Loading...
Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 39,910 SQ. FT. EXPANSION FOR CLASSROOM, GYMNASIUM, AND LIBRARY/OFFICES, ETC. TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, CHAPEL HILLS ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Dan Blake Bill Lawrence Kathy & Larry Schroeder Steve Barnett Greg Benedict George P. Shorba 306 West 78th Street 2122 Boulder Road 7720 Frontier Trail 8709 Chanhassen Hills 823 Roundhouse Street 306 Chan View Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Okay, questions of staff. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a couple questions. On the condition, number 12 there's, the crossed out part but it seems that they given the sidewalk and it looks like that's what they're doing actually. The crossed out part, Al-Jaff: They have made the connection. Burton: That's already been done? AI-Jaff: On the plans that. Burton: Oh I see, so we don't need a condition because it's already in the plan. Aanenson: Correct. That was the original condition and we're just showing you that it's done. Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Burton: I get it. And then I'm a little unclear on condition 24. If you're sticking with what you've recommended or if you're agreeing to one of the alternatives? Al-Jaff: We would feel more comfortable with our recommendation and I think the applicant can address that further. Obviously we would rather see it remain. Burton: Okay. AI-Jaff: There are cost issues that the applicant will be able to address. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess one of the topics that was discussed at the last meeting about this was the roof. We have various roof styles and types of roofs. Has that been discussed with the applicant? Because that I feel could detract from the overall plan. AI-Jaff.' We've talked about it. Other than taking out the existing roof, and I assume that if the chapel portion that is of concern to the Planning Commission, other than takingthat entire roof off, I don't know how else you can hide it really. Increasing the height of the building or the parapet walls is not goingto screen it. And no we did not ask them to remove the existing roof. Sidney: Okay. And one more question. I guess to clarify, I think one of the things I saw and we're discussing here, concern about when you say brick or block or whatever, can you go over that again? Al-Jarl: What portions are brick? Sidney: And block and on your board there, is that the block and, that your referring to? Al-Jaff.' These are the same materials that you looked at initially. Sidney: And that's the block? AI-Jaff: That's the block. Tile colors are going to remain tile same. The size of the block, rather than usingthe large scale block, they will be utilizing this size ofbrick. And we refer to it asutility size brick. Sidney: Brick, okay. AI-Jaff: Brick. The recommendation remains as smooth face and not this textured block or rock face block. The location, do you want me to go over that one more time? Sidney: Two sides of the gymnasium would be the block? AI-Jaff: Correct. Sidney: And then the lower portion of the building, around the building would be block? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sidney: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 AI-Jaff: The area that is proposed to be locker rooms, which has a one story height, will be brick. Does that answer all the questions? Sidney: Yes, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yeah Sharlnin, this is a site plan review. Al-Jarl: Correct. Conrad: There are no elevations in our kit. Al-Jarl: There are these and then. Conrad: l'm curious about, huh. Okay, I didn't get that. Peterson: No, we didn't either. Conrad: Can you put up the West 78th Street elevation? AI-Jaff: Sure. Nothing has changed on this elevation. It's what was initially approved by the Planning Commission. It has windows along West 78th. These are pitched elements. Architectural features. No function really. Entrances are off Frontier Trail and then from the parking side. This is a brick fa(~ade. Conrad: It's recessed so it goes back? Al-Jarl: Correct. Conrad: Okay. So you like that? That's okay? On 78th. Al-Jarl: Yeah. Conrad: That's what we saw before? AI-Jaff: That's what you saw before. Conrad: And pretty much the Planning Co~nmission said that's okay? Al-Jarl: Yes. And the direction was to move with that style. Conrad: Okay. And that's the part that's the variance part because it's closer to West 78th. AI-Jaff: Correct. Conrad: That makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Okay. Peterson: Uli. Planning Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 Sacchet: Quick question. The trees. They are really nice mature trees and the ones that are being cut down are, that's mitigated with the landscaping plan? Al-Jarl: Correct. The applicant has truly made an effort to save as many trees as possible. The majority of the existing trees where the playground is, all of those are remaining. There will be 3 trees, mature trees that will be removed due to the expansion. And the applicant is adding additional landscaping. Sacchet: So it's only 3 major trees taken? Because 1 couldn't see that from the drawing on there. And then the other part of the question is, there are two little houses that will be remoVed. Which phase does that re~nove the houses? A1-Jaff: They intend to remove them with Phase I. Sacchet: With definitely this initial phase? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. The idea to relocate the house or tear them down? Al-Jarl: We've asked the applicant to relocate them. But it depends on availability of land. Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question. Peterson: Sharmin what, l thought we had talked about it before but there's so many sides and areas of this building that needed windows. One of the areas that we look at, pull up your elevation on the gymnasium on the south side. Was there a rational rationale for not having windows on that side? Which is the more predominantly seen side of the building. We have them to the north, which was added, and we didn't add them on the south side, which I'm at somewhat ora loss as to why we wouldn't have. Al-Jarl: This is the area where the lockers are and typically you don't have windows. Peterson: But the building is so high. The windows on the other elevation seem to be high where it'd be irrelevant, wouldn't it? AI-Jaff: And when you look at it, on a flat surface like this, yes it does appear high. However please remember that the locker rooms extend out this portion. Extend out and it's one story. Peterson: Boy, 1 can't picture it. See if you look at those, that picture there. A1-Jaff: Here, this one shows it well. Peterson: Those windows seem like they're 25 feet high. Al-Jarl: Right here. Peterson: Yeah. Why wouldn't they go all the way around? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000 Al-Jaff: We can make that recommendation. Peterson: I mean we put them there on both sides for a visual affect, but yet the most visualized portion of the building is the one without the windows. So anyway, we can talk to the applicant. Second question. Do we know what the materials are or are they planning on keeping the same roofing material for the current Academy? Are they planning on using the rock or are they planning on using asphalt shingles? Do we know? Al-Jarl: Right now it's all fiat roofs. Parapets. The existing roof, there are no plans on changing them. . Peterson: The skylights remain in there then too. Al-Jaff: Correct. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? Conrad: Yeah, one 1 forgot Mr. Chair. The music room. Last time I was concerned about sound where the band room is Sharmin. Auy, and the neighbors kind of liked, as I recall, the neighbors kind of like the fact that there'd be music playing. Are we still okay with the acoustics? Aanenson: He can't hear you. Peterson: Sir? Sit', we'll answer your question in a minute. We'll get your question answered iujust a couple minutes. Okay? Try it again Ladd. Conrad: The music roonl Mi'. Chair, the last time here, I think the neighbors, some of the neighbors said they look forward to having music coming out, but you know, I guess do we put any conditions on the acoustics of that area? It is towards the residential side so hoxv do we manage that? AI-Jaff: If, and I'm just thinking out loud here. If there was a complaint we can contact Chapel Hill and ask them to keep the windows closed maybe. Conrad: Yeah, I'd rather not do that. Do we do anything with a room that's built for, and maybe the applicant will answer the question. Al-Jaff: Sound proof it? Conrad: Yeah. Trying to beat a problem to the pass. Is that an issue? When we have people in our neighborhood playing things, we can hear it for blocks so. It's an issue I think. We'll ask the applicant that question. Peterson: All right, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Dau Blake: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Dan Blake. I'm here with Chapel Hill Academy. With me today is Bill Lawrence with the DLR Group, the architect. As well back in the back we've got Steve Barnett, our Chairman of the Board and Greg Benedict, our Development Director. So if you have any questions regarding the school, kind of direct them to those guys. I'm going to try to keep this brief and hopefidly be available to answer any questions. I'll try to address the items that I heard so Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000 far. Just a little background. When we came before the Planning Commission last time we were sort of under the gun because ora commitment we made to bring an application in by a certain date. And we asked you to review Phase I. Commission had some issues with the overall plan that we weren't prepared to really answer very well, and Council suggested we come back so that we didn't get, so that we knew what we had before we started building. Now we're ready. We plan on starting this project this fall for, or maybe this winter for completiou by the next school year. We believe we've made the changes that address most of the comments that we heard at the last Planning Commission meeting. Relative to the roofs. The existing roof on the existing, original school building is quite flat. It's too flat as l understand to do like an asphalt or wood shiugle roof, and that's probably why it would be best left in it's existing condition. The roof of the existing church building we believe will be hidden quite a bit by bringing the building out in front of it and only from quite a distance would you be able to see that there's a roof behind there. The question came up about the windows on that south side of the gym. If you look at, you've got that picture. If you look at the other views. We have the windows right about at this red band, and if we put, continue those same windows across this wall, they'd be halfway up the two story part of the building and we believe you wouldn't see them because nobody gets this aerial view unless you're up iii the bell tower of the church across the street. And that's why we didn't do it. We didn't think that you'd be able to see them from parking lot or street level. At least not significant enough to notice that they were really there. And they don't really provide us any benefit. We added them to the other walls really to accomplish a concern that we heard for those sides. Regarding the music room. I don't think we really plan on doing anything special. It will be masonry construction. There will be high quality windows. I don't know that this kind ofissue's ever come up iii this city or anywhere else relative to a school or any other use. I'm sure the city has some kind of noise ordinances. If we're iii violation, we won't be allowed to stay iii violation. The building will be air conditioned. Windows typically wouldn't be open for most of the time that people are in the building. We haven't decided if they're operable windows or not, but likely they might not be. Regarding the condition regarding the phasing. I think this plans depicts it the best. We understand staff's concern to make sure that the entire exterior happens and we want that as well. It's our plan to do all this. We hope to do it within 5 to 10 years, but it's difficult with certainty to predict when funding will be available to go beyond the initial phase. One of our concerns was the way the language is specifically written, and maybe this just takes a little clarification. It talks about no interior remodeling. You know we can't do Phase II without doing new exteriors so that's a given. You do Phase II, you get new exterior. You do Phase III, you get new exterior. I'm very comfortable with that requirement. My concern is ifI remodel the interior auditorium area, I wouldn't want to do new exterior, which means I have to do Phase Il and Ill at that time. My concern would be if I wanted to renovate this gym area that's in the middle of this classroom building after we build the new gym, that I wouldn't want to have to add renovation of these classrooms from these outside walls. What I'd be very willing to do, and I think this is fair and 1 think it gets to the city's concerns to say, slightly modify the language in that condition 24 so that it says that, instead of saying any phases II, II or IV, that it just says any remodeling of the classrooms on these outside walls. And it's out intent to do remodeling of those classrooms to get them up to the standards of the new classrooms. There's problems with the way the doors align. As Sharmin mentioned, there's a lot of problems with the windows. They don't seal well. They let in too much light and too much, or too much heat and too much cold. So it is our expectation that those classrooms would be remodeled. It's not intention at all that that would get put off forever. We just recognize that as being a lower priority to us. A second alternative that we propose is no remodeling maybe in any of this area without doing those two outside walls. It kind of adds one more caveat to us if we want to do anything iii this area, that we would agree to do these outside walls. And under either of those alteruatives I would ask that we would be allowed to do some lighting i~nprovements and some heating system improvements that aren't structural remodeling. Just for clarification on those two issues. Lastly I understand we're going to have a question regarding the height of the building. In this area, the building is roughly 12 to 15 feet, 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 depending on exactly how high that parapet wall goes that we need to do our screening, which would be the...down here that gym wall is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 feet. Possibly a little bit higher again depending on what that exact height needs to be to accomplish our screening. These existing homes, 1,2, 3, only one is next to this, the two story part. Those homes sit somewhere, ifI might look just a minute here. On your grading plan it indicates the height. Those houses sit about 13 feet higher than this parking lot where this gym will be built. My estimation is that the top of this buy will be at an elevation of 1001 and that the top of these houses are roughly at an elevation of 1005. So these houses, not the windows but thc top of the houses are slightly higher, will be slightly higher or are slightly higher than this gym wall will be. This gym wall will be somewhat shorter than the two apartment buildings across the street relative to how these residents might see a tall structure in that area. Given that I guess we're in agreelnent with the rest of the staff conditions and | hope that these revisions are satisfactory to the city and be available to answer whatever questions you have. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Just a couple I think, or one specifically. I think I've already voiced my opinion on the windows and you didn't necessarily convince me that I was wrong in my request but help me understand, as you look at, and I guess I just want your offthe cuff response on this is, if you look at the roof as it's currently designed and the current building with the pitch and the skylights and you look at the new construction that will be surrounding it, boy it's just hard to put those two together. That the current roof looks like it's just the design naturally makes it look like it's sloping and caving in. The skylights are dated. Help me understand that that won't just look totally out of place. That's my biggest concern about the whole project, and it's probably my same Concern when it was last here. Dan Blake: Well the skylights are going to be updated. I don't know, I understand what you're saying. It's a vaulted two story space in the center there. 