Loading...
PC 2004 06 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAYS 212/101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof& Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff?. No questions from staff?. Kurt. Papke: I'll start. In the traffic study it appears that most of the issues are with the left turns. Most of the C's and D's are left turns. Could you explain and most of them are in Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 conjunction with 101. It's the north ramp to 101. You know south ramp to 101. Lyman to tOt, etc, etc. Could you just review for the record where there will be left turn arrows on the stop lights? Just so we're all cognizant of how that will be controlled. And what the, you know how will that impact the level D of service that we see here? A1-Jaff: May I turn this question over to Aravind? Sacchet: You may. A1-Jaff: It's his area of expertise... You'll get much better answers from him. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do you want to have him come up right now. Sure. Do you mind pulling the microphone towards you please. Aravind Guttemukkula: My name is Aravind Guttemukkula. I'm from Benshoof and Associates where we are a traffic engineers and planning firm. We did the traffic study for this, as Sharmeen had indicated. And the level of service D talking about the left turns at intersections on tOt, specific plans weren't developed by MnDot yet for how the phasing and timing's going to be for analysis purposes we assumed that all of left turns were offered as protected only, meaning a left turn arrow. That's the safest kind of movement, and that is probably the most restrictive type of movement compared to the protected per mass. You know both left turn arrow and a green ball. Papke: Okay, so it will be left turn on green arrow only? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Papke: What most likely... Aravind Guttemukkula: That's correct. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Yes, ! had some additional, if you don't mind stepping back up here. With respect to the study on page 7. ! was looking at the assumptions and what ! was found was.., tOO vehicles, 8 buses per hour. What ! was looking for was a relative time line. Not time of day but date. Is that based on demands for when it opens? Is that based on demands through what, through 2015 or where's that 800 motor vehicles fit, if you can put a date to it, a year to it. Aravind Guttemukkula: For forecasting analysis purposes we assumed that the development will be complete in 2010. So we analyzed, we, it's our normal practice to analyze one year after full completion. Expected full completion. So that's the numbers, the volumes, everything that you see in this report are for 201 t. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. So you're using 2010 basically demands due to population through Chanhassen and the rest of it, is that a fair statement? Aravind Guttemukkula: You mean the trip generation? The number of trips that are expected. Claybaugh: Based on our, what would be our projected population in 2010. Aravind Guttemukkula: Our distribution, our generation is, trip generation is based on the institute of transportation engineer's data that was collected at numerous other similar facilities in the country. Claybaugh: The question ! was trying to get at is 2010 obviously, that area isn't going to be developed anywhere near capacity and my question is, as that area develops and population comes to fruition, what does this study look like? Aravind Guttemukkula: Our, that runs traffic volumes without the proposed development accounts for the growth between now and 2011. That is correct. It accounts for. Claybaugh: So 2011 is it? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Claybaugh: And when, if ! can direct this to Sharmeen, in terms of city's forecast, do we expect the area that's going to impact this most heavily to be fully developed? A1-Jaff: Majority of the development will begin as soon as, and again you can't force developers to do this but. Claybaugh: No ! understand but ! mean are we talking that the area from the city's standpoint might be closer fully developed or 90 percent developed by 20177 2020 or are we talking 20147 A1-Jaff: This area is in the MUSA. Therefore 2007 is when 212/101 is proposed to be completed. Probably 2010. Claybaugh: So you feel that the area would be fairly well developed so there'd be a good correlation between the time slot for the study and what the demands would be? A1-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I was after. Sacchet: Since we have you up there, level D. Sharmeen made a comment. Can you explain level D of the traffic. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Aravind Guttemukkula: Level D. Sacchet: Yeah, D like David. Because it's awfully far into the alphabet ifF means dead stop. Aravind Guttemukkula: D, most agencies in Minnesota consider D to be acceptable. And at a signalized intersections, a D corresponds to an average of 35 to 55 seconds per vehicle. Sacchet: Is that in addition to when you could go? ! mean you have to like wait for one batch to go through the light and then you have to wait another one or how do you? Aravind Guttemukkula: Level of service D represents that all, I mean we cannot look at just level of service and answer the question. We also look at the cuing which is just doing the level of service, from our analysis.., clear than one cycle. Sacchet: Okay, so with the level D they should still be able to go through in one cycle? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: That was my question. That's a good answer. Okay. We might be able to get back to you. We're still in questions to staff and we'll have the applicant present so we may have more for you. ! don't know, does anybody else has a traffic question right now? Papke: Did your planning assumptions take into account the construction of the new secondary school, which would be what, about a mile west or so of there right off of Lyman. Is that taken into account that people dropping their kids off at school and coming to the parking lot and that kind of scenario. Aravind Guttemukkula: The ones that you, the representative 2011 no built, you know the cover development were projected based on traffic forecasts completed by MnDot for 2025 and 27 for the 312 project. We used their estimates which were based on regional growth, regional traffic land model. Papke: So it was a total basis.., no individual antidotal situations taken into account. Aravind Guttemukkula: Right. