PC 2004 05 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 4, 2004
Acting Chair Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tjornhom
Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, and Bethany
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO REPLAT OUTLOT B, BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER
INTO 26 LOTS AND 20UTLOTS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE THREE UNIT TWO FIVE UNIT OFFICE
BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-IOP WITH AN AREA OF 13.43
ACRES, STONE CREEK TOWN OFFICES, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION,
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Undestad
Jim Sulerud
Ben Merriman
Jim Pensyl
8800 Sunset Trail
Family of Christ Lutheran Church
8156 Mallory Court
1972 Andrews Court
Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Slagle: Let's start, any questions for staff?. Bethany?
Tjornhom: Alright, I'll go first I guess. And mine are silly questions anyway I guess.
When you were designing for the storm sewer, are you supposed to go with data that's 10
years or 100 years? Am I crazy thinking I had heard 100 year? Is it 10 years?
Saam: No, you're not crazy. The storm sewer pipe, the size of that is sized based on a 10
year storm but ponds are.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Tjornhom: That's the 100 years?
Saam: Yes. Yes, we want those to hold 100 year storms so.
Tjornhom: Okay. That was just a question that ! thought kind of, and another question !
have, and this is an easy one too is. In the report it says staff notes the proposal is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and generally consistent with the zoning
ordinance. Generally means, ! mean is there something that isn't consistent or is that just
something that was put in there you know, am ! being picky? ! don't know.
A1-Jaff: Figure of speech.
Tjornhom: Figure of speech, okay.
A1-Jaff: That's how I used it.
Tjornhom: Okay, okay.
A1-Jaff: They aren't consistent with the conditions in the staff report.
Tjornhom: Oh. Then ! guess that's all ! have.
Slagle: Down this way.
Keefe: Alright, I'll go next. I'm curious about the parking and what this is going to look
like from Highway 5 and how close it is to Highway 5. Is it bermed out front or is there a
berming requirement or how close does the parking go to Highway 5?
A1-Jaff: There are a couple of things that we have been working on. One of them is the
ordinance allows 50 percent of the parking to face the highway. If you look at this
portion, as well as this portion, it would come up, or would add up to half the length
facing Highway 5. That's part of our design standard ordinance. As far as berming,
there is additional landscaping that is required along Highway 5 to screen some of the
parking lot.
Keefe: ! mean ! like the design of the building. ! mean ! think it looks nice but one of
my concerns is just visually when you look at it, you're going to see a lot of cars sitting
there. It's in a very visible, there isn't a lot of elevation change from Highway 5 to this
particular site.
A1-Jaff: That's correct. One of the things that we talked about at the time, mainly
dealing with the design of this site, we didn't want to hide the buildings, but at the same
time we did talk about screening of the parking lot. Under the landscape requirements on
page 5 of your staff report, third column. Highway 5, north property line buffer yard.
There are 17 canopy trees, 28 understory trees, 45 shrubs. All these are landscape
materials that will be required within this area.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Keefe: And ! was confused, ! was kind of leading to that. ! mean the landscape along
Highway 5, it says proposed here, the one column and I'm not sure what the difference is
between proposed and the required.
A1-Jaff: The required is what the ordinance requires the applicant to provide. If we look
at the landscape plan and what the applicant is proposing, as you can see, for instance
under canopy trees the ordinance requires 17 trees. The applicant is showing 9 trees, so
they are deficient and they would need to increase the number of trees on the site.
Keefe: And then the buildings themselves in terms of the layout of the buildings, you
have parking on the Highway 5 side. Are those two, are the offices, are they sort of
double loaded offices?
A1-Jaff: Yes they are.
Keefe: They are? On that one that's there, and then the ones on the east and west ends
are single?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Okay, because they look like they're approximately the same size.
A1-Jaff: Access to them, access to the units can be provided from both sides.
Keefe: Right. And the question I had was really in relation to was it considered moving
the buildings more towards 5 if there's room to do that? ! don't know whether the
setback would allow that or not, and putting more of the parking on the inside.
Especially in light of that you've got the agreement with the church that would allow you
to meet, potentially meet the ordinance. ! didn't know whether you went down that, and
I'm really just thinking, ! don't know exactly what it's going to look like from 5. Just my
thought was that it's going to look kind of like a sea of cars along there, assuming that
everything's leased up and particularly if we go down the road of you know we want to at
least have enough landscaping in there to.
A1-Jaff: ! do believe that we will be able to provide, with the landscaping we will be able
to provide some screening. ! don't want to say 100 percent because that will not be the
case, but we will be able to provide some screening of the parking.
Lillehaug: Could ! add to your discussion here? The ordinance requires a 50 foot
setback from MnDot right-of-way for parking. Correct?
Generous: Not in this PUD.
Lillehaug: And that would be my question. On page 3, you do indicate where a PUD
was amended for a 10 foot parking setback but it doesn't look like any portion of what
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
that was approved for ever happened. I mean it says the applicant never replatted the
outlot and does that 10 foot parking setback really apply to this?
A1-Jaff: That portion of the ordinance did get amended. The Trunk Highway 5 setback
for the parking lot should read 10 feet.
Lillehaug: I guess blindly, I mean I'm just blindly saying, taken that it's 10 feet, I don't
see a reason why it would be 10 feet here and what benefit really that, if it's ordinance,
it's ordinance. ! mean if it's in the PUD but ! guess does staff know why it's 10 feet
rather than 50 feet?
Generous: ! do. Commissioner Lillehaug, as part of the, when they were actually doing
the PUD, the roadway acquisition was 40 feet out from where it was actually finally
taken. They took additional right-of-way after this project first went through the process.
When we established the 50 foot setback and they discovered that it just didn't work on
that north side so they amended the PUD design standards or the ordinance for this
development to give it a 10 foot setback.
Keefe: Well and I think in relation to that, I mean when I go to the lighting plan and I
look at the lighting plan, ! mean if we're at a 10 foot setback and you get those, some of
these lights sitting right at the back of the parking lot and it looks like you're going to end
up with some light from the parking lot cast out on the Highway 5 if the parking lot is
that close. If I'm looking at this correctly. Does that cause any concern or not?
Slagle: Matt, is that a question for your group?
Saam: We don't, engineering doesn't typically look at the lighting plan.
Slagle: Okay. I tried Sharmeen.
A1-Jaff: Thank you. In looking at the photometrics that have been submitted to the city.
That would be on Sheet A-1.3. The ordinance we passed a foot candle at the property
line. Looking at that along Highway 5, there is nothing that, there is one point right here.
Nann, can you zoom in please? Thank you. One point right here that is .7.
Keefe: Right around that particular...
A1-Jaff: ... nothing that exceeds the half foot candle.
Keefe: Okay, and then just one last question in relation to the parking. Is in regards to
that 10 foot setback, we don't really have a concern of the parking being that close to the
Highway 5 in regards to traffic, headlights and conflict of interest for driving on the
Highway 5 that close without any berming or protection. 10 feet meets what we need to
do?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Saam: Commissioner Keefe, I'll just mention Highway 5, if you look at the grading plan
is approximately 6 to 8 feet higher in elevation than this parking lot's going to be, so with
that in mind, ! wouldn't foresee any headlights from this site shining into the highway.
Or onto the highway.
Keefe: Okay, thanks. That's all I have.
Slagle: Okay.
Lillehaug: A lot of my questions have been answered so that's good. Parking staff.
What is the dimension just required by the city of parking stalls?
A1-Jaff: 8 iA.
Lillehaug: Let's get this out in the open right now huh.
Saam: By 18 ! believe.
A1-Jaff: 8 lA by 18.
Generous: It will be revised to 9 by 18.
Lillehaug: So as part of this we can require 9 by 18, correct? It's a PUD, we can add to
this right? Correct? Matt. Okay. Let's see here. Easy one first here. HVAC
equipment, or roof equipment. Does staff know is that fully screened or is there even
roof equipment? ! can ask that to the applicant. Why don't ! hold off on that one. Trash
enclosure. Do we require a roof on the trash enclosure?
A1-Jaff: The representative from the church and the applicant had a meeting. One of the
concerns was the location of the trash enclosure. One of the decisions that both the
applicant and the church representative came to was relocating it, as well as adding a
second trash enclosure. The first location will be immediately past Building 5. And then
the second one will be located south of Building 18. Will it have roof?. None proposed at
this time and.
Lillehaug: Do we require that?
A1-Jaff: We don't typically require it.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'll hold off on my screening question. Okay, this is my tough
question for the night. Page 3, under general site plan architecture. It says a PUD is
required to be developed to higher quality than other projects. ! guess what is this
proposal showing that would be considered a higher quality one compared to other
projects?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
A1-Jaff: I believe the materials that are used on the exterior of this building are extremely
attractive as well as durable. The simulated stone. The fact that each elevation has given
a level of detail. There aren't any loading docks. It's a quality.
Lillehaug: Boy, that's a loaded question isn't it?
A1-Jaff: In my opinion it's a quality development.
Lillehaug: That's fair.
A1-Jaff: I think they've done a wonderful job.
Lillehaug: So the buildings are very aesthetically pleasing. You know in generally, !
know sight has indicated that they would like to see a lot more plantings per code. Is
there anything other than plantings, you know other amenities? You know in other areas
! know we required benches, bicycle areas and maybe that's addressed...
A1-Jaff: That is definitely something that we can require.
Lillehaug: Is there anything, you know as part of the PUD that we're missing that we're
not really requiring? ! guess when ! see this I'm not seeing something really that a PUD
is even, you know would really bring this to a higher level.
A1-Jaff: Bike racks are required by the PUD and ! haven't added that as a condition.
really should.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Slagle: Anything else Steve?
Lillehaug: One more. Page 5. This is a quick one. ! almost missed it. In your chart
there, it says 10, right in the middle there's a big block. It says 10 foot widths and less
required by ordinance that a structure be installed. ! don't, ! guess ! don't understand
what that is. When we're talking trees. Did you follow me where ! went there?
A1-Jaff: That means a median.
Lillehaug: Okay, and are we requiring that there be medians in areas and they're not
showing any?
A1-Jaff: They meet all requirements. Matt, ! don't know, do you see a need for a median
anywhere other than?
Saam: If this is for the land, the islands? The parking lot islands, there are a couple there
that I'm scaling off that appear to be less than 10 feet. ! think what the meaning of the
ordinance is is that we found things like sod are tough to keep alive in these little 2 and 3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
foot wide strips so we say if you're going to be under 10 feet, just pave or rock the entire
thing so.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all ! had, thank you.
Slagle: Go ahead.
Keefe: One more in relation to signage. ! think somewhere in the plan when ! was
looking at it there they could potentially put signage on the fronts of the buildings and !
think the fronts are facing Highway 5. What type of signage are we talking about there?
What are we limited to? Are there limits to that?
A1-Jaff: Yes. There is a criteria for signage. And those are the wall signs.
Keefe:
talking.
They're not, ! guess the question really is, is it like lighted signing or are we
A1-Jaff: Under the ordinance you can have lit signs. There is a band that the applicant is
showing above the entrance into each building.
