Loading...
PC 2003 11 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Bruce Feik, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Steve Lillehaug, and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen A1- Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Acting City Engineer; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Vivek Kaul 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 9875 Delphinium Lane, Chaska PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CLINIC ON PROPERTY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PARK NICOLLET 1sT ADDITION; BWBR ARCHITECTS (PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES.) Public Present: Name Address Cindy Schallock 7501 Kathy Schroeder 7720 Ilene Leister 3738 Pam Hargis 3800 Beth Hartquist, M.D. 3800 Bill Kenney 3800 Duane Spiegle 3800 Dean Williamson, Frauenshuh Co. Pat Hallisey, Blue Circle Investment Co. Bob Verstraete, BWBR Architects Canyon Curve Frontier Trail Hickory Lane Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park 7101 West 78th Street, Suite 100 Bloomington 1304 W. Medicine Lake Drive, Suite 301 Plymouth 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600, St. Paul Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Who is inclined to start? You want to start Bruce? Go ahead. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Just have a couple quick ones, and then one a little more sublative. In your recommendation, condition number 11 where we talk about utility hookup, the charge per unit. That's really charge for the entire development, is it not? It really isn't a per unit on this. Item number 11. A1-Jaff: Page 16. Saam: No, it is a per unit. Feik: Unit's defined as? Saam: The number of units calculated by the Met Council when they calculate the SAC units. Feik: Okay, thank you. On 19 regarding the rooftop screened from views. A1-Jaff: They will be screened. We know that based upon plans that we have seen. However, we just want to make sure that that condition is there. Things change. Feik: At this point it's just parapet screening? It's not additional screening on top of that? A1-Jaff: No. It's parapet screening only. Feik: Okay. And then I guess the last one that I've got some concerns about is the third floor in the future some long period out. 2 years. 5 years. 10 years. We don't have renderings. We don't have design concepts. We don't have anything. What are our concerns of the city regarding that third story, if indeed we give approval for this, that it would be in keeping with what's been planned and conform with the design guidelines? A1-Jaff: You will be, that portion of the application would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Staff does not have the authority to. Feik: Which is different than some of the others we've seen? The one at Powers doesn't come back. A1-Jaff: We approved it as such. You approved the second story so you saw the entire thing and gave approval for both cases. Feik: Right, right. So this would, to do the remainder of the third floor they would need to come back? A1-Jaff: Because we don't have all the information on the parking, we really did not feel comfortable recommending the third story. Bringing the third story before you. We don't have all of our data. We don't have all the information. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: And is that clear to the applicant that they would need to come back for that third floor? A1-Jaff: We've made it very clear and that's why you're seeing 2 lA story basically. Feik: That's it for now. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Kurt, any questions? Papke: Yeah ! had a question on page 2, near the bottom. Just a clarification question which will then bring up another issue that ! don't know will come to you or the applicant. Down in italics down there, there's a summation of the parking study that says the number of parking spaces provided on site will be able to accommodate the expected future parking demand for both land uses. It then goes on to say the third story will require additional parking spaces, so just to make sure I'm interpreting this right, when you say future in that first sentence you are not talking about the third story? A1-Jaff: No, I'm not. Papke: So future does not include a third story? A1-Jaff: No. Papke: Okay. And then in the applicant's here, the city submittal, on page 10 there's a statement concerning that when this expansion occurs approximately 50 off site parking spaces will be needed to accommodate the additional demand. Second paragraph from the bottom. Has the applicant approached you with some idea as to where those 50 parking places would come from? A1-Jaff: Yes, and maybe the applicant can. Papke: Should we save that for the applicant questions? A1-Jaff: Please. Yes. Papke: That's fine. That's all I have. Sacchet: Thanks. Rich, you have any questions? Slagle: I just have a couple. Sharmeen, ! am looking at the rendering here and I'm not sure ! understand, and this is a sidewalk and a traffic pattern question but where on this am ! see their proposed sidewalks? If you could show me on the map that would be great. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: If you have the landscape plan and, this is the existing sidewalk along Great Plains Boulevard. What they're doing is extend the sidewalk south of the building and ultimately, and then you will have a crossing right here to either be able to continue to the Legion site, or the Legion building, I'm sorry. Or come down and ultimately get onto Lake Drive. Slagle: Now is that your proposed or is that the applicant's proposed? A1-Jaff: That's what the applicant has shown on the plans based upon discussions we've had with them. We asked them to incorporate the sidewalk and that's what they came back with. Slagle: Okay, because ! noticed there was discussion of a northerly sidewalk and then there was verbiage about where they came back with a sidewalk on the southerly route. Okay. Okay. The next question is, is on that right-in and right-out. Again, seeing a traffic study that once again proves an applicant's point, are you concerned that one, is that enough? And two, is there any discussion, and this might be a radical thought but closing off the ability to access down into the gas station? In other words, because if you're someone who wants to go south, you're going to go through the gas station. Through the pumps to get to Lake Drive to hang a right, to then ultimately take a left on Great Plains, say to St. Hubert's or whatever. ! mean do we want people going through that retail? A1-Jaff: It's a matter of the convenience. Slagle: I mean if there's one way to force them to go to the east, over to the shared driveway with the Legion, that's one way to do it. I'm just throwing that out. Has that been discussed at all? A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: And? Saam: I'll just point out also Commissioner Slagle. They do have an alternate interior route to go south on Great Plains. If they go to the east through what appears to be the American Legion site, however it's the Park Nicollet lot. They can get out onto Lake Drive. Go down to the intersection and then take a left so they could avoid going through the pumps and. Slagle: And I guess what I'm saying Matt is, is that, I mean I would prefer that as a planning person. So my question to Sharmeen was, do you really think people would do that versus cutting through the gas station to get to that quicker, more accessible exit? Saam: Sure, and once they learn that route through the gas station, they may go that way. Slagle: And so do we want them to go that way is what I'm asking? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Saam: Well, do we want them? ! guess no. We'd prefer they go through their site. However, the installation of the right-in/right-out on Great Plains, where they closed the median, that is what we do want. Slagle: Exactly, and so I'm suggesting is you cut off the ability to go south for the foreseeable future until things work out potentially between the land owners. Saam: ! believe there is an agreement, and maybe Sharmeen can help me, or the applicant can when they get up but ! think there's an agreement or pending agreement between them and the Citgo to share basically a drive aisle through there so they can get out. And ! know there have been talks with the property to the south about that so. Slagle: So from your perspective as a traffic and engineering standpoint, there's no position as to whether to close it off or not? Saam: We're fine with the traffic study as submitted. We agree with the conclusions. Slagle: That's all. Sacchet: Okay. Bethany. Tjornhom: ! just have two quick questions. One is just for my education ! guess. Who is the neighborhood district? Sacchet: The way it's zoned. Tjornhom: Yeah, ! mean who, ! mean because. Sacchet: The zoning is neighborhood district. Tjornhom: Is that what it is or is, ! thought ! read the neighborhood district had zoned it as it could only be a one story and why can you only have a one story? A1-Jaff: The neighborhood district is, the site that you see, the subject site before you today, the gas station, daycare, Northcott, the Legion. That' s just the bridge. Aanenson: Also then the church is PUD. Americlnn, excuse me, Northcott was given a variance also for the 2 stories in the neighborhood district. Tjornhom: Is there a specific reason why it is zoned just one story? A1-Jaff: Mainly to protect the neighbors. However as we explained in the staff report you have a buffer between this site and the neighbors, and the neighborhood. There is substantial setback between the two and the way the applicant designed this building was to step it down. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Aanenson: Let me just elaborate a little bit on that. The neighborhood business district also has a shorter list of uses that are permitted in the district so by giving it a highway business it would allow for a larger range of uses that may or may not be palatable to the neighborhood. In reviewing this with the applicant, similar to what we did with Northcott, some of that taller building also provides some of the noise attenuation, some of the buffering so we looked at orientation of the building when this came in originally when they partnered up with the Legion site, and the same discussion went through when we looked at the Northcott building. The fact that they were so close to the pedestrian bridge and the height of that, the scale. How does that fit into the character and there was a lot of discussion on what's on the opposite side of the street so really it kind of comes back to, we discussed changing it. The Planning Commission had a big discussion on Northcott but it kind of came back to the list of uses that were permitted and that seemed to be more, the uses seemed to be more compatible with that neighborhood across the street. Maybe not all the standards, if that makes sense. Tjornhom: Okay. And then the Blue Circle Investment Company had some concerns about water runoff from the Park Nicollet property ! guess basically into their back doors, and was that resolved? Aanenson: Yes. Tjornhom: Okay. I guess that's it for me. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: ! have a few questions. I'll start from the top. The sanitary pump required for the lower level. Do we anticipate sanitary sewer needing to be in the lower level? ! mean I'd like to avoid the sanitary pump. Does staff feel that that is 100 percent necessary? And will that be a privately owned sanitary pump and their responsibility to maintain? Sweidan: If they need it, yes they have to. Lillehaug: Say that again? Sweidan: If they need it, yes they have to put the pump for the sanitary. Lillehaug: And how about their responsibility to maintain? Sweidan: It should be their responsibility because it will be within the building. It will not be out of the building. Lillehaug: Good. Regarding the traffic study. ! read through that and my question would be, does the background growth only take into account the existing traffic with the one percent growth? Or does it account for a fully developed Village on the Ponds with a Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 one percent growth? I'm not sure if it's taking into account a fully developed Village on the Ponds, and so my question would be leading to the intersection level of service for Great Plains and is it Lake Drive East? So are we taking into account a fully developed Village on the Ponds? ! couldn't quite pull that out of their traffic analysis. And ! can also ask the applicant that. Sweidan: Yes, because the previous study from the BRW that was taking the whole Villages on the Pond development as accomplished whole development. And according to that we ask a revised, their study, their traffic study accomplish or to combine this reports within the.., that is affecting the east and the west, that intersection. Lillehaug: ! think we need to look at that closer though because the existing volumes versus what they show as the ultimate levels, it doesn't seem, it doesn't appear to be right to me. The traffic levels don't increase enough, and obviously Village on the Ponds isn't anyway near fully developed right now, so ! think we need to look at that closer. Let me move on with my questions here. The parking study. The American Legion data collection ended at 2:00 p.m. and it doesn't seem like that data had peaked as far as you know it was going up. It ended at 2:00. Obviously the Legion is going to, the parking lot is going to start filling up beyond 2:00, and then overlapping with the Park Nicollet, it's still peaking at 4:30. It all goes back to the shared parking question again. Are we adequately addressing the shared parking, especially when we only get data collection on the American Legion up until 2:00 p.m.. Are we comfortable with not getting a really representative overlap of maybe the peak parking period? Who are we going to punish here if that parking lot's full? We're going to punish the American Legion. Was there a question in there? Sacchet: ! heard a question. Basically you're asking has it been looked at and is staff satisfied. Slagle: And why did it stop at 2:00? A1-Jaff: The parking demand, that was their peak. Lillehaug: Is that an applicant question? A1-Jaff: You can ask the applicant but it began to go down. Lillehaug: Not the Legion parking. Sacchet: The clinic parking went down, yeah. Lillehaug: The clinic parking about 4:00 is, that's about where it starts to decline is about 4:00, but we got a range from 2:00 to 4:00 where what is the American Legion parking doing? So ! guess there's gray area there. Maybe the applicant can hit on that a little more. Why don't we save that for the applicant. So please remember that question. The other question would be is, where do we draw the line? We have zoning for one story Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 and now we're looking at 3 stories. Yeah, it fits the neighborhood. We're trying to justify it by a buffer. It buffers noise and we're trying to justify it by the elevation of the, what is it? Northcott building. So do we just totally go away from how many stories it is and just put an elevation in that area? How are we justifying this 3 story other than buffering noise? ! mean it's just not holding to the zoning of that land. ! don't think the buffering of the noise really hits on the true intent of holding it to one story in that area. Aanenson: Well I'll go back to the original thing that we stated. Looking at the uses. If we were to come back with a PUD and give relief based on a PUD for that same area, which is what we had discussed, the uses would be the same. The PUD has different standards as far as impervious and the like so we think that the underlying district at this location. Another way to go back is amend the neighborhood business district universally, but there's other applications in the neighborhood district that the height may not apply. So ! think we gave careful consideration to the BN district when we went through the Northcott building and at that time it seemed the consensus of the council and the Planning Commission that it seemed to be the appropriate zone. In some cases the height did act as a relief but to universally change the BN district didn't seem to be the appropriate way to go so. It was talked about before. Lillehaug: How about in Village on the Ponds area there, is there a building that is 3? I think you mentioned 4 stories? Aanenson: Presbyterian Homes. Lillehaug: Which one is 4 stories? Aanenson: Presbyterian Homes will be 2 to 3 stories. The apartments will be, that have been approved, with underground parking. The hotel so they're pretty compatible. Lillehaug: Was there somewhere, yeah. On page 8. Finding A. The very last paragraph it says within the Villages on the Ponds PUD development west of the site, structures are built to a height of 4 stories. Do we have a 4 story building there? Or do we have one planned there? It says, or 50 feet. ! don't remember something being that tall over there. Aanenson: ! think the Lake Susan Apartments. Lillehaug: Okay. I'm just trying to somehow justify. Aanenson: Yeah, those would be a similar height with underground parking. Lillehaug: Page 7. Number 4. It says the design of the clinic draws from the design of the bridge. This is part of a finding. What do we mean by draws? A1-Jaff: It mimics the design. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay. I'm almost done here. Okay, page 15. I'm looking for, per parking study, the ordinance required 377 stalls. So per the parking study it only requires 267 stalls. Does that seem adequate? Obviously the parking study represents that, but again I'm hitting on the point if the parking study's wrong, the Legion's going to suffer. So are we comfortable with these numbers? Aanenson: First of all I'm not sure that's a true statement that the Legion's going to suffer. Lillehaug: That's my opinion, right. Aanenson: Right. Right. I'm not sure we'd concur because these are different peak hours. Their demand's going to be more in the evening. Lillehaug: Well my point being is, if the traffic, you can see it's somewhat at a peak in the afternoon at Park Nicollet, and if people are trying to park at the Legion at 3:00 and 4:00 and the parking lot's full, the parking's already there for Park Nicollet. The Legion's going to suffer. So ! just want to make sure we're clear with the total number of parking stalls that we're providing for Park Nicollet. Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, if! can go back to a couple questions ago you asked on the traffic volumes. If it had taken into account Villages on the Ponds. ! pulled out the traffic study and there's two spots in there. This is the latest traffic study, which ! believe you all got last week. ! think it' s the third revision. On page 4 it says they took into account future Villages on the Ponds full development and it's also included on the title sheet. Lillehaug: Where was this at? Sacchet: It's on the report. It's the one that came in the mail. Saam: Yeah, you got it separate last week .... have them specifically revise the traffic study to take into account Villages on the Ponds because in the last revision we don't believe they had done that. Slagle: Can ! ask a question though Steve? Lillehaug: Definitely. Slagle: Without, trying to remember everything about that e-mail, was the study done on site? And can you tell me how many hours or... Saam: What do you mean by on site? To get existing traffic data? Slagle: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Saam: Yeah, and maybe the applicant can answer this but ! believe they did both existing counts and then they also used the IT, the traffic engineering model. Yeah, so. Sacchet: Back to you Steve. Aanenson: Can I just go back to those parking issues. So if the clinic closes at 6:00, so we'd be concerned between the 4:00 and the 6:00 that the Legion's going to be short parking spaces between 4:00 and 6:00? Lillehaug: I'm concerned that they stopped collecting data at 2:00 p.m. and ! don't know what the Legion does after 2:00 p.m. so I'm concerned really between I'd say the period of 2:00 to, well Park Nicollet they really decline quite rapidly after 4:00 so ! would say from 2:00 to 4:40. Somewhere in that area. That's where my concern is. Sacchet: Anything else Steve? Lillehaug: No. Sacchet: Thank you. Craig, do you have questions? Claybaugh: Yeah. ! concur with Steve's analysis of the parking. Had similar concerns with the mid-afternoon to late afternoon time period. Coming back to the property being zoned neighborhood business, ! thought that was a good explanation of why previous commission and council had decided not to go highway business in lieu of neighborhood business. However ! don't think that translates into going to a 3 story building. There's substantial concerns with that. With respect to the Northcott variance. Besides the 2 story variance, was there other variances that ended up either being sought in conjunction with that or sought over the course of the building, be it signage variances. Any other piggy back variances that appeared? ! guess most of the other questions that ! had have been asked. That's all I've got at this time. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: Yeah. Sacchet: ! have a number of questions too so ! apologize for the number. Three or four issues that are pretty significant and ! think we need to look at and they've been touched on in the questions to some extent but I'd like a little more clarification. First of all starting with the height. Hopefully that's one of the main issues is the height of this building. With comparing the Northcott building and the clinic. Now the Northcott building is at a higher elevation to start with so the actual height from ground level up is about how much on the Northcott building, do we know? It is on here but it's so small ! have a hard time to read whether it says 38 or something like that. A1-Jaff: That's about right. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: So that building is 38 while the clinic is proposed to be 47 at this point, is that correct? A1-Jaff: That's what the applicant is requesting. Sacchet: And what are we planning to do about this because according to staff report, we have two frameworks. One is the framework of neighborhood business, which allows one story, which we seem to agree that this is not necessarily totally applicable considering all the framework and. But then we have the Highway 5 corridor which allows up to 3 stories I believe but limits the height to 40 feet. So where, how high is the building in terms of what you're recommending? Staff wants 47, which is beyond the Highway 5 thing. Are we giving a variance for that or how does that work? A1-Jaff: What we are recommending is the applicant maintain a 40 foot. Sacchet: So the condition right now would enforce the 40 foot? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: If you look at condition number 26 on page 18. Sacchet: So we're asking them to limit to 40 at this point? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So staff is not recommending. A1-Jaff: They're requesting that they go higher than that, and they will be pleading their case. Sacchet: Before we let them plead, that's probably a hearing question. They break it down in quite some detail that they need almost 3 feet for utilities in the ceiling and another 3, close to 3 feet or more than 2 lA feet for structural. Isn't that a little much? I mean I'm not an engineer so please help me out. Is that customary? I mean it seems like we have a conflict if that is customary, if we say 3 stories should be limited to 40 feet. Saam: If you're asking on the utilities inside the shell, for the internal, that's not something that we typically in engineering review. That's in the building department, so I guess we couldn't answer that question. Sacchet: Okay. Appreciate your honesty about that. Alright. So effectively with this height thing, we're actually sort of changing the zoning. I mean we're, in that particular corner. I mean we're doing, we let Northcott go. Now we let this one go even further. Doesn't that almost boil down to a change of the zoning in that place? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Aanenson: I'll go back to my original point. We did examine that going back to Northcott and when the Legion came in and we knew Park Nicollet, we had all these discussions. Again, to changing the zoning involves more than just one. There's height involved and there's also uses so we're addressing one component of the district and that's the height...regulations. Setbacks and the height. There's a whole other component and that's the uses and some of those other standards. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath. Sacchet: Yeah, so we're adjusting the categorizing. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, well that helps. Thanks Kate. That's a good answer. Then the other thing that we're trying to come to terms with is the parking. Really the main thing that perplexes me is the city has a set of rules. We calculate what the parking requirement is, and in this particular case we come out with the 377 or whatever it is. And then the applicant can do a parking study and say, we need 270 and then they need 270 and our calculations is out the window. How does that exactly work? A1-Jaff: Our ordinance allows for parking studies. Proof of parking is typically also provided if you have uses that are compatible, then that's another area where. Sacchet: So basically from the city side, if somebody comes in, brings a study, we say well that's your responsibility. We're going to be stuck with it. Is that pretty much where we're? A1-Jaff: Well they have to buy the study. Sacchet: Well there has to be some credibility. But we still have to see a traffic or parking study that doesn't agree with the applicant, that the applicant actually brings in front of us, so that will be the day. Yeah ! guess you hear where I'm at with that. But now, if they say they need these 267 parking spots, if ! come around and say well I'd like to take a couple of these parking spots out to actually save the trees that they say they're saving, which they're not really saving the way they're doing it right now, we don't know if we take 3-4 parking spots out, how that affects the whole picture because we just have this black hole called a parking study that comes from them. How does that work? A1-Jaff: You can take it out.., as proof of parking and if the need presents itself then you can require them to add. Sacchet: Okay. That's not what I want to hear but that's alright. Trees. Trees. They're saying they're saving 3 trees. They're putting a retaining wall as close as a couple of feet of one. They're putting curb as close as maybe 10-12, certainly less than 15 feet off of the biggest one. Plus they're doing grading. They're proposing grading where, they did make an effort since last time because last time it was really not saving. Does the city 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 think this is sufficient to save those trees? That's probably unfair because the forester's not here but from. A1-Jaff: We would like to see those saved. Sacchet: Alright. I'll bring that up with the applicant. That will be definitely a point of discussion. Now there' s a condition about the future expansion. I think it' s the last condition. The expansion of the third story will require site approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. We already touched on that. Then it says approval of the expansion will be contingent upon proving adequate parking. Does that mean if they come in and prove adequate parking they have the approval? A1-Jaff: Well it's one of the conditions of approval. We want to make sure that they are aware. Sacchet: It's one of the things, because the way it reads right now it could be interpreted that if they do that, they got it. Just want to be real clear about that. Let me quickly look. Sorry for, now when we say if the trees they're trying to preserve don't make it, they have to replace in a ratio of 2 to 1. So if they have a 36 inch oak that dies, they have to plant 72 inches of little trees? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Where would they do that? A1-Jaff: If there isn't enough room on site, our ordinance allows off site. Sacchet: As in a city park or something like that? A1-Jaff: Sure. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Signage is not included in this. I mean we touched on signage but we don't really approve the signage with this? A1-Jaff: It is included. We gave them the criteria, and there are conditions of approval. There are a few numbers that were difficult to read so we just gave them the overall criteria. You have the material for the signage so yes, you're approving it. Sacchet: At this point we're talking about having both right-in/right-out open. The one for the Citgo as well as the one for the clinic, and in addition the connection between the two parking lots? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, that's the current plan. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: And that was approved by MnDot. The applicant worked with MnDot on that. Sacchet: And one more detail. On page 9, the top. The finding says the developer provided a site for the Legion. This was originally the Legion' s property so how would the developer provide the site for the Legion. I'm not quite, could you clarify a little bit. I'm not sure. Aanenson: They're the master developer. Sacchet: They are the master developer so. Aanenson: Park Nicollet is. Sacchet: Oh, Park Nicollet's the master developer? So what does that mean they provided a site for the Legion? I'm a little bit at a loss to catch the subtly in that statement, if there is any subtly. Maybe there isn't. Aanenson: We're just trying to find out exactly which one you're on. Sacchet: It's on page 9. The top finding there. Second sentence. The developer provided a site of Legion has to share parking. A1-Jaff: The intention is, what I was trying to say is, both the Legion and Park Nicollet will be sharing the parking. Sacchet: Okay. So that's the point? Okay. A1-Jaff: Yes. And then you've got the same for the storm ponding as well. Sacchet: Okay, get it. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thanks for bearing with me. Feik: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Yes go ahead. Feik: I'd like to follow up one more question on parking to, one more quick question. When we were in the working group a number of months ago when the applicant was in and I broached this question. I would like to reiterate what your answer was for myself. The applicant, via the traffic study has indicated they need less parking then our standard ordinances for a like sized building. The applicant also indicated that they had a site in Eden Prairie which they have had to sell and move on because it wasn't big enough. If this were the case down the road, even if they don't build the third story, and there is a re- use for this property, what is our assurances that there will be enough parking for the re- use? Irrespective of what Park Nicollet needs today. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: It is one of the things that we review when an occupant requests to go into a building. Feik: So if we require on a standard office building, what? 3 per 1,000 or something like that. And they bring in a standard office tenant as either a tenant, as a multi-tenant facility or a single tenant facility, there may indeed not be enough parking to re-use this facility. Is that correct? Aanenson: It's always a possibility to change a use in any building, that's correct. Feik: And the burden of that, since it is owned by Park Nicollet would be their building. The building would stand vacant if they could not satisfy the parking at that time. Aanenson: Of you limit the use of the building. Typically that happens when, whenever there's a mortgage on a piece of property it's generally sent to the zoning officer to say is this building adequate so that's put on notice right away so that comes up generally right away with someone looking at a building. They may not be able to maximize the entire, some of it might end up being more storage as part of using it completely for office if it didn't have adequate parking. Feik: And you're comfortable we would be able to address that at the time? Aanenson: Yeah because we have other buildings that have similar type situations. Feik: Okay, thank you. Slagle: One quick. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Clarification. Sharmeen you mentioned I believe that the Department of Transportation looked at the two right-in/right-out's and also the connection and didn't have an issue with it. I just want to clarify the connection, because I'm not sure... A1-Jaff: The connection was included. Slagle: Why would they get involved with the connection between the two parcels? A1-Jaff: They looked at the overall circulation in that area. So they looked at the entire site and actually I had a conversation with them over the phone. Slagle: And there were no flags? No concerns? A1-Jaff: The traffic study indicated that they've had conversations with MnDot and I contacted MnDot. ! do trust the applicant but ! just wanted to make sure that yes, they have met and what was in the study was accurate. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Is that it for questions of staff?. With that, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and present your case. See whether you have anything to add in terms of what staff present and ! would think we might have some questions for you too, if you want to put the mic all the way up to you, that would be good. Thank you. State your name and address for the record please. Bill Kenney: My name is Bill Kenney. I'm the Operations Vice President for Park Nicollet Clinic at 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard in St. Louis Park. Thank you for inviting us tonight and especially to Sharmeen and her staff. I'm here tonight along with others from Park Nicollet clinic including the vice president of property management, our architect, our physician leader for the primary care clinics and director of clinic operations for the south region. Park Nicollet Clinic is a not for profit community organization with 21 community clinics. Our plan is to move the Eden Prairie clinic which is located on Highway 5 and Eden Prairie Boulevard to this site. In 2001, January of 2001 we opened Urgent Care, expanding our family practice clinic into urgent care to really test the market and it's been quite successful. In fact the Chanhassen residents are very familiar to the Park Nicollet Clinic. About 25 percent of Chanhassen residents do go to Park Nicollet Clinic and of hospital admissions, about 22 percent go to our Methodist Hospital, which is part of Park Nicollet Health Services. We've held two community meetings. The first one on February 27th, and the second one is a follow-up meeting on April 10th. We petitioned neighbors, about 240 received letters to both meetings with follow-up phone calls inviting them to come to the meeting to hear what our proposal was. We were very clear and up front in terms of what the clinic services would look like, expanding not only family practice and urgent care from Eden Prairie but to include OB/Gyn and pediatrics services so family services, as well as providing some specialty services and cancer care, cardiology, eye, rehabilitation services, CT and MRI. A really very much a full service community clinic. In our follow up meeting on April l0th we had documented issues from the February 27th meeting and came back with responses and specifically there were concerns regarding the pedestrian friendly sidewalks, trees, water, drainage, parking. Our shared parking arrangement with the Legion and the building height. As well as at that time we had been toying with the idea of initially starting with OB/Gyn services and the neighbors really confirmed a need for that. We're looking to build a, eventually build a 3 story building which we feel really anticipates the growth that this community will experience over time in terms of meeting medical services. The community partnership that we've really started and been engaged with with School District 112. There's a letter in your packet, ! think at least there was last time from Bev Stofferahn who's the superintendent here who's supporting this clinic development. Sacchet: We did get that. Bill Kenney: You got that, okay. The location is really a major connection with the community and the future clinic is consistent as we see it with Highway 5 development. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 And as has been pointed out, our sight lines are documented with the Northcott headquarters. Again we've discussed with the neighbors regarding our fully developed 3 story site and we really have not heard any opposition to that. In fact they've really embraced the idea of having Park Nicollet Health Services and Park Nicollet Clinic come to the community. I know there's some questions that you would like to hear our a response from us regarding the parking. The Legion parking and Park Nicollet parking and the parking study, I think you'll see that the clinics that we surveyed, it's pretty consistent. There's a 10:00 and 2:00 peak. So after 2:00 we really start to taper off in terms of the volume of patients as the Legion would start to fill up after 4:00 and 5:00. Even though we would continue with clinic hours for urgent care, it would be a much smaller amount than what you would see at 10:00 or 2:00 so I think our traffic study supports that. Thank you. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. Slagle: I've got a few. Sacchet: You want to start Rich? Slagle: Yeah. I want to touch upon the traffic, and I think, and I do want to ask either the applicant or the gentleman of the parcel to the south, but basically as I look at the southwest corner of this area, specifically with relationship to Starbucks, the intersection of Great Plains and Lake, I guess my question is, it almost appears as though we're going to treat that as business as usual. We're adding the right-in/right-out. We'll leave the connection between the parcel, the convenience store to the south. I guess I'll make this comment and I'd be interested in your response, but come 11:30 and staff, it's a gorgeous day and staff wants to go out and have lunch, whether they go to Culver's or what, or they drive, I'm surprised that you would think that people would not cut through the gas station. I'm not saying you've said that but obviously this plan doesn't take into account, from what I can see, the volume of traffic cutting between the northerly gas pumps and the doors to the convenience store. I mean it seems to me that it's just, someone coming around that corner and a person walking to pay their bill in the convenience store, I just don't understand why we would do that so I'd be interested in your response to that. Also, we've had this discussion before regarding Villages on the Ponds with the intersection. We have asked other applicants, and staff, as to really do you think you need a four way stop. And we had a chairperson of this commission who lives in the neighborhood to the south who claims that there are times where people can't even get across, if you want to walk, and yet we're going to put this very nice, large facility in this parcel, so I'm interested in your thoughts on that. And then lastly, I guess with respect to the parcel to the south, there is some verbiage in a letter that refers to a previous agreement with the City Council, and ifI can find it. And I guess I'm not sure I understand what that is, so if someone from the applicant's side. Here it is from Blue Circle Investment. We have worked very diligent with Park Nicollet to arrive at a plan that allows the best possible traffic flow into and out of and between our properties. Developing that part of the plan we have worked with MnDot and have taken into 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 account the agreements we made with a prior Chanhassen City Council. Yeah, whoever wants to get up and address those three just observations. Sacchet: State your name and address please. Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm the managing partner of Blue Circle Investment Company and we own the strip center just south of the proposed site. ! did want to address this issue because there's probably some confusion here. When you're looking at the proposal that's in front of you tonight, the question is not regarding a connection of the two properties. It's regarding the right-in/right-out to Great Plains Boulevard. As ! addressed in that letter that ! gave to you, at the time we built our property, the Chanhassen City Council made us agree that at the time the old legion site or the proposed Park Nicollet site was to be developed into something other than the old legion club, that there would be one entrance to that property, and it would be at, on the lot line between the two properties with the intersection running onto the old legion or new Park Nicollet property. And that the two lots would be combined by interconnection. So that's already there. That's been there for 15 years. ! wished ! had thought to bring my briefcase in from the car tonight but ! was in a hurry and forgot it because ! do have a copy of the minutes from the council meeting that put that into place. So all that we are doing here, and the reason that we got MnDot involved is because MnDot's input was in that original agreement. We went back to MnDot and now said look, there are things that have changed here. Can we leave the existing right-in/right-out that's on our property and put another right-in/right-out to the Park Nicollet property? Maintaining the agreed upon inter connection. And their comment pretty much was yes, as long as we have a median running all the way down the middle of that roadway so that nobody can make left hand turns into either of the properties, they approved it. So the interconnection is not the issue here. It's really just the right-in/right-out. Slagle: IfI may. It might not be the issue to MnDot, but it is I guess a question on my mind is, as the owner, or one of the owners of this endeavor, are you not concerned of people coming from the parking lot and coming around the corner to get out. Pat Hallisey: To get out and go over to the other shop? Slagle: Whatever. Pat Hallisey: Here's the way we look at it. They can get their one way or the other. If they're going to get there. They can go out through the legion entrance and turn around and come back. What we're really providing for them is a convenient way to use our facilities. They can now come through the properties and use the gas pumps. Without that they have to get out onto Great Plains Boulevard, get onto Highway 5, drive down Dakota Avenue, turn around on Lake Drive East and come back and access our property. Slagle: Why wouldn't they just be able to get off at the southeast corner on Lake and take a right, go west and then take a right into your. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Pat Hallisey: I guess they could do that. No. Without that connection, yeah they could go out onto Lake Drive and come back through, yes. But we've always anticipated joining these two lots and we still look forward to it. We want it. And it is an agreement that's in existence. Slagle: Okay. Last question, if you feel you know interested in addressing it but when we're talking about that respective intersection, do you have any thoughts as to, from a citizen, from an owner of a property, as to the traffic volume basically warranting no changes from today? Pat Hallisey: As far as a four way stop sign? You know I, I don't know how to really address that. As far as we're concerned it's working but I'm a landlord, not an occupant or operator of that gas station, or any of the businesses in there. When I'm there, and it may not be at peak times, I don't see a problem. My tenants don't report a problem to me. Certainly if somebody feels there's a problem I'm willing to look at it and see if there's something that needs to be addressed. Sacchet: At this point, just to clarify the problem is when St. Hubert's lets out. I mean I lived there when St. Hubert's was already there and that's when the problem arises. Slagle: Well I'm also concerned about the peak times in the morning and the afternoons. If you have been there at 8:00, 7:30 and again I'll get back to my quick point of people going north on 101 and cutting through Villages on the Ponds to avoid the two stop lights on 5, that becomes a pretty busy, continual flow north. Pat Hallisey: You know I've been a landlord. Slagle: If you're not around much then. Pat Hallisey: Yeah, I've been a landlord for 35-40 years and this is the first time anybody's ever asked me my opinion on traffic control. We usually leave that to the city. Sacchet: IfI may jump in, yeah and I think that's exactly the point Pat. Isn't this more a city responsibility then a developer's responsibility that intersection? At least we kind of struggled with that a little bit with Villages on the Ponds. That it's at least a shared responsibility where the city comes into the picture. Lillehaug: But they are intensifying the area. Sacchet: They're intensifying, yeah. Claybaugh: Single story is 27,000 square feet. We're looking at over 60,000. Sacchet: So we know it's going to be an issue that needs to be monitored from engineering side and dealt with. I think the staff report made that real clear. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: But ! think, if ! may Mr. Chair. My question was addressed to this gentleman and the applicant and it was their thoughts on whether there would be any need to change the traffic pattern. Now they could defer and then say hey, that' s a city thing, which they very well could. I'm just saying again, as part of this commission, I'm a little bewildered that we don't have a plan, other than perhaps we'll monitor the situation, so. Pat Hallisey: Just, as long as I've got the microphone and before I leave, I just want to clarify the issue that you brought up regarding the drainage. We have agreed, you know we had worked on agreement with them where they were going to put a manhole in a particular area back there so drainage could go into it and be taken away. ! believe the city's concern again were the trees that were there, so they have agreed, Park Nicollet has agreed not to put the manhole in, but also not to put any snow. They can't stop the snow from coming down on it but they're not going to plow any snow. They're not going to allow any snow to be, and we would request that that be a condition of the approval. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Pat. Now ! do want to bring it back to the applicant because we will get to public hearing part after that. You wanted to address this question. Please go ahead. Duane Spiegle: My name is Duane Spiegle from Park Nicollet. As far as the roadway and the inner circulation of the drive, etc, you probably recall at the work session where we had it switched out and that's what we were told to do at the time and that cut down more trees and we went back and revisited that. We said gee, we have an access here already. Can't we use it and do more to conserve trees and Pat's desire and the agreement that they previously had was to have the inner connection and with the MnDot so we looked at that and we're seeing that that made sense. Now when, and we didn't think that MnDot was going to agree with that necessarily at the time so we all three ! guess came to agreement, minus the city at this point, but to address the question of the intersection. Right, we would add intensity to that intersection. There's a lot of other development that's happening in that area that's going to add as well to that area so it doesn't seem to me like it's a one developer kind of an issue here. It is more of an overall traffic management that will be addressed I'm assuming as you're going through the whole process of developing that whole area and maybe, ! think from what I've understood is that our traffic study has taken into consideration the whole development of Villages on the Ponds as well as our property and the traffic consultant's come up with the results that they've come up with that you've seen. Getting to the parking issue with, so maybe ! shouldn't go on yet. Pause for a minute. I'm not sure exactly how to address that issue that we are a contributor. We will be a contributor. ! don't think we're the cause. We're just one of many and that's a very intense development at Village on the Ponds as well and more coming right now. Slagle: Absolutely, and I'll just add. According to the traffic study that Matt showed tonight, if I'm not mistaken it was one morning on December 17, 2002 that some data was, some surveys were done. For an update. Duane Spiegle: Full day. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: A.m. and p.m. and all I'm saying is, you know as we as a commission sit here and make decisions that will impact people's lives for years, your updated traffic study is one day. And so just realize there's sometimes skepticism about what I'll call traffic studies since we're never presented with traffic studies that don't support the applicant. Duane Spiegle: Well we certainly could do more traffic studying. ! think what we have found is that the pattern is similar but we can study more. Just tell us what day you want us to study or what time period. Sacchet: Well we struggled with that with other applicants because people come with a sample of one. Now you could say, well it was a full day but it's still just one day. You know and how much is appropriate to study, it's tricky. Duane Spiegle: Yeah. Yeah, the thing that we did though is we studied for our purposes, for parking, we studied our parking because we have several sites. You know we have 25 sites around the Twin Cities. We tried to match both in a mix of services that we provide, as well as the size of the facility and sometimes even larger facilities to find the, where do we have our peaks and where do have our drop off' s in parking, so that's how we came up with what we need. We are building a new facility on Highway 494 and France Avenue and there was, we matched our parking in that particular situation with the types of uses that were in the facility, and that was accepted by the City of Bloomington. The other thing we did there, and there was a question here and Matt didn't get into it but talking about the height of the facility. We are building the 494 and France facility at 15'8" floor to floor. This facility is 14'8". We've actually shrunk it somewhat just so we can get the services in both ventilation, structural support for lights, for procedure rooms as well as radiology equipment, etc, that it's not a normal office building. They would have 12, 12'5", maybe 13, something like that but you can't do that in medical. The new facility, out patient facility on 169 and 494, they're 14'8" floor to floor. So this, because of the type of use that we have, we can't fit in 40 feet with, even with a 3 story building we couldn't fit into that. So just in your thinking about what is here, it's a different kind of an animal maybe then you're used to in terms of just a regular office space and retail. Now I'm not sure what the floor to floor height was for the one story facility that Ridgeview has down the street but my guess is that it's higher than just a typical office space, depending on what they have in that facility for services. So there is some uniqueness. Sacchet: Yeah, that was definitely a question ! had. ! mean so you're saying this is typical for. Duane Spiegle: This is very typical. Sacchet: Actually it's rather on the shorter side. Duane Spiegle: Than another facility we're building, yeah. And that's a 3 story facility. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay. Well ! appreciate you addressing that. Rich, do you have any other questions? Coming down this way. Papke: The off site parking. Can you describe what the strategy is for that? Also, considering the skepticism that exists here about the adequacy of the existing parking, it may be that this plan has to be invoked before the third story is added so ! think that adds even a little bit more. Duane Spiegle: Okay, the off site parking right now is the agreement with the American Legion is for 50 parking spaces on their site. When we did the study, it was 30 plus days into their grand opening when kind of the hoopla created more of a standard sort of visitation at the noon hour which is their peak, and then the evening, and primarily ! think it's the Friday night rather than the regular nights of the week. And with 115 parking spaces ! believe on their site, 50 at lunch leaves them 65 parking spaces available, but lunchtime isn't a busy time for us. The busy time is at 10:00 and 2:00. Those are our bimodal peaks and we experience that at every site that we've studied. So it just made sense that when we're up, they're down. When they're up we're down. When we're up they're down and we share parking in a number of locations around the Twin Cities with other groups because it's a better stewardship situation by not having so much asphalt. So, in another situation that we're doing, taking into consideration here is having underground parking which again takes less asphalt off of the surface and less green space and allows us to use this site more densely, which we're being asked to do more often now in other locations. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. Tjornhom: ! have one question. ! know you're a medical clinic obviously. Are you going to have, or are there ever times where there are like ambulances or you know vehicles that are moving fast approaching that clinic in that area, or doesn't that usually. Duane Spiegle: ! don't think they'd be approaching us any faster than traffic on Highway 5 because once you get off of that road, you have to slow down to make the turns into the site, but Bill, very rarely do we have ambulances, do we? One a day maybe. We have urgent care there but otherwise it's scheduled appointments. And that would be if there's what, yeah. It's not an emergency center or urgent care is just more kind of now care, yeah. As you need it. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Yes. ! want to hit on the double right-in/right-out only accesses there. Did you indicate that the reason for that was to minimize impact to the trees there? That's why we're keeping them separated and having a connector road. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Duane Spiegle: That's certainly one of the reasons, yeah. Because there's an existing driveway right now and the trees have kind of existed in that current environment. That's what they're living in. Lillehaug: So by doing that, how many trees are we saving? Because to me it looks like one. I'm not going to put you on the spot here but it looks line one tree. Sacchet: Well they're saving 3 total so it's 30 percent of what they saved. Lillehaug: But, right. And by doing this configuration you're only saving one tree, is that accurate? Duane Spiegle: One tree total? Lillehaug: That's what it looks like to me. Duane Spiegle: How many trees are we saving by leaving? Bill Kenney: There are 3 significant trees but there are non-significant that were also saved. Lillehaug: Because of that driveway configuration? I'm looking at the plan and I'm only seeing one tree that would be saved for that. And the underlying item here is frankly I'm surprised that MnDot bought off on this. You got two accesses off of Great Plains within 100 feet of each other, plus you got a connector road there that's real circular just right off the main line and it's really not a very good traffic pattern and it's not the safest condition. And ! respect the property owner to the south to obviously want to provide better access to his business. ! mean it's a legitimate argument. That's more of a comment than a question but ! guess we are looking at only saving one tree by doing that. ! guess he's touched on really all my other questions. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Craig, questions from the applicant? Claybaugh: Nothing new to add. More comments at this stage. Lillehaug: ! remember one now. Sacchet: Alright. I'll remember a few too. Duane Spiegle: Can ! make one comment though? There was something that was asked earlier and I'm not sure if it was Commissioner Feik or not but, the screening of the mechanical. The mechanical is in the penthouse. It is totally 100 percent screened. Feik: Okay. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Duane Spiegle: Okay. ! think there was some confusion as to whether or not there was just a parapet and then the mechanical sitting on the rooftop. It is not. The penthouse element on the facility is meant to be a feature actually, as a gesture to the community and somewhat of an icon in that area, but it also provides for the utility of screening the mechanical, both noise and both the unsightliness of the mechanical and it is a little bit higher than what the third story of the facility would be at the top. Feik: So is there enough room in that penthouse to accommodate the mechanicals necessary for the entire third floor when that gets built? Duane Spiegle: Yes. That's what it was planned for. And one of the reasons that it's important for us to understand the approval or lack thereof for the additional story on the facility is that it does impact the cost of doing this building, in particular the structure of the building so that's a very key point for us to know and something that we need in terms of direction in going forward on the planning of this facility. Lillehaug: Two quick ones and I'm done. I'm going to put you on the spot here. Why did we, or why did you in data collection for the parking of the American Legion at 2:00? 2:00 p.m. Duane Spiegle: Why did we stop then? Lillehaug: Yes. Duane Spiegle: Because they told us that their peaks were between 11:00 and 2:00 and so we wanted to get the highest volume of traffic on that site. They being the American Legion, yeah. We worked with Gene and his folks over there, and that was their peak time so we wanted to get it at their peak time. Lillehaug: Good enough. The other question. Sacchet: One more. Lillehaug: This is real detailed. In the north, the very northern eastern parking spot. Can we get a car in and out of that parking spot? ! don't think we can. Not very easily. Right adjacent to Highway 5. The very northeasterly parking spot. It's kind of kinked in there. You know it's really tough to get a car in and out of that parking spot. Duane Spiegle: I just want to make sure I'm pointing to the, is it this one right here? Sacchet: Yeah it is. Duane Spiegle: That one? Sacchet: Right. The one towards Highway 5. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Lillehaug: So take a look at that if you would. Okay. Sacchet: Alright, ! have a few questions still too. Just to be real clear about the building height. If! heard you correctly, your stating that those 14.7 or 8, whatever it is that you're proposing is really the minimum that you require. And that really as such, the full height of the 47 feet, you're not able to reduce it further based on your needs. Is that what you're saying? Duane Spiegle: To maintain maximum flexibility with the building, that is the module that we need to maintain that flexibility because at this point, we don't know what services necessarily will go on that third floor, and so if we would make it shorter, we're limiting what we can provide to the community in terms of additional health care services because of the, we may not be able to put in supports. We may not be able to add radiology. We may not be able to do some things at a shorter height that the 14'8" would allow us to do so that's why we have it set at that. Sacchet: Now that third floor is a make it or break it for this, is it? Duane Spiegle: Is it a make it or break it? Sacchet: Yeah, I'm very blunt about it. Duane Spiegle: It's very important to us. We originally were planning to come to the Planning Commission with a 2 story building that had the second floor half built out and half shelled. In the intervening time that we have spent meeting with neighbors and continually working through the design process, we found that there were additional community needs and so we actually filled up the whole second floor of the facility, which we weren't anticipating to originally. Having said that, if the growth continues at the pace that it's been at, the third floor is very important to us because it's really inefficient use of health care dollars to build two facilities within a community. We'd rather keep it to one because of, you know there are a number of reasons why, to do that. And we're all facing the pressure of our health care dollar right now and we just want to be good stewards of that. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. The parking. Since this is based on your parking study. Would the parking be effected if we cut out 2-3 additional parking slots to actually save trees? Duane Spiegle: I think we'd take a look at that and if that's... Sacchet: Because I'm really glad you're in the human health and not in the tree health because what you're doing to these trees is not health. To be specific, the one tree, that's only one tree but we're only talking about 3 trees so there are only 3 trees. The one tree to the west has a retaining wall like ! would think about 3 feet from the trunk, and if you cut out that adjacent parking lot, you could move it an additional 6 feet further out. ! 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 think that's a no brainer. If you want to save that tree, you know to be honest, either cut it down or give it enough room. Duane Spiegle: Well we did, ! believe the city forester looked at all the trees and told us what was significant. What was salvageable. What was. Sacchet: Oh yeah, I'm not trying to get more trees than you have. I'm happy you're trying to save 3 trees but what ! want to hold you to is, if you save it, go save it. In the first proposal you say you're saving them. You're killing them. In the second proposal that's now in front of us, you're sort of being a little more sensitive but you're still not saving them. That's my opinion. And so I'm trying to ask you whether you're willing to make some steps that give me an indication that you're really serious about trying to save these trees. And ! think if you're really serious about that, you're going to lose 4 additional parking spots. You're going to lose that one that ! just pointed out too, if you know which one I'm talking about. That is the one. Slagle: Can we show Sharmeen? Sacchet: Yeah. Do you know which one I'm talking about Sharmeen? The one by the single tree to the west. Feik: By tree number 7? Sacchet: By tree number 7. It's the one on the north side of the drive aisle. Right. That parking slot in that corner, yes. That one. ! think that one has to go. That retaining wall has to move out. Otherwise. Duane Spiegle: Is that one of the oak? Sacchet: Yes. I'm only talking about the 3 significant oaks. I'm not trying to hold you to more than these. I'm just trying to hold you to what you're saying you're going to do, okay. Now with the other 2 oaks, the other 2 big ones. You have that peninsula sticking out there. The smaller one, the tree number 13. The one a little more further to the north, it' s kind of central to the peninsula. However the other one, the one a little further south is the much bigger one. ! think it's a 30 inch oak, 36 inch oak or what. It's not at all centered. As a matter of fact the curb right now comes as close, about 10 feet to that trunk so what I'm proposing you lose 2 parking slots adjacent to that island, to the east of that island. You move that island over accordingly and you move that, make the island accordingly wider and you also lose that bottom parking lot in the corner there. By there, yes you got it Sharmeen. That would actually give some credibility to trying to save that tree as far as I'm concerned. Now, and ! did check that with the city forester because ! didn't want to come here and sound like a zealot trying to save trees, making propositions that are really questionable. She definitely agreed that these were reasonable statements in terms of from the forestry viewpoint. And my question to you is, since we're at questions of the applicant, and sorry for taking so long because ! want to be specific what I'm asking about. Are you willing to do that? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Duane Spiegle: Yes. Sacchet: Thank you. That was a good answer. ! like that. So we'd lose 4 additional parking spots that way. Duane Spiegle: You won't hold that against us though right? In our parking count. Sacchet: You'll hear more about that... Duane Spiegle: We'll get 5 more from the Legion. They don't need them. Sacchet: Yeah, ! think, ! had one question. Now they came up before in questions from staff. There is this statement, and it kind of peaked my interest too. It obviously peaked some other people's interest. You're drawing from design of the pedestrian bridge, and I'm kind of interested to know, because that's kind of sweet and sour. I'm just curious, ! mean without going into a long dissertation, if you could just start from that briefly I'd appreciate it. Duane Spiegle: I'll let our expert talk about that. Sacchet: Thank you. Claybaugh: Source of inspiration. Bob Verstraete: I'm Bob Verstraete with BWBR Architects. We've been one of the architects with Park Nicollet for quite some time and ! think it' s a great question. Design is subjective but ! think the comments that were made by the staff report and the comments that we've made go back to the essence of the pedestrian bridge as a significant element. That's how ! know I'm personally in Chanhassen quite honestly because ! live on the other side of town, so when ! get to this well known bridge, ! know I'm there. Some of the characteristics of the bridge are one, it's a very horizontal element with some vertical elements. It's much more as a detail element to it. The other thing is that there's 3 prominent points, the middle and the two ends which have articulation and go up higher. And the third thing is the finishes. The finishes are more like a natural aluminum. The metal is, so with that, what we're saying and suggesting is that the building takes on a horizontal characteristic of layering the materials from the base of the building to the next layer of the building, and that the corner of the building has the higher prominent piece like the pedestrian bridge and the material that we're using at the corner, at the key intersection. The node, the important part has a similar material of the natural aluminum. Along with that the fenestration in the windows also relates to that material which, where it shows this, the pre-finished metal canopy, the metal siding relating to that. Sacchet: This is great. We love this pedestrian bridge having all kinds of uses. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Bob Verstraete: But in terms of relating to certain elements in the community, that's one of the things. ! think the other thing about design of the building is that, trying to put layers into the building in terms of masking it' s mass. In terms of change of materials from a dark to a light. And then there's blue sky above that. Those are other elements that we're incorporating to the design. Sacchet: Thank you very much for explaining that. Appreciate it very much. Yes, still applicant time. Your turn. Duane Spiegle: Just one more comment. ! think there was a question earlier about, they were talking about a 3 story building but we don't even know what it looks like, etc, etc. We actually, we probably didn't put it in the packet, but we do have a sketch of what the third story on the facility looks like, and ! don't believe we have that here though, do we Bob? Sorry, we didn't bring that along but that is available to you. Sacchet: ! think you brought it to the work session if ! remember right. Duane Spiegle: Correct. Yeah. And maybe we didn't show it now because we weren't asking for, to build that right now, but we probably should so that was something. But it is available though if you would like to see that. Lillehaug: And you are asking for a variance to build that now though correct? Aanenson: Yes, because they have to size the footings appropriately... Lillehaug: So once we give you the variance, we're basically telling you you can build that third story. Aanenson: No, they're still going to have to come back because there is insufficient parking so they'd have to come back and demonstrate that they can make it whole with that next story and that' s clearly stated in the staff report. While ! think it was a little ambiguous, additional parking is one of the elements that they would have to show. They have to make a whole, impervious surface, additional ponding, any of that that we would need. Feik: Design as well, am ! correct? Aanenson: Yeah. Feik: Because it's not in what we're approving, if this goes forward so. Aanenson: Yeah, that's condition number 25. Lillehaug: So then why are we really even approving a variance? Aanenson: Because they want to know structurally to build it the first floor. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: And the penthouse. The existing penthouse which is 3 stories. Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: But then again how the structural components are integrated at this point is largely going to dictate what that building looks like on the back end with a third story, is it not? ! mean how much design flexibility are you going to have on that third story when it comes back based on what you know at this point in time? Duane Spiegle: The same rhythm of the building and the same materials, etc that we have for the building are going to dictate what happens on the third floor. We wouldn't vary from that, so what you're. Claybaugh: Right, it was just a question of looking at the third story at this point in time. How much based on incorporating the structural components for that third story, the exterior finishes that you have on the building, that third story from today to whether it's 10 years from now isn't going to sufficiently change. Duane Spiegle: Right. What in fact that whole penthouse element of the facility is, that's done. That's fully built out. That will not change, and then it's what's behind that and we don't anticipate that varying much from what you see today either. So ! mean if you like the facility that you see now. Claybaugh: So the facility that you brought to the work session would be very much in keeping. Duane Spiegle: Exactly, yes. And in fact ! know staff is looking through, ! don't know if they have it here or not but, do you have it here? Okay. Lillehaug: So that is a third story? Duane Spiegle: That's the third story. Aanenson: They'd come back. Duane Spiegle: Right, and that's. This is what we would plan on building. We wouldn't plan on varying from that. Unless you make us for some reason. ! mean you don't like it. Claybaugh: That tree could get bigger. Duane Spiegle: You won't see the building once that tree gets bigger though. Sacchet: ! have one more. Actually while we're thinking. This is a very specific question. In that tree peninsula, there seems to be some sort of utility in the north corner 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 of that. ! don't know whether the applicant or somebody could clarify. There is a dark dot with a line going sort of east. And it' s not on the big plan. It' s on the one in the new one. That's if you have the update. It wasn't in the other one ! believe. It's in the new report that shows the new way out. It's a hydrant? Does that have to be there? This thing here. That's a hydrant? Does that hydrant need to be there? Duane Spiegle: We'll work with the fire marshal, if they want us to move it someplace. Sacchet: Okay that's my last question. You have one more Rich? Slagle: ! just have one last one. On that, what I'll call the double right-in/right-out. What would be your argument to reducing that to one. A joint, as per the agreement with the previous City Council as we left it at one. What would be the reason not to do that? Duane Spiegle: You mean closing the two and making one kind of at the property line? Well, ! think some of it is being a good neighbor because we agreed with Blue Circle to create that drive through, and if, so ! don't know how that impacts your business by closing off that other access to your site on the south there. Lillehaug: It's just shifting it a little to the north. Slagle: Well yeah ! guess all, you know you've heard me have concerns about the connection north/south. Okay? Between your two properties. Duane Spiegle: Between the two, yeah. Slagle: Suffice to say that doesn't change. So then I'm looking at traffic patterns on Great Plains and as people have said, there's some questions as to surprised that MnDot would have approved this and whether they approved it or didn't approve it, my question is why wouldn't we want to, especially if there was agreements with the previous City Council to form just a single joint, hold on. Joint entrance if you will. Why wouldn't we do that because it would seem to take away from potential of having multiple in and out's and sort of a jumbling of traffic. ! guess I'm just not, why wouldn't we do that? From you. Duane Spiegle: Generally speaking what ! do is ! leave those types of decisions to the people that are the experts at that and for me it's an opinion rather than it's somebody saying this is what the tendencies of traffic is. ! don't know what those tendencies of traffic are. Slagle: But ifI may, I think what I'm hearing tonight is this plan was brought to MnDot and said, do you guys like this? Is this okay? Not, what would be better one or two? So ! guess. Dean Williamson: What we did out of our work session is there was a question regarding preserving some of the trees and given an alternative, utilizing the existing access points 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 to Great Plains Boulevard so we did that in lieu of some of the concerns over some of the trees. Alright, what if we keep it where it is? Then ! said alright, we got to go back to MnDot to check with MnDot and what does MnDot think. Slagle: And if! could address that. ! mean that was raised earlier and then the answer was, well the trees were one of many ! think was the term, reasons. And so I'm just wanting to hear if it is trees that were the primary reason. Dean Williamson: That was the primary reason why we went back to MnDot. Slagle: Fair enough. Lillehaug: And it's a single elm tree, isn't it? Sacchet: No, it's a 28 inch oak, isn't it? Lillehaug: I'm seeing an elm tree. Slagle: I'm just curious as to why we would do that. Sacchet: Alright, are we done with questions from the applicant? It looks like we're done with questions for the applicant. This is a public hearing. I'd like to invite you to come forward if you want to comment about this item in front of us. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to hear. This is your chance. Any takers? Did ! scare you all off?. Thank goodness. Welcome. Kathy Schroeder: Thank you. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm Kathy Schroeder. live at 7720 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen. I'm just here, not asking any questions. ! just wanted to say how pleased ! am that Park Nicollet is coming to Chanhassen on two levels. One, I'm a Park Nicollet patient and two, I'm a Park Nicollet employee so I'm glad... Sacchet: Two good reasons. Thanks for speaking up. We have somebody else here? Please come forward. Ilene Leister: Ilene Leister. ! live at 3738 Hickory Lane in Chanhassen and ! too am in support of Park Nicollet coming to Chanhassen. ! think a growing community needs a foundation of medical services and ! really like the scope of services that are being offered. ! think we have a community that is very diverse and needs more than just a family practice operation and that's what Park Nicollet offers. So ! am totally in favor of making sure that we build enough medical services and that we don't skimp on providing something that isn't going to be enough for the future so ! like their idea of building a building that matches with the offering, both now and in the future. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? This is your chance. No takers, we'll move on. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments. Who wants to start? Want to start on your end Craig? Claybaugh: Sure. ! think medical facilities such as Park Nicollet is a substantial component that the community needs. I'm troubled by the site that they selected to put the facility on. That as it is, taking it from a one story building to a 2 story building, like the Northcott variance provided, that's again ! can see that in the staff' s argument that keeping it zoned neighborhood business limits that type uses that can go in, so there's some benefits to that. Stepping it up to 3 stories, that's a difficult stretch to make. It complicates things when you look at it in terms of the traffic levels on Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East. When you take that facility from 27,000 square feet to in excess of 60,000 square feet with 3 stories. It's a positive thing for the community with those trouble aspects so I'm, even at this point I'm still struggling so. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Steve, want to jump in? Lillehaug: Basically everything that was just said I agree with. Steve Lillehaug as a resident, ! mean this is a great cornerstone. It's a great building. But as a planning commissioner, how do we, ! mean we're trying to squeeze a 3 story into a zoned area. It's zoned as one story. How do we really legitimately do that? I'm not too sure which way ! support. It's a tough stretch going from a zoned area of one story to 3 stories. The driveway access, ! think we can have one right-in/right-out only. ! don't see an impact that's really beneficial to saving any trees by splitting into two driveways. What ! do see a less safer driveway circulation and access, so ! really would like to see that as one driveway. Obviously the sites will be connected so ! don't see it as an access problem to the development to the south because they'll be connected. Other than that, parking. Somehow we need to figure out shared parking better as a community because ! think recent parking studies haven't really fulfilled and supported what we're actually seeing out there, for example Chipotle. ! don't think that parking study supports what we're seeing out there right now. ! think we're seeing a pretty packed parking lot over there. That's my opinion. Are we going to see the same over here? ! don't know right now. So parking, I'm concerned about that. My biggest concern is the height on it. Approving a 3 story now, the variance now. ! think that just implies that we're approving a 3 story building now by approving a variance period. And ! really don't support. Aanenson: ...because they may not move forward if they can't get the three so that's the intent, yeah. Sacchet: Yeah structurally they need direction. Lillehaug: So then my last comment would be, if we approve a 3 story now, my opinion is we need to approve parking now for the 3 story plan. Aanenson: Well ! think if you read how we structured the condition is, they need to know the 3 story. They know whether they come back with a parking ramp or acquire 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 additional property, but they need to know structurally how to build a building, whether they can accommodate it so it's kind of a chicken and egg. ! mean in a perfect world. Lillehaug: What can they hold us to? The City, if they can provide parking they can't get their third story, period. Aanenson: Lillehaug: Aanenson: Lillehaug: They can't get their third story. They have to meet the standards. That' s it? Correct. Right, it has to be checked. Would, can ! ask you for your guy's comment? One last comment on going from one story to 3 story and how that totally exceeds the zoning of that area. Aanenson: ! think we made, you know I'll stand by what we said before. Lillehaug: Should this area be, is it zoned wrong? What's your opinion on that? Aanenson: No, ! go back to what we said before. We went through that whole exercise. ! mean this discussion has been brought up when we did the Northcott. When the Legion came in, we had the whole discussion with the Legion because again the master developer, and that was Park Nicollet, we had this whole discussion on what was the appropriate use. What do we want to look at? What should be the appropriate zoning? So ! think we had that discussion and we felt comfortable at that time, that planning commission and that council felt comfortable with the tools that were in place with that SO. Slagle: When was Northcott in front of the Planning Commission? A1-Jaff: 95-96. Slagle: 95-96, okay. Lillehaug: What is the Villages on the Ponds zoned as? Differently. Aanenson: That's a PUD. That's because it's mixed. Vertical, horizontal. There's so many different. Lillehaug: My last comment is, the building fits in the area. It's just not zoned to fit in there. Sacchet: Alright, Bethany. Tjornhom: Being new once again I'll say, ! get very frustrated sometimes when there are traffic issues that are being discussed and the Planning Commission has an idea about an 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 intersection and then there's a traffic study done by a developer and so they have their ideas, and everyone talks about MnDot says this, MnDot says that. I actually would like to see MnDot like in front of us at some time, to clarify things and clear it up. Sacchet: They do exist. Tjornhom: I don't know if they do. It's like neighborhood districts. Who is it? Where is it? So ! don't know, if that could somehow be worked out at some point when there is a huge development like this and it's really important, like Rich says, that this decision will be affecting people's lives for a long time, if we could have some more definite answers from either the people who did the traffic study so if there are questions we can ask them, or a representative from MnDot so then you know, people feel more at ease with what's actually happening. As far as the 3 stories go, ! guess sometimes you have to think about also what's the best for the community, and ! think that obviously Chanhassen will be served well with a clinic that can help everybody. That offers a wide variety of services to the people who need it and ! guess you feel confident that that' s what needs to be done. That you can, there is a demand for that and because of that ! guess ! feel comfortable with the third story because it is a benefit to the public and it's not just some big business coming into ! don't know, do whatever so I'm in favor of it because it is a benefit to the citizens of Chanhassen. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt. Papke: I think Chanhassen needs the 47 foot facility so I will support actually removing the restriction to a 40 foot. ! don't think there's any way we can trim this one down. That said, ! think we presented a very weak case and ! think all the commissioners are in pretty good agreement that the zoning of this one is broken. Okay, and if! look back here at Finding C, if this was a profit organization as opposed to a non-profit, we would clearly find here that the whole purpose of going to 3 stories would be to increase the income potential of this property. Okay, so we're broken on this one. If this was a for profit organization, we would reject this application. So that said, this is the right thing. My only concern is, this is going to be a traffic mess, okay. Getting into this place from the north side of town is going to be rough. Coming in from the south side ! think we're going to be okay because people are going to be able to make a right turn getting in, but it's going to be hard for people who live on the north side of Chanhassen to get, they're going to be able to see it but they won't be able to get there from here. Okay, that's going to be the quote you're going to hear. And ! don't know how we fix that. ! mean we have a design development here and ! don't know how we address that but ! think it' s a great development. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bruce. Feik: Thank you. I'm generally in favor of the application. I think it's about one of the best places in town we could have 3 stories, personally. ! don't know what else, it's great. ! wish it had come in as 3 stories because ! think that would have forced solving some problems. Parking wise, access wise, traffic study wise. ! think it would have tied 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 it into a bow a little bit better. ! am concerned with the parking, both now, future and future use. I'm concerned, and this is not really for this application, it's more for staff. We do not have a sunset clause on a 3 story deal that's going to maybe get built someday in the future. ! would like to see this gets in such and such a period. Aanenson: We did talk about that internally. I think that's an excellent point. I think we should put some sort of sunset clause. Feik: If it doesn't get built in, and I'll throw out a number, 7 years or 8 years or 10 years, it should go away. All bets are off at some point. ! don't want to see a planning department or commission strapped with a promise for 3 stories 15 years from now. ! think that's unfair to all future people. I'm very much concerned with the dual right- in/right-out. We're all concerned with that. ! think that, ! understand the desire of the property owners to sell, to get traffic by their facility there. ! think though, if you're traveling south from the Park Nicollet facility with the intent to access outside of both properties, and you're having to drive past two right-in/right-out's that are so close together, ! think it's going to add for some traffic confusion there where the two right- in/right-out's are 50 feet apart or something. ! would like to see one single right-in/right- out at the property line. Join them as was originally intended. ! think it gets a little bit confusing if you were to want to traverse both properties and exit down onto Lake so, but I'm generally in favor of the property. ! really wished that it had come in 3 stories because ! think it would have solved a lot of other issues that are underlying here that we're trying to arm wrestle with. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Rich. Slagle: ! will just add a couple things. One is, dove tailing with Commissioner Feik. ! truly believe that this should have come in as a 3 story. ! believe there's reasons it's not in front of us as a 3 story and ! think that's unfortunate for those reasons. ! could almost term this application as premature. We have had applications before for development where issues with joining land owners haven't been resolved and we have voted that those are premature because ! think we were trying to fit albeit a very nice, a very much needed facility in a corner that ! think is asking for a lot of extras if you will to try to make it work. ! will say also that the traffic pattern ! think is insufficient as far as our addressing it and ! direct that to engineering and also to MnDot if they were here. Enough that I'm not in support of this at this point because ! don't think we're addressing it. And lastly, is the two right-in/right-out's. ! will, just to share, ! will be supportive of some motion if we take the two out and put one in. Should we not do that, ! will not be in support of this so. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Slagle: One last thing. I just want to make a summary that it is an awesome proposal. much appreciate everybody here. But ! just think we've got some traffic and, parking think ! can work with. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay my comments. ! really don't have a problem with the 3 stories. Where ! have a problem with is that they want 47 feet and the Highway 5 corridor says 40 feet. This is next to Highway 5. It's, and ! agree. ! couldn't think of many places in the city where a 3 story building would be more appropriate than there. But the zoning just doesn't quite totally do it justice and ! can see how it was originally put there and understand staff' s position that we don't want to just change the zoning, throw the whole thing out but we want to adjust it. ! don't have problem with 3 stories but ! have an issue because as Planning Commission our role is to look how does it fit with the rules and regulations and it clashes with the 40 foot limit of the Highway 5, even though it doesn't really formally fit into the Highway 5 corridor framework. So that's where I'm at on the height. ! really have a problem though with the reasoning, how they're justifying, how you're justifying that this height is okay because you're looking at the Northcott building which is like 10 feet or more on a higher elevation. Then you make a straight line and say oh, we're not as tall like that but you're sitting far lower. ! mean there's something wrong with that reasoning but that's besides the point. It's neither here nor there. Anyhow. The parking, I'm thrilled that you're willing to give up 4 parking spots to save the trees because ! just couldn't make sense out of why you would say you're saving trees and don't notice you're killing them. You're in the health business. No pun intended. So ! definitely like to add a very concise conditions about those 4 parking slots going and how that gets more space for those trees. Also I'd like to ask that you work with the city forester to maximize the tree preservation. The distance from tree fencing and so forth, and ! think there's already some conditions in there about the trees so they're taken care of. In terms of the parking. The parking study. ! mean these studies, we struggled with that periodically here as a commission and I'm always amazed. ! mean no offense but ! think it's almost an insult to intelligence to come in with a study of one. And it just keeps happening. Actually we have much more blatant cases than you did. ! mean people study one place for a couple hours and that's their study. Well, maybe the next stay the say, or another hour it's something totally different so ! would really like to encourage staff to look at these studies and look at it in that context and the study with a sample of one comes in, it' s just not quite convincing enough, and it seems like people are used to getting away with it but ! wouldn't want to continue that if! could. And the traffic. The traffic. I'm from Europe and there are driveways and in and out's everywhere so I'm not quite as worried about it but ! think the original agreement was that there would be one right-in/right-out. And so from that angle I'm willing to go along with going back to that thing and then let City Council look at whether they would go with the two right-in/right- out's. A couple of details. Condition number 4 says applicant shall try to. Try to is nothing. Either they do it or don't. ! think we need to be specific in the last condition, or the second to last condition that the parking is just one of the contingencies. That the main contingency may be but certainly not the only contingency for getting the approval of the third floor in the detail. And ! believe that's all my comments. Let me look quickly here. The traffic light. Traffic light at Lake Drive and Great Plains. ! don't know how we can tie that in here. Ultimately it's a shared responsibility and it'd be good if developers would have responsibility to help put that in place once it comes necessary. We struggled with that when Village on the Ponds was in front of us and we all, or most of us remember that. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: Just point of clarification and address it to you but staff. At what point do we address this? Sacchet: Is that an engineering Matt? Do you want to address that please? Saam: Yeah, there's certain warrants that have to be met, i.e. traffic volumes for the 4 way stop to be required. So that's something, well as Villages on the Ponds for instance develops, or other sites develop and those traffic numbers increase, that's what would trigger the 4 way stop. I mean we have to have some hard number data to put it in. We can't just go out and put up signs or else people won't. Slagle: Has the city undertaken, not the city. Not an outside traffic but has someone from the city measured traffic at that intersection recently? Saam: I don't know if recently but on an annual basis around various sites in the city we do traffic analysis and counts so I would guess that within the last 2 to say 3 years on Great Plains and/or Lake Drive, at that intersection we have some traffic counts. Sacchet: Thank you. So in conclusion I think it's a great proposal and want to thank you for bringing it in front of us. Are we ready for a motion? Feik: I'll take a stab at it. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan #2003-10 for the construction of a 3 story clinic with the variances shown on the site plan received September 19, 2003 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 26 with the following changes. Item number 4 shall delete the words try to. Sacchet: Thank you. Feik: Hope this goes. Item number 26. 47 feet. I may not get agreement. And two additional items. Item 27. Approval to expand the third floor shall become null and void if not exercised prior to the eighth year after completion. Eighth year after, so you get 7 full years. And 28. The dual right-in/right-out on the west side accessing Great Plains shall be consolidated into a single right-in/right-out. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: We have a second. Do we have friendly amendments? I would expect we do. Lillehaug: Yes, it's number 28. I think we should probably add a cross access agreements into that driveway. Maybe they're already there. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: It's already in. There's a note on cross access. Saam: ! would say add them, that way we're. Sacchet: Make sure they're there. Saam: Yeah. Lillehaug: Let's just add it to 28 then. Then it's there. Sacchet: To 27, can we get more than 7 years? Feik: How much do you want to give them? Sacchet: Ten. Feik: 8 iA. No. What is the rest of the staff, rest of the commission think here? ! mean I'm open for suggestions. I just don't want this going out forever. ! think it's unfair to all parties. Sacchet: What I'm basing this on is during our work session ! think they said that they're looking at like a 5 to 10 year window or something like that, if! remember correctly, and ! think that's a reasonable window so ! don't see a reason why we should constrict that from our end. Feik: Ten's fine. Sacchet: Ten, okay. Aanenson: Can we just further clarify that by giving a date? Subject to. Sacchet: So that will be 20137 Papke: Ten years from City Council approval. Sacchet: Ten years from council, okay. Feik: Ten years from council or 10 years from Certificate of Occupancy? Applicant: Yes. Feik: There's a big difference. That's why ! want this defined because it's going to take you how long to break ground and how long to occupy it? Sacchet: A year or more. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: It's a big difference here. Aanenson: It could be a year. Feik: ! would rather work from a date certain from Certificate of Occupancy rather than say council approval. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine with me. Feik: So that means we go to 9? Sacchet: That's alright. Slagle: Point of clarification. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Rich. Slagle: Termed as a potential friendly amendment. Just in with the parking. Is there anything that you want in there if the parking situation ends up not being what this study shows? Feik: Well my concern on the parking is a couple things. One is certainly the adequacy of the parking for the applicant to do business. And then my other concern which ! voiced is the adequacy of the parking after this occupant is gone. And ! guess on the second portion if you stuck with a pig in a poke because he didn't build enough parking, that's his problem. Lillehaug: It's the Legion's problem though too. Feik: It is, and if we never give approval for another occupancy other than occupying a story and a half out ofa 3 story building, the rest of it's dry storage. ! don't have a concern with that. That's the developer's burden. So then you get back to addressing the parking adequate for the Legion and yeah, the existing uses. This and the Legion. And ! don't know. He knows his business. ! don't know. ! don't know, what do you guys thing? Slagle: Fair enough. Papke: ! think it will end up being in the best interest of both Park Nicollet and the Legion to work through this. ! mean they both obviously have a vested interest in having this parking situation work out. Sacchet: Yeah, and the condition the way it reads right now is, it's going to be contingent upon adequate parking. If it' s found that' s already not adequate at that point before they build the third story, then we certainly have to... Now however ! would like 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 to make a friendly amendment that we say that approval of the expansion will be contingent upon providing adequate parking as one of the criteria, just to make real clear that that's not the only criteria. Feik: Accepted. Lillehaug: They have the shared parking agreement... American Legion had to say okay, Park Nicollet you're filling up the parking lot too much. You can't park there no more. They don't have ground to do that. Feik: They might. We don't know the conditions of that agreement. Aanenson: Right, it's a civil agreement between the two parties. How many spaces they can have. That's in place. Lillehaug: Okay. Aanenson: Just for clarification, you did mention 4 parking spaces. If you wanted that in. Sacchet: Yes, I'm getting there. I've not forgotten. I've not forgotten. More friendly amendments? More friendly amendments. First of all with the conditions that are there, condition number 3. It currently reads eliminate the catch basin and associated graded located near the existing oaks to preserve along the southern property line. And any utilities in the peninsula. Because I think that hydrant is in the wrong place. We don't want to dig in there at all because that's going to hurt the roots. Feik: Is there, from an engineering perspective, is there going to be any concerns with that hydrant being, having some proximity to the building? Saam: That was a fire marshal condition so I don't foresee any issue with them moving it toward the building. Feik: Subject to fire marshal approval? Sacchet: No, they have to find another place for it. Feik: Okay. Sacchet: There are other places to put that. They don't have to put it in the root system of those trees. Then condition number 4. The applicant shall reduce grading along the curb line near the existing oaks to be preserved along the south property line. And work with staff on, because right now they're trying to stay within the 1 to 3 slope and it's not a very big height difference and ! think we should make it clear that we'd actually rather than them do it steeper and not go that close to the tree. So to work with staff in that context. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Accepted. Sacchet: And then ! think this needs a new condition which would be number 29. The retaining wall in the proximity of tree number 7 shall be moved over one parking spot distance to the east. Along with the curb and everything else. Is that acceptable? Feik: Do you want to just combine that with. Sacchet: And ! combine it with, okay. And how do we describe that? Feik: The island. Sacchet: The island in the proximity, the island to the east of the. Feik: 13, 14. Sacchet: To significant trees 13 and 14. The oaks, shall be moved east by one parking slot, losing 2 parking slots. And accordingly the whole drive aisle will be moved over and the tree peninsula will be widened accordingly. And it will be widened coming down also to lose the southern border parking lot on the southwest corner next to the strip mall. Feik: And Kate you can smooth that out? Aanenson: Yes. We understand what the intent is. Sacchet: Yeah, please make it English. That would be very preferable. ! think that will be the other condition. Is that acceptable? Feik: Works for me. Sacchet: Alright, thank you so much. ! believe that's it. Any other ones? We have a motion. We have a second. We have a bunch of friendly amendments. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2003-10 for the construction of a three story clinic with a variance as shown on the site plan received September 19, 2003, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall install tree preservation fence around trees proposed to be saved prior to any grading or construction activities. Fencing must be placed at the furthest possible distance from the trunk of the tree and must remain intact until all construction activities have ended. Root area must be mulched with wood chips and trees must be watered regularly during dry periods in the growing season. Any tree lost due to construction damage will be replaced at a rate of2:1 diameter inches. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Parking areas along Highway 5 shall be screened with shrubs reaching a minimum of 3 feet at maturity if berms do not fully screen the parking. Eliminate the catch basin and associated grading located near the existing oaks to be preserved along the southern property line and any utilities within the peninsula. The applicant shall work with staff to reduce grading along the curb line near the existing oaks to be preserved along the southern property line. Submit private easement for the shared storm sewer before building permit issuance. Update the plans to include the latest revision of the City of Chanhassen Detail Plates. Cross access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 8. The applicant must obtain a permit from MnDot for grading in the right-of-way. 9. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 10. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. 11. The lot will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. 12. Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 13. On the utility plan: a. Relocate the 6 inch gate valve toward the south near the proposed fire hydrant and add another 8 inch gate valve at the beginning of the north branch. b. Show all existing and proposed utility easements. c. Show the proposed pipe slope, class and length of the storm sewer. 14. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Type I silt fence must be used. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Add tree preservation fencing at the limits of tree removal. On the site plan: a. Revise the south easterly drive aisle width to 26 feet. b. Show the private and public drainage and utility easements. c. Show the block and lot numbers. d. Any retain wall over 4 feet will require a building permit. e. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit haul route for city approval prior to any hauling. f. A concrete drive apron, per City Detail Plate #5207 is required at the Great Plains Boulevard access point to the site. g. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event for staff review and approval before building permit issuance. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detail sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on the north and west elevations only. The sign area shall meet standards set in the sign ordinance. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. The applicant shall include site furnishings such as benches along the entrance of the building. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. Fire Marshal conditions: A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 22. 23. 24. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to 2000 Minnesota International Fire Code Sec. 503.3. c. The builder must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding the maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. d. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. e. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. f. The building must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. g. The southern most hydrant indicated on site plan must be relocated approximately 100 feet west. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant to be relocated. Building Official's conditions: a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Contact the Fire Marshal and Mechanical Inspector regarding the size of the combined fire protection and domestic water service line. d. Provide an access cover for the sanitary sewer cleanout located in the parking lot. e. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are provided. f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Lot 1, Block 1, Park Nicollet Addition is subject to a park dedication fee at the time of building permit application. The total park dedication due from this parcel is $25,620. At the time this parcel was platted, $6,932 of this total was pre- paid. The remaining $18,688 shall be collected at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall include site furnishings such as benches along the entrance of the building. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 25. The expansion of the third story will require site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Approval of the expansion will be contingent upon providing adequate parking as one of the criteria. 26. The maximum building height may not exceed 47 feet. 27. Approval to expand the third floor shall become null and void if not exercised prior to 10 years after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 28. The dual right-in/right-out on the west side accessing Great Plains Boulevard shall be consolidated into a single right-in/right-out with cross access agreements. 29. The applicant will work with staff on the parking lot configuration deleting 4 parking spaces to ensure the survival of the oak trees numbered 7, 13 and 14. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: In order to summarize for council, we strongly support this proposal of Park Nicollet coming in with this project. We struggled with the height. We believe that this site is appropriate to have this 3 stories. We struggled a little bit about whether we're going to all the way to 47 feet height considering that in the Highway 5 corridor we limit to 40 feet. However, the applicant made a clear case that for their business they need that sort of height in order to have the flexibility to run this in an optimal way. In terms of the parking and traffic, we struggled a little bit with the depth of the traffic and parking study. They seemed to be a little suspicious by having a relatively limited sampling, like we had in the past at times, and with the traffic study we're particularly concerned about the intersection of Lake Drive and Great Plains. Because we already have that as an issue of discussion where we looked at Village of the Ponds. We believe that that's going to have to be looked at very carefully, monitored. And if there's some way to spread the burden of putting a light in there, because it's not a question of if, it's a question of when, how the developer's hope, cost, additional traffic to contribute of getting that light in. That's a question. ! don't know whether maybe council has some wisdom to that. In terms of the trees, ! think. Feik: On parking, the two right-in/right-out's as well. Sacchet: Yes. We believe that it's reasonable to build on the agreement that's been in place to have one right-in/right-out rather than two. If Council sees that could be accommodated differently, the way that the applicant and especially the owner of the strip mall to the south would like to see them opened, that's obviously the council's discretion but from the Planning Commission's viewpoint we believe that the original plan with right-in/right-out provides the safest solution. With the trees ! think we reached a very amicable solution that has some credibility that the 3 trees that are being saved are actually, a real effort is being made to save them. That actually 4 parking lots were given up in order to make that credible, and hopefully more successful because replacing those 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 trees at a 2:1, they're going to plant a forest somewhere. What else did we have in terms of summary? ! think that's the highlights. Anybody want to add for summary for council, anything that ! overlooked? With that ! thank you very much. ! would like to take a 5 minute recess and we should be able to go through the three remaining items still tonight so ! want to thank you for your patience if you're here for these other 3 items. We'll reconvene in, by 9:15 we want to be back in business. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY BUILDING FOR FISH AND SUPPLIES AND A GREENHOUSE~ 10000 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD~ HALLA NURSERY & GARDEN CENTER. Public Present: Name Address Don Halla Shawn & Nicola Smith 10000 Great Plains Boulevard 725 Halla Nursery Drive Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Claybaugh: Yeah, you may have already answered it but ! was asking when you brought up the point that the new facility would be for retail, my immediate response was, what is the existing? And that's your legal non-conforming? A1-Jaff: Correct. Claybaugh: So that's how that squares the existing retail portion of the facility out there at this time? That's all the questions for me. Sacchet: Any questions Steve? Lillehaug: Yes real quick. You indicate the applicant is requesting a two story aquatic building to be attached to an aquatic building, so there's an existing one out there, is that correct? A1-Jaff: Right now there is a pond. The aquatic building is proposed to be located west of the office building. Maybe this will. Papke: I heard a greenhouse attached to the aquatic building. That's what ! heard. Lillehaug: Well I'm just reading. The applicant is requesting a 2 story aquatic building and a greenhouse to be attached to the aquatic building. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: Sacchet: Lillehaug: Question answered. A1-Jaff: Fish. Sacchet: Fish or water plants, both. Yeah. Lillehaug: Fish at a greenhouse? A1-Jaff: ... fish both water plants. Sacchet: Landscaping accent. Fishes in the pond. Lillehaug: That's all ! have, thanks. Sacchet: Bethany. Tjornhom: ! have some questions about this. fish out of the building, is that correct? A1-Jaff: That's correct. What are we talking here? The greenhouse. It's the same aquatic building. Aquatic is fish or plants. In this zoning he's not allowed to sell the Tjornhom: But can people go into the, can he grow the fish in the building? Would that be considered an agricultural use? Sacchet: Yeah. Tjornhom: ! mean I'm sorry but I'm just trying to. Papke: Does fish farming qualify? Tjornhom: Well that's my next question. What is considered agricultural? Is it retail? A1-Jaff: That's the question that we're. Tjornhom: So is growing fish considered a retail building? And if people go in there and look at the fish and say yeah, ! want 5. They take the fish out of the building and go back to the register and buy them, then is it really a retail building? Sacchet: But is that really the issue though? A1-Jaff: And that was the question that we posed to our city attorney and in his opinion the proposed uses are retail uses. Those are not agricultural uses. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it somewhat. Tjornhom: Yeah. Sacchet: Any other questions Bethany. Tjornhom: No, not at this time. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Yeah in the, with all the legalese that's attached here, on page 5, just to make sure ! understand. Page 5, Section 4(a). There's a statement in here that one of the legal uses is, there's a very clear definition of nursery stock being flowers, shrubs, plants and trees. So in your opinion, would this Section 4(a) include fish? A1-Jaff: It does not include the sale of, so we go back to the question, is this a retail use and is retail use permitted in the A2 district. Sacchet: Well there is a list isn't there? Papke: Well there's a list in here of permitted, you know this is defined. What was the permitted use was for the sale of nursery stock and so what I'm getting to in Section 4(a), there's a very ! think a reasonably precise definition of what nursery stock and nursery equipment is defined to be, and would you interpret this to including fish or not including fish? Sacchet: Well 4(a) doesn't. A1-Jaff: ! can check on that. Sacchet: Just so we know we're all in the same place. Where it says nursery stock, nursery equipment is defined. Nursery stock means flowers, shrubs, plants and trees. Nursery equipment means equipment owned or leased by tenant used for growing, storage, digging, installation or display of nursery stock. Papke: I'm mainly asking this question to get your answer on the record. Okay. I read this as no, okay. Okay. The other thing here is in Section 4(d) there is, it explicitly says the buildings and outdoor areas where nursery activities are permitted may not be expanded or relocated so in this particular case, is the building that is being proposed an expansion of the activities? A1-Jaff: Yes. Papke: So it would also break Section 4(d) of this legal agreement. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: I'm going to continue on but ! think I'm going to answer your question on the fish. If you go to the stipulation Exhibit B it specifically says it includes fish. Papke: Okay, it does. Alright. Feik: So in the right hand column about 12-15 lines down, it says fish and water plans. It should have maybe said plants, I'm not sure but it's in Exhibit B of the stipulation. That they can sell fish. Or at least have fish. Do you see that? My question is a little bit different in that, when did Halla go into operation? Sacchet: A little while back. Don Halla: 1962 we became a member of the Chanhassen community. Feik: Thank you. When was the zoning put in place? Don Halla: 1989. Feik: That answers my questions. Sacchet: Rich? Slagle: ! don't have any. Sacchet: No questions. ! do have a few questions. Just to be real clear, a legal non- conforming use is something that started like in this case in the 60's and in the 80's we decided to have regulations that make it not fitting but since it's there it's there and that makes it legal non-conforming. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: We also want to look at the existing uses that you have in place and ensure that they are not continuously expanded. Sacchet: That's exactly my next question. So there's a stipulation, what happens if this thing grows? A1-Jaff: Protection for both parties. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Because we have sort of a conflict between the existing use and the city's plan for that area, which is residential or at this point it' s agricultural with the intended use of residential isn't it? A1-Jaff: Correct, and you have residential surrounding this. Sacchet: So in the long run the intent of the city is not to have a business there, is that a fair statement to say? Because according to the zoning, ! would deduct that. A1-Jaff: The use may continue. It may not expand according to the agreement that we have. Sacchet: Okay, and obviously there was a lot of effort going into getting this agreement in place. A1-Jaff: Correct. And the site is per our land use map, the site is guided large lot residential. Sacchet: That's my point. Now in terms of the future of this, it doesn't state it cannot expand. It states it cannot expand without explicit permission from City Council. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: And the applicant comes to us with the intent to get the City Council's approval for this basically to make the step of expansion because ! think it's clear that it's an expansion. ! don't know whether the greenhouse is actually an expansion but adding that fish and water plant thing is an expansion. Is that an accurate interpretation? A1-Jaff: Correct. Feik: Well it's a physical expansion but they already sell fish. Sacchet: Well yeah, they already have them but they don't have a building for them. Feik: Right. Sacchet: So it really boils down to what is the intent of the city. ! mean there has been obviously some amount of legal wrangling that went into this agreement that now we're, as the Planning Commission are faced with and are expected to come to conclusion with and I'm not sure from having read the agreement what really is the intent of the city. Is the intent of the city that this should not be allowed to expand at all? Or is the intent something else? Do we know? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: The intent is to contain the existing use to ensure that it is not expanded. this is a retail use in a residential, in an agricultural district so it again, legal non- conforming. You don't want it to expand. Again Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you. Yes, one more question Steve. Go ahead. Lillehaug: You know my question really is, are we approving a site plan? ! really don't think this is the right form that we're approving here. This isn't a site plan. It's more of a concept. Variance. It's not a site plan. ! don't have a site plan in front of me. So what are we approving here. ! don't see how ! can approve this because it's not a site plan. Sacchet: Well we're not at comments yet. Let's stick with the questions. Lillehaug: That's a question though is what are we approving? Sacchet: That's a question. A1-Jaff: The applicant requested a site plan approval for a 2 story fish storage building. Sacchet: It clearly says site plan approval. We have to stick with that. Lillehaug: Okay. Slagle: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I do have a question for staff. Sharmeen if you can, and it gets back to Commissioner Feik, your point of the judgment that was rendered on February of '97. I'm seeing on page 3, you're saying, this is the staff, the request of aquatic building is not included as a use in the judgment and a greenhouse is not shown on the plan. A1-Jaff: Correct. If you look at the plan. Slagle: Okay but then when you go to the actual judgment from Carver County District Court it states, fish and water plans, which I'll say is plants. Now it does, that's referred to as Exhibit B. ! guess, and maybe I'm sounding dumb but it says in here that you can have fish and water plants, so why are we saying then in that paragraph that the requested building is not included as a use in the judgment? A1-Jaff: If you look at, Nann if you can please. If you look at what the judgment approved it does not just include existing buildings. There are some future buildings in this. This is where the applicant is requesting to locate. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: Okay, so are you telling me that in these existing buildings that were part of the judgment, if the applicant requested to put them in there, you wouldn't have as much of an issue or any issue? A1-Jaff: It they conform with what the judgment stated. Slagle: Water plants and fish. Sacchet: There'd be no issue. A1-Jaff: In an approved building. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Sacchet: Okay. Claybaugh: ! have a clarification. So could you be, clarify, is the issue the building or is the issue the use? A1-Jaff: The use. The use of retail is an issue. Again it's an expansion. Sacchet: Any other questions? Feik: Yes. Sacchet: Alright Bruce. Feik: Yes ! do. I'm going to follow up on Rich's questions a little bit. Slagle: Commissioner Slagle. Feik: Excuse me. Had the applicant applied for building E2 for fish instead, would we have an issue? Had the footprint comprised space E2, a future building, would that have been an issue? Or pick any other proposed building on the plan. Sacchet: Well Sharmeen is not a lawyer. Feik: Well the use is already approved. Forget the use for just a moment. Forget the use for just a moment. A1-Jaff: In an approved building? Feik: Yeah. So the applicant relocates this building slightly to one of the other footprints, do you have a problem with it? A1-Jaff: Under this agreement it would mean that they would be able to do so. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: So if the applicant were to just, this is a relatively small building. You don't want to intensify the site. A1-Jaff: No. Feik: So if the applicant were willing to trade off for example a larger footprint in exchange for this smaller footprint of this location, would you have a problem? It seems to me we're splitting hairs here. Sacchet: Sharmeen is not a lawyer. ! mean let's come to her rescue a little bit. ! mean we're dealing with, if we're splitting hairs in a legal sense, all of us are out of our league here. Feik: Well then my follow-up question then is, are we getting back to the use? The fish? So if he puts the fish into an existing building, converts an existing building and then builds another greenhouse, is he okay? Sacchet: There are fish there now. Just move these fish into the building that's already there and, or into a greenhouse. Feik: Alright. Slagle: And also, point of clarification. ! mean Kate if! may. I'm hearing that we shouldn't be discussing the judgment, but the judgment is what the basis so is this really just premature? Claybaugh: ! come back to what we're here for, site plan approval. ! don't see one in front of us. Sacchet: You have to deal with what's in front of us. ! think we've got to be very careful that we look at what's in front of us and be real specific here. If this or if that is irrelevant. What's here is relevant and we're not here to render a legal opinion. We're here to render an opinion whether this application sufficiently conforms with the ordinances and regulations of our city. Very simple. Claybaugh: Well I would further stipulate that in terms of the site plan approval, do we have a site plan in front of us that meets the criteria of being complete? ! don't believe we have a complete site plan application in front of us. Sacchet: Okay, is that a question for staff?. Claybaugh: That's a comment. It's certainly something to consider. Sacchet: Alright, let's move the show. ! think we're more entertaining than we were the last couple hours at least, alright. If the applicant would want to come forward. Tell us your story, I'd appreciate it. State your name and address for the record please. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Don Halla: Good evening. I'm Don Halla, Halla Nursery. I have some documents that I saw were not included that might help. Here let me pass them out. Sorry I'm short one copy. Sacchet: We'll share. We get along. Don Halla: As we've already discussed Halla Nursery has been on site since 1962. We were building a new garden center, or wanted to build a new garden center building in 1994 ! believe it was and we asked the city want we needed to do and they said an agricultural building on agricultural land for agricultural purposes, you don't need a building permit. So we proceeded with that... The city came along when we pulled a permit for the heating system and said well, this looks like it may not be an agricultural building, even though the building essentially that you did need a permit. Sacchet: So you're saying the building is actually there? Don Halla: The building was actually there. Sacchet: Was? Is? Don Halla: Was. 95 percent of it still is there. Sacchet: It still is, okay. Just to be real clear. Don Halla: Then we brought it to the contract...to take out a building permit, we took the attitude.., we didn't need one. Aanenson: That's correct. Just to be clear for the record, agricultural building does not need a permit. It was determined that it's not an agricultural building. It's a retail building. That's the point of the stipulation. It's a retail building and that's what the non-conforming stipulation is for. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Don Halla: So we complied with everything the city required and as a part of that we counter sued the city for damages. We entered then into a stipulation.., in 1995 and in that, there were actually 12 instead of 10 involved here. It says in many different areas that if we have any changes we want to make to this, we need to come to City Council actually for approval. That is what ! went to City Hall and said I'd like to...do what we need for meeting the criteria of our legal agreement that we have, and ! was told that this is what we need to do, which is why we're here tonight. We have been selling fish, which is one of the items that was allowed. It is basically, ! think you'll see that the entire site is defined as retail, not just a spot on the site is defined as retail. That was very carefully worded in the agreement. It allows for expansion for what we thought in 1995 was the areas that we would place structures. The actual place.., between looking at the 3 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 story building, we actually said we needed 4,000 square feet of building and another 4,000 square feet of greenhouse. We were told well if you have a 2,000 square foot footprint, we wouldn't have to worry about sprinklers. Later ! was told well... agricultural building. The footing in the single story building would be more in keeping with the structures that we have there today, and that would be really what we'd prefer... And we'd probably prefer, even from what you have in the documents, we have expansion allowed by previous City Council's on the site. The question is, where the 54 by 154 building that we were allowed to put up, which has not been built. Over by that area we have an area that we have peacocks, ducks, swans, and so forth and probably the best spot for the aquatic area would be to put it down south of where we have a pond. All of this is really not visible from the city, or from the street, and ! did bring pictures along to show our existing structures that we have if you have any question about that. The layout that you see there would be where it says peacock area, the building to the west of this building that was approved.., and from the original site plan. And the area that we're cutting.., it says peacock area. There we have an area that would facilitate a single story building. And ! do have photographs, show pictures of that area. This is our existing garden center building. This is our existing office building. This is the building that's not on the original site that was approved, which is a peacock barn on one end and storage and garage area on the other. This is our truck garage building. And the areas that we probably would find more acceptable to put this building would be south of the bridge that we have going across the creek in that area, and to the west of our trees.., coming up to almost the end of the existing peacock barn, and coming out down towards the pond here. We have an area of approximately 120 feet by 80 feet that would facilitate that building. Half of that would be greenhouse, approximately 4,000 square feet of greenhouse area, and 4,000 square feet of metal building area. The buildings would be in keeping with the existing building. What is the advantage to the city? ! believe we're about the only ones in the city that really build ponds, build waterfalls, has Koi fish, filters and equipment.., in Chanhassen. We have people that come from as far as 100 miles away to buy Koi fish at our site because we've become known in the industry for having one of the best displays. And we grow them. We actually have probably 4,000 or 5,000 fish in our pond, this drainage pond in there. We have tanks that we fill with fish in the summer time. In the winter time they can't exist there. They go back in the big pond... We do reproduce fish on site.., more breeding .... desire and demand for higher quality Koi fish and so we do have an aquatic manager who's able and knowledgeable of handling the situation. The greenhouse end of it would be used for growing aquatic plants. Again we're calling this an aquatic center is what we would call it. It is the fastest growing area in the landscape business right now. Ponds and waterfalls. And we need to be able...people of Chanhassen. It does mean that there would be an expansion of jobs. More employees for youth in the city. Because there would be jobs. This is something where you hire people in the summer. It's not something that is a winter project.., it just takes 1 or 2 people. The repetitive ! guess state fire codes, if they did apply, would apply to sprinkling the buildings... The information sent to me by Steve regarding that ! handed to you in that letter that ! wrote there, makes it very questionable whether this is not strictly an agricultural building. It says that an agricultural building in here allows for by state definition means a structure on agricultural land that's defined in Section 273.1... constructed and used to house farm 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 implements, livestock or agricultural.., products used by owner, lessee, sublease of the building and members of their immediate family, their employees and persons engaged in the pick-up and delivery of agricultural products or produce... It goes on further to define, and you've got it in front of you so ! won't read everything, that fish bred for sale or consumption, and consumption if the fish are bred on lands zoned for agricultural use is considered agriculture. If the parcel is used for agricultural purposes also may be used commercial or industrial purposes, including, not limited to wholesale and retail sales. Processing of raw agricultural products or other goods, warehousing or storage... Sacchet: We have letter Don, if you don't mind if! interrupt. We are not in a position to render, because this is going to be a legal opinion and so you've got to understand, we have to deal with the site plan application in front of us when it comes to these type of things, that's not our issue. But with that, would you want to add anything else? Don Halla: But our contract does allow for us to come before the city if we want to ask for a site plan changes.., various locations on the site of approximately 8,000 square feet. Sacchet: Okay. Questions from the applicant. No questions? Yes? No? Maybe? Claybaugh: So at this point you don't have a specific site plan? You're looking at a number of locations within the site. All the other legal issues aside, your first choice would be a single story building. If you got a couple, one specific site that you'd like to put it on. Don Halla: We'd like, if practical to put it south of the pond adjacent to other warehouse. Claybaugh: Okay. With respect to what is under the heading of proposal for us is site plan approval so, there isn't a specific site plan per se at this time this evening. That's put in front of us. Don Halla: ...make an exact spot. Claybaugh: Well there's more components that go into a site plan application. Benchmarks. Elevations. Drainage. Some of the other criteria for us, in order to consider it, he has a complete application. ! guess that's the question that I'm asking, is at this point we don't have that available to us. Don Halla: ! wasn't asked to submit any of that. Claybaugh: I understand. This is appearing to be a very, very complicated issue and. Don Halla: And the issues in our contract with the city says ! just have to come before you and ask for permission to build a building basically is what it says. It says... Aanenson: ! just want to make one... 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: Obviously you can see there's some ambiguity of what the staff's direction to the applicant and the applicant's interpretation of what the direction is. We're following the course directed to us by the city attorney. Obviously there's a difference of opinion and ! apologize for that but that's the... Sacchet: Yeah. ! sympathize with both sides and ! want to be very clear. ! mean this is not our role as a planning commission to get entangled in the legal side of this. What our role is to look at the application that's in front of us and see does this apply to the regulations of the city. We understand, we appreciate you giving us a little more of the framework and we'll work it from that angle, okay? So with this is a public hearing. Yes. Aanenson: ... going larger than 2,000 square feet? Is that what you just said, you want to go to 9,000? Don Halla: We, when we paid for the permit we, we talked about 8,000 square feet... Aanenson: Because your letter says 2,000 square feet. Don Halla: Well, that's on the building itself and then that was 4,000 square feet actually, two story. And then the greenhouse was 4,000 square feet in addition. Aanenson: Okay, we didn't know any of that. Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing. Thank you Don. Lillehaug: ! have one question. Do you own the property to the east of 1017 Don Halla: Yes. Lillehaug: We're not dumping any more stuff in the ravine down there? It's the only time ! get to ask you is right now. Don Halla: ... deferring from answering that. Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward and address this item, please do so now. State your name and address for the record and let us hear what you have to say. Are there any takers? Seeing nobody, yes. I'm seeing somebody. Please. Chip Cook: My name is Chip Cook. ! live at 9920 Delphinium Lane, which is the property abutting the nursery on the north side of the nursery, and ! have a question now whether this is my issues with this are being addressed in the appropriate forum now too based on what I've seen come out but. My concerns with any further expansion is again 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 going to the, ! would point to the judgment and some of the agreements that Halla Nursery has with the city that are not being honored currently. And because of that, you know would oppose any further expansion of activity at the nursery. Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Appreciate it. Anybody else would like to make a statement about this? This is your chance. And considering it's 10 to 10:00, I'm not going to wait any longer and close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for comments. Want to start with it? Well if you don't have comments, that's alright too. Slagle: It's just incomplete. ! mean we can either decide to table it or reject it. Sacchet: Exactly. Thanks Rich. Bruce. Feik: Concur. Sacchet: Same? Bethany? Tjornhom: I'm grateful he only wants a 2 story building and not a 3 story building. Sacchet: Alright. Lillehaug: ! also concur and want to add one thing. In the staff report it says the site has a non-conforming status and the ordinance prohibits expansion of the non-conforming uses, so therefore in my opinion we would also need a variance with this site plan to approve it so that goes hand in hand. Not having a site plan nor a variance. Slagle: But is the non-conforming, maybe it's a question of staff to get back to us if this comes before us, the addition of this, the.., of water plants is clearly spelled out that they can do this. Lillehaug: But they're intensifying the area. Sacchet: They're adding a building in a place where they didn't previously say they would, so they need permission. Slagle: To changing it. Sacchet: They're expanding. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: So ! would ask, if! can Mr. Chair, if this comes before us again Kate, can there be further help, language to us? Aanenson: ! think this might be one that would be wise to have some one on our legal counsel. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Slagle: I think so too. Sacchet: Yeah. Aanenson: It's a very complex stipulation. Sacchet: Well let's get Craig's comments. ! have a question too. Claybaugh: ! think we need a very specific application that meets the true criteria of a site plan approval process, with all the information so we can get specific in put from staff. Specific input from legal counsel to direct us to what we can and can't consider. Doing in generalizations, it's too broad to even come close to getting our arms around it tonight. Sacchet: So basically what ! hear is that, by definition this is not really a site plan. This is a far cry from a site plan. This is a couple sketches and a legal stipulation behind it. Claybaugh: No this is an incomplete site plan application and due to a misunderstanding, as best ! can ascertain, between what the judgment provides and what the process after the judgment provides for the applicant and what staff is expecting so we need to bridge that gap. Get something specific in front of us. Have a meeting of the minds between staff, the owner, however they choose that. ! don't know but there's no way that we can consider, in my opinion, what's put in front of us tonight. Sacchet: Yeah, in addition to that, ! really don't think it's our place to stick out our neck in an obviously rather intricate legal situation. Together with these two things ! think there's no way we can approve this as far as my opinion is. That's my comment. Lillehaug: One more quick comment. Is tabling going to get us anywhere? Sacchet: No. Lillehaug: ! don't think it will. Sacchet: ! don't think it will. Lillehaug: So ! don't think we even look at doing that. Sacchet: Between the two elements that this is, as far as this site plan, this is very incomplete and with the intricacies of the legal situation that surrounds it, ! believe that tabling is not going to get us anywhere with this. Any other comments? Somebody want to try to venture a motion please. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Sure. I move the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Site Plan Review #97-8 as shown on the site plan dated received September 19, 2003, due to incomplete application. Period. Claybaugh: I'll second that. Sacchet: Okay. There's a motion. We got a second. And just to clarify, you did take away from the conditions 1, 2, 3 that is currently there? Feik: ! think it's irrelevant. Sacchet: It's irrelevant, okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Site Plan Review #97-8 as shown on the site plan dated received September 19, 2003, due to incomplete application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: For summary for council, just to reiterate. We consider this a very incomplete site plan request and we do not want to get involved with the legalities. Anybody want to add anything? Claybaugh: Yeah ! would. Somehow they need to bridge the definition of what the process is going to be for this applicant to work through this process because it's apparent to me tonight that they're not in agreement of that. So first they have to agree on what's the process, or the vehicle is going to be for this applicant to move forward with his needs. Sacchet: We need form an agreement before this comes in front of us. Slagle: But if! can add, ! think for the City Council, the fact that there's legal issues surrounding this in some respects, from our position it's not relevant only because if someone came before us, as we've had people before us, with applications that we've determined not be complete, there have been times where we have tabled it to give them a chance to work with staff. Come back in 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks. We have to be careful to say that. Sacchet: Well yeah. Aanenson: ! think you'll get some clarity, if they want to send it back down, but it might be helpful just to get some. Sacchet: Basically we're requesting more clarity of what is the intent and framework so we have something that we can actually build upon. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Don Halla: Could I have direction as to what you want from me since I did what staff asked me to do? Sacchet: We'll ask you to work with staff and ask staff to give you clear directions. Alright, with that let's move onto the next item. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ 114 SANDY HOOK ROAD; SAWHORSE DESIGN. Public Present: Name Address Tom Devine Brad Schoen Bill Chenvert 7640 South Shore Drive 217 2nd Street, N.W., Mayer 14035 81st Avenue No, Maple Grove Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions of staff. Claybaugh: You identified that with respect to the setback that there's going to be an intensified, but within the existing setback at 54 feet the square footage of the non- conformity is being intensified. Is that the 400 square feet? Aanenson: Correct. If you look on, here's the 75 foot setback. This is the non- conforming points... The addition is significantly in from that. So it's not even maintaining that. They pulled it as far forward as they could, the intensification so. Does that answer your question? Claybaugh: Yeah, but like you said, the 54 feet, they're not further encroaching on that. Aanenson: No, no. Claybaugh: But they are adding square footage and filling in between the structure, intensifies it in terms of square footage. Aanenson: Correct, but not intensifying, making the setback worst. Claybaugh: Okay. Any relative sight line issues with taking it up to a 2 story building? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Aanenson: No, ! don't believe so. They're at the end of a cul-de-sac, if you look at that original map. Where they sit on that lot. There's a home here and a home here. ! don't believe it should based on the location of those other homes. They do actually show up, sorry... Adjacent house here, and adjacent house here as far as they're on the end of a point and cul-de-sac as far as... is that what you're asking? Claybaugh: Yep. Aanenson: ... one of the neighbors is here so I believe that that shouldn't be affected. Claybaugh: Okay. And there hasn't been anything, they're going up to the second story and the patio's already there so there isn't anything. Aanenson: Right. They're not increasing the hard surface, but what we're saying in good faith, because they are intensifying it, they can reduce the hard surface so that is one thing they can work to resolve. To mitigate, correct. Claybaugh: That's all the questions ! have. Sacchet: Any other questions? Lillehaug: Real quick. You're indicating 27 percent hard cover surface. In their letter they indicate 29.5. Aanenson: That's what they're at right now. Lillehaug: So by getting rid of that portion of the driveway. Aanenson: Yeah, I'll show you what they were looking at. Lillehaug: They're acceptable to getting rid of their driveway like that huh? Aanenson: Angie was working with them on this and I think what they were looking at is cul-de-sacing, so taking this out. This segment out. Possibly eliminating some back here, so that would get us from the 29 back to the 27. That's what they want, and we're saying can we still get an additional 2 percent. Again, with the addition there will be a new front door on, there's two doors. Kind of a service entrance and a new front door, so we had looked at shortening this up a little bit from what they had proposed and maybe looking at something along the back kind of versus a sidewalk going on the back. So some of those are the things that we'd like to work with them on. Sacchet: Any other questions? No, no other questions? Okay. With that, would the applicant want to come forward and present your case. Please state your name and address for the record. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Bill Chenvert: I'm Bill Chenvert from Sawhorse. I'm Sales Manager there and ! guess right now without doing anything to the property we're standing at 28.9 percent hard cover and we are increasing by some total, coming forward with the addition a little bit right in here, we are increasing it to 29 and talked to the city and they wanted us to you know, try to decrease it so if we didn't do anything right now we're at 28.9. So by doing this and coming up with this, we are actually eliminating all this driveway in here and a portion of the turn around driveway. The patio that's in back is there now. Then you're going to take it out and then they just have grass. The whole hard surface area, as far as the driveway and patio in the rear are pavers. So there is a certain amount of seepage through pavers whereas if it was blacktop or concrete so there is. From the street to this point right here where we proposed a turn around, there's only a 7 inch drop so there is not a big huge runoff anywhere. It's just staying pretty much right where it is. So we're contending that part of the hard surface is pavers where there is an amount of seepage too. We would have to eliminate another stretch of this much area right here to meet the hard surface setback so that's why we're asking only for a 2 percent, where right now they're almost 4 percent over. Sacchet: So are you saying you couldn't comfortably accommodate the 25 percent? Bill Chenvert: Well you can see that this amount fight here we'd have to, and this, we'd have to reduce that much more of hard surface to get down to the 25 percent. So if you look at the driveway and what has got to be taken out, that's quite a bit. Sacchet: I'm not sure I understand your math. You're saying, on one hand you said you were a little less, like 28 point something without doing anything. Bill Chenvert: Without doing anything right now the lot sits at 28.9. Sacchet: And you're saying taking what's marked here out is only like 1.8 percent difference? Bill Chenvert: Well correct, because we are adding a little more square footage on the addition right here. There's a little more coverage. So that's coming out, because again we have to come out forward of the house because we can't go any closer to the lake, so that's why we brought the front entry out a little bit closer so we increase the hard cover to 29. But the city said, can you reduce that so we went to the homeowner and we agreed, you know to eliminate this stretch here and this here, to get it down to 26.9. So that's why we're asking for only the 2 percent, so we're trying to get down to the hard cover and we'll be 2 percent less than what we are right now. And like ! say, that is quite a bit of driveway that is already taken out. And the city said that they only want one entrance to the property, that is what code is, so that's why we eliminated that there. Sacchet: And just to come back to question, there is no other place that you see that impervious surface could be reduced a little further? 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Bill Chenvert: Again you could take out the patio area in the rear. The driveway, the problem is there is a driveway entrance here. There is a garage door there that they park in, and there is another garage door over here. So there's two garages so that's why they need a driveway on the side and in front both. Lillehaug: Do they need a cul-de-sac to the southwest there? You know it goes all the way in the front of the house. Does that need to go that far? Bill Chenvert: That's where the front door is. Sacchet: Now it seems like staff was suggesting that could be pushed back a little bit too. Is that feasible from your viewpoint? Aanenson: ! think we're talking about like half a percent now. Lillehaug: It's insignificant. Bill Chenvert: We'd still be over. Aanenson: Let's go back to this plan. The new front door is in this location. You can cut it short...there's a pool in back. Claybaugh: Yeah, to put this in perspective, maybe.., for Uli, the lot square footage is what? Aanenson: Over an acre. Claybaugh: Over an acre and the square footage on the house is, the footprint has got to be. Bill Chenvert: It's on there. The house and garage is 5,595 square feet. Claybaugh: Yeah, that's why. S acchet: That's the bulk of it, okay thanks. Other questions of the applicant? Slagle: ! have one. Is it your client's desire to take away from that turn around? Forget the code issue for a second. If they had their druthers would they like to keep it the way it is? Bill Chenvert: Yes, they would like to keep it the way it is. They would much rather keep the circular drive. Slagle: Okay. That's it. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If anybody wants to address this item, please come forward. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to say. Any takers? Going, yep. Good evening. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I would just like to say as a person who lives near Lotus Lake and is a member of the beachlot association, please do all you can to keep the impervious surface at 25 percent. That lake is getting very polluted. And it's our responsibility to take care of it. Sacchet: Anybody else? Going, going, gone. The public hearing is closed. Back to commissioners. Who wants to comment first? Steve. Lillehaug: I'll start. First on the setback. ! would not support moving closer to the lake, even a single inch more, and they're not doing so. The footprint of where they're expanding, it's currently on a brick patio. It's on part of their walk. ! think they're really expanding on the house in a pretty good area where we're really not, it's not an issue with the setback so ! fully support that. And then as far as the hard surface coverage, they actually, they are reducing a non-conformance. They're not fully reducing it but they are reducing it so ! do support it as presented. It's one other thing, it's really, we're talking about 2 percent. That is really an insignificant number. They are making an effort to reduce it. To hold them to 25 percent is tough. It really is tough looking at that layout so I'm sensitive to it but ! think what they have here is a pretty good plan. Sacchet: So you give them 27? Lillehaug: ! would give them what is presented. Aanenson: Yeah, 27. Lillehaug: The 27, yep. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Steve. Craig. Claybaugh: I agree with Commissioner Lillehaug with respect to the shoreland setback. They're not further intensifying that. They are adding square footage to that. However don't agree with the assessment on the hard surface coverage. As the gentleman stated, lot size is an acre or nearly an acre, and to not to be able to accommodate hard surface coverage on a lot of that size, ! guess ! would take exception to so ! do support part one of the 21 foot shoreland setback but ! would not support the hard surface coverage variance. Sacchet: So you would want it 25? Claybaugh: It's not a lot in Carver Beach that's 8,000 square feet. It's a one acre lot and ! think that somewhere, be it through the patio, be it through using different surfaces, that they need to do due diligence and get it down to 25 percent. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Bethany. Tjornhom: ! don't have much to comment. ! agree with Commissioner Lillehaug. ! will be supporting it. Sacchet: Okay, Kurt. Papke: Great, fine. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: ! agree with Craig. Claybaugh: Commissioner Craig. Feik: Craig. It's a huge lot. It's a huge house, and quite frankly it is a huge driveway, both now and even if you pare it back, and looking at it, I've got to believe that there's a way to reduce the hard cover somehow. Sacchet: Okay, Rich. Slagle: ! think it tie in with the other statements that ! would support the 27 percent versus 25 percent, but ! do have a question regarding the dual driveways if you will. It seems to me to be a real shame, considering it's away from the lake. It's all brick. ! mean why are we requiring that? And ! don't see it as a condition so ! guess. Aanenson: Pardon me? S lagle: The closure if you will of one half of the driveway is not a condition and so that leads me to believe it's either. Aanenson: Right, well it's not stated that way but it's non-conforming and they way to reduce the impervious was to eliminate that. Since it was, is now non-conforming, you only get one driveway per lot, that was a way to eliminate it. The non-conforming. And that was the goal of part of this variance. Slagle: But if we don't eliminate the non-conforming, can they keep both? Aanenson: Right. One recommendation could be to leave it at the 28.5, yeah. 28.5 or 29 percent impervious as proposed. That would be an option and then the driveway would stay as it is. Slagle: And that's where I'm going forward. Aanenson: If you go to 27 percent it... 66 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: Alright. My comment. I'm struggling with this one. ! mean it's a pretty large lot. ! have a hard time believing there is no way to meet the 25 percent. Because in this case really ! think our first responsibility as a Planning Commission is to the community is to help with the lake. And with the house that size ! think there must be a way to accommodate 25 percent. We're very close and it seems like staff thinks that's slightly different than the applicant that it's not that big a deal. And ! was a little confused about the math. We seem to have a little two different perspectives of math there. ! would want to specify as a condition that we would only allow one driveway, and ! also would like to add an initial consideration that, with that cul-de-sac as that's added, that they protect that clump of willows there. ! think that'd be worthwhile and certainly in the interest of the applicant. So with that, I'm willing to take a motion. See where we land with that one. Lillehaug: Can ! make another comment? Sacchet: Yes you can. Lillehaug: We are, how they're portraying it, they are reducing it to two non- conformances. They're reducing it to one driveway. They're also reducing impervious area, so they are reducing the non-conformances and that's part of the intent if you look at the codes of allowing expansion is to reduce the non-conformances. Sacchet: So your point is if they reduce one of them of the two they actually would, or? Lillehaug: My point is, if you interpret the codes ! think it' s, we don't have to tell them to fully reduce it to the codes but they are reducing it somewhat. Sacchet: Okay. Claybaugh: Heading in the right direction. Lillehaug: Right, and they're real close. ! mean you're talking 2 percent. That is a small amount. Okay, that sounds reasonable. It's enough to be concerned with but it's a small amount. Sacchet: Good point. Thank you for bringing that point. So who is going to venture the motion? Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-17 for a 21 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/30/03, prepared by Sawhorse Designers and Builders. I've got to reword it here. With a 27 percent maximum hard surface coverage area. Sacchet: We're approving a variance for 27. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Lillehaug: And approve a variance of 2 percent from the 25 percent for the hard surface coverage area based upon findings in the staff report with the following conditions 1 through 2, and number 3 ! would like to add to reduce the drive accesses to one. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: Can we make a friendly amendment that they protect that willow clump? Lillehaug: Where's that at? Sacchet: Well it's kind of where they make that cul-de-sac. Lillehaug: Is that a problem with the applicant? Bill Chenvert: We'll arrange it so it... Sacchet: It would actually help them save a little more impervious. Well considering that, ! actually have to consider that. Alright, do you accept it? Slagle: Point of clarification, we're talking one driveway, right? Sacchet: Did we say one driveway? Lillehaug: One driveway. Sacchet: One driveway, 27 max and protecting the clump, which may even get it down a little bit less. 26 point. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-17 for a 21 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/30/03, prepared by Sawhorse Designers and Builders, and approve a variance of 2 percent from the 25 percent for the hard surface coverage area based upon findings in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the impervious surface to 27 percent. 2. The applicant shall install a silt fence prior to any excavation. 3. The applicant shall reduce the driveway to one entrance. 4. The applicant shall protect the clump of willow trees near the driveway. All voted in favor, except Claybaugh, Feik and Slagle who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: With that it's going to have to go to City Council because we didn't have a clear enough majority so in summary for City Council. We believe that the applicant is making a respectable effort to mitigate the non-conformance. That basically the expansion is not impacting the shoreland setback. It doesn't really have an impact on the lake. We do want the impervious surface to be reduced to mitigate the impact but we don't necessarily have agreement whether it should be given a little bit of leeway or not. ! think that's about the summary. Anything you want to add? Claybaugh: Just that if it wasn't a lake property, 2 percent would be a non issue for me. But because it is a lake property, the 2 percent. Sacchet: The whole point is to protect the lake. Claybaugh: Yeah, it's a one acre lot. It's a 5,000 square foot plus home. ! think they have reasonable use of the property and ! think a little stewardship is in order. Sacchet: Anybody else? Feik: ! think they could even capture water runoff off the roof and do something different with it to... Claybaugh: ...the property.., from the U. Feik: There's possibilities. Claybaugh: Where he went out in the patios and they used different types. ! would be very supportive of seeing an effort, if they would come in with an effort like that and had demonstrated that they had done, taken those measures and still needed some additional square footage, relief then ! would consider it differently. Sacchet: Well unfortunately pavers is considered impervious. Lillehaug: Boy we sure were a lot more forgiving to that other guy on Lake Riley, I'll tell you that. Sacchet: Well this is this one. Thank you very much. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACTOR'S YARD WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF LAKE DRIVE WEST AND UPLAND CIRCLE~ LOT 8~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7T}I ADDITION; BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Undestad Brian Beniek 8800 Sunset Trail Mound Sharmeen A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Slagle: ! have a couple. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: Sharmeen, your mailing list of this application, ! did not see it going to too many of the neighbors to the south, which would be across the, in essence that open area. Where the apartments will be. Am ! correct? Are we just too far? A1-Jaff: They were too far. Aanenson: Yeah, that's one of the Mr. Reid's comment. He's an owner. Slagle: So basically Lake Susan Hills Drive and so forth, none of those folks were notified via mail? A1-Jaff: They are not within 500 feet of. Slagle: They've got to be close. Okay. Next question ! have is on the diagram that we have in front of us, the outdoor parking, because ! think that would be safe to say my biggest issue from the concern of either the apartment buildings or homeowners hearing noises and seeing things. ! am assuming that they would be at the northeast corner of the building and it looks like it's somewhat enclosed with, ! don't know if that's walls or so forth. A1-Jaff: That would be a wall. Slagle: How high is that wall? 70 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 A1-Jaff: It is 9 feet, 4 inches. Slagle: Okay, so basically is it your understanding that anything that would be on the exterior of this building for storage would be only in that area. It would not be up in the parking spaces? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: To the south. A1-Jaff: Absolutely, yes. Slagle: Okay, okay. That's it. Feik: I'm going to carry on from there. How far north and then west can the applicant or the tenant store materials? We've got a relatively small square on the northeast corner but then it's contiguous with the truck dock area and everything else. A1-Jaff: Well they won't be able to block this area because they will need access to it, so technically nothing more than again a pile of mulch maybe within this area. Things that will be moved or placed there temporarily, you will order your mulch. You'll get your people to take it out of there. Feik: ! have another question, and help me with this. I'm going to speak of 2 years ago we had DayCo come in front of us. And we were pretty darn explicit about no Bobcats, no trucks, no trailers, no skids of bricks, or anything of any sort should be stored outside. That facility is on a dead end and backs up to a treed area where other than squirrels you wouldn't see it. How do you square this in your mind compared to the positions we've taken in the not so recent past? Because the reason I'm going there is based upon the discussions and arguments we had a year and a half ago, this would be a no brainer. We'd just say no. Slagle: From an exterior standpoint. Feik: Yeah. So ! guess in your mind as a planner, how do you square the two? Because I'm having difficulty in my mind. A1-Jaff: This one is enclosed. Feik: But DayCo was required roughed in doors. I mean it had to be all inside. Slagle: For vehicles. Feik: Vehicles. Everything. Aanenson: All vehicles will be inside. We're just talking about some supplementary. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Well I understand but DayCo is not allowed to have any equipment, materials, other than dumpster outside their building. A1-Jaff: When you look at this, I mean. Alright. Slagle: Well if! can, can ! just add something? Feik: Yeah. Slagle: Page 2. Feik: I don't have a general problem with it. I just want to make sure we're consistent. Slagle: Sharmeen, I mean just try to help me on this. The bottom of page 2, second paragraph from the bottom you say the space will be used to house equipment associated with the business, okay. And then it says all equipment's proposed to be located within the building. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Okay, but when you talk about the space up above it, you refer to the indoor and outdoor, so are we going to have equipment outdoor or are we just going to keep it indoor? A1-Jaff: The equipment will be stored indoors. The mowers, the trucks that will be removing the snowplows if you will, all of that will be stored indoors. That's a condition of approval. Lillehaug: All equipment? A1-Jaff: All equipment. Slagle: So we might have to re-write that a bit. Sacchet: Yeah, we need to specify. Kurt, anything? Papke: Yeah. Are there any stipulations on the hours of operations of these kinds of businesses? Again coming, kind of following on this same point, if the Bobcats will be parked indoors, but if at 4:00 a.m. the Bobcats wheel out the door and start moving mulch around, the people in the apartment building might not be real happy. A1-Jaff: That's something that we looked at the first time when this application came before us in a different building. The snowfall. These are things that you can't control. Snowfall, your snowplows are going to go out there and remove the snow before it gets out of hand. So we haven't put a time limit on this operation. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: We didn't have an outside storage of mulch or whatever before. No, with the first phase we had the storage indoors. There was not outdoor. Craig, Steve, anything? Lillehaug: Is the applicant here today? A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Could you expand a little bit on, a little bit on the history of this site plan approval because I remember a month back, two months back where it wasn't part of our meeting but actually came to us as part of a discussion item maybe, about a change to the site plan. Can you tell us where we're at with that site plan? Didn't we revert back to the original site plan so where staff was going ahead with approving an alternate site plan. That's been taken out. Now we're looking back at the original planning commission and City Council approved site plan, is that where we're at? A1-Jaff: This is the original plan that was approved by the Planning Commission, City Council so this was what was approved in 2000. Sacchet: Including the outside storage? A1-Jaff: No. Well, here's what you approved. The U shaped building and the faCade of the building is right here. Lillehaug: So that's a rendering of the original approval right there. A1-Jaff: Correct, and that's what's getting built today. Lillehaug: So the only change is really the wall? A1-Jaff: The only change is the L right here. Slagle: And the use of that area. A1-Jaff: And that's something that we're coming to you with approval. This is less than 10 percent of the overall building area. Lillehaug: So what happened, what we were talking about a month or two ago. Is that the same applicant? Different applicant? Does it matter I guess? A1-Jaff: Here is what the applicant had suggested so you would basically have loading docks off of here. Eliminate all the parking along the east. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: So they decided not to do that. A1-Jaff: They did not pursue that. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: No questions Craig? Real quick. ! think it boils down to what's going to be out there in this outside storage. And like ! said, that's an applicant question. The concrete block of this L shaped wall is the same as the main building? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: And I got an issue, I'm surprised, I guess engineering I would expect to catch this. The drive aisle width when you come just out from that storage area. The curb is very close to that first parking lot. Is it possible to have two parking slots there next to that handicap island to get out. Do you see what I'm talking about basically? The northern most parking slot. How can that work and the drive aisle still be wide enough to the curb there? ! have a hard time seeing how, more north. Move north. There. That slot. And see how the corner of that slot, how close that is to the curb on the other side. Go north. Northeast. Northeast. Not northwest. That curb right there. That curb is very, very close to the corner of that parking lot. Aanenson: We can check that. Sacchet: ! mean ! don't believe that's anywhere near what we require. Aanenson: To back-up, right. Sacchet: Okay. That's all ! have as questions. ! guess that wasn't really a question but yeah question is how can that be. With that, applicant please. Do you want to tell us your story? If you want to state your name and address. Pull your microphone up a little bit. There you go. Mark Undestad: Mark Undestad. ! live at 8800 Sunset Trail in Chanhassen. I'm also with Eden Trace developing the project here. I'll just answer a quick question on your parking here and then Brian Beniek is here with Beniek Property Services. He can talk about what's being stored out there. The radius in here has been changed through engineering and building to straighten that out to keep the parking stall in there. We took out a couple of stalls up in this corner so we keep the green area and the impervious surfaces and things covered in there so. This runs a straight line through there now so all those parking stalls will work. Sacchet: And then the door moves a little bit east? Mark Undestad: Yep. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Sacchet: The sliding door. Mark Undestad: ...we took out a couple up here. Sacchet: That answers that one. Any. Mark Undestad: And Brian can answer what's going on outside there. Sacchet: Go for it. Brian Beniek: Hi, Brian Beniek. Do you want my address? 6017 Ridgewood Road, Mound, Minnesota. First of all thank you for taking time to see me this evening. ! appreciate the fact that you are here late. ! used to be on the Public Safety Commission here in town so ! appreciate your understanding. Basically in my business, and that's why I'm building this thing big enough with the 12,000 square feet is that ! intend to store all my equipment, Bobcats. Bobcat, ! only have one, and the rest of the trucks and trailers are all going to be stored inside. The idea behind the screened in storage areas, ! do at times take delivery of mulch. ! do take delivery of a dirt pile, something like that. Typically our stuff is leaving in the morning, comes back in the evening time. It's just, ! want to make sure that I'm in compliance with the city. ! don't want problems with the neighbors and what not so I'm spending the extra money to make sure that ! am, you know that I'm going to be compliant. As far as the hours of operation, ! appreciate that. You aren't going to get anybody in our company to come to work at 4:00 in the morning, unless it's snowing out, and that's really the only time that we're going to have, and typically we, our operations typically start, they're going all day long but the equipment all leaves for plowing. We plow, probably take care of most of the businesses in that industrial park anyway. When it comes back, it goes into our indoor shop area and that's kind of the end of it so ! certainly understand that we want to be good neighbors. Don't want to make a lot of noise. ! don't certainly want to be dealing with those sort of questions or problems either so. I've been in this town in business since I've been in high school so my name is pretty well known here so thank you. Sacchet: Any questions? Feik: Yes, ! have one Mr. Beniek. The application as it relates to what currently crafted can be stored outside is fairly broad. What materials would you be willing to be limited to specifically? Brian Beniek: ! have no desire to store any equipment outside because number one, I've gotten stuff stolen before so no one's going to, ! don't have to worry about somebody coming over and stealing a couple shovel full's of mulch or dirt pile or a pallet full of paper blocks, that sort of stuff. It just, having those sort of items inside of my shop takes up a lot of room so that's kind of why I'm looking to keep that, and this is not something that I'm going to be storing out there. It's not going to look like an old junk pile or anything like that. You know ! have parking lot sweepers. ! talk with the neighbors, making sure that the place is looking clean and what not. ! mean ! certainly want to have 75 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 that sort of reputation there so. Dirt piles, paper patio block, mulch, maybe a tree or two if we're going to be planting a tree the next day. I'm not looking to store a nursery there is basically is the question. Basically we want to go out and buy a few trees for our project that we've got going on the next day, we can keep it there so. Sacchet: So what would be, if we can put that in one term. Like landscaping material? Brian Beniek: Landscaping supplies, yeah. Sacchet: Landscaping material. Brian Beniek: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Excuse me, go ahead. Slagle: ! just had a question. With respect to that wall, it appears as though on the southern end of the wall, there is a causeway or thru way through the wall. Is that wide enough for cars and trucks and. Mark Undestad: There's a 10 foot opening in-between there that we would like to be a gate. Sacchet: Sliding door or something? Slagle: So my question would be, ! mean to you, would that be necessary? And is that perhaps part of code, ! don't know but if that was blocked off entirely, that might help the view from the future. ! don't know why we need it to go into the parking lot. I'm just throwing it out as a question. Brian Beniek: My answer I guess would be, I would like to have it in there simply for the fact that if equipment is going to drive in and out of there, ! mean this is a wall that ! don't need people running into and knocking over and what not. So it's going to make the flow of my business, plus it will eliminate, with that in there it's going to eliminate the amount of stuff that's going to be kept in there because obviously there needs to be a driveway in there so it' s not going to have a bunch of stuff piled in there so. Slagle: Well let me ask you this now with that answer, on the east side of the building, south side, perhaps to get back to the west side. ! was thinking that all your traffic would just be coming in from the west into the back of your building and then exiting the same way. So why would you need the, I'm just. Brian Beniek: Yeah ! understand the question. ! mean it' s just more of a matter of probably convenience for our operation. Sacchet: ! would expect most of the traffic would be on the north side. ! mean why would they drive around the whole building, if they can go straight out. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Brian Beniek: Correct. Slagle: Again, I'm just going from, because you will have residents at this apartment building, you know assuming your business flourishes, and we all hope it does, who will start to hear the, perhaps the forklift that goes to pick up the pallet of, and wheels are backing inside or onto a truck and you have a 9 foot wall with a 10 foot opening in the middle, if that was enclosed that might be pretty private. Sacchet: Okay, any other questions from the applicant? Thanks Rich. I think we're pretty clear. Yeah Craig. Claybaugh: So the area that you're looking at in question, do you consider that a short term staging area? Brian Beniek: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And for the purpose of having the gate through, I'm assuming it's for tandem loads of whatever you're having delivery in bulk, that they can pull through a drop and continue to pull through. Brian Beniek: Correct. Claybaugh: If they drop a load of mulch off the back of their truck, it's kind of hard to back up over it to leave the area. Brian Beniek: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much. Brian Beniek: Thank you. Sacchet: With this, this is a public hearing. Anybody want to comment about this? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing. Bring it back for comments from commissioners. Who wants to start? Feik: I'll start. I think we need a little bit more guidelines on here than as the staff has recommended. ! would like to see, if this did move forward, that the materials stored outside and the contractor's be limited to miscellaneous landscaping material, specifically prohibiting any vehicles, trailers or equipment. Second of all ! would like to see a northern boundary of the contractor's yard clearly delineated with pavement striping or something so this doesn't grow. So that as the tenants, employees and delivery people and stuff, it clearly identify where this yard is and where the boundaries are so that it, if this does go forward and we approve it, that it stays physically what we're approving, so 77 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 everybody knows what it is. Those are my comments, and I'm still having a hard time squaring this with other stuff. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Rich. Nothing to add? Kurt? Bethany? Steve? Craig? Claybaugh: No. No comments. Sacchet: I don't have anything much to add either. I think, I would say storage is just within the enclosed outside area. I mean I think that would delineate it to that point. Feik: But it's only enclosed on two sides. Sacchet: Well yeah, if you would draw a line to make it enclosed. Feik: Simple striping to clear. Sacchet: That's what you meant? Feik: Yep. Sacchet: Same thing? Feik: Yep. Sacchet: Okay, alright. Motion please. Feik: I'll make one. I had most the comments. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-7 to allow a contractor's yard in lOP District for Beniek Property Services Inc. to be located at Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated received October 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions. 1, 2. Delete 3. 4, 5. After the word, after the fifth word stored in item 5, insert the word indoors. 6 as is. In place of 3 or as 7, your choice, materials stored within the contractor's yard shall be limited to miscellaneous landscaping material. No vehicles, trailers or equipment shall be stored. An additional item, northern boundary of the contractor's yard shall be, ! think it's north. Yes. Shall be clearly delineated with pavement striping. Or whatever. We can leave it that way or we can leave it to the staff. Claybaugh: Define the area. Feik: ! want it defined so it stays. It doesn't creep into the dock area. Starts to become a hassle for the other tenants and truck and delivery and what not. Sacchet: So it has to be within the immediate area of delineated by the wall. Walled in area. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Well delineate specifically the, how big is it? 2,971 square feet. Sacchet: Okay, that's specific enough. Okay. We have a motion. Second? Lillehaug: Second with a friendly amendment. Sacchet: Yep, go ahead. Lillehaug: Number 3 ! would still like to keep in and reword it that there shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment or vehicles period. Sacchet: Vehicles instead of materials. Lillehaug: Because how it was stated you indicated that you just couldn't store it in the screened area over there, but ! don't think they should be able to store it outside anywhere, and obviously the applicant said he wasn't going to. Feik: That works. That works. Aanenson: And it is inside. Lillehaug: And number 8. Feik: No, 9. We're up to 9 now. Lillehaug: 9. The concrete block screen wall shall be made of the like exterior materials of the building. Sacchet: Yeah, acceptable? Feik: Yes. Do you have any concern regarding the gate? Lillehaug: Gate, ! don't know. Sacchet: One more friendly? Feik: 10. Sacchet: 10. Drive aisle shall be verified to be sufficient before it goes to council. My concern there with this parking and they said they straightened it out. That should be reflected in what's presented to council. Feik: Engineering shall verify adequacy of drive aisle? Sacchet: Correct. 79 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Feik: Accepted. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. We have friendly amendment. We have a second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-7 to allow a contractor's yard in lOP District for Beniek Property Services Inc. to be located at Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated received October 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment or vehicles. 4. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicle/equipment shall be stored on the premises. 5. All chemicals shall be stored indoors in property storage facilities, specified by OSHA regulations. 6. The contractor shall be licensed, bonded and insured. 7. Materials stored within the contractor's yard shall be limited to miscellaneous landscaping material. No vehicles, trailers or equipment shall be stored. 8. The northern boundary of the contractor's yard shall be shall be clearly delineated with pavement striping specifically within the 2,971 square feet. 9. The concrete block screen wall shall be made of the like exterior materials of the building. 10. Engineering shall verify adequacy of drive aisle prior to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: Alright, motion carries 7 to 0. Summary for council. We support this application. We want to make sure that the outside storage area is used for landscape materials and not for equipment. That the wall is the same material, basically say it all. Thank you very much. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tjornhom noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 21, 2003, amended by Chairman Sacchet on pages 26 and 32. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. 80 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2003 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 81