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Any more questions of staff?. Tjornhom: ! just have one question Sharmeen. Some of the residents it looks like were having concerns about noise and in the report it shows that the noise level will be exceeded during certain times of the day. What happens with that? Is that just there and ! mean what does that mean and what happens to the poor neighbors? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: It says noise levels during 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., which falls under the nighttime period are expected to exceed the Minnesota Noise Standards primarily due to traffic on the new 212. So it's not because. Tjornhom: So the freeway, not the bus station. A1-Jaff: Correct. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'd like to dovetail that question. It's kind of an ambiguous term. Is there any way that they can express that as a percentage that the park and ride would add the additional burden above the noise from 2127 Did they come at it from that direction at all, rather than. ! mean there's other transit stations. There must have been some studies available with respect to the additional noise burden that's added by a facility like this when you have Eden Prairie's as an example. A1-Jaff: Okay, if you turn to probably the last 3 pages of your report. The entire staff report. So it would be the third sheet from the end of your staff report. Basically it looks at the site with a bus facility and without a bus facility. The changes are minimal as far as, okay where. As far as the noise. Claybaugh: What would be the extenuating factor on what I'll say vertical column number 5 where there's the significantly differential in the relation to just the 212 noise. Any specific explanation for that? A1-Jaff: The times that we need to be concerned with is. Sacchet: They're locations right? Kyle Williams: I'm not David Brasloff, but I'd Kyle Williams with LSA Design but we did work with David and not only did we have his charts but these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 identify spots on the site. Number 5 was what he is referencing in his summary where he talks about the apartments. It's a misnomer the apartments. These are for sale townhomes, but he talks about the departing buses in the p.m. going by, going around the corner between the commercial and the residential. He was most concerned about those houses there. We're most concerned about the houses just easterly that exist. He was also presuming buses would stop at the corner. The preferred cycling has buses moving so all the stop/start buses are along the northerly part of the site, and further he identifies the p.m. is when that noise would take place and as David describes, the a.m. is always the most concerned because that's the wake up factor. When buses and people are most affected. So the start stopping on the a.m. is always on the north side. There are no buses that come onto the site except on the p.m. on occasion. It's only when buses are going south bound back onto 212. So that is the discrepancy, and just for your reference. The human Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 ear can perceive the difference of 3 db's. 3 decibels. Other than that it's really not perceptible. And so the difference there is what, 58 to 65. So it's a perceptible. There's a perceived increase in noise on the site. On 6 it was the most concerning for us because that was a resident right at the corner of Lyman and the entrance to the site. And that was our biggest concern. Sacchet: So 5 is actually a residential part within the development, just to be really clear. Kyle Williams: Yes. And if we had the diagram, I think I can. Yeah. 5 is right here. And so buses are coming up here and then cutting through the site, and that's why, they're going around that corner is what he was concerned about. And again he was presuming stopping and starting which we've explained and designed out of that. Sacchet: Does that answer your question Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. It led to a follow-up question and that was with respect to, assuming there's a berm there. The berm that was designed there is functioning to mitigate that noise already. ! assume there's been some. Kyle Williams: The berm actually would have some effect. Berms typically, landscape berms typically don't make any difference at all unless they're 100 foot deep and very dense. This is and will be 100 feet, very dense so it will mitigate some of the noise. But ! think David was looking really at right by the buses, not on the other side of the berm. Claybaugh: Thanks. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from staff?. Rich. Slagle: I've got a few. Sharmeen, there were 3 meetings ! think you mentioned, a chance for the neighbors and so forth to interject. Would it be a fair statement that as time went on the neighbors concerns were addressed and their fears lessened from staff's perspective? A1-Jaff: Yes. That is a fair statement. However, ! mean they still prefer to see the site remain similar to what it is today, or have single family detached units. But again, ! mean we truly made an effort, be it Southwest Metro. Be it the city. We truly made an effort to work with the residents and take their concerns into consideration and develop a planned unit development that meets or addresses these concerns. Slagle: Okay, thank you. Next question. 