Keefe: Right, and ! couldn't tell what that was. Maybe ! can ask that question of what
he's intending but I'm just curious to know.
A1-Jaff: Again under the ordinance it is permitted to have back lit signage.
Keefe: Good, thanks.
Slagle: Okay, go ahead Bethany.
Tjornhom: Regarding the signs. There's going to be 25 town offices, correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Tjornhom: And so you could potentially have 25 different signs?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Tjornhom: And so they'll have to come to you to get a permit? That means you'll have
to approve every one to make sure they meet all the standards and.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Tjornhom: Okay. That was my only comment and question.
Slagle: And ! just have a couple if! may. In looking at the addendum if you will that we
received on our desks here. ! am showing sidewalks, or sidewalk if you will behind the
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
eastern most row of offices adjacent to that creek, and yet when ! look at the color
rendition ! don't see those and ! just want to make sure as we talk to the applicant about
extending, expanding the sidewalk or what I'll call trail system within this development,
that indeed they are thinking of and intending to run the sidewalks on the eastern edge to
the south, and ! guess my question, there is a question in here. Is the sidewalk, if that is
indeed going to be there, staff what do you think of running that to the southern end of
the development as it heads southwest? Part of the property to the east. Go back to the
east. There you go. Now right along there in front of all those parking spots on the
southern side and you would take that and you connect down to the trail. You have any
thoughts on that?
A1-Jaff: We did talk about that and actually Bob and I discussed it.
Slagle: Okay so we being, not you and the applicant but.
A1-Jaff: No, just Bob and myself. And what we concluded was if we moved this
acceptable parking aisle, access aisle.
Slagle: Nann, can we get closer in? My eye sight's going. There you go, okay.
A1-Jaff: If we relocated this accessible parking access aisle to the north, you would be
able to basically continue to the west and then straight down connection to the trail.
Slagle: And I'm okay with that but then let me ask you this. Those spots to the south,
the southern most spots. I'm going to guess a dozen or so. Right along there.
A1-Jaff: You're talking about these?
Slagle: Yeah. ! guess my question is, why wouldn't you want a sidewalk to the south of
there so they have to only cross and the folks on the east would only have to cross once
and that would be the cul-de-sac.
A1-Jaff: That's doable.
Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to see if that was something you guys were open to. The last
question ! have regarding the canopy and the proposed required getting back to Dan's
question. The applicant is proposing 20 trees, is that correct? And we are saying that
they would need 36.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: I'm just curious, I mean what is our plan? As I look in the conditions and I don't
think I saw a condition that they fulfill that? I might have overlooked it. I hope I did.
Lillehaug: It's in condition l(a). Site plan.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: Is that under the site plan?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: Shall increase landscape plantings.
A1-Jaff: It's condition number 1 on page 12 of your site plan, A, B and C.
Slagle: And that will then come under their final, okay.
A1-Jaff: No, it didn't go under the subdivision and just remain with the site plan.
Slagle: Okay. Alright, well ! think with that the applicant here and if you could come up
to the microphone. State your name and address, we'd like to hear from you.
Mark Undestad: My name is Mark Undestad. I'm with Eden Trace and live at 8800
Sunset Trail here in Chanhassen. Really don't have a lot to add to the staff report on
here.
Slagle: If you could actually move that mic, there you go. ! hate to do that to you but.
Mark Undestad: Alright. Well again ! didn't really have a lot to add to the staff report. !
think we've spent a lot of time up here trying to get this as kind of a nicer development
than what's been looked at there in the past but everything that we've gotten in the staff
report, again ! think we're, we think it will be a real nice development when we're done
with it. Hopefully we're putting something in there that the city and the residents around
here are going to enjoy so.
Keefe: I've got a question in relation to the signage. What are you thinking in regards to
the signage?
Mark Undestad: We don't really have, we're going to have a sign company come up
with some design on there. Part of the reason why we're kind of keeping all the design of
the building in more the earth tones and so we don't want anything too loud, too
obnoxious out there and obviously we're not going to do that with the signs either. We'll
have our sign company come up with some design, bring that to the city and then have
them look at it. We hadn't really even talked about anything lit up or anything lie that so
more just a recognition there's a sign above the entry way in each unit. And there's only
8 that face Highway 5 up there and the rest of them are just going to be identity signage.
Keefe: Pretty much consistent in terms of.
Mark Undestad: Yeah, we're going to have them all kind of the same so you don't get a
lot of different colors and this and that. ! mean people have logos for their companies
and they want to get a logo in there but as long as it's within our set areas ! think we'll
probably, we should be able to make it look nice.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: Anything Bethany?
Tjornhom: My only question, because this is the first time I've seen this, was the town
office. Explain to me how a town office is different from an office building. And maybe
that then justifies the PUD because it's more of an upscale office type situation or you
know.
Mark Undestad: Well you know, ! think when you, the question about you know what
type of development is it and is it upscale? Is it nice enough? We've been building
things around town and around other towns for many years. ! mean there's quite a range
of, and ! think when we spent a lot of time to get this so it looks nice, we feel it looks nice
in the neighborhood. The town offices are more, they've been coming around here
recently and basically what it is is the individual business owner owns their own unit.
They actually buy that unit, similar to a town home, so it's not so much that we're putting
them all up and then renting them out. Leasing. These actually business owners can own
their own little piece of real estate down there which is with interest rates and the way
things have been going, it's been real appealing. They've been going up in Eden Prairie
and Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth. A lot of little developments and it's not like
we're trying to come out here and throw 150 of these things out. It's like each city is
different and you kind of look at a nice, smaller development package like this, 25 units
you know, we feel that's probably a good number for the city of Chanhassen. We've got
a lot of interest in here. A lot of local business professionals already been picking out
their sites so to speak on here so it's getting received well in Chanhassen.
Tjornhom: Okay, thank you.
Slagle: Anything more Dan?
Keefe: ! don't think so.
Slagle: Okay, Steve. ! just have a couple. Two were raised by your last comment with
this approach. What would an average, if ! can ask, office go for. ! mean what kind of,
just as far as.
Mark Undestad: As far as the cost of the place?
Slagle: Price, correct. Yeah.
Mark Undestad: We don't, right now we have a range and until, typically we don't go
into the construction documents until we go through planning committee and work with
staff here and all the bugs worked out. Then we'll go into the construction documents
and then we're able to fine tune and hard bid these numbers out and nail them down.
Right now, based on units in Eden Prairie and Plymouth, Maple Grove, areas around
here, they'll have a range anywhere, on a per square foot cost of anywhere from $135 on
up. Some people pay, we've seen some they've put fireplaces in these things and really
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
get fancy in there so some have sold as high as $200 a foot. Really it depends on what
you do inside you know.
Slagle: Okay. The second question ! guess, with the thought that there will be multiple
owners then, in this development once it's finished.
Mark Undestad: Could be up to 25 separate owners in there, sure.
Slagle: What would, and more maybe to staff also but what would someone do, an
adjoining neighbor if there were issues? ! mean whether it be trash, noise.
Mark Undestad: Like a townhome, there will be an association that handles...
Slagle: Okay, sure.
Mark Undestad: And if somebody has issues and they can't resolve them separately then
they go to the association.
Slagle: Okay. Question on the sidewalks, and the trash enclosure. Sidewalks, are you
okay with what you've heard so far and open to that?
Mark Undestad: Sure.
Slagle: Connecting to that. Was it your intent or is it your intent to run this out to the
eastern side of that eastern most row of offices? ! assume the walkouts.
Mark Undestad: Again you're talking about...
Slagle: Yep.
Mark Undestad: We would certainly be agreeable to doing that. ! would just want to
make sure we have enough room between the parking, the property owners and things to
get a sidewalk in there and again, you don't want to have those things right next to the,
backing up to the curb on the back side like having the cars park on that or pushing
beyond the sidewalks so. ! would just want to make sure that we can get room back in
there.
Slagle: Okay, and was the trash enclosure as a condition? Okay.
A1-Jaff: Relocate it.
Slagle: Yeah.
Mark Undestad: And the picnic tables came up too. ! think there's a couple of areas in
these, around the units that people already talking about doing a little extra gardening out
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
there and putting their little picnic tables and things out there so ! think that's just going
to happen with the type of development that's out there.
Keefe: I'm just interested in how you market these. ! mean do you put a for sale sign on
each unit or is it, how does it work?
Mark Undestad: That's the question we kind of asked before we started this whole thing
way back when, and it's amazing that it's mainly word of mouth. People just kind of
heard about it and.
Keefe: So you might have a road sign that says for sale but in terms of them turning over
or whatever, each unit, each individual unit is then responsible, if they're going to resale
it.
Mark Undestad: If they're going to resale it, sure. ! mean they would put it up for sale
and their agent or themselves or whatever they want to do.
Keefe: Okay.
Slagle: Okay, ! don't have anything else. Sharmeen, are you going to say anything?
A1-Jaff: ! will add a condition requiring the applicant to relocate the trash enclosure.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
A1-Jaff: As well as bike racks.
Slagle: Okay. So whoever makes the motion remember that we have two additional.
Okay, and since this is a public hearing, thank you. I'm going to open this up for any
folks here that would like to speak on the subject so please come up to the microphone.
State your name and address and we'd like to hear from you.
Jim Pensyl: Hi, I'm Jim Pensyl. I live at 1972 Andrew Court, in the townhomes directly
south of Coulter, right across from the proposed development. First ! have a question.
My understanding is that access is from, access to this development is on Coulter.
Mark Undestad: That is correct.
Jim Pensyl: Where I'd like to suggest, have a major concern about the traffic out there
already. The traffic and noise and people's failure generally to obey the speed limit.
Leading to a lot of traffic noise and hazardous conditions to all the people that now walk
around there. And I'd like to suggest an alternative extending McGlynn Road out
westbound and make that the access point or going off Highway 5. The interesting thing
about this whole area here on Coulter is that most people there are operating on a
schedule. They're going to General Mills or the church or Chan Rec Center and that
leads to hazardous conditions because they're usually running behind and therefore the
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
gas peddle goes down a little bit further. So I'd like to offer that as an alternative. And
then I'm curious about the development itself. How it'd be converned Section 515(b)
Minnesota Statute or 317(a) or both.
Mark Undestad: What's that?
Jim Pensyl: The appropriate sections that have been converned. The office townhome
development. Is that Section 515(b) or 317(a)?
Slagle: I'm looking at staff now. Any idea?
Mark Undestad: Is that the legal side of, like the CIC plat kind of thing?
Jim Pensyl: Right, exactly.
Mark Undestad: The attorneys, they put all the CIC...
Jim Pensyl: ! might be an interested buyer, that's why ! ask that question. But anyway,
that's my concern. Or at least have a traffic study done. Look at maybe adding a couple
more 30 miles an hour signs there. Maybe some speed bumps or something, but the
traffic is horrendous out there now and ! can personally attest that there are no traffic
officers present that ! clocked Pillsbury, or General Mills employee going 75 miles an
hour there after getting off the 10:00 p.m. shift so. ! would say the average speed is about
40, okay. Thanks.
Slagle: Thank you. Any other folks want to add some comments?
