The URL can be used to link to this page

4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Allison Blackowiak, Kevin Joyce and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate AanensOn, Community Development Director; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I, and Andrea Poehler, City Attorney OLD BUSINESS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN'APPROVAL FOR A 17,140 sO. FT. CHURCH FACILITY INCLUDING ASSEMBLY, CLASSROOMS, OFFICE AND NURSERY ON 5.78 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STONE CREEK DRIVE AND COULTER BLVD., FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH, SMSO ARCHITECTS. Public Present: Name Address Stephen Norres Randy Koepsell Jim Sulerud Nancy Mancino 1451 Heron Drive 1110 Dove Court 730 Vogelsberg Trail 6620 Galpin Blvd. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this iteTM. Peterson: Any questions prior to the presentation? Would the applicant like to present. If you would state your name and address please. Pepe Cryzda: Hi. I'm Pepe Cryzda with SMSQ Architects from Northfield, Minnesota. I'm here representing the Church of Family of Christ. There are s°me members from the church committee here present tonight, the faces of whom should start to look familiar to you. They've been here often enough. I'd like to start with a slide presentation showing you what the existing conditions are at the site and kind of try to put it in context before I actually move to the particulars of the building itself as it's proposed on that 'site. The slides will be shown over here so I invite you move around and maybe have some better seats for Viewing the slides. If you'd rather stay at your place, that's just fine too. You might be able 'to see them 'better if you come around this way. Pepe Cryzda showed a slide presentation showing different views of the proposed church site. Planning Commission Meeting- April 7, 1999 Pepe Cryzda: With that I conclude the slide presentation. Next drawing you see on the screen is a composite site plan...it's also on the handout. This is intended to give you an idea of tla~ relative size and the relationship between... It's very difficult to imagine obviously what's going to be on the site just from looking at the slides you just saw...but here I've shown you a couple of things. One is the existing church. The existing elementary school...is the existing townhomes in the lower right part of it...proposed church. Proposed retention pond .... late~It incarnation that I'm aware of, the developer is proposing for...corporate center development. Those buildings actually don't exist...in terms of scale and appearance, those will probably en~ up being...office warehouse buildings on the comer of Highway 5 and...in terms of appearance and scale. So the upshot from this drawing I guess is that the footprint of the building proposing is relatively smaller...and comparable to the scale of the townhomes. Much smaller by the way than the complex... Turning next to the third page in the handout. What I'll try to do is give you an idea of what the proposed building will look like on the site in terms of color and material,~,. This perspective view...looking from Highway 5, south, southwest. Then on the far riglit there... Also I should note that...as it is now, and as it will be when the church is built, will be entirely open.., landscaped... The next page that you want to turn to is, the site sections...the side showing from Coulter Boulevard on your lef~ side...on the right side, cutting across the parking lot there on the south side of the church. One concern that was brought to our attention was that...on the south side of the church might be overwhelming to a person standing on the south side of the building. So this exercise here shows you what you might see if you were standing on Coulter Boulevard... Now first of all I'd like to... The way the parking lot is located on the side in relation to Coulter Boulevard is on a plateau that is elevated from generally from Coulter Boulevard such that...both on the south side of the parking lot will... 'That is tree alt along the entire length of the south side of the property. The height of the slope varies as a matter of 4 feet...Coulter Boulevard slopes down slightly... The next item of note is that als0 along that path or that sight line are several layers of landscaping materials, actually there are four of them. The first one is the boulevard plantings that now exist on Coulter Boulevar~ Closest to the person standing on Coulter Boulevard. The next is on the slope itself there what are called upland plantings... And then on the very south edge'ofthe parking lot there's lo~ shrubbery. Then moving upwards toward the church there are then layers of overstory tre~. located in the islands in the parking lot. That makes four layers of landscaping... Here on the next sheet are two not so great perspective views. What you might see as you approach th~ church in front of you. As I said, if you're approaching the church property along Coult~ Boulevard... you might see the cross on top of the entry. The first glimpse you might get of th~'-~ church is as you drive up...and it's the first full view that you get...soften to a great extent b_~t plantings and trees. It's hard to show the trees...is a view back from the south comer of t~ parking lot. As far as you could go walking on the parking lot and then looking back at th~ church across the parking lot and then through that first layer and island trees. So again evB from this view, a good deal of the church will be masked or shielded or softened by planting~ That's pretty much it for the handout. Next I'd like to move on to the notion of color materials. Also in your handout some .color reproductions...pretty realistic in terms of the actual color. Then I won't go into a lot of details... I should maybe point out to the point of contentiOn from the previous, Kate summarized earlier. One of the colors...We have made changes in th~ colors... Made another change in terms of material...staff also objected to the panels of cedai' 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 siding between windows. Those have substituted or replaced by more drivit. So essentially there are two main materials now on all the elevations. One is brick...Accent or secondary material is drivit. There are now two colors of drivit. One has been used as a highlight. The other used to simulate the color of the brick. I have here actual samples of the materials which I will pass around... I would like to open for questions. Peterson: Questions from fellow commissioners? Conrad: Nothing significant. Just a question of, the accent color that you're using on the drivit. On the north side of the church. The two big, light color panels. What is that? That is just all drivit? Behind that is what? On the inside. Pepe Cryzda: The interior of the church. Conrad: Functionality, why weren't those windows? Just out of curiosity. Pepe Cryzda: That's the background wall for the alter. Conrad: The alter? Okay. Joyce: Dave, I might have a question for you. Do we have a look at the interior sidewalk system somewhere that has changed from what we saw before? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have revised one. Staff was reviewing to determine eliminating the sidewalk along the west side of Stone Creek Drive was the proposed sidewalk along the drive aisle which extends all the way down to Coulter Boulevard on the west side of the site, up to the church and then continues on to Stone Creek Drive. So essentially it's kind of duplicating some fashions of sidewalk along the west side of Stone Creek. Joyce: I'm just curious where the sidewalk is. We're eliminating the sidewalk. Will there be a sidewalk on both sides of Stone Creek Drive somewhere? Hempel: No. On the east side at this point. In this location adjacent to the church. Aanenson: There is a sidewalk in front of the church. Hempel: There's a trail along Coulter Boulevard in front of the church.. Pepe Cryzda: IfI may point to this site plan here. Joyce: That would be helpful. Pepe Cryzda: This right here is the parking lot. What Dave is referring to is we have proposed a sidewalk that goes along the west side of this drive...and wrapping around the north side of the 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 parking lot, across the front of this... At some point there was a proposed sidewalk on either side of Stone Creek Drive... Joyce: That's where I have a problem because granted if that was the only project we had in this development, that's fine but there will be projects... Are you going to have a sidewalk on both sides of Stone Creek Drive for the? Aanenson: No, I guess a determination was made that if you're going to be going east you would cross on Stone Creek and you'd be going that way. If you're going to go west, you'd more than likely follow the building and loop down along the service... Joyce: See I'm talking about when we start developing up north and go into the other buildings that are. Aanenson: Oh, the piece to the north. Joyce: The rest of Bluff Creek Center. You're going to have...whatever we're going to put up there, are you going to have just a sidewalk on the east side? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can. The sidewalk will come out Stone Creek here. There's also a sidewalk proposed in the parking lot... When development occurs on the these two parcels... The sidewalk currently at the intersection of Coulter Drive is also... Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: That answers it. I don't like it but... Aanenson: Well we agreed, it seemed like a duplication though when they had it next to the building and that seemed to make some sense for the uses that they have functionality there. And it does seem like a duplication because if you are taking the westward movement, you're going to go next to the building. That's a duplication there and you're tying into the trail so we agreed with them. It did seem a bit of a duplication. Especially since when they do the addition, like Dave indicated, it will wrap around that side. Tie into the trail and more than likely they're going to be the predominant user of that. And if someone was to go in those buildings to the, adjacent to Highway 5 to go over to use something at Bluff Creek, they would probably take the trail over. If they did want to go east, they would have to cross Stone Creek at that point. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Nice job. Commissioners, give your respective thoughts. Blackowiak: Well Mr. Chair, a cOUple of kind of broad questions I guess. First of all, since Kevin brought up the question of access and trails. There's a section in the PUD agreement, Section I that talks about alternative access. And I'm curious if staff is comfortable that each of those points have been adequately addressed. Specifically, if there are people coming up on the right hand side or on the east side, will there be a Crosswalk or something for people to get to the Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 church? Will there be a stop sign? What type of control is. going to happen at that point? Because I worry about pedestrians trying to cross up ithere. Especially those coming from the east. Do we have like parking and storage, that type of thing? This is all back in the Exhibit C of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center. Near the very back of the packet. If that helps you. So I'm just concerned that we are addressing all the alternative access questions and as long as you're comfortable, I guess I'm comfortable. I just want to make sure that we get those things addressed because again, this is the first piece going in and we need to do it properly and not regret having done something initially. Aanenson: I guess again we accommodated that with bus facilities. If there's a daycare, a school, that's where the buses will be coming up to the building. Again, the sidewalk tying in. I guess that's again why we felt that would be a duplication because that would probably be a lot of, the majority of the pedestrian traffic will be adjacent to the building, especially for the school. That's where you'd want them walking if they're going to go up the trail and towards the school so yes, we do think that it's been addressed in I. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my second question would be, just back a page from that. Item number 11 under Building Materials and Designs. I'm still a little, I'm still questioning the expansiveness of the roof from the south. I saw the sketches with trees and I think those are optimistic trees. I mean those are 20 year trees. Those are not what we're going to see right now. So are we meeting the pitched roof element requirements? Can we do something to soften that a little bit are we just going to be looking at a large roof?. And are you comfortable with that? Aanenson: The staff is. In looking at it, we felt that it could be perceived that way right now but when you put the rest of the building on, it's going to change the complexion. I think that was the hard time that we struggled with last time when they were trying to articulate the function and the form of the building. Is that we're looking at the first phase but when the addition phases come on, it's going to change that. And I think as Pepe indicated when he showed St. Andrews, which is probably more similar in the roof design, how that works. That we believe basing that it's on the south side and what you're going to see from Coulter, that it should work. Pepe Cryzda: The perspectives I showed you... Peterson: That's one thing that was brought up last time. Your expansiveness...less than 90 feet, as I recall. Is not that substantial. Pepe Cryzda: Keep in mind that the scale of the building... Blackowiak: Initially the first part is. What's your time line I guess then? We're talking about all the additions right now. I mean when is that going to happen? Pepe Cryzda:... 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Blackowiak: I just want us to be comfortable with what we're going' to get right now because this could be a 10 year building. I mean it could be a 15 year building. Because there is a possibility that maybe expansion won't happen as soon as you might like it to or whatever. So I'm just, I just want to make sure that. Pepe Cryzda: In 15 years you'll have the trees. Blackowiak: There you go. So then I'll just grin and bear it, okay. All right, well. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Comments. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, question for staff. One thing I noticed in my notes, in the staff report that the applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for buffer yard C and I'm wondering, we're talking about trees and sidewalks and I guess I don't like giving up trees. Do you feel comfortable in the reduced number of trees that they've proposed? Aanenson: I guess we'd be open to input on that. Sidney: I guess we'd like to see more trees. Aanenson: Because of the buffering next to the Bluff Creek, that's where we had emphasized additional vegetation and that should have been a lot of their focus so. We can certainly look at that before it goes to Council. Sidney: Please. Peterson: Just a couple comments for myself. I look at the presentation tonight and I do commend you for the quality and the fullness of the presentation. It makes making a decision much easier to do. And I feel very comfortable in doing so tonight. As I said previously, I like the design. I think it's unique and will add a lot of character to the area. As Commissioner Conrad brought up earlier, the only thing I'm a little bit reticent to say that I like, or dislike, is just in that inside area where the accent, where the two windows are missing. It just doesn't look symmetrical. Not that everything has to be symmetrical but on the drawings it just doesn't look like it's a natural fit. It lo°ks like it's something temporary. Now again this is a personal kind of comment. Pepe Cryzda: It could be a temporary thing... Peterson: That's helpful, thank you. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, given that you brought that up. That's why I made that comment. That is, I don't think it's something that I care to. I'm comfortable with your design. That part of it is the part that I would not be comfortable with but I'd challenge the church to make sure that you're really reviewing that aspect and if it's for future growth and change inside, I can understand that. If you look at architectural elements from our standpoint, looking at a lot of Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 buildings, it's a little bit lacking. So again, that's not going to deter me from voting positively tonight but again I'd throw that back at the church and the church membership in making sure you know what you're doing on that part of the design. Peterson: Other comments? Hearing none, may I have a motion PleaSe. Sidney: I'll make the motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #99-2 for a 17,140 square foot church facility, including assembly, clasSrooms, and offices for Family of Christ Lutheran Church subject to the following conditions, and We have 1 through 29. And condition 7 and 21 have been deleted so the conditions will have to renumbered to reflect 27 total. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sidney moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #99-2 for a 17,140 square foot church facility, including assembly, classrooms, and offices for Family of Christ Lutheran Church subject to the following conditions: The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Bluff Creek Corporate Center. 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. Site plan approval is contingent on the city granting final plat approVal for Outlot A, Bluff Creek Corporate Center, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the church is to be built. 4. Future expansions of the building shall be reviewed through the site plan review process. o A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the develOpment' area for area lighting. All fixtures shall be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. 6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit and shall comply with setback requirements. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall'be screened from public right- of-way by walls of compatible aPpearing material Or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Revise the landscaping plan to include shrubs to the south of the electrical transformer located at the southwest comer of the building. o A ten 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 Chanhassen firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 10. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy (Chanhassen Fire Department notes to be included on all site plans). Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. 11. "No Parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required for the main drive through. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. 12. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding pre-plan. Policy #07-1991. Copy enclosed. 13. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 14. Comply with Chanhassen Water Service Installation Policy for commercial/industrial buildings. Pursuant to Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 15. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a Combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 16. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #47-1998. Copy enclosed. 17. All boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances or site grading, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard and guaranteed for one growing season after construction is completed. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive or Coulter Boulevard right-of-Way. 18. The developer shall supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the city. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorpOrated into the site design. A 15 foot wide pathway along the west side of the pond shall be preserved free of landscape plantings, i.e. trees or shrubs. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance With the latest edition of the city's Standard SpecificatiOns and Detail Plates and/or state 'plUmbing codes. Permits for installation of the private utilities will be required through the city's Building Department. No buildings/structures shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to perform maintenance functions to the utility system. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type 1II erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetland, creeks at the base of slopes in areas exceeding 3:1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the pond once the pond has been constructed. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage area map for 10 year and 100 year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, 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. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. · The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 9 Planning Commission Meeting ~ April 7, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING TO BE COMPLETED IN TWO PHASES. PHASE I - 40,553 SQ. FT. AND PHASE II - 31,500 SO. FT. AND A ONE STORY HEIGHT VARIANCE ON 4.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5, EAST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, NORTHCOTT COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING, MORTENSON COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address Bob Meuwissen George Beniek Tom Gerster, KKE Architects Tom Lander, Mortenson Sue McCarthy Dave & Lynn Jossi 201 West 77th Street 412 West 76th Street 300 First Avenue North, Minneapolis 700 Meadow Lane, Minneapolis 8001 Hidden Court 250 Hidden Lane Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions for staff. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, yes. Just give me some background on why the ordinance limits building height to one story. What were we thinking? Aanenson: Researching the history of that, the original PUD for this area was PUD 1 and it had just a blanket 40 foot height. And we went back and tried to research the reason for that, the 40 foot. And then when it was rezoned to neighborhood business it was given the one story. So struggled with that in the fact that the housing in that area can go to 40 feet and then Cindy pulled out several industrial buildings that we've approved recently, or you look at the height, and looking at that and the design that they came in because we felt this was a nice design, it made a good transition use next to the highway that we felt comfortable with giving them the two story. Again we went back to what the intent of the original PUD and that was just a blanket 40 foot. Under that original PUD 1 so we felt comfortable with that. Conrad: So we're not setting a precedent that we can't get around in the future? Aanenson: I don't think so. There is BN to the west of this, whiCh is the Legion property. That will probably come in commercial but even under the commercial it's probably going to come in 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 taller based on that, similar like what we did with Target when they put the parapet walls on or something to screen the equipment. Again, this is keeping everything enclosed with the type of roof that they came in with so we felt that it was consistent with what we were trying to achieve. The goals that we were trying to achieve; especially with'the pedestrian bridge and the like. We felt that it actually, in that way, benefit when you're not looking down so. Going back with the original PUD 1, we felt it worked. And again if you want to maybe leave it more to an office type building with underground parking. We thought that was another unique situation that we felt comfortable giving that variance. