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator Public Present: Name Address 6444 Murray Hill Road Gilbert Kreidberg Chuck Spevacek 6474 Murray Hill Road Lorraine Clair 2161 Melody Hill Road Jim Hoben 18285 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka Mr. & Mrs. Paul Burkholder 6370 Murray Hill Road Steve Woida 2161 Van Sloun Road, Chaska Clifford Woida 6398 Melody Hill Road Phil Bonthius 2300 Melody Hill Road Linda Nicoli 2280 Melody Hill Road Randy & Jennifer Koski 6231 Murray Hill Road Denise Artley 2098 Melody Hill Road Dick McFarland 6341 Murray Hill Road Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission?. Jim Hoben: About a year and a half ago. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address? Jim Hoben: Oh, I'm sorry. Mancino: Thank you. Jim Hoben: I am Jim Hoben, Hoben Corporation. About a year and a half ago we appeared before the Planning Commission with a proposal for four lots on the Shogren property, which is this one over here. It met with some good deal of opposition by the neighbors in the area and then after, I've got it upside down. Sorry about that. I did go back from that meeting and talk with some of the neighbors in the area and I did change it to three lots because of the major streets, Sommergate and Murray Hill Road. And I'm in the process of concluding building of that site. At the end of that time, I did talk to the neighbors who asked me if I was interested in the Woida property, and I said that I was. I was questioned as to what my intentions there would be and I said well, if I do want to act on the Woida property I would be coming back with four lots instead of three, as I ... on the Shogren property. And this possibly that would be okay with them. They wanted to see what I intended to do and, I'd better turn it back to what we were talking about. And I did that last summer. I got that ready and went back and showed and as far as I know it met with their approval. Late last fall, or sometime last fall I was advised by staff that if I were to proceed with this, that they would be asking for the extension of Melody Road. I had, at that point in time ... contact with the Woida's for the purchase of that property on the basis of the four lots. This is the first time I've seen what I've put up there as far as Melody Road is concerned as the suggested way out. However, I would not be interested doing it that way and the simple reason is that I, my idea is to tie in the homes on this development with the homes on the end of Murray Hill Road, which are all in excess of $300 and some thousand... they were built I think about 10-12 years ago. A lot of them. We're talking in excess of $350,000.00 for the one I'm doing on the corner... As I had toured the area over there... following the concept that I saw presented like it is now, it would change the nature of the homes that I would be building because the nature of the homes back towards the school would not be of the same ... as far as I know as the ones that I would be developing on the, filling in with the ones on the end of Murray Hill Road. Because those are being planned to be in the 300, plus or minus, $50,000.00 range. I find myself in a unique position. It's not for me to come before the city and argue whether the road should or should not go in. I'm in the position to purchase the property from the Woida's to do it more or less on the basis that I had it planned for there, and not on some other plan. I really haven't had a chance to look at that ... I would not proceed on that basis with the types of homes that I probably thought facing on that road. So I think it's a matter of the city. Mancino: Mr. Hoben, you did receive staff report? You have gone through the staff report? Jim Hoben: Pardon? Mancino: You have received the staff report and the drawings that came with it. Jim Hoben: Yeah, I got that... W Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: Did you see this? Jim Hoben: No. But in any case ... I got a lot of other things to do in this ... city and anyplace and argue about whether how these things go together. I made a presentation ... would be my preference to do it that way. Like I just said, at that point it becomes an issue between the city and the neighbors in the area as to whether it's desirable... At that point I just sit back and wait and hear what develops. That's just my position. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open for a public hearing and a second please? Mehl moved, Farmakes seconded to open for a public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue please come forward. State your name and your address. Chuck Spevacek: Thank you Madam Chair. My name's Chuck Spevacek. I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road in Chanhassen. To put that address in perspective with tonight's proceedings, that's 3 houses south of the proposed public street... Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm the author of the letter that is attached to the staff report which ... the petition signed by the residents of this neighborhood strongly opposing the new public street which the staff report advocates. I'm pleased that my letter and the enclosed petition made it's way into the staff report. I sent that letter nearly a year ago to the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Engineer, to the Chair of the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning Development and to the then City Council members. And to date I have received no response to that letter from anyone. I did not even receive notice of this meeting, except that which I found published in the Chanhassen Villager. I bring this up only because I sincerely hope this is not indicative of the city's responsiveness to the very serious concerns the residents have concerning this project. As that petition indicates, the residents of this neighborhood are very much opposed to this public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road would in our opinion, irrevocably alter the essential nature and the character of our neighborhood. We are concerned because the extension of Melody Hill Road would turn it into an unnecessary shortcut between the two heavily traveled north/south routes it would connect if extended to County Road 41, and west to Galpin Boulevard to the east. Thus instead of living in a neighborhood where traffic levels are low and where what traffic there is is generally related to the neighborhood and it's activities, we believe the proposed public street would transform our neighborhood into a high traffic area with the majority of that increased traffic simply passes through saving the 2 minutes or less travel time it would take to 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 otherwise use TH 7, TH 5, or the other roads to the south of us that would serve as connectors between Galpin and TH 41. I am troubled that the neighborhood is concerned about increased traffic and the noise, safety and economic concerns that go with it were not addressed in the staff report. It is certainly it was brought to the staffs attention in my June of 1995 letter and that's... Instead the staff report claims only benefit to the neighborhood as a result. According to the staff report, that benefit is in the form of the improved access to the existing neighborhood and the creation of an opportunity that the adjacent parcel, owned by Paul and Betty Burkholder, could be subdivided as well. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Paul Burkholder signed the petition opposing the road extension and I understand that he's here toady and may well choose to address... Moreover, none of the residents in this neighborhood are anxious to see another of our large lots carved into numerous smaller parcels just because such a carving has potentiality under, and allowable under the city's current zoning ordinances. As to improve access. To my knowledge no one ever asked us if we felt access to our neighborhood or to our concerns was a problem. Certainly none of the signatories to the petition believe access is of such concern that we are willing to accept the proposed road extension as a remedy. And virtually every resident of Melody Hill Road on both sides of the Woida property, Murray Hill Road and Sommergate have signed that petition. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the last time I appeared before this body was to strongly opposed Mr. Hoben's plan for the development of the Shogren property, which he spoke of and which he showed to you. The Shogren property being the property two parcels north of the property that's at issue today and what is now known as Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition. What I've learned from that experience is that the city's zoning ordinances cannot help me to protect my neighborhood from the development totally inconsistent with the character of my neighborhood. Many of you sympathized with our concerns, while admitting your lack of authority to help because you were constrained by the regulations as they exist. Fortunately Mr. Hoben heard our concerns and revised his plan to minimize it's impact on our neighborhood. This commission commented when Mr. Hoben came back with his revised plan how lucky we, the residents of the neighborhood were, that we had a developer that listened to the neighbor's concerns because this commission was powerless to help us. Well this time this commission's not powerless to help us. I know we can't avoid having four houses put on this lot. A lot that... I know the city ordinances would probably allow for more than the house houses. I dare say that if the road doesn't go through, and Mr. Hoben withdraws from the development as he plans, the next developer who comes along will purchase this with plans to maximize the density on that property that the ordinances enacted by the city will allow. In any event we apparently have Mr. Hoben again to thank for presenting a proposal which at least considers our concerns. But if we are powerless to oppose there be four houses on a lot that previously held one, please don't compound the impact on our neighborhood by putting through the proposed public street. The neighbors have clearly made their voice heard as to what they feel the proper result on that should be. The neighbors have mobilized themselves and have taken the time to present nearly a year ago a petition to this 0 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 committee letting you know what our thoughts were. This time you are not powerless to help us. This time you do have the power to help us preserve the character of our neighborhood and we ask that you act upon it. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Paul Burkholder: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning. My name is Paul Burkholder and I am the, my wife and myself reside directly abutting the subject property. The previous speaker's remarks were very eloquent and I agree whole heartedly with them. I also want to state that we are 100% against the road. I see no benefit for myself to have a road through there. I am aware that I can split my lot up at some time in the future. I do not care about that... character of the neighborhood which is the reason that I moved to Chanhassen from Deephaven where I had a 40,000 square foot lot. Now, and I have to admit myself. I'm very surprised that this road business would come up. No one, no one has, I have not received anything in the mail. I've not received a phone call. No one has ever, ever approached me from the city or anywhere else stating, we think we should have a road through here. The property has been there for many, many years. Why at this time does somebody bring up the road? I'm not opposed to Mr. Hoben putting four houses on the lot. I'm a real estate broker now starting my 31 st year in the real estate business. I believe that the best use for the neighborhood and for the property is, I'd like to see two houses on the property frankly, but I can live with four. And as Chuck said, it could really, from the standpoint of the statue, could probably hold more houses. I'm against that. And as far as myself is concerned, I want to state again, I'm aware of the fact that I can cut... I don't want to do that. I don't see any benefit at all to myself, as long as I live there and in the future. I can't imagine anyone living in the metropolitan area of 2 1 /2 million people who would not appreciate buying from me and my wife at some time in the future, the lovely property on 1 1/2 acres of land. It's just you know, I believe that my property is worth as much in the whole as it would be in the sum of the parts. So I want to state again, my wife is here now. I'm sure that she'd be happy to come and speak to you personally to say that she also is opposed to this road. Thank you very much. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Denise Artley: Thank you. My name's Denise Artley. I live at 2098 Melody Hill Road. Couple things I want to tell you. First of all I am a transplant from Minneapolis and one of the reasons I came to the home I did on Melody Hill Road was because I did live on a street that was a shortcut. It didn't need to be a shortcut but the streets were crafted in a way that our's was one of the only streets in South Minneapolis that did not have the curbs ... pass thru traffic. I understand the impact of that on the homeowners. I understand that the pizza delivery guy is the only person that I've ever heard who complained about the fact that Melody Hill did not go all the way Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 through. And I would hope that this Planning Commission would not respond to the pizza guy... There is no one in our neighborhood that I know that has any complaint about access. And in fact, I had a conversation with some neighbors who would love to see Chaska Road closed off at Highway 41 so we would have even fewer people coming through. Now given that kind of experience of having the ... kind of wonderful experience I have where I live now, I would hate to think that I would now live on a thru street. And I cannot think of one neighbor who would feel any differently. So I would like to see you reconsider this road, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Linda Nicoli: My name is Linda Nicoli and I live at 2280 Melody Hill Road so I'm right on the curve to the west of the proposed development. I've lived there for 18 years and I've raised four sons there and if anybody should really want better access to their property would be me. We live right on the top of the hill and for the last, I don't know, probably 8 years I've many times had to park at the bottom of the hill and walk up because I couldn't get my car up the hill. And my solution to that was to get new tires on my car and I'd much rather continue to walk up the hill in the winter than see the proposed road go through. One of my major concerns, having raised those four boys there. They're all soccer players and those fields now in the summer are so heavily used. The Tonka United Soccer program uses those fields, has grown in an expediential rate the last few years and every night of the week there are soccer games going on on 3 or 4 fields across the street. And the way they had the fields configured last year, the soccer goals were up against the fence on Melody Hill, and every game that I attended there and every game that I saw from the deck of my house, at least 4 or 5 balls went across Melody Hill and into our front yards and followed immediately by 2 or 3 little soccer players chasing those balls. And I'd hate to see those kids being in jeopardy by people using that road as a shortcut to get out to TH 41. And then also, I'm just not sure how the configuration, how the new Lake Lucy Road is going to be also. The way I understand it, that is going to be another cross access between TH 41 and the property to the east and so I think that makes it even less important that we have an access along there. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Dick McFarland: My name is Dick McFarland. My wife and I live at 6341 Murray Hill Road. Right on the corner of Melody Hill and Murray Hill Road. We've lived there for 27 years. We raised four children. They're all gone now. But it's been a delight for us to see the young families moving into our neighborhood and there are lots of kids that are running around there. think it would be absolutely outrageous to put that road through to connect Melody Hill so I would hope in your good judgment that you would not allow this to happen. Thank you very much. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Betty Burkholder: Nancy? Was this about the road tonight... Mancino: Would you please state your name and address please. Betty Burkholder: Betty Burkholder, 6370 Murray Hill Road. Right adjacent to the proposed roadway. I didn't know that this meeting was supposed... because it didn't say anything in the stuff that we were sent. It did not mention a road. Mancino: I didn't see the slip that was sent to you. Betty Burkholder: Well the one that we were sent does not mention a road. Mancino: But it did state that there would be some, a subdivision. Betty Burkholder: Exactly. Mancino: But it specifically did not say the road. Betty Burkholder: ...four parcels on the existing lot ... so I'm wondering why we're talking about the road. Mancino: Because it involves the subdivision and how we're going to get access into that subdivision. Betty Burkholder: Yeah but are there people that know that there would be talk about roads? Mancino: Well I get the impression that your neighborhood is well aware of that. Betty Burkholder: ...that I talked to a few people tonight that didn't have any idea. And did not know that there was going to be any talk about a proposed road. On Melody Lane and on Murray Hill. Down the road a ways so. So I'm wondering if it's apropos to bring up this road. If this is a good thing to bring up. If there might not be more people here if they thought that this was the reason for the meeting. Mancino: Well it's in conjunction with the subdivision and it has been notified in the newspapers. We have made public notices. 7 Planning Commission Meeting -April 17, 1996 Betty Burkholder: You have to only notify people within 500 feet. Mancino: Is it within 500 feet? Yeah, and I think we've heard some very good. Betty Burkholder: I think we're not notified but there might be... Al -Jaffa We received quite a few phone calls. Those who contacted us, we told them what was happening with the subdivision and that staff was recommending a street extension. Betty Burkholder: But who was recommending the street extension, because nobody petitioned for a street extension. Not any neighbors in our neighborhood want a street extension. Mancino: And that's what we'll talk about. Betty Burkholder: Unless it's the city that wants a street extension. Not us. Not the Woida's. Not anybody on the property wants the street extension. So. - Mancino: So we have heard those comments and... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mancino: ...Melody Hill and the Middle School is to the right of you. And that particular grade is 10%, or is it more than 10%? Hempel: It exceeds 10% in some of the areas. Mancino: It exceeds 10%. Now if the road were to go through, they wouldn't change the grade of Melody Hill there. All they would do is what they, for public safety is to give those people on Melody Hill, there are 7 houses there right now. Instead of just using the approach from Chaska Road, they could also use the approach on the east side from where Murray Hill and Melody intercept. Does that make sense? Mehl: Okay, sure. So they could in effect avoid that portion of the steep grade if the weather doesn't permit using it by going around the other way, is that right? Mancino: Well to some degree. I mean if you live, I think it was Linda. If you live, just a minute. If you live in the middle of that, of that hill, you can make a right hand turn and go down it to go to Chaska Road. Or you can go left, which is going to be harder than heck anyways. It's Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 not going to make it any easier to go up over the hill. If you're coming from Galpin, and you go up Melody Hill. You make a left hand turn going west up Melody Hill and you live on that west side in the middle of the hill, you can come down and kind of approach it. Instead of having to come up from Chaska. So that's where it does make it easier access. Possibly. You could also keep sliding down the hill also, so. Dave, do you want to add to that? Hempel: No, you stated it clearly. Mehl: Yeah, that helps me out here. I didn't know how the 10% grade was going to be affected, either way. Whether it was a thru street or not. Hempel: No, it will stay the same. Mehl: Okay. I guess my opinion is with this development being developed, this area being developed and with the potential in the future. Sometime in the future of the property to the north being developed, I think a thru street makes sense from getting access and joining neighborhoods. I guess I'm not convinced of a great, large amount of additional thru traffic through there. I guess at this point I would support the road going through and the development as staff has laid it out. Mancino: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: Different point of view. Usually when we look at these things, on these road extensions, we get a large group of, existing homeowners that come in ... comes to mind. The extension on there. And usually trying to take a crystal ball and look at how the traffic would affect the quality of the neighborhood is usually pretty ambiguous because when it comes down to it, half the people go left and half of them go right. Unless you happen to be on the west side of the turn in which case when you come forward and look at the plan, everybody's going to be heading to the right. I think in this case, I've driven through this neighborhood for 17 years. The neighbors have a legitimate concern here. The reason is, is that there's a destination of a commercial area that's off of Chaska Road. The locals use Chaska Road. People around my area tend to go up along CR 17 and cut over because the access to the highway's goofy. Highway 7. Even Chaska Road is goofy, particularly in the winter time. If this thru street goes in, I'd go up Melody. I'd go right up over there to make several trips a week through there. And I think the city needs to look at this from a common sense point of view as to how that would affect the existing neighborhoods there. That have been there for some time. From a planning standpoint it makes a lot of sense. If you live there, it will change significantly how that neighborhood, the dynamics of that neighborhood. I don't know if what the city is gaining here is worth that. The type of development that would be ... even to the property to the north, although it would be E Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 somewhat restricted with having a thru street that still would be accessible. The one thing I'm concerned about too is that even though you're looking at notification with the 200 feet or whatever, it's going to affect everybody up and down that street and they should be notified. Usually when we look at this, like I said, there usually isn't the destination up here of a commercial access point up on TH 41 up there. Both in Shorewood and in Chanhassen. All of these people, if they're not going to this commercial area here, are whipping up into here. And when they come off of CR 17 or they come off of Lake Lucy Road, that's going to be where they cut through. Mancino: Until they're able to cut through on Lake Lucy. Farmakes: Yeah, until. But my point is that even so there's some wetlands through there and so on. They may, that would be a pretty direct route that's out to here. That would probably be the first way you'd cut across. And like I say, I think there's a couple of stop signs now and 3 or 4 blind curves going down Chaska Road and it's dangerous. Particularly with snow service in the winter time. So I think in this particular case, if you're familiar with the neighborhood and how it works, they have legitimate concerns here. Their argument is a good one if you happen to live there in that neighborhood. Because there will be a funnel of cars going through there. And like I said, usually we don't have that. Pleasant View are seen as other areas. We don't have that type of perspective draw of outside driving. Anyway, if I look at the issue of sizing of the homes. The city has a base minimum for lot sizes. We don't have a large lot. The fact that you built your houses some time ago or however the dynamics of that works and you're familiar with some of the people who have been in real estate for a while, we can't legislate that you put in a half million dollar home there. It doesn't work that way and you're familiar with the city has no basis for that. There's a trend in development of putting as many homes as you can on a small piece of property and there are other influences for that. It's cheaper to provide support facilities. Many houses... restricted area so there's a natural direction to do that... We usually in larger developments try to get a buffer of some sort of development where you have some transition. In this type of lot it's nearly impossible to do that... There's not enough area to put in a park or some type of buffer that you normally look for. So as far as what I'm looking here as development... is about how it would work out. So there's not much movement for flexibility there ... I would not support at this time a thru street simply because I feel that under that type of development, for that length of time, how long it's been there, that the city should be doing that. Mancino: Can you speak to the comments made on the subdivision as it is proposed? As far as the private street, etc. Farmakes: I don't have, I don't see how else really that you would handle it. Unless somebody else has some alternatives that differ significantly to change the issue of the thru street... As I 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 stated, if the property was larger or there might be possibilities there... Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I'm torn by this. I believe that we need to efficiently develop our city and certainly our comprehensive plan is directed towards that purpose. And there are federal agencies also that are guiding us to do so to limit urban growth and my concern is that we restrict development of the Burkholder properties, that we are indeed compromising our plans. It's a little difficult when the owner of the property, and all the neighbors coming here are opposed to it to and say they're not going to develop it. I am interested, if staff could help me understand what the alternate access to the Burkholder property would be if the road did not go through. Hempel: Madam Chair, commissioners. It would limit it to another private driveway, either off of Melody Hill from the west or off of Murray Hill. Mancino: Dave, why would it limit it to a private drive? I mean if we could put a full sized, standard road in all the way from the cul-de-sac on the west side, why can't we put a road, a regular public road up to the Burkholder property and then have them subdivide two lots off that? Hempel: If I understand, you're suggesting that a public street go partway through this parcel to serve Burkholder piece and the Woida piece at this time and not connect through? That's also a possibility. Skubic: I would be in favor of something to that effect. Mancino: So you would not be in favor of connecting Melody Hill? Skubic: Not if there was a good alternative, and this sounds like it could be a feasible alternative. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I have two questions for planning staff. Number one, and I don't mean to butcher your name. Mr. Spevacek. Is that how it's pronounced? Chuck Spevacek: Yes. Joyce: Thank you. Bob. Is Mr. Spevacek within 500 feet of? 11 Planning Commission Meeting -April 17, 1996 Al-Jaff: Yes. And typically what happens is Carver County Abstract and Title supplies us with the names. The applicant would go and put in an application. We do our best to notify everybody. You will see attached the list of names that was sent out to all the neighbors within 500 feet and Mr. Hoben, the applicant spoke to me during the meeting and said he realizes that a name was missing. Chuck Spevacek: The whole cul-de-sac. Al-Jaff: Okay. Joyce: I was a little disturbed by that. Resident: Yeah, I'm the property directly to the south. Joyce: I mean that's an oversight, number one. Number two, you wrote along letter here and I think someone should have cross referenced that with something. We've got to make sure this guy gets some information. So that bothers me. The second thing is, in your report it says we'd like to improve the access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide access to the school facilities and provide the Burkholder parcel future subdivision capabilities. And I'm new to this process. Maybe I'm off base but would it have helped if you would have talked with Burkholders possibly about this? Al-Jaff: We did. Well he did stop by and what we. Betty Burkholder: That was after the fact. Mancino: Excuse me. I don't want to open discussion. Joyce: Yeah, we shouldn't open it up. I'm stating a fact that in the report it seems to me you're acting as a proxy for them. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I don't want to open it up. That's my opinion, okay. I think that they are owners of that property and if they came to you and said, listen. I'm concerned about this development because I can't access my property, that's a whole different ballgame. They're against this. Thank you. Mancino: Ladd. Joyce: I have one more thing and then I'm done. My point is, the developer's against it. The adjacent owners against it and everybody in this room is against it except for the planners and 12 Planning Commission Meeting -April 17, 1996 this is the city here. Not the planners. So I'm totally against it. Okay, and that's my opinion. Thank you. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Got some problems in the neighborhood in terms of long cul-de-sac grades. Have two road segments that really should be connected. I think if everybody got notified in the neighborhood, they'd all be here. I don't think we'd learn anything else. Most everybody would be against it. So we could send out public notice but to be real honest, you're not going to hear anything different than what we heard tonight. I like preserving neighborhoods. It's hard though in this particular case, unless I hear a real compelling. I've got two real problems. Almost every neighborhood that comes in talks the same thing. Seriously so from a standpoint of, as development occurs, you know cars and what have you, we probably hear that every 2 weeks when we're here. And there are probably 3 subdivision proposals here a night. We just have to deal with it. If I were you I'd be ... really angry. Don't do it. Two things though that I haven't heard. One thing I really don't know and I'm not sure how we solve it is, if we connected those two, I'm not sure, I haven't been persuaded by either group that. Development just causes more traffic. That's the way it is and welcome to Chanhassen. We live in a wonderful spot and unfortunately people are going to move out here. I'm not convinced that I've heard a compelling argument one way or another that the traffic is going to be burdensome or not. I just don't know. I tell you, we could stop all roads from going into Chanhassen because some child is going to be hurt and yeah, I have to listen. I agree. That's what happens. But on the other hand, I haven't been persuaded by any member of the commission here tonight that there's a supreme risk that a typical neighborhood deals with. Now this may be an untypical neighborhood and we may have some situations that we should look at but maybe that's a challenge for the staff. The other thing is, this really, what I've seen tonight is a real obvious turn down. It's for road or whatever. It doesn't pass to what is necessary for a private drive so regardless of whether you agree with me or not on my position, it doesn't fit into our requirements for a private street so it's a turn down as far as I'm concerned. Now maybe there's some other solutions but tonight the solution is, from my standpoint, it doesn't go in the way it's presented tonight. Mancino: So you would like to see it come back? Conrad: It's a turn down. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: Similar thoughts. If I had my preference, yeah I'd love to see a street go through. But that is for growth. That is for future safety needs. Development of Chanhassen. A lot of that is 13 Planning Commission Meeting -April 17, 1996 for 2 lots that may be developed down the road. And part of that, on the Burkholder property we have to think about not what the Burkholders would do but what their future owners of that property may do 20, 25, 100 years from now. Is an issue that I think ... but I do like the idea of potentially extending Melody Hill to address that issue... I agree with Ladd that the issue is gray enough where I'd like to see more of a clear cut issue that the city should go through for public safety reasons. For access reasons. I don't feel that tonight but I think also can't approve staffs recommendation as it's presented... Mancino: Thank you. I have a couple questions. And that is for Dave on some public safety issues and this is about the street going through. Has the city not been able to plow Melody Hill west because they had real problems getting there or plowing it? Hempel: To my knowledge, no. Mancino: And has there been any problem other than the street names, because how do they know, how does Public Safety know which Melody Hill to go to? East or west... Hempel: That's a very valid point. They've learned from their mistakes in the past. Now they do require streets that have a west, north, south, east on them. In this situation it's, look at the address map and try and determine which side of Murray Hill it's on. Mancino: So luckily there are only 7 homes on that west side so they probably have those memorized. Have they had any problems, has Public Safety had any problem responding to fire calls? Anything like that in that western area during winter? I mean has there been any, I suppose quantifiable, qualifiable concerns from Public Safety? Hempel: I guess I can't answer that. I'm not aware. I've not been informed from Public Safety on that. Mancino: Okay. How do I feel? I live very close to the area and I use Chaska Road every day. l exit off of Highway 7, take Mayflower to Chaska. I never cut up Melody Hill or cut through that area at all. Actually I'd like to at different times when I kind of want to slow myself down and calm myself down because it is such a nice area. I tend to, in things like this when we have older established neighborhoods, and I don't see any clear cut value in connecting, I lean towards keeping it the way it is. The way the neighbors in the area want it to be. So I don't see a huge reason to connect it. I think that the neighbors tonight have been very articulate in all of their reasons and have done a good job of presenting it. I also think that staff has done a good job in their report of presenting why they think the road should go through, and they're supposed to. They're looking out for our best interests and they are supposed to show us and to give us 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 information to make those decisions. I don't feel that the Hoben, so I would not be in favor of connecting Melody Hill. On the other hand I don't feel that the Hoben subdivision, as I see it right now, should have a private drive. I don't see that it. is fulfilling any of the conditions that should have to be a private drive. It certainly isn't doing anything environmentally to save trees or grading. I am concerned, so I would like to also turn it down. Have that come back as a public street into that development and I want to make sure that there is a way for the Burkholder property in the future to be developed. I want to make sure that we address that. May I have a motion? Conrad: Yeah Madam Chairman, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends disapproval of the preliminary plat to subdivide, Subdivision #94-15 under the rationale that the access does not meet the current city standards. Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition under the rationale that the access does not meet the current city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1► ':1' 1► 1 1' ►1 1 '::. :►1 1 1 1► 1 MORAL 1► 1: . ■► ►1 . 