Lillehaug: Could we ask staff to address access to this site across Bluff Creek and also off
of Trunk Highway 5 to address the gentleman's questions?
Saam: Sure. Access, just to clarify, will come off Coulter but Stone Creek Drive is to
the north of Coulter. That's going to be extended off of Coulter so direct access will
come from Stone Creek Drive. First ! think the resident mentioned coming from the east
from McGlynn Road. Well to do that, as Commissioner Lillehaug just mentioned, you'd
have to cross at least a branch of Bluff Creek so now we're talking about a bridge and
extension of a public street. ! really don't think that's realistic for this site. And access
off of Highway 5, the state has contacted us to, they failed to get us written comments in
time for this meeting but they have contacted us and requested that access, direct access
onto Highway 5 not be granted and so we've added that condition. ! don't think the
applicant was looking to come off of Highway 5 anyway so ! will mention Coulter
Boulevard is a collector. An MSA road in our town. It's meant to carry more traffic than
a residential street. It's wider than a residential street. ! don't doubt that the resident, !
believe he's correct and that, I'm sure people do go faster on there. Like ! said, it's
wider. It's easier to put your foot down if you go out there. That's all ! have.
Slagle: If! can add Matt. Because if you think about where that's located, the hill from
basically where General Mills is, that heads westward down to basically the ballfields. !
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
can see where cars can pick up a lot of speed. Can we just ask a favor, if the staff can
maybe look at where the signage is located and.
Saam: Sure. Sure, we can definitely look at signage spacing. ! can also look at our latest
traffic study out there to see what we have clocked for speed and that sort of thing. I'm
guessing that we haven't seen a lot of traffic out there quite frankly. There isn't a lot of
businesses out there yet. With this one coming in maybe something in the future along
the east side of Stone Creek. There's an office building going in now at Coulter and
Stone Creek. We might see a little more traffic but ! myself have not seen a lot of traffic
up Coulter as compared with some other collectors in town.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. Alright. Any other folks? Ladies and gentlemen. State your name
and address please.
Jim Sulerud: Hi, I'm Jim Sulerud. 730 Vogelsberg Trail, Chanhassen but I'm here
representing the church that's adjoining and we're pleased with the development. We're
pleased with our relationship with the developer and we expect everything to move
forward smoothly and it's an improvement from the previous proposals that had us
looking on the back side of warehouse kind of, office warehouse kinds of projects so
we're pleased. Thanks.
Slagle: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission for comments. Anybody want to start?
Lillehaug: Can ! ask a couple of questions before comments of staff?.
Slagle: You may.
Lillehaug: Good. When we get to conditions, staff talked about increasing the radiuses
for, better accommodating the fire trucks. Does this preclude the discussion requiring
sprinkling of buildings then?
Saam: No. The Fire Marshal said they were all going to be sprinkled anyways so that
took care of his issue with the area lift truck and that sort of thing but he still wants to
make sure he can get his pumper, which is the smaller truck but still a bigger sized
vehicle in there.
Lillehaug: ! see. Okay. ! start out with comments ! guess then.
Slagle: Yes, you may.
Lillehaug: Alright. Well the tougher one I'm going to start with and that'd be screening
on Trunk Highway 5. Simply because there's only a 10 foot easement there, ! don't think
that really precludes the full screening from Highway 5. ! think there's plenty of distance
in there to provide some form of berm. ! realize that the site is much lower but somehow
! think the applicant needs to address better screening from 5. ! agree, ! think the
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
intentions of the comp plan and our codes are to lessen the view of the parking lot and I
think we'll be able to really see that parking lot. So ! would propose to work with staff
and work with MnDot to actually provide a berm and better screening along 5 and !
realize that providing the additional landscaping and overstory trees will help
accommodate that, but ! think it should be taken to an extent a little further. Working on
it as if there was a 50 foot setback because there is room there. So that is one comment.
! would like to add a condition to dimension of parking stalls to a 9 foot by 18 foot.
Other than that, ! think that is it. Yep.
Slagle: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: The comment that ! would have, ! would second Steve's request from trying to
upgrade the berming or whatever we need to do along Highway 5. And then ! think you
already addressed that we do have requirements for the additional landscaping so that's
taken care of. In regards to that, in terms of the location of those. ! mean if we were to
upgrade along 5 and then how do we sort of allocate those? Is there a.
A1-Jaff: We will work very closely with the City Forester who will look at the health of
the tree at maturity and the species and the way they are clustered.
Keefe: Okay, good. That's it.
Slagle: Okay. ! don't have any comments. So, anybody want to make a motion?
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the
plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 17. And !
think 3 and 7 are possibly the same. They certainly have the same intentions. Does staff
think we can combine them or are they different?
Slagle: Steve was your, point of clarification. Your conditions, you said 17 so you're
deleting 18, 19 and 20? That we're.
Lillehaug: Let's go up to 20. Where you getting 20 from?
Slagle: Well 19 was, or excuse me. Cross parking's already. Well cross parking.
Lillehaug: Let's go 1 through 19 and then I'll add more. Can we delete or combine
them, 3 and 7? Or are they different?
A1-Jaff: 3 and 177
Lillehaug: 3 and number 7. They both deal with cross access agreements.
A1-Jaff: We can combine them.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Lillehaug: Okay. And then number 20. I'd like the applicant to work with staff to
provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and then to go over to the cul-de-
sac and then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail
system. So that is number 20. Number 22. Relocate the trash enclosure as directed by
staff and also add another one as indicated by staff. Number 22.
Slagle: I think that was 21, right? Because you went from 20 to 22.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Slagle: Okay.
A1-Jaff: May I?
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
19 was added by staff. 20 was, ! don't even remember now.
Help him out there Sharmeen.
Can we add those conditions to the site plan? Approval.
Actually good point.
I'd rather keep the subdivision and the site plan separate.
Good point.
Lillehaug: Okay. ! guess I'm done then with that motion.
Slagle: But we will combine 3 and 7, correct?
A1-Jaff: We will combine 3 and 7.
Lillehaug: So is it just 1 through 197 Is that what you guys are telling me?
A1-Jaff: 1 through 19. Well 18 now because we combined.
Lillehaug: 1 through 19 combining 3 and 7.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. Done.
Slagle: Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Slagle: Any discussion?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town
Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following
conditions:
The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is
$64,268.
2. A park fee of $94,010 shall be paid for the 13.43 acres at the time of the replat.
Submit a private cross-access and cross-parking easement against all lots at time
of final plat recording. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses
must be obtained and recorded against all lots.
Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1004,1005, 1006, 2001,
2101, 2103, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300
and 5302.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Prior to final plating, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff
review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm pond and
creek.
8. Any off site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections
through the City' s Building Department.
10.
The site has previously been assessed for utility and street improvements. The
remaining assessment due payable to the City is $103,521.12. This assessment
may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis or paid at the
time of final platting. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will also be
applicable for the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain. The hookup charges are based
on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the
parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
11.
All of the public utility improvements are required to be constructed in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the public utilities will be
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is required
to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The
applicant must be aware that public utility improvements will require a pre-
construction meeting before building permit issuance. Installation of the private
utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's
Building Department. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and the
Watershed District.
On the utility plan:
a. Show the existing and proposed utility easements.
b. Add a storm sewer schedule.
c. Revise the Sewer Note No. 1 to be, "All sanitary services shall be 6"PVC
SDR26.
d. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled."
e. Remove the existing 24 inch storm stub to the north and bulkhead the invert at
the manhole.
f. Delete the sanitary sewer connection at the southwest corner of the site and
utilize the existing sanitary stub in the cul-de-sac.
g. Revise the proposed storm sewer within the cul-de-sac from a 12 inch to a 15
inch pipe.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance.
d. Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the northeast side of the parking
lot and at the southeasterly corner of Lot 25.
The 8 inch water and sewer mains will be considered public utility lines since
they serve multiple lots. As such, minimum 30 foot wide public easements will
be required over the portion of the public utility lines that are outside of the right-
of-way.
The Stone Creek Drive cul-de-sac must be built with a 48 foot radius and B-618
concrete curb and gutter.
The private street must be built to a 9 ton design, paved to a 26 foot width, and
contained within a 40 foot private easement. The developer will be required to
submit certification reports from a soil testing company which show that the
private street was built to these standards.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
17. Lot 26 may be used for parking purposes only.
18.
The applicant shall execute a cross parking agreement with the Family of Christ
Lutheran Church which shall encompass the 60 parking spaces shown in
Attachment 7.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Slagle: Let's move onto the site plan. Do ! have a motion for the site plan?
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site
Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13,
2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 11.
Slagle: Okay.
Lillehaug: And ! would like to revise, give me a second here. Revise number 3(c) where
it says stall length and widths. I'd like that revised to stall length and width shall be 9
foot by 18 feet. And then number 12. Is this where ! can add conditions?
Slagle: Yep.
Lillehaug: The one about the walk skirting the south end of the parking lot, around the
cul-de-sac up to the existing trail. And then number 13, relocate the trash enclosure and
add the trash enclosure as directed by staff. And number 14, add bike racks to the plan.
And forgot to discuss this but number 15, if entrance to the buildings that are located on
the south, if entrances are granted on both sides of that building, that there should be walk
on the north side of the building also. Was that 157 ! think I'm done there.
A1-Jaff: One more? Work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and
berm.
Lillehaug: Oh thank you. Yep.
Saam: And the turning radiuses.
Lillehaug: And the turning radiuses would be 17. Anything else?
Slagle: Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Slagle: Okay, and there could have been amendments there. Steve, if ! may offer
something, and maybe it's tied in with staff' s idea of the screening but you mentioned the
PUD, what's unique. Obviously ! think the site from aesthetic standpoint, from a
building standpoint looks good. I'm thinking maybe one of the things we might want to
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
consider, and I throw this out as an amendment, is maybe requiring more than the
required plantings because you have, I think you have an opportunity for a site that could
be, I mean first of all it' s going to be beautiful but can we make it even more beautiful?
The path is there. The water's there. If on the east side of the creek, those what we've
seen before proposed, I mean it's sort of going to be a really natural area. So I'll throw
out a friendly amendment that we require kind of, staff help me out here. I mean what
could we require from a planting standpoint other than the minimum, because I can tell
you that 36 trees, that's a large area for just 36. I mean they're not going to make that
much of a difference. So I'm just wondering, is there any help you can give me staff?.
Keefe: Particularly along Highway 5.
Slagle: Exactly.
Lillehaug: And are you trying to stay away from, you know in lieu ofberming more trees
or?
Slagle: Actually both. I almost use the General Mills example that we had with Coulter
where we, to their credit they stood up and built a berm and added trees. ! probably
would have liked to have seen a few more trees, but nonetheless ! think they did a great
job so again, and maybe it's as simple as you guys just working with the applicant but !
want to have a sense that something's going to happen.
A1-Jaff: I would request that you allow us to work with the city forester and the
applicant...
Slagle: I know long time resident, I know.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Then I'll withdraw that attempted friendly amendment so.