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question. Could you, one of you, orient me as to where exactly the pedestrian bridge is on this plan, or where it would be located? Kirchoff: Sure. It's located right here. So it's northwest. Blackowiak: Isn't that northeast? I'm sorry. Kirchoff: Oh... Blackowiak: Okay... Okay, and then my second question has to do with, we're at a fairly high elevation at that point. How high are the power lines there? Does anybody know? I mean they look like they come down fairly low, and I'm curious as to like can you give me a visual as to how high the building is going to be in comparison to the lines or? Tom Lander: I think the power line is, I hate to say anything because I would be guessing. If we had done some research... Based on my recollection, I think they're like 70 feet... Blackowiak: No, I realize that. I was just trying to get perspective because it looks, I mean as I stand down kind of where it is, it looks pretty tall. And then my final question is, has to do with the comment on the bottom of page 3. It talks about setting a design standard. My comment to myself is, is this good or bad? Or does that impact, regarding the two stow type materials. In other words, do we, is this, you know I think...alluded to that. Aanenson: We think it's good. It's setting a good view from the highway and it's setting a good pace for what's going to happen to the west. Blackowiak: Okay, so then when the next person comes down and says we want a two stow building, then are we just going to say okay? Aanenson: No. If it's an office building. That's what we were just Saying before. Because this had underground parking, because of the style and the look of that building, yeah. I think if it was that high quality and it had underground parking, met some of that same criteria, yes. We would look at that. Again, because it's adjacent to the highway, we felt that made a good buffer putting the parking towards the front and makes a nice look from the bridge so if it was the same, 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 similar sort of look, yes. We would consider that. Again, going back to what the original PUD 1 was, we thought it would be punitive just to say, no. And retail is not going to come in for a two story. I mean really they only place you're going to get it would be an office request. That wouldn't go that. Nor would an industrial building so that would be the only option. And a medical use is permitted in that district and offices. So I mean if something like that happened on the Legion and the buffered it appropriately, I think that that would be something we would consider. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Any other questions? Burton: I had one quick question. I'm just looking at the planting, landscaping requirements and they appeared to be under. I see one of the conditions is that they increase plantings and on page 8 of the report, you have Phase I with what's required and proposed. Is the intent of the condition just to make them meet all of the required elements under Phase I? Aanenson: Yes. Burton: I can't tell if something was trying to be carved out or not. Kirchoff: Since the building is being approved with both phases, they'll have to meet the landscape requirements for both phases. Aanenson: They have revised the site plan entrances and so we are recommending they increase the landscaping but what the intent of this is to, when they do add the additional phase on, that if it's consistent with what's here tonight, we would just administratively approve that. But we want you to see the entire thing, even though we're just going forward with the first phase. They do need to increase that. They have revised those plans and they'll show you those tonight. They have revised the landscaping plan to reflect that condition. Burton: Okay. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a recommendation? Tom Lander: Yes. Peterson: If you would, go to the podium and state your name and address please. Tom Lander: My name's Tom Lander and I'm Director of Development Services for M.A. Mortenson. We are the owners of the property and we are in the process of selling the property to Northcott Corporation and we will be building their building on the site and that's why we're here tonight to review the plans and proposals. What I'd like to say is that we have reviewed the staff report and their comments as we've had them over the last week and it's our objective to meet and respond to their comments and so there has been a revised site plan submitted and 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 specifically a revised landscape plan sUbmitted with the objective of meeting the shortcomings that were noted on the first plan. And I will say that the staff has not reviewed the revised plans and we have not gotten comments from them so there may still be further changes but it's our objective to meet and respond to their comments. If we can just look at this drawing just for orientation. You asked about the pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian bridge...approximately where my pen comes across. The site that we're talking about is on Hidden Lane. I'm sorry, on Lake Drive. Lake Drive and Highway 5. The site and as I say, directly... This shows the revised site plan. The proposed development will be done in two phases. The first phase is basically a two story office with one lower level. The lower level...parking for some 5,000 square feet of office. 13,000 square feet approximately of office. The second phase which is...will form an L on the site. The second phase again will be, the under, the first level will be total parking. It will be just over 10,000 square feet of parking, of office. You can see the first phase parking lot here. We had planned out the second phase parking lot. The retention pond is in this' area. We've worked with city staff and at their request did retain a traffic engineer to look at the...location for the entry sign. Based on the engineer's report and working with the staff to make a safe intersection at the drive. We kept a center island so there is basically one way coming in, an island and two ways going out so that as you approach it, it doesn't appear to just be an extension of the street but that it is identified...This is the revised landscape plan as it is being submitted. What we've done is we've responded to the fact that we would... We've also increased plantings in the area as far as buffers to the side of the building and we are not putting plantings in the second phase area so it can take advantage... The building materials are a combination of rough face masonry brick, expanded windows and...drivit material and stucco finish. Drivit creates texture and relief as a part of the column details. The building will have an entry canopy. The accent of the canopy by raising the roof. This roof element raises to screen what will be roof top mechanical equipment. There will be mechanical equipment placed in here. It will be all the way around. One of the issues by holding this building type, as you come across the bridge you won't look down into the top of the roof so this screening will be effective even from coming across the pedestrian bridge. This is the rendering showing the first phase of the building from the parking lot. Showing the entrance canopy. The raised accent. With that presentation I guess Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Joyce: I have a question regarding the patio. Where is that, you've got a lot of trees. I don't know if it's trees, bushes, something all the way around the patio. You've kind of enclosed the patio, correct? Tom Lander: Well, let me say one thing. This was rendered out late this afternoon. I'm not sure that the heavy color of green and the wall like nature of the rendering adequately reflects the intent of the landscaping. I guess it is intended to provide buffers as far as highway and highway noise but this side of the building I think will have some relief and it's a two story elevation. The landscaping isn't...6 to 8 feet so... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Joyce: I guess where I'm leading my question is to you Kate. To say that that...under utilized might be an under statement. You're trying to incorporate or integrate the building into maybe possibly using that bridge. Aanenson: Well that's what we thought that the way they oriented the building kind of played on that. We liked the fact that they... Joyce: Oh I like it. I like. Aanenson: Right, and we thought that was a positive too. That they played on that. Joyce: Is there any of hooking a trail into here or something? Aanenson: Well I think they have the sidewalk...around but we felt that that really warmed that up and... Tom Lander: ... Joyce: Yeah, and that's the only reason I pointed it out because it looked almost like, you wouldn't want to climb through the bushes to get to the bridge. Tom Lander: One of the things we're trying to do is pick up the wrought iron type...get some of the linear texture off of the. Joyce: That's the wrong elevation, isn't it? Aanenson: No, it's the second story he's talking about. Tom Lander: In this area here. Let's see if I can get a plan. There. This elevation that you're seeing here is the end of the building, right here. So this comer is the comer that faces towards the pedestrian bridge. Joyce: Oh, okay I see. I'm sorry. Tom Lander: And what I'm saying is that's where this outdoor patio as it shows here, and then I've got... What we're trying to do is pick up some of the detailing off of the bridge to... Peterson: The balconies are on just one comer of the building, correct? Tom Lander: The balconies are on the comer of the building that basically faces towards the bridge. It kind of relates to the internal development of the building. Office suite. Basically... Joyce: So Kate you feel this will help you... Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Aanenson: More traffic as the rest of that area develops, that peoPle will be, maybe these people will be going to cross to go, coming to downtown, right. That's exactly. And they didn't turn their back to it. They're incorporating it. Into the design which is what we like. Joyce: That's great. Thank you. I did actually have' one other question. Steel columns. I don't know, can you show us what they look like or? Tom Lander: I think it's probably easiest to see on this elevation as she gets to it. When you say columns I think of masonry columns which are really pilaster... Joyce: Right. Tom Lander: The only place that we have steel columns is, we've got an entry canopy that comes out from the vestibule towards the parking lot. We're trying to keep that low scale so you sort of see through it and the building is predominantly, the elevation of the property. And so when they talk about columns, they're really talking about the small columns that support that canopy and the canopy's a real light structure element. That's where you see the steel columns. Peterson: Any other questions of the applicant? Sidney: Mr. Chairman, one question for the applicant. Is there any lighting on the outside of the building? On the walls. Or where would there be lighting? Tom Lander: Well, when we submitted, the site will be lit per city ordinances...and that lighting's all done with cut off fixtures... We have looked at some decorative wall sconce type lighting that... Peterson: Just out of curiosity. At this stage of the design, where are you at? 90% done? 95% done? Tom Lander: Unless we're asked to change something, I'd say 95. I don't mislead you but the elevations... Peterson: Other questions? This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to open it for the same please? Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. George Beniek: My name is George Beniek and I'm here to represent the Legion. That's the property immediately to the west of the proposed building site here. I just have a couple of 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 questions I guess. They're not anything big but regarding the ponding area that's Proposed. It's I think is in the, as I read the plan or, have you got the plan here?' Aanenson: Sure. George Beniek: My understanding is that this is our property right in here. Aanenson: Yes, correct. George Beniek: So the ponding area and our plans, if we ever get our act together, is to build perhaps in this comer, if things go right. I guess is it feasible that, you know we will have to have, if we ever build on that site or sell it, there will have to be Ponding from that development. Is it feasible that we would use this, or be able to or would we have to have our own ponding? I'm not asking that it has to be answered here now but. Peterson: Good question. Dave, could you respond to that? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. One of the conditiOns of the site plan approval was to allow for additional ponding from the Legion site to drain in to the proposed pond. Essentially what would happen is the existing pond would have to be expanded to the west to accommodate the Legion requirement. There may also be another pond required on the Legion site towards the westerly side of the property. Because of size of this site and the elevation change in the site, it appears that it could drain basically in both directions. But the existing storm sewer in place, which will service the proposed site plan is limited in size so when the Legion site does come in to develop, we'll have to look at that independently but. In conclusion, yes. We are going to require that this pond be expanded to accommodate approximately an acre and a half of the Legion site. George Beniek: Oh of the, ifI understand it right, of the 5 acres or the 5 ½ acres that the Legion has, 1 ½ acres of that would be ponding are over and above this? Hempel: No. No. George Beniek: The total ponding. Hempel: Approximately 1 ½ acres of your site wOuld be able to drain towards this pond. George Beniek: Oh, okay. Hempel: Right, the remaining site would rain elsewhere. George Beniek: All right. And I have a copy I guess of the staff report here that talks about the extension of the sewer and that the easement would have to be granted. Not an easement, but the proposal were to acquire an easement from the property owners of the Legion site to extend a line through their site. This is for utilities, and I guess I'm just asking at what point does that happen 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 or, because you know we are housing board of the Legion and we've got 300 people there that are all experts in this kind of stuff and. Hempel: Maybe we can direct this one to the applicant. They did supply a revised plans and I think he can address that. Peterson: Okay, please. Tom Lander: Are you ready to sign the easement tonight? George Beniek: Do you want to get shot? Tom Lander: The issue is yes. It will, from an engineering standpoint be probably the most efficient to come across your property. The easement basically is in an area...not buildable portion of the site... George Beniek: Okay. I don't believe I have any further questions. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Dave Jossi: Good evening. My name is Dave Jossi. I live at 250 Hidden Lane and I'm a resident of the nearby neighborhood. My first question is about the garbage area. If you could comment on that. Tom Lander: On the site plan, this is the service drive comes into...providing access to the parking area. Islands...in this location. There is a trash enclosure, it's a masonry wall... contoured drawings for Lake Drive and the dumpster... Dave Jossi: Will it be visible from Lake Drive? People walking along the sidewalk there? Tom Lander: We have tried to minimize it's visibility by...the site with contours and landscaping .... we've tried to minimize. Dave Jossi: How about odors in the summer? I mean is there any reason it couldn't be moved more towards Highway 5, away from Lake Drive a bit? Tom Lander: Well it has to do with the fact that we've got a truck access. The other thing is this is an office building so we're talking about, most of the trash in here is going to be paper trash and... Dave Jossi: My second question is about screening. Between the building and Lake Drive, is there any reason why you didn't put like a hedge or evergreens? It looked like it was mostly leafy trees. 10 to 12 feet apart or so. Tom Lander: What we're doing is...respond to the question. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Peterson: Go ahead. Tom Lander: We're doing like two things. One is to maintain the sight lines, which is...pull the berming back 20 feet from the sidewalk but once you hit that point, we are berming up and this area of the berm comes up about 4 feet across here. Minor berm...but the goal was to provide a natural tree canopy as you come along there and not create a line of... so that was the plan for... Dave Jossi: I guess as a resident of the neighborhood, we actually' live right on the comer of Hidden Court and Hidden Lane. We're concerned about looking at the building all day and we like to walk by there too. Is there any chance you could put some heavier screening along there? Bushes? Tom Lander: Because of the type of scale of this building, I think it's misleading to say that we're... Dave Jossi: That's why I mentioned evergreens possibly. Tom Lander: What we were trying to do is get a more natural landscape. See what we've done is we've put heavier plantings closer to the building to break it up. I think we've kind of soften... Dave Jossi: And lastly I'm concerned about the sight lines to the adjacent houses. Do you have anything that shows the elevation of the building and how it will be seen from the houses? Tom Lander: The houses basically starts...has a fairly large setback...between the houses themselves. The sight lines are basically coming across the site. Most sight lines really relay closer to the church that's...if you look across the property, this is 550 feet. The houses are running approximately half a block from the site. So I think that you've got quite a distance and as I say, the grade is such that it's coming up towards the building width. Dave Jossi: Do you have an elevation view that you could put up there just to show? Tom Lander: The rendering is probably the best perspective for the houses. The rendering is taken in this area looking back towards the building. This rendering is taken from about here looking back towards the building which is representative of the houses... Dave Jossi: So we're on the comer there. If we were to look out our back window, how much of the building would we see? All of it? Tom Lander: You would see that rendering. Except that you would be twice again as far from the building as that rendering represents since this is taken from the edge of our parking lot. You're adding about another 150 feet... 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Dave Jossi: Now there's a fence that goes partially along there. How about if you were to look over the fence? Say my neighbors. What's visible with just the top of the fence? That right there even looking over the fence you'll see the whole thing? Tom Lander: Yeah. Dave Jossi: Okay. Tom Lander: It would be like...I think that's why the context of the design becomes important because it's going to be a part of the landscaping when it's done. The site will not be developed in a manner that you won't... Dave Jossi: Sure. We're generally not opposed of it in light of what could go there and what has been proposed but I guess we would like to see a little heavier screening, especially around the garbage area. And you know, if possibly maybe along Lake Drive. Tom Lander: We're certainly willing to work with city staff as we analyze...and try to be responsive to that... Dave Jossi: Thank you. Sue McCarthy: Hi. I'm Sue McCarthy. I'm a resident at 8001 Hidden Court. I have similar concerns to what Dave asked earlier of Tom concerning sightings and I'm not sure that he really answered his questions adequately for the residents. Specifically those that live on Hidden Court, which are not protected by the fence nor by that 350 foot berm that he's talking about. So I would like to see what the sightings would be, similar to the sightings we have when the car dealership was going to be put onto that piece of property. What it would look like out of the various windows of what we're going to see. And we are not opposed to the actual building. I think the building itself has a nice design. I am concerned that the residents are going to be able to view that pretty openly. I would really like to see increased trees along the boulevard. Not just deciduous but also conifers. The whole point of that is to be able to provide some protection. I know you want to put it in as part of the landscaping of the environment, but from residents we don't want to look at it and so even though it's a nice design, it's not something we want to look out our front window or our side window and to be able to view, especially since it is a two stow building versus the one stow building which we anticipated to begin with. My question, I have a question concerning where the driveway entrance is. For those people that live in that neighborhood know that that is a very busy road, Lake DriVe. I have seen a child almost get hit last week on a bicycle, speeding along and not being able to see them and barely making it across. Now we're taking the driveway to this office building, connecting it to Hidden Court. That's going to increase the, I think the risk of those of us that walk from Hidden Court, Hidden Lane, Hidden Circle, across the street to the sidewalk that takes us to the pedestrian bridge. So I would like to know if we're going to put in a crosswalk. If there's going to be additional stop signs required, i.e. a 4 way stop, 2 way stop. How's that going to be handled? And exactly how would I look at those traffic patterns for children, and those of us that walk children across that 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 highway. So I'm very concerned with that and whether or not that is going to be addressed some time in the future. ' Peterson: Dave, can you express some thoughts on that? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Staff and the applicant did look at different access points along Lake Drive. We requested they consult a traffic expert with regards to the access location. Due to the sight lines with the curve of the road, some modification to the site to open up the sight lines from the intersection of Hidden Court. By keeping the berming and the landscaping out of that area or the deciduous trees so the tree branches are higher to permit open sight lines through there. We came up with the 4 way intersection if you will to be the best location, instead of having another driveway access approximately 125 feet west Of the intersection of Hidden Court and Lake Drive East. And then also when the Legion site develops, there will be another access point approximately another 125 feet west of there. So then we're going to have three intersections basically within 250 feet and try and consolidate turning movements along Lake Drive East to one or two intersections is much preferred and much safer than having three separate ones. With regards to a crosswalk. We have not investigated that part of it. We can certainly look into it. There is a trail all the way along the north side of Lake Drive East. I don't believe there's any sidewalk along Hidden Court or on the south side of Lake Drive East so we can certainly investigate that and come back. Peterson: Other comments or questions? Sue McCarthy: No, I just was wondering about the sight viewing and whether or not, as residents we could see that and whether or not we could see additional plantings along the side. That was my only comment. Peterson: Thank you. Donna Becker: Hello. My name is Donna Becker. I'm at 8060 Hidden Court and just a couple questions that I have. I'm a commercial property manager and I manage office, retail and industrial. And one of my questions is, how did you calculate your parking stalls? 4 per 1,0007 4.5? Because I was coming up with required based on your square footage of 162 stalls. Tom Lander: Our parking stalls are calculated based on the city ordinance, the parking requirements that is a part of...sheet that's submitted to the city which provides that for the office space itself, we have to provide 4.5 per 1,000 and storage space in the building which is...the square footage...that includes the parking garage underneath and so that's... Donna Becker: Like I said, I was coming up with a different count on that based on just your gross building square footage. The other thing, just from managing just various types of property, the people that you currently have leasing that space, their occupancy load is something I would look at. Most office buildings go with an open floor plan which usually involve cubicles and they're density could be 4 to 5 per 1,000. I know parking is not allowed on Lake Drive East. It could be in the future that they're parking down Hidden Court to be close to work. It's a very 2O Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 common problem in office buildings. To be under, you know'not enough parking. I would be concerned with that and then also adding on that additional phase. I'm coming up with totals of you know 316 stalls, 288. I mean that's a lot of cars coming in and out between peak hours in the morning, lunch hours and evening hours. And again, like the person said, it's right on a residential street. Tom Lander: And with the second phase... Donna Becker. The other question, I would say still you're talking a large number of occupants within the building and that's something I think you should consider because it is fairly residential. I moved in to Hidden Court here about 9 months ago. This is not what I anticipated to see. ! consider this is a step up in you know, from my first housing to my second housing. It's not something I anticipated for the community or for my children. And this will be Something you will see. I guess my concern is the drawings or renderings that you're showing are more mature trees. It's going to take a long time for those trees to grow to that height, elevation so I would like to also see additional landscaping around that area. I guess you know that's what I would just express my concern is the property values probably will be decreasing again. I think the houses there are ranging from $175,000.00-$250,000.00. I don't think these are the people that wanted to see this development. I think they were looking more for when they rezoned this, more for retail, strip center. Something that would provide services to the community. I don't see this office development providing that. That's all. Peterson: Thank you. Tom Lander: One response in relationship to traffic patterns...traffic study for office type use that we're talking about has a much... Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? George Beniek: Just a quick question. Peterson: Could you come back up George and. George Beniek: Just a quick question on the pOnd. How is that going to be protected for you know children. Hopefully it doesn't really concern the Legion but just from a, some of our water may run into there and I'd hate to see somebody drown because our water's in there so just, I'm sure it's been thought of but I'd just like to clarify that ifI could please. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that's a question that comes up quite frequently whenever there's a pond involved with development, residential, commercial, what have you. We require the storm water ponds be designed in a fashion to have side slopes not exceeding 3:1 slopes. That would be 1 foot vertical depth for a 3 foot horizontal depth. Or 4:1. The other option, or the other requirement we have is the first one foot level of water, that slope in there is a 10:1 Slope which is 1 foot of water for the first 10 feet so there is some safety factor built into it. We do not require a fencing throughout, the pond is set back from the sidewalk, it looks like approximately -21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 10 feet to where the slopes start to go into the pond and the actual water level is probably close to 30 feet behind the sidewalk. Peterson: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners? Comments. Questions. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, yes. Just staff again, we do have a buffer ordinance and it does set requirements. That buffers residential from commercial, industrial office so I'll ask staff to, we run into this all the time. So we try to anticipate that with an ordinance. It's always hard to do something when something occurs. You never have the right,, and so instead of that we did develop an ordinance to kind of protect the residential community.. So Kate, if you can relate what they're doing to our ordinance that may, they are meeting it I trust. Aanenson: We asked for some additional landscaping. They have proposed that tonight. Again, the City Forester who does review our plans is, by putting them in too close together, you sometimes do over kill because you need to have enough space to have them grow. We'd look at that carefully to try to put in the right plants to do the best screening and that's something that we can look at with the developer. Looking at siting of trees maybe in the spacing that we're providing. Maybe some screening from people's looking out their back view. That's something that we can look at. That seems to have helped in the past. Individual property owners the best screening. Conrad: One of the residents was concerned with winter time screening. What do we do for that? Aanenson: Sure. I mean we do have the variety of deciduous and conifers on the site and again we leave that up to the City Forester to look at that as far as streetscape and by putting it all out front, that's not always the most effective too. We try to reduce it inside the parking lot, which they responded back with their changes. Also along Highway 5 we have that concern. But you will see the building. But that's just to try to, when people looking out, their enjoyment or their view out their property so I think that's something we can work with the applicant on on making sure we're siting those. Conrad: But the scenario you would give me is that they've exceeded the ordinance right now. Aanenson: Well, they have revised it. We did make a recommendation for some changes, which they have responded to in these plans. We haven't. Conrad: But you haven't reviewed them. 22¸ Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Aanenson: Reviewed them. But they did meet and reviewed those but we just haven't seen the final...but we believe that they will meet our ordinance. And I'm certain they have worked with us in the past to resolve that. Even including looking at the dumpster and making sure we've got appropriate screening...sure. Burton: Mr. Chairman, my comments are essentially the same with respect to the screening. I would ask staff to take a look at that and have the Forester take a look. Look at the screening issues and at the same time perhaps take another look at the parking issue that was raised by one of the residents and just check and see if the parking issues are adequately addressed. And perhaps also it'd be best to take another look at maybe a crosswalk or the traffic issues there just to make sure we address the concerns that were raised tonight by the residents. And then on the flip side too, I do think it was a very nice building and I'm very impressed with them and a nice addition to the community. And if we can meet the concerns of the residents, I think it could be really a great addition. Peterson: Comments? Joyce: Some that I have are with the design of the building. Considering what is proposed there...what could possibly go there...I think if the concerns of the neighbors are addressed, I think the...I mean granted you'd love to have the property just remain vacant because that'd be easier for everybody concerned but that's not the case. I mean it's going to be developed somehow, someday. I think this is the best development I can think of it put in there. When I saw this come before us, I really was kind of excited about...development versus what could have been there .... Blackowiak: I do have a quick question. I should have looked this up before I came tonight Kate. I'm assuming that an office building is a permitted use in the BN district. Aanenson: Correct. So is shopping centers. Retail. It's neighborhood oriented but it does have quite a range in there. And shopping center isn't capped. I mean it could be a big box. Blackowiak: Right. I was just curious about the intent of the ordinance more than anything I guess because I like the design. I just wonder if this is the right place for it and I'm not sure. And then my other comment would have to do with the sight lines. We didn't hear from any residents that were down on Erie Avenue and I wish some of those people would have come. Specifically those that live on the west side of Erie Avenue because I think this is going to have, maybe not a greater impact but at least as great an impact on those people simply due to the elevation because those homes are to a much lower elevation than the homes, both on Hidden Court, Hidden Lane, Hidden Circle. And I worry that those people, maybe that don't quite know the effect that this is going t° have because they're, I would guess down maybe 20 feet or so from Lake Drive at that point and I don't know if Dave, if YOu can give me any idea. But they're an awful lot of lower than the people on Hidden Court and Hidden Lane. Aanenson: Aren't they behind the church though? Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Blackowiak: They're behind the church but what you're going to see is, you're going to see the church is kind of right there but you're going to see this big office thing kind of behind it and I just, I wish somebody would have come from that area. Dave, am I right saying about 20 feet difference? Do you know the area well enough to address that issue or? Hempel: If you're referring to the Erie Avenue, the north part of it where it comes into Dakota, on the bend there. Blackowiak: Yes. Hempel: That's actually quite a bit lower as you said, and then there's the berming from the pedestrian bridge that's going to basically screen most that building. Correct me if I'm wrong I guess. Tom Lander: I assume that you're talking. Blackowiak: Not so much, I guess not so much on the back. I mean down south a little bit more. Let's say. Tom Lander: You're talking about these houses in here. Blackowiak: Yes. Tom Lander: Okay. And what you're got is, this is the high point here. Where the pedestrian bridge comes across. And then it's all by itself and then drops off all the way around. Blackowiak: Correct. Tom Lander: But we'll appear to be sitting next to the head of the pedestrian bridge. About the same height. So say you look up and the pedestrian bridge, that's about the scale of, that we'll be looking. This is about 500 feet so, from the back property line to our building and the houses... Blackowiak: Yeah, I realize it's not going to be right next to them but just in terms of the difference in elevations. That was my concern more than anything. That it's fairly significant. Just wanted to throw that out I guess. Sidney: Mr. Chairman? I guess one suggestion to the applicant, and maybe staff can follow up. To have some drawings of sight lines and I guess I asked about any lighting on the outside of the building and I'd be concerned where those are placed in light of the sight lines. I know from experience it can be 1,000 feet away but you can still see those decorative outside fixtures on office warehouse buildings so. Peterson: My only comments are, prior to going to council I'd recommend getting building materials so that they can get a good sense of really what the color and texture is. Normally we 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 like to see that ourselves so I'd ask you certainly to... Okay, can I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: Yeah, I 'will make the motion Mr. Chairman. Primarily because I think it's a real good project. I think some of the things like underground parking, things that Kevin talked about are, the relationship to the bridge. Making me real comfortable. The architecture in general I'm comfortable with. So with that said I would make a recommendation that Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan #99-3, the Northcott Company office building, Mortenson Development Corp. as shown on the plans dated Received March 9, 1999, subject to the conditions of the staff report, 1 through 27 with the following additions. That condition number 28, that the applicant will review with the staff in the upcoming week, or before city council meeting, the trash screening and the wintertime screening considering the buffering the neighborhood to the south. That's condition number 28. Ah, there's a revision. Okay. Should that be. Aanenson: That would be condition number 30. Conrad: So what I just read would be 30 Kate? Okay. So to reference the revision of, I've got to reference the revision that you've given me Kate. I don't want to read it again. I will read it again because I don't know how to refer to this particular recommendation. I would, hang in there with me. I'd make a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve Site Plan #99-3 and a variance from the one story height requirement to permit a two story building, Northcott Company office building, Mortenson Development Corporation as shown on the plans dated and received March 9, 1999 subject to the condit/ons of the staff report 1 through 29. I think 26 was deleted. And then I would be adding condition number 30. That the applicant will review with staff the trash screening and the wintertime screening considering the buffering view for the neighbors to the south. Condition 29, that the building materials will be brought and presented to the~city council. COndition 30. That the applicant review the exterior building lighting and this plan is presented to the City Council. And as a note, but not as a condition. I would take a change to this from a fellow Planning Commissioner but I would like staff to review the parking issue in terms of making sure that we believe it's enough. But just to double check and then the needs of a crosswalk. I'm not making that a point of approval or condition but I would like staff to make a presentation to the City Council when it reaches their desk. Peterson: Is there a second? Joyce: Second. Peterson: Discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan #99-3 and a variance from the one-story height requirement to permit a two story building, Northcott Company Office Building, Mortenson Development 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Corp. as shown on the plans dated received March 9, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to meet ordinance maximum foot candle requirements and to include existing fixtures that impact the site. 2. The internal sidewalk shall be connected to the sidewalk along Lake Drive East. 3. Five accessible parking spaces are required for the 147 spaces that are being provided. One space must have an 8 foot access aisle; the others must have a 5 foot access aisle. 4. The northeast wall of the building is required to be of 1 hour fire resistive construction because it is less than 20 feet to the property line. 5. The building owner, designer, or contractor meet with the Building Inspections Division, as early as possible, to discuss plan review procedures and building permit requirements. 6. Increase plantings for boulevard trees, Hwy. 5 buffer yard, and west property line buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements. 7. Revise plant schedule to specify hackberry in common name column for item 'c'. The fire hydrant as shown on the Utility Plan must be relocated to the center island across the main entrance. A second fire hydrant will be needed closer to the garage entry access. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 9. Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. Submit radius turn dimensions in parking lot to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. 12. A ten 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 fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 13. Any trees to be removed from the site will either have to be chipped or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued due to the close proximity of neighboring homes. 14. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration and sidewalk/curb replacement. The security shall be 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 provided in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city. A condition shall be placed in the site plan agreement addressing pond maintenance. 16. No berming or landscaping which impair sight lines shall be permitted within the first 20 feet behind thc existing sidewalk along Lake Drive East. 17. The storm pond shall be revised to take into account future expansion to the west. The pond slopes shall be 3 to 1 with a 10 to 1 slope for the first one foot depth of water or 4 to 1 side slopes overall. 18. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the city upon encOuntering any existing drain tile on the site. The city will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 19. All construction vehicles shall access the site from the westerly entrance off Lake Drive East. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Parking along Lake Drive East shall be prohibited. Haul routes, if necessary, shall be pre-approved by the city. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to city streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 20. The applicant's civil engineer shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 for the proposed pond. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 22. A drainage easement or other recordable document to secure the use of the pond for the parcel to the west shall be drafted and recorded against the development. 23. A future internal driveway access from this site to the parcel to the west may be required with the next phase or expansion of the parking lot depending on compatible land uses of the parcels. Such access may be subject to .reasonable restrictions so that the joint access does not materially interfere with the use and enjoyment on either parcel. This access will not be required if the adjoining land use is a car wash or facility with gas pumps or other use which may cause vehicular congestion. The access is specifically not provided to facilitate cross 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 parking. Both properties must meet all zoning and use parking requirements on their respective parcels without benefit of such cross access. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcels to guarantee ingress and egress to the properties. A 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be extended to Lako Drivo East from the building. 24. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The city boulevard areas which are disturbed along Lake Drive East shall be restored with sod. 25. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall be constructed with concrete driveway aprons in accordance with the City's Detail Plate No. 5207. 26. Construction traffic to the site shall be limited to one ace. mss point. Parking along Lake Drive East shall be prohibited. 27. A traffic signage plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 28. The applicant shall obtain a permit prior to the installation of all signage. 29. The applicant shall submit a revised plan for parking lot landscaping based on the parking lot configuration on site plan dated Received April 6, 1999." 30. That the applicant will review with staff the trash screening and the wintertime screening considering the buffering view for the neighbors to the south. 31. That the building materials will be brought and presented to the city council. 32. That the applicant review the exterior building lighting and this plan is presented to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Note: Staff shall review the plan to make sure there are enough parking stalls for the building and to review the need for a crosswalk. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO REPLACE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HEAR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS AND APPEALS. Kate Aanenson and Andrea Poehler presented the staff report for this item and asked for any questions. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Peterson: Is it a public hearing nature to it at all or not? Or just presentations and then a decision. Andrea Poehler: No. There's public hearing requirement just as there is for the variances in a site plan review. You'll follow the exact same procedures regarding notice. Aanenson: The way we do that now with thc staff report. 