1 guess I can't come up with a suggestion other than you know putting in two story walls there and trying to keep some of that height on the inside that would not have that existing roof and something like it's existing condition. And I think going to a two story building throughout that would dramatically impact the bulk or the mass of those side walls. Like I said, we've kind of discussed some various materials and I think we feel like we're stuck with what's there to some regard. I guess 1 hope that the other improvements make that maybe go away a little bit. Right now that's what stands out. I mean I think what stands out to me right now is that the building is made out of about 8 different exterior materials obviously before there was this kind ora process. Hopefully by tying everything else together, that element goes away to some extent. It certainly won't be hidden. Probably won't be as visible as it is in our little 3D views because they're from up, not from parking lot level. Peterson: Was there even any discussion about changing the color of the rock on it? I mean I'm just thinking out of the blue here. Dan Blake: Well I'll throw out that if there is a need to replace that ballast and redo that roof, I wouldn't have a problem with going to more of a tan color that would blend in with the brick. Certainly wouldn't object to that. Wouldn't even mind, you know if that's a condition that when that roof needs to be replaced, we do that. I have no idea what the magnitude of that involves to, you know as far as volunteering to say we'll do that right now. Certainly if it needs to be replaced, we would consider that. Peterson: All right, thank you. This item isn't open for a public hearing but due to the fact that it's been quite some time since we've heard any additional comments, we'll certainly entertain any comments fi'om anybody ill the audience. Any comments or questions now so if you would have questions, please come forward and state your nalne and address please. 7 Planning Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 George Shorba: I'm Mr. George P. Shorba. ! live right back of the academy on the north side. All I'm interested iii is how high are these buildings? Are they higher than the present building that's in there now? Aanenson: He has inet with City staff. We've reviewed. George Shorba: See I don't hear too well. Dan Blake: Your house sits at about here. You're iii the middle. George Shorba: ...but I didn't get the height. Dan Blake: The building adjacent, behind your house is the same height as the existing, the flat part of the roof so it will be lower than the pitched part of the existing roof. George Shorba: See l'm tip quite a bit. Dan Blake: I understand. About 13 feet higher. George Shorba: About 12 and 3/4. Something like that. See I get a breeze, good breeze there. Dan Blake: So this, the height of this building is not any higher than the existing structure out here. It's actually lower than the peak part of the roofi The gym building out here adjacent to this last house is taller, but not adjacent to where your property is in the middle. George Shorba: I would say that 1 was wishing that you'd be on the main drag instead because there's nobody else in fi'ont. All there is is the dead people in the celnetery. You know what I'm talking about. And I've got... So it will be about the same height? Dan Blake: Right. One story. George Shorba: That's all I wanted to address. Otherwise I'm going home and watch the ball game. Peterson: Any other comments? Alright, commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. I think you've ah'eady sensed my thoughts a little bit. Ladd, any particular issues? Conrad: 1 think you've said them. I probably agree with you Craig on the windows on the gymnasium. It might be a benefit. I'm not totally convinced but it might help. I'd like to have staff review that. I'd like staff to review the music, the sound implications, l just want to be stupid and building a band room and a couple years from now have a great orchestra out of the academy and have the neighbors say well you should have thought of this. I just want to think about it before, acoustically what do we do there? I don't know what to do with condition number 24. Staff's point is good. I don't know why somebody smarter than myself will have reword that or to go with that. Peterson: Any other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think that the block on the gym makes sense. I think it'd be cost prohibitive to force them to use the brick there. I wanted to comment on the variance request and I think it's important to note that the purpose of the variance was to blend the school in with the community. The surrounding Planning Com~nission Meeting - August 1, 2000 neighborhood and the purpose was not for the intention of increasing the value of anywhere. I agree with you over the concerns that you mentioned about the windows on the gym. I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be noticeable that they're absent. That seems that'd be a nice addition to have the windows going around the entire gym. As to the roof, I don't think I'd want to penalize the applicant regarding the roof and putting any conditions on the roof but it did take the building as it is and they're doing a lot to improve it and 1 wouldn't want to hold the roof against them or make them do anything with the roof. I think they're doing a good job. I agree with Ladd on condition 24. I understand the staff's concern. I know they're condition addresses it and I'm not sure 1 like either of the alternatives that have been suggested by the applicant so I guess I'm leaning towards leaving it the way staff has it at this point until I'm convinced otherwise. Peterson: What about just changing that so it includes any interior HVAC and lighting? Burton: I don't have a problem with that. Peterson: Okay. Sidney: Mr. Chair. I agree with Comlnissioner Burton's comments. I do think it might be worth noting as a condition that, and I guess the language I'd propose would be that the applicant will consider changing the color of the rock group when replacement of the roof is necessary. Just to keep that in their minds. Also I think condition 19 should be cleaned up a little bit to make sure that we understand that we're asking roi' brick and rock face block as exterior. And I guess I don't really have any strong feelings about the windows on the gymnasium one way or another. Peterson: Any final COlmnents? Sacchet: 1 do believe that those windows would be visible from, I think they're high enough over the lower floor and the view is from quite a distance from the street, through the parking lot. I would like to really make sure that if you don't see them, there's no point in putting them there, l'm inclined to think that you actually would see them and they would add an additional element of architectural interest. 1 don't have an issue very much with the practice rooms. Having a background in music myself, in a school those practice rooms are usually small and closed. But it's certainly worthwhile looking into that we don't get a problem. I would not think that's a major issue. In terms of the condition linking the outside to the interior, I think I would be willing to go with the middle option. The idea of the option. I would be willing to relax a little bit. ! think it's a reasonable request to do that. That's my comments. Peterson: Which option are we talking about? The one that was submitted by Dan Blake? Sacchet: Yeah, Dan gave two options. Alternative 2, no interior remodeling which would require building permit except lighting and HVAC upgrades will be permitted within the existing classroom portion. That means the whole southern portion of the building unless the exterior walls are included with, I think that's a good balance. I would support that... Peterson: Okay. My comments I think I've already shared so I'll certainly entertain a motion this evening. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #98-12 and fi'ont yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy master plan as shown on plans dated July 24, 2000, with the following conditions. And I would leave them as they Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 are except for 24. I would substitute the alternative 2 that the applicant has submitted that I just read, and I would put in also that we recommend we study whether these windows on the south side of gymnasium are visible fi'om the parking lot and from West 78th Street. If they are, ! would recommend they are added. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: So the condition 24, what does that mean? What are we saying on the revision? Saccbet: May I address what I think it says? Peterson: Let her read first. Conrad: And did we ask staff, what did you think about that? Aanenson: Our concern is you're going to have several different materials out there and as they indicated, it may be up to 10 years. If you allow them to do the HVAC, which be indicated the problem with that area is energy, you're going to have three different materials for a longer period out there. We want to have a reasonable COlmection. Obviously they want to fix the energy problems. I'm not sure if that's just a heating or the windows or, there seems to be some sort of tie that we need to make with remodeling. We just don't want that area left, and it can be left a long time and you've got different materials and that's what we're trying to resolve. Conrad: It is the area, the classroom area or the, I'm trying to figure out if. Aanenson: It's existing classroom area. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, right those windows. Conrad: But in the motion, in your staff report, it's talking about Phase II, II and IV and so is that, is that classroom impacted in all those phases? AI-Jaff: No. The classroom is in Phase IV. Conrad: So why don't we. Al-Jarl: With Phases II and II1 they are adding actual, with Phases II and III they're adding exterior space. So we had no doubt that the exterior will be taken care of. Conrad: So II and III is insignificant. So it's really !V that we're concerned with. Aanenson: Correct. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Conrad: Okay. Aanenson: So how long does that stay the way it is? What's the motivation? Conrad: Yeah. AI-Jaff: And right now you will have a detached building, as far as the gym goes. Eventually they're going to need to make that connection. Conrad: Okay. Sacchet: May I clarify, make sure I have clear understand the words right. It's my understanding that the wording that is proposed here means they can fix lighting and heating and cooling. It doesn't mean they could change windows or doors or auything beyond that, if I'm correct. Aanenson: Right. But the biggest issue is the heating and cooling. So that buys them a lot of time. Sacchet: The heating and cooliug is the main thing that needs to be. Aanenson: Right. So that's I guess our question to them is, does that give them 10 years? 117 20 years like that without that space being fixed. Peterson: That's the biggest eye sore. If it quote unquote is an eyesore in that area. Starting at the roof and coming down. Aanenson: There may be some middle ground. I'm not sure we can solve it here tonight but that goes back to Ladd's. Peterson: Sure go ahead Dan. Dan Blake: Thanks. I just want to clarify a couple things. First, we believe that there's a lot of motivation for us to do remodeling here, not just because of heating and cooling. We plan on putting a library in here. We plan on upgrading these rooms for a lot of reasons so I think that's adequate assurance to the city. Obviously you have to make that decision. Secondly, if we were to do everything, Phases 1, il and III, the original, the design that you see before you with the red base up to a certain height was intended to match the height of the red brick that's out there. Color and height so that when this phase was built next to this, at least it sort of fit together. So it would sort of fit together. It's just going to have that glass above it, which would eventually get turned into brick and less windows that matches better so, we think the first phase was a design so that they sort of fit together as best as you can fit together those odd materials. So I guess two things. I don't think, it doesn't have to be a worst situation if it's as is, but we expect that there will be quite a demand for upgrading these classrooms. We're going to have half our school in brand new nice classrooms. And the other half in these 50 year old classrooms. We're going to immediately have parents saying let's do this. I could see this Phase IV turuing into Phase II and then when we did this, we'd do the outside. Sacchet: Yes, that's basically why I was targeting this alternative because it means remodeling not just in the classroolns. It actually means remodeling in that whole segment of the building and to me it seems pretty necessary. I mean right now, what is it at that big, open room in there that something I'ln sure, it's motivation for them to remodel and then to fit the classrooms. I do believe that from a city we have 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 assurance that this will be done and not just be pushed offto the maximum. That's just my personal feeling about it. So 1 would stay with that as my proposal. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Sidney: Mr. Chair I guess, the comments that I had if we could, friendly amendment here to condition 19 that we clarify that it's smooth face brick and rock face block as indicated in the staff report. Then also I suggested a condition 25 to keep that roof in front of the applicant. The applicant will consider changing the color of the rock roof when replacement of the roof is necessary. Sacchet: That would be 26 because I already added a 25. Sidney: Oh, okay that's fine. That's fine. Sacchet: Yeah, that's fine. Peterson: As further discussion, 1'11 probably. Not probably, ! won't vote in favor of this only because I just don't, in my mind 1 can't see the roof as it is today fitting in with the rest of the area. That area being the rest of the building so I agree with all the other amendments and the stab at trying to take the rock, change. That ~vould certainly help but it just, I don't think it's going to look as good as we want it to for that area of town, or any area of town so. Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan, as shown in the plans dated received July 24, 2000 with the following conditions: Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre and post development storm water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can accolnlnodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion. .. The applicant shall obtain fi'om the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. 7. Building Official Conditions: 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. c. Meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the salne as those used on the new building. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee site improvements. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 block and rock face block as indicated in the staff report for exterior material. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. The modular units ~nust be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the classroom addition along West 78th Street. 13 Planning Co~nmission Meeting - August 1, 2000 21. No interior remodeling which would require a building permit, except for lighting and HVAC upgrades, will be permitted within the existing classroom portion. 22. The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of gymnasium are visible from the parking lot and from West 78th Street. 23. The applicant will consider changing the color of the rock roof when replacement of the roof is necessary. All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Peterson: Goes onto City Council on the 28th and Ladd your reason for tile nay. Conrad: I think tile applicant should review tile acoustics with the staff. The applicant I think should, I think as itl the motion, review tile windows in the gymnasium on the south wall, and I'm not comfortable with condition 24 as it's been addressed. Peterson: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, MIKE ARVIDSON. Public Present: Name Address Tom & Neysa Winterer 2210 Melody Hill Shelli Placchino 2210 Melody Hill Mike Arvidson 5595 Timber Lane Chuck Levvellen 6340 Murray Hill Road Carol Riese 6320 Murray Hill Road Ted Dorenkamp 6370 Murray Hill Road Greg Golmen 2220 Melody Hill Gilbert Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Junie Hoff-Gohnen 2220 Melody Hill Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of the staff?. Sacchet: Yeah Mi'. Chair, I have a question. The existing structure, do we know how long that's intended to remain there? We don't. Peterson: Speculation by staff l would imagine so. 14 Planning Co~nmission Meeting- August 1, 2000 Sacchet: That might be more a question for the applicant. Peterson: Other questions? Ladd Conrad asked Dave Hempel a question regarding tree removal during the tape change. Hempel: No. Tree removal. There would be some tree removal associated with that or trees along the property line. Conrad: Major or minor? Hempel: Not significant tree, wooded area. One other thing I did fail to mention with the previous plat that was approved in '96. The Gohnen-Hoff-Golmen plat which was a two lot subdivision directly west of this, staff did recommend additional right-of-way for extension of Melody Hill be conveyed at that time with that plat. That did occur. We do have right-of-way through that subdivision up to this subdivision at this time. Remaining right-of-way needed would be on the south side of the road, actually on the school property which is about another I think 20 foot width of land that we would need. One other thing just came to mind. Over the past year or two we have had conversations with the school as far as looking at a secondary alternative access through Melody Hill area because the access situation with Trunk Highway 41 so that's another incentive I guess to having a thru street if possible. Connection with the school property. Sacchet: Well Mr. Chair. Are we talking car access or pedestrian access as a secondary access when you're talking about access? Hempel: I believe they're looking for both. Secondary vehicle and pedestrian. I don't believe it was for bus traffic. Main route for the buses to go. Sacchet: But they're thinking that you could drive through there. Hempel: Correct. I should point out I've not heard anything since the one time which was approximately a year and a half ago. Sacchet: I have a few more questions. Now if we would not go with where it plans to go...cul-de-sac and do a road, or partially road, would that have to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission or in terms of procedure? What's our scope with this that's in front of us. Can you answer that? Aanenson: Our' condition is to recommend it with the thru street. Since you don't have the thru street in fi'ont of you, our recommendation is to deny the plat as proposed. Sacchet: Okay. Now, so you understand that...still another question that comes beyond the scope in terms of having a vision of where this is going. Doing this thru street, does it have to go all the way through. Or potentially it could just go and stop for access that development and maybe have a pedestrian way through if the neighborhood is so violently opposed to having a thru street. That would be a possibility eventually, is that correct? Al-Jarl: Where would you stop it? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: For access to parcel space. Instead of going all the way through. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. That's kind of a difficult halfway, I mean bow long do we envision for it to remain halfway I guess. Are we just delaying the inevitable? We do have a few subdivisions that occurred in the past that have silnilar, where they extended the road partway and then over time as the area filled in with additional neighbors aud so forth, the road never went any farther and it kind of defeated the purpose of putting the road there in the first place so. I guess it'd be staff's recommendation that you either look at extending the road all the way through, make the connection, or not having the road and doing the cul-de-sac street that serves basically this type of subdivision and anticipate another one with the parcel to the north. Sacchet: Hempel: time. Audience: Peterson: Saccbet: Peterson: Do we know if the parcel to the north having intent to subdivide? I believe in a correspondence from them, they do not wish or have a desire to subdivide at this l'm tile person to the north. We'll have public comment in a few ~ninutes. Yeah, I'd appreciate if you can address it. Other questions of staff?. Conrad: Yes Mr. Chainnau. Ifa road did go through, the applicant would still have the same rights to do a cul-de-sac comiug frown tile north. Is that true? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Dave, the site was assessed for one additional, over the years has been assessed only for one additional sewer connection. But regardless of where the cul-de-sac is put, they do have the right to put a cul-de-sac in. Is that true? Whether it be from Murray Hill or an extension of Melody Hill, they still would. Aauenson: Well it's our recomlnendation, our finding that it's in violation of the city ordinance. That's our opinion. Conrad: To? Aaueuson: To not have the street go through. That's the staff's recommendation. Conrad: Okay. But if Melody Hill went through, they could run a cul-de-sac offofthat and still feed 4 lots. Aanenson: They wouldn't need a cul-de-sac. If Melody Hill was extended you would have 3 lots accessing off of Melody Hill. Conrad: Okay, and then the fourth off of Murray. 16 Planning Comlnission Meeting- August 1, 2000 Aanenson: Murray Hill. Peterson: If they made the cul-de-sac to ineet the codes for a private road, they could still go ahead and do that, am I not interpreting this right? AI-Jaff: Repeat your question please. Peterson: If they increased the cul-de-sac, increased the size of the cul-de-sac private drive to city standard, could they not still do that? Aanenson: Again our recommendation that doesn't meet the subdivision regulations. Peterson: Okay. That was my question. So even if they increased it to ineet the street standards, it still wouldn't meet tile subdivision? Aanenson: That would be our opinion, yes. Peterson: Okay. Al-Jarl: This option meets city standards as far as public street but it's not the option that staff is recommending. We're still recommending connection of the thru street. Aanenson: Not quite exactly. It doesn't meet the thru street criteria. It doesn't ineet the subdivision reg when there's an option to put the street through. The cul-de-sac width would lneet the city standard... Sacchet: Can I ask one more question Mi'. Chair? What is our intent in terms of the comprehensive plan for the city, what's the plan for Melody Hill? I mean we have a Melody Hill stub to the west and then you have no more Melody Hill oil the east side. What's the original intent that that is to go a thru street. ls that one street? I mean what's the original vision here? Or city vision I should ask. Is that something you can address? Hempel: Yeah, in the comprehensive plan it does propose the connection of those two streets to provide a transportation link to connect the neighborhoods to the secondary access from Melody Hill. Sacchet: Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mike Arvidson: Mr. Chairman. Mister and Misses. The city is proposing that I change my plan completely. I object to that and I will not change the plan. ! think the city is using the wrong priorities. I believe that the people and the neighbors are the priority here and not the engineering of putting a road through. My intent is to enhance the property and the neighborhood. If we put a road in, it would take away from the neighborhood. It would take away from this beautiful property. And I might add that there are 100 year old trees that would have to be taken down to put in the city road. The economics of doing what the city would prefer is not ill the best interest of anyone. The price of the lots would have to be for 3 lots and not for 4. For this neighborhood there are exceptional homes in this neighborhood. This is an exceptional neighborhood. I don't think that has been taken into consideration. The city says 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 that it's inappropriate, meaning unsuitable. Improper. Unfitting. My plan. I say the same tiring about their plan. Finally I would not want this property if my plan does not go through. Thank you. Peterson: Any questions of tile applicant? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. The existing house that's on there, like I was trying to get that question answered by staff before. Do you have a vision of how long this house would remain? Mike Arvidson: I believe the Woida's said it was built in tile 40's and that's all I can tell you. And it's been added to a number of times. Sacchet: 1 mean it is the view ofyour...bow exceptional the neighborhood is, which I certainly agree with. It's a wonderful neighborhood. I can vision that house wouldn't stay long at all. Mike Arvidson: Well, you have to have vision. Carolyn McClure is willing to purchase this house. 1 think a number of people in this room know who Carolyn McClure is. She does amazing things with old homes. The best I can tell you. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Mike Arvidson: One other thing. 1 do plan on building on this property, one of the lots if it is approved the way I would like it. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. A motion and second for public hearing please. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Tom Winterer: My nalne is Tom Winterer. I live at 2210 Melody Hill. I'm the neighbor that would be to the northeast. No, northwest of this parcel. I'm the proud recipient of the subdivision of Gohnen- Hoff-Gohnen when that was subdivided and so where 1 enjoy right now is some of the land that's been deeded for the right-of-way for the extension of Melody Hill. And we, when we purchased this house about 5 years ago, we looked at probably 20 properties from Shakopee to this was the further north property that we looked at. And it just was such a jewel when we got up to it. Saw the thing, you know and we were told that this subdivision had happened and that the neighborhood was so united in their concern about the quality and the character that the streets lended. We were like, well it's a great investment. We always envisioned the place remaining the way it is. This is the issue regarding this development. What this says is that at the request to subdivide 2.1 acre parcel into 4 single family lots. What I think it should say is, this is a request to have the city continue on with their master plan. I don't know how old the master plan is, but I do know that the house that l'm in has been served well by the way that the streets have served it for, I think it was 1936 is what's on my deed. And the city's filled in lots around it rather well and it's very pleasing and it feels like to us in the neighborhood that you know the patient is fine, but the city wants to recommend major surgery. One of the issues that got brought up by staff was the desire to help out the school's needs by serving the school with access off of Melody Hill for an overflow parking lot I think is what it's for because of the concerns with safer point of access oil Highway 41 for the school. I don't know what the issue was Dave, but you brought it up when you 18 Planning Commission Meeting- August I, 2000 talked about the type of traffic that Lake Lucy Road gets and what Melody Hill would get. It sounded like you were saying Melody Hill will still be fine and it will still keeps it character but if you put, connect the two streets and then put that overflow parking off of Melody Hill, it will become a Lake Lucy. In fact it will be nicer than Lake Lucy to go on because of the hills and the turns and the twisting and alt. We envision that it will become the neat race course in the neighborhood for people to zip up and around just because of how nice the homes are and everybody, the way they do their yards and the gardens and everything, l just feel like that's in jeopardy here. I would look forward to having Mr. Arvidson as a ueighbor with this current proposal or if the commission sees fit to help him resolve the issues that he has and still be able to do 4 lots. It looks pretty obvious to anybody that you can see from the plan, you can take a look at the amount of land in here that he would have to get rid of to make this extension happen so as a neighbor or a future neighbor of his, I would like to lend my support to Mr. Arvidson's plan and if you have any questions of me I'd like to let you ask them now. Nothing? Peterson: Thank you. Tom Winterer: Thank you for letting me speak. Ted Dorenkamp: Chairman and panel. My name is Ted Dorenkamp. l'm the property owner to the north. I purchased my property about 3 years ago and there was no idea at that point in time to, that that xvas a subdividable lot. I didn't purchase it for that reason. I only learned of this sitting with the city planners when i had thought about purchasing the Woida property. We have no intention of subdividing our property ever and we are opposed to the road extension of Melody Hill. Like our neighbors, our neighbor previously talked to you about, it is an exceptional neighborhood. It's a quiet neighborhood and adding a thru street on Melody Hill would only degrade the property and add much more traffic and give you maybe some safety concerns. If you're talking about that road being a feeder road for the school, you should certainly understand that there's a 10% grade that that road would have, that buses would have to go down on Melody Hill, around a curve. They would have to make two left turns into that school. If you try to get across 41 in the morning, you'll notice that, you will surely know that it's impossible to do that with all the traffic. Lake Lucy Road is the right approach there. I do support Mr. Arvidson's proposal. It makes sense for the neighborhood. It keeps the integrity of the large properties there and I give him my support. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Don Kelly: I'm Don Kelly. My address is 2081 West 65th Street and when I came this evening I didn't know what Mt'. Arvidson's proposal was. I was concerned that there might be some consideration in connecting Melody Hill. I was pleased to see that he had a more sensible solution than baying all of his access off of Murray Hill Road. I was here 15 years ago. My home is on West 65th Street which is right here and this property here was being considered for subdivision. And I was very surprised when the city proposed that they just loop this road right through and eliminate two cul-de-sacs. Looking at city ordinances it was the right thing to do. Looking at safety, at snowplowing, at all sorts of things, trash pick-up, it was the right thing to do. The Planning Commission recommended it. The neighbors of course were all opposed to that. The developer was opposed to that. Only the city was in favor of that. It was sent to the City Council and fortunately one of the people on the City Council drove to the neighborhood and looked and she said this is a beautiful neighborhood that we'd be destroying if we continue with the city's plan. As a result this development was finished this way and it's still a beautiful neighborhood. I have the same concerns with what the city is recommending now with the new development. There are people that live on Melody Hill on both stretches that are, that live ill beautiful neighborhoods that have moderate traffic. Connecting those roads would substantially increase the 19 Planning Colmnission Meeting - August 1, 2000 traffic. It creates a shortcut from my area to the school from anyplace, anybody going to Video Update can get there a little quicker going that way. That's not an appropriate thing to be doing to those neighborhoods. Issues of safety have been brought up. The other thing is that as far as access to school from the north, obviously we don't want to increase the traffic there either, but the city had an opportunity only a few years ago to put an appropriate access to Lake Lucy Road through an area that had not yet been developed and was cornfield. If that access was necessary, it would have been sensible to make that part of that development and not part ora neighborhood that's been relatively stable and developing over the 4 years. When ! came, my only concern was to point out that the area right through here where the city water tower is, and the access road for the city water tower is pedestrian access from this neighborhood to the school and hopefully nothing in this development would restrict that pedestrian access. After listening though my major concern is that my hope that we can approve a developlnent very similar to one that Mr. Arvidson proposed without extending Melody Hill Road. Thank you. Petersou: Thank you. Anyone else? Chuck Lewellen: I'm Chuck Lewellen at 6340 Murray Hill Road and just a couple of points aud one is, I support Mr. Arvidson's plan. It looks real good to me and ! think one of the good things about the neighborhood there. We moved in in '96, is some of the beautiful trees and white pines and I believe that some of the trees that would have to be removed for this proposed extension of Melody Hill would be some truly beautiful and perhaps extraordinary white pines. And the other one is just a technical point and 1 don't know if it's important or not but I live at 6340 Murray Hill Road and my ueighbor on the corner here of Summergate is 6320 so I don't know where this 6330 came from that was in the uotice because I think the address of the current house is 6398 so at some point I don't know if there's any technical problems with service. 1 don't thiuk they'd want to continue to use 6330 as a address here. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motiou to close? Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thauk you gentlemen. Commissioners. Anyone want to take a jump at this one? You look like you have some thoughts Matt. Burton: Yeah I do so I guess I'll go first then. I guess for me, starting at the point that triggered the whole process 1 guess that's the application itself. 1 was just looking at the, one of the petitions that we received. Actually this is, I thought this was a present one but this is one from 1995. I think there was a newer one too. Yeah there is. Well, the trigger is not the city wanting to put a road in. The trigger is that the subdivision plan with the private street was submitted and this is the second time that this has come before the Planning Commission and I went back and I read the proceedings from last time and some of the ~nembers on the commission now were on the commission then and I read over Ladd Conrad's comments and Craig Peterson's comments and I agree with Ladd and Craig's comments from last time. 1 think that it's a good planning practice in my opinion the road would make sense and that takes into consideration the potential future development of the surrounding parcels. And even though the parties to the north or around the property don't have any present intention or any future intention to subdivide, down the road that could be a concern and I think it's obligation as planners to watch out for that. Now it's obvious the neighbors don't like it and ifI was a neighbor, I wouldn't like it. The flip side is, the project doesn't qualify under the subdivision ordinance to be approved. On it's own merits it fails so in my opinion the options are a public street or don't subdivide and that's where I'm at. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll take a stab at it. I too went back and I read the comments from the previous time. This type of application came before the Planning Commission and in this case I do agree with the staff's analysis of the application and with Commissioner Button's comments. I think the foremost question surrounding this application is whether or not the proposal meets the test to be a private street per city code and l don't believe that it does. In that case I would recommend denial of this application. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I actually did go out there. Somebody made the comment to go out there. I spent more time than I expected. I spent at least an hour or more driving around this neighborhood because I understand one of the concerns of the neighborhood is the thru traffic. And I have to reach the conclusion that thru traffic in what I call thru traffic really doesn't applY to that place. I mean if you call thru traffic, people coming over from West 65th Street or from Hummingbird Road, or maybe from the other side of Galpin from the extension of Melody Hill or a couple of roads there, to me that doesn't quite qualify as a significant thru traffic. Anything significant that comes from a distance is going to go down on Lake Lucy Road. So I don't think that this thru traffic concern is that much ora concern. When I was out there, I also had this thing in the back of my mind, the access to the middle school which seems to be somewhat lurking in the background to a lesser concern. Yeah, I wouldn't be thrilled if I were a neighbor there and they wanted to make a parking lot you know, but that's not what we're discussing here tonight. What ! could see as a possibility, even though I really make no, Dave Hempel's comments about...there is this easement in-between. I was hoping that maybe there would be a way to access this new development, this subdivision through Melody Hill based on the position of the neighborhood, not make it a road that drives all the way through. That it would be pedestrian thru way which I have to agree with Dave Hempel, that's kind of a half baked solution. But I have another concern is personally, it's very nice up there even though you're proposing it but having been out there and looked at it, one concern l had is the one house you're basically putting right underneath the water tower. While with the rough subdivision sketch that was drawn up as an alternate vision from staff, you would have the house away fi'om the water tower so that seemed to be a plus in that sense also. But to come back to the issue that's in front of us, does this qualify under the city ordinance framework for private street? Well the first criteria is the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. I really don't think this request meets that requirement. That's the number one criteria that we have to deal with to look at whether we should recommend or not recommend this plat. Based on that clause I feel fi'om...view fi'om this side we have to deny this. That's my comment. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anything additional Ladd? Conrad: Really nothing new Mr. Chairman. One thing though. I think the development is out of character with the neighborhood when you really get down to it. It's legal if you can get the access to it but when you look at the other properties around, it's not the same. It's maximizing the use so, but it's legal if they could get access, but it's real clear that our ordinance doesn't allow it the way they're proposing. That's real clear and that's what the ordinance is for is to kind of standardize it, and I don't think we're kind of ramming a plan through if somebody thinks we are because I have no need to ram a plan through. There's common sense reasons for not going it, but right now it's sort of an out of character development with an ordinance that really tells us what we should be doing from a good solid planning standpoint, and you know the connection, you know I don't think it's a thoroughfare. I've lived here for 30 years and I'll take you to my street and I'll show you the 20 fold increase in traffic on my street just living here, and that's not comfortable for me but it's the way Chanhassen has grown. I don't think this is the same. This is a lot different than the street I live on so, I think from a pure planning 21 Planning Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 standpoint Mr. Chairman, this application should be turned down. I think if the neighbors really think it's important not to have that connectivity and there's a good reason to preserve something, I think that's something that you've got to pursue at the City Council level. Don't want to put the burden on them but from a planning issue, this is real clear in what we do. Peterson: And in closing I certainly would mirror all of my fellow commissioner's thoughts. It is pretty clear and it just doesn't work. And there's no compelling reason to let it go so, with that said I'll entertain a motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the Planning Colmnission recmmnends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Division for four single family lots as shown on the, I guess I can just deny this request. I don't have to go through the whole thing do I? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Thank you everybody for coming and offering your opinions. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, WHITE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Elaine Arion Eileen Heitkamp Scott Bieganek Bill Coffman Mike Steadman Marty Campion Dave & Bobble Headla 4041 White Oak Lane 4021 White Oak Lane 4040 White Oak Lane 600 West 78th Street, #250 6455 Tanager's Point Otto Associates 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. The original plan for this area is to get access through White Oak Lane, correct? Generous: Correct. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: Okay. On one of the lots, yeah it's currently two lots but there is a well. Is that something that would be, ! mean I would assume the well would be abandoned, but I don't think it says that on the report. Hempel: Mr. Cllairman, commissioners. City code does require properties to connect, especially in a subdivision case, to connect to city services if they're within 150 feet. In this situation I believe sewer and water would be available within 150 feet of the home. If not, you could certainly add itas a condition. Sacchet: Now next question is, on the north side there is Stratford Lane which has an easement along the north lot. Is the intent that the lot to the north would have also access from Stratford Lane or is there a plan or a vision how that would fit together then? Generous: Mr. Chair, portions of that parcel would access via Stratford Lane. The rear portion would not though so that's why the street connection would. Sacchet: So it'd be about half and half? Roughly. Generous: Yeah. Peterson: Bob would you kind of guide us through that, what you just said on the overhead. Generous: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this doesn't show it very well. We did provide a drawing as an attachment to the plan. This is the subject property, the Wenzel property with the proposed subdivision. This is Headla's property to the north. This is Stratford Lane and Minnewashta Parkway. It's potentially these lots oil the fi'ont could be accessed off of Stratford Lane. The ones on the rear would have to come from White Oak Lane. Sacchet: To clarify, so that outlot to the north of it does not need to become a street? Aanenson: When that plat got recorded it was recorded by the developer and it was recorded in the name of the homeowners association so the city has no rights to. Sacchet: It's not an. Generous: It's ,lot a public easement. Aanenson: Right. It stops just past the intersection of those two streets. Sacchet: Okay. That answers what I really wanted to know. Peterson: Other questions of stafP?. Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. !s there a philosophic reason, the street is the big deal here. Everything else looks good. Is there a reason we want to, the motion was worded in the affirmative? Is there protection for somebody or any, yeah. Is it wiser to be in the affirmative or wiser to be in the negative on this motion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000 Aanenson: We structured it in the affirmative with the conditions of approval which meant we did approve it if they'd modify all those conditions. You could also strike a motion that would say it's inconsistent with the city subdivision ordinance regarding half street. That would be an option if we legally sought that position. Conrad: Does either one do anything that forces premature development? Or is it the same, does it net out the same place? Aanenson: Well I think it was framed pretty well in the last application. The city's not driving the road to go through. The developlnent forces access issues and it's our job as planners and engineers to make sure we're providing adequate access and services and at this time a half street doesn't meet the city's ordinance requirements. Conrad: Does it put any pressure on the neighbors to the north to do anything? Aauenson: Well we can't approve the half street. I lnean that would be our intentiou to see if they could build, if they have all option to put the entire street on their property, that would be one option. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Tile applicant. Conrad: And would that be acceptable? Aanenson: Or to buy a portion of the neighboring property. He'd have to speak to that but that was approached as an option. Helnpel: I believe we have that as one of the conditions of approval is for the full city street to be on the property. Which would provide access to the property to the north for further subdivision as well. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Mr. Chair. I guess I voice the same concerns as Ladd. 1 guess my feeling is that, you know I was concerned that this was the motion was in the affirmative and yet we don't have the full application so to speak in terlns of what would be presented as a city proposed cul-de-sac that would, and accessible parcels, so it's like we have this fuzzy set of conditions but we don't have it in a blueprint here. So 1 guess I'm uncolnfortable with the affirmative as stated in this analysis. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Name and address please. Bill Cofflnan: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Bill Coffinan. l'm the President of Coffman Development Services. I've been hired by the Wenzel's to develop and sell their property. With me touight 1 have Larry and Nancy Wenzel and also Dave Headla and Bobble Headla in the audience as well and I believe many of the neighbors from the White Oak Lane area are present as well. First off, a little bit of background on the properties here. I originally approached both the Wenzel's and the Headla's a little over a year ago to purchase both parcels for development. At that time they both were not ready to do anything on their properties. Earlier this year the Wenzel's approached myself with the idea of developing. They were ready to develop their property at this time. Unfortunately the 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Headla's are not ready. So hopefully we have a compromise position here after last week or so listening to staff, and hopefully working with Bob here in the last day or so, we've got a new twist on this concept that does in fact eliminate the private drive and we eventually get to a public road cul-de-sac extension that does in fact serve the Headla's in the future in a more direct way as opposed to the common driveway that you see on the current proposal. As you can see here, basically the cul-de-sac is extended another 150 feet or so. The long and the short of it is that we are only proposing to build half of the public street at this point. We will not be building any of the infrastructure into the Headla's property. The Headla's just are not ready to develop at this time and after reading the ordinance that reflects staff's viewpoint that half streets are not allowed, I read that ordinance and I come up with quite a bit of wiggle room in there that it would be my position that it would be permitted. And since we are taking into account the properties to the north for future development, and the future dedication of the other half of the common or the public street is taken into account, that this should be permissible under the ordinance. And l'm not quite sure how the city attorney came up with his interpretation but I guess that is his opinion. So I would like some clarification on that from you folks for sure. Aanenson: hnlnediate concern is safety. How do you turn a garbage truck, a mail truck? I mean there's no way you could stay on halfa street and make the radius turn. It's impossible. It's an immediate safety issue. Bill Coffinan: I guess that is correct but you have a stub street right now and it seems unfortunate that you're tying two property owners hands together so tightly that one landowner, 'the Wenzel's cannot do anything with their property unless they join hands with the people to the north, the Headla's. And that seems to me to be a tall order for the city to dictate that these two have to hold hands so tightly and to not allow one property owner the right to develop their property and move on with their life and their retirement plans, it's tough to swallow. Aanenson: ...that's our position. They have a right to go forward if they build the street on their property so they can inove independently. Bill Coffinan: Other than that point we agree with most of the, or all of the conditious of staff. That's the big sticking point. Whether or not you will allow us to build half ora street today with the understanding that in the future the rest of the public street will be built. Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I'm struggling a little bit with this half street thing. The information I have in the staff report's very clear that that is not an allowed use. And the comments just made is that that could be mitigated by if you, this other property doesn't want to wait. I agree with you, it should be tied that close together. But that could be mitigated by putting the whole street over that property. Now if we would take the position that that's the price that needs to be paid for developing that independently, is that feasible? ! inean have you looked at that? Is that at all doable? Bill Coffinan: Well ~ve have taken a look at that. That, at this point we feel it would be an undue burden on the property owners to the south. Sacchet: So you're asking no, it is not doable or? Bill Coffinan: We could certainly take a closer look at it but at this point we would say no. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: Well I'm sure it's not your preferred option. Bill Coffinan: That's correct. It would not be the preferred option. Sacchet: Thank you. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Scott Bieganek: Hi. My name is Scott Bieganek. I live at 4040 White Oak Lane. I'm a recent resident in the area. It's a fairly new development, l'd like to show my support for Larry Wenzel and Nancy Wenzel and for the Headla's. I think you should remove yourself from the rule books for a minute and use a little bit of common sense in thinking this through. We already have a stub street here. The only excuse I hear not to put this development through is really concern ora safety issue. We already have the problem of having a stub street and not having the ability to turn around. What I see this brings is a commitment to put in a cul-de-sac and to provide safety in the future. At the same time I don't think you should be forcing the Headla's into early retirement i~'they're not willing to go into early retirement and I think you should allow the flexibility of the Wenzel's to take advantage of their retirement when they want to. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Dave Headla: Chairman, commissioners. My name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. Live all along the north side of the Wenzel property. I've got a couple of requests here. I'd like to see a little compassion by the city. When Wenzel's have lived there for so long, they're ready to develop. And the other one is, I feel that the decisions made here, and many times are in a sterile environment. You can sit here, yeah and look at all the guidelines. Okay, that's perfect. You do it right by the book. But what about the poor people living there? I think you've got to take that into consideration. I really think you should. We support the Wenzel's. We feel they have a right to develop. I think Coffinan has come up with an excellent plan. We're agreeable but boy, it took a long time just to get to that and Bob was a great help today. We did some quick figuring and 1 think he came up with a plan that's reasonable. I think we all conceded some. Now if you approve this you're going to be a lot better off than what you have right now. Right now you have a stub street. All the Wenzel's are doing is enhancing that part and Kate mentioned about turning a dump truck around or dumpster, whatever. That problmn is there now. The Wenzel property is not creating any new problem. I think in the long run they're solving some of your problems. 