Lillehaug: So I thin it's addressed in a round about way on condition l(b) of the site
plan. It says applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 or overstory trees, so ! guess adding
to that a minimum and then work with staff a little more to maximize that.
Slagle: Fair enough. Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. We have some
additional amendments. Any other comments? Well let' s take a vote.
Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the
plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions:
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
a. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in buffer yards to meet minimum
requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final
approval.
b. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 overstory trees in the parking lot to
meet minimum requirements.
c. Norway maple shall be replaced by a more suitable tree selection.
Building Official conditions:
a. Buildings (units) over 2,000 square feet in gross floor area are required to be
protected with automatic fire sprinklers.
b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c. An accessible route must be provided from the accessible parking spaces to
the entrances of all units. The maximum slope of the accessible route is 1/20.
d. Separate water, sewer and fire protection services must be provided for each
piece of property.
e. Exterior walls less than ten (la) feet from property lines must be of fire
resistive rated construction in accordance with IBC Chapter 6 and terminate in
accordance with IBC Chapter 7.
f. Separate male and female restrooms must be provided in each unit with an
occupant load greater than 15, as determined by IBC Table 1003.2.2.2.
g. Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed
until complete plans are submitted.
h. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division
as soon as possible to begin the preliminary plan review process to discuss
permit procedures.
On the site plan:
a. Revise the scale from 1"=20' to 1"=40'.
b. Show the existing and proposed trail/sidewalk adjacent to the site.
c. Show all dimensions for the improvements, i.e. drive aisle width, cul-de-sac
radius, curb return radii, stall lengths and widths shall be 9 feet by 18 feet.
No direct access to Highway 5 is allowed.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes
and time flames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
1 a: 1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than la: 1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
Remain open when the area
is not actively being
worked.)
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and
any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system,
such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent
drainage ditch, or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface
water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as needed.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), and comply with their conditions of approval.
Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
The applicant shall provide a second trash enclosure area south of Lot 5.
Fire Marshal conditions:
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer
boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely
operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
Three additional fire hydrants will be required. Install one southwest of Lot
11 in the parking island. Install one southeast of Lot 6 in the parking island.
Install one in the island between Lots 20 and 21 on the south side of the
building. If necessary, please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the
exact location. Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact
the Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted.
Extend the sidewalks and relocate accessible parking access aisle as shown in
Attachment 1.
The applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting
the parking lot and over to the cul-de-sac, then loop around the cul-de-sac to
the north to connect up with the existing trail system.
Relocate the trash enclosure and add another one as indicated by staff.
Add bike racks on the plan.
If entrances are granted on both sides of the southern buildings, there should
be a walk on the north side of the building
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
16.
The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional
screening and berming along Highway 5.
17. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Slagle: Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-59 TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A
MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, 8634 VALLEY VIEW COURT, PAUL & LAURA
GRAVES, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kent Ludford
Paul & Laura Graves
8615 Valley View Court
8634 Valley View Court
Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item.
Slagle: Thank you very much. Let's begin with questions for staff. Anybody want to
start?
Tjornhom: I have one question, and in reading this, are there 3 entrances then to this?
Bouvet: Correct. There's existing right now one entrance from the garage. One main
entrance to the home, and then what they're proposing to do is have an additional, what
we consider a main entrance so we have a combined total of 2 from the garage.
Tjornhom: So there's 2 entrances from the garage.
Bouvet: And one main entrance in the front of the home.
Tjornhom: Okay. And so why are there 2 entrances from the garage?
Bouvet: That's probably a question to be asking the applicant. I honestly don't know
what the future intention of that would be, from how it's situated to under staff's
determination it's to be used as a separate entrance up into the suite above. The stairway
actually kind of makes a barrier between the two sides of the garages. One going right
into the laundry room and the entryway directly to the left of the existing opening, right
up through the mud room and up to the mother-in-law suite.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: Yeah, I was just going to ask. Let's just say, take the approach that you are
driving in the house. What will you do?
Bouvet: Here's what here now. The two car garage. You come in this, there's an
entryway right here. The proposed, or the future intended use is coming in via this way
through the door located right to the left of the.
Slagle: Okay.
Bouvet: Where you go in through the, what ! consider you call it a mud room. You
would share.
Tjornhom: Now my question is, you know the reason for this was to care for elderly
people who had health conditions, so was this to eliminate stuff or was this to, was there
a medical reason for this or was there?
Bouvet: If you make note of the staff report, there are some medical conditions leading
to that, but as far as the limitation of steps or the.
Tjornhom: So one entrance isn't more handicap accessible than another entrance?
Bouvet: Not from what ! was able to determine, no.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Keefe: Is the first entrance from the garage where you would expect to typically find an
entrance into the house from the garage, without the mother-in-law suite.
Bouvet: Correct.
Keefe: Okay, so that's going to be a typical location.
Bouvet: Right, that's where it was before the addition.
Keefe: It wasn't clear to me exactly what the sequence of events here is and maybe you
can help clarify just a little bit. The addition was permitted for an additional 2 car garage
and a basement addition, correct?
Bouvet: Yeah. Back in October of 2003 they came in for a basement addition for
storage. To excavate underneath and to construct an additional 2 car garage to the
already existing 2 car garage. They later revised the plans, re-submitted and according to
the plans they just made a note of the future intention of an apartment up above.
Keefe: So was the original permit, did that include the space? So in other words was the
2 story design in the permit approved? ! mean was the 2 story design approved in that
original permit in October or was it?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Bouvet: No. If you actually make note, zoom in here. This is from the original permit
application just for the basement addition. There's an additional 2 car garage and they
just made notes of the future apartment. And ! believe the building department said that
they would have to seek planning approval before they can submit or get a building
permit for that.
Keefe: So on the original permit the elevation of the house, really you're looking at it
more as a 1 story rather a 2 story?
Bouvet: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. And then when the building inspector went out, or somebody went out
there. I'm assuming it was the building inspector, he found the building was, there was a
2 story.
Bouvet: He came to the determination that it wasn't following what the permit was
allowing and that they're constructing that apartment or mother-in-law suite above
without approval from the city or the planning staff.
Keefe: And it's what, 1,100 square feet, is that what I read?
Bouvet: It's roughly 40 feet by about I believe 23 feet or about 1,100 square feet.
Keefe: Okay. The 4 car garage that was approved, was, the question I'm thinking about
is if we were to allow the mother-in-law suite are we creating a situation where we would
want, where we may end up having additional cars sitting in that particular property
because we approved the, the permit was approved for the house without the mother-in-
law so we're now going to add another 1,000 square feet onto this house with 2 tenants.
Potentially 2 tenants. Are we in a situation where we're going to end up.
Bouvet: When I made the site visit, they currently have a tenant that's not paying rent.
They're just staying at the home and ! didn't see any evidence leading to the, me to
determine that there'd be more cars parked on the property.
Keefe: Okay. That's all.
Slagle: Steve.
Lillehaug: I'm still not totally clear on the entrances, and that's my big thing in
understanding and looking at this whole thing is understanding exterior entrances as well
as interior entrances, and can you just point, or look at maybe a profile or elevation and
show me the exterior entrances? And then show me, you know and count them up and
then show me on the plan view exactly where the entrances are. ! apologize, ! haven't
been able to follow here.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
B ouvet:
house.
Lillehaug: So one from the front.
there' s one.
Bouvet: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Bouvet: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Here's the exterior entrance, so what we deem to be the main entrance to the
So the side on the garage, on the left side of the garage
But this would be the main entrance to the house.
So that meets, ! mean that gives the appearance of a single dwelling.
Bouvet: In comparison to the existing properties surrounding the proposed.
Lillehaug: So exterior wise there's nothing that would give it an appearance of a dual.
Slagle: Dual resident.
Lillehaug: Yeah.
Bouvet: Correct. There's no appearance that would lead us to believe that this is a two
dwelling unit, other than interior.
Lillehaug: Okay, so it's staff's position is interior they're providing too many entrances
into the.
Bouvet: Correct.
Lillehaug: So can you point them out please again? And are these entrances all to go
upstairs?
Bouvet: The entrances are actually on the main level or the garage level.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Bouvet: The first entrance which is existing right now is from the existing 2 car garage.
The proposed extra entrance, or the second entrance from the garage is directly to the
west. So here's 1, there's 2 there.
Slagle: Let me, if ! can ask a question here Steve that might help. So let's say that
you're using the new entrance. You open the door. You walk in. You turn to your right.
You walk a few steps and then you start going up the steps. Okay. Stairs. Is there going
to be a wall separating what ! will call the old mud room and this new area?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Bouvet: When speaking with the application, that wasn't their intention to do so. But
staff felt that in the future that could be the case because it's spaced between, that could
easily have someone put a door in there to make it completely separate. That's right here
then.., between the two.
Slagle: Okay. Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Then one other question. Would, upon this not being used as a mother-in-law
suite anymore, would the city require them to modify the structure to give the full, to
bring it back to a single dwelling and not give any appearance of a dual dwelling?
Bouvet: That might be a question that Bob can probably answer, as far as the wanting to
know if after this use isn't used as a mother-in-law suite, is there a way to maintain that
they're put back to a single family home?
Generous: Well it's still a single family home from our standpoint. You're just
permitting the use for their parents. One of the conditions is it may not be used as rental
property, so that becomes the case, they need to do a rental licensing if we discover that
they're going to beyond what they're approved for.
Bouvet: I guess that's kind of what my point I'm getting at is if the applicant sells their
place. I'm not saying they are or not going to, but if they do and someone else comes in
there, how likely or unlikely is it for them to illegally rent that place out? You know
because it gives the appearance of a dual dwelling.
Generous: Well it's always possible someone can rent out portions of their houses right
now.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Generous: We rely on them to go by what their approval was for. Plus if they, if it did
become actually a rental property and there's advertising or anything, then we would
hopefully find out and our rental licensing requirements would kick in when we
discovered that it's not permissible there.
Lillehaug: ! guess my concern, these are comments ! guess. Maybe I'll just wait.
Slagle: Yeah ! was going to say. Anything else Steve? Nothing? ! just had one last
comment again talking about the time line. When they received their permit October 24,
2003, there was mention of an apartment but nothing in the way of a design or that would
have led staff to think there was going to be one.
Bouvet: It was specifically stated on the plans they submitted, future apartment. So it
was the applicant's own wording that they intended for that use, whether it's mother-in-
law suite or apartment.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: Okay. Then let me ask the next question. Then in that paragraph on page 2, you
say revised plans to the basement garage addition, including a proposed future use or
apartment above the garage were submitted to the city. That's what you're referring to as
we've just discussed, right?
Bouvet: Right.
Slagle: That wasn't after the permitting was approved.
Bouvet: It was just a revised plans for the garage. The basement addition, and that was
just made note of the future apartment.
Slagle: Okay. Last question, you note that the applicant was notified to contact the
building and planning departments about the addition above the garage. Did they do
that?
Bouvet: No. That's why it's here today. They put a stop work order on the construction.
They contacted us. They applied for a variance.
Slagle: Okay. How was the applicant notified to contact?
Bouvet: That was from a building inspector. They put a stop work order.