10 days notice. Publish in the paper. ...and that policy would still be the same... Findings. Similarly to what we...application now, just like we did on this variance. Findings on that. What our recommendation. Joyce: Does it say if it was a binding decision anywhere? Aanenson: Well it could be a binding decision, unless they appeal it. Andrea Poehler: Correct. Joyce: But I'm saying would we know if it was. Aanenson: Well let's say you voted for it. More than likely they're go away happy. If you said no. Then they would have four days to appeal it. That's generally what happens. Or a neighbor could appeal it. Andrea Poehler: Right. I mean all the decisions are appealable. The City Council essentially does have final determining decision making power 'and can act as the Board of Adjustment as the final decision maker in all decisions. Because ultimately they can all be appealed to the City Council. If your question is whether or not you'll have some heads up about whether or not you're making a final decision in the matter, it will be any decision that is not related to a site plan review. Platting. Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits and perhaps Kate can just give you a note in her report to that effect. Peterson: So the appeal aspect of it...whether it's 4/5 or less or 4/5 or more, they have the same appeal rights? Andrea Poehler: Yes. Appeal to the City Council, right. If you get a 4/5 vote and they are okay with that and do not appeal, that is the final decision. Aanenson: Now if you can't get the 4/5 vote, it would have to be appealed. Andrea Poehler: No. It would just be treated as another recommendation to the City Council for their final decision in the matter. Peterson: But then it would automatically go, if we don't have the 4/5, so it woUld automatically get... Andrea Poehler: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Conrad: 4/5 ofwhat? Andrea Poehler: The entire Planning Commission. Conrad: What if only four show up, our quorum shows up, then what's the? Andrea Poehler: It would just be a recommendation. You would need an actual vote of 6 members total for it to be a final decision. Conrad: I think you should. Aanenson: We talked about that too and that's something that there was some discretion I believe Andrea, wasn't there? Andrea Poehler: You can, the City can make a decision on whatever vote they want to have. Before the Board of Adjustment it required. Aanenson: Three concurring votes. Andrea Poehler: Three concurring votes for a decision to be final. And so we thought to keep that same uniformity we'd go with the 4/5 vote but you could certainly reduce it. Aanenson: Make it 4/5 of those in attendance could be... Andrea Poehler: You certainly could. I guess because you could have only four show to achieve your quorum, you might want to have something a little higher than that. You might want to go with a 3/5. 3/5 of the entire council. Peterson: I think we need to do that because 25% of the time one person is missing so I think... Can we make that recommendation... Andrea Poehler: Certainly. Aanenson: That's what... This ordinances goes up to the city council so we wanted your input. That's why I had Andrea... Of the 7, if you had 5 of the 7? Blackowiak: Could we express it as a percentage? In other words, 75%. That's three quarters. I mean four's our quorum. Our minimum quorum number. So do we have to express it as a fraction or can we just say 75% and that would get us 3~. 3 oUt of 4. 5 out oft Andrea Poehler: You could actually specify the number of votes' that you have to have. Say, out of a 7 member committee, say it requires. You could just say a majority which would be... 3O Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Conrad: This is real confusing. This whole paragraph on decisions. I read it over eight times and I still didn't know what I was doing. Do all of the Board of Adjustment decisions go to the City Council? Andrea Poehler: No. Conrad: So the one's that we're empowered to make decisions on, other than variances and site plans, those don't go there? Andrea Poehler: Only if they're, well no. There's two cases in which they could go to the city council. The first is if your final decision with the requisite number of votes is appealed. The second is, you don't have the requisite number of votes to make a decision, in which case it's a recommendation that goes to the city council. That is the way it was set up with the Board of Adjustment. We're basically just taking those requirements and planing them accordingly to the Planning Commission. Conrad: How many get appealed? Aanenson: In our city? I would say...call it? The BOard of Agreement. Actually, generally they're given their request and I think that was some of the issues because the Planning Commission actually has a little bit more training in adhering and looking at the factual reasons behind that relate to the ordinance and the application of doing it on a more regular basis than just occasionally. So actually they were probably granted. And if someone gets their relief, it's once in a while a neighbor may... Conrad: So the 4/5 is to say, the intent of the 4/5 is really to saY you're real confident, the commission or the board is real confident that it's going one way. So it's not a 2/3 or majority. It's really leaning, so I don't know what that, how that interprets. If we follow the intent of the 4/5. Aanenson: That's how it is for a rezoning with the city council. They have to have 4/5. Conrad: Yeah. I think we want. You've got to help us because we don't want to bring them back if we've only got 4 people here and we're not doing the city council any good if they have to review it just as significant we review it so somehow you've got to give us some numbers that, you know if. Aanenson: Yeah, if they're still seeing it anyway, we haven't decreased the work load. That's a good point. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Conrad: Right. Andrea Poehler: Your concern is that, you might like to drop that number a little bit so that some things can get decided without having to Send it back to the city coUncil. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Conrad: Shoot it to the city council, yeah. Andrea Poehler: But you'd also like to keep a little more. Conrad: There's a high standard here. Andrea Poehler: A higher standard, right. Because you're making a final decision. I don't know how many members you, you can have a total of 4 in order to review issues. Do you typically have 5 or 6 members? Peterson: Well we probably average 6. Andrea Poehler: Would you be comfortable with a 5/7 vote? Burton: I was just doing the math on that and if you did the 5/7, it stays at 5 for, if we have 6 or 7 people it stays at 5. If we drop down to 5 people, it goes to 4. And if we have 4 people, it's 3. That's how the math works-out at 5/7. Andrea Poehler: Well it depends on what, if it's 5/7 of the entire Planning Commission versus 5/7 of the. Burton: We kept the percent and made them do a percentage of those attending. The quorum that's here. Peterson: We can't, we wouldn't go less than 4 or we wouldn't have a meeting. Aanenson: But you want, like Ladd was saying, if you keep the bar high. If you had 4, you might want to have 4/5. Burton: The quorum of the Planning Commission is 4 or more. If we said you have to have 5/7 of a quorum that would always. Blackowiak: Be 4. Burton: It would be 6. Blackowiak: You're under 75% with 5. Burton: At 4 we'd have, if we had 4 people here, the vote woUld be'3 1 believe. Blackowiak: If we had 4 people then. Burton: It'd 28. Blackowiak: Be voting yes and. . 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Burton: It'd be 3. Blackowiak: 3A would be 75%. If you had 5/7, that's a 71%. Burton: Yeah. Blackowiak: So that's the threshold, the 71%. Burton: Yeah. Blackowiak: So it's less than 3 people voting. Burton: Well you'd round up. It would be. Blackowiak: Oh okay. Well that's why I'm saying we could say 75% and gives us. Peterson: 2.85. Andrea Poehler: I can figure out the appropriate language if you would tell me what number of individuals you would be comfortable with in making a final decision on an issue. To avoid it going back to the City Council. Burton: You know when I look at this, and when we get 7 all here, we're basically I think comfortable at 5 voting for it. And then everything, every number below that is just 1 less than the total isn't it? Conrad: But then if you've got 4 here, we're saying 3 people could. 3 out of 4. that 3 out of 4 is as good as 4 out of 5? Is as significant? 80% versus 71%. number is. Blackowiak: 3 out of 4 is 75%. 5 out of 7 is 71%. Do we believe Whatever that Burton: Higher actually. Blackowiak: Yeah, 5 out of 7 is 71% so it's like. Peterson: Yeah, I think it's reasonable too to compare, it was 3 out of 3 before so it's 3 people to agree. 4 people to agree is proportionately more difficult. I'm comfortable with that. Sidney: I guess I had a couple questions. I guess I was trying to think hOw this might appear on the agenda and I mentioned that to Kate because as a Planning commissioner where I'm advising and then all of a sudden we're going to change hats and put on a judicial hat. How is that going to be handled in our agenda? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Andrea Poehler: It would be exactly as it's handled now in the case of a variance in a plat proceeding. You'd go through all the exact same steps. You wouldn't be switching gears or there wouldn't be any announcement that you're going to be now acting as the Board of Adjustment. The only final, the only change would be, depending on what your final vote is. Whether it's, whether you meet the voting requirements and then it would become a final decision in the matter versus just a recommendation. Aanenson: That's something we could help you with in putting the staff report. Obviously it would require a public hearing so it'd be posted in the public heatings and it would say, it'd be itemized request for a variance for a side yard setback for a garage addition. And then in the staff report, in the background information we would remind you that this is a request, handled separately which is going to require a 75% vote. We would put that in the report just to put you on notice that, and then again what the appeal process is so the applicant would know too. And then do our findings as we would... Sidney: I guess I was thinking more of, you know in the public hearing making sure people understand what the process is and the decision making process. Aanenson: Right, and I think that that's certainly something that the Chairman would do, which we've done in the past. And when we get done what we'd say now here's your appeal process or this is now scheduled to go, which we do now. This item will appear before the City Council and putting everybody else on notice of what the next step will be. Andrea Poehler: Is that something that you notice as part of the application procedure? Aanenson: Right, it's on the application procedure but then the Chairman always again says what the follow-up step is... Sidney: One more question. Wondering what other cities are doing, like Eden Prairie, Chaska. Andrea Poehler: Actually typically cities do not have a separate Board of Adjustments. Most cities either allocate those duties to the Planning Commission or the City Council .... that the city has been currently operating under is very common for the counties and that's provided for by statute but it's not required for cities, and most of them don't have it's own body that's making, a separate body that's making those decisions. Burton: A question for Kate. Are there any deals waiting to be decided? Aanenson: We did have some while this was going through the .process... Actually we have scheduled this for the city council meeting next Monday...It takes a while before you can actually... Peterson: Other comments? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Andrea Poehler: Just so I know. What is the consensus about how many votes you are comfortable with? I'm not sure I'm clear on that. Joyce: 75% and regardless of what we have up here... Say that it has to be 6 out of 7. 5 out of 6. 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 4, the way I look at it. Burton: Did you say 6 out of 7? Joyce: 6 out of 7. Because 5 out of 7 is 70%. Andrea Poehler: So you're looking at 75% of. Blackowiak: Of the members present. Andrea Poehler: Members present versus the entire members. Joyce: So only one vote can go against it. Figure it out. 5 out of 7 is 71% or something. So is that all right then? As a board we have to have 75% of the vote. That covers every scenario. Aanenson: This is a public hearing by the way. Peterson: Hearing our...advisor, may I have a motion and a second to open the public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was open. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Further discussion? Motion please. Blackowiak: I move that we approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 20, Section 20-28, Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. And Section 20-29, Board of Adjustments variance procedures and appealing. Section 20-31 and note that we recommend the decision by the board is affirmative if 75% or more of members present vote in favor of a request. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Biackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to approve an amendment to Chapter 20, Section 20-28, Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals; and Section 20-29, Board of Adjustments variance and appeals procedures recommending that a decision by the board is affirmative with 75% or more members present voting in favor of the request; and repealing Section 20-31. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A 17 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LYNMORE ADDITION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Comments? Paul Palmer: My name is Paul Palmer. I live at 8341 Galpin. I provided some documentation, some maps. I trust you've seen those. We tried to basically put a porch on that would be useable and give the structure some presence. A 5 foot is, this is the first I've heard about it. Staff did not give me a call or let me know their recommendation. 8 foot, we felt was a compromise between a 5 foot and a 10 foot. 8 feet being adequate enough for the door to be able to open it and get by and to have, typically a little bit of furniture on a porch. You have some chairs and that still gives you room to walk by. We think we've given some scenarios. Some looks. Some various options as far as the looks go. We're not quite sure which one would be the best for the area. Some of that will be determined by the houses that come in around us. As far as whether or not they're two stow, stow and a half, things like that. And our objective of course is to blend into the development and to try and find a good fit for the area. Again, an 8 foot porch did not seem excessive. 5 foot is probably going to be a little cramped. 6 foot would be, would make a big difference. 8 foot is what we would prefer. This was done by an architect so we tried to put something together that they felt would work. Peterson: Did you discuss the possibility of realigning the road to accommodate even a larger? Paul Palmer: Well I think as far as the realignment goes, one of the critical things that we did discuss with engineering was the height of the road. As far as the final layOut of the road, where it goes naturally there is some degree of variability as far as the location goes. Whether it's closer to the end of the right-of-way or it's further away, there's probably some adjustment there. We talked about the height of the road that we could actually have it a little bit higher as long as we provided adequate drainage in the front of our house. So that again the home would not, the front of the house would not have to be built up so much and the' street being cut down so low, which would just really make a big difference for the look I think of the overall street. Otherwise the street will have to be cut significantly lower and that's going to' impact the homes across the street from us, which would be to the west backing up against Galpin. So we've figured out how to provide for drainage from our front yard, underneath our driveway and around the back so that again the driveway, the street itself can be higher than what was originally talked about. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Peterson: Based upon your feeling, if we were to say 20 feet...recommend that you go to the developer, obviously you've worked with the developer to date quite well. Still maintain that 20 feet and get your, possibly even extend your porch longer than you're currently requesting if the road were to be moved. Part of what we're trying to do, and I guess what I'm thinking through as I'm talking here is, part of what you were trying to do is make your house, integrate in with a newer neighborhood that we talked about before. And if your house stands out...being so close to the main road, that draws more attention to it and what you're trying, negates what you're trying to do to some degree. Paul Palmer: Yes, and I understand what you're saying. From the standpoint of the developer changing the alignment of the road, as the cul-de-sac as it exists right now. I've seen that plan and they have not modified that in any way. They pretty much have left it where, what they brought to you. They've left it at that. We've adjusted the lot line to the north a little bit. I've moved that over so that we could give some additional land and open up that lot number 7 to the north of us. So we've adjusted that line to accommodate that home a little bit better. But we have not changed that road and I doubt whether they will. Because again they want to have as much land as possible to the west of us. So even 60 would make a big difference. That 1 foot makes a big difference as far as you know being able to get by. I mean you end up with a porch that kind of ends up being not really too useable. I mean it's just, it's very cramped. You know 5 feet, you just don't get much in 5 feet. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Commissioners. Thoughts. Burton: It's a tough one but I think, I'm leaning towards giving him another foot. Peterson: Nickle and diming to some degree. My concern that I offered before is, I don't want it to be close so that it defeats the purpose of...integrating with the neighborhood. You get it too close to the road, it's going to defeat the purpose. Burton: That's also weighed against. Peterson: What's going to make a difference, I don't know. There's, you have to draw the line somewhere. Conrad: 17 feet is real close to the road. Blackowiak: I really, personally believe that even though the developer may not have specifically addressed this 3 foot issue right now, I certainly feel it's something that could be addressed by the developer. In other words, Mr. Palmer may still be able to get the 8 feet that he desires and I feel that the developer could very easily shift the street slightly and give those extra 3 feet. I don't think that 17 feet is in keeping character with the neighborhood and I would certainly support a 20 foot setback which would be consistent with all the other homes in the neighborhood. I just, I don't see any other reason. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Burton: I'd just note. When I looked at the architect's drawing or the plat here, the 20 foot setback is touching a house on the other side. So I don't know how much room they're going to have to move it. It's touching a lot of all the homes really. Right on the front. On both sides so to move it any way you're going to shorten it up on somebody I think. Blackowiak: Yeah, or else the house, you know something else scoots back. This one may not move but I don't know. I mean I find it hard to believe that somebody couldn't find 3 feet in the road. Peterson: Can you change the radius of the circle? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, our standard cul-de-sac is 60 foot radius. I guess from a maintenance standpoint, snow storage and so forth, I would recommend against it. I do believe the applicant could go back to the developer and request shifting the road or shortening the road up 3 feet. It may involve shifting some other lot lines on Lots 5 and4 to make the necessary 30 foot frontage but I think it can be easily accomplished. You will lose some frontage on the lots directly opposite from the home on Lots 1 and 2 of 3 feet approximately. Peterson: But again you're making it more consistent...but you're gaining consistency. Hempel: Right. And there appears there will be plenty of setback on those two lots. Peterson: Other commems from commissioners? Then may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I make a motion the staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt, the Planning Commission approval of a 20 foot from setback for Lot 6, Block 1, Lynmore Addition to permit a front porch on the existing home. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approval of a 20 foot front setback for Lot 6, Block 1, Lynmore Addition to permit a front porch on the existing home. All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: Again Mr. Palmer I think it's important that you go with, talk with the developer and I think staff would certainly assist you in that process if you'd like them to. NEW BUSINESS: Peterson: New business Kate? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1999 Aanenson: existing Family of Christ Church. As a part of that PUD. people here. Peterson: Is that next to the property we just talked? Aanenson: The current church. It's zoned. The PUD requesting to rezone that PUD, that use. Peterson: To what, do we know yet? Aanenson: Assisted living, office or church use. whatever comes in will have to be held to those standards. Peterson: Is that the church that was here tonight? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: That's put their old property on the tax rolls again? Next meeting, we will have on a subdivision, a lot split. Also the rezoning for the In fact there will be a large group of zone allows for a church. They're That would be the renderings. Standards. So Aanenson: It could. If it became an office building. If it was left a church, it would stay that way. Or assisted living, if it's owned by non-profit, it may not. That's all I had for ongoing items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 17, 1999. Peterson: With that, other items to discuss? Blackowiak: I just have one thing again. I'm still interested in pOssibly going to that seminar at the end of the month or beginning of May. I don't know if anybody else has expressed an interest in going but I'll throw it out again so. It's one of those things, if it's 3 or more then you get, then the city gets a break so I don't know if it's, but it's something I'm looking at so. It's a Thursday... Blackowiak moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim · 39