100 foot buffer the gentleman just mentioned that if it's 100 feet and it's dense it will mitigate noise. Obviously without conditions on a process that faces us tonight on what we decide, but when those conditions come forward if we approve this, is it your anticipation that that berm and then my second question is on the south side, to the north ofLyman, ! don't think that's 100 feet. Maybe 50 feet. Would those be, for lack of a better term, heavily, like I'd like to underline Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 heavily a couple times, treed with evergreens and so forth, or will that be what ! would consider sort of a normal berming that we see sometimes with developments? A1-Jaff: The intent is to have a, I'll show you the concept that I did not include with your. Yes, Kyle put up pink houses in Chanhassen. There is an existing row of trees that are approximately 100 feet. The intent is to extend those further out. ! believe they stop somewhere in this area. Okay. These are intended to extend, be extended. And then another buffer will be added along the southern portion of the site. Furthermore, and ! believe Southwest Metro has met with some of the neighbors and this is something again between Southwest Metro and the neighborhood where they intend to add the vegetation along. Slagle: On the south side? A1-Jaff: Correct. North of the homes. Existing homes out there. Slagle: Okay. And you'll just sort of be an observer of that? A1-Jaff: Sure. Slagle: Okay. Last question. And ! understand the premise of having a daycare there, with the idea that obviously people can drop their kids off, go to work, come back, pick them up. Was there ever a discussion centered around whether, what ! will call the air quality is healthy, normal enough to have kids, especially small kids who's lungs ! would guess are somewhat developing in an environment that is literally surrounded by automobiles. ! mean ! don't know the answer but. A1-Jaff: You see a lot of daycare facilities within areas that are close to traffic oriented type of developments. However, based upon this study that we received, ! mean it does not address daycare or children per se. But it says that the levels are acceptable. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: ! have a question or two also Sharmeen. ! want to be very clear. This type, in the staff report says that in 1990 there was an adoption of a park and ride study. Does that mean that actually, has been planned for 14 years? And now, what I'm interested to know beyond this is, obviously most of the development that has occurred around that area has happened after 1990 ! would expect, or yeah ! would expect so. When people would come in to build a house there in that proximity, would that be up to them to do some research and see what's planned? ! mean ! would expect that a builder would have to disclose there's going to be a highway planned. Would there be a similar element that is going to be a transit component there or would that be their's or how would that be handled? Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: If somebody would stop at City Hall and ask us that question, we would share the comprehensive plan with them and at that point if you look at the land use plan for instance it's going to show a mixed use type of. Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: So it's been mixed use all along? Yeah. It's always been mixed use. The question will come up, what is mixed use. What does it mean? Yeah, then you would give them more details. Correct. And ultimately the main impact is the highway, not a bus stop next to it. And have two really detailed questions. In the proposed language for the PUD standards, have two really small questions. We don't need to belabor that but it has a list of prohibited signs, and one of the private signs is a menu sign. What's a menu sign? A1-Jaff: If you will find what's the special of the day... Sacchet: So it means menu as menu of a restaurant? Okay, that's what I want to be clear about. And then on the next page, which is on that page 18 in the staff report talks about light fixtures and it gives an example. It says fixtures shall conform with Figure 36 of Chanhassen lighting unit design. Are we actually telling them what kind of a fixture they have to put in there? A1-Jaff: Sacchet: Yes we are. We're actually telling them specifically we want this fixture? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be clear about that. Alright, that's all my questions. And they agreed to it. And they like it too? Well that's, we're lucking out then. That's good. That's all my questions. Papke: One last follow on question. What's that light fixture matching, if anything. Why that light fixture? Sacchet: We looked at some options and this was the one that was selected. Alright, somebody must have liked this fixture very much. Alright. Tjornhom: It's a very nice fixture. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, thank you. We've belabored that one enough ! would think. If there are no more questions from staff I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add or give us more of an overview. Aspects you want to point out to us. This is your turn. If you want to state your name for the record. Len Simich: My name is Len Simich. I'm Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. I'm not going to belabor the plan or anything like that. If there's questions, we'd be happy to answer. Just a couple of things, comments from Southwest Metro's perspective. This has been something in the works for a long time. Not only do we see this as a benefit for the city of Chanhassen, but for the area that we serve, and we're an organization that developed out of three cities. Chanhassen being one of those and we know once this highway comes through, population is going to follow. ! mean we've seen that happen in other areas, and this is just one element that we think will be very beneficial to the communities we serve at giving folks options other than just driving alone. As we've stated over and over at the public meetings, our intent is to be a very good neighbor here. What we do, we always do first class. We're not looking at coming in, putting something up that we can't be proud of. Majority of my staff lives in the communities that we serve so we're not going to come in and do something that we wouldn't want in our back yard, so that's number one. Number two, we're going to continue to work with the neighbors. Try to work with them. Hopefully overcome any of their fears of what's coming in the site. We see it as a benefit quite frankly. It's going to provide a lot of good buffer between them and the highway that's going to be there. From a noise standpoint, ! think it's going to help versus really have any negative impacts because of those townhome design that we put in, and the location, as