Slagle: So it was the stop order so.
Bouvet: Correct. And that was to contact Steve in the building department.
Slagle: Fair enough. I just wanted to get that clear. Alright, thank you. Alright, is the
applicant here and would you like to come up and state your name and address and
address the commission please.
Paul Graves: Good evening commissioners. Paul and Laura Graves, 8634 Valley View
Court in Chanhassen. Thank you. Couple of things I'll just start. There's confusion
around sort of the time line on the permit process. It really was pretty simple. In October
plans were submitted.
Slagle: If you could talk into that mic, that would be appreciated.
Paul Graves: Thank you. Plans were submitted for the 2 car garage and approved, the
permit, as was we had some architectural drawings done. After that plans revised.
Construction was very early, in early stages when our architect came to the city and
resubmitted the plans as they sit, that you have now. There was confusion, in fact one of
my kind of beefs with this thing was, the city had accepted and they stamped them as
received. I'm the one who pulled the permit and ! guess ! don't know, ! probably should
have made sure we went through and ! received official, ! don't know. The deal was that
we had turned plans back in and we were always good to go in my opinion. And then the
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
stop order came because they had, an inspector came out and Derek had a meeting about
apartments in houses that morning is what ! understood from one of the inspectors and
red flags went up and of course ! went into what are we talking about. We submitted the
plans. Everything ! think is okay and so that was sort of the chain of events there that the
original plans were submitted without the apartment early, early in construction. ! don't
know the date exactly but plans were resubmitted with the upstairs addition on the 2 car
garage and that was that chain of events. And apparently they were accepted by the city.
They were stamped, but not fully approved ! guess is what I, ! don't know, ! didn't quite
understand that but that's what brought us to this. And the first time we had talked about
a variance or ! knew anything about it was at that time. Couple of just, couple of things
that ! would like to address. There's a lot of talk about the two doors in the garage so to
speak. Would like to address that and in addition, thank you Nathan. In addition to talk,
a couple of things. There's another entry in that level. To the current house there's a
glass door between the new.
Slagle: You talking upstairs?
Paul Graves: Upstairs. There's a glass door between the current house and the new
addition that's another, I don't know somehow.
Keefe: You mean a sliding?
Paul Graves: No, it's an actual glass, two 30 inch glass door. Framed wood glass door
connecting the two and somehow they're, it's like somehow somebody thinks we're
trying to separate and there's just nothing about trying to separate these two pieces apart.
Essentially just there's nobody trying to separate. And in terms of on the garage, it's a
little difficult, and the drawings are small and a little difficult to see. The purpose of the
two entries down below is not to have a separate entry into the upstairs. It's really a
practicality. It's a big garage. It's 40 feet across and it's on one side it's 25 feet deep and
on the other side it's 30 feet deep. Part of that on the side that's 30 feet deep, part of that
is being used for a construction of additional, we have four boys in the house ranging 8 to
12 years old and may do we have stuff. We have a little mud room and wow, we get a
big mud room now that really is like it's considered part of, you know it's in the new
addition garage is where we're expanding the mud room kind of greatly. And the two
entrances isn't, there's talk about it sort of being the separate entrance and really it's a
practicality deal. We extended the mud room out to a point that there's now about 17, !
think 17 feet between the mud room and where the garage door is. If you were to count
stalls, stall 1, 2, 3 and 4 going across. At stall 3 it's about a 17 foot stall and it really
becomes a practicality. There' s the current door that we've always had, and the new door
is kind of along, it would be. It's between 3 and 4. Now here's stall 3 about where my
finger is and the stall goes up to about here where this, there we have, this post is. The
mud room then is kind of squared off like this, so this is a short stall. This is a very long
30 foot stall but this third stall, 1, 2, 3 and 4, it's just a short 17 foot stall. The other door
is an entrance door over here and really becomes a practicality. To park over here and to
lug and get past that third, it's just impractical. Not to separate the two apart or anything
of the sort. There's a door into the mud room here. A door into the, it's a very large mud
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
room over here, and it's open inbetween the two, and it's not, you know in terms of, the
concern, ! have a little bit of difficulty addressing the concern of, the purpose of this is, !
believe the city's concern or the Planning Commission's concern is as a rental unit and
there's, ! have zero desire to rent any part of my house just for, no desire for that
whatsoever. The second door is really just practicality. Trying to get past the parked car
in that third stall. One way or the other would be just really challenging and inconvenient
is the purpose of the other one. And it's serving as a separate entrance there. The whole
thing's all tied together kind of as one house so ! ask real strong consideration on the
basically the condition of eliminating one of those doors. It would just hardship that
quite frankly ! don't understand. Questions?
Slagle: That's all I have. Anything else?
Paul Graves: ...glass doors upstairs. The whole thing's kind of tied together. It's not.
Laura Graves: If we wanted to rent that out, obviously a glass door at that time.., into our
son's bedroom. Just in response to that glass door upstairs, it ties, it's a glass door and it
ties into one of my son's bedrooms. There'd be no purpose obviously to rent that out to
anybody.
Slagle: Any questions for the applicant?
Keefe: Yeah, are you doing the construction or did you design it or do you have
somebody helping you out?
Paul Graves: I'm being the general contractor and was sort of by, just really wasn't
designed that way. That's what's ended up happening.
Laura Graves: Learning process.
Keefe: So in terms of the original permit that you went in to get from the city, is that
something that you went in to get or was it.
Paul Graves: Yes, ! went in to get it, yeah. I've actually had two people drawing and it's
kind of just been a whole process along the way but ! pulled the permit.
Keefe: So the person who was helping you draw said you need to go in and get the
permit or how did that work?
Paul Graves: I was using the design, a drawing firm here in Chanhassen. Went through
the initial, wanted them, we started talking about the upstairs and went to a different
architect who then drew the upstairs. And he submitted, then when we completed kind of
where we're at on those drawings, he came back in and submitted those drawings on
behalf of us.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Keefe: Okay. So the original, let's see if! got it. So you went in for the original permit
and then you went to your architect to kind of review it and included the second level.
Paul Graves: Yes.
Keefe: And then your understanding was that he brought them into the city.
Paul Graves: Yes.
Keefe: Okay. And at that point there really wasn't an intent from the architect to pull an
additional permit for that second level or get.
Paul Graves: I think at that point, I mean it was just to essentially bring the city up to
speed as to what we kind of changed things, more than just a little. I wasn't moving the
door. I mean it was a substantial change and the purpose was to let the city know that.
The city then accepted, I don't know what happened. For some reason things from that
point didn't follow the way that they should have. I don't know. I don't understand the
internal workings but something went wrong at that point.
Laura Graves: A lot of our concern too was so that we went to the second designer so
that it wouldn't look like this huge box for the garage because it is a 4 car stall. And so
we tried to make it so that it would look more like not this huge garage but part of the
house. We liked that drawing better...
Slagle: Any other questions?
Tjornhom: Maybe this is a question to staff. Why wasn't that second submittal?
Slagle: If I may Bethany, we'll finish with them and, because I do want to ask that of
staff as well.
Tjornhom: Yeah, it's okay. I'll wait then.
Slagle: Okay, just one last question. Typically we see neighbors and so forth, ! don't
know if any are here. Have you received positive feedback from the neighbors?
Everybody okay with it? Are you hearing that some people kind of get.
Paul Graves: Nobody's throwing eggs at the house. ! have not heard a lot of positive or
negative. ! really have not.
Laura Graves: Except let's see, what are you doing? You know can we take a tour.
Slagle: Okay.
Paul Graves: I have not felt any animosity at all from the neighborhood from anybody.
Nor has anybody contacted with any concerns to me. In fact just the opposite. Positive
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
you know. People saying hey would you like me to be at the meeting? No, that's alright,
thank you kind of comments.
Slagle: Fair enough. Okay, thank you very much. And then as ! mentioned earlier, this
is a public hearing and again we'll get back to that after the public hearing. For those
who'd like to address this issue, please come up to the microphone. State your name and
address and tell us what you have to say. Hi there.
Kent Ludford: My name is Kent Ludford. ! live at 8615 Valley View Court. My front
door is aligned with his front door so what we see in the morning is his house. And !
think Paul has gone beyond the normal that puts on an addition. He has gone beyond to
make that house look like it was built all at the same time. Anybody driving down, !
don't think when he's done will be able to tell it is an addition. It doesn't look like a
separate structure. You can't tell it's, it looks like bedrooms upstairs of the garage, so !
think he's done very well. Very good job on it. ! know back to the, in talking to Paul and
he's always been very forward with me telling me what he's doing. He's even asked me
suggestions if ! thought something should be changed, and originally it was the garage.
That was the heart of the whole construction process. He had, our houses are identical
floor plans, just flipped a little bit but identical floor plans. Only he had a 2 car garage, !
have a 3 car garage. ! only have 2 kids and I've added 14 by 32 more to my garage. He
had a 2 car garage with 4 boys. And so he has an initial plans drawn for the addition of
the garage, and when you look at it from the street, it was all garage and that's about the
time he started to think of the, after he got the renderings from the architect that this just
isn't going to look right for that particular neighborhood. It will look added onto. ! think
he's done a great job of making it look good. ! think, I'm not sure on the time line but !
think that's about the same time, and he had, he really didn't know what he was going to
do with the upstairs. The way ! took it, until Laura's father had a stroke and was
disabled. Couldn't walk much and he comes up every year. They come up every year
and spend quite a few months here. They're from Honduras, and ! can see a real need for
this added square footage with their own 4 boys, it's tight and then add 2 people for 4
months in a regular house was just overwhelming ! think. And knowing Paul and Laura,
there is no way that house will ever become a rental unit. It's for her family, Paul's dad
is getting older. It may be a residence for his dad. His mother's in a home right now for
Alzheimer's so once something happens there, he might leave his condo. Be interested
in, and they're all fabulous people. We've never had a bit of trouble with Paul and Laura.
They're good solid citizens of the community and ! don't think they in any way did
anything to hide anything from the city. ! think it was, like you said, it was different
architects involved. ! was told a long time ago that his architect had submitted the second
set of plans. ! thought everything was fine just like he did. But the house is going to look
great from the outside when it's completed and you will not know it's, it wasn't built all
at the same time. If you look at his house. You look at my house. Wow, what a
difference.
Slagle: So we'll see you here in a year or so, right?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Kent Ludford: No. Maybe. My, the front bedrooms that they have now are the same as
our's, and they're too small. I'd love to pull mine out 10 feet. It would be over my
garage too. Thank you.
Slagle: You're welcome. Any other comments from folks?
hearing and bring it back to the commission for questions.
same question, I'd like to hear it answered.
Okay, I'll close the public
So Bethany, you have the
Tjornhom: I guess. Is there confusion? Was there, is there a stamped drawing from an
architect that was received from the city that would lead someone to believe that they had
approval to go ahead?
Bouvet: I could see how there was a confusion on the applicant's side with the architect.