1 Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission please. Rick Wesling: Yes I do. My name is Rick Wesling. I am with TSP/EOS Architects. We have been working with the owner of the property to coordinate all the... Very briefly I will walk through the design rationale that we had used to put this package together. This is a rather low bay... warehouse building. In other words, it's got... therefore the exterior wall material in an 8 inch, 10 inch, 12 inch kind of block arrangement you know ... unit works just fine for this use. We have chosen a concrete block where color is integral all the way through the block. This is the 15 rev The Honorable Donald I Chmiel Mayor of the City of Chanhassen and Mr. Donald Ashworth City Manager and Mr. Charles Folch City Engineer and Ms. Nancy Mancino Chair of Planning Commission Dear Sirs and Mesdames: Charles E. Spevacek, Esq. 6474 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Telephone: (612) 470-9697 June 20, 1995 in a ITY aF at Ms. Kathryn Aanenson aura 2 Director of Planning Depan- Nam, and Ms. Colleen Dockendorf Mr. Mark Senn Mr. Steven Berquist Mr. Michael Mason City Council Members Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Proposed Melody Hill Street Extension We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering extending Melody Hill Street west from its intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently owned by Clifford Woida, 6393 Murray Hill Road. This letter is to advise you that the residents of Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill Street and Sommergate, indicated on the enclosed Petitions, are strongly opposed to this proposal. The signatures on these Petitions represent the vast majority of the residents of our neighborhood. We see no benefit to our neighborhood in particular, or to the City in general, by this project. Instead, we believe its completion would be of considerable detriment. We are concerned the quiet character of our neighborhood would be destroyed by the increased traffic using this new route as an unnecessary shortcut from Hazeltine Boulevard to Galpin Boulevard. We fear for the safety of our children, particularly during the school year (the neighborhood school bus drop is at the comer of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Street). We do not understand why this disruption to our neighborhood and devaluation to our properties should be tolerated when we understand a new cross street between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard is planned at a location less than two miles south of us; and when the trip which would be "saved" by this road extension (between the intersection of Melody Hill and Chaska Road, and Melody Hill and Murray Hill) amounts to all of seventh/tenths of one mile, and less than two minutes travel time. There are many other objections to this proposal which we could raise if the City is, indeed, contemplating this project. We trust, however, that the wishes of the citizens most directly impacted by this project will be sufficient in persuading the City such project is unnecessary and inadvisable. We would appreciate your confirmation that the City has no plans to undertake this disruptive, wasteful endeavor. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, CES/pep\277080 Charles E. Sp acek Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We, the undersigned, trs onely oppose such a plan. Extending Melody Hill Road in this manner would result in an Irrevocable, detrimental, change in the character of our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and Increasing the safety risks to our neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project, or benefit from its completion. Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date 5 ((5(JSv; Name (Printed) Address Signature sJ t5 Ao S . fA,2,, ► ��s� ` .� � r �/S ' v �C/�l �o ��I N �_a-Qi��—��C„ • �GQ' 4,.+� �` t �.d Q r �_. C �a �a ssee. ,J� �, a 5� r►1� c o 13Y f//,4 ��ys usAN A .�7�rr a�� ��•��,�.� �� � 5l/7�75- Mack S'. F/timer y a3- d Melody� ll � � fur-elld � Wnne r � a350 14 E I (A) &4 %Z, A ��nda Nico(i 1� / Petition to the City of Chanhassen Lneighborhood's derstand the City of Chanhassen Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection y Hill Road, through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We, the undersigned, stroon 11 oppose such ing Melody Hill Road in this manner would result in an irrevocable, detrimental, change in the character of orhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our od's children. We see no need for this project, or benefit from its completion. consider our input In any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary HDate Name (Printed) Su.s� t� Address \Mu r r can (o 1182 /rJa ffi6G �'CG�LSiort_� o C Zo qo h1t k1l r U d� ,�,/ M 16leA c)o�i Z A.15 ei =n�w)q �t Hl�� l Signature � e v�V r � I �l�tC%Jlei Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the City of Chanhassen Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We, the undersigned, ron 1 oppose such a plan. Extending Melody Hill Road In this manner would result in an irrevocable, detrimental, change in the character of our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project, or benefit from its completion. Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (Printed) Address Signature �R •EMUS (L6f /11v.1-rr,�t� ��� �_ (�V. N revs�3i Vl,)K„VA y V?d , 5N lqs AA0- ��3/J 44fty Z3 Az -fy-9S /g -tlf,4s-- gXyg,Z: he4,15-d { L 5-15 `i s !V11t tips LZ7C i IOUa; 141 - R,>-�-- TLT-�-) JZa i� Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We, the undersigned, stroon ll oppose such a plan. Extending Melody Hill Road In this manner would result in an Irrevocable, detrimental, change in the character of our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project, or benefit from Its completion. Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (Printed) Address Signature $f Chap 1�5 E 6g14 qJ fray F4111 Esc lbtor, Ka s53?jj J 5 J � L,�/r�a Kuzma aa�{ ► ��► Y� — z _ la Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the City of Chanhassen Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection with Murray HIII Road, through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We, the undersigned, trs onely oppose such a plan. Extending Melody Hill Road In this manner would result.in an irrevocable, detrimental, change in the character of our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project, or benefit from Its completion. Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (Printed) Addres �4�q Mur�.y ,�� 014I Signature 9 G'c/ �N /'fir. rva� ff-' (l /j' t l 6-9-3 a. N . M . nc of cl < .o Oa: ZO jj 'E ro ui < > ca: E E -i WY) LL z 5; fi E, 5' 6 ox -. . ,y oz < t i. w E —c o 10 t . . ... . 2 t E g 2 E 6 X s �c cb v o 0 z Li 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 0 z z z z LLJ M—D, 0 C, < .lIA,o s �9. "ti IL 0 p z C � a • �Ei o e r II i b CL ov .9CXLZO S 0 o ' Eg�o a O Z Z aoQz r— V J z�z oo:3 �WF 7 w ,b 0 • f __ ry aw 0 N w ZZ QSU_ a �,, i_ �d� a • I � I i �\ ��I�� � 06� i z a ,o. r ^'� sr'asz . z.z�.zo s -. �.".,,, _ ; -�•..,�— —. ,. # ----------- @ ----------- gg �� !°' i P E — A f!I \ t�'; PE . 9 i. IlR�F9 tP ,� I ep IprP r9 � � (6 S° Ea Ea b9 11.111 ��i� �E , Ni�, H H RRRE ill, F � p i� �rt Pri �� � eRrr �I �I P� ��!! 3; iP i iR� j fill �� ; B:lIIIIBIS'EEi i6rRPE iEl � !9� {a p'�! IE �i Pa t. F. RlP: �P FP ...,, ! .flu 3. E a r e Y Bi �p C If RS 4il Pr � t a. Z 0 I iL CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: Aug. 1, 2000 CC DATE: Aug. 28, 2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/29/00 CASE #: 2000-9 SUB PROPOSAL: Request to subdivide a 3.4 acre parcel into 5 single family lots and two outlots and a seven foot rear setback variance and a eight and one-half foot side setback variance for an existing garage, White Oak Addition. LOCATION: 6900 Minnewashta Parkway APPLICANT: Coffman Development Set vices, Inc. Larry & Nancy Wenzel 600 West 78 h Street, Suite 250 6900 Minnewashta Parkway P. O. Box 231 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, NIN 55317 (952)974-7877 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1.2 — 4.0 Units per Net Acre ACREAGE: 3.07 Acres DENSITY: 1.62 units per acre, gross; 1.69 units per acre, net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval received on June 30, 2000, to create two lakeshore lots and three non-lakeshore lots with a variance to the building setback requirements for the existing garage on proposed lot 2. Lot areas range from 17,933 square feet to 32,000 square feet. Two of be parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway and one lot shall be accessed from Minnewashta rkway (the existing house). The existing house on the site will remain. this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: ,retion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the pro standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets "ity must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. ��s s'�aa • White or ' Augi'',y0 Page �r0 PROM �fIk /4/.;��C3 y OThe pros, ", Minnewa ``�-- developme./ shoreline area' _ the corresponr parcels for e they do nr The pro- p -t of the Oaks of -.l with future SI s- ',;ects the 4�1 1� �o? '-fined with IQy �� Aa a4, rho rr 'narate �JsAtr��Qatr,, o a'rsaa once rV a% °sty oJar��'�d' Is�o sr �'�S' •�a?r� •s� as a °tto rr ara a s T,tr attrr fa`I s� �tr �j£• ��' aar� 00tr�°la S�l� I S a q, ql, �£A °0-1�Q� rQr I� arr 6•-e° o O �a�°a J�I�ar a��� aa��� °trsar a lrr;? rsaa� Tcyo��Aa�r��a a4oJ�� '�QalQaJa9�Q ����� Aa r 0Qs o °r t � .r o � QQ •Icy ar ,p %r attr Qua r�a,� l�� a aQ trr�2aaJI�J Qua ar�'�lh�o� tt� sa°A I �1 h P White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 3 plat subject to the applicant providing a sixty Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary p sub' J right -of- and full public street to provide access to the proposed lines toc omtply withlsetback of foot rig Y the area and the moving of the existing garage or revision of the of requirements. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Section 20-611 through 20-616 "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-476 through 20-486 Shoreland Management District BACKGROUND These properties have been used as single-family home sites for Minnewashtta subdivision 9 tothe p p roved the final plat for the Oaks Chanhassen City Council approved west of the site. At that time, access to the property was provided for with the extension of White Oak Lane. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant for the White Oak Addition development has submitted tree preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots ) 3 Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy covera e Proposed tree pre The White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 4 Buffer yard plantings are required along Minnewashta Parkway. Requirements are shown in the following table. Landscaping Item Required Proposed East property line — 2 overstory trees 0 overstory trees Buffer yard B* 3 understory trees -0 understory trees 30' width 3 shrubs 0 shrubs -Accurmng w cdy oducr yard drdnlance, ine project devewper is responsioie Tor omy n io or the requires piantmgs. Abutting property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. The landscape plan shall incorporate the required buffer yard plantings along Minnewashta Parkway. WETLANDS There are no wetlands located on -site. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 3.07 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $2,456. The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. The applicant will not be assessed area included in the Minnewashta Parkway right-of- way. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family/low density developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $6,078.60 fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The plans propose to grade approximately 50% of the site for the new house pads and proposed cul-de-sac/shared driveway. The trees located in the southeasterly portion of the property around White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 5 the existing homestead will remain. The proposed grading will prepare the site for walkout -type dwellings on Lots 1, 3-5, Block 1. On Lots 1 and 5, Block 1 drainage swales will be required along the sides of the house to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. DRAINAGE The property currently sheet drains in a southeasterly fashion except for the northwesterly portion of the property, which drains toward existing White Oak Lane. The proposed drainage plan appears to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage through the property. No additional storm sewer improvements are proposed. Staff is concerned that future extension of the roadway to provide subdivision capabilities for the property to the north (Headla) will generate significant enough impervious surface which will require storm sewer improvements in the roadway to convey neighborhood drainage to a stormwater pond for pretreatment prior to discharging off site. Therefore, staff is recommending that a comprehensive stormwater management plan be developed for both the Headla and subject parcel should this subdivision proceed taking into account subdivision capabilities of the parcel to the north and prescribing any storm drainage mitigation measures necessary. Since there are no stormwater improvements proposed, the applicant will be responsible for stormwater management fees in accordance with city ordinance. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from White Oak Lane. The applicant is proposing to extend sewer and water lines to service the proposed lots. Staff is, however, concerned that since the parcels to the north also have subdivision capabilities that this subdivision and the property to the north be reviewed together from a utility service standpoint to insure that sewer is adequate to service the parcel to the north as well. The existing house (6900 Minnewashta Parkway) is currently`connected to municipal sewer and water from Minnewashta Parkway. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over the City for maintenance and ownership. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required in conjunction with final plat consideration. Construction drawings will need to be submitted to staff at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The construction plans and specifications for the project will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval. The financial security shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. STREETS The plans propose to extend White Oak Lane along Lot 5 and construct a portion of a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Lot 5. It is the applicant's desire to provide street access via a private driveway to serve Lots 1, 3 and 4. The existing gravel driveway to the house on Lot 1 shall be removed and restored with vegetation. In addition, the driveway apron to Lot 1 from White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 6 Minnewashta Parkway will need to be removed and restored with B-618 concrete curb and gutter. The existing blacktopped driveway to Lot 2 from Minnewashta Parkway is proposed to maintain its current configuration. City Ordinance 18-57 (1) restricts access to collector streets. Minnewashta Parkway is listed as a collector street in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff is comfortable with allowing the existing driveway to Lot 2 since there are good sight lines along Minnewashta Parkway and the house configuration is orientated towards Minnewashta Parkway. Upon review of city ordinance, section 18-57, up to four lots in a residential single-family district may be served by a private street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes is unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines, homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. Response: Staff has prepared a conceptual plat layout utilizing both parcels of land (Headla/Wenzel) and determined that it is feasible and appropriate to construct a public street and cul-de-sac to provide street access to the properties of Headla and Wenzel. The proposed cul-de-sac and shared driveway will only provide partial street access to the Headla parcel. The Headla parcel will also be limited to a private driveway similar to this proposal. The Headla parcel also has Stratford Lane to utilize as a street access point for a couple of lots. According to Mr. Headla, he is not ready to subdivide his property further and therefore does not wish for the street to be extended. Staff is concerned that the current proposed street configuration and private driveway would limit the Headla parcel in development capabilities. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that the extension of the public street system is not required to serve the other parcels in the area, improve access, or provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Response: The extension of White Oak Lane is necessary to provide full development capabilities for the adjacent parcels. Also, access and maintenance will be improved by a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of White Oak Lane verses a partial cul-de-sac. 3. The use of private street will permit enhanced protection to the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Response: The extension of White Oak Lane to Lot 1, Block 1 will not significantly impact the individual scattered trees on the property any more than the proposed shared driveway. There a no wetlands located on the property. Under Section 18-57, Paragraph M, "Half streets shall be prohibited except where it is practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, in which case the dedication of the half street may be permitted or required. The probable length of time elapsing before dedication of the remainder shall be a factor considered in making this determination." According the City Attorney's interpretation of this code, it is the intent to White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 7 prohibit half streets from being constructed until the necessary right-of-way for a complete urban street section is obtained and can be constructed with development of the property. Therefore, it is staff s recommendation upon review of the criteria listed in the city ordinance that a private shared street/driveway does not meet the city's criteria for a private street/driveway. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the extension of a full city street centered upon the northerly property line of the Wenzel property with a 60-foot radius in the cul- de-sac, which would terminate at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. The preliminary plat does not designate a right-of-way width for Minnewashta Parkway. It also indicates that Minnewashta Parkway may not be centered upon the easement for the street. It is staff s recommendation that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way to provide a 60- foot wide strip of right-of-way centered upon the existing Minnewashta Parkway street alignment. This may reduce the square footage available to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth ft.) Lakeshore (ft.) Code 15,000 non- riparian; 20,000 riparian 90/100 feet if access via a private drive/street 125 90 Lot 1 21,574 90* 244 0 Outlot B # 4,971 90 53 94 Lot 2 32,000 155 216 0 Outlot A 7,877 155 50 155 Lot 3 22,723 95 239 0 Lot 4 22,015 95 216 0 Lot 5 17,933 110 201 0 ROW 4,636 TOTAL 133,739 # Outlot B must be combined with Lot 1 as one property. @ Outlot A must be combined with Lot 2 as one property. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 8 (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. - Finding: The proposed subdivision does not comply with the requirement for the installation of a private street. The prevailing development pattern does not make it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. As part of the development of the Oaks of Minnewashta subdivision, immediately to the west of this site, the City specifically had the developer extend a roadway to the edge of this property with the anticipation that it would be extended to the east to accommodate development of this property and the property to the north. This road is required to provide access to the property to the north. While a private street may preserve the trees along the north property line in the short term, they will be removed when that property develops in the future. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District subject to the revisions contained in the staff report. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Findinw. The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure based on the revisions recommended by staff. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 9 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Findin : The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure based on the revision to the plat recommended by staff. VARIANCE FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship. The detached garage could be could be relocated to comply with setback requirements without the need for a variance. The creation of the new lot line creates the variance situation. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 10 Finding: The granting of the variance for the detached garage will increase the value of the property, since the applicant would not have to comply with ordinance and could create an additional lot as proposed. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The difficulty is self-created since it is the proposed lot configurations which necessitate a variance. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located since it will crowd Lot 1. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It will establish a precedent for reduced detached garage setbacks in this neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the setback variance for the existing garage." "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition, creating five lots and two outlots, plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated 6/30/00, subject to the following conditions: The existing garage on proposed Lot 2 does not meet minimum setback requirements. The applicant may either move the structure to comply with setbacks or eliminate Lot 1. and revise the other lot lines to provide a 30 foot setback from the westerly lot line. 2. The two outlots must be combined with the corresponding lots across Minnnewashta Parkway. They shall not be considered as separate parcels for development purposes. These outlots may not be used as an association beachlot. White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 11 3. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. 4. The north wall, and any roof projection of the existing garage on proposed Lot 2, must be of one -hour fire -resistive construction if it is less than three feet to the property line. 5. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 6. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 7. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. Additional premise identification numbers will be required for Lots 3 and 4. Because they are set off of the cul-de-sac, numbers will not be visible from the edge of White Oak Lane, thereby requiring additional numbers and/or signage at the driveway entrance. Submit plans to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. Plans for additional address numbers must be submitted prior to any building permits being issued. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. 9. Regarding the existing house on lots 3 and 4, if house is to be removed, please contact Fire Inspector Greg Hayes for the possibility of fire training prior to demolition. 10. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer shall supply staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval. 11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City on the final plat for all utilities lying outside the right-of-way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way on the final plat to provide a 60-foot wide strip of right-of-way centered upon the existing Minnewashta Parkway street alignment. 12. The developer shall construct White Oak Lane in accordance with the city's urban street standards, 31 feet wide, to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, with a cul-de-sac (60 foot radius). If the developer is unable to acquire the necessary right of way or construct White Oak Lane per city urban standards, the plat shall be considered premature for development. 13. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 12 Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. 16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The plan review shall account for the future drainage from the parcel to the north (Headla) as well. The applicant shall provide detailed pre -developed and post -developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Environmental Service Commission, Health Department and, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 19. Utility service and street access needs to be incorporated into the plans for the parcel to the north (Headla) prior to final plat consideration. 20. The existing gravel driveway to the house on Lot 1 shall be removed and restored with . vegetation. In addition, the driveway apron to Lot 1 from Minnewashta Parkway will need to be removed and restored with B-618 concrete curb and gutter. All lots except for Lot 2, Block 1 shall access the internal street system and not Minnewashta Parkway. 21. The proposed residential development of 3.07 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $2,456. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $6,078.60. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 13 22. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the city before final approval of the development. Included in the plan shall be reforestation and buffer yard plantings. 23. The 15 trees required for reforestation shall be distributed to Lots 1 and 3 through 5 as follows: Lots 1,3,4 — 3 trees required, Lot 5 - four trees required. Trees shall be deciduous and 2 1/z" diameter. 24. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for the four additional lots pursuant to city ordinance." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Letter to City Manager, Mayor, Council, and Planning Commission from Bobbie and Dave Headla 5. Sketch Plan: White Oak Lane 6. Public hearing notice and property owners list White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 14 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Coffman Development Services, Inc. and larry & Nancy Wenzel for a five lot Subdivision On August 1, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Coffman Development Services, Inc. for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; White Oak Addition August 1, 2000 Page 15 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. 5. The planning report #2000-09, dated August 1, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of August, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary gAplan\bg\white oak addition preliminary.doc EXHIBIT A M/NNEWASHTA SURFACE ELEVA77ON ON 6-15-00=944.08 NO TE' OHK = 944.5 ACCORDING To THE BEARINGS SHOWN ARE RELA TINE MN DNR. TO THE PL AT 0E- THE OAKS OF MINNEWA SH TA. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: That port of Government Lot Six (6), Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty —Three (23) West on the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West Line of said Government Lot Six (6), distant 624.93 feet from the Southwest Quarter thereof- thence East 638 feet more `or less to the shore of Lake Minnewashta; thence northerly along said shore to a point distant 80 feet north of and measured at right angles `o the lost described ,ine; thence west to a point on the said West Line of Government Lot Six (6) distant 80 feet from the point of beginning; thence southerly along said West Line 80 feet to the point of beginning. The bearing of the East Line of said Section 6 in t e above described description is assumed to be North 0 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West for th basis of the bearings within the description. Said East Line being a straight line from a stone monument in the Southeast corner of Section 6 to a stone monument in the Northeast corner of Section 6. Said stone monument as of record in the Carver County Courthouse. That part of Government Lot 6, Section 5, and the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at o point on the East line of said Section 6 distant 624.93 feet from the Southeast corner thereof; thence Northerly along the said East line 80 feet; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 42 seconds West (bearing not to control) 1307.49 feet more or less to a point on the West line of the said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 695.56 feet northerly from the Southwest corner thereof, • thence southerly along said West line 237.26 feet; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 44 seconds East (bearing not to control) 1306.06 feet more or less to a point on the East line of said Section 6 distant 465.42 feet from the Southeast corner thereof, • thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds East 615 feet more or less .to the shore of Lake Minnewashta; thence northerly along said shore to its point of intersection with a line bearing East from the point of beginning; thence West along the lost described line a distance of 638 feet more or less to the point of beginning. The bearing of the East line of said Section 6 in the above described description is assumed to be North 0 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West for the basis of the bearings within the description. Said East line being a straight line run from a stone monument in the Southeast corner of Section 6 to a stone monument in the Northeast corner of Section 6. Said stone monument as of record in the Carver County Courthouse. Except the plat of OAKS OF MINNEWASHTA. DDCI /A Allk ► n r%%z PROJECT NO: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION r4 cnrlFn . J LJ N '�" C 2000 CI 1 y +Ut• UttH1 HA6SEN APPLICANT: �ofFNI.4� .��1Eta�Mea-r S�'t✓i�z �A,�OWNER: 61,aay ? NfJ C Y A)EA) ADDRESS: 6O0 WEST. 791'4 57T. 2-So ADDRESS: A2 KWA y P.O. &OX Z31 C RAIJKAsS60 AN 5T3J7 CNaA') RPr55S�4 SS3 3 / TELEPHONE (Day time) 9 2 y- 7 87 7 TELEPHONE: V i y- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign {-P5_0 Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision - TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME �/y/7,r5r- d� �� �¢� > LOCATION &f01) 1411., �Z✓�Sfi�, LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE 3. 0 7 14C 6- WETLANDS PRESENT wA V YES NOa:• 1•. • , ... �.. . F� . a.•y ,� PRESENT ZONING .i REQUESTED ZONING= - PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 7� S�/ '�i+/iDc G.A� /,v77> S G ors y Za7-5 Fale �&--7,j This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day, extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are pprQved4,y the applicant. Application Received on Fee Paid � l7 Off/ ate z f 045 ' ate Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 3 Za 8s 11. g r F- 9V18 4 �d E tt B 6 �g �Ei a z :�YN .6'��9°�°j i- ii@°E i o Lei t i use°I 6 j e��y�af� �xpj� �1,63 q a� W C tl�tltltl¢£yi� qB€9uR � a �i a L Ali U H I U Z To City Manager, Mayor, Council, and Planning Commission: Subject: White Oak Addition as presented by Coffman Development Services We, (Bobbie and Dave Headla) live adjacent, on the north side, to the Wenzel property. Mr. Coffman has spent considerable time going over -their development plans and answering many questions to our satisfaction. We feel the plans are appropriate for this area and encourage you to approve them as presented. Background: We knew sometime this area would be developed and made plans many years ago for this situation, such as, planting privacy trees and continual clean up of the property after running horses here for`k5 years. We like our property the way it is and have no intention of developing in the near future. With that said, we also feel that the Wenzels have every right to develop their property as long as they are consistent with the long range plans of the city. I understand they are in conformance. It has been said this development may be "premature" since there is not a cul-de-sac at the end of White Oaks Drive. I want to take issue with that position. First let me say that I feel the Planning and Engineering groups are taking the appropriate position for they are the ones to try and keep all developments consistent with the long range city plans. They are just doing their job. However the development plans do not destroy what is already at the east end of White Oaks Drive, they have enhanced the long range plans by having us agree to the proposed sewer water easement. Whenever this property is developed the cul-de-sac will be complete. In this immediate area there is a precedence already to allow roads to just end. One is the Country Oaks Road where the road just stopped in the Pleasant Acres side until the Hallgren property was developed. Then the road was made a through street. Another example was the White Oaks Road, initial development had the road stop at the west end of Wenzel/Headla property. Now the development of the Wenzel property is just enhancing the eventual cul-de-sac. Let me say one more time the plans of the Coffman Development Services and our Planning /Engineering groups are excellent, a small timing problem should not interfere with approval. Bobbie Headla )0".t DaveAeeZ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Parcel Into 5 Single Family Lots APPLICANT: Coffman Development Services LOCATION: 6900 Minnewashta Parkway NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Coffman Development Services, Inc., requesting to subdivide a 3.4 acre parcel into 5 single family lots and two outlots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway, White Oak Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 2000. Smooth Feed SheetSTM } r' Use template for 51600 DAVID R BARBARA M HEADLA 6870 MINNEWASHTA PK EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NANCY H WENZEL 6900 MINNEWASHTA PK EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DARYL L & DEBRA A KIRT 50 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & ANNE M LARSON 6636 PARKWOOD RD EDINA MN 55436 THOMAS S & STACIE L HANSON 4020 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT M & ANN L BIEGANEK 4040 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LESLIE A JACKSON 4060 WHITE OAKS LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BOYD D AARESTAD PO BOX 65 VICTORIA MN 55386 PHILIPPE A DUFOUR & MARIANNE P PHILIPPART 6931 COUNTRY AOKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHELDON N & RUTH N TANG 6951 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RAYMOND K & TERESA B NICHOLS 6971 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & JANEEN K LANO 6991 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD R & MARY I EVENSON 4001 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KYLE E & EILEEN M HEITKAMP 4021 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD D & ELAINE M ARION 4041 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RONALD D & AMY BELL DVORAK 4061 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DEWEY CARTER 2477 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT A & SARAH A RENN 4080 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL R CARROLL DEBBRA A CARROLL 4089 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN J C/O SCOTT BOTC�I-----" 690 CIT LE-NTERPJRBOX 147 CHANT-IASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY E1IIBOX 147 CH ASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL L & BARBARA WISNIEWSK 7656 REGENT AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 DONALD F & DEBORAH H NOACK 4004 HALLGREN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES P & SHELLY A MARTIN 4016 HALLGREN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY J & PATRICIA L STAFFANSO 4028 HALLGREN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RENAE L MULLER 45 HASSAN ST HUTCHINSON MN 55350 RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE PO BOX 181 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT F & ELIZABETH A MICEK 3900 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN P NORDLING & SANDRA L ANDERSON 3920 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IVAN P & SUSAN M STREIF 3940 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 r 1..,._.. 