1 really encourage you to approve this as the lease development between Bob and Coffinan. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Any further comments? Motion and a second for closing the public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one please. 26 Planning Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I'll try to start. I do agree with city recommendation, staff recommendation that we cannot approve the variance for the garage. I do think that change that the applicant has presented with moving the cul-de-sac further in is very sensible. That's, ! reached a similar conclusion that the cul-de-sac should be abutting Lot 1 and 3. It doesn't have to go all the way to have all those lots. It's one of the lots is permitted to access off from Minnewashta Parkway. I do also believe that using out' criteria for private street, this application does not qualify for private street. It has to be an extension of the public street and I think that's what the applicant has included in their idea. Now your concern about does it improve or make the situation worse. I'm a little torn about this. I mean right now we have a two lane street that dead ends. Now we're going to have half ora two way street that goes on and has half a bubble at the end and l'm really hard pressed to decide whether that's an improvement or getting worse. I mean it goes from a two way street stub to a one lane street stub with a bubble. I wouldn't call that an improvement. Because you've only got one lane. I think that's a real issue. And I sympathize with that it creates a pressure on the property to the north tO develop which is not right and it's not right to stand in the way of some type. If the southern property wants to develop at this point, not in connection with the northern property, I could see that there would have to be a little extra...so maybe it could be made better by making that street a little wider or something. I think it needs more. But to come back to the issue in front of us, I don't think we can approve the variance and I don't think we can approve or recomlneud approval for the private street. And I believe that's the two decisions we have in fi'ont of us. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other commissioner's COmlnents. Burton: Mi'. Chairlnan, 1 agree with the comments that were just made. I am sympathetic to the situatiou. I like to be creative and think of a way to get this to work but I haven't seen the plan that makes it work tonight. A plan that passes the test tonight. ! think there could be a way to do it but I don't know what it is. I think what we've seen, what's been proposed originally doesn't meet the criteria and the modification I don't think does either. So 1 think that we would have no choice but to deny it on it's face and what we've seen. Peterson: Okay. Any final comments? Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll weigh in. Yeah I don't see a plan that's in front of me that I feel comfortable with. It's a tough, this is one of those tough ones that really, there's not a real good solution. I really want a solution that doesn't force the Headla's into doing something they don't want to do. And faster than they want to do it. Yet I think the applicant has some alternatives. I wish we could be creative in this one but 1 don't see anything in front of me that's good enough right now. It's just not there. Bill Coffinan: Ill may respond. Peterson: We're probably done right now so. Closing comments Ladd. Conrad: Nothing more Mr. Chairlnan. Peterson: Anything? Sidney: No, I agree with the comments that Ladd made. Right now what's before us doesn't meet the test for the private drive or half street, although we can't do that. And also there's a concern about grantiug a variance and I don't think we want to do that so you know really I think we need to have another application that would have some suggestions that would pass the test like we were talking about. 27 Planning Cmnmission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: Okay. I too. I think tile key thing I heard by my fellow commissioners was that there are alternatives and there clearly are, and they're not being used. Tile creative alternative that was presented tonight you know I think is not a viable one for all the reasons mentioned for it. You mentioned it's a smaller street, which you're getting into a deeper situation with the problem being inconsistent with safety and a variety of other things so I would concur with my fellow commissioners. This doesn't work and they have alternatives that they can pursue. On that beep I'll entertain a motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the setback variance for the existing garage. Peterson: Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any further discussion? Burton moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the setback variance for the existing garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: I'll ente~lain another motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the Planning Commission deny approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition for tile reasons stated. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: I second that. Peterson: Any further discussion? Burton moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition, creating five lots and two outlots, plans prepared by Otto Associated dated 6/30/00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: It goes onto the Council on the 28th so I think, did the applicant get at sense of what direction the Planning Commissiou was taking? Bill Coffinan: Yeah. I would like, as just a point of information. Or clarification. What street width would you be looking for at a minimum to basically come to the east? I'm looking for some direction fi'om you folks on what would be acceptable. Peterson: Dave, if that's a quick answer, let's do it tonight. If not, maybe you two guys can sit down and chat tomorrow. Hempel: I'd like to discuss the matter in greater detail with Mr. Coffinan tomorrow. Peterson: Alright. ls that reasonable? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Bill Coffinan: Sure. Then what you're suggesting is either take this plan to the council or come back with a different application with a different design? Peterson: That certainly is your option, yes. Bill Coffinan: Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 96,925 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO A 95,260 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, EMPAK ADDITION), AMCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, EMPLAST. Public Present: Name Address John Hosford Mark Huns, Amcon Construction Company Scott Quiring Tom Rossak 950 Lake Drive 200 West Highway 13, Bumsville 200 West Highway 13, Burnsville 200 West Highway 13, Burnsville Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have two questions. Just so I'm understanding correctly when you say tile proof of parking, that means they don't have to build the parking now but there has to be room that they could build it at a fi~ture point when it's necessary? Generous: Correct. They'd have to design it and show us on a plan that it could be installed. Sacchet: Okay. And then the second one, I think you pretty much hope is that, I'm not sure I followed all the details of your changes to tile condition number 16 but my question was how many places is the 25 foot drive aisle width that needs to be sent at 26 because it seems it will be a small extension and where it's worth ripping up... I think the condition that you just explained answers that concern, right? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Alright, that's my questions. Peterson: So Bob, are you comfortable with the changes they've made that they're substantive enough to approve? Generous: Well I ran it by other planners and it does add that articulation on that corner. This is a warehouse building. It's mammoth. It does sit up on the hill and with the landscaping I believe we'll get the interplay of the concrete and the living material to help soften that expanse. So 1 think it will work. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sidney: Mr. Chair. One question, and I was looking at the square footage and I thought well that's pretty close to what would trigger possibly all EAW and I was thinking well, is that only once done on a property if it's a large building or if you had an addition like in this case, if it were over 100,000 square feet, would all EAW be required? Generous: Well they'd have to triple it. It's 300,000. Sidney: Oh, 300 for, okay. So do additions count into that? Generous: Yes, you would have to look at all that but they're maximizing tile site. They're at a floor ratio of.35 and that's pretty high. In all industrial site. Especially when you're doing one story. Now if you go multi stories you can get more square footage on the site. Sidney: Okay so, I guess that's what I was trying to formulate as a question. If you have an existing building and they add onto it, at solne point you may trigger all EAW? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: At 300,000. Sidney: At 300,000. Aanenson: I'm not sure, 300's for new. ]'m not sure. Generous: ! think it's also for expansion. Aanenson: ...this building doesn't but if there is for an addition. Sidney: Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Mark Huus: My name is Mark Huus. I'm all architect with Amcon Construction representing Emplast. Also like to note John Hosford from Emplast is here to answer operational questions if you have any. I also appreciate Bob's help ill preparing the application. Be willing to answer any questions that you might have. One point i'd like to make is that we did not want to emphasize the architectural element oil this end of the building too much ill order to prevent confusion as to exactly where the entrance is. The drive does euter approximately the center of the site and so I feel like we've got a balance here and we didn't want to call that out as maybe a building entrance. Be happy to answer any questions that you lnight have. Peterson: Ally questions of the applicant? Conrad: Yeah, what are you doing oil the expanded area? Mark Huus: Pardon me? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Conrad: What is the expanded area for? Mark Huus: Operation inside? I believe it's warehouse. Conrad: Strictly warehouse. John Hosford: That'd be strictly for warehouse. Peterson: If I said I wasn't happy with that, from one entrance to the other is a lot of concrete. A lot of it. And part of what my concern is, the building is a pretty prominent building as it relates to a park, which is one of out' prominent parks in this city so it's going to get a lot of visualization and a lot of eye contact. And even with Bob's comment of landscaping, you know is there anything else you can do to mitigate my concerns? Mark Huus: Well we had that initial concern as well, and that is part of the reason for offsetting that building 40 feet. I guess that's the first thing we did. I'm guessing you have a landscape plan in your packet bnt that was the other thing we did to address that concern. We're adding quite a bit of landscaping there. There's also several existing trees that we're going to move out into that area. Trees that would be in the way of the expansion. And 1 guess I've got a photograph here that shows some of the landscaping at the existing building. Now this is the beginning of the warehouse portion here and although it doesn't go quite down far enough, but they've done a real nice job o'f landscaping in front of that existing wall. And that's what we're anticipating carrying through. The elevations we've shown here on the large board are primarily intend to show the building itself. It only shows a fraction of the trees that we intend to put in front of the building. Peterson: How substantive are you planning on putting in as far as size? Mark Huus: Pardon me? Peterson: How substantive of size are you planning on putting in? Of trees. Mark Huus: Like I said, some of them are fairly mature trees that we're moving out and I believe we've got 6 to 7 foot pines. And then 2 V2 inch caliper deciduous trees. Peterson: 1 think it's also important to note, if you're putting in that other end in, to be careful not to cover that up with the trees. You're kind of defeating the purpose of the building articulation so. Mark Huus: Right. I think what we intend to do is to lower the plantings in that area and rearrange them... Peterson: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Mark Huus: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please colne forward and state your name and address please. Motion to close. Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Fellow commissiouers. Your comments on this one please. Sidney: I can start. I guess I do have some concerns about the expanse of the south elevation. However I agree, well uuderstand that it's a warehouse building and there will be landscaping so I guess I do feel comfortable in that respect that the applicaut has done a good job iu the past. Will likely do a good job of landscapiug in this case too. The addition of the architectural element on the corner I think is a good idea and I guess overall I think it's a reasonable plan for it's purpose. Peterson: Any other comments? Burton: Mr. Cbairman...l think it's fine for what it is and it's in an excellent location for what it is and I believe that the landscaping carried through the way they've done it, it should be fine. I surprised we don't have any private street isstles. Otherwise I think it's fine. I agree with the staff report. Peterson: Okay. Conrad: Mr. Chair, the landscaping. Yeah, the building's okay. No great shakes but really want to make sure the landscaping does something aud I missed it. You know when I went through the plans, l didn't see something labeled landscape plan and maybe we have the overall floor plan. It didn't say landscape plan so I didn't really review it. I really want to make sure that that really is, it's got to break up the walls and it's got to, just like the applicant said, but I really need it firmed up. It's loose to me right now and maybe that's because it's loose. When the applicant goes to the City Council, really want a lot of attention paid to the laudscape plan. What you're doing. What trees you're moving around. How you're breaking tip. It's a huge wall. It's across from a park aud I think you build it the way you want to build it, that's okay with me but boy, make sure that landscaping plan can cut it tip and soften it a bit. Both wiuter time and summer tilne. Peterson: Any closing comments Uli? Sacchet: I like the proposal. I do believe the applicant bas made an effort to add a little architectural interest. There seems to be a lot of plantings on the drawing right now so I believe that the building, that Ladd is pointing out is fair but ! think that it's important to make sure that it's there because it's, you drive out of Lake Susan Park and you have this thing in front of you. So I think it needs that buffer element definitely. I feel that this is a good plan and we should approve it. Peterson: Good. Thank you for those comments. Mine are not dissimilar. I'm real reticent to let that big of a wall go in that prominent of a place. I'm depeuding upon a lot of, on the trust that those trees will go in and substantially change that feeling that that wall gives so I will vote, with reservation but with confidence that it will happen. A motion please. Conrad: I would make the motion Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000 subject to the conditions of the staff report with an add ou condition 19. That the applicant present to the City Council in detail their laudscape plan when it does reach the City Council level. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: I'll second that. Peterson: And you're noting the item number 16 with the drive aisle change? Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chairman, yes. Peterson: Okay. Moved and seconded, any discussion? Conrad moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions: Tile applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. All architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest corner of the building, shall be incorporated on the southeast corner of the building. At a minimum this should include a sloped roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protruding element such as columns and/or a stoop/patio if additional entrances are required. Revise the site plan to provide the following parking: Offices - 74-spaces, largest shift - 65 spaces, warehouse - 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces. 30% (58 stalls) may be shown as proof of parking. Should parking become a problem, the city may require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises, Section 20- 1124(1 )(e). upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Cbanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrants. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of"No Parking Fire Lane" signs. The applicant shall plant one additional overstory tree along the east property line in order to meet minimum buffer yard requirements. 7. The addition must be provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system. Accessible parking spaces must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 9. The addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 for high pile storage. 10. Exiting for the existing building and the addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Building Code Chapter 10. These requirements cannot be determined until complete plans are sub~nitted. 11. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 33 Plamfing Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 12. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin and storm sewer sizing based on a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit. 15. Add all applicable city detail plates to the plans. 16. Increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet when adjacent to vehicle parking stalls. Drive aisles that are not between two rows of 90 degree angle parking spaces may be 25 feet wide. 17. On the Grading Plan, Sheet C-l: Show all existing and proposed storm sewer line. Revise the grading along the southeast corner of the building to prevent stormwater from draining toward the building. Show tile erosion control features. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Change tile title of the plan to" Grading & Erosion Control Plan". Change the straw bale dam protection around catch basins to a concrete block and 1" rock filter around the catch basins (see attached detail). Show the correct easelnent locations as per the Empak Addition plat. 18. On tile Utility Plan, Sheet C-2: Lighten or screen the existing utility lines to distinguish them from the proposed utilities. Provide documentation that tile existing water and sewer services are sufficiently sized to handle tile building addition. Add a note stating that all connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled. Add a catch basin on the south side of the western entrance drive just before the future parkiug stalls. Show tile location of the existing light poles along Lake Drive. 19. The applicant shall present to the City Council a detailed landscaping plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT SIGN ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 3an ADDITION LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 82ND STREET AND TH 41, MIKE SCHLAGEN. Public Present: 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Name Address John Kosmas, K.K. Design 6112 Excelsior Blvd. Mike Schlagen 1941 Melody Hill Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Senior Planner Mr. Generous. Sacchet: I have one question Mr. Chair. If they would put a sign that is 90 degrees at the corner of those two streets, that would count as two signs? Generous: Correct. The ordinance permits only a 45 degree angle. Sacchet: If it's 45 it'd be done. Then they could have it on there? Generous: Then .they could have that one on 41. They could be at the corner. Sacchet: So they could have one at the corner of 41 plus the one? Generous: No. Just the one. Sacchet: Just the one. But if they would do it, what would they gain if they do a 45 degree angle sign? I mean where could they put another sign? Generous: Well their argument is that the orientation of the sign is different. The one that's facing, that's oriented north/south of the sign are east and west are visible from 82nd and the other one to the north is oriented east/west and visible from 41. Sacchet: I understand that part. Generous: But we say they're both on 41 and that visibility is not the issue. Sacchet: But what I'm trying to explore is what the options are for the applicant and I'm not sure whether there's a difference between the options. If they have a 90 degree sign at the corner. If it's 90 degree, and what you just clarified is that that would count as two signs. Generous: Right, and that wouldn't be permitted. Sacchet: But it seems a special case, if it's less. If it's 45 degrees. Generous: 45 or less it would be counted as one sign but they could only have one of those on Trunk Highway 41. Aanenson: If it's on the corner it's still both street frontages. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Okay, thank you. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: Okay, thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. John Kosmas: My name is John Kosmas with K.K. Design... Mike is also present to answer and also he's got some questions. I will be listening. Previously this site was reviewed as a Kwik Trip site. It was previously viewed and approved. Kwik Trip then left the project and Mike then picked up the project. In that process we reviewed what was approved and the allowable conditions, or the various conditions that were applied to this project. In that process there were, I don't remember the item but it was like item number 6 or 8, that identified the signage and that there were two signs available. One on 82nd and one on 41. The original two locations had the signs basically oriented one at about the middle of 41 frontage, which would be in this location, and a second one located down in this corner by the entrance of 82nd. Very honestly did not think anything of it. Said hey that looks fine to me. Makes sense. You've got an orientation of both streets. We proceeded on with the rest of our site planning as we took over the project because we did not have the project originally when it was Kwik Trip. In our permitting process we then submitted plans and we then got a note back saying that we have to move our signs because we're in the easement area, which was not solnething that was clarified in the original documentation, original approval process. So we started looking at where we can put the signs when we do that. The yellow identifies the various easements that are applied to this project. Not only the typical utility easements that would typically be anywhere from 5 to 10 feet around the perimeter of the site, but. in this particular case we also have wider easements. This side is more traditional. This is only a 10 foot on our side of the property line. This is a 20 foot that runs through here and a 20 foot utility easement that travels north, then crosses the property and then feeds the city owned property to the north of us. And then in the negotiations at, with Kwik Trip and with the City there were two different locations where they looked at the utility, or excuse me, the driveway easement to again access off of this parcel. Originally that easement went this way, which caused some issues as far as the grading and such that were happening back over in here. In the re-evaluation of that, it then got relocated over into this site. So that dictated again the location that the road had to be. The pump islands had to be and the canopies had to be. So when we took that into consideration and said okay, what's left? This location went away because there's no place to put the signs because you're on top of your easements. So we started moving down the line to see where we could place that and the first immediate location is basically in this zone. Now I also look at it and said okay, let's get it away from the curb cuts and let's get it away from this particular area and move it as far away frown that so it's more free standing. Out of the landscaped area where a sign typically is more visible. Went through the permit process. My understand it got approved through the permit process, but I was incorrect because the permit process does not approve signage. Then the signage came back for permit and that's when we first found out that there was the setback requirement additional to the typical 10 foot setback that's required from a street. Because this sign is allowed to be 10 feet. I can normally put a sign any place, in my mind, any place along 82nd that would be 10 feet back. But because of the easements you can't place the signs within the easement. So we then worked with a 20 foot setback off of 41. The 20 foot setback off of 82~,d. And that seemed to make sense. It stays clear of the 30 foot triangle, which is desirable and because of this particularly intersection, the 30 foot triangle really isn't adequate because the intersection is way out on the side. So Bob and I had some discussions. I said now I don't see that in the ordinance. I don't understand that in the ordinance and that's where we came to this position of saying okay, let's come to you guys and talk. The sign is right here to 82nd. It is not intended, it does not turn to be able to read from there. Excuse me, from 41 as you're traveling north and south. We would love to have it down here because it helps identify that driveway, but in reality the customers that's coming from this direction will read that sign, will realize as he passes to the site, they will enter into this driveway. For the same reason that we want the customer, we don't want this sign oriented this way... If you're sitting here you will see that and you can see that you can make that, that's the median entrance onto the site. Once you're familiar with the 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 site, depending on where you're traveling to, I would guess that most people coming from the south would take the right naturally on 82nd, come onto the site and actually leave and go north. IfI were entering on the site as a customer... Therefore this sign is not using, working off of 41's traffic, which really was... Bob indicated that before we put the one at 45. Unfortunately 45 degree signs aren't visible from any good direction then because you're really catching somebody coming here that's actually going away fi'om them so it's not visible. I think the suggestion that was made to do an 90 degree corner sign has some merit but again, then where do you put which element because the 90 degree, okay if you put the 90 degree coming back here, then the 41 traffic is having to read it sort of behind the sign. So that one kind of fell apart in our process. So in the process of identifying where that 75 foot setback is, happens to put it into the easement area in the driveway, and that didn't work. So then we moved it back this direction. The green identifies... 15 foot to 20 foot green strip between the sign and any driveway? The blue identifies their four zone which works for signage. And there's actually the parcel that's left for signage. The same as it was up in here because again if that sign was back in here, not being able to, because we originally... 10 foot off .... told that it was incorrect so we moved it north to take it off of there. And actually in some respects that will probably help that driveway by doing that... So, here we've gotten to. We didn't go to blows. We came here to help and try and find an answer for. Mike, anything you'd like to add? Mike Schlagen: The only thing that I'd really like to add is the visibility in our business is just a huge part. In my opinion with that 45 degree sign, people traveling north on 41, they're not going to be able to see that until they're, excuse me. People traveling north would be able to see itl People traveling south would have a tough time seeing it until they're actually by the site and they have to look around. Now tire city has required a few things of us ah'eady. One was to put the berm on 41 so the building is not going to be as visible as we would originally like it. And having the trees in front...anything that we can do to make it more visible... Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Sacchet; Yeah Mr. Chair. Basically what you're saying is that this is not necessarily where you ideally wanted the sign. You're saying these were tire places that were left after you tried to accommodate the sign. John Kosmas: After we staged looking at it and address it, because we originally had tiffs location. We knew we couldn't fit here because it was too tight so we had it actually back in this corner by the entry here. Sacchet: And off 41, kind of in the middle? John Kosmas: Yeah, and that. Sacchet: Okay. That would be your preferred option. John Kosmas: Then we were told no. Move it out of this easement so it meant moving it into the trees, which we didn't think that was appropriate. And then to address this one and find out that this one really couldn't stay in this little corner and so we looked at moving it down the line and like I said, the blue zone is what we had left...that's just my habit I guess. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Motion and a second for public hearing please. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet moved~ Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Motion taken and public hearing closed. Commissioners, comments on this one please. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I'm a little but stmnped. You know on one hand I'm a little bit confused because I think the staff recommended options to put it back to the driveway on 82nd Street... Now according to what the applicant presented that would actually not be a legal location. Generous: It wouldn't be an optimum location. Sacchet: But it would be an acceptable potentially location, is that what you're saying? Peterson: It would meet statute. Generous: Yes. It would meet the ordinance requirement. Sacchet: So it would be possible to inove that sign to where they originally wanted it. Generous: I think it has to go back. Sacchet: On tile other side of the entrance there. And in terms of where they originally had it in the middle of their property oil 41, that does not meet their needs? Generous: Well that's not ail issue. What was when they put both of them over on 41 that they rail into all issue. Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because where they originally considered putting the signs seems reasonable place except it seems like you got in conflict with some easement. Generous: With designs and easements, sure. Sacchet: And so what we're looking at is, would they need to ask for a variance to put a sign into that easement or what's the framework there? Generous: That would be the next option for them to request a variance from the sign ordinance requirements. If they wanted to pursue. If you affirm our interpretation. Sacchet: Well I think from what I hear from the applicant was they're proposing having them both oil 41, different angles which you say you can't because they're both on 41 is not really what they ideally what either. So it seems pretty crisp in that case that they, yeah go ahead. Aanenson: Can I give some other framework to this because we're looking at this in a vacuum. There is a sign package for this. There is wall signage. What they're trying to accomplish is the southerly traffic, is my understanding. If they want to correct me, is to get the southern traffic. Yes the berm and the building is lower so it complicates that. So they can put it a lot of places on 41 but their position is 38 Planning Co~nmission Meeting - August 1, 2000 because of the landscaping, you can't see it. But there are places, and they want to put that as north as possible. There is sight lines from the south. Clear sight lines of the building and the wall signs, but you're not looking at that either. We're just talking about the monument signs. I just want to make sure there is some other signage on the property. Maybe Bob can take a minute just to go through that. I don't know if that's helpful or not but, so there are other places on that and we believe that there is visibility to the view. Peterson: Do you have an elevation of the building Bob? Generous: Yes I do. John Kosmas: For clarification. This is the original that was submitted. The sign was located in this location arid a sign was located on this location. As it turns out, it's 10 foot from the property line which meets the ordinance. And this one's actually 10 foot from the property line. When it went through, engineering came back and said, rio. You can't have this one because it has to go into this area .... yes it would be in amongst the trees so we'd have to relocate the trees to do that... But this one has to move over arid be within about, and actually a sidewalk at the intersection. The sidewalk now has to be running right along the curb line. So the area that was available, as Bob and I talked about it, there's approximately a 5 foot area there and that is not where the sidewalk is going to be located so that space is not available to rne anymore. So now I have to move, because I want my two signs. I'm greedy. I've been approved for two signs. I deserve two signs. I want to try to meet the-ordinance as much as I can. I can't meet the 75 foot setback. I can meet...43 feet as I work off of the storm'. I can't be where 1 am here so l'm to the north of that easement. I'm moving it out of the easement to be able to ab le...relation to the property line where it belongs. So that's the one issue. And the other question was the exterior. There are two signs located on the building. One is located over the entrance area, and there is a sign that basically identifies... Aanenson: Tell them which direction those are facing. John Kosmas: Okay, this sign is facing south. Aanenson: West 82® Street. John Kosmas: Facing 82nd Street. And this sign is actually facing west, which is 41. And between this sign and for 82nd is the canopy which you do not allow signage on. So we're clear about that. There is no signs that we requested on the canopy. So you're reading through the canopy...basically at a similar elevation as the sign. So that one really isn't there to try to attract customers. It's too deep on the site. It's not really what we're talking about as far as signage. It's there for identification. For ownership and that happens, because the new sign happens to read Arboretum with a small Citgo logo underneath it. It's very nice, attractive. Outline letter design. That was also done with the car wash. Very nice, simple. Not a garish sign by any standards of any measure. And the quantities are well under the allowed. We're riot trying to, not trying to send out a beacon off of that because this, as Mike indicated, it is lower. Out of the way. We really can't use that as our focal, and we can't use the canopy as our focal. I'll also say...canopy is still advertising because it's there. You can see it but it's not the intent of what... So as you are back over' here at the intersection, yes. You can potentially see what's happening over here but it's very, very, it's not like a typical street where if this street were sitting right here by the property line. Totally different relationship... Now I'll be quiet. Peterson: Okay. Any other questions? 