If you look at one of the attachments for the only permit that the building department
received that we signed off on was from October 13th. It actually reads, as far as the
improvements to be done, to tear down existing garage. Excavate underneath. Add
another 2 car garage and excavate underneath for office and storage area. Will be using
spancrete, etc, etc, With the revised plans that were submitted that was to change, if I'm
correct, the office and storage area to a master suite and a theater, so that was the revised
plans. With the revised plans that were submitted, it was just noted on the plans future
apartment. That wasn't added to the permit application. That was an improvement that
was put on there. It was actually mentioned as well as far as the inspection that took
place. Number one, as far as the inspection report, revised plans submitted February 3,
2004 does not or have not been approved. Proposed use of area above garage constitutes
another dwelling unit which is in violation of city code. It actually talks about how the
applicant intends to apply for a variance to allow two dwelling unit in the home and it
says applicant can proceed at own risk or the stop work order was taken off with the, if a
variance is not approved. Items that define it as a separate dwelling unit must be
removed, so the stop work order was removed. So I don't honestly see confusion on
staff' s part of the plan submitted and the actual application.
Tjornhom: Was there a piece of paper that had a drawing with the second story that was
received and stamped by the city?
Bouvet: As a future use. It wasn't an intended use, a part of this original application. So
yes we received it but we stamped off what they originally proposed. The revised plans
that they submitted for the change from a storage area to a master suite, so we didn't sign
off on the future apartment itself. Because at that time they didn't have any details of
what was going in there.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Slagle: Anything else? Comments.
Lillehaug: I can go. Boy, I commend Mr. and Mrs. Graves. My mother-in-law's at my
house right now and I'm not too sure ifI could do that.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: They might be watching.
Lillehaug: No, I have dish. So, I commend them. I'm in full support of this. The only
concern I have is the sensitivity to the neighbors. Not now. I have full confidence that
Mr. and Mrs. Graves have full intention of not renting this unit out, but being sensitive to
the neighbors in the future, you know I want to maintain the perception and assurance
that this does appear and will be used as a single dwelling for the neighbors. If I live in
that neighborhood, you know I'd want that to be maintained a single dwelling period. I
think the city owes that to them. How do we, what do we do to assure that? I'm not too
sure. You know I guess I don't have any problems with how we got to this point because
I think we'd still have what we're looking at right now. Still requesting a variance so I
think the events that brought us to this point, it happened. So how can we put an
assurance that this, if they sell this property it won't be used as a dual dwelling. I'd like
to propose maybe putting another condition in there. Deleting condition 5. You know to
eliminate that separate doorway. I think we should allow them to have that. I don't
really see a problem with having a second doorway. Inside, interior in the garage. I
don't have a problem with doing that. And allowing that. But in the second breath, if
they were to sell that house, I don't know any other way to assure that this wouldn't be
used as a dual dwelling. I think if we could put a condition on here, and this is kind of
reaching, but eliminate that second entrance through the garage directly to the suite upon
the sale of the home, and I don't know how the heck staff or the county could enforce
that but I don't know any other methods of kind of reassuring the neighborhood that that
will continue to be maintained as a single dwelling. So I'm in full support of it. It looks
great.
Keefe: My only comment is, in the you know, they've got quite a ways along before the
city discovered that it wasn't a permitted use. Or the building and the second piece of it
was already well underway in terms of, so my concern is that if they were to go down the
road and rent it, how do we know? How do we put a stop to that in terms of you know, if
they can get this far along in terms of building it, we put conditions on in terms of
renting, how do we sort of control that and are we just putting something in place that is
unenforceable. The thought, I really don't have a problem with the building. I went and
drove by it. I think it looks like he's doing a great job. I agree with Steve's comment
that we're where we're at. How we got there is, you know we're here so. The only
question I would have, and I think the conditions are good. The question is, are we
putting conditions in place which are essentially unenforceable. I don't know how we go
about monitoring this. Did we do a good enough job of monitoring the permitting and
building process so that we were able to stop it in time before they got too far down the
road? I mean if we were to peel it back and say okay well, you can't do this. What
would we be doing? I mean we'd have to deconstruct some of the house and you know
so, that' s just my comments in relation to that.
Slagle: Okay. Bethany?
Tjornhom: No comments.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: I don't have any comments. I think that it is what it is. So is there a motion to be
made?
Lillehaug: Can I make a question to staff before we make a motion? Imagine that huh?
Slagle: Sure.
Lillehaug: Condition number 4, and this is a condition that's being recorded with the
variance and it says it will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the
dwelling is permitted as a mother-in-law suite only for use of Mrs. Laura Graves' parents.
The use cannot be continued for other persons. Is that something the city or county has
done previously and is very enforceable? Or it's something they've done previously.
A1-Jaff: It's something the city has done previously.
Slagle: I have a friendly amendment on that so.
Lillehaug: Let me make a motion then. Unless you guys want to make a motion. No?
Alright. I make a motion. You know what, I have another question before we do this. If
this passes unanimously, does it go to council?
A1-Jaff: No.
Generous: Only if it's appealed.
Lillehaug: Okay. If it passed, what about a 3-1 vote?
Generous: 75 percent is the approval.
Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion the Planning Commission approves variance 04-16 to
allow the use of a single family dwelling as two family dwelling (mother-in-law suite)
located at 8634 Valley View Court zoned RSF, with the following conditions 1 through 6
and delete number 5 and revise it to say, eliminate the second entrance through the garage
directly to the suite only upon sale of the home. Does that make sense?
Slagle: It makes sense.
Lillehaug: But you don't like it?
Slagle: Well I didn't say that. Is there a second?
Tjornhom: I'll second that.
Slagle: Okay. Friendly amendments. I have two Steve. One is, I think we should just
eliminate 5, and just eliminate it and that house would fall under, it's like your house or
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
my house and everybody else's house. And the other thing I wanted to throw out is an
amendment would be considering eliminating point 4 only because there was talk of
perhaps Mr. Graves' father. I mean I guess to think that you can tell a family who can
stay in their house, you know and how do you determine who's staying. If an uncle came
and stayed for 4 months, is there a timeframe that they have to be there and then leave? I
think that's just probably more than needs to be, but that's just an offering for a friendly
amendment. So you either accept it or reject my friendly amendments of deleting 4 and
5.
Lillehaug: I accept deleting 5 and leave the doors forever. That's fine. I guess my
concern with deleting number 4 is, like ! said before, I'm pretty sure that the Graves'
wouldn't abuse this, but who knows about other owners of that property.
Slagle: But wouldn't that, if I can add, wouldn't that just fall within the typical city
ordinances and practices that, ! mean they have to.
Tjornhom: A single family dwelling.
Slagle: Yeah, they have to stay as a single family dwelling and if the city finds out that
it's not, they take action.
Keefe: Does number 6 sort of take precedent over number 4 anyway. The suite shall not
be used for a rental unit.
Generous: Yeah, number 6 is more critical.
Keefe: Right. If you kept that in there then really number 4.
Lillehaug: Okay, ! accept that. Yep. Yep. ! guess we shouldn't go overboard with this
and try to put stuff in here that is almost impossible to enforce so ! think yeah. Yep.
Slagle: Accepted.
Lillehaug: So 1 through 6. Delete condition 4 and delete condition 5 and no other
conditions.
Slagle: And you could make 6 4 ! guess.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Slagle: Okay. Any other comments or amendments that want to be proposed?
Lillehaug: No one tell my mother-in-law.
Lillehaug moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves
variance 04-16 to allow the use of a single family dwelling as two family dwelling
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
(mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court zoned RSF, with the
following conditions:
1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and
revised as-built plans must be submitted.
2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single family dwelling including the
maintenance of one driveway.
3. Separate utility services will not be established.
4. The suite shall not be used for a rental unit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE PROPERTY
FROM PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (NET
DENSITY RANGE 4-8 UNITS/ACRE} TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (NET
DENSITY RANGE 1.2-4 UNITS/ACRE} LOCATED SOUTH OF
MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK BETWEEN HIGHWAY 41 AND LAKE
MINNEWASHTA (CHES MAR FARM AREA}, PLANNING CASE 04-17.
Public Present:
Name
Geri Eikaas
Address
2763 Ches Mar Farm Road
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Keefe: Just a quick one. When ! was looking at this 2020 plan, it looks like it's guided
for medium.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: And so if we were to go to low now, I'm confused on how that works in terms of
you, if we got it to low, then we'll just change the 2020 plan, is that what we would do?
A1-Jaff:
Keefe:
they?
A1-Jaff:
Correct.
And then currently the property, ! mean most of those are pretty large lots, aren't
That' s correct.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Keefe:
A1-Jaff:
Keefe:
A1-Jaff:
Would they typically fall today in the medium residential or medium?
Right now they are large lot residential. They are served by well and septic.
So I'm not clear what the rationale is to go to low versus to go to medium.
Well we want to stay consistent with the guide plan. Or with the uses that are
out there today, and what it was guided for. The intent in 1991 when this planned unit
development was processed was to guide this area.
Keefe: To low, right?
A1-Jaff: To low density residential.
Keefe: But was that because of a plan for, a development that was planned to go in
there?
A1-Jaff: It was part of a plan that was proposed and has been built on the site since. I
mentioned earlier, there was an 8 unit apartment that no longer is.
Keefe: It never got built or it got tore down?
A1-Jaff: I believe it got torn down. No? It's still there?
Geri Eikaas: It's a house.
A1-Jaff: It's a house. It was converted?
Keefe: Is that the one that's, okay that's for sale. Okay.
A1-Jaff: It's a single family home today.
Keefe: Okay. That's all I have.
Slagle: Steve.
Lillehaug: A few quick ones. What's driving this at this time? Is it just you guys saw
something and wanted to change it?
A1-Jaff: One of the things that happened was, we received a phone call on this parcel that
is currently guided open space. It is up for sale and I looked at it and realized that it was
guided wrong and staff decided to clean up this area.
Lillehaug: The parcel that goes out to the lake, what is that currently guided right now
because I think the north part of the northeast section I think that is guided I think PUD.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
A1-Jaff: Medium density. Guided?
Generous: It's zoned PUD.
A1-Jaff: It is zoned PUD.
Lillehaug: Zoned PUD.
A1-Jaff: The entire Ches Mar piece is zoned Planned Unit Development but it's guided
medium density.
Lillehaug: Wasn't there, isn't that long portion zoned, is it RR?
A1-Jaff: No. It is zoned.
Lillehaug: ! thought ! looked at that. Yeah, it's zoned RR right now according to this
map.
A1-Jaff: What we're looking is in the future. The entire city is guided for different types
of uses.
Lillehaug: So you're looking at just changing the guiding.
A1-Jaff: I'm looking at the guide plan only. I'm not touching the zoning.
Lillehaug: No comments.
Slagle: Bethany?
Tjornhom: Nope.
Slagle: ! don't have any. Well, since this is a public hearing, as ! mentioned, I'm going
to ask anybody that wants to address this issue to please come up to the microphone and
state your name and address and tell us what you're thinking. Anybody out there?
There' s one.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just a question. That open space, that
wasn't dedicated as part of the PUD or anything.
A1-Jaff: No. It's actually completely separate from the PUD.
Debbie Lloyd: And the PUD, did it have any special dedicated land that by changing the
zoning you would affect that parcel that was dedicated for a special purpose?