1 ..1. _ 1_ ' ®09Zs aasel slagal ssaippV ®AU3A%f Qp JEFFREY M & JANICE M ADAMS 3960 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM SCOTT MORROW & CYNTHIA M HOULE 3980 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BARYON CRAIG WELLS 4000 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TODD L & JANE R BENDER 4001 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TERRY T & BONNIE J LABATT 3981 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD'F & DIANE L HUNTER 3961 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J MUNIG 6850 STRATFORD BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON 3921 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS DALE REICHERT 3901 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & DIANE E LIESER 3881 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HAROLD J & ELAINE TAYLOR 3861 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STRATFORD RIDGE HOMEOWNERS C/O KEITH F BEDFORD 3961 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STRATFORD RIDGE HOM WNERS C/O KEITH F BE 3961 ST RDG EXQEESIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CBANIiASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: August 1, 2000 CC DATE: August 28, 2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/29/00 CASE #: 2000-10 SPR By: BG, MS, ST, ML, JS, LH PROPOSAL: Request for a site plan approval for a 96,925 square foot expansion to a 95,260 square foot building LOCATION: 950 Lake Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition APPLICANT: Amcon Construction Company Emplast 200 West Highway 13 950 Lake Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 890-1217 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: 12.6 acres DENSITY: F.A.R.0.35 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting site plan approval to expand the existing building on the site by 96,925 square feet, a doubling of the building size from 94,260 square feet. The proposed expansion will be to the east and south of the existing building in an area previously graded in anticipation of a future expansion. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 2 Kelly Court Rwd �III� Nicholas Nhs �e% ►ke Drive ssex Rd uffox Dr urlwood Dr Dsewood Dr ewers Place IS Lake Susan Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of AMCON Construction Co. for Emplast expansion Site Plan Review On August 1, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Emplast and AMCON for a site plan review for the property located at 950 Lake Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, and HC-1, Highway Corridor District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial use. 3. The legal description of the property is Lot 1, Block 1 Empak Addition. 4. Section 20-110: (1) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 8 g. Show the correct easement locations as per the Empak Addition plat. 18. On the utility plan, Sheet C-2: a. Lighten or screen the existing utility lines to distinguish them from the proposed utilities. b. Provide documentation that the existing water and sewer services are sufficiently sized to handle the building addition. c. Add a note stating that all connections to existing manholes. shall be core drilled. d. Add a catch basin on the south side of the western entrance drive just before the future parking stalls. e. Show the location of the existing light poles along Lake Drive." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Site Plan 3. Reduced Copy Overall Floor Plan 4. Reduced Copy Building Elevations 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 7 5. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of `No Parking Fire Lane' signs. 6. The applicant shall plant one additional overstory tree along the east property line in order to meet minimum buffer yard requirements. 7. The addition must be provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system. 8. Accessible parking spaces must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 9. The addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 for high pile storage. 10. Exiting for the existing building and the addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Building Code Chapter 10. These requirements cannot be determined until complete plans are submitted. 11. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 12. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin and storm sewer sizing based on a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit. 15. Add all applicable City detail plates to the plans. 16. Increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet. 17. On the Grading Plan, Sheet C-1: a. Show all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. b. Revise the grading along the southeast corner of the building to prevent stormwater from draining toward the building. c. Show the erosion control features. d. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. e. Change the title of the plan to "Grading & Erosion Control Plan". f. Change the straw bale dam protection around catch basins to a concrete block and 1" rock filter around the catch basins (see attached detail). Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 6 d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 Corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements contingent on the revisions contained in this report. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development on the property. The site design is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by AMCON, dated June 30, 2000, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. An architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest corner of the building, shall be incorporated on the southeast corner of the building. At a minimum, this should include a sloped roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protruding element such as columns and/or a stoop/patio if additional entrances are required. Revise the site plan to provide the following parking: Office — 74 spaces, largest shift — 65 spaces, warehouse — 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces. 30 percent (58 stalls) may be shown as proof of parking. Should parking become a problem, the city may require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises (section 20-1124 (1) e.) upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner. 4. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrants. Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 5 The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings for the east property line. Staff recommends that one overstory tree be added in that area. Staff believes that the extra evergreen will provide equal or greater buffering than the required seven shrubs, so staff recommends that the applicant not be required to plant the shrubs. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant is not proposing additional lighting or signage. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 13 Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 4 UTILITIES The existing Emplast building has sewer and water services. No additional services are being proposed for the building addition. The applicant shall provide documentation that the existing 8" water and 4" sewer lines are sufficiently sized to service the proposed building expansion. DRAINAGE Stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be conveyed via storm sewer, to an off -site regional pond on the south side of Lake Drive. The parking area on the east side of the future building will need to be revised to drain away from the building. Also, a catch basin should be added on the south side of the westerly entrance drive to capture the additional impervious runoff before it reaches Lake Drive. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations including a drainage area map for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. PARKING LOT CIRLCULATION Currently, there are two driveway entrances to the site. No additional entrances are proposed. The existing drive aisle widths of 25' should be increased to a minimum of 26' wide as per City Code Section 20-1118. After visiting the site and viewing the condition of the existing pavement, the applicant may want to consider a heavy-duty pavement section for the truck traffic drive areas. LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 472 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 2 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along Lake Drive, as well as neighboring property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 472 s . ft. >472 s . ft. Trees/ parking lot 2 overstory trees 7 overstory trees Buffer yard C — Lake Drive 3 overstory trees 5 overstory trees (*shown is 75% of totals 5 understory trees 12 understory trees re 'd) 5 shrubs 20 shrubs Bufferyard B — E. property 4 overstory trees 3 overstory trees line 7 understory trees 8 understory trees (*shown is 75% of totals 7 shrubs 0 shrubs re 'd) t r uire antmgs Abutting pronertv owners ccor mg to city butter yar or mance, the project eve oper is response a or on y o o to eq p may plant the remaining 25% on their property. Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 3 building. Overhead doors are located on the north side of the building, hidden from public views. Staff recommends that an architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest corner of the building, be incorporated on the southeast corner of the building. At a minimum, this should include a sloped roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protruding element such as columns and/or a stoop/patio if additional entrances are required. This will help to create symmetry in the building and provide additional architectural interest consistent with the requirements of the Highway 5 Corridor District. The other issue that staff is concerned with is that sufficient parking be shown on the plan. In 1989 when the site plan was originally approved, the parking requirements for an office use were 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The City of Chanhassen's current standards are 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (developers are telling us that their clients are requesting 5 spaces per thousand). Based on the parking requirements, the site should provide the following parking: Office — 74 spaces, largest shift — 65 spaces, warehouse — 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces, not the 157 that are currently shown. There are ample locations to incorporate additional parking on site. Staff did visit the site on two different occasions and noticed that approximately one-half of the parking was occupied. It is therefore reasonable to permit the applicant to provide proof of parking for some of the parking (section 20-1124 (1) e.). Staff is proposing that 30 percent (58 stalls) may be shown as proof of parking. These spaces should be located along the east side of the drive isle to the east of the building expansion. GRADING The proposed grading plan matches very well with the existing ground elevations for the site. The site had previously been rough graded when the existing Emplast building was constructed. Now only minor grading is anticipated to prepare the parking lot and building pad. Staff recommends that the area near the southeast corner of the proposed building be revised to drain away from the building. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been submitted which shows silt fence around the south side of the proposed building. Additional erosion control fence will need to be installed around the south side of the parking expansion area. Staff will work with the applicant in developing an erosion control plan that fits the site. The proposed catch basins are shown to be protected with erosion control measures during construction. Once the additional parking stalls and/or drive aisles are paved and all disturbed areas have been revegetated, the applicant shall be responsible for removal of the erosion control fence. Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The proposed 96,925 square foot expansion will create warehouse and distribution space for the consolidation of Emplast's operations. The existing building consists of 16,250 square feet of office space, 77,510 square feet of manufacturing and warehouse space and 1,500 square feet employee lunchroom. The building height is 27 feet to the top of the parapet on the south elevation and 31 feet on the north elevation. The building material consists of tilt -up concrete panels. The proposed development will have a total impervious area of 51 percent of the site. The maximum impervious area is 70 percent of the site. Significant areas of the site will be preserved in landscaping. The property to the east is Roberts Automatic another industrial user. Lake Susan Park is located south and across Lake Drive. To the west is a vacant office/industrial site. To the north are the railroad tracks at the top of a steep slope, elevation 946, 35 feet above the finished floor elevation of the building (elevation 911). The building expansion ranges from 1 feet to 17 feet above the elevation of Lake Drive as one goes from east to west. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-106 — 20-116, Site Plan Review Section 20-811 — 20-816, IOP District Regulations Section 20-1116 — 20-1124, Parking and Loading Section 20-1176 — 20-1183, Landscaping and Tree Removal BACKGROUND On April 24, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved the plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition, replatting Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2" d Addition. On April 10, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved site plan # 89-1 for a 77,690 square foot office and production facility. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed addition would continue the use of tilt -up concrete panels similar the existing building. The panels consist of racked concrete, mauve in color, with a smooth band, brown in color, running around the south and east sides of the building expansion. Windows are included in the south and east elevations in the same size, style and color as existing windows on the building. The proposed expansion projects out approximately 45 feet from the front of the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for APPLICANT: Amcon Construction Co. a 96,925 s.f. Addition LOCATION: 950 Lake Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Amcon Construction Company, is requesting Site Plan Review for a 96,925 sq. ft. expansion to a 95,260 sq. ft. building on property zoned IOP and located at 950 Lake Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition), Emplast. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 2000. f.A PRDPCeED ADDrrKM TO ,JI, . ►Etb►Ertt®D®Ct(� e EMPLAST W 8 I k CHAN-UtiMM AROE90TA Aji:�Y g c IQL NOWOOV G3 o"Jd I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I II I j---——}——�j— I j I_ I I I j j j II I II I I I II I j I 0 m raj j Pd j l p I VIOBONrrw VBBBVNNVNO !rp 1 e IS`d1dW3g- t oLLNOuroava BOmKY r dad���66�� • i I Zw �, ar uWii ■adiaooiioaoii ii 1 A A A 7C �a �p Wri Pill IfEEE`� SaE�Gt 4ipY i y rEp{ O W fill aI 111,1111 PROJECT NAME LOCATION 15 D LAC -Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION I.a_Z-3 14 �Z, , 131 UAL 2 TOTAL ACREAGE l Z • (r A WETLANDS PRESENT nn II -YES NO NO PRESENT ZONING I V1aLJ6 6� 04 ICC, TGL REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Q`� MCC, I Y"S_tT 16- 'iness REASON FOR THIS REQUEST _ AYe h 0 ' ki M � �-QN,,IS�M �J1JLl I c t This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. U KL Si natu pplica Date ��r� Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on �0U0 Fee Paid �H Z2 - zs Receipt No. :1)0 57? F S '?S The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: - r-M oh (�OYI*Ac�byl ADDRESS: ZW 0A• is ?) u rnsvi<<e 1 MtJ 55331 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 6i'/ 2 ' 210 - i2_11 OWNER: (M IA�iT ADDRESS: ��O L � -D 'VP� TELEPHONE: D 12 - —I S ' -Z) S7, d Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development` Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review" trip j- 100 t P0-t #sot 2�0+ X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision` TOTAL FEE $ 29 2s A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan review. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of August, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IC ATTEST: Secretary Its Chairman Emplast Addition August 1, 2000 Page 10 (2) Is consistent with this division; (3) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 5. The planning report #2000-10 SPR dated August 1, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 00915 .Iasel ROSEMOUNT INC ATTN: CONTROLLER 12001 TECHNOLOGY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344. CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCH 690 CITY R DR PO BO CHANIVASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A PAULS 8227 TOP OF THE WORLD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR �� PO BO CHANHASSEN--- `MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER _ 690 CITY CENRDR -- PO BO UE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS 1 880 EAST LAKE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COUNTY 17 CHANHASSEN 200 HWY 13 W BURNSVILLE MN 55337 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES/E J CARLSO C/O UNITED MAILING INC 1001 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES E J CARLSON 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 � slagel ssaippv @Au3AVO ty Citgo Administrative Appeal August 1, 2000 Page 2 RELEVANT REGULATION The following is an excerpt from the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Stan, (italics added): g. Signage not 11 freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign t hall ght exceed sign eighty (80) 1 A greater than eight (8) square feet in sign display area nor be gthe treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect and material throughout the development. The signs should be consistent in color, development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage. signage will have consistency throughout the development. be used mrougtheme will be 3. The ut- introduced at the development's entrance monument and w 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. two 5. The Arboretum Business Park PUD shall e rance, t Wes Arboretum Century Business Boulevard and identification signs. One sign per project entrance, a at H g Y i hwa 41 and the westerly roadway, shall be permitted 1tSaid sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign area nor be greater than eight feet inheig 6. Wall sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site. 7. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 5. above, signage for the main entrance on 8. In addition to the two signs identified in g. roved b the Planning Highway 5 and Century Boulevard shall be reviewed and app Y Commission and City Council. DISCUSSION The design standards are specific regarding the location of signage: Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage. Citgo Administrative Appeal August 1, 2000 Page 3 In this instance, the street front while on 82nd Street is also positioned such that it is on TH 41. This constitutes two monument signs on TH 41 which is prohibited. Staff advised the applicant that at a minimum, the separation from TH 41 would have to meet the minimum required building setback (75 feet) from TH 41 in order to be considered on the 82nd Street frontage only. Staff felt that this interpretation was reasonable since the zoning ordinance defines front yard as "a yard extending across the full width of the lot between any building and the front lot line..." Staff s proposed interpretation would actually permit the signage to be located within this yard rather than behind the building line established on TH 41 since the building is farther back then the minimum setback. As part of the original site plan for Kwik Trip and with the review of the administrative site plan, it was always contemplated that the 82nd Street monument sign would be located near the driveway entrance to the site. However, no specific approvals were given for the signage since a separate sign permit application was required. Staff advised the applicant that if they would like a monument sign at the intersection of 82nd Street and TH 41, they could install a two faced monument sign with a maximum of 45 degree separation between the faces, but they would have to eliminate the other proposed monument sign in the northwest corner of the property. Staff believes this option would be more than adequate in meeting the businesses needs for monument signage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm staff s interpretation of the regulation regarding signage for the Arboretum Citgo monument. ATTACHMENTS 1. E-mail from John Kosmos t Bob Generous dated July 20, 2000 2. Reduction of Site Plan for Mike Schlagen g:\plan\bg\appeal admin decision - citgo.doc Generous, Bob From: john kosmas [kk_design@hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:12 PM To: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: RE: Arboretum Citgo >From: "Generous, Bob" <bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> >To: 'john kosmas' <kk_design@hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Arboretum Citgo >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:42:02 -0500 >John: >I need a written request for appeal of an administrative decision regarding >the monument sign placement at Citgo today (7/20/00)in order to put it on >the Aug. 1, Planning Commission date. >Bob Generous Bob: Please place us on the agenda for the Aug 1, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting for an appeal of your administrative decision regarding the setback requirement for the monument sign which is allowed adjacent to 82nd Street. If you need additional drawings of the site plan please let me know. I will prepare for the meeting a drawing which identifies the various setbacks, easements, driveways and plants which help clarifiy that the best and only placement of the permitted monument sign is where we have shown it on the revised plans submitted during the building permit process back in May. Thank you, John Kosmas K.K. Design, 952.922.3226 Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com 1 S 00-2652" E 205.61' PROPERTY LINE j I 1 U � ►p� � m 86•_8" 11•_8" 10._0" 5'_4" 70._D 7'_8" `Os 26'-0" DRIVE EASEMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IE - - - - - - - - - - - - - PARKING STALLS r zy � Io TRENCH DRNN I I m o •0„Zl .0,•Ll i v SIGN yO CAR 'ASH SIGN \� �I v Sx 8x t� I I N 1 1 2 'r1 I iTi 2 I@ r-T I to 000 ?Z5co Vc y �v L9 r- lol I m�N"2� z ° I I I �g8Am G7 zo ov � rn mA 0 p- o° o • �I I I - "� 0 � TR ­', d— SIAGI C/ ACKIN ZEA lz n g I I I II�c II II I I I I I I Omr m -- -- -- Q -- -- - - --- I -- - - - - - - -- - ------�ti ----- - - --- -- = I 15'-0' UTIL(tt EASEMENT - - I - - - - - - - I 8" WATER LINE — SAN. SEWER —S 00'15_42" E _S.'_5.61• . - - - - - - - 15'-0' UTILITY EASEMEM 20'-0" 35'-D" 32'-0" 37'-0" 16'-0" 6'-0.. 4• 8" 3'-0. S'-4" 151'-0" 45'-4" 45'-4" 4'-419'-6" 4 I I I SITE DATA: LOT AREA: 81,768t S.F. ( 1.88 ACRES ) BUILDING AREA: 6.309 S.F. (8X ) C-STORE 4.030 s.f. CARWASH 1.604 s.f. STOR., EQUIP., DUMPSTER 675 s.f. LANDSCAPE AREA 31,736 S.F. ( 39X ) PARKING / DRIVE AREA: 43.723 S.F. ( 53X ) PARKING PROVIDED: STANDARD STALLS 17.00 HANDICAPPED STALL 1.00 TOTAL SPACES T�6Q- PARKING GUIDELINE PER CITY: 1 STALL PER 200 S.F. GROSS BUUUDIDIN PAACREES (C-STORE)TOTAL 70.45 NOTES: OVERIFY LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION CALL: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 651-454-0002 OCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF UTILITY STUBS O3'-0" TYPICAL CONCRETE CURB RADIUS UNLESS NOTED OSIDEDWALKS AND RAMPS: 2.500 P.S.I. AIR -ENTRAINED CONCRETE 4" THICK, BROOM FINISH, SCORE WITH 3/4" DEEP CONTRACTION JOINTS INTO APPROXIMATELY 4'-0" SQUARES OR AS SHOWN. OHANDICAP STALLS/ACCESS AISLE MAX SLOPE 1:50 S MAXIMUM 1:20 SLOPE AT SITE AREA BETWEEN HANDICAP CURB RAMP AND PARKING STALL HANDICAP CURB RAMP MAX. SLOPE 1:12 SEE THE FOLLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1997 UBC CHAPTER 11, CABO/ANSI A117.1-1992, MINN. STATE BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1340 1998) & MINN. ACCESSIBILITY CODE CHAPTER 1341 (1 99) ©SEE BUILDING DRAWINGS TO COORDINATE LOCATION OF ENTRNACE AND EXIT DRIVEWAYS OFOR ADDITIONAL DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE INFORMATION SEE BUILDING DRAWINGS O 6 S.F. DIRECTIONAL SIGN - ILLUMINATED Og LIGHT POLE: 20'-D" HIGH ALUMINUM POLE W/ BASE PLATE, ANCHOR BOLTS AND COVER. APPROX. SIZE OF CONC, BASE; 2'-6" a x 7'-6" W/ 1'-6" EXPOSED ABOVE FINISH GRADE. RUB EXPOSED EXTERIOR WITH STONE FOR SMOOTH FINISH. VERIFY INFORMATION WITH FIXTURE MANUFACTURE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. 10 UTILITY SERVICES TO BUILDING TO BE COORDINATED WITH BUILDING DRAWINGS 11 CONNECTION OF BUILDING UTILITY SERVICES TO EXISTING UTILITIES LOCATED IN/AT STREET, BOULEVARD, ETC. TO BE COORDINATED WITH INDIVIDUAL UTILITY COMPANIES t4 SILT FENCE SEE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, & UTILITY PLAN FOR LOCATION 13 NOT USED t4 '-"x'-"x" CONCRETE PAD W/ REINFORCING FOR ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR COORDINATE LOCATION WITH TRANSFORMER SUPPLIER. CONTACT: 15 SITE DATA TAKEN FROM: DRAWING BY SONDE ENGINEERING INC. 4200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437 612-661-3344 DATED: 2/16/1999 CFFICIAI COFT OpAPN ITTIY DEN OF C�MHWEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 'OCT 0 5 1999 Barra z I amao�' w Na��a w a v1 �n o 00w0 ffE�j3 U 0 LalZZ a w 0 >"O z� mow-cr a o z x w z —RM a x o Z Ld Q '0 V I Lit Y 10/05/1999 I > a can- rn M 0 I e0 M M m O M .. O m z.. r om w ZZ w a' J w Q 4 ■ CITY OF CI NHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Meb iviviv. ci. canhassen. inn. its MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: August 1, 2000 SUBJ: Private Streets/Flag Lots — Proposed Ordinance Amendment On June 20, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed an issue paper dealing with the use of flag lots and lots served by a private driveway. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare alternative ordinances for consideration. The current ordinances pertaining to private driveways and flag lots are attached (Attachment #1). Both ordinances carry the same language as far as conditions under which they may be permitted. The ordinance clearly prohibits private streets unless the following exists: The construction of private streets is prohibited except as specified in section 18-57(o). (o) Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R- 12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to constrict a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. The ordinance also states, "If the use of a private street is to be allowed, it is subject to specific standards". One of these standards states: The City o f Chanhassen. AZrowiq community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful Parks. A great Place to live, work, and Plan RL Private Streets/Flag Lots August 1, 2000 Page 2 (6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to -construction. The following are alternative ordinances for consideration. Option 1 Private Streets and Flag Lots must meet the Variance Section requirements (20-58) in addition to sections 18-57 (o) and (q). This addition would require an applicant to demonstrate a hardship as well as not having reasonable use of the land. If a home exists on the site, the owner of the property would not meet the (reasonable use of the land) clause. However, if a property has an area that far exceeds area of lots within 500 feet and after such lot is subdivided, it is equal to or comparable in size to lots within the neighborhood, we believe we could find that granting a variance to access the property will allow the resulting parcel to blend with these pre-existing, standards without departing downward from them. This option can be accomplished by adding the following language: 18-57 (o) (4) The use of a private driveway may be permitted if the criteria in section 20-58. General conditions for granting a variance are met 18-57(q) (4) The use of a flag lot may be permitted if the criteria in section 20-58. General conditions for granting a variance are met. Option 2 Orientation: The ordinance could be amended to require flag lots and lots served by a private driveway to provide yard orientation that conform to the following standard: Front yard. must face or adjoin neighboring front yards. Rear yard must face or adjoin neighboring rear or side yards. This can be accomplished by adding the following language: 20-615 Lot requirement and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 1.8: (8) Lots served by a private driveway or a flag lot shall conform to the following yard orientation: a. Front yard must face or adjoin neighboring front yards. Private Streets/Flag Lots August 1, 2000 Page 2 (6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to -construction. The following are alternative ordinances for consideration. Option 1 Private Streets and Flag Lots must meet the Variance Section requirements (20-58) in addition to sections 18-57 (o) and (q). This addition would require an applicant to demonstrate a hardship as well as not having reasonable use of the land. If a home exists on the site, the owner of the property would not meet the (reasonable use of the land) clause. However, if a property has an area that far exceeds area of lots within 500 feet and after such lot is subdivided, it is equal to or comparable in size to lots within the neighborhood, we believe we could find that granting a variance to access the property will allow the resulting parcel to blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them. This option can be accomplished by adding the following language: 18-57 (o) (4) The use of a private driveway may be permitted if the criteria in section 20-58. General conditions for granting a variance are met 18-57(q) (4) The use of a flag lot may be permitted if the criteria in section 20-58. General conditions for granting a variance are met. Option 2 Orientation: The ordinance could be amended to require flag lots and lots served by a private driveway to provide yard orientation that conform to the following standard: Front yard must face or adjoin neighboring front yards. Rear yard must face or adjoin neighboring rear or side yards. This can be accomplished by adding the following language: 20-615 Lot requirement and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (8) Lots served by a private driveway or a flag lot shall conform to the following yard orientation: a. Front yard must face or adjoin neighboring front yards. Private Streets/Flag Lots August 1, 2000 Page 3 b. Rear yard must face or adjoin neighboring rear or side yards. Option 3 Increase the setbacks and dimensions on flag lots and lots served by a private driveway as follow: Minimum Lot width 110 feet. Minimum Lot depth 145 feet. Minimum Front and Rear Yard setbacks 40 feet. Minimum Side Yard Setbacks 20 feet. These increased dimensions will allow for a larger buffer. This option can be accomplished as follows: Section 20-615. Lot requirement and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred and ten (4-G0) (110) feet as measured at the front building setback line and lot depth shall be one hundred and forty five (145) feet as measured at the front property setback line. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, diifty forty (30 40) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one - hundred -foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thifty forty (30 40) feet. c. For side yards, ten twenty (4-0 20) feet. Option 4 Do nothing. All options with the exception of Option 4 will create legal nonconforming lots of record. To avoid this situation, the Planning Commission may elect to exempt lots created prior to adoption of this ordinance. Private Streets/Flag Lots August 1, 2000 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Private driveway and flag lot ordinances. g:\plan\sa\flag lots-ord.amend.doc § 18-57 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (k) The maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way. Jt (1) Where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such highways or streets. To the extent feasible access to arterial streets shall be at intervals of not less than one-fourth mile and through existing and established crossroads. Access along collector streets will be restricted and controlled on the final plat. (m) Half streets shall be prohibited except where it will be practical to require the dedi- cation of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, in which case the dedication of a half street may be permitted or required. The probable length of time elapsing before dedication of the remainder shall be a factor considered in making this determination. (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard re- quirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in section 18-57(o). *(o) Private streets maybe permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. If the use of a private street is to be allowed, it shall be subject to the following standards: (1) The common sections of a private street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven -ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based'upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a seven -ton design, paved a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) per- cent, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial and office districts shall be Supp. No. 7 1008 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-57 built to a nine -ton design, paved a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as -built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. (2) Private streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning mainte- nance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking on the private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. (3) Private streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subdivision 1(C). (4) The private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a ten-year storm should be included. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. (5) Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. (6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. (7) The private street in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty-foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. (8) Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. (p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to streets shall be prohibited. (q) Flag lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the city finds the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public/private street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. Supp. No. 8 1009 § 18-57 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public or a private street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) 71e use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6-2, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 125, § 1, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 135, §§ 1, 2, 12-10-90; Ord. No. 209, § 1, 6-27-94; Ord. No. 240, § 5, 7-24-95) Sec. 18-58. Alleys. Alleys are prohibited except for fire lanes in commercial and industrial developments or if approved as a part of a PUD. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.3, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 240, § 6, 7-24-95) Sec. 18-59. Blocks. The length and width of blocks shall be sufficient to provide convenient and safe access, circulation, control and street design. Blocks shall not be longer than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) feet, or shorter than three hundred (300) feet except where topography of surrounding development limits ability to strictly comply or as specifically approved by the city council to foster innovative design consistent with sound planning principles. Pedestrian ways may be required on blocks longer than nine hundred (900) feet or in other areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination points. Easements for pedestrian ways shall be at least twenty (20) feet wide and shall be located to minimize intersections with streets. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.4, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage. (b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines. (c) Lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations. (d) Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities, such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. (e) Lot remnants are prohibited. (f) Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to Owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land. (g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the Supp. No. 8 1010 ZONING (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. § 20-615 (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Where Frontage Is Measured At Setback Une fob ego • � f •' •.• (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. 