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Conrad: Where are we in this meeting? Peterson: We're in commissioner discussion. So if you have all opinion I would love to hear it. Conrad: Well it's real clear we need a sign on 41. We need a sign on 82. The staff's interpretation is correct. Personal feeling is the applicant needs visibility. I have no reason to restrict visibility but I also do have reason to reinforce what staff says is our ordinance so that's a wishy washy way, and I think you call get some variances to allow visibility. We just have to make sure they succeed and they have the sign. The street signage appropriately placed. If that takes a variance I'd be willing to vote for that. Not tonight but when staffwould review that. That would be my, I don't see another solution Mr. Chair. Peterson: Other COmlnents? Sidney: Mr. Chair I would reaffirm Colnlnissioner Conrad's statement. I think what's before us is, we're asked to interpret the regulation. That's very clear so that's what we need to do tonight. What the applicant wants to do, if he wants to bring back another request for a variance, certainly entertain that. Peterson: Ally closing comments? I'll entertain a motion. Sidney: I'll make a motion that staff, the Planning Commission affirms staff's interpretation of the regulation regarding signage roi' the Arboretum Citgo. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Yeah, I'll second that. Peterson: Any further discussion? Conrad: Just to make sure that tile applicant knows that we're sensitive. You heard nle say that we're sensitive to your signage needs so I guess by turning this down, by affirming staff we do believe that they're interpreting the ordinance properly but we're probably going to signal that there's got to be some other solution to the problem. Even though we saw the yellows and the greens on your deal, I think we're looking roi' a different solution and we'll probably be sensitive to what it takes to get that for you so that's the reason for the turn down in my mind. Peterson: Is that too squishy? John Kosmas: Well, if you're telling me to go back and look at other solutions, which is what I'm kind of hearing, and bring it back and you'll be favorable to an interpretation of the variance for me, then I'm saying...variance even though that's a different process. Peterson: That's the issue. We don't have that in front of us tonight so. John Kosmas: Well I guess, okay. I don't know that I understand the 75 foot setback as being, I didn't see it written. I hear it as an interpretation so my clarification of that is, it's my error not finding in the ordinance and that's why what this step, rather than immediately going for a variance request because it seemed clear that there was room to make an evaluation of this without going through tile variance process but maybe I misinterpreted that. I don't find it in there saying that it has to meet 75 feet. I find 40 Planning Co~nmission Meeting - August 1, 2000 setback requests saying 10 feet. And I requested 10 foot. I exceeded the 10 foot. Now the interpretation of it being 75 feet back with the building permit setback is a different interpretation of what was represented originally, and I don't see it written so that's why I'm asking for the interpretation. I don't think I'm asking for a variance when I say I don't understand the interpretation of staff. Peterson: I think what we're saying. John Kosmas: Otherwise we'd work with them. Peterson: Uli. Sacchet: Well it's my understanding that staff's position is that it's all the same street even though they're not facing, oriented different ways. And so what we are saying, what we have the motion in fi'ont of us that we're affirming that we agree with staff that these two signs are on the same road, therefore is not complying. And the reason why I feel comfortable doing that is because it seems like it's not really what you ideally want to do either. It doesn't seem like it ideally serves you. I think you'd be better served with that sign close to where the entrance is to your property. Aanenson: This is tile front building setback line and that's the interpretation... Peterson: Do it again. John Kosmas: This lot right here, has a 75 foot identification. Aanenson: Right, because that's part of the building front setback. So we're saying he has to be behind that fi'ont setback to be at a different street. That was our interpretation. John Kosmas: And that's tile interpretation that I don't understand because I don't read it anyplace, therefore we have discussion and went this route. I can't put it there. I'd gladly put it there. I can't put it there. Peterson: So bring it to the right is what you're saying. John Kosmas: Tile first place I can physically put it, with ally rationale being, is approximately right here. l've got to stay 5-6 feet away froln... That's a given. That's one of the reasons this doesn't work. I don't have a choice. So ifl'm doing that I am right now at 20. This chunk of blue represents approximately 22 feet. If I stayed out of my green strip without moving my trees around, because I've got to put a sign ill there and I've got to change the plantings. Now I'm 42 feet according to... Once I start getting ally closer than I'm starting to get into what I set up as a green zone that I didn't want to touch. So I will be back asking for that and that's why I'm saying the interpretation is... Aanenson: Can I give a clarification again? Peterson: Please. Aanenson: Tile point is that we said it's ill front of the building at this point, it's in this front. It falls on this street. They're saying they agree with that interpretation. What I heard them say is that if you come back and ask for something that under the variance, well they may be willing to look at that. But they 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 can't make that under the interpretation because if they make that interpretation, then it falls all under sign... John Kosmas: No, I understand what the problem is... Conrad: And l've got to underline the fact, I think the sign on 82nd should be by your entrance. That's where we originally thought it should be. That's what's logical. That's what I'm looking for actually. I want good visibility there. I want good visibility on 41 for you, but I'm not sure why I want another sign that close to the highway. That's misusing the ordinance. Peterson: But with a variance I'm confused as to why you don't think you can bring it back to 82nd Street. Conrad: Yeah. John Kosmas: IfI co,ne back to you, I've got to be between here and here. I've got to be within this zone. I can't do it over here. Conrad: Why? John Kosmas: I can't fit within any of the setbacks. I've got an easement agreement. Conrad: But we can give you a variance to that, can't we? Aanenson: All ellcroachment agreelnent, sure. Conrad: Sure we can. John Kosmas: Not if you're going to dig the water line out. I can't get into that close to a water line easement. Conrad: I don't know that. But that's my. John Kosmas: So ! can't do that with what's ul~derground rationally ask for an easelnent and put it on top of a sewer and water line. That's not appropriate. Sacchet: Not on the other side of the driveway there's not enough room? Jolm Kosmas: No. Because there's a utility easement. Setback easement that's running through here. This green is the driveway easement that's been requested. So ! lnean the only other way...is you take that bubble right there. I'm back 75 feet. 1 am sitting in the easement. It's a foolish one to grant me, and l'm going to answer my own question. Because now I've narrowed down the drive easement and that doesn't function. You want this drive easement free. So I mean I don't mean to. Peterson: I hear your point. Either way we can't do it tonight so you know Kate, I guess I'm. Aanenson: We'll sit down and see what options we can.., l'm not sure that was discussed but we can look at that. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: Did Matt fall asleep over there? Aanenson: He was ready to make a motion earlier. There is a motion on the floor. Peterson: Any further discussion? Sidney moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission affirm staff's interpretation of the regulation regarding signage for the Arboretum Citgo monument. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: I thiuk we've clarified that. See you soon. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18-57 (ri) AND SECTION 20-615 REGARDING FLAG LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Mr. and Mrs. Joe Morin 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 1441 Lake Lucy Road Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. It sounds a little bit, and from your side you actually encouraged Peterson: Questions of staff. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair, two questions. the fourth option. Al-Jail': Correct. Sacchet: And then the options I, 2, 3, they stand on their own or is there, I guess the potential of combining elemeuts? Aanenson: Sure. You can do that. Sacchet: Okay. Now would the, I feel we may need to work. . . if we decide. Aanenson: Right, I guess that's some of the information in speaking with the city attorney of creating some non-conforming lots and such. If I can just bring a little bit more background into this too. If you look at our lot size, we have one of the larger lot sizes and when we looked at this discussion before, we talked about that too. Most of these flag lots are not to try to get to the minimum lot size. Examples we had such as Shadow, or even the Mason homes. All those lots are over sized so it's not the intent to get a smaller lot in there. It's, we believe based on natural features. That's the appropriate use of it. So it's not just like squeeze a smaller lot on it. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: May I ask one more question Mr. Chair? There's one thing I'm kind of struggling. On one hand we have a situation that seems to work reasonably well in most cases...and then on the other hand we're looking at how we can give a little more framework. Basically, I mean ideally we would be able to mitigate situations with discussion and see what's reasonable and what works well. But mostly we have situations that ou the other hand where we wonder whether that's possible and that's why we're looking at how can we put further framework into the picture so we can handle those situations that appear not to work out as ideally as the 91% that usually do either based on the situation or the possibility to work with the people and come to a good solution. Now if that is not a possibility, if we have that much ora conflict over interest, then that's where we need more control. That's the intent here, is that correct? Al-Jarl: Yes, correct. We just needed to point out that there are ramifications. Whatever approach you take, there will be ramifications. There will be impacts city wide. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: I was thinking about the first option, tying it in with variances and it seems that it would ahnost never pass a variance test because it would be an economic self interest. Generally it's always a request so we couldn't tie it in. Al-Jarl: We spoke to the city attorney regarding this one. City of Minnetonka perlnits them as a variance and our city attorney wasn't in favor of the variance option. Burton: I personally don't think it would ever pass. Al-Jarl: I think you're right. Sacchet: So you're saying that it would not be good option 1 on that basis. Peterson: It's a thought. Other comments before we open it up for public hearing? Conrad: Typically, you know I don't have a problem with the flag lots when you have a new subdivision that's going in. Then it's pretty easy because you've got control and there's orientation. There's some logic to what's going on and usually it's to save trees or minimize impervious surface. So the new ones that go in, typically work unless we're, there have been cases where the applicants try to squeak out some. Aanenson: Funny lots. Conrad: Yeah, and offensive. They're typically putting in a flag lot when next to a bigger property that's been isolated for a while and boy, it's just, those are the ones that you don't want to allow. It may be legal, but boy. Somehow we've got to stop odd things from happening. We continue to cram more stuff into things that really is legal but really it was not intended, the property wasn't ever intended to be divided the way we're doing it right now. Some of the stuff tonight, well this is legal. It's not the way the neighborhood was structured to begin with. It's happening in my neighborhood. Peterson: It's going to get worst. That's. Conrad: And it's going to keep happening, yeah that's right. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: And that was the intent of when we brought it up in the first place so although number 4 seems to be the most logical, I'd be hard pressed to just let it continue as it is. You know let's take some risk and set some tone. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Joe Morin: My name is Joe. Joe Morin and I live 1441 Lake Lucy Road. ! live on a 5, well I didn't realize you bad this new technology here or I would have brought the entire plan so I have kind of a hand written sketch that kind of shows what our configuration looks like. This is really a 5 acre parcel that goes down to Lake Lucy and there's a large pond, about 3 acre pond right in here. And because of the topography in Cbanhassen, that's one thing that attracts a lot of people. You can't always set your building pads in back to back or, and so there are a lot of, I think odd configurations throughout tbe whole city. Not odd but they make sense but they just don't line up. Peterson: Unique I think is the right word. Joe Morin: Yeah, they're unique and I think what we have is kind of a unique situation here too. It took, oh I don't know, maybe 5 years to get this parcel figured out in a way that was sensitive to the environment and terrain and the trees and I really have to applaud the staff for figuring out how to pull that cul-de-sac back, saving the trees and allowing some private drives here. If they would have insisted on a public street coming into our property, it would have wiped out a lot of the beautiful trees and made it a lot worse than it is now. I say that because when we built here we originally never expected any development at all because we expected the sewer to come this way, but when they built the lift station ' here, that made it possible for these pieces to develop so we're kind of caught in-between the two major developments here. Now, when this parcel was developed and proposed and went through the City Council we were, as Sharmin pointed out, we showed our conceptual plan which has a building pad here and here. And so we have a potential to subdivide with a line here and a line here. Again that would be 3 houses on a 5 acre parcel. I think Ladd's probably the only one that was here at the time when we were actually ground this thing and hammered it to the conclusion finally. As you can see there's a lot of hills. Very steep topography. Wetland here. 3 acre pond here. Now if we were to put a house here for example, that would have a front yard facing this way, there are homes on the other side that are walkouts that have their back yards facing the pond. Okay. It would be hard for us to demonstrate a hardship since we already have a house on the lot, yet it is a 5 acre lot. The setbacks from property lines. If they come in any closer because of the, the home site here is probably about 400 feet away, okay. Yet the property line is right out here and if that property line were moved in any closer, that would jeopardize our ability to build on this pad, and that doesn't make sense either. And so in crafting a taw that eliminates the really dumb things, some of the real sensitive approaches to development and being in a wetland kind of situation, could be jeopardized and I hope that, I don't know that any of these options really adequate address situations like this and I don't think ours is unique. I agree something probably needs to be done but I don't think we're there yet and I hope that we give staff a little more time to craft something that either includes this kind of situation or just kind of, or try to get by with things the way they are because I don't think it affects very many situations in Chanhassen. Do you have any questions of me? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. Are we basically saying that with some of these options we're considering to this ordinance, that it would make your situation more difficult or harder to deal with? Joe Morin: Depends how it's interpreted, lfyou look at. Sacchet: I shouldn't say that. With the additional setbacks and all that...or the orientation all of a sudden it could be a problem. Joe Morin: Yeah, I think all of the options probably impact us in a major way one way or the other. 1 don't understand the first one. I don't know what demonstrating a hardship involves. It sounds subjective to me but if the criteria, you can't get the house on the lot, we already have a house on the lot but my goodness, we certainly could put 2 lnore on the lot too. And in fact build our own home down here some day. That's our plan. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, Jerry Paulsen. 7305 Laredo Drive. I think it's obvious fi'om what we've seen of subdividing lots in general, economics is what the driving factor in many cases. And certainly the idea that someone wants to make a profit by dividing a larger lot which is justifiable in many cases I'm sure. As Commissioner Ladd Conrad mentioned, it's probably wise to more seriously consider this sort of thing in a new division rather than going into an existing division to address this thing, and Commission Saccbet's comment about making a combination of these things, perhaps not, it's not an either or certainly but taking the best features out of what are desirable. Features out of each one of these options, l've jnst informally done a little poll of some of the adjacent communities and ill understood their planning departlnents correctly, I found at least two colnmunities adjacent to Chanhassen that say no to flag or neck lots. They say we won't do it. I found at least one adjacent that says 2 max lots on a private street. We're talking about 4 now and maybe 5. And I found at least one adjacent community that says no to private streets. It is, ! think it can be...to consider private streets as a desirable feature. Obviously I have some, we have something personal in this as far as our local neighborhood is concerned but in generally speaking just fi'oln what we've seen of it, I think you should consider being perhaps more restrictive than we are now and hope you consider something in that light. Thank you. Peterson: We should have a fi'equent visitor program for Mr. Paulsen. Get a fi'ee hair cut or something after 10 visits. Thank you. Aanenson: I was going to say, we do have entire subdivisions that are private streets such as Hesse Farms. That entire subdivision. So that's. Janet Paulsen: My name's Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive .... I feel threaten by the private streets. First of all it's not maintained by the city. Plowed by the city. Essentially a stub street and.., no turn around. It's 20 feet wide at the maxi~num instead of 30 foot right-of-way. Access to 4 homes. It's crowded for the fire trucks and emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. It also doesn't require a concrete curb and gutter. I think that private roads have a purpose probably for a townhome situation. But...in the May 3 1st position paper, it seemed to me they were mainly used to divide very valuable shoreland. That's what we're faced with in our neighborhood. I don't want to do that. Our shoreland is so important in Chanhassen. It's what makes it beautiful and it should be preserved. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: I actually only have a question. Are we going to address building pads this evening? Aanensoll: No. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I do ~vant to just point out that in the Olivewood... Aanenson: It's upside down. Debbie Lloyd: In the Olivewood plan, which addresses private streets, I want to point out that this shore maps...Minnetonka do an outstanding job with their plats, including denoting house pad envelopes and proposed grade elevations .... Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Wow. We ~vant to do something. I think you heard, a little even before we summarized with closing thoughts but I think we all want to do something. We don't know what. You know I think, I don't like Option 4 because ! don't think it addresses, takes any stab at trying to address it. I mean private streets, I mean 1 don't, I prefer not to do them but they can be done very, very well. Like Hesse Farms is a wonderful example. And some of the ones we saw tonight are very nicely and tastefully done and they meet the criteria. But I don't like doing nothing. You know I think it lends itself to more work for you. More work roi' tis and the council trying to interpret. I mean what does, is the City Attorney, is he offering that doing nothing is the most prudent way to go? Aanenson: Certainly he spoke that the number I variance he would not recommend to the City Council, the variance process. I guess our concern is the implication of the non-conforming lots and speaking with him and try to get some language for that. As Mr. Morin spoke, it's not going to be perfect no matter what you do. You can't anticipate every situation. If you make it going forward, tbere's people that we have provided options roi' further subdivision that does provide via a private street so I guess we'd like some time to go back and research those and show you what problems we're going to create. Get a better baudle on that. That's going to take a little bit of time. Then come back with the city attorney assisting tis in drafting an ordinance. That maybe it's a combination ora couple different things. But obviously it appears that it's existing lots that seem to be the bigger room but that's not always the case. We do have situations where subdivisions adjacent to an existing neighborhood which is just as much ora concern with their orientation so, we'll take a look at it. Peterson: Fellow commissioners, any other? Conrad: I don't think we've helped at all. Really. Peterson: Well certainly not you. Conrad: I haven't. I could very easily throw out 4, 3 and 2. They don't work. The variance is sort of says l've got a shot at it. To look at something. I'm not sure I like the implications of the variance but it's, you know I can verbalize some of the things that we're trying to prevent but I think when you put down standards it's a lot harder. We'll never hit it. And maybe we start putting down some real solid intent statements and flag lots and some of the stuff that I've seen in the staff report in terms of some of 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 the verbiage, that's what we're trying to do here. So maybe 1 don't know. I personally am just trying to, I don't like driveways going by houses because there's a 10 foot, you know setting a driveway in that's maybe going close to a porch and it's legal because it's 10 feet away from the yard. Ah, that's garbage to ine. I want to prevent that. Yet if maybe some of the plans I saw tonight, that same driveway is a fair distance away from tile neighbors and it's not a problem. So when you try to cram some of this stuff in, boy I have no need to create a lot in an odd situation and that's what I would try to prevent. Maybe you can solve that one for me. I don't know how. It's not a buffer, it's not just saying buffer yards or lot sizes are playing bigger. That doesn't do it. That will prevent some things that we're trying to do. So l'm taking us ilo place on my conversation here unfortunately. I've tried to think about this and I know what I'm trying to prevent. I just, I have a great difficulty in preventing it unless I see it and ! say, then when I see it I say, you know that's strange in this neighborhood. That shouldn't be planned. Aanenson: . ..if you could look at some of the areas of subdivisions or if we want to collectively oil our next work session go look at some. I can give you examples on Frontier Trail. Forcier's across tile street oil one side and the other side, Hestia Homes. Both have private drives. Two different applications. Both successful. But they both are served by flag lots and private drives. Two different applications. Al-Jarl: The topography that they had in. Aaneuson: In Morin's? Al-Jarl: Yeah. It made sense to serve via private driveway. Aanenson: So if you wanted to do that, we could go together and go individually and look around. Give some feedback. Good, bad. Why it works. Why it doesn't work. Get more specific. I think that would be helpful. Siduey: I guess looking at the various options I guess I'm more inclined to look at the one that, well do nothing actually which has the least restrictive language. Although I'd like to beef it up somehow, but 1 don't know how to do that. Reason being is that I think it would be desirable to have staff have the opportunity to work with the applicant and to come up with some creative solutions and not be totally restrictive on the language. But I'm wondering if it's appropriate with the current Verbiage if we can add something to it that's actually in place and really address the things that we don't want to see. Aanenson: That goes back to... Sidney: Yeah, and I don't know what those things are. What are tile bad things? Or most concerning. If it's the porch issue or something like that we could add that in. I guess we need more information about really where we're headed as a, you know what we want to prevent. Conrad: I think that's what we should be doing is identifying things that we really don't want. In my case it might be a driveway that's really too close to a property line that's cutting off, that may be getting to the right place but it's still putting the driveway where normally a rational person never would have thought it was going in there. When they bought the property next to it. I don't know. Maybe we identify a few of those and take a crack at it. Burton: Mr. Chairman I was thinking that allowing these flag lots and private drives we'd then have a pseudo variance type test that would have these things that we don't like that somebody else...consider 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 and decide whether you would allow it or not. Something along what I think I'd like but then it's tough drafting a project. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. When I first read this I thought I liked them all except 4. I'll be honest about this. And that apparently wasn't quite cooked enough. It wasn't crisp enough. And I think it's a very valid point. We have to identify what we're actually after. Now I personally, I mean I'm relatively new with this group here but from the experience I've had so far in these couple months, I found myself in positions here where I felt we would have liked to do something, but we couldn't. And so coming from an environmental view point.., something that I think is good. And my vision of what I'd like to see happening. So basically where I stand on this is more restrictive in general I think is better in this case, from where I'm coming from. Then on the other hand you all think it's ridiculous, I mean it has to be workable. It has to be reasonable, right? And I think the suggestion that we might even have a work session and try to identify some specific situations that we do not want. I think that could be a good next step. In any case I think in order' to come to really a determination what we want to do, we need to very diligent looking at what we're actually creating. Who does it impact? What does it impact? What are the specific situations. When I read through these three options, I said alright. Variance. Great. Oh yeah, we had a problem. We can't ask them how to orient the house. There we go, and it gets more setbacks, that's great. So we have a little more safety in that it's not going to be jammed in. But that's a little short sighted. I think we create potentially more problem than we solve if we go to just jumping in like that so, 1 think my recommendation would be try to find more specifics. Have a work session and then very carefully look at what's the impact. Because as far as where I'm at, more restrictive I think is good. Conrad: You're going to take a lot of people's rights away. But I think we should do a work session. We should literally go up to a board and draw it, much like Sharmin did and say okay, do we want to prohibit that? Is this, 1 know 3 or 4 examples of cases that boy, I don't know. The old land owners has an acre and a half and wants to split it in two and we're going to say no, you can't. At-Jarl: We can continue looking at what other communities are doing and maybe gather more ordinances. Saccliet: It seems like...other communities around seem to be putting more restrictive. I wouldn't think it's a good idea for us to say no private streets or no flag lots. I like flexibility. On the other hand it seems like we need some handles on situations when they come up and it's mostly something...so it's a tricky situation. Peterson: In theory, can you have a flag lot without a private drive? Or very often. Aanenson: Yes we do. That's some of those subdivisions we showed you. Certainly. Yes. Peterson: Most of those are private drives. Aanenson: No I would say they're about, a combination. Probably half and half. That's what I think would be helpful. Either go look at them or take some pictures throughout the community and show the different applications. And also see how the house fits. How does it feel? Does it feel tight? Does it feel good? 1 think you have to actually see it to get that sense. Peterson: One way of doing it is change the ordinance as it relates to private drives and make them a variance where we'd have more discretion on granting them. 49 Planning Commission Meeting- August 1, 2000 Aanenson: Lot of different ways, 1 think the approach would be good just to put that list together. First I think we need to do the visual impact. Same as we did when we looked at architectural study. What we do and don't like. Try to get that down. What works and doesn't work and then start developing the ordinance from there. Tbat'd be ~ny recommendation. Peterson: So do you have enough direction awareness from us? Aanenson: Yes. 1 think you have to go... Peterson: Let's go home with that thought. Thank you for coming folks. Aanenson: I would recommend that you table that since it was, you did open it for a public hearing. Sacchet: I recommend to table. Conrad: Second. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table consideration of amendments to Section 18-57(q) and Section 20-615 regarding flag lots. All voted in favor and thc motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTE: Commissioner Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 2000 as presented. NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: l just want to let you know the next meeting, we do have a subdivision. Next to Springfield. It's the Pruitt's who are, that outlot on Lyman that was not part of the Springfield development. We are addressing code amendments. The Witt's will be coming back asking for vacation of the condition of approval. Before they asked for an appeal of the interpretation. And then Family of Christ. Peterson: Who are the Witt's again? I can't remember. Aanenson: ...next ~neeting, and then you did get a note regarding the November conflict. The first one. I got one note to cancel the meeting. I'm taking a consensus. Whatever you'd like to do. We can't even meet under a work session so, unless it's an incredibly full agenda, we're going to try to bump them to the second meeting in November. Peterson: Or might that be a good night for a work session. Aanenson: That's what I say, we can't technically we shouldn't meet because it's election night. That's what I was thinking too. That'd be a good night but we do have a regular work session scheduled in October. Petersoa: That's tTot ordinaace. So how can you say technically? Aanenson: Well 1 think you're not supposed to formally have an official city meeting. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2000 Peterson: We're not. It's a work session. Come over to my house and have cocktails. Aanenson: Okay, that'd be fine. Conrad: Don't we want to watch the results? Aanenson: Well there you go, that too. And I didn't put, we still need to talk about Chairman but because we had two people absent tonight, to put that on. Also the prioritizational I'll put in the next packet too. Ongoing items because we're just a couple people. And Uli, I do have you off the... Sacchet: I'm not here next time. Aanenson: I got that. And just for clarification too. It's 300 square feet for an EAW. Even for an addition. Sidney: 300,000. Aanenson: Correct. Even with an addition so. Peterson: Anything else? Conrad: No, let's go home. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 51