A1-Jaff: No, it's not part of.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Debbie Lloyd: You mean that striped part is not part of the PUD?
A1-Jaff: The planned unit development is this gray area.
Debbie Lloyd: It's gray underneath the stripes.
A1-Jaff: That's something that ! highlighted just to show the area. It's not part of the
planned unit development.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. That's my only question. Thank you.
Slagle: Thank you Debbie. Okay, anybody else? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll close
the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Thoughts, comments. Okay.
Alright, ! have none either so let's open it up to a motion to approve. Can ! have a
motion.
Tjornhom: I'll try to make a motion.
Slagle: Okay.
Tjornhom: Be gentle. The Planning Commission recommends approval of re-guiding all
the highlighted property shown in the attached Exhibit A from Residential Medium
Density and Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2-4 Units per
Acre).
Slagle: Okay. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Slagle: Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none I'll put it to a vote.
Tjornhom moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of re-guiding all the highlighted property shown in the attached Exhibit A
from Residential Medium Density and Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low
Density (Net Density 1.2-4 Units per Acre). All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Slagle: Public hearings are now done. And I'm going to ask, if ! may, take a 5 minutes
recess. ! need to make a phone call and as ! mentioned Kate, ! might have to leave
depending upon the nature of my phone call, so then we wouldn't have a quorum and
then we would be done, and I'm sorry about your Chapter 20 but we'll see. I'm sorry
Bob. Alright, we'll find out in just a few minutes.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CHANAGES TO CHAPTER 20,
ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT
ARTICLES I THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO
UPDATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Slagle: How would you like to do this Bob?
Generous: Well ! don't have a whole lot. ! will respond to, ! assume everyone got Kate's
e-mail and so that ! can respond to some of that and one, I'll just start on page 35 of the
draft, the proposed ordinance. Section 20-299. He was correct, ! had stricken it out in
my hand written notes that we did remove the time limit.
Slagle: Okay. And again that's Section 20-299.
Generous: Subsection 2. So that will be deleted. Page 35 of the amendment ordinance.
On page 39, Section 20-312(10). ! think that when you looked at the CUP standards
before, we were taking them out of the, from, directly from the ordinance so they weren't
alphabetized. When ! put it back in the ordinance form ! alphabetized everything so the
order switched and that was part of the confusion. Unfortunately so, otherwise ! looked
through my notes. ! think ! caught everything that we talked about as part of those CUP
standards. Additionally, under a CUP, conditional use permits, you approve them based
on them complying with standards but for a lot of the conditional uses, we didn't have
any standards and so we were trying to incorporate those in them and we did that. ! think
that was 2 or 3 different meetings that we had work sessions on and tried to go through
that. Substantively, on page 6, Section 12 of the ordinance. Section 20-73.
Commissioner Lillehaug you are correct that we initially brought this through and it was
set for the variance, for non-conforming uses and lots, it did say 75 percent and we added
just an amendment to add, depth and width and all that. However after, on the memo on
March 16, 2004 this year, we did bring that forward after we reviewed a variance for lot
area and basically we discovered from the city attorney's office that you have to permit
them a reasonable use and if they comply with all ordinance requirements, that generally
you're raising people's hopes that you will deny the lot area variance when in fact if it's a
lot of record they may have some standing to use that. And so rather we looked at, if
they comply with everything else in the ordinance, site coverage, minimum house sizes,
setbacks and all that, then they would be allowed to go forward without a variance.
However it's up to the Planning Commission. You can forward your recommendation if
you want to keep it at the 75 percent level or accept staff's we can just modify that one
section of the ordinance. Zoning, on page 6. Section 13. The zoning compliance review.
Again this is, it first came up, we called them the zoning permit and they were upset
about calling it a permitting process. Really we want to try to catch people before they
do an improvement to their property that may violate the ordinance and say no, you have
to either move it or that's too much impervious surface, or you're impacting drainage and
you may flood your neighbor out. Or you may flood your own house out, and so that's
why we were putting in that section... So that's why we have, we are proposing adding
the zoning compliance review.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Tjornhom: ! have one question about, how are people supposed to know they're
supposed to do that?
Generous: Well generally we get calls. A lot of people call before they do anything on
their property because they know that zoning is in place and there are restrictions on their
property. And a lot of times you know, it's simple enough. Bring in the plans. Show it
to us. Yes, you meet the setback. Go ahead and go for it because a lot of these
structures, let's say it's a 10 by 10 playhouse. Well they don't, or a shed. They don't
need a building permit for that and they can get them at most places, but they really, they
don't want to do something that's wrong and so they tend to check with the city. And
this would be something also that we can, as part of our newsletter we do educational
things and that would be one of the items. To let people know that if there's
improvements that they're proposing on their property that do not require a permit, that
they still should come in for a compliance review with the city.
Tjornhom: So will they get like a stamped piece of paper that says they came in and did
this?
Generous: Well we haven't work it out. It may just be a form letter that the city sends,
complies with zoning.
Tjornhom: So then if we were to put a swing set up in our back yard for my daughter per
se, we'd have to come in...
Generous: And just show us where it is because that's a setback issue. Now if you're
going to put in a Sports Court, we'd want to see are you exceeding the impervious
coverage. Because that's an issue we've ran into and we actually have people come in
after the fact and request a variance because they exceed their impervious area because of
this improvement. It didn't show up on any of their surveys but when we checked on the
building permit application for another expansion or a deck or something, it's well this
doesn't show up.
Tjornhom: Well, and this is my next question. Maybe I'm getting too carried away with
this but what happens if you know, it comes in the mail that the city newsletter comes and
it says you have to do this. Well ! don't read the city newsletter. Not, ! do but say !
didn't read the city news. I'd thrown it away, and ! put a swing set up, what's going to
happen to me? ! mean.
Generous: Well if it doesn't comply with ordinance and we find out, we'll make you
move it.
Tjornhom: Right, but then what if it does though? What it does comply?
Generous: We'll do nothing then.
Tjornhom: Okay. Okay, I'm done now.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Generous: It's for those instances where they don't comply. It's easier if we can fix it up
front than try to do retroactively.
Tjornhom: No, I understand. I understand.
Keefe: This is where they call and you'll say come in and let's take a look at it. And
then a lot of people, they're going to put a couple of stones around a garden or put a
railroad tie, they're going to do it anyway and not even think to call probably but the ones
who do.
Tjornhom: I just didn't know if those who innocently didn't do it, I would hate to see
them get fined or.
Generous: No. The only time you get fined is if you violate the ordinance.
Tjornhom: If you do something wrong, right.
Generous: We try to get compliance first. There's stages of enforcement that we go
through and fining isn't our first step. Usually it' s, we try to get voluntary compliance.
That's always the toughest part of my job and the other people on staff. You have the
code enforcement issues.
Slagle: Well you know, if! can add. ! think it's well intended. ! mean ! think the desire
and the process, ! mean it sounds like what you're trying to do Bob and the rest of staff is
avoid, catch them early. ! think the problem that ! have with it is, and maybe my
neighbors are different but ! don't think a lot of them call the city. Especially when we're
talking minimum things, whether it be a play set. ! mean ! have a play set and as ! started
to think, ! think it's you know, fits the side yard setbacks. In fact I'm pretty sure it does
but ! mean, but I'm just saying that it's interesting that ! think that most people won't do
it. So here's my point of what I'm trying to say is, ! think if we're going to go ahead with
these requirements, then ! think we need to have a publicity piece of some sort. Whether
it be in the newspaper, a mailing, something that says hey folks, if you're going to
consider doing whatever, we're here to help you. Versus just putting it in the ordinance,
or the codes and then thinking people are going to call you.
Generous: No, and that's, education is always part of what, one of the things we do on
the planning side. Another item that, to get it out to the community is on our utility bills.
There is room for messages on the bottom and maybe that's one of the mechanisms that
we can look at using.
Keefe: ! mean this could generate a lot of phone calls. ! mean people are going to
actually read it and call.
Generous: Well we get a lot of phone calls every day anyway.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Keefe: Yeah, but on this one would be, you know, because you're talking you know a
couple of stones next to each other creates a retaining wall, you know. Or a railroad tie
or something laying on the ground.
Slagle: ! think the difficulty, if! can add is, ! think trying to come up with a minimum.
think the desire is there and it's good but do you have a minimum for height? Do you
have a minimum for width? Do you have a minimum for what it changes the grading?
Keefe: And ! thought Kate said it the last meeting that there are instances where a 4 or 6
inch change could make a difference. Potentially, so that's the purpose of having it in
there.
Tjornhom: It doesn't matter what size it is, if it's in the, it's the primary zone or you
know if it' s not supposed to be where it is ! guess, so.
Slagle: ! guess in all this, personally I'm just trying to avoid putting a minimum. You
know because ! don't know how you can enforce it. ! think we just have it the way it is
and we hope and educate people to call, if nothing else for guidance.
Generous: And you know, it's iterative thing that if we find out there's problems with it,
that's when you come back and amend the ordinance.
Slagle: Steve, are you okay with that? ! mean you're the one who sent the e-mail with
Uli.
Lillehaug: ! guess point of clarification here. That we're talking specifically of a zoning
compliance review, correct?
Slagle: Correct.
Lillehaug: Let me just comment, Uli here, or Commissioner Sacchet forwarded an e-mail
and he would like to see you know a balance of this with at least a lower end limit you
know and he recommended 1.5 feet be the minimum, so ! just wanted to put that out there
as, and maybe you've all seen that. My opinion is looking at this section, ! don't see
where it says, we're not talking play equipment here. You guys want to be reviewing
where we put play equipment in our yards, swing set, that's not inclusive in the zoning
compliance review.
Generous: More like a shed.
Lillehaug: It looked, it says play houses. It's not swing sets, so that is not.
Tjornhom: Well but some swing sets though do have.
Slagle: But ! mean like a Rainbow play system.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Tjornhom:
Lillehaug:
Tjornhom:
Yeah, they do have play houses in them.
Okay.
! mean that's being, having it technical.
Slagle: That's what we have.
Lillehaug: My opinion on retaining walls is, ! don't know, 4 feet. ! don't even, ! would
like to see retaining walls just taken out of the zoning compliance review.
Slagle: Well let me ask you this, and maybe this is a dumb question but if the 4 feet or
less was within, was not in the setback areas, ! mean ! would be okay then with not
having a review.
Lillehaug: See and that's it. It's already required if it's in the setback area. They already
have to come to the city and get it reviewed, if they put something within that setback
area, correct?
Generous: Within the easement.
Slagle: Okay, easement, okay.
Lillehaug: And this is, this is just saying anywhere on the property.
Generous: Basically.
Lillehaug: So that's why ! think, ! would like to see retaining walls taken out. ! guess !
think we're going overboard here.
Slagle: So is it just the retaining walls?
Lillehaug: Just the retaining walls.
Tjornhom: I agree.
Lillehaug: That's my opinion.
Slagle: Okay. You have any thoughts Dan?
Tjornhom: Because ! guess what are we concerned about? Are we concerned about
them falling over or ! mean what?