100##Lot Width Neck ! Flap Leta Fronj Lot Lino • � t t 1 —J 1 (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. _ For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one -hundred -foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) - Editor's note —Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. "114" A=D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "114' District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "114' District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 A"; CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Dave Hempel, Assistant City; Engineer; Sharmin A]-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE WIDTH REQUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Steven & Becky Chepokas Don Huseth Linda Landsman Eunice Peters Ann & Alan Fox Tom Pzynski Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Ron & Ann Kleve Dana Muller Janet Holler Jim Waletski Arlis Bovy Connie Robertson for Fred Cunes Joel S. Jenkins Shirley Navratil Cathy Greeley Greg Larsen Rachel & David Igel Bruce Malkerson Robert Eastman Larry Couture 7304 Laredo Drive 7332 Frontier Trail 7329 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7300 Laredo Drive 7340 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 500 Highland Drive 7206 Frontier Trail 7334 Frontier Trail 7339 Frontier Trail 7335 Frontier Trail 7305 Frontier Trail 7337 Frontier Trail 7341 Frontier Trail 229 Benton Avenue 6195 Strawberry Lane 901 Marquette 2115 Shorewood Oaks Drive 8713 Dayton Avenue So. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. ,k Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, we received a new proposed plat for two lakeshore lots that's dated 7/13/2000 and that addresses some of the width issues. All of the width issues with exception of the 75 foot width so right now we're looking at just the 75 foot width, which is a 15 foot variance on two lots. That's the only variance we're looking at right now. Generous: Correct. And also as part of we approve it does say revised. We should add this last revision date of this plat so we're aware of which copy we're working on. Kind: And then are we tonight considering the alternate plat? If we deny the two lakeshore lots, are we in effect approving the alternate plat? Aanenson: No. Kind: No. Generous: You would have to make a specific motion to recommend approval. Kind: And the alternate plat was not provided in this week's packet but I'm assuming it's the same as what we've seen before. Generous: Correct. Kind: And if we decide that that's the way to go, if there's revisions to that, then we'll deal with that. Aanenson: You'd go back through the process. Peterson: Other questions? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question about there is a driveway alternate option in the plat that was handed out. What's the status of that? Generous: The applicant is just showing a proposal that separates the driveways on the site. Staff would not support that. Our position is we'd want them to stay together and we would preserve the area to the west of any easements. That would be created for those driveways. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Rachel Igel: Hi, my name is Rachel Igel and I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. Just wanted to take a quick moment and re -introduce myself, our attorney ;and also the neighbors that will be moving in to the lot next to us. First off my husband is David Igel and our attorney is Bruce Malkerson and we should have done this last time but I just wanted to take a quick moment to introduce the Eastmans. Bob Eastman is right there. Susie Eastman and their two children. They are our current neighbors in our current neighborhood and they're planning to move with us into the new neighborhood. The other thing I 2 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 wanted to mention is as far as the plat goes, we were not asked or required by the city to change the plat. However we chose to go ahead and make different changes to keep this as simple as possible and be as cooperative as possible in the process and at this point we agree that the only variance that is needed is for the width at the lakeshore. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that if there are any other comments that are made, if we could have an opportunity at the end to respond to those as well. Thank you. And if you have any questions, please let one of us will be happy to answer them. Peterson: Okay. Then I'll question to my fellow commissioners. Should we open this for public hearing? Conrad: Question Mr. Chairman, is this a public hearing? I thought that was closed. Peterson: That's correct. I'm just asking, should we open it up again. And I don't know whether we legally can. Kate, is that. Aanenson: You can always open it up for comments. You legally have had the public hearing. Peterson: Why don't we do that. I guess the caveat being that in lieu of everybody's consideration of time and for a lot of presentations are going to be made tonight so if we could limit those comments to anything that's additional or new, it would be greatly appreciated. So with that, any additional comments. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. The first thing I'd like to present is signatures, a petition from 25 other lakeshore owners who are against the division of a lot on Lotus Lake. I have a lot of comments. I'll try to keep them simple. I'm just going to follow the staff report tonight. So if you turn to page 2, paragraph 3. Interestingly, a lot in Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet. I want to point out that was grandfathered in before there were city ordinances... It had established lot size, lakeshore frontage, everything before there were rules here in Chanhassen. Next I'd like to show. These are copies of just one page from the three lots that are next referenced. That says at three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted shoreland management regulations. And what I'd like to point out to you in each of these pages is that staff overlooked the regulation. And you at the Planning Commission relied on staff for accuracy as did the City Council. On the first one, frontage required by code. It refers to 90 feet. There is no identification there of lakeshore frontage. That's on the Hiscox plat. On Alicia Heights, the next page, again you'll see there's no notice of lakeshore and if you go through the files like I did, there's extreme documentation of every aspect of the lot, but they totally ignored what the lakeshore frontage requirement was. And the third shows the documentation of this one after by the way Mr. Paulson found that there was a different Lakeshore requirement here in Chanhassen than was on the original staff report. So I'm submitting these to you to show you that errors have occurred in the past and that we don't expect variances should set precedent for changing code. And that if you seriously consider changing these lots to 75 feet, I suggest you go through the entire process of exploring changing code regulations for lakeshore lots in the city of Chanhassen. Not set a precedent. There's no precedent set here because errors were made. The next point. The average lot area in this development is 18,992 square feet. Forgive me if I don't know the technical term but this plat is where that information came from. They're documents from the city offices. It's the GIS which they showed Sunrise Hills and the lot size for every lot. Subsequent to this I have received an estimate of what the lakeshore frontage is. So if you go through the first two pages are going to come up with the average lot size in Sunrise Hills. The average lot size is 22,432 feet. The next two pages will show you the average lakeshore lot. That area is 36,353 feet and the average lakeshore Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 width or lakeshore frontage is 126 feet. Another neighbor will be addressing downward, how can I say. Decrease in standards within the neighborhood and that's why I'm pointing this out to you. On page 3, second paragraph. Third statement. However the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. The city does not enforce restrictive covenants, although historically the city has taken historic covenants, any restrictive covenants into consideration. At the bottom of the page. The zoning provisions. I just want to say that the DNR has substantiated the support of the regulations on the lake. They have agreed that that is what the regulation is. Next I'd like you to turn to page 9 but continue, hold your hand on page 4. Page 9. First paragraph. Last sentence. Referring to landscape and tree preservation. Assuming a 10 foot by 100 foot buffer yard, minimum requirements include 1 oversize tree, 2 understory trees and 3. shrubs. I'm pointing this out to you because this was the specific dimension in front of a buffer yard. It's implying if you look, it's saying a 10 by 100 foot buffer yard, which is 1,000 square feet. It is not saying a 5 foot by 200 foot buffer yard. It is not saying a 20 foot by 50 foot buffer yard. Now, if you go back to page 4, point 2. The city's response to Jerry Paulsen's question about a 60 by 60 foot buildable pad. It reads, a 60 by 60 building pad. Again, it's a 60 by 60 pad. It doesn't represent 3,600 square feet in by 40 by 90. Or by the next configuration, 20 by 180. That's not what it represents. It's an adjective to what the buffer yard is or it's an adjective to whatever the noun is you're to describe. And I have checked that out with other cities. I don't have it documented but it has been verified. Page 8. Background. Second paragraph. It says upon discovery of this error staff notified the applicant. I want to point out Mr. Paulsen discovered the error. He and his wife Jan have diligently been working on it trying to interpret everything and I'm afraid that that's being misconstrued as not being good citizens or something. They are diligent. We don't have attorney representation. We're trying to define everything ourselves. Variance findings, page 12. Just points I want to make. Someone else again will be addressing these. Put to reasonable use. I think the property is reasonably used right now. It has been for 40 years. Single family home. On a lot that works well. Pre-existing standards in this neighborhood, without departing downward, and again we'll be addressing that. Mr. Malkerson's letter dated July 13`". I'm going to read a sentence in the introduction. We do not think it was beneficial use of your time, the staff time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr. Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity to read his written materials, itemize them and pursuant to the code, to respond to them. Well, we came to the first Planning Commission meeting that addressed this with a real emotional response. As a neighborhood we were upset. We were very emotional. Since then we've learned you need to look for the facts. I think the facts very well support our dislike of the subdivision. And it's not emotion. I mean it's emotional because it affects our lives and because of what it's become. But there's facts supporting it. Page 2 on the top of the page, and I've got to start from the previous page. Underline, the request for subdivision approval had received prior written approval by the Planning Commission on April 21" to create two lakeshore lots. This is a key word, it says with the variance to the lakeshore width requirement. That's wrong. Without. You didn't know a variance was needed. Again I want to point out, thereafter staff found. No, Jerry Paulsen found. The second paragraph. As when ... by staff, and I believe by one or more members of the Planning Commission at the June 6"' meeting, the alternate proposal of having one or more lots on the lake to the rear met all the requirements of the coding zone. I don't know if anyone really has conceded that the alternate plan meets code. I don't think we've come there yet. The last statement before paragraph 3. Again, this is the attorney's statement. Quite frankly not many people can afford to buy one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the - phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the city generally and on Lotus Lake. I have to ask, we all take risks in investments. This is a risk. Do people over buy? Maybe so thinking they could divide but that's their risk. I'm holding back on some comments so. Page 4. Third paragraph. Last two sentences. The placement of the home. This is the alternate plan. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate would stack the houses altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally the two proposed homes would 4 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 eliminate almost all views of the lake vis a vis the applicant's preferred plan. Well, I think we've all tried to be sold on the alternate plan and I think that mistakenly people can be led to think that self interest is above public interest. But I have to tell you, the Paulsen's are people that care about the land. They care about public interest and if they were in this for themselves, they'd totally be adamant that yes, we want two lakeshore lots. Because that house wouldn't be butting up to their property. But they're not those kind of people. They're amazing people. They're taking the public interest ahead of their own personal interest and the risk that that house could be built right in their back yard. And I think that's amazing. And repeatedly you know little comments, they're being put down. It's amazing to me that people are put down for seeking the truth. For trying to find the right. For analyzing everything.. To come to a good decision, a right decision and I know that's been referred to in here. It's a right decision. I do want to correct one other thing here. My neighbor is the one who built the $28,000 porch. He sits right next to me. He didn't need a variance for that. It's alluding to the fact he needed a variance. He didn't. Findings of Fact. Page 17. Section 4.a. I want to clear up one thing here. The proposed subdivision is consistent within the zoning ordinance. That has to be inconsistent. If you vote for a variance on the lake, you can't put the word consistent. That's inconsistent and I think again, we'd have to explore city code. By the way, I did go up to the city and that's where I got some of this good stuff and everyone, I have to say, is exceedingly helpful. I have to say staff goes out of their way to help us. But I did ask for a file and that was the shoreland regulation file because another interested party in the city told me, you really need to look at the file and explore why the law was changed in '94 on the shoreland regulation. You need to know that. Guess what? The file's missing. They searched for two days. The last person that was known to have the file was Bob and he can't find it. I'd like to know where it is because I would really like to explore why the code was changed in 1994. Okay. On the JoAnne and Leonard Lipe letter to the Paulsen's. Paragraph 5. JoAnne states, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. Okay, that's a sound fact but the next statement is, she told us it would be unlikely that we would be able to subdivide. I'm getting more comfortable up here. I'm sorry I'm at the end of the report because the more I talk up here, I feel so much better. The first time I was nervous as all heck. I was like quivering. This has almost starting to be fun. Thank you for the opportunity. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else, please come forward. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. I'm Jerry Paulsen. Live at 7305 Laredo Drive and we just happen to be the joy of being on vacation in Glacier National Park this past week and I wish you could all have the same opportunity some time. We raced back here to shorten our vacation a little bit so we wouldn't miss this exciting event. Sunday morning as I was lying in my sleeping bag, your thoughts so through various things obviously. Two topics came to my mind. One was a bear walking through the campground and secondly, being back here in time for this meeting. So sometimes I wake up early in the morning and think about those things. So after being away for 10 days, we may be not aware of some of the more recent information that's been presented as far as the staff report is concerned. I apologize for that if I interpret anything improperly. So it will be something of a review, if you allow me time to do that. It appears that the developer has yet another plat. I'm not sure if it's number 6 or 7 now, but it's kind of like a shell game where you lift one shell and the developer says no. That plat is not quite right. Will you revise that one and the next one the attorney says well, that's the right now but we're going to revise it a little bit more so we're still waiting for a final plat that the Planning Commission is going to be asked to approve I believe. First question I think the Planning Commission has to answer is, do any of these plats fulfill city code, and we believe that all of them are short in some respect. Admittedly, the plan for the two lakeshore ones need a variance as you know. 90 feet instead of the 75 feet. The second question you must answer is, should the city approve a plat with numerous variances in it? And the developer has admitted there are multiple variances as opposed to one variance, which was presented to in the staff report on June 6"'. Again, we believe the developer does not meet all of the city code, and admittedly you Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 have the right to go ahead and recommend approval even if they don't meet city code, but our point here is that we hope you'll take this into consideration. As I said at the last Planning Commission meeting, our intent is not to be unfriendly with our new neighbors the Igel's. Rather it's our hope that the city will stand by it's code and especially the new interpretation of the code in regard to lakeshore property. Both from the standpoint of protecting the lake and protecting the character of the neighborhood. And in fact only through a series of variances that you can approve, we believe, the subdivision of this property. The most serious variance obviously is the 90 foot lakeshore, and I don't think it's anything like granting a 5 or 10 foot deck extension. It's certainly more serious. Has more impact, both on the city and on the lake and on the neighborhood. It's not a routine variance that falls in this category. The city readily admits they made a mistaken in recognizing that 90 feet was required instead of 75 feet in the past here. Just as an aside, the developer and his attorney has stressed that it's unfortunate this issue has been prolonged, starting back in March and June and going to this meeting. They say, everything sailed through the first meeting properly and you approved it. And then we came upon the fact that the city should require 90 feet instead of 75 feet and that did throw kind of a monkey wrench into the procedure obviously at that point. The fact is that we walked into the Planning Commission meeting on March 15'h cold, not knowing city code and it was an emotional issue as far as the people who spoke, saying we don't want the property split. Now we're on more solid ground certainly. Calling on code to be the decision factor. The developer on the other hand had several months in advance to get his ducks in line and through his staff of attorneys to make sure everything was fine. Oddly enough, through all these attorneys, you would think that one of them would have had at least the opportunity to look at code and realize that there was a deficiency in presenting this plat, these plats as presented. And my contention is any attorney worth their, his or her salt should have found these things instead of a private citizen finding them. ...neighbors by revising a plat. The fact is I think he's acknowledging that one plat doesn't quite meet the code and therefore he goes onto the next plat to see if he can meet code with the next plat, and that's why you've gone through a series of plats here. Developer has also not responded to our question about whether or not there really is a full 150 feet of lakeshore available. We pointed out in the last meeting, and I called it the Battle of the Bulge. Why was the contour lines of the ordinary high water line changed on one subsequent plat to apparently be lengthened to a full 150 feet and allow 75 feet per lot? We don't think they have 75 feet for a lot at the high water line. Originally they were going on the fact that they had 75 feet at the survey line, but that was pointed out to be an error also. Another argument the developer says is this is at the 75 feet that the lakeshore requirement comes from the DNR. That's true. The DNR requires a minimum of 75 feet of lakeshore. Chanhassen chose in 1994 to say 90 feet is required. Other cities in the metro area have stricter regulations than what the DNR requires. I can name a neighboring city that requires 120 feet of lakeshore as opposed to 90 feet, which Chanhassen requires. So the DNR requires a minimum for many things and each city can go beyond that if they want to, or stick with it. Actually Chanhassen did not go with the DNR code that says what the maximum height of the lakeshore property should be, and we see that. And perhaps that's something that should be considered in the future as being no more restrictive. The most, I'm reading, we're going about 70 miles an hour down the interstate so I hope I can read my own writing here. In my quick skimming of the recent letter from Attorney Malkerson, I see a sprinkling of my name in it saying I'm responsible for this. I'm responsible for that. I should be, I'd like to give a little more credit to those people who actually have helped in this. My family, my neighbors and other friends. I am not certainly solely responsible for raising this issue and the people who have come to these meetings and are neighbors, if it hadn't been for them supporting us on this issue, I don't think we'd be here tonight arguing this issue. Attorney Malkerson in his letter of July 131h states that someone in the Planning Commission told him that I had made numerous calls to members of the City Council and possibly the Planning Commission. Yes, after the March 15"' meeting I did in fact call several Planning Commission members with the intent of alerting them to the fact that we had discovered the 90 feet requirement and I wanted to see if they had signed off on the approval, which would be passed onto the City Council, and I wanted to short cut that if 6 Planning Commission Meeting —July 18, 2000 possible. I would challenge anyone in the planning department to name a member of the City Council that I have initiated a phone call to. Which Attorney Malkerson alludes to. I have never initiated a phone call to a member of the City Council at this point. So I question the validity of that statement. If it's improper or sinister for me to call a Planning Commission member or a City Council member, then I plead guilty to that. I think any citizen has the right to do that and I don't think that the developer should complain about me or anyone of the citizens of Chanhassen expressing an opinion to the commissioners or to the City Council. And the fact that this sort of rhetoric has kind of polarized the issue a little bit more than it should be perhaps. The developer says now the -city has two choices. Two lakeshore or one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore lot. Both of which we believe require variances. Staff says the second choice of one up, one down is not, would be a lousy idea, and we agree. We also don't think that the two lakeshore ones, plan is a valid, a good way to go either. Either one of them is going to destroy a bunch of trees and let me just give you a couple pictures that show a view of the mature trees that are involved with our property. I think we've been spoiled with our ... forests there for years since the bears lived there since 1970 when we moved in, This is just to show the fact that there are a lot of mature trees. Many of which would go if the plan is approved. I guess I say the same thing I did last time. The motive, prime motive is to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and not to change the character of the neighborhood by allowing a subdivision and two large houses to go into this property, whether it's on the lake or up and down. Either way it would have an impact on the lake and on the adjacent properties and the character of the neighborhood. Finally, let me make one suggestion. The 10 day notice is really a, cuts things pretty short for allowing people to react. I've come to other Planning Commission meetings since then and I see people up here saying, what can we do to stop this and they don't really have time to do it. Maybe a 20 day notice would be more proper. In this case admittedly we've had a little bit more time since the early March meeting and prolonged because the developer has asked for delays at times to work out a few problems here. But the more time you have obviously the more possibility that you might have of answering questions, as far as the citizens are concerned I think. So thank you and I hope you all have the opportunity to go to Glacier National park some day. I enjoyed the beauty of the park out there. Peterson: Excluding the bears, right. Anyone else? Linda Landsman: Hi. My name is Linda Landsman and I live at 7329 Frontier Trail. And I guess the question that I'd like to bring before you is the city ordinances around what constitutes a variance and when it should be granted. According to Section 18-22, which is your subdivision code, when I go through and read this it basically says that the council, and i.e. in preparing for this the Planning Commission, can grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the land. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to any other property. And the granting a variance will not substantially be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the chapter on subdivision, the zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. First I guess I would like a definition of hardship. I don't feel that the Igel's are in hardship here. I feel that they made a decision financially that they came into the property. Saw dollars. Bought and probably looked around and saw well, it's kind of a sleepy little neighborhood. Kind of sleepy little town. Sleepy little Planning Commission and Council. This should be pretty easy. We're not a sleepy little neighborhood, and I don't live in a sleepy little town. I hope you are fully awake and engaged in the process of determining if they should even be looking at a variance based on your code. You need to make the Igel's and anyone else present here understand that code is passed and law is passed for good reason. We and you are stewards of this community, of our natural resources, and of our neighborhoods. Please keep that in mind when you make your decision. Thank you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Janet Holler: My name's Janet Holler. I live at 7206 Frontier Trail. Just a couple brief comments. First of all I do hope you take into account the character of the neighborhood and the size of the lots at the lakeshore. I think it's very important. Many of us signed a petition and we agreed to the covenants. The Igel's have had them removed legally. We think they're very important. The character of the neighborhood is very important and we would like you to preserve that. Also, I hope that you enforce this restrictions. I think you saw the petition. How many people signed the petition? How many was it, like 60 or so? Audience: 55. Janet Holler: 55. Our request is that you follow and keep those regulations. We are behind you. We support you in following those regulations that you've set up. The Igel's put a note in some of our mailboxes today. It was with my mail, and the first point that they say is that they've invested a major investment in time and money. That was their first point. I hope that that is not a factor in your determining what you do on this lot. I can give you names of people that looked at that lot before the Igel's. Knew that this was probably not a lot that could be subdivided and he stopped at that point. The fact that they're looking back on it now, I hope is not a determining factor in your decision. Their time and money, that was their decision. I also think that, in this letter it was stated that if we understood more we would agree with them and I just want you to know that we do understand. As you -can tell many people have done quite a bit of homework. It's not that we don't understand. It's that we disagree. And lastly on a personal note, these letters that were sent around to the neighbors that personally, I thought were pretty derogatory to the Paulsen's and I think the Igel's owe the Paulsen's an apology by sending these around to the neighbors. I thought it was very inappropriate and had nothing to do with building a house on a piece of land by slandering someone's name. Peterson: Anyone else? Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. I'm Attorney Malkerson, 901 Marquette, Minneapolis. First of all, the last comments. The Igel's sent a letter to the neighbors saying we are to talk about anything you want. We're trying to communicate. We're trying to find out what your concerns are. If you've got any questions, anything you want to discuss with us, we'd love to discuss it with you to see whether or not we can address the questions that you have. The concerns that you have. There is in the city's files, there is letters relating to what may or may not have been communicated by others to the prior owners that are in the file and I think you've got them. And I think you got them a month ago. We just found out the other day that indeed they were filed and we couldn't let them sit there and the ones that were filed with you, paint a story that's totally different from what the sellers to us are saying in writing, which we didn't even ask them for. But they found out about it and they said, wait a minute. What was being filed by others with the city was not correct and we want the record clear. So it was our affirmative duty to make sure that people understood not what we asked for, but what the sellers to the Igel's thought was appropriate to make sure that people understood were the facts so that they weren't being painted incorrectly. We're not painting anybody anything. As we said in the letter, we're just trying to answer questions. We're an open book. We'll provide all the facts to you and that's what we've tried to do. Now at the end of the last meeting a lot of facts came in at the meeting and we did ask for a continuance and you were gracious enough to grant one, because I think that's important to make sure we have that chance. Everyone has a chance to respond to new information. Now again this evening, all sorts of new information was submitted. I don't even know what it was. Copies weren't offered to us. They were Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 submitted to everybody for the first time tonight. I guess we could ask for another continuance so that we could review those things. But out deference to you and to the neighbors so they don't have to come out again another night, I guess it's time to proceed on. Because I certainly think, and you've been on the Planning Commission. You understand these things. You understand there are always conflicts of facts and different interpretations of the law. There always are and you have to weigh the facts. You've got to decide what weight you're going to give the staff's recommendations. And staff's interpretation of the law. And I'm sure if staffs interpretation of your law was wrong the city attorney would have said staff, you're wrong. I'm not really hearing a whole lot of statements that there's proof that there's any misinterpretation of the law that the staff has presented to you. Staff has recommended repeatedly approval. We are down to under anyone's interpretation, one variance for each lot. The lot width. Yeah, we've made some changes. We've made some changes to try to address staff s concerns. Your concerns. Neighbors concerns. We've made changes that we don't think are required by code. Staff doesn't think is required by code but my god, if there's any way we can make people feel more comfortable, that's what we're doing, so we did it. And so you have in front of you a plat that requires the one variance for each lot and no others. If somebody thinks it really requires another variance, I'd love to talk about it because I don't think staff thinks it requires anything. But again, if there's something else we can do, we'll be glad to address it and do it. So it probably is time to go ahead and make a recommendation, unless you have some information you need from us. We'll be glad to provide it or answer any questions that you've got and if that requires us to ask for another continuance so we can get some more information to you, we'd be glad to do it. But again, I think everybody's been pretty well stated and re -stated and we've just been trying to address concerns that are raised, whether they were valid or not. We're trying to address them. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen again. One thing I forgot before was, just before we went on vacation we provided the Planning Commission and the staff with a list of deficiencies for the one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore plat. We haven't seen a response to those and therefore we still believe that that alternate plat does not meet code also. We haven't seen a response to that. If there is a response, we'd like to see that. I was asked by a Planning Commission member at the last meeting whether I had a choice between one and two, which would I take? The multiple choice should be extended to three choices I believe. Keep the one lakeshore lot as is and allow another large house to go up there at the prerogative of the purchaser. Thank you. Peterson: Any final comments? Joel Jenkins: I'll keep my comments brief. My name is Joel Jenkins. I live at 7305 Frontier Trail and I've been at two meetings. Now this evening and the briefly for the meeting on June 6`h and I had to leave early. And the bottom line I think comes down to, do we want Chanhassen to have increased density? Or do we not? Is it not the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine what is increased density. We as a neighborhood bought, 19 years ago I bought my home there and then purchased a second home across the street because of the neighborhood. We have multiple people who have moved from our neighborhood and returned to that neighborhood because of the size of the lots. Of the neighborhood itself. And if you allow this variance to go through and these two houses to be built, you are setting a precedent that Chanhassen wants increased density. Now a few years ago I stood here in front of Mayor Tom Hamilton and a few other people and said that we are a citizenry of people who live here. We are not developers who are coming in to build the community and then be gone. I'm thankful that people who are here tonight are planning on living there because if they weren't I would be much more upset. Because at that Planning Commission, and I don't think any of you were on that, we 9 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 had a development at the end of Frontier Trail that started out with I think 121 lots. They were told to reduce it by 8. And when it was finalized, I think there were 132 lots. Just because of pushing and shoving, etc. Increased density. Planning around the rules that were set up to maintain the integrity of this community. Now attorneys can give you emotional pleas, and Mr. Malkerson certainly having his last say hopefully did that this evening. I hope that my comments to you about let's keep Chanhassen a community for the people who live here and not increase the density any more. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: I just have one more quick comment. I forgot the paperwork at home. My table was full of things and I was scrambling. I realized afterwards, I had gone up to the City to get the minutes from the last planning meeting and at that meeting, for those of you that were present, you discussed a subdivision that had been granted adjacent to a wetland and a mistake had been made. Mistakes are made and that's why we have to review the plats and I know that upper lot, there's some issues there as well and I don't want that to be overlooked. I know mistakes are made but people have to be accountable. I know in my position, if I don't do my job, if 1 don't run down my checklist to make sure I've done everything related to my contracts, I wouldn't be working where I am. Thank you again. Peterson: Any other comments? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. And I do have an issue with the present plat and now they've changed the lines a little bit. But thanks to Mr. Malkerson's delay we looked at that. What is the front of that lot? Lot number 2. And we decided, I'll turn it around. This is the front of the lot according to code. And this would have to be the back of the lot according to code. And a lot like this is not accessed by the street. It's accessed by a private road. It has to have 125 foot depth and this lot does not have 125 feet depth. It's not adequate. This is the front. This is the back. It's a multi sided lot. The way you measure that according to code is to run out a 20 foot line parallel to the front line, which would be about down here. You extend that out, I left my ruler back there. That's not 125 feet. This isn't the front. This isn't the back. This is the front and back. And it's not wide enough. Not deep enough. There's no room for the building pad. There's no room for the 30 feet for the front yard and there's no room for the 30 feet for the back yard. So thank you Mr. Malkerson for the extra time. Peterson: Any other comments? Bruce Malkerson: Bruce Malkerson. I do believe in extra time. Make sure that everyone has a chance to analyze everything. Having heard that comment for the first time, I would note to you and perhaps your staff is aware of it, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to lakeshore lots, as a matter of law in the State of Minnesota, the portion of the lot that fronts on the lake is the front of the lot. And the portion that doesn't is the back of the lot. And I don't even quite understand the comment but no matter what, I mean that's the law of the State. If it's at all relevant but again it's just another whatever, I think if staff thought that they were wrong in their interpretation, they would have pointed that out too but I don't think there is validity to that. Thank you very much. Jeff Mortenson: I'm here this evening. I own a property that's on the lake and I have similar circumstances to this and I'm curious of our property and it's possibilities of subdividing it and that sort of thing. It's a similar sized property. I don't know. I just want to, for the record I want the same considerations if I decide to look at some of these types of options in the future. You know this type of planning and that. I believe I have the same square footages and density. I don't know if that's a consideration but most certainly 1'd like the same consideration as these people if I wish to approach this type of situation with my property at 7199. Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: If you could for the record, state your name too please. Jeff Mortenson: Jeff Mortenson. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. I don't know. Conrad: Public hearing closed? I move to close the public hearing. Peterson: It's not a public hearing so. Conrad: I thought it was. Just comments? Peterson: Comments, yeah. For those of you who have seen the movie Groundhog Day, I kind of feel like Bill Murray to some degree. We are challenged tonight with obviously an emotional one full of interesting facts and I think our task tonight is to both interpret the intent of city code and ordinances, along with the interpretation of what's in front of us tonight so with those opening comments, any follow-up comments by my fellow commissioners? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for staff before we get into comments. Just for clarification. If the Igel's decide to pursue the alternate plat, plat approval does need to come through City Council? Or Planning Commission and City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So it will come before us again. Aanenson: Correct. With a new staff report. Kind: And is there a public hearing for such a thing? So it's not entirely true that they could just subdivide and go ahead without any public input. Okay. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I guess somebody has to start from up here. I'm really torn with this. I mean my personal opinion, I really feel for the neighborhood and personally I don't like to subdivide lots. But I don't feel that our responsibility is where we can, our control is not the density of the people living in this city. Our task, the way I understand is to see how does this fit with the ordinances and the zoning. And we as a commission work based on the research and the effort that city staff puts into this. Now granted, everybody makes mistakes and we learn from them. Looking at the facts here, it appears to me on that basis what's I front of us is the request to approve or deny the variance... In terms of subdividing the lots, you know personally I really don't like the idea of subdividing it. If I look at the mathematics of how this works, we have two tables in our packet. One shows the lot sizes of properties within 500 feet. The other one shows the lot sizes for the Sunrise Hills I" Addition. In either case, there are lots that is under consideration to be subdivided is clearly the largest lot in both groups. In the list that we have. Now I know it's being questioned tonight the accuracy of those lists. I have to work with what is in front of me. I have a hard time believing that these lists are so inaccurate that we cannot draw conclusions from them. Based on those lists, subdividing those two lots, that lot into two, in the Sunrise Hills I" Addition, the resulting lots are the 41h largest and 6`h largest out of 28 lots. If we look at the properties within 500 feet, we have 35 lots. The resulting lots is the 7`11 largest and 14`11 largest. On that basis, mathematically, and I would think ultimately legally, I feel very hard pressed opposing that on the basis 11 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 that it does meet the zoning in terms of the size and all the other aspects. You know it's tricky. Personally I'd like to say this lot cannot be subdivided. But Chanhassen has a reputation as being a city that's relatively hard to work with because there's a lot of restrictions and all that, and here I find myself on a hunting expedition trying to find things that can prevent this from happening, and I don't think that's quite fair. I'll stop at this point. I want to hear from some other people but at least trying to break the ice here a little bit. Peterson: Sure. Consider it broken, please. Sidney: Mr. Chair. I didn't attend and I wasn't present at, well I wasn't present at the June 61" meeting and so this is the first time I've seen this packet of information and I believe a lot of the comments probably that came up in the first meeting tonight. And I think I'd like to restate what Uli stated, and if you look at the staff report, it says the city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance and that's what we're looking at. And we have two choices here in terms of a subdivision. We have the first one which requires a variance, and we have a second which does not. It meets ordinance as it stands. And unfortunately that one is not the most desirable of these subdivisions. And with that I do agree with staff's analysis, especially on page 13 when it's stated that granting a variance is more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And I also agree with staff's condition 13, and that a conservation easement be placed over the property to the west of the access easement in the report, so I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll continue down the line here. The first time this project came before the Planning Commission, Ladd I believe made the comment toward the end of the meeting that unfortunately there's nothing we can do because the subdivision meets code. And as we all know that it turned out that it didn't. And so now there is something we can do to stop the two lakeshore lots, which I guess I'm inclined to do. I'm not convinced that two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the alternate plat. The alternate plat has drawbacks as well, but I think there's some positive aspects about it and one being that the building heights would be lower because the setbacks allow for a larger footprints and the possibility for walkout ramblers instead of two stories on the lakeshore. And I think as far as lake quality, aesthetics has a lot to do with that and having three stories on the lake side is a lot to look at and a walkout rambler is a nicer lake home. I think that's a positive of the alternate plat. I think the alternate plat allows for the lakeshore lot to be more in keeping with the neighboring lots as far as the length of the lakeshore, or yeah. Of the Lakeshore. There's only one other lot that's less than 75 feet. All the others have quite a bit more than 75 feet of lakeshore, and when you're measuring lakeshore it's the amount of beach that counts. I think that it protects the lake by limiting dock and boat access: And also protects the lake by limiting the opening up of views for one home rather than two homes. Lake owners have the right to clear trees so that they can create a view for themselves and one home which would lessen that amount that would be taken away from the shoreline itself. So I guess I'm not convinced that the two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the alternate plat and I'll be interested to hear what Alison and Ladd have to say. Convince me otherwise. Blackowiak: Okay. Well the question before us tonight is does this plan, this proposal, meet the requirements or not? And as I look at it, the code states 90 feet. Cities have the right to require more strict standards, but cannot depart downward from State law. State law says 75 feet, but Chanhassen has chosen 90 foot for their lakeshore frontage. So the city has every right to do that. I don't see a problem with that at all and that in and of itself is not a reason to grant a variance, just because a state has chosen 12 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 a lower number. We have a deck variance ahead of us, coming up this evening and I'd. like to rephrase, staff has recommended denial of that variance because it doesn't meet requirements and I wanted to sort of rephrase some of the possible responses to the Igel variance request using what, the verbiage that's used on the deck response. For example. Literal enforcement would cause undue hardship. The deck response is, a single family home exists on the site so the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Applies here. B. Conditions upon which petition for a variance are based are not applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. The deck response is, there are many properties located, and I'll paraphrase here, on lakes that are required to meet required setbacks. It applies here. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The response to the deck people is well the fact that the applicant is proposing a design that does not meet ordinance requirements is creating the hardship. I think that applies here too. They're proposing a design that does not meet the requirements and that is not something that the city is asking to do or the neighbors are asking to do or anything. It's their choice. Therefore self created. Granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The response to the deck variance is, it will permit a, and I'll say lakeshore width here, that is less than those within 500 feet. I mean as I look at the response that we're giving to a deck request, I can easily apply to this. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property. There's a home on the property right now. I think that there are other properties in the area that are required to meet the setbacks. I feel that it is the design that is driving the variance, nothing else. And finally I think that others in the neighborhood, lakeshore widths specifically are equal to or greater than the 90 foot requirement by the city, therefore I don't really feel that the applicant has met the burden and I don't find any of those facts. Finally I can't comment as to whether or not any other proposal may or may not meet our variance requirements, but I can say that I do not believe that the proposal before us tonight does. Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd? Conrad: Sure. Joel, I was around when that subdivision came in. That's really sad. I really think it's pretty clear. It's not, I'm not waivering here and maybe it's too much history. It's probably too much history. The reason we have 90 feet shoreline ordinance is for a couple reasons. One, we set the, we are sort of a leader in the State of Minnesota in terms of wetland preservation, water quality, caring about the environment. We really are. Whether that's sort of hype in our literature that we put out in newsletters but we've set the way. The committees that we formed 20 years ago sort of put the movement in. The 90 foot lot lines are not a mistake. They're not. They were there for a reason so, because and I've got to tell you because some of you haven't been here that long. It affects water quality. It affects intensity of use on the lake. Now 15 feet doesn't matter much. You know it's not really going to, and if you were on Lotus Lake last weekend you would say well, it's packed anyway so who cares? Another couple boats doesn't matter, but that's the intent and that's what we're kind of doing here. We're playing with the intent of the ordinance. And you can probably doubt me because my memory's going a little bit but I do remember Joel back a few years ago. It is for water quality and water intensification. You just have to stop it. And this is one reason that you, one leverage tool that you have. So to overcome this one thing tonight we have to say there's a reason to allow that. There's a better purpose there, and that's what I was kind of waiting. And neighbors, I think they probably have rights to put two homes there. I think based on what we've seen in the past, there's a good chance they're going to be able to put a second lot there. I'd be hard pressed, and again we haven't looked at it very seriously but you've got to know, we've allowed things like that in the past. They have enough square footage. We allow private drives. They're probably going to be able to do it. That's a different issue however. Totally different issue. The issue we're looking at right now is do we allow a variance? Well yeah, I could make a case for it. Well one lot has to be the right size but then, because they've got enough feet for one. You've got to make one the right footage. You've got to. Split the difference. Anyway, so you look at the code and the code 13 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 says something and specifically you look at the plat. You look at Sunrise Hills. The subdivision doesn't fit. It just visually doesn't fit. So you look at that. You look at the covenants. Their intent, which shame on you to let them expire. Well whatever happened, again much better if you have control over it than letting us have control. The covenants said something. Look at that. Look at the 34 foot elevation drop on the property. That's what lakeshore footage is trying to do. This is not a 2% grade. This is a different deal. This is what the ordinance was set up to really monitor. Look at the community involvement. Look at the two variances when really they should only be applying for one. One can meet the 90 foot. The rest, we should be looking at one variance. A lot that's 30 foot short. So I looked at the positives. The positives are, they're probably going to get. The positive's allowing the variance. They'll probably get the second house. They're probably going to impact the Paulsen's a lot more with that second house. They'll be right in your front yard. The tree coverage, they're going to reduce the tree coverage but even at the tree coverage elimination, and I looked at it, it's not that bad. I can't find, if Mr. Paulsen came up here, you know he's the one that's going to be impacted when the second house goes in. If he was, he's the one that's going to be impacted and he would have been the chip that I would have played one way or another on this. And even if that was the chip, I don't think I could do it because I know what the purpose of the 90 foot frontage was. That's all. Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. My comments are not dissimilar to the last few that you've heard. Every time I do a variance I look for a compelling reason to do the variance and tonight I don't see that I have a compelling reason for the variance. My only caveat to that is, I believe if I had a choice I would prefer to grant this variance versus the one that will probably be here in a few weeks, and that is the only thing that doesn't set well with me tonight if I vote to deny this variance. The one I get in a few weeks as far as a subdivision where I don't have a choice, will not be as good of a community integration. So that's my concern but based upon what I have tonight, and that really is the only reason that I would vote against it is I don't see a compelling reason to grant the variance. The other issues brought up tonight I don't see as being that relevant in it's interpretation of the facts and I think that facts present themselves I think pretty clearly tonight that this is the only variance that is required. So with those final comments I would entertain a motion. Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat and the variance to the shoreland width requirement of the subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans in the staff report dated February 11"' per the staff report. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. My other concern about what was presented at the last meeting as the alternate plat. And personally I believe that alternate plat is far less desirable than the plat that requires the variance. I'm looking quite a bit at tree impact and looking at the plat, and having looked at the property out there, I'm quite convinced that it will have a great impact on the neighborhood, the look of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood with another house being stacked above the lower one. Personally I think that it will be more detrimental to the neighborhood than splitting it into two Lakeshore homes. So I'm torn. So at this point I'm really hard pressed to make a decision personally one or the other on that basis. Peterson: Understand. That was the issue I brought earlier so any further discussion? 14 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Sidney: I guess one comment. Thanks Ladd for the history on lakeshore and I guess when I'm thinking about it here that really I am torn, like Uli, and I had a chance to look over some of the materials but not all of them necessarily. But I do think that we should go through the process in this case and I guess I'm changing my views as I'm sitting here with having listened to the other commissioners and would not support the variance at this point and continue the process. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Just a quick comment. It could end up worse. Could. We're only. look at one thing tonight. So that's what you've got to review. We're not playing a game of cards where we can, you know as we're looking at one thing in the site plan. You're looking at it the right way. It could be worse. But, and not I'm making, not for the lake. Maybe for the neighbors but not for the lake and that was the intent of the ordinance that is really managing our discussion. Kind: Mr. Chair? Also on the alternate plat what we've been shown to date I believe is a worst case scenario. I think there probably are other ways to position the buildings on the site and if I was the applicant I would have presented the worst case scenario also so, I guess I agree with LuAnn. I'd like to have the process continue and just look at the variance tonight. Peterson: With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width requirement, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000 and revised April 20,2000. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: This goes onto the City Council on the 19`n of August, is that right? Generous: No, that was mistaken. It's the 14`n Peterson: Of August? Generous: Yes. Peterson: Thank everybody for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 100,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (DATA LINK CORPORATION) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF UPLAND DRIVE AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? 15 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Conrad: Just one Sharmin. On your recommendation number 6, the sign display area shall not exceed 3%. A]-Jaff: It depends on the size of the building and based upon this building. Aanenson: It's supposed to be proportional to the building size. Peterson: Sharmin refresh my memory. Help me refresh my memory on the parking ratio for office industrial, I see you've got warehouse and office. Is it? AI-Jaff: If it's under 49,000 square feet then it's 4 '/2 per 1,000. Peterson: Per 1,000 of? Al-Jaff: Per 1,000 square feet gross floor area of office. If it goes above the 49, then it's 4 spaces. And then it goes down again, and then it's 1 per 20,000. Anything above. Aanenson: So it's related to a proportion related to the size of the building. The bigger the building, the less parking. Peterson: But the warehouse office ratio is really what I'm asking, or isn't that relevant? It has to be. So you've got 100,000 square foot warehouse with 10,000. AI-Jaff: It's 80,000 office, 20,000 warehouse. Peterson: Okay. So that's 4 '/2 to l of the 80,000. Or is it the 400,000? Al-Jaff: Repeat your question one more time please. Peterson: I'm just curious as to what the ratio is based upon. Is it based upon the total square footage of the building or is it just the square footage of the office and not the warehouse? AI-Jaff: It's square footage of office and then warehouse separately. Aanenson: Two different formulas. Based on the use. Peterson: Okay. Got it. Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr Chair, can we go through that again? Then what's your office formula? 4 per 1,000? Al-Jaff: It's 4 per 1,000. Blackowiak: So that's 320. And then your warehouse is? Al-Jaff: Warehouse is 1. Aanenson: Are we checking our math? Peterson: No, I was just curious. I was just checking my curiosity. 16 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Al-Jaff: I space for each 1,000 square foot of gross floor area up to 10,000 and then 1 additional space for each additional 2,000 square feet. Blackowiak: 5. Okay, so you have 335. They're right on. Peterson: I'd like the record to show that I wasn't asking to check the math. Aanenson: I want the record to show we were right. Peterson: So noted. Any other questions of staff outside the parking? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I do have one question. The tiers, the entrance tiers. Each tier, 1.5 inches, four of them makes 6 inches. Is that enough? I mean is it going to make a difference when you're standing on the street? Are you going to see any variation or do they need to be bigger? Aanenson: I'm just trying to give you a similar building that you can look at that. Al-Jaff: Some of the existing buildings out there show each tier projects 3/4 of an inch. These are going to be double. So I believe you will have some... Blackowiak: Some interest. Al-Jaff: You will be able to see them. Blackowiak: Okay. It just didn't sound like a lot on such a big building so. Peterson: Thanks. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. How many more times do we get to see you Mark? Mark Undestad: Three more after this. Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. We're at 8800 Sunset Trail in Chanhassen. And I guess really I'm just kind of if you have any questions. Peterson: Thank you for the color rendering the last couple days. It's helpful Kind: Personal delivery besides. Mr. Chair, I have just one question of the applicant. You've read the conditions and I assume are happy with all of them? Willing to comply? Mark Undestad: Yep. Kind: Good. I expected that was the case. And then I just want to tell you I think it's a great looking building and I really like the high windows. I drove out by there and this will be the first building that has the windows on the second floor and I think that's really going to be nice. That's all. Peterson: Mark, knowing that I guess, part of the reason why I brought up the parking is, when you start getting into this large of a building. Two story, you know call center parking, if that building does turn into a call center, 4 '/z is edging on not being enough. I don't know what the tenant is going to have in there but. 17 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Mark Undestad: We also have Lot 6 in this, they own Lot 6 too so. They bought Lot 6 just in case. What they may do is build another 20,000 foot office building or something over on Lot 6 if they need overflow. Right now they can bring in about 135 employees with the 300 and some parking stalls. Peterson: Good, thanks. Any other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts on this one? I echo Deb's comments. I think it's a great looking building. It will be a nice accent to break up both the height and the structure and the glass enhances it dramatically so I'm very pleased with it. Entertain a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-8 for a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse building to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 71h Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 2, 2000, subject to the stated long list of conditions. 25 of them. As they are. Peterson: Is there a second? Sidney: One comment? Friendly amendment? Peterson: Why don't we get. Kind: I'll second it. Peterson: Yeah. Any discussion? Sidney: Yes. I'd just like to comment about condition 10. If we could just reword that slightly because we have redundancy there. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the city which includes photometrics and then only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. Sacchet: Yeah. Peterson: So moved and seconded and amendment made. Any further discussion to that? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-8 for a 100,000 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 71h Addition as shown on the plans dated Received June 2, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall increase the number of trees and islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to meet minimum landscape requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city. 18 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 2. The designation of the southernmost wetland basin shall be changed on both the preliminary plans and the architectural drawings from "pond" to "wetland" to reflect the basin's regulatory standing. All wetland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be re -seeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix approval for wetland soil conditions. 4. A wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs (one buffer sign per 300 feet of wetland edge) under the direction of city staff prior to construction and shall pay the city $20 per sign. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. One wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 3% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 240 square feet. Staff is recommending the following criteria be adopted: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on one elevation only. C. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 7. Building Official Conditions: a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 19 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 C. Eight accessible parking spots must be provided and they must be dispersed among the various building entrances as close to the entrances as possible. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Submit radius turn plans to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. C. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code and Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 9. Comply with Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 10. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the city which shall include photometrics. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. 11. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area would be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 12. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. 13. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 14. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by Section 20-109(5) of the city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 7"', actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. 15. Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type III erosion control fence. 16. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. NEI Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 17. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 19. The applicant will need to provide financial security -in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow, which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. 20. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 21. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 22. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7 ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 24. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. 25. The storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond shall be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK LOCATED AT 6900 LOTUS TRAIL, PAT AND DEBBIE MCRAITH. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question. This Broken Arrow Drive, if that's it's name. Can you, yeah Broken Arrow Drive. Can you give an idea what that is and what the plans are for it at least? Kirchoff: I'd like Mr. Hempel to address that question, thank you. Peterson: Mr. Hempel. 21 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Hempel: Putting me on the spot Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Peterson: That's why you're here. Hempel: Broken Arrow is a paper street. It was platted back in the, I'm going to take a guess at the 1920's. We have no immediate plans for constructing a roadway. I believe there may be some utility lines in that right-of-way area that service adjacent parcels. Dealing with the map, there are some adjacent parcels to the paper street that may be further subdivided at some future point and require a road to be built at Broke Arrow. That's the only reason I believe that it hasn't been vacated at this point. To the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Peterson: Does that answer your question UP Sacchet: Yes, thank you. Peterson: Other ones? Sacchet: That's my big question. Thanks. Peterson: Any others? Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Pat McGraith: My name is Pat McGraith and I live at 6900 Lotus Trail. And my first point was going to be the Broken Arrow Drive. If you look on that map it doesn't even show the road going through. Basically it's just a utility easement. There's my property and the property adjacent and if you said maybe they would need to get to other properties. Well those would be the only two and they can both be accessed from the front or the back of Broken Arrow where it stops now. So that's one point and I have a couple pictures what Broken Arrow Drive looks like. Also the design of the deck. The way it's designed has no steps involved and they can just come out the driveway to the side and it will come around so there's no steps. And my wife works with disabled adults and that is an issue because we have people over with wheelchairs going off there so they could just roll right onto the deck. And as staff said it's an 8 foot, we're encroaching 8 feet into the setback and actually it's, we're only adding 4 foot walkway to the house so it's not like we're adding 8 feet. We're only adding 4 feet. And there's no neighborhood opposition to the plan. And that's about it. I really can't see any reason to deny it but you guys can make the call. Peterson: We don't have quite the opposition as the last one. We can call them back. Pat McGraith: I also was going to say that, if you look at the front of the house, you know at the picture of the front, I mean that's just the way, it fits best in the house and fits the property. Takes out the least amount of bushes and plants. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 22 Planning Commission Meeting —July 18, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners your thoughts on this. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I went and looked at the site in the rain today. Left it to the last minute so that was not a smart idea but the front door is, I suppose 6 feet off the ground and right now there's no access to it but I assume at one point there were stairs going up to it. And it seems reasonable to me that from the driveway, just to add a 4 foot walkway around so you can get in the front door, that seems like a reasonable thing to do to me. And that since the house was positioned on the lot prior to our current ordinance, that that creates a hardship for them because it's already encroaching into the setback so no matter what they do, it would be an encroachment and that the position of the house creates the hardship. So I think what they're asking for is reasonable. Peterson: Other comments? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I actually went out there and I took there's a little looking around what I'll say will determine which thing, I'm calling it a thing at this point, that was Broken Arrow Drive. It's two stops of driveways. One up a hill and one down on a hill going to their house. And inbetween there is a path probably about a foot to two feet wide going through the bushes. And not only is it that narrow going through the bushes. It's a little wider than a deer trail but hardly. It goes actually pretty steep up the hill. I'm from Switzerland so I have a different sense of steepness than Minnesota but for Minnesota this was a steep hill. So I have very hard time seeing that that would be developed into actually a road and therefore justify the 30 foot setback. If the back part of their parcel would be subdivided and developed, it would be accessed most likely from up on the knoll with that stub of Broken Arrow Drive. It's very unlikely for me to envision that there would actually be a road built up that steep hill. So on that basis I feel that their request for this variance is justified and that it would be unreasonable to insist on the 30 foot setback from the road that most likely will never be there. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission approves Variance #2000-10 to permit a deck to encroach 8 feet into a 25 foot required front yard setback period. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: I second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad: Yeah. Should we look into vacating that Dave? Has that, I guess that would be what I'd like to know. I don't know what we're doing here. There's some comments that kind of make some sense here. If we're not going to use the road, then what do you recommend? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. We did discuss that a little bit in preparation of the staff report. I believe at one time in the years, probably 8-9 years ago there was an individual in looking at subdividing one of the parcels up there as was discussed earlier by one of the commissioners. The access to that probably would be from the west or from the upper level... vacation, survey work, title work and the county for recording and then including that vacated piece into your title work, it gets to be kind of an involved process. But that certainly is another avenue to proceed. Typically what. 23 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Conrad: That's what I'd be doing but anyway, that's worth the money I would think. Pat McGraith: Actually I have one more question. They've credited me on the allocation. They credited me with that square footage and the acreage. The 34,000 square feet actually of $25,000 so wherever they got their numbers, they gave me exactly the ... square footage that's on there. Aanenson: They would be the County. Peterson: Alright, any further discussion? Sacchet: A question Ladd, Mr. Chair. Are you saying that you would envision a condition on granting this? Conrad: It's pretty much up to the applicant to do that. If we would like him to pursue the vacation first. Or vacating that property. That would have been my preference. Then we wouldn't have an issue. Now there's nothing forcing that to happen. But I kind of agree that enforcing the ordinance on that piece is,, I'm not sure why I want to do that so I guess I'm probably in favor of the motion but I guess I would have liked to have seen that, something happen with that paper street. And if we're committed to it, then that's good. Sacchet: It would be cleaner... Conrad: I don't know what to do. I guess I'll, I guess I'll vote, or I'll support the motion as stated. Peterson: Okay. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #2000-10 to permit a deck to encroach 8 feet into a 25 foot required front yard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A COMMUNICATION ANTENNA ON THE CITY WATER TOWER AND A 17' X 17' EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PAR] 2ND ADDITION, 2953 WATER TOWER PLACE, SPRINT PCS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Bob, I was trying to figure out how visible this building is going to be. Generous: It's a 12 foot antenna on top of the tower. Peterson: Yeah, I'm not talking about the antenna as much as the building. How visible is the building going to be? Aanenson: Oh, the building that's sitting on the ground? 24 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: I mean can you see it from road? My concern is that we're going to plop a god awful looking building and try to hide it with some conifers. Generous: Well actually it may be visible from the south because it is up on the hill but then we're going to put in an office building or something to the south yet as that West 82"d Street develops. Peterson: Are you comfortable that the building will be hidden well enough once the landscaping gets in there and permanent? Generous: That can be a condition of approval. If we use conifers that's 100, 365 days of screening. Peterson: Depending upon the size. Generous: Well if they're 8 foot conifers, that's as tall as the building. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, I talked to Kate earlier today and she said that there was going to be a map of the cellular towers and I was concerned about any opportunities for co -location. I was curious as to where we have cell towers now and are we making use of what we already have in place, or is this an area which is under served? Aanenson: Let me address that. It's hard to see in this map but what we've done is we put all the uses that are on this map, the heights and locations. This is a different circumstance in the fact that we try to locate them on existing facilities, whether it be a building or one of the city services. We've had some requests for some of the well sites which we think is inappropriate because most of those are in residential areas and because of the scale of this property, it's in an industrial park, we feel this is where it should go. As Bob indicated this one, when we put together the PUD they did recommend the council that they be a conditional use. Blackowiak: Could other users go on this? Aanenson: Yes. And that's where we'd want it to be first. Similarly, the one that we did at Holy Cross has an opportunity for another provider. They're all out there looking. You're going to see another one that's looking out there shortly. We are tracking where they are. Who's got co -location capabilities, but our first choice is try to put them in an existing facility. For example one you won't be seeing is going to Bandimere Park. That's on for the City Council. They're relocating the existing siren. They're moving the siren back. Putting the siren on top of the monopole so accomplishing two objectives. So some of those you won't see. Again if they're in a city park or on a city utility services, those are done by lease agreement that goes strictly through the City Council. But we are still tracking where those are. So in this, to answer your question, in this circumstance there is co -location abilities on the tower. And sometimes they'll go on top. Sometimes they're panels around the side. Again that's an aesthetic thing and that may be part of the reason why they're a conditional use on this with the sensitivity to the Arboretum. So there could be other users on this facility. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate, could you pass that map around so we could just get abetter look at it. 25 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: Other questions of staff? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commissioners? Please come forward if you do. Paul Harrington: Good evening. My name is Paul Harrington. I'm with Carlson & Harrington Commercial Real Estate Services and I'm here representing, Sprint PCS. I think Bob has captured the intent of our request and that's certainly to locate on the city's water tower. As it was alluded to we, Sprint at least tries to make every effort that they can to locate on existing structures in communities.. when they come in. The differences in height, the question referring to co -location opportunities existing after Sprint goes on the facility. Carriers would go on any height that they feel that they can propagate their signal from to meet the demands of the area. In this particular case Sprint RF's engineers determined that they need to be on the top of the tank in order to propagate the signal to cover the area that they wanted to cover. But certainly numerous towers within the Metro area have multiple users on them. So other than that I can certainly answer any questions you may have of me. Peterson: Any questions of applicant? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I don't know whether that's a question that's fair to ask him but if you have an answer, I'd like to get an answer. Peterson: Certainly. Sacchet: Little further south on Highway 41 there's another water tower. Just across the border in Chaska. And that water tower has next to it a tower for the PCS antennas and I'm just curious about two things. Why aren't those other ones not on the tower and does it need that close one or is that a different carrier? Different source provider that that pole is for. Do you know anything about that? Paul Harrington: Number one, l know it's a different service provider. Number two. I probably wouldn't want to comment on why the pole is there. I know there's other instances, down in Rosemount there's a similar situation. Some communities want it done that way. Others have set the ordinance where carriers are almost forced to do it that way. Rather than go on the water tower, it's an easier lane to travel just building a tower on the city property so there's a couple of different factors that might enter into it and I really haven't investigated that one so I don't know. Sacchet: Well you answered my main question. It's a different carrier. That was the main part of the question. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Aanenson: I just have one comment Mr. Chairman. You asked a question earlier about ... by these towers and we do have that in our ordinance. What our ordinance says is any unused tower or associated facility that ... or abandoned has to be removed within 12 months so we do have that in the ordinance. Peterson: Good, thanks. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 26 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this please. Kind: I think it's a great location. That's my comments. Peterson: Enough for me. Is there a motion? Blackowiak: I'll make the motion. I move that the Planning"Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17 x 17 foot equipment building in the southwest corner of the site subject to the following conditions, and these would be conditions 1 through 10 and I would like to, I just want to make sure I'm getting this one. Modify condition number 7 or add to condition number 7 that the equipment building be screened with appropriate materials to hide it from surrounding uses or surrounding neighbors and I'd like to add condition 11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co -location. Aanenson: That's us. Blackowiak: Well, I'd like to put that in there please. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: I'll second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17 x 17 foot equipment building in the southwest corner of the site subject to the following conditions: The antennas must be painted the same color as the water tower. 2. The applicant must notify the City of Chanhassen Utility Department at least 24 hours prior to needing access to schedule an appointment to enter the water tower. 3. The applicant must enter into a lease agreement with the City of Chanhassen for use of the site. 4. The west and south walls of the building must be of one -hour fire resistive construction if located less than 20 feet to the adjacent property lines. 5. The antennas and their attachment must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division prior to applying for a building permit to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City of Chanhassen approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The equipment building shall be screened with appropriate materials to hide it from surrounding uses or surrounding neighbors. 27 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 8. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. 9. The contractor and all sub -contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. A minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. 10. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. 11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co -location. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 2 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Warren Dunlap Christopher & Dee Cox Paul Hume AT&T Wireless 222 West 78'1' Street 7727 Frontier Trail Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Cindy what, me being color blind and all. What color are the NSP power towers? Kirchoff. Grayish bluish. The sky. Peterson: What do we do about ongoing maintenance for the monopoles? Kate, you've got the policy there. The ordinance. But like the NSP towers are generally pretty crappy looking. Aanenson: Yeah. My understanding is through the, they do have an ongoing corporate agreement with NSP for them using that and they are painting those as far as when we negotiate service agreement., Franchise. That's the word I was looking for. Thank you. Franchise agreements. With this, it'd be the same thing. It'd just be having to monitor those. Generally we get calls with that kind of issue but it will take some maintenance. Ongoing. Peterson: So I guess to clarify my color question, are they the same color? If they are the same color, why wouldn't we want them the same exact color? 28 Planning Commission Meeting -July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Well I'm not sure of the water tower. They're the exact same color either.. They are in close proximity. Can you discriminate? You can check with the applicant to see if that's something you'd like to do. Peterson: I'm just thinking, the monopole looks more like a NSP tower than it does a water tower so. Aanenson: We can recommend that they use a similar color: I don't think that would be a problem. Peterson: I mean it's one perspective. Other questions? Kind: Mr. Chair, along those same lines. The brand, I can't pronounce it. Tnemac. Is that a galvanized material so we won't have that rusting problem that the NSP towers seem to have? Kirchoff: It's my understanding no. That paint lasts for 8 to 10 years. Kind: Is there an advantage to specifying that it should be a galvanized material? Aanenson: I'm not sure as far as reflectivity. I mean that's what we have on the pedestrian bridge. It's non peeling, is that what you're looking at? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: That's an option. Kind: I feel like there's a pole in town, and I couldn't come up with where it was located, that is out of that material. And it seems to blend, be pretty light colored. Seems to blend pretty well. Aanenson: I'm not sure if the one down on Park Drive, if that's painted. Kind: That's the one. Is it on a public works? Aanenson: Correct, it's behind there. Kind: I was not crazy. Aanenson: Well we could research that for you. That's some issues that you have as far as color and maintenance between now and council and give them some good rational reasons for what it should be. Kind: Personally I think that was pretty invisible and looks to me like that's going to be maintenance free. Aanenson: Well that's a decision we made on the bridge too. It does tend to disappear. Based on the proximity, like Craig was saying, is it going to stand out more or less and that's something I guess we could look at. Get some other color renderings for the council to review. Peterson: Okay. 29 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have just one other quick question. How are you measuring the tower height and why is the variation between 80 and 77? I was confused. Kirchoff: Okay. The ordinance says the height of a tower shall be measured from the ground to the top of the antennas. And in the staff report it says the 77 feet, it should be actually 79. After talking with the applicant today, and what was in the staff report was that the antennas are 4 feet in height. Essentially they're 2 feet. Blackowiak: 2 feet up, you know. Yeah. Kirchoff: Right. Standing above. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. And that's all I have here I guess, thank you. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Cindy, this picture, are there more poles sticking out from the main poles than just what we see? Kirchoff: Yes. There's 3. There's 3 arms. Conrad: So do I see 2? Kirchoff: Yes. Conrad: And so how many more do I get? 4 more? Kirchoff: Well but the design of the pole, and maybe the applicant can address this more but the design of the pole can hole 3 more arms. Conrad: So there's, the report I like. I like all the pictures in there. That's pretty neat. I'll wait for the applicant. Peterson: Other final questions for staff? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Tell me about the same picture that Ladd just brought up. This is not proportionate to the rest. It's the height, or is it? I have a hard time believing that that's a 80 feet height there. Peterson: I think the applicant can probably. Sacchet: Maybe the applicant can address that. It's the height of the photograph I believe and how, that's out of proportion size. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Warren Dunlap: My name is Warren Dunlap. I consult AT&T Wireless services. I'd like to explain why we need something here. AT&T does not have a presence in your community. Currently it has a very weak signal which tries, we're attempting to cover your community. I don't know hopefully 30 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 somebody here is a customer of AT&T's. But the Engineers feel that we need to locate something in this community to give it a stronger signal and be sure we can reach into our other sectors or other sites that we have in the area, in the adjacent communities. To answer some of the questions that were brought out, first of all the photo, to my knowledge is not to scale. I believe that building, the owner said was almost 30 feet in height. To the peak of that roof. The other question regarding the arms. There is in the packet, I'm not sure if you have it here. There's this drawing. This is looking down on it. We initially start out with 3 arms on the top. We have 3 arms and at the end of each of these arms are, would be 3 antennas. Currently in our older system we have 2 antennas on there and we're going around replacing, putting up a third one. AT&T plans for future expansion in their system. They would either put in this type of arm coming off at the same level, or else they would expand this cross arm and put all 4 antennas so we'd have 12 antennas as a future loading. Again, referring back to the staff report, this is the same type of scenario which we would allow co -location down below. Not everybody uses the type of arms. Some of them use, what we call a crow's nest or a platform. But in either case co -location would be allowed. I don't have any other comments but I'd be happy to answer some questions. The only other comment I wanted to address is I believe the pole is set back. I'll have to check with the surveyor on this, but the property line on this particular property is the same as the right-of-way line for Highway 5. And I believe that would be 40 feet. I will check that though and provide that information to the staff. If there's any other questions? Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a question of the applicant. One of the conditions that we have in front of us, that staff put on this is that instead of constructing the building with prefabricated concrete, that's a little more aesthetic. Is that an issue for you? Warren Dunlap: No sir. No, we can do that. Sacchet: Thanks. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I guess a request. I really like the rendering, the photos. Wondering if you could provide City Council with some longer views because immediately when I thought oh, monopole and I was thinking of where I live and where I drive into Chanhassen. I was thinking about how it might look in terms of the whole downtown area and particularly old St. Hubert's and steeple. And if we could have a photo that would show how that would relate to the downtown like from 5 and Powers and maybe from the other side entering Chanhassen from the east at 101 and 5 for example. Warren Dunlap: I think that'd be possible. I was with the person when he took these photos. We went to the west side of the town up on that rise I guess where the railroad goes under. I think he has to have a special lens. This was used with a digital camera. We'll have to get a 35 mm out and get a wide angle to do that, but I think that can be done. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: One more Mr. Chairman. On one of our, the pieces in the packet there were some specifications from Valmont and I just, are you familiar with? Warren Dunlap: I'm familiar with Valmont, yes. 31 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Conrad: Okay. Halfway down it says proposed antenna loading scenario. I'm trying to understand if that's what you just said a few minutes ago. There are three 13 foot wide curved T-arms. Is that what you said? Warren Dunlap: Yes. Conrad: You said there might be 6. They start with 3 at the top. Warren Dunlap: Well we start with the 3 arms and off the ends of those arms is a pipe mount and that's what we mount our antennas to. Conrad: And those are the 12 antenna mounts? Warren Dunlap: That's where we can mount off the 3. We'd have 4 on each of those arms. Conrad: Okay. The proposed, there are 3, this document says three 13 foot wide cured T-arms at the top of the pole which would be at the 80 foot level, or whatever. Then three 13 foot wide curved arms again mounted at the 55 foot elevation. Is that what you're applying for? Is that it's capability? Warren Dunlap: No sir. Well, the staff is saying that we need to have the pole for co -location purposes at our height and then at a 55 foot height also allow for another carrier to come in. Whether they use the arms or not, that's up to them. We use those arms as I said, where they arc out from the pole. There would be 3 of them. And we've stuck with that design and we've been able to put all the antennas we need at the ends of those arms. In this particular drawing here that came with the packet, it shows 3 other arms. That would be an option to hold the 12, the total of 12 antennas. Conrad: So from the center park, are these arms 6 feet out or ate they 13 feet out? Warren Dunlap: I believe they'd be 6 feet out. We do have to keep certain separation between our sectors so they're not, the signal is not cross talking. That's part of how we do that. I don't believe the arm from the pole to the end of the pole would be 13 feet. I don't believe they're that long. I've seen them on the ground and they're more like the 6 foot length. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Do you have any idea, or can you prognosticate, how many of your monopoles now are co - located? Warren Dunlap: Actually AT&T, I've had a little bit of history with the company in this market. AT&T was purchased by McCaw. This type of pole which we're talking about here and those type of arms, was first done here in this market. It was designed here in this market. And the poles were always, always overly designed for loading purposes. So what happened was, other carriers did come to us when the communities decided to co -locate and we were the only carrier. There were only two cellular carriers and we were the only carrier at that time who could put them on there. So when we designed our system we designed it for our loads and in this case we'll also say we need for another 12 antennas at this area.... And then they always put in a safety factor and all of that is put into the pole as it's designed at the manufacturer. R3►A Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: So you're saying you have a number of them that are already co -located? Warren Dunlap: Yes sir. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First, will this ever get any taller than 77 plus 2 for the arms? Warren Dunlap: No. We don't need it any taller. Now you may find somebody coming in here that would request, they want to go above our antennas. They want to put 20 feet onto it. The pole will not be designed for expansion. If that came about, they would have to come to us and say, can this be done? We would say, go do a tower analysis. Here's all the loading criteria. The manufacturer would have to give AT&T assurances that it can be done before we would even allow it and then they'd have to get permission from you folks. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, would that ever happen? Aanenson: Well, if they couldn't find another site and they wanted to go on that site, they would have to work out something because they've got the primary position to accommodate both. There's another issue too I think and that's the setback from Highway 5 to go higher. I think we're getting close to the 40 foot. They have to have half the distance and at 80, they're almost there now. ...variance, if they want to to keep it on one site or something like that but what he's saying is structurally they're not building it to go higher so. Blackowiak: Okay. I just want to make sure it's not really, really tall. And then the second thing is, there's currently a water tower site approximately half a mile as the crow flies from this site you're proposing on West 76"'. Did you look at that for co -location opportunities? Warren Dunlap: Is this the water tower? Blackowiak: No. This is a different one. Not the one we just talked about. Warren Dunlap: No, no. I mean it's the one right back up... houses? Blackowiak: Yeah. Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I did. And it wouldn't accommodate what we need to do. It looks pretty loaded to me on the ground. You know you have a number of buildings already, it appeared to me to be in their back yards so I did go look at it but it was not in the area that I was instructed to search at. My search area is basically right there along the Interstate. Or excuse me, along the highway. From about the area around the dinner theater to just past where I'm at. So I had very limited area to work in. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just curious if you even tried that because. Warren Dunlap: I did go look at it. Blackowiak: Oh I meant just to do a search. Put your equipment up there and check signal strength or. 33 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Warren Dunlap: We look at it for, you know I take the coordinate readings on it and then I turn that into the RF person and he runs it with his, in his computer to see how it works with the rest of the surrounding area and if we can't make a connection to another cell site. That's one of his criteria to throw it out. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Kind: Mr. Chair, along those lines. When you co -locate you share the tower but you have to have your own equipment building? You don't really co -locate in each'other's buildings? Warren Dunlap: No. That' s a no -no. They don't even do that. They have a paging company and the paging company was bought by another company and they have kicked them out of buildings. Kind: Because I know it's a site that Alison was talking about that there is a building down below that's I think probably... Warren Dunlap: The cellular and the PCS, one of the differences the cellular carriers have a lot more band width and therefore it takes more radios, therefore their buildings at bigger. PCS people, a lot of times have smaller buildings or just platforms with outside cabinets. In this market, AT&T has opted not to go to outdoor cabinets because if you do that in the winter time you may have one radio that failed and when you go to fix it and you open the outdoor cabinets, you may have 4 or 5 racks of radios that fail so, because of the temperature. So that's why they like that, and the technicians like to be indoors in the winter. Peterson: Alright, any last questions of the applicant? Kind: Oh yes Mr. Chair, I have one more. I'm interested in your opinion about material for the pole itself. Galvanized versus... Warren Dunlap: They are galvanized and we normally paint them what we call an artic ice. It's a very light blue but you know, I overheard what you were saying. We'd be happy to contact that carrier and find out if that color. Kind: So the material itself is galvanized and, I supposed it doesn't guarantee anything but it's not likely to rust like those NSP towers did? Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I don't believe I talked to the man at NSP right before they had the crew out to paint it and I don't know why they don't use galvanized poles but he did say, you know they were going to paint this particular pole and he said it takes 30 days to cure because of some real heavy paint that whatever, but the pole can be galvanized and painted. That doesn't cause a problem. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a motion for a public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward. 34 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Christopher Cox: My name is Christopher Cox.. I live at 222 West 781h Street in Chanhassen. I've been a Chanhassen old town resident for roughly 8 years. I have seen 78th Street come through. We tore down all the telephone poles. We ran all the electricity underground. Everything west of 101 is underground. Everything north of Highway 5 is underground. This pole, I've seen the diagrams that they have here, it's very, very close to the current pedestrian bridge that crosses Highway 5. You can't see it in the picture I don't believe. This is, when we say 77 feet, I think 8 stories. This is 8 stories. Now yeah, right across the highway, right on the other side of Highway 5 we have NSP poles running down. There's our electricity coming right in. Can you see those poles as you drive eastbound on 78th Street? No you cannot. The highest thing in downtown and in old town Chanhassen is the church tower. I stood in front of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater right in front of, right at the entrance and I turned around and I saw the church, then I saw Brown's Tire and Auto and I could picture 8 stories. I would implore you to think, if you're familiar with the area, east of 494 and County Road 6 in Plymouth. There are 3, 2 or 3 radio towers. They're different. They look like erector sets. They're not a pretty little monopole like what we've got going on here. But there's 3 of them. How do you know when you're at County Road 6? You know you're at County Road because you can see those poles. They are a landmark. Anywhere you've ever seen one of these poles, it's a landmark right there in front of you. You know when to turn right, it's Chanhassen. There's the pole. I do not want to hear that in the future. I don't want to hear people say, take Highway 5 til you see the pole and hang a right. I don't want that there. It's probably going to be right out my bedroom window. You're going to see it. I think it's going to over stand the highest landmark that's been there since the 1800's. We've rebuilt the old town area. We've made a lot of it more beautiful. We've taken down the ugly construction so that we can see the trees. So that we can put this pole up and see it instead? I disagree with the location. There's another water tower. It's not in Chanhassen. It's in Eden Prairie. It's less than a half a mile from where this present location is. It's just on the other side of the railroad tracks. It would be another opportunity for co -location. I feel that this would be a poor location to have an 8 story tower. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Paul Hume: Chair, I'm Paul Hume. I live at 7727 Frontier Trail. I had a few questions for the contractor. The diameter of the antenna, you're only talking about 13 feet wide antennas. What is, is it going to be something that's 20 feet wide, 80 feet up in the air? That's one of the questions I had. And as far as the location, wouldn't it be better to have a location in a business district, perhaps on south of Highway 5, West of 17 where there's already a lot of businesses located and it's a half mile from where the current site is? Another question I had is, they had mentioned a 55 foot height for a carrier coming in. Why couldn't they use the 55 foot height instead of the 80 foot height? If I could get those questions answered. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Mrs. Cox: Hi. My husband just gave all the factual things here. I'm Dee Cox. I live at 222 West 78t" Street and more or less I would just like to reiterate the plea that we have put so much effort into trying to keep old town old and pretty and then to see this come along, you know I think it would dwarf everything and I think it would detract from that. My husband did some photography with the digital camera from different sites in the city and I'd just like to show you them. This red line in there, we don't know height wise ... but that gives you an idea of what you're going to see. Also we have AT&T Wireless Services and they do work out here so we're not hurting. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. 35 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Christopher Cox: I'd just like to add one additional comment pertaining to the photograph that I submitted to you. That is from westbound Highway 5. It's about in the nature of Lotus Lawn and Garden, as you're looking towards Chanhassen. I also took additional photographs from 781h Street, from the Dinner Theater. As you heard earlier tonight, 10 days isn't a heck of a lot of time. I didn't have enough time to really go through the photographs that I captured and to really try and, all I can do is guesstimate with the tools I have. I can't survey this stuff. I don't have all the tools available to truly say you know, here I am driving down 78"' Street and that's almost where that's going to be, isn't it? This is a guesstimate. It's not factual. I do have some other photographs. I do believe that we are all going to be staring at this thing every day. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Would the contractor like to comment on the size, to answer one of the questions? Warren Dunlap: The antennas that go on there will be approximately 4 to maybe 5 feet in height. 1 foot width, 6 inches in depth. You may see bigger ones in other areas but what we're trying to do here is to serve an area in height. Determines how far these go. And the location is critical so we can make the connection within the system. If you move too far away you don't have as strong of a signal so that's basically how areas are located. The only other comment I have, it's 80 feet in height. The power lines that are there are about 100 feet in height. We didn't locate on the power lines. It's a safety issue for AT&T and for NSP and the other point there is the property that would allow us to get access to the highest location is currently owned by Northcott and they are not interested in leasing anything because they have their own plans for development. If it was something that AT&T was interested in, but as I said, it's a safety factor. Safety issue for them. I think that's what I had written down. If there's other questions. Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kate are we already co -located on the one off of Dell Road, on the city property? Aanenson: You mean the one in Eden Prairie? Peterson: Yeah. Aanenson: Yes. We tried to. Just so you know, there is another user looking in the Quattro area. We did contact Eden Prairie and I did meet with their zoning officer who works for the police department. They will not be allowing any other users, even through their own negotiations on that so that's not an acceptable option. As the applicant just said, we looked at trying to use Northcott. It's got the high visibility. We could put the panels on. They wouldn't give a lease agreement. They searched this area. We've worked with them over several months trying to find the acceptable, trying to mitigate the impact of, it's going to be visible from somewhere. I don't know how you can resolve that. Certainly when you're in this corridor of the downtown. It's the same issue. We're looking to see one in a couple weeks on Quattro. Peterson: My concern, and we had the same concern the last couple of the ones we had is, we've got this person sitting back in headquarters with a PC saying you've got to have, it's got to be in this block. They don't test anything outside of that block and how accurate is that analysis? Aanenson: Well if you want to table this for their RF study, you can certainly recommend that. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: For the what? Aanenson: For their RF study to see exactly what they studied and where their zones. What the gap they're trying to cover. That's acceptable from additional information. You can look at the study and see where their gap is. Peterson: It's important enough where I don't feel overly comfortable unless you make us feel comfortable, particularly me comfortable that the due diligence has been done versus just saying this is where it has to be and they haven't looked at. Aanenson: Sure. Let me just go back to the previous one at Holy Cross. We're not capable of reading that. I'm not an electrical engineer. We had to hire a consultant before. We can look at that and give as best information as we can but no one on this staff is qualified to read that. Peterson: Well that's what I'm saying but, and I don't know whether or not the city wants to hire a consultant every time to do this but it may be an important enough issue that we should consider it so I'm not asking you as a staff to do that but get the information that you feel comfortable. Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, we can get that and give it to you in layman's terms as best we can. Give you some other information to see where they're at. Give you some additional information. That's fine. Then the council will have it too. Peterson: If you told me that, if we move it a half a mile at a 1 % degradation of signal, than I haven't got a real problem at all doing that. But if it's 50% in a half mile, I just feel under informed to make a decision like this. That's my problem. And I don't know whether you can inform me. Blackowiak: I'd like to add Mr. Chair too that since we're seeing one on Quattro Drive, which is again less than a half a mile from this proposed site, I think it would be smart for us to wait and make sure that we're not just plopping them in along,Highway 5 to suit whichever applicant. I mean we should have some method to our madness and take'a look and see if we can't consolidate that are coming in at the same time. Aanenson: We had talked about that. I think additional information would be helpful. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more request. Could you also review whether the 55 foot height would be acceptable and maybe in this particular downtown sensitive location we do not allow for co -location. Your opinion on that I guess. Because I think 55 feet would be quite a bit better. That roof is pretty tall. Aanenson: That's going to come back as part of their study, what height they need to get that, as Craig was saying, their distribution so we can look at that. Because your gap is going to be less if you're higher up, but we'll look at all of that. I think those are good questions. That's the same process we went through with Holy Cross. If you're at different heights, what's your gaps. Kind: And then if 55 feet is no good, then it really isn't co -locating. It's not offering co -location. Aanenson: It doesn't meet their needs. It may meet somebody else's. Kind: Okay, I get you. 37 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Sacchet: Mr. Chair, would it also be possible to be very clear, assuming we would stay with this location, to have the height of those NSP poles as a reference point? Aanenson: Right. I think that was an issue we got before that you want at least, even before it got to the City Council you want better clarity as far as the siting of this from different perspectives. Sacchet: I think that would be an important context. If NSP"poles are 100 feet high and they're dotted along the highway, they're not to me certainly nearly as aesthetic as a monopole. So 1, think that would be a good reference point. Peterson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission tables the application for Conditional Use Permit #2000-5. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If we do table this, the next one is coming up at the next meeting? Just for the applicant's? Aanenson: As soon as they can turn it around. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. They may not be on. Peterson: Well we need to give the applicant some direction so I assume you'll meet with the applicant and discuss in detail what. Aanenson: Right. The RF study. The better pictures. The colors, alternatives. Peterson: Then offer the right timing. Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Okay. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM BRINN AND BOB WITT TO STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD. Cindy Kirchoff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Conrad: Mr. Chair just a clarification. Didn't we turn this down the first time? 38 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Kirchoff: That's correct. Conrad: So what is our role? Because we told the City Council not to do this. Aanenson: Well technically they're asking for an appeal an interpretation or appeal the interpretation of staff's, how we interpreted the City Council ordinance. That's one approach. The other approach would have been, and this Cindy put in the report, would be to have this condition removed from the variance, but until it's removed then we're obligated to enforce it. So that was the approach they took was to appeal the interpretation of what was meant by the buffer. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I do have a question. I was being polite. Lori, could you speak to the kind of contaminants that we're trying to avoid and where they come from and how much is coming through this property. Haak: Okay, and I'll let Dave speak to drainage. We talked about that on the phone a little bit earlier. I'll let Dave speak to that in just a minute because he can do a much better job than I can. Basically the contaminants that we're looking at any sort of sediment that would come across the property and then any fertilizers, nutrients, grass clippings, leaves, any sort of thing like that. What the buffer would do is catch that material and just basically, it would fill in to the buffer. Become sediment for the buffer materials to grow in. So you would be removing those materials. In addition, I think a big part of this buffer would be shoreline stabilization and just making sure that those rocks stay where they are because I haven't seen any documentation on how that retaining wall was put in. So I'm not certain that it meets DNR standards. That's a completely different issue but I would like to see those plantings just so we are certain that we're not ending up with some fairly large boulders in the lake in the future, because as lake levels do rise and fall, you could end up with some erosion along the shoreline. So then I guess I'll turn it over to Dave and let him talk about drainage. Hempel: Thanks Lori. It's best at the podium for this one. To try to give you an overview of the drainage in the neighborhood, and if we could take, look over here Nann. The property is located here at the end of Lake Riley Boulevard. In conjunction with Lundgren Brothers development, the Springfield neighborhood, prior to it I should say, this was all agricultural field and most of the runoff from the ag fields went down through the Deerfoot Trail subdivision. Right on down to the lake. Additional runoff comes from the properties off of Kiowa Trail down through behind this property and goes into the cul- de-sac and down Lake Riley Boulevard. And prior to the Witt's home being built, there went through the lot and also down two more doors to the east. Since the Springfield development was constructed, stormwater management has been implemented and rectified the drainage problem that's been occurring down there over the past years. Divided up the drainage. Some going north. Some going south into a retention pond and the storm sewer line has been constructed through Deerfoot Trail on down to the lake, approximately two doors east of the Witt property. We still do have overland runoff coming from the properties on Kiowa down through the cul-de-sac. The street was reconstructed or overlaid a couple years ago to address some of the drainage issues that we had in the area. Storm water does now go down and is conveyed through storm sewer and catch basins in this location to a small... In conjunction with the property being built upon, the detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan was to be submitted in the building process. However that was not done and we did through field investigation work with the applicant to create or have constructed some swales along the property lines. Both to convey the runoff from the property to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern on the property and not push it off onto 39 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 the adjacent properties. On the east side of the property that still gets some runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard along the property line and a swale has been constructed there. However that still needs to be verified if it's been completed all the way down to the lake. So the inclusion, the amount of runoff that goes through the property today is significantly less than what was there probably 4 years ago, 5 years ago prior to the Springfield development going in. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sidney: One question, runoff. Would that be fertilizer and do you have sediments really coming through the property enough to manage them? . Hempel: Still some storm water runoff from the street. Snow melt from snow storage at the end of the cul-de-sac. The properties to the northwest off of Kiowa maintain lawns through there that may have some fertilizer. Chemicals. But I'd have to say the drainage overall through the area that used to go through the property has been significantly reduced. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I have a question and I don't know if it's for you or Lori but, this lot is like 24 feet wide. On both sides of that property there are probably hundreds of feet that have very little or not buffer plantings through it. How do you justify having buffer planting insisted upon on this 24 feet? In the context of there being hundreds of feet on both sides that have very little or not buffer plantings? Could you address that please? Haak: I guess primarily the first thing that I would remind you of is that this is a council condition and so while we think it's a good idea, it wasn't recommended by staff. So with that little caveat, we think it's a good idea and actually Cindy and I have talked about potentially pursuing it in lakeshore areas in the future. That has little bearing on this case. I guess the main argument for this is that this condition was a part of the variance request. It is directly related to the variance. Because they have encroached in that 75 foot setback, there is a more intense use of that shoreline. There is less shoreline. That shoreline will be more intensively used. If you have less of anything, if you have sheep crowded into a pasture or something like that. Kind of a crazy analogy but I'll use it. So I guess I would go with that perspective and certainly it is intensively used and if it was, if it didn't make sense, I don't think you'd have the staff support for it certainly but it does relate so, I think I had one other thing. It doesn't matter. Does that answer your question? Sacchet: Yes, thank you. Hempel: If I could just add a little bit onto that. The property still does receive some storm water runoff from the road. The other properties along Lake Riley Boulevard, most of that storm water runoff is conveyed down along the gutter line, down the storm sewer is where then it is put into a storm water basin and treated prior to discharging into the lake. The situation we still will have street runoff. Runoff from upstream properties that may go through the property and drainage swale so. As an added little caveat I guess. Peterson: Is that also, would that raise an issue like with, would solve another thing going through that property? Going through the, if we build it up and put, as recommended vegetation in there, will not their runoff kill it? Haak: I don't think you'll see massive. It's a rural road. I guess I wouldn't have a lot of concern about that. I couldn't say. I haven't looked at native plants and how they fare under salt conditions but my guess would be that they would do alright. We're not talking about a whole lot. If we were talking 40 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 about, as Dave said earlier, the entire area of Springfield, all those roads. That sort of thing, I would have more hesitation about how native plants would be able to do there. As it stands I don't see a problem. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Bob Witt: Hello. My name's Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. And the reason we're here today is really we went to council to get approval for the variances for this property to build the home. At the very end of the comments and everything that was made at that council meeting, it was late. It was probably oh, almost midnight. It was one of those all nighter's I guess you would call it. And at the very end, after everybody had basically made their comments and it seemed like everything was being approved, Congresswoman Jansen made the statement that she would like to. Peterson: Who? Kind: You said Congress. Bob Witt: Did you know who I meant? Kind: Yes. Bob Witt: Okay, then we're doing okay. Peterson: Actually I was wondering but. Bob Witt: Made the statement you know as just a friendly suggestion for us to work with staff on lakeshore plantings. But there was really no opportunity at that point for any clarification on what this might be and what type of thing we could expect or, you know and we just basically, we weren't thinking about it and didn't really, and nobody really asked for any clarification on what she really meant there. When we bought this lot at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard it was pretty much a mess and I guess you know Cindy and some of the others on staff can attest to it probably being one of the biggest files here with different opportunities or projects being tried to being built at this property so, and it was a mess. All the neighbors were saying, boy they're just excited to see something being built there finally because it's been such a mess. And some of you had a chance to come out and see it, and we appreciate that you had a chance to see it and you can see that it's a, we built, we put a building there and we were able to build something that everybody thinks looks great. It fits in with the whole lake concept. You know it's fieldstone and shakes. You know it really does, it looks like a lake property you know. Unlike a lot of the lake properties around there. And so we feel like we've done a really nice job with the place. One of the things that concerns us is, as we were looking through some of the different variances that were given on Lake Riley Boulevard in specific and we didn't really look into all the different lots on Lake Riley totally but just on Lake Riley Boulevard, there are variances up and down the lake. And there are a lot of them where they encroach on that 75 foot setback to the lake. There is a lot of them. Up and down there. And in none of those did we find that staff recommended that there would be lakeshore plantings. Or that as a part of those variances that there would be Lakeshore plantings. And a very recent one was the Sifter's just to our west. West of us and they have a 100, a little over 100 feet of lakeshore I believe. Somewhere in that area. And they were just granted a variance for their garage which is down by the lake. And they don't have any, they weren't required to do any lakeshore plantings and it would seem to 41 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 me that if this is a good idea and supported by staff and by the city, that it would have been required there. And draw your own conclusions on that but we just kind of feel it's a little funny that again that we have such a small lot and are required to do it, and I think it's because of the statement by Ms. Jansen that we do it. Brinn Witt: In that picture you can see that the garage is closer to the lake than the house is and runoff from that, since we were just, there's no lakeshore protection off their 100 feet there. And then kind of consistent through the neighborhood there. That there is no protection. Bob Witt: I just want to, just give you kind of a little bit of a background of what we've actually done to the lot for improvement up til now. We didn't remove any, we haven't moved any trees or anything from the lot to put this home on the lot, but when we went in there we found a lot of, actually when we started to build the house we found you know a $15,000 addition to our project in that as they started to dig they couldn't find anything to, solid enough to build on. So they had to dig down, I believe it was something like about 8 feet, all the way around the whole lot basically and pull out. I won't say what the construction workers call it but they call it loon stuff. We'll call it that. Kind of a sludge. Kind of a dark, mucky kind of a sludge stuff. We pulled out 68 truckloads of that to the tune of $15,000 and refilled it with sand which is of course a fantastic filter for any kind of runoff that you would have. It's going to filter that very well. What we have done as well is we built three boulder walls. We took a lot of boulders out of, there was just a truckload of boulders that were just dumped in the lake by the previous owner with no erosion cloth or anything. They just basically took a whole truckload and dumped these boulders in the water. We spent over $6,000 to remove the boulders from the water to clean that up. And then we put a double layer of erosion cloth in to protect the, from erosion going into the lake. And then built up a wall. We not only built our 24 feet, but also while we're doing it we had the heavy equipment in there. Mr. Sitter asked if we would, you know if he could use some of the rocks and at a cost of $1,600 to me, I built another 20 feet into his area with the erosion cloth and with the boulders that we pulled out. And we've done it, and it's only just a two course wall and it's only just a two course wall but it's enough to hold back the water and then to hold back any of the erosion from the, that might come through the lot. The other two boulder walls that we built were around either side of the house, and those were built up basically so we wouldn't have a steep grade on the side of the house where there'd be a fast, quick runoff from this side of the house. We also put in a gutter system all the way around the house to protect from just water rushing off of the house and being able to direct the water from coming off of the house that way. We've installed 5 pine trees. We've installed 3 of them on the east side and 2 on the west side of the house. 5 dogwoods and a number of, if you look at the house and if you've been out there you can see that we've got a lot of perennials around the house as well too. That can assist in that as well. And to answer one of the concerns that staff had about the, some of the runoff and the things that might go into the lake. When we do fertilize we use all natural fertilizers and when we do mow our lawn we mow and bag everything. It's very small so I mean it only, we only have to go over it basically once and that's all we get is one bag off of it so it's very, so we're not going to have any of that. Whereas most of our other neighbors, you know they'll have lawn services or the neighbors of our's to the west, they just mow and their clippings go right into the lake actually. Let's see, what else can we say? Brinn Witt: I'd just like to point out one other thing. This was dropped off by Councilwoman Jansen. Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Control. Very good book and I certainly understand the concept and support it. In the back of the book it says protect an eroding shoreline and it basically says if you have ongoing erosion problems which cannot be solved by the use of vegetation, placing large rocks or boulders, rip rap with filter material underneath the shore is also an effective solution. And when that 42 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 was brought up at the variance meeting, one of the last ones, that's what went through my mind when that was brought up. Bob Witt: And I think one of the last things I'd like to say is that, when we purchased the lot, you know we were excited to live in Chanhassen. We were excited to live on the lake. And if you look at the amount, and you've seen the lot and the size of it, we just don't have a lot of space there to use the lake. You know there's only, again there's only 24 feet of lakeshore there and if you're going to play a yard game and you've got, you might even have sent around the picture. Brinn Witt: Yeah I did. Bob Witt: You know we're doing some yard games. There's not, and then if you start putting plantings all the way up in there, it's going to make it almost impossible to get down there and use the lake or to even do yard games you know. And we don't do a ton of that but, Brinn and I are very conscience of the environment. We go to the Boundary Waters a lot. And we're going to do whatever we can to protect the natural resource there. And would like to even see things like, that we feel are maybe even more detrimental to the lake like the amount of boat traffic that's on that lake. I mean there's some times on Pioneer Trail we see boat trailers going all the way up past Bearpath and those are all boats that are on our lake and those are all the little guys. What are those things? Jet skis. You know the jet skis, those types of things. And there is a ton of gas getting poured into that lake and I would think that that would probably be one of our biggest concerns really on there as well, but again we'd just like to use the lot for what we bought it for and we're going to protect the resources but we just want to be able to have the back yard that we can use and so we'd like to see this removed from the variance request if that's possible. And again, as we look at all the other variances that have been given along Lake Riley Boulevard, we don't see any in there where they've been required to do Lakeshore plantings. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Brinn Witt: I have spent Monday mornings picking up beer cans and cigarette butts and everything from the weekend before from all the activity on the lake and I don't mind. I mean I guess I mind that they're there but you know we like to see a clean lake as well. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicants. My main question for you is, why wouldn't you want to plant anything there? Now you had touched a little bit in terms of the space constraints. I'd like you to focus on that a little more. I mean you see all the benefits and trying to take care of the environment and you don't want any plantings there? I mean what, why don't you tell me a little bit about that. Bob Witt: Yeah, we'd like not to see any plantings down there other than what we've got right now. We've got 2 trees on the east side of the lot that have been there for a long time. Those are deciduous trees that have been there for a lot, I'm guessing probably at least 10 years I would assume with the size. of the trees. But it's just as we look at it and we started to kind of map it out and we drew the lines and we just basically put down some stakes and then ran some lines up the side of the yard. And as we started kind of looking at how we would lay this out, it takes up all of our ability to use the lake. I mean and to use the yard for anything else other than it being basically a garden back there and not being able to use it for any yard games or have the access, because we've got a canoe that comes in and out of the lake. Brinn Witt: There's a fire pit down there. 3 foot fire pit. 43 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Bob Witt: Right. And then of course we've got a Golden Retriever that's. Brinn Witt: Thinks she's in heaven. Bob Witt: Yeah, she's in heaven and she does a lot of laps in there. Sacchet: So what you're saying is like that, I believe some of the options that were proposed were leaving space for canoe access and that sort of stuff like maybe one side of the dock. One more planted and spread it out. You don't see like there's any space for plantings for what you've done? Bob Witt: Really we don't. And as we look at it, you know of course we're comparing a lot to you know if we had 100 feet of lakeshore out there like either one of our neighbors or some of the other neighbors on the lake have, we could see where it would, you know we could design something and it would look right and it would fit. But you know when we look at, again the neighbors to our east who just got a variance and they've got 100 feet, yet they don't have any plantings down. They have zero plantings down there right now. And weren't required to do any plantings but there you could see where you know you could design something and it would fit and it would look nice, and they've got the same exact drainage that we have. Our lot lines are right next to each other. And so they've got a lot more ability to use their yard and now they don't have to do any plantings as well too. Sacchet: So you're basically saying, there's two more things here and one is the fairness versus the other ones. And the other one is the benefit of the planting by itself. _ Bob Witt: Well you know, and I don't know that, I guess one of the things that we're hearing with the plantings is that it's supposed to catch some of the different things that are, like lawn clippings and leaves and things of that nature. We're bagging all that. Fertilizer, we're using natural fertilizer. You know we're using the things that are going to be a benefit and they're not going to hinder the quality of the lake. So we're not going to be putting anything in there that's going to be hindering the quality of the water. And so we just don't see where it's going to, you know we want to be able to use what yard we have there. I mean along the sides of the house and those types of things and the swales, those types of things we're going to do whatever we can to comply and make those work the best that we can for what's required. For what you ask us to do. We'd be more than happy to do what we can there. But we'd just like to be able to have, we might even have the smallest yard in Chanhassen. I don't know. I mean it's tiny. It is really small and I think anybody who'd live on that lot would like to at least have a little bit of yard to move around on and not feel like we're just totally... Sacchet: Yeah, one last question. When you got all the variances to be able to build that beautiful house you have there, one view to look at this thing is that in order to balance the granting of some of the variances, this condition was put onto it. And but you're saying at the time you didn't really understand that condition? I mean because one approach would be that I could see taking with this is well, this is basically something you agree to in the context of getting the variances you needed. And then you find out that it's really not so convenient to do your part. And I'm not saying that I'm taking that position but it's one possible position I could be taking. Bob Witt: Sure, I understand. Sacchet: What would you reply to that? 44 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Bob Witt: Well I would say this. Again, it was a late meeting and I think that if you look back on, as we look back on the meeting, all the people that were present on the council that evening were in support of it. We had each one of them come out to the lot. Show them what we were planning on doing and what we were planning on building. And a lot of the requests had the deck was really what was going over which really isn't impervious surface anyway. And as we looked at that and we showed that to them, how it kind of lined up with the other houses and the other variances that were given on the lake, each of them, none of them really had a problem with it. They said it looks great. It looks like it's in line and that was what was said in the meeting too. I mean you could sense that in the meeting that each person was in favor of the building project as it stood. And it was just one of those things where Ms. Jansen made the comment at the end and I don't know if anybody was really even listening to it. I'm not sure, you know in the clarification of it was it really, if there was some clarification to it, maybe there would have been maybe some more objection to it. Or whatever but we thought maybe it was in building our boulder wall, which we did, which we felt was a big thing and that we cleaned up the Lakeshore there. And then as we put the other plantings around the side of the house, you know we thought that but we really wanted to have what little back yard we could have. We wanted to see it. Sacchet: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, what do you think about this one? Ladd what do you think about it? Conrad: They don't want me to talk first. Just a couple things. Grass and boulders are absolutely no filter on the property so they are, they stabilize the shoreline with boulders but in terms of runoff, which is really the intent of what I think staff and City Council is trying to do, there's zip. Grass is probably the least filtration plat you can have, especially, yeah it is leached. Maybe purple loosestrife is worse but. I think my interpretation is that council had a point. I think they gave in on some things and trying to get lessen the impact on the lake so I don't know that I could change the staff interpretation right now. I certainly could change it. You know you want to have reasonable use of the lake and I don't think we want to turn it into a wilderness area down there. When I look at your neighbors, shame on them. They're all doing a bad job. But they're there and you're coming in but they're all doing an awful job when I look at the pictures there. I think, and I do live on a lake and we kind of preach how to care for it and some people listen and some people don't. But the point is they should have some, you know I don't think we want to turn it into a natural. It should fit into the character of the neighborhood. Yet on the other hand 1 think the City Council had a point when they granted a variance and this is a condition that was tied to it. I'm not sure which is the right thing to do for plantings down there. I think there's some common sense that has to be applied here but something has to be done there because it's not meeting the intent. They'd like to have it out. I think there's a tie to the variance and I can't eliminate that so, I'm not sure what the actual planting configuration should be but I think there should be something there. There should be something there. Peterson: Other comments? Anything? 45 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Well Mr. Chairman, I agree with Ladd. It was tied to the conditions of approval. There were several variances granted and this was just one of the conditions so, to me I certainly understand the intent of the City Council in doing that. And it's not uncommon to say to staff, you know work with staff to determine what's going to be best and the reason that we do that is because we don't always know what's best and so we're looking for their expertise and their guidance as to what could work in that area. But we just, we say we intend to do this. We want to do this and you guys figure out the nifty gritty but just understand what we're trying to say and I think that's exactly what council is trying to do. Is to say you know, we need to start somewhere and we need to try to mitigate the runoff into the lake. Not necessarily erosion with boulders but the runoff. And I don't necessarily agree with 6 foot plants. I don't think that's going to wreck their view but I would certainly think that there'd be something that would be a little less tall that could go in there that would serve the same purpose. I mean it's a cute house. There's great landscaping out in front and it could be really nice down there but yet still giving access to the dock, the canoe. That type of thing. So I really think that we need to, I agree with staff's interpretation as well. And I also think this might be a great time for us to look into a lakeshore buffer ordinance because it just, it just dovetails right in. And if this is what we're going to do, I mean if this is something we're going to start requiring, then maybe we need an ordinance to say you know, this is our intent. This is what we're trying to accomplish and kind of formalize it so there aren't any questions. But again, it was a condition of approval. They knew it going in. If they didn't understand it, the time to ask questions was a year ago before this all started. And I just feel that it was a reasonable request by City Council. Kind: Continuing on down the line. ...was worded. I'm not sure if I agree with the condition and I don't know how to handle that. I'm wondering if, I don't know. If we can meddle with the wording of the condition. I don't think that's our place but I think staff's interpreting the condition correctly. I keep coming back to the consistency point and also the fact that we're talking about 24 feet of lakeshore and an idea of having 6 foot plantings on such a narrow little swath when the neighbors to either side aren't doing anything. With lakeshore I think aesthetics are really important and how it looks from the lake and to me it's just going to look kind of silly. And I don't know, that's kind of petty little response I guess but that's kind of how I feel. I can't get by how goofy it's going to look and I think it's going to look unkept and I also think that the point about the Sitter property just receiving a variance after this and it not being attached to that, and they are definitely encroaching more than 75 feet and there was no such condition attached and I think we really need to be consistent on that. And it wasn't attached to that so. I guess I'm in favor of taking it off. I don't know how we go about that. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I went out to the property this morning and viewed it and I do agree with Deb that you know trying to make this a natural area as proposed would look out of context and actually a little goofy when you're looking at that. But I was thinking one thing we don't know, we're saying when we have runoff and you know fertilizer and maybe no particulates but we don't know how much we're trying to treat and we don't have the idea of what scale of plantings we even need. We're just, unless I'm missing something, we don't have the data showing that this particular piece of property requires plantings of X square feet to treat X gallons of water for something. So we're just kind of saying we need something. We don't know what we need and then we have people who would like to enjoy their property at the same time so I guess my gut feel is, it's not the right place to really implement this type of condition. You know if it were 1,000 feet of lakeshore, yes. That makes a lot of sense but not in this case. 46 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I think this is a situation that calls for compromise. I do believe that the 3 options, which is really more like 2 options of potential plantings that were given to the applicant, ate not feasible because they're like two half bubbles that don't go along. I mean it doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. But neither does it make sense to me that we should totally remove the request of doing some plantings. I really would like to see some plantings there. A reasonable amount. I mean we don't want to have to be an all again or nothing. It may be on one side of their deck you could plant something. It wouldn't have to come quite as far in. Maybe have some plantings in the lake on one side of the dock so on the other side you have the use for canoeing. Not having it all that much come into your yard so you have reasonable use of your yard without being really impacted. I would like to see something rather than just strike it out of existence. Then on the other hand I do think that the way this is laid out here, besides that it's not fair in terms of the context of what's. happening around and I do think, I don't think it's going to look silly Deb because the property next to the Sitter's actually does have little plantings so it's not going to be out of context to have a little bit something. But I think it's out of context to go to the extent that staff is recommending. Now I would recommend on that basis that staff would work with the applicant to see how some thing between the two can be done that is agreeable to the applicant and that makes sense from a viewpoint of looking at the erosion, of the runoff, of all those aspects. That we're interested from a city viewpoint in terms of the lake preservation as far as that's possible within such a small context. That's basically where I'm at with this. Peterson: Good, thank you. I'll make my comments and then you can add to that if you would. I think that, as I've read this thing a half dozen times and I looked at the site briefly. I kept thinking, it just doesn't seem logical to put the condition in the first place. You know we all have to start somewhere but this doesn't seem to be a logical starting point from my perspective of taking care of the lake. And I think, I agree a little bit with Uli but I can't picture what, if we put 3 feet of plantings in there, if that's going to really make any difference. I mean I don't want to compromise and then have it provide any value. We're just compromising for the sake of compromising versus just say cutting loose and not having to deal with it. So I'm at a loss there but I'm leaning towards cutting it loose more than I am compromising and that's based on naivety perhaps but I'm concerned that if we compromise, are we really gaining anything. So that's a question I think yet to be determined. Kate what if we, does this go onto the Council? Aanenson: Thank you, I was going to bring that up as a point of order. Just for clarity, what you're asked to do tonight is to give an interpretation of the staff s, their interpretation of the staff's opinion of this. So that's what you're here to do. If you want to take the variance off, that's a whole other process. In order to expedite this you can make another interpretation. I'm kind of waiting to see where you go. Also on this, it does need 4/5 votes. Otherwise it goes up to the council. So the condition was to do some landscaping. Okay. They said they believe they've accomplished that. Just for argument sake, you could say that's an interpretation. That met the interpretation. The rock scape. We're saying that it needs something more than that. That's our interpretation. Okay so that's where you're at. If you want to take the condition off completely, we have to go back through a process to take the condition off. Peterson: So if we said that we agree with staffs interpretation, would it go onto the council? Aanenson: If there's 4/5 vote, they have a right to appeal that still further. Right. No matter what. To answer your question, yes. Peterson: Okay. So hearing that. 47 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Kind: I have a question for staff. Just to clarify one more time. So I agree with your interpretation of the condition and you're saying that the time to remove the condition would at the City Council level? Aanenson: No. That's a whole other process. What you're deciding, we gave them an alternative. They're appealing the interpretation of how we're applying. They believe that the rock meets that. We're saying it doesn't. So that's what they're appealing. That interpretation. There's a whole separate process to have a condition of approval taken off. So that would have to come back through. Right. Kind: We can't handle that right here? Aanenson: Right. Peterson: So if we unanimously agree with staff, it wouldn't go onto council? Aanenson: I'm certain they would probably appeal it. Peterson: Okay. That's what I'm saying. They have the choice. Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Okay. Sacchet: May I ask a question? Now we would go with, could we ask staff to strike a compromise over the 2 or 3 options I should say, alternative A, B and C that are currently attached to that condition? Is that within our range to ask that to be relaxed a little bit? Aanenson: Right. The condition reads, the applicant shall install Lakeshore planting. Sacchet: It doesn't say specifically these? Aanenson: Right. Lori's giving you her direction on what that means but. Haak: And I was just going to add as kind of a couple little side points here. There's some concern about the height of the plantings. These are my interpretations. My renditions. I use the same book that Brinn brought up. I took a look through it. Just thought you know, this is a place to start so certainly I won't take offense. I'm not landscape architect. I won't take offense if you would recommend shorter plants. If like Uli said you would narrow the strip a little bit. Traditionally, buffer strips to be effective are recommended to be 15 to 16 feet wide. That's just kind of a standard practice. On this lot, I did the math after I talked to you. Commissioner Deb. Sorry, I'm still learning. Kind: You're doing great. Haak: And it's about, if you include all of the area, the 25 x 25 feet 625 square feet is what you're talking. And then if you take out the 5 feet for the middle and then the little bit on the one side, it ends up being less than that. So just some other things that I kind of heard you getting around so if you have any other questions as far as the. 48 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Sacchet: One more question Mr. Chair if I may. Craig's concern was that if we reduce the amount, like what I was proposing like going about halfway, would it actually lose it's benefit in terms of what it's . going to do? Haak: Well that kind of ties into the 16 feet that I was playing around with. I recommended a little wider because it is such a narrow, a little bit deeper because it is a narrow area, but I think 15 or 16 feet would still accomplish your goals. Certainly I would say, if you're looking at erosion, the most critical points would be right around the wall. And you know getting a couple plantings right in front of the rocks and right behind the rocks. Just to stabilize that a little bit more because that's what I see is potentially the biggest erosion issue. Peterson: Thank you. Well does anyone want to tackle on a motion? Blackowiak: Well I will. I'll move that the Planning Commission affirms staff interpretation of the condition of approval for the lakeshore setback variance, Brinn and Bob Witt, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, could we consider an amendment? Peterson: Let me get a second to that. Conrad: I second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: I would like to propose an amendment to, how would we word that. To allow staff to work with the applicant to find a planting solution other than what is being proposed. Brinn Witt: That's what we have. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say Mr. Chair, I wouldn't. Brinn Witt: We have three plans, I don't care for any of them. Sacchet: I'm saying other than those. Bob Witt: Can I ask... Peterson: No, let's get our vote done. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't accept that amendment because it's a yes or no. Either we affirm that it's a lakeshore buffer planting. Is it a correct condition? Does the condition, do we agree with staff s interpretation of the condition, yes or no? And I don't think it's our place to start putting other conditions on it, like Kate said. That's City Council and if we want to start changing, that's a totally different issue. So my motion tonight is, my motion is the Planning Commission affirms staff's interpretation period. Peterson: My only concern with that is that we're just passing it off to City Council saying you deal with it then. 49 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Well they're the ones. Peterson: Well regardless, I just don't see the appropriateness of that. Blackowiak: But I agree with staff s, I do agree with their interpretation that boulders are not lakeshore buffer plantings. Peterson: I agree but what we're trying to do is trying to find a creative solution to address both the issues but Kate do you think there's a way to do that or not? Aanenson: Well, just what Lori said. I think that the critical spot is in front of the boulder walls. Does that mean 3, 6 feet? Now we'll go look at that. Certainly what we heard tonight from the applicant is that they don't think the 25's going to work. I've heard from some of you that may be excessive. Lori said 15 feet's minimum so we're trying to find a critical area that we can put some lakeshore, meet the intent and still do some due diligence to get that intent. I guess I leave it up to the applicant to say what, you know if they're not going to do anything, then I'm not sure there's any point to it. Back to where Alison's at so. Bob Witt: Can I ask a question at this point? The question that I would have would be, do those plantings need to be next to the lake? Is it something, because what we're trying to do is we're trying to be able to enjoy what little piece of property that we have down there. If there were some plantings or something along the, what you would call the swale area or the drainage area along the two lots. If maybe we did something on that but not going past the side of the house basically. You know that, so that we could at least enjoy the little piece of, little postage stamp piece of a lot that we have. Now the erosion on, this is what's blowing me away, is erosion on the boulder wall that's there. Nothing's going to erode from there. We've got all the erosion cloth in there and everything. If there's erosion, I think if you look next to like the Sitter's for instance, they've got nothing put up there. They've got creosol soaked ties in the water. None of this was looked at in their variance and I'm just, it just drives me nuts you know seeing this. And we're feeling honestly extremely picked on you know. And I think if you were in our position you'd feel the same way. You know and I'm trying to, we're trying to do what we can here and we'll be more than happy to work with you on something like that but we've got to be able to keep the lakeshore that we've got. We can't give up... Peterson: Alright, alright. Alright. This is going to be 11:30 before, we'll have another negative vote on 11:30 like what the council did. Alright so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, just a comment. Dave, swales by the lake, is there any benefit to sculpting out a little bit, just to stop the water from going straight in? Because that's what, again I don't think you heard what I said. Boulders don't stop the, anything from going in the water. It stabilizes the lakeshore but it doesn't stop. Brinn Witt: Curb and gutters do and that's what Dave was saying was corrected from the runoff from the... Conrad: Okay. Boulders don't solve the problem, that's probably why we're believing the staff report, or confirming it but in terms of the swale down there Dave, instead of plantings you create a swale, which is a little dip. What do we think about that? 50 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Hempel: That was one of the requirements along the side of the home. Contain the water on the property so it wouldn't go onto the adjacent properties. However as we get back towards the lakeshore, the idea is to let that swale dissipate and sheet drainage the flow over the property so we don't have the direct impact that will force an erosion problem at the beach area. So actually the swales do kind of go away as you get back towards the lake. Now maybe Lori can add something to that as far as plantings specific areas make more sense on the sides or. Haak: Well, it's a unique situation, I'll give it that. To catch some of the sediment and debris and nutrients that may come off the road, plantings in the swale may be effective. I haven't seen it used. I don't know what kind of design the applicant would be proposing. Certainly I would encourage them to seek a landscape architect or something like that if they wish to pursue that and I would be more than happy to sit down with them to do that. As well as any sort of lakeshore plantings we might arrive at at any point in the future. I couldn't say right off hand. I could check some literature. Check with some people in the field. See kind of what their recommendation would be for this area because it is a challenge. It's a small piece of property, but the thing I keep coming back to is, it was a year. It was a year before we heard from the Witt's after that condition was put on and they have expressed to me while I was on site that they're just, they're not interested in planting their piece of lakeshore and so the proposals that I worked up were kind of pie in the sky ideas because what I was hearing from the Witt's was that they just weren't interested in that so I guess at this point, you know before we start hashing out all those arguments, it's whether or not they are willing to do the plantings and I guess the issue in front of us today is just staff interpretations. Sidney: You know Mr. Chairman, I guess when I'm listening here I'm still, I want to know how much runoff we really have to treat in this case and I can't imagine it's a lot at all that's really going to mitigate the whole debate here. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners let me. That is a very valid point. I mean the drainage area to that location has been reduced. So maybe there is more investigation to be done to determine that may assist us in determining actually how much buffer is actually needed. Peterson: I mean is your sense that this lot is any different than if you take 25 feet of the neighbors lot on either side, is there going to be substantially more or less or the same? Hempel: This lot is different than the Sitter's to the west. This does take runoff from the road. Sitter's runoff basically falls on the yard or falls on the roof top and goes to the lake. This property takes the street runoff and additional upstream properties as well under larger rainfall events and snow melt. That's the difference. Peterson: Alright. Other comments to the motion and a second? Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission affirm staffs interpretation of the condition of approval for lakeshore buffer plantings for Bob and Brinn Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Sacchet: I abstain. Peterson: For reasons being? 51 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Sacchet: For reasons as stated before that I feel a compromise would be better. I don't question that this is the correct interpretation of staff, but I would like to build in some flexibility for staff to work beyond just what's in front of us. Kind: And Mr. Chair I'd like to add a comment too. I agree with staff s interpretation that a boulder . wall and Kentucky blue grass is not plantings for filtering but, and that's what I'm affirming by my yes vote. But I do question the condition and encourage the applicant to seek whatever means they need to with the City Council to revise that because it just, for consistency and for 24 foot. lots, it just seems out of place to me. Peterson: Agree, as do I. With that in mind a City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of this board's decision. It will be placed on the next available City Council agenda which would be? Aanenson: I'm not sure if it would be the 14"' or the one thereafter. Peterson: Okay. So it will be the next month. So appeal to staff within four days and then make your respective plea with the council. Okay? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 70' X 120' PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PARK NEAR THE ENTRANCE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Jeff Wyant: My name's Jeff Wyant. I'm with Engelhardt Associates and we worked on the civil portion of these plans. HTG Architects did the building design and Hoisington-Koegler did the landscape plans so if you have any questions on the engineering portion, I can surely answer it and I can try to answer anything on the building. Peterson: If you were to speculate. If we said you had 20% more money to spend, would the architect still design a building, do you think these would substantially change? How much of the building design do you think was driven by just pure, this is the money we have to spend? Jeff Wyant: I would say it was driven by just meeting the ordinances. I don't think the money was an issue at all. Aanenson: Substantial change was made through the whole process from what originally came in so. I believe the original estimate was closer to $400 or $500,000. It will be closer to $750-800,000 now. And again that was the fencing issues. The block. Adding the brick. All those were add on's. Peterson: I guess the reason for my question, and part of this is maybe a speech. I guess even today after those changes Kate, if this was a commercial building, you know I would request and not approve if architecturally it didn't have more interest. You know I think that this is an opportunity that we as a city to make a statement about who we are and how we want to be perceived by the community and if this building is evidence of how we want to be perceived, then my perspective is we're woefully lacking. So 52 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 it just doesn't do it. I think that the City should have higher standards of architectural design and quality than the commercial side because it is a statement of who we are and how we want to be perceived. As I go over now and I've been traveling a lot.the last couple years and obviously I take notice of what the cities are doing and there's a lot of neat buildings that are being designed across the country that have character to them that speak to who their state. And this statement I don't want to repeat this statement. So that was my speech so anyway. Sorry to take up your quality time. Questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question. It speaks a little bit of the same thing. Just express, how far is it away from Lake Ann Park Road or Drive, whatever it is? Aanenson: It's in the report. I think it's 50 feet. Sacchet: 50 feet from the drive. Blackowiak: I thought it was 60. Sacchet: ...right around 60. The reason why I ask is, do we need all that maintenance yard space behind it? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Because when I went out there I realized it was a significant setback from the road, but then also felt it was close to the road because this is a park. And I felt that if we want to maintain the character of the park and get it further away, which apparently you can't. Aanenson: In the site plans you can see where the existing building was and where it sits in proximity. ...plan shows the existing building. Sacchet: There are some stakes out there ... one of the front ones. Aanenson: ...frontage road but it's in that approximate. But it is increasing in size significantly. Sacchet: Right. It's going to be much bigger than the shed that's currently there. And it's quite a bit closer to the road. So that use is ... for basically the trees? Because the trees are all on the maps we got and the trees are obviously there and they're pretty easily identifiable. So basically my concern is, is that the statement you want to make to have like the building so prominent I mean in the park setting? Aanenson: Two points. It is the access issue. Getting in and out. To get the equipment to plow the sidewalks. A lot of that is housed out of this building. For proximity. To get it close to the entrance. Do they want to go into the park for all that? Security reasons. Again with the ambulatory service, you want it closer to the perimeter of the park, and it's in the approximate location it was before without tree loss or greater intrusion into the park. In that approximate area. Working with the trail and the structure going on underneath. There isn't a lot of flexibility. We looked at a couple different orientations. Trying to preserve a tennis court. Looking at taking the tennis courts out. All those options were explored and meeting with all the staff, departments. Building, engineering, we felt that this was probably the best location as far as minimizing impact to the area. And again, all the parking for the employees, everything else will be behind the building. Even the people using the ambulance service. Their parking will be behind the building so when they come in, you shouldn't see —which doesn't show 53 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 up on the building. We're trying to give a nice look to the front of the building and have all the other activity coming to the rear in the parking. Sacchet: I do believe that that concern can be mitigated to a large extent through the plantings but I wanted to hear what you had to say. Kind: Kate, will you speak to the ambulance service and how that works. Is there a person that's there that responds to calls? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: So this facility will basically have personnel. I can't even construct a sentence anymore. Aanenson: I don't know if they're there 24 hours a day. I thought they were. There's someone that's housed there for dispatch. Kind: So that might address some of the security issues with the glass block. I have kind of an issue with how that looks. I think real glass would look better. Aanenson: We talked about the spandrow. The thing is is that they're in there lifting things back and forth. Kind: And they're not real careful? Yeah, it's more durable than security maybe. Aanenson: Yeah. And there's kids up there. Activity. It is isolated. Even though the ambulance is next door. I'm not sure if they're in the back part of the building, which they will be because the ambulance is up front. They're in the back part of the building. Kind: Now how does that work? This is probably not related to this proceedings but does Ridgeview pay us for use of a certain amount of square footage? Oh sorry, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I was just curious. Sacchet: There is another concern Mr. Chair. Are we going to have ambulances speeding out of our Lake Ann Park then? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: With lights flashing. Aanenson: Yes. Saccliet: Is that not a security issue? Peterson: Or safety. Saccliet: Safety issue, I mean safety issue. We have kids going in and out of the park... Aanenson: I'm not sure it's any different than the fire trucks here by the school. 54 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Sacchet: That's true. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple quick questions here. The first, is there going to be any outdoor non fenced storage like there is now? Aanenson: No. That was a condition that they, the planning -staff said that would be large enough to accommodate all outdoor storage and it be, the original plans called for chain link and we said it had to be wood. Opaque. Blackowiak: Okay. And then secondly, I didn't see any condition about cleaning up what's there. There's a lot of stuff. Aanenson: Outdoors right now? Blackowiak: Well actually the, last time I really walked down there I think the boats were still up but just junk. Aanenson: Right, and that's the stuff that's stored outdoors... Blackowiak: Yeah. Aanenson: And that's all going to be moved in there. That building is down. They sold the building. And that building is removed so it's the pole barn is not there. So everything is outdoors right now. Blackowiak: Right, so we won't see anything outdoors? Aanenson: It will all be in storage. Blackowiak: Because as you go to the'west of the building I guess it is a little bit right now, you know in the back where they store all the stuff. As you go down the hill and, there's just a bunch of stuff. I mean like old concrete blocks and parking curb things you know with the yellow paint. Aanenson: I guess I would ask that you make an additional recommendation to insure that. Blackowiak: That it's all cleaned up. Aanenson: Yep. Blackowiak: And it may well have been, I didn't really trapse down there too far but I did last year. Aanenson: Again, let me go back to one of the plans... Again some of this is being driven by the frontage road and the grading. Some of that's already being set in place. Some of that impact for the frontage road and the trail. So this is kind of following that same, I mean setting in place some other motions of what that elevation will be and the siting so again that's kind of how we... should it be, remove the tennis courts. Should it be going here? How does that work with the existing grades? Peterson: Any other questions? Okay. Thanks for sticking around. 55 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Jeff Wyant: No problem. Peterson: For all those questions you got answered right. Jeff Wyant: I knew that's how it would be but that's the way it goes. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any volunteers for this quick summary? Kind: Mr. Chair I'll take a stab at it. I agree with your comments that I think the city should be setting the example of the kind of architecture that we want to see. Especially, I consider this the Highway 5 corridor and we're talking about coming up with some material standards and, I just don't see this as being a fine example of what we want other people to do so I'd really like to improve the look of the building. Otherwise I'm fine with the conditions. I like Alison's idea of adding a clean-up. I don't know what we do. Do we table it and look at it again? Aanenson: I believe the council ultimately will make a decision on this so I would recommend that you, if you want to talk about the architecture, that it be improved, you just put that condition. Peterson: Other comments? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So we have the clean-up and we have the more architectural interest like cupola and all that stuff. And should we add something about that little more front planting? Or do we think there is enough there to mitigate that it's. Peterson: I think it depends upon the architecture. If your architecture is more. Sacchet: Then you want to see the building. Okay. I would agree with that, okay. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: I agree with your's. It's a boring building and it's sort of welcoming to the park. The entrance which you find in any kind of development. It's the entrance that counts. And this entrance doesn't count. Kind: This should be as nice as the Snyder building. Conrad: I think, it is a maintenance and so it's hard to put a lot of money into something that's just holding stuff. But it's not, we shouldn't do it. Peterson: If that's the case, then you take it out of the public eye. Conrad: Yeah. Totally agree. Totally agree. 56 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Peterson: I just, with as much emotion as I can generate I will be extremely sadden if this goes through because it's just totally inappropriate I think for the image that I have heard passionately council members articulate on who we want to be and more importantly what we are. So if this goes through it will change my view of really how we want as a city to develop. Sacchet: It's light years beyond what's currently there. But that doesn't mean that it's sufficient. Peterson: So, a motion and a second please. Kind: Mr. Chairman I would move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-9 for Lake Ann Park maintenance building as shown on the plans prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Inc. dated June 11, 2000 and subject to the following conditions 1 through 9. With a condition number 10. That the applicant shall clean up the site. Number 11. Applicant will work with staff to improve architecture to make a great first impression into Lake Ann Park. Awesome? Peterson: It's not that late. Is there a second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-9 for Lake Ann Park Maintenance. Building as shown on the plans prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. dated June 11, 2000 and subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Service Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The storm water runoff from the maintenance yard shall be pretreated prior to discharging into Bluff Creek. A sump catch basin with a skimming device shall be installed to collect sediment and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off site. The location and design of the storm sewer shall also be modified to discharge at the creek to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. 5. The applicant shall change the chain link fence around maintenance yard to wood privacy fence. 6. The applicant shall change Autumn Purple white ash to American linden and Pin oak to Red oak in the plant schedule. 57 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 7. A lighting plan shall be limited to security lighting only and shall be consistent with city ordinances. 8. Signs shall be limited to monument sign only. 9. The Fire Department has the following conditions: a. PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the six inch water main coming into the building. b. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operation by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. C. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department regarding premise identification. The building is required to be assigned an address number and numbers should be displayed per Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d. The Fire Department sprinkler connection will be required to be located on the east corner of the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exactly location. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required at the ambulance entrance. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 10. The applicant shall clean up the site. 11. Applicant will work with staff to improve architecture to make a great first impression into Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW, OLD BUSINESS, ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: I'm passing out an update. I put that together. I just wanted to let you know on the August Ist we do have a subdivision up in Minnewashta. I gave you an update, the other one has withdrawn. Minnewashta overlook. Going for 3 and they needed the 90 foot frontage. That one has withdrawn. This is another subdivision down, closer to Kings Road. Chapel Hill came back in for architectural review. We got a glitch ordinance clean-up. Flag lot amendment discussion and then another large addition for ... more than double the size of their building. And then the tower may be back on if they get that one done. I put together this Planning Commission update. Kind of broke it into a couple of categories. Just to let you know. The biggest thing we needed to finish up here is the comprehensive plan rezoning. It's a lot of work. We are just overloaded managing applications and projects but we need to try to get that done this fall. The glitch ordinance we also, the 60 x 40 versus 60 x 60. We're getting challenged on everything. Everything that's not black and white so things start getting challenged, we're going to add pictures. It was never our intent to say it had to be a perfect square. We have very few square houses in the community. We'll address that. Clear it up. And then there's a few 58 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 other ones. The one that was on tonight, Mark Undestad's. There was a wetland setback question we did talk to Roger on as far as accessory structures. He interpreted the parking lot as an accessory structure. Did have to meet the setback. That kind of wasn't out intent so we'll go back and fix that too. So as . things come up, so you'll see that next week. As a staff we kind of have a list of things. Flag lots, that was an issue paper. That's coming to you next week. At your next meeting, excuse me. Landscape escrow, just as an FYI based on the fact that we are painting the water tower. It was my recommendation that we're not taking escrow. What I'm going to tell people if they can't plant it and I'm holding their money so hopefully that's not going to come back to haunt us. I'm assuming most people are going to be good stewards, whether they're industrial, commercial and get their landscaping in. Nuisance ordinance. I think I did mention this before. We had met with the City Attorney. While we're not in charge of Chapter 13, which is all the complaints, some of the nuisance does wrap into Chapter 20. There's a lot of ambiguity in enforcement there and we don't have the tools or the time so they're going to work on trying to clarify noise and by specific type and quantify so there's a better handle on that. Sidney: Who on staff is working on that? Cindy? Aanenson: No. It's going to the sheriff's department. Chapter 13 is not our's so, I put that in there. Sidney: So you're, have met and you want clarification then of, okay. Aanenson: Yeah, we. Sidney: You're out of the picture at this point. Aanenson: At this point. If it's just Chapter 13, you may not even see it. If it affects Chapter 20, the zoning ordinance where it talks about industrial noise, if it affects that but this is just general noise noise that there's some ambiguity. And again that's through just the nuisance ordinance but I wanted to let you know that because that's a code enforcement thing that we sometimes handle. Generally it is handled by the sheriff's department. Design standards. Not to editorialize here but you know the council's kind of moved a little bit on the 50-75% brick. We brought in an all brick building, they beat it up bloody. It was very painful. So I don't know where to go with that so I'm kind of in a holding pattern trying to figure out some more things. Kind: Which one was that? Aanenson: Office Max. So even though it's all brick, that's not always the point which goes back to my thing, it's design. A lot of it is design. And then there were some sign issues on that one, even though it was all brick. So I don't think that's always the remedy. So where it got left is we were supposed to take some pictures. I have those. They've gone back to not doing work sessions, or just on twice a month meetings so it's hard to get a time on that. It probably won't happen until later this fall. But that did alter the 70%. And we are working hard to ensure high quality design. I don't know if any.of you heard, Jasper Development did hold a neighborhood meeting upon Pipewood Curve. There's property up there that has some significant wetlands. They were contemplating doing a twin home project up there. Relocating the access. Wasn't well received by the neighbors. They're still working on that. It hasn't come forward yet. Lots of times they'll meet with them first and then decide whether or not they want to pursue it based on how they test with the water but I just wanted to let you know that was out there. Code enforcement. We're going a lot of home occupation violations and reviewing conditional use standards for compliance. Just wanted to let you know what we're working on. Project management. I told you Target's remodeling. Adding out, going out front. Perkins is remodeling. Both will be starting 59 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 shortly. Super Value I think I told you is remodeling. The old Data Sery building and Berquist Engineering is in the old Redmond, both doing significant remodeling. Then final occupancy, or just some other ongoing. Northcott has occupied the building. We talked about that tonight looking at the cell. Minnewashta Overlook has been withdrawn. Building #4 at the Villages, I think I told you, Quizno's and Starbuck's and ... all have been approved for occupancy. Some of them have their signs. If you haven't been out that, check it out. Met Council just this week approved the code amendment or the land use amendment for Eckankar so that goes back on the council on the 10. Marsh Glen's in for final plat. Petting farm was tabled at the last City Council meeting. They only had 3 people. Code amendments take 4 votes so there were some things that were back logged. Chan Lakes Business Park, this is Mark Undestad, has three buildings that have been approved for occupancy. They have multiple tenants. We don't know always who all the tenants are. Chan Lakes Business Park 7 has been approved for, that should say 8"'. Has been approved. Lot 3 has been approved for occupancy and that includes Scott's Associates and a daycare. You approved that conditional use on the daycare. CSM, Buildings 1 and 2, Southwest Tech have been occupied. I don't know if you've been over there at all to look what's going on and then the Dover Building in the Chan Business Center has also been approved. There's one occupant in that building. And then just under construction, have you been by Lake Susan Apartments? They got the footings in place. Peterson: The wall's coming now. Kind: But no movement on Powers Ridge. Aanenson: They're, they met with the Senior Commission today. They're waiting to see, there is a pent up demand for apartments. They may wait til the first of the year to actually pull a permit so they will begin construction. Peterson: You said there is a pent up demand. Aanenson: For apartments. They want to move ahead but they may wait until the first of the year. Peterson: If there's a pent up demand, why would they wait? Aanenson: I think they're just trying to figure out what price point they want to be in. Maybe start the senior first. They just met with the Senior Commission today so I think they're just trying to get their strategy. Have you been by Office Max? That's under way. The grading. All that. And the other office retail building. Also CSM Building 3 and 4 on Lake Drive, Southwest Tech. The cell tower. Been out there doing some code enforcement on that quite a bit. Citgo gas station. 82nd and 41. Have you been by there at all? That's under construction too. And then the CSM north of Lake Drive, that multi tenant is also under construction. If you're interested in who's tenants, I can do some homework on that to find out. Sometimes when there's 3 or 4 incubator kind of companies, they don't always you know, there's two different types of occupancies. The first one is they get a shell building done. Then they'll do individual tenants so I'm trying to break them down into those kind of classifications. So we have ... two process. One where they do the shell finished and then we take the landscaping into place. Then we do the occupancy with the new tenant then they would call to make sure it's a permitted use in the district. If it's just a change from the existing building, because we don't... So that's an update of kind of where we are to date. I'll try to give you a little bit more on that. Kind: So this would not be a good time to add Alison's idea of looking into a lakeshore buffer ordinance. 60 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2000 Aanenson: We already wrote that down... Kind: Okay, it's helpful to see this. I appreciate it. Aanenson: This isn't everything we're doing, trust me. Conrad: Ladd led me to believe you were doing nothing. Peterson: Yeah Ladd. Conrad: I never said that. Aanenson: We also had talked about a chair person and I neglected to put it on the agenda. I don't know if you want to put it on the next one. Talk about chair person and vice chair? I don't know if Matt told me he wasn't going to be here, I forgot. But we should put that on... Peterson: Put it on the next one. Blackowiak: I will not be here the next meeting, August 2°d. I will be at my annual Girl Scout camp. Aanenson: So you'll be elected chair. Blackowiak: Thanks guys. And I have a sleep over this year too. Aanenson: I appreciate your feedback on the e-mails. Those of you that e-mai led me back. It was a tough meeting but we got through it. Sacchet: I won't be here on the 15"' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 20, 2000 as presented. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 61 CITY OF MEMORANDUM CHMNSEN TO: Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 DATE: July 25, 2000 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax612.937,9152 SUBJ: November Meeting Public Safety Fax 612.934,2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Due to the change to Tuesday meetings, it was discovered that the first meeting in November (7t") is Election Day. Staff could schedule the meeting for Wednesday, November 8 or schedule all the items for the November 21 meeting. Please let me know what you would like to do. gAplan\ka\pc nov mtg.doc The City o f Chanhassen. Aj�rowiq community with clean lakes, quality schools, a cbarminv, downtown, tbrivinP businesses, and beautiful narks. A great Place to live. work. and nlau