Lillehaug: Bob can you comment on that? ! mean have you seen.
Generous: The retaining wall mostly is an issue with drainage.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Lillehaug:
this.
Generous:
Tjornhom:
Have you seen problems though ! mean where people have put these in and is
We have seen some.
But like Kate said.
It's not a lot.
Even a stone or a brick, two bricks placed in the wrong
place can create a problem with drainage, so.
Generous: And that's when they get calls and.
Tjornhom: Right, then your phone rings.
Generous: It's probably easy to fix, pull it out but.
Lillehaug: See what I'm looking at is there's a lot of retaining walls that people put in
without coming up here and if, right here you're telling them on every single retaining
wall that you put in, you have to come to the city and get a zoning compliance review.
Tjornhom: You need to hire another person.
Keefe: Well you know a lot of people, most people probably aren't going to know about
it or you know.
Lillehaug: And they wouldn't do it.
Keefe: And they're not going to do it so, but there's really no penalty associated with
that per se unless there's a fine that goes out.
Generous: ! mean that's just a violation.
Keefe: Right, yeah.
Lillehaug: See and that's what ! don't support is putting something in here where we
know, ! would probably just throwing it out there, 75 percent of the people aren't going
to come in here and get a zoning compliance review when they put a 2 foot high wall in
here, so why are we even putting it in.
Slagle: Okay, and I'm not, I'm with you but then let me ask the question, playing devil's
advocate. Assume someone puts a retaining wall in that's under 4 feet and it impacts the
drainage so that the neighbor to the south, now it's raining. All of a sudden their yard is
starting to pond up. So what happens?
Lillehaug: ! think that's addressed in the, that's already addressed in our ordinances.
You can't negatively affect the drainage onto someone else's property.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: So it is covered?
Generous: Yeah. The city would have to go out there and say remove it or...
Lillehaug: Are you going to negatively impact your own house and put the water back
into your house? ! mean.
Slagle: Depends on who builds it. I might have done that.
Lillehaug: Yeah ! know. I'm just trying to stay away from something.
Slagle: I'm with you.
Lillehaug: ! don't know.
Slagle: Alright, well let's do this. If you guys don't mind. ! think collectively the four
of us are okay with under 4 feet don't need a review.
Keefe: I'd be alright.
Tjornhom: ! agree.
Slagle: For a retaining wall. Okay, so that's our position. You guys might take a
different one but that's what we're coming up with.
Keefe: Kind of a practicality perspective. Just the number of people that call in. ! mean
! understand from your perspective, it'd be nice to review them but ! just don't know
how, unless we really communicated.
Tjornhom: The public is going to get pretty upset based on, oh I've got to go get
permission to put up this Rainbow set. And oh, I've got to go get permission to put my
little, ! just think pretty soon it' s becoming burdensome on our citizens. But ! understand
also trying to keep order and make sure that disasters don't happen. There has to be a
balance in there somewhere but ! don't know what that balance is. Bob, that's your job
to find it.
Generous: We can go forward with this, that's fine.
Slagle: Alright, where are we now Bob?
Generous: Where are we now? That was all the big ones. You know we have the PUD
ordinance amending. It's really to help us avoid the Plowshares development issue where
we need to do a land use amendment to permit clustering of development where we're
still maintaining under the 4 units an acre. Their final project came in at 2.8, but they're
giving a land use amendment so they can do that and when ! have to sell it to the Met
Council, actually we're preserving all this open space so.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Lillehaug: We're putting that one behind us right?
Generous: Yes, we're putting that one behind us.
Slagle: Okay.
Generous: CUP's. The shoreland stuff. We are, we will be submitting that to the DNR
for their review and approval. ! needed to get it past this body first before ! knew if there
was going to be any standing. A lot of it is more for clarification and information
purposes, including the OHW on lakeshore. Wetland, doing the clean-up. We're
deleting the A1 district. We don't have any property zoned Al. We don't intend to be a
farm community so we just, since we won't use it, don't intend to use it, we're going to
get rid of it. We did have that, they're proposing the new RLM district. Residential Low
Medium which is a middle zoning if you will between low density and medium density.
It would permit at the low end 4 units an acre and at the top end, 8 units an acre in
development. It is, it describes lot types and sizes and things like that so it may be useful
down in the 2005 MUSA area. We'll see if anyone uses it.
Slagle: And if! can ask, is that whole area open to that?
Generous: The stuff east of Bluff Creek. It would be one of the options. So between
Powers and Bluff Creek, that area is guided low and medium density. So that would be
one of the zonings.
Slagle: But don't we have, isn't some of the, to the west of Bluff Creek also.
Generous: On the west it's guided office industrial and medium density, so they would
be, they could use the RLM for the 8 units an acre but they'd have more likely R8 zoning
to implement or planned development. ! don't know if there's, ! don't think there's any
other lands that have both the low medium. There is, well ! shouldn't, Mike Gorra has
some property that's guided both low and medium density by Lake Ann that could be
another potential. Highway business district. We think we cleaned up a lot of the uses in
all the districts. We're combining. There's duplications. Business offices and by just
calling them offices so we're not here to make that distinction. We are using standard
industrial classification codes so if there's something that's not specifically listed in our
ordinance we can find out what's similar to that based on national standards and then
we'd be able to permit it because we don't always foresee all the uses that they come into
the community. The supplement rates. Oh, we did add. We took the sexually oriented
business separation requirements. That used to be under licensing and included it here.
Same language that was in the licensing that the attorney's office said that really that's a
setback issue and so it should be under the zoning code. Parking stall, we cleaned up
some issues, at least engineering had in that. In the sign ordinance we permitted signage
on parking lot areas if that's primary entrances to building. We won't have the Chipotle,
Buffalo Wild Wing variance coming in because they front on the street. Their entrance is
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
now is on the parking lot so we think we can resolve that. Those are the big ones that I
can remember. I think we worked through a lot of things.
Slagle: We have been through a lot of things.
Generous: I'm really looking forward to putting this behind us.
Lillehaug: Hey so are we.
Generous: We've been working with Jill on the solid waste ordinance right now so I
think that's the last one.
Slagle: Alright, any more. Bethany?
Tjornhom: No.
Slagle: Dan? Steve?
Lillehaug: Guess what I have one more, and sorry I didn't e-mail it to you but I stumbled
across it. If everyone has this in front of them, if they could turn to page 87. And I hit on
this previously, and this is Section 105 and it's adding a Section 20-908 and let me just
quickly go over it. It says the placement of any structure within easements is prohibited
except for those structures specified herein, and then staff went on. This is what we
discussed about before. It says fences, Invisible Fences, underground irrigation systems
may be allowed within the easement with an encroachment agreement. I would propose
to only have that say fences and delete Invisible Fences and delete underground irrigation
systems. So I would like it re-worded to say fences may be allowed within the easement
with an encroachment agreement. I don't think we should be listing out Invisible and
irrigation systems. I think I hit on that before. My opinion.
Slagle: Are you suggesting they're just redundant or?
Lillehaug: I am suggesting that, I don't think we need an encroachment agreement.
What is the encroachment agreement going to be, why is that a tool in this case? Staff' s
position, engineering's position would be that they want, if they come in there with a
road project, sidewalk project, whatever, if they impact the irrigation system or Invisible
Fence system, staff is saying that it's totally on the owner. City's not going to pay for it.
If they damage it, it's totally on the owner. My opinion is, it's a very low, insignificant
cost for the city on a whole and I think the city can easily take care of the repairs and 50
percent of the time the residents are going to take care of the repairs themselves anyway,
so I don't think we need to have that in there. My opinion.
Slagle: So you're suggesting that if I install an underground sprinkler system and I go
into the easement knowingly.
Lillehaug: Everyone does. Everyone does that, yep.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Slagle: Okay, knowingly, and that the city comes and is repairing the road and they
damage a few heads, you're thinking that I would expect the city to fix it.
Lillehaug: I would say there are cities out there, the cities will do. Some will have this in
there and put it on the residents. It's always troublesome. The residents will always
gripe about it. Residents will get upset about it. The other 50 percent of the cities will
just make the repairs. It's more friendly to the neighborhoods. It encourages residents to
want to maintain that property that's not their's. It's just more city resident friendly to
have the city just come in and make them simple repairs. Engineering may not think it' s
simple but it's easy.
Tjornhom: As a Planning Commission though can we actually go ahead and you know
put that in the city's budget that we're going to allow a certain amount of money for, I
don't know if we can actually do that.
Lillehaug: It's really an insignificant cost. They wouldn't even budget that. I mean the
city probably already has a budget for incidental items like that.
Generous: Contingencies.
Lillehaug: Contingencies, and this is such a low cost that this would be easily...
Generous: It's up to you. Whichever you want to forward. Engineering wouldn't agree
with it. They want it...
Slagle: I'm not asking engineering. I'm asking you. I mean seriously from a planning
staff perspective.
Generous: IfI don't have to worry about it, Invisible Fencing and irrigation, I'm pleased.
Slagle: Okay, I'm alright.
Keefe: I'm alright taking it out.
Tjornhom: You're okay with?
Slagle: Taking those out.
Tjornhom: It doesn't, yeah that's fine.
Slagle: Yep, exactly.
Tjornhom: They'll have to make a decision.
Slagle: Fair enough. Anything else Bob?
City Council will look at this again.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
Generous: I need a motion to forward this as revised.
Slagle: And revised being as is dictated on the tape and so forth.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion. So moved and then I just want to hit on three of my top
items here. On page 6, Section 13, Zoning Compliance Review. Recommending that we
not require a review for retaining walls less than 4 feet. Number 2 would be Section 20-
299, and this would be not having any restricting hours for home improvement trade.
And then number 3 would be on page 87. Section 20-908 and that is what we just
covered and that would be deleting Invisible Fences and underground irrigation systems
from requirement of an encroachment agreement in the easement area.
Slagle: Okay. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Slagle: Any other discussion?
Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code with
the following amendments:
On page 6, Section 13, Zoning Compliance Review, not require a review for
retaining walls less than 4 feet.
Section 20-299, not restricting hours for home improvement trade.
On page 87, Section 20-908, deleting Invisible Fences and underground irrigation
systems from requirement of an encroachment agreement in the easement area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April
20, 2004, amending on page 3, condition 5 to read, No direct access from any of the
proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Slagle: Any new business Bob?
Generous: Yes. For the next time we don't have any cases so we're looking at a work
session tour. Kate wanted to ask, and we'll probably follow up with an e-mail, will it be
possible for people to get here at 5:00. We want to do a tour and then maybe a picnic, so
look at developments in the community. She has some pictures that she wants you guys
51
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 2004
to take and a little journal so you know, things you like and you don't like. And then
we'll put it into a presentation so we can review that.
Slagle: And that's on the 18th.
Generous: On the 18th.
Slagle: Okay. And then also we have the upcoming Monday update with the City
Council. Time, has that been determined yet?
Generous: Probably but ! don't have that information...
Slagle: Okay, Kate will get to us. Okay. And ! think is that about it? Okay, meeting
adjourned.
Chair Slagle adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
52