well as the landscaping. ! think it's going to be a benefit to everybody involved. In terms of the uses, ! just did want to mention. Daycare is one that has been used at other transit facilities and we're looking at a total transit oriented development and what that means is transit's going to be the focal point but it's really a livable community within that 10 acre plot there. We're really looking at all aspects that are going to really benefit those that live there and those that come into utilize our services, so the type of commercial use, we would gear it both for the neighborhood and the transit users. Daycare is one of those, but we're not locked into daycare. We've just completed a community survey of the three communities that we did by Decision Resources. Daycare did not rank that high. Transit, bringing more transit into this community did rank very high, but other types of services they would like to see ranked higher than daycare. So that's one. We still haven't thrown the daycare idea out. It's one that we think fits well but we'll look at some other things as we go along. With that, ! think that concludes my comments but if there's, like ! said, any specific questions we could answer. ! do have some members of our team here as well. Sacchet: Thanks Len. Questions from the applicant? Rich. Slagle: Thank you very much, by the way. Question on page 12 of the environmental assessment. Referring to the diesel engine law, which ! think was in the news a week or two ago. At least the idea that diesel engines would become cleaner, and ! note in here that it talks about it will depend, as far as particulate emissions would depend on the Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 make and the model of the year of the buses to be used. ! mean is it your hope and intent to have what I'm just going to call, ! mean your buses are great now but are they going to be modern fuel savvy, environmental savvy buses when it comes to this year? Len Simich: That is correct. I mean a lot of this is going to come down eventually in terms of law. We're actually getting out in front of it and looking at cleaner fuels and things that are either added to the bus or put on at the time of construction of the bus that will help in terms of the clean air aspect of it. These are already required in certain states like California, so it's not brand new technology but we're going out in advance of this with a lot of our newer purchases. One thing we have going for us is our fleet. We're not that old of a transit agency and we, by the time this opens, all of our older vehicles will have been retired out of the fleet, so what we're dealing with, what you see today in terms of our big coaches, and we're bringing on by the time this opens up, another 22 new vehicles. So our fleet will be very modern. Slagle: Okay. That's it for me. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Any plans for a bank in there? ! had to ask. Len Simich: You never know. Sacchet: Never know. Tjornhom: I have a question. I didn't realize that you don't just build the bus stations. You obviously then do, or you control the townhouse development. Is that what's going to be going in or something similar to that also? Len Simich: Yeah, that's a good question. One of the advantages, and we pointed out during the neighborhood meetings with Southwest Metro. From a developer to come in, as long as they meet your code and your ordinances and so forth, you kind of lose some of that control. What we did in Eden Prairie is we retained all that control through our covenants, and we have actually sold a majority of that property off to a developer. But before anything moved forward, it not only had to go through our review process and we were tied very closely with the city. Then it went onto the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. So it really, you know we could really direct the use in there. The type of use, to give you an example. We had one restaurant that wanted to come in that we didn't feel that it met the character of what we were trying to do there and so we politely asked them that no, that's not what we want. So the developer had to go find another one. So we hold a lot of those type of controls. Architecturally, Kyle Williams here, he's the designer of our station. Our parking ramp, but he also had a big hand in designing those buildings that sit over in Eden Prairie. You can travel anywhere, you know Culver's is a fast expanding restaurant across the Midwest. You won't find another one that looks like our facility over in Eden Prairie. For them to go away from their blue roof and things like that was a major undertaking, but they wanted to be there bad enough 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 so they made those changes. The Ruby Tuesdays. While it looks similar to some, it's a one of a kind. Krispy Kreme, same thing. So all of these, we've made them to conform to what we wanted at that site, and we would do the same at this one as well. Tjornhom: What kind of feel is it that you're wanting it to have? Len Simich: Well I think, we still are working that through with the city. Kyle, can you come up? Some of the things that came out of the neighbor was more of a, ! don't know if they talked more of a country living or he knows that better than ! do. Kyle Williams: Well, this is a different site. This is not Eden Prairie and every site has it's own characteristic. We're in a residential area with a big highway on the other side. So ! mean that's the evolution of the site plan is you take the transit towards the highway and bring residential towards the residential. So ! would expect the intent and what we talked a little bit about Len, a little bit with the neighborhood, is take some of the materials and character of Southwest, because it's an identify for Southwest Metro and bring it over to the site, not necessarily duplicate the imaging. But duplicate the character and the quality and make it more of a residential character scale building. We did a few sketches for the neighbors, and they seemed to be fairly well received. But the intent is just, ! think that simply, and again we haven't designed it yet but not to copy what's at Eden Prairie but really adapt it for this site and make it a character of Southwest Metro but still a Chanhassen project. Sacchet: Just to clarify Sharmeen. We would see those plans. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. They would have to go through. Slagle: Actually can we see the renditions now? Kyle Williams: ! can show you, it was just some of the character of the row houses. This would be those facing the homes. The development just to the south. Again, these depict two story homes with all parking below so you walk up half a flight to get to the first floor. It's becoming very popular. It has a mixture of two story walk up's and also single flat home and this can be accommodating this kind of scheme. Again all the parking would go below. This was a quick sketch of just one of the units. We take some of the brick and pre-cast concrete... Southwest Metro with stucco and again of course the picture was that you would go typically residential. This was a very quick sketch of an image of the station. Again some of the building characteristics of the Southwest station. The brick and pre-cast concrete. The parking deck itself would have some brick and pre- cast. A mixture of those materials. Metal roof with some curves. Again we're not duplicating the cascading curves of the Southwest station but again we'd probably take a curved roof rather than a pitched roof on the station, so that's the kind of thing we're thinking about. To take some of the character of the Southwest station without duplicating it. One other sketch looking from the north, looking back. This is the bus going eastbound on 212. The housing just east of the site and housing to the south. This is where the station would be. The buses coming and go, but again kind of a long linear 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 station. More of a train like station because that's what works well in these bus facilities because the buses stack up and people line up to get on the bus so the long linear facility works well. So those were some of the quick sketches we did just to give an idea to the neighbors of what it might be, and again Sharmeen gave me a hard time for my pink buildings but this was shown as a diagram for the neighbors to get an idea of what they might see when we develop this. This was housing here, commercial and at one time we were proposing a 3 level deck, and that evolved into a more refined sketch from the same view, again rather looking at pink boxes, they'd be looking at townhomes. And then you see just one level of the deck beyond and houses would be a medium. The diagram that Sharmeen showed before was just that. It was a diagram with blocks. We've been asked by the neighbors to look at some traffic calming devices. To de-emphasize the attractiveness of using Lyman as the main access point. Encourage people to come on tat and there's some techniques we can use. We can squiggle the roads a bit and make it a little bit more difficult for people to get into the site off Lyman to encourage them to come up tat, and so those are things that we will develop when we get into the site planning and you will see those items when we come through for approval. Sacchet: More questions from the applicant? Craig, you have questions? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: ! have two quick questions. You mentioned that you might be considering maybe even more than the child care, some other uses. Do you want to specify a little bit what you're envisioning? Len Simich: Well the ones that came through during the survey, coffee ranked number one obviously. Dry cleaning was another one that ranked very high. Those type of service related uses did rank very high. So those are the types of things we would look at, make sure that they fit within the neighborhood use. Acceptable to the neighborhood. Acceptable to the city before we actually move forward. We're not talking a lot of commercial. About 16,000 square feet. If you've been to our Eden Prairie site, it's really basically the same size as those two multiple tenant buildings that have the Bare Rock and the Noodles and Chipotle and so forth. That's what we're really talking about. That's the extent of the commercial on the site so it's not that much that we're going to be able to do a lot. A bank, it might be a good use, so those are some of those type of things. Sacchet: And then I wanted to ask you the draft PUD that staff put together. It puts a pretty good frame around things. Style, use. Even down to the type of light fixture. Everything is fine with you? Do you have any particular aspects that you'd rather not see in there or what's your take there? Len Simich: No. We're perfectly fine with everything that was in there. Our intentions all along were to work very closely with the city. We found that worked very well in Eden Prairie so there's no surprises on either hand so there's certain things that they would like to see in there and we're perfectly fine with that. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: Excellent. Slagle: ! have one more. And ! apologize for not remembering this but it was brought to my attention that one of the residents had a question on hours and potential commercial use and ! think what they were saying without saying it was, what would happen if a restaurant went in there that had liquor and would be able to be open til 11:00, 12:00, 1:007 Any thoughts on that? Len Simich: ! would guess the biggest thought would be that's not the type of use we're trying to attract into this site so. You know without tying our hands completely, that's not the direction we'd be going. It'd be very similar to like the one in a sense declined to bring into our Eden Prairie site. While we're going into this, there's a lot of different goals. Of course our number one goal is let's get the transit station in. Provide the transit. Two is, you know we will create another revenue stream with the development aspects of this. But that's not the driving factor so like in the case of Eden Prairie where we could have probably brought in a user that paid more than another user, it didn't fit and that's what we'd be looking at. What fits. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Well this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to come forward. Address this issue. Tell us what you have to add to the picture. If you want to state your name and address. Is there anybody who would like to speak up about this or have you already said everything there is to say at the neighborhood meetings? Seeing nobody, wow. That's a very quick public hearing. Ah, there's somebody. Alright. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Simmons: My name is Richard Simmons. ! live at 530 Summerfield Drive, and ! didn't finish writing up my notes but I'm asking that you delay approval of the rezoning and ! think number one. On two grounds. Number one, it's premature. Number two, because it's premature, the findings of the staff report should not be relied upon for your purposes. To put this into context over the scope of the public meeting, the size of the project is, the size or content of the project has changed over time. Originally it, prior to the meeting, prior to the meetings there was no public plan. Or there was no plan for a parking ramp. No plan per se. By the first meeting it was that the park and ride would occupy a small portion of the property on the north corner. By the second meeting it had grown and by the third meeting it had grown even larger as MnDot had moved one of the access points. The, and at the same time ! also have to admit that ! was at first really opposed to this project. As the project changed and developed over time, and became what's described in the appraisers report as the park and ride facility on the northern portion of the property, a commercial zone in the middle and a residential zone on the southern part, ! became less and less opposed and this was to me the best of the, the best of the possible alternatives, if there's going to be something there that's like this, this is probably one of the better, for me at least, one of the better things that could be there, and 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 I'd like to see things like dry cleaning and coffee shops and things that help me on my way to work. But in the final meeting what occurred to me was, in looking at the final document or the draft, rezoning draft, and listening to the presentations was the use of the words might, could, you know possibly. This is what this could possibly look like at this point. And as we stand here today, there's no guarantee that what was presented is one of the possible plans, which is, and it's throughout this document is the description of the broken off essentially into thirds. Is that's actually what's going to be built. And it was pointed out to me that Southwest Metro is a great partner in this and is a great partner in the City of Chanhassen and does a tremendous job and I'm not questioning any of those. But I've also gotten advice from my attorney, from my business attorney, in my business dealings that we have contracts and we have agreements because we're friends and we want to maintain those friendships and we want to make sure that we understand a lot of what's going on and what's going into this process and what's actually going to be built and so there are no surprises in 5 years from now when this is going to be built and the representations that are made today that it will be broken up, you know similar into those thirds. That that's actually what's going to be there because at the third meeting one of the plans that was presented was commercial property in the southwest corner. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman, which is absent from the final report. And when asked is this what's going to be built? You know the answer was, it's going to be whatever the market can bear at that time. So ideally I'd like to see some guarantees or some commitments that this is what's going to be built. That this is what we can look forward to going up, and it will be something that will compliment the surrounding existing properties rather than detract from them. Because in my opinion it's premature, looking at the reports that were prepared and support the staff report. For example the traffic report assumes the best case development of that property, and it assumes a specific mix of the, of residential, of daycare, of park and ride, and if that isn't built, what is the effect at that point? What is the effect of noise at that point? The appraisers report goes to great lengths to say, ! was asked to assume the following. Describes this great buffer zone, but if that's not built, then what does that do to the appraisers report and so my concern is that we, at some point very soon here, commit this is what we're going to do. It's going to look very much like this, or very much in keeping with this rather, while the discretion of the city of Chanhassen is at it's greatest. As opposed to here's the general framework of what's going to be built and a lot of things could fit into that. Will it be a restaurant with a liquor license on the corner or will it be a very nice looking row of townhouses? There's about $60 million dollars worth of property that's going to be affected by this and ! think to the degree that the city of Chanhassen looks skeptically at variances and looks carefully at what kind of development goes forward, that some care should be taken to say this is what's going to be and commit to going forward on that basis. Sacchet: Thank you. ! just want to clarify. ! didn't quite catch your reasoning why you think it's premature. Richard Simmons: Oh, it's premature in the sense that there are a lot of, there's a lot of representations made in terms of what is going to be built which, it's my understanding that there is nothing that commits that any of those properties be built. That there's 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 nothing that commits it could be any residential space in that entire district. That it's not all commercial. That it's not a large, that there's nothing like this in the metro area as we stand today. There's very little like this in the Midwest. Where a transit oriented development's being created in a residential area, and so because there's, that's why. Sacchet: I understand because we use the word premature in a very specific context in the planning, but understand how you use it. Richard Simmons: I mean it's just in a colloquial sense, not as a term... Sacchet: Right. Sharmeen, do you want to address just to what extent this concept that is put in front of us, I mean could it just be totally ripped apart and if there' s no residential or something. I mean doesn't the PUD specify the percentage that can be commercial and stuff like that? A1-Jaff: What I did under permitted uses was, I specified commercial and transit uses. This is on page 12. Under the first paragraph. Tail end of it. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential shall be located south of the 101, Highway 101 access, so we've specifically stated what portions of the site will handle what type of use. This was one of the site plans that was presented at the last Southwest Metro neighborhood and city meeting. This was one of the alternatives that showed a residential component along the southeast corner of the site and a commercial component to the southwest portion of the site, and then you still have the transit component to the north. And the neighborhood in general said we really don't like this. Sacchet: Yeah, and with the PUD part that you just quoted, this would not really be acceptable anymore. A1-Jaff: This would not be an option and again, I mean this was the reason why that line was added into the PUD ordinance was to address this concern that was voiced by the neighborhood. They don't want this. We made sure that it doesn't happen. Sacchet: Now in terms of, so we have a pretty clearly defined framework and in terms of what can be done, obviously will be reviewed once the specifics are carried forward, so at this point we have a general framework that takes these aspects into consideration. A1-Jaff: Yes. And then as far as design standards for instance, what is this building going to look like? We have established standards above and beyond that we also have the city's requirements as far as what do you envision in a building. ! mean we do expect relief. High quality materials on the building. That you don't have just large masses of walls with no breaks on them, so all of these things will be taken into consideration. Sacchet: And there was another main concern this resident expressed, is that he has the impression that in terms of traffic study the best case was considered. I'm not exactly sure that's accurate. Is that something that we could clarify? ! don't know whether our 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 traffic expert may want to make a statement to that, because that is significant. Thank you. Aravind Guttemukkula: ! guess just one example how we've considered the most conservative option with this concept. You know there was commercial, little bit of residential and little bit of. Sacchet: When you say conservative, can you explain what you mean? Aravind Guttemukkula: Conservative high. Sacchet: You mean high not low? So it's not the best possible case. It's actually in some ways the worst possible case then? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. I'm sorry, we looked at scenario that generates a conservatively high number of trips so that we come up with a conservatively high volumes... In one sense we know it's the worst case scenario. For example ! mean in terms of the number of spaces, we were told at that time that 800 is the maximum. On the other, we were looking at more like 600 but we want to look at the worst case and what if it's 700 or 800. Sacchet: So you would look at the highest number? You would take the higher one for your calculations, okay. Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So that answers my question. Thank you. Well this is still a public hearing. Is there anybody else who's like to come forward? This is your chance. If there is nobody. Yes, there is somebody. Got to threaten you guys with closing the public hearing to get you guys to stand up. Terry Helland: We're all excited to come up here. My name is Terry Helland. ! live at 491 Summerfield and I'm here because of two reasons. One is, ! think we've all heard the phrase perception is reality and one of the things that strikes me, ! was at 2 of the 3 meetings. ! didn't make the last meeting, but it's interesting that shortly after the first meeting that the house closest to this development went up for sale, and ! don't know if that was coincidence or not but it has since been sold. And additionally ! think there were some statements that this development could potentially increase property values. There aren't any assurances of that or any studies saying that specifically, and in addition the noise may be helped or mitigated by this type of use versus another type of mixed use. And while the land use development shows this as a mixed use, it is currently zoned as residential, and ! think from my perspective in the neighborhood, there is concerns about safety and there's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and the traffic is going to be impacted on Lyman. There's some bike paths in that area, and there's going to be added development with that, and ! think Southwest Metro has done a good job of involving the community and asking the right questions and ! do applaud them on the developmental 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 pieces but ! guess I'd like to ask this crew to think, is this really the best site for this development. As ! look at it, ! know there's a matter of convenience and that Southwest Metro owns this site and that helps it. When ! drive by and drove by tonight, ! still saw a for sale sign at the corner on the other portion of this site, and ! do wonder if the site across the way to the west of 101 wouldn't be a better site. It'd be buffered on the north by the freeway. On the east by 101. It wouldn't be directly adjacent to any of the residences to the east. There's a couple residences across Lyman to the south but ! guess when you look at rezoning a property, and this is an important aspect for Chanhassen to think about, is it a matter of convenience or is it the best site, and that's what I'd like to make sure that is considered. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good point. ! assume you were emphasizing that the house went on sale more than it was actually sold because the fact that it did sell quickly think actually. Terry Helland: That goes back to the fact that, I'm an architect and ! did look and find out, ! did a tuciary look and found out that it was zoned residential in that area. ! didn't look and understand there was a land use plan that was out there and so ! probably didn't ask all the questions. Sacchet: You were aware of the highway coming through. Terry Helland: I was aware of the highway. Sacchet: But not the transit station. Terry Helland: But not the transit station. So yeah, it's a matter of I touched the topsoil but ! didn't get down to the clay so to speak. Now the new owner, did he touch the topsoil or go down to the clay? Sacchet: That's a good question. That's out of our scope though. You know, it's a tricky thing also with, is this the best site. ! mean we can't dictate somebody what they can do and not do on their property. We can only look, does it conform with ordinances. ! mean a resident has a right of ownership which is held very highly in the United States Constitution for that matter. Terry Helland: Well ! agree with that. ! think the other aspect through the planning portion was that while the Eden Prairie facility just opened, it is bounded by mostly by mixed use and there's some high density housing that's just going up with it. The Eagan facility was referenced but ! think ! haven't personally been there but my understanding is it's kind of on the river bluff and there's residential across a highway. There's not a similar, and ! know they were challenged in finding a similar situation, let alone in the Midwest or throughout the country of this kind of a use, so ! think there are some potential challenges with this and some unknowns. And ! agree with Richard that ! think personally I'd like to see more conditions placed on this relative to how the land is used in assuring you know that the land is used for this. This intended purpose so that if it 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 was, I mean I personally, my first choice would be like the homeowners before, would be residential or at worst case maybe some mixed residential. Not high. High density. Sacchet: Are you familiar with the framework that we're actually asked to look at here? ! mean the PUD. The planned unit development framework because it's very specific in terms of what can be done. How it has to be done. It goes into a lot of details to the point of what kind of materials, and ! was kind of pulling on what type of light fixture. ! mean it goes into quite a bit of detail and Sharmeen pointed out, also in terms of what can be done where. It's not rigid. It's not meant to be rigid. It's meant to be a concept at this point. Terry Helland: I understand that but that's not to say 5 years from now you're not at this same kind of meeting and there's not a discussion about putting in a restaurant that you know could stay open until 1:00 at night, which would be a concern of the local. I mean what this does is starts to open the door, and who's to say that 5 years from now the door doesn't get to be wider. Sacchet: Okay. Terry Helland: And it's a concern. Sacchet: Thank you. Sharmeen. To count one aspect this neighbor brought up is the safety aspect. Can we say anything about safety? A1-Jaff: Traffic safety, it will be a signalized intersection. Sacchet: So we actually would have more signals than we would have otherwise, so we can take that as an assistance to safety. A1-Jaff: As far as access to the site, because this is a transit facility, MnDot agreed to allow a right-in/right-out off of 101 as well as an access for buses only, a ramp for the buses on 212. Sacchet: So they're separated. A1-Jaff: Correct. These are things that we don't believe will be available to us had we stuck to a non-transit oriented development. We believe that the only access would have been a full access off of Lyman Boulevard, and again Justin Miller. Sacchet: Oh if it would be a different development. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: The full access of that whole parcel would be from Lyman only. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Would be entirely off of Lyman Boulevard. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: So that'd actually help off load some of that then. A1-Jaff: Justin Miller, the Assistant City Manager was at the meetings with MnDot and that was part of the discussion. To provide access, the right-in/right-out off of 101. Another thing that I wanted to point out to the Planning Commission is please bear in mind that as each building component comes in for development, they have to go through a site plan approval. You will see those site plans. You still have to approve them. Sacchet: And they will be public hearings? A1-Jaff: There will be public hearings. Typical site plan approval process. Sacchet: Anybody can come. A1-Jaff: People within 500 feet will be notified. Now for the PUD purposes, we went far beyond the 500 feet. I mean we truly covered large neighborhoods. Sacchet: So if you, like the fear that was expressed that 5 years from now some of these standards could be relaxed and all of a sudden there is a liquor shop or a restaurant that' s open until 2:00 in the morning with dancing out on the patio, what have you, at that point there would be a public hearing where we would look at the PUD framework. At the city's framework and the neighborhood would be invited to come give their comments. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. Within 500 feet. I can guarantee you that neighbors within 500 feet will be. Sacchet: So I'm afraid we're not going to be dancing til 2:00 in the morning out there. Slagle: Mr. Chair, if ! can ask a couple of things. One is, Sharmeen ! think, given the sensitive nature and the uniqueness of this proposal, if it does get approved ! would at least ask for staff' s consent to continue to send notification identical to what you did here. Because ! know in the past we've sort of blanketed neighborhoods. Collectively thought of them as one area. The other question, and ! don't want to open up a hornet's nest but ! think this gentleman that was up here asked a fair question and one that has been on my mind since ! started reading about this, and Justin ! don't know if you want to touch upon it but ! mean to be proper planners, is this a case of the applicant owns the property wherein the overall scheme of things the property to the west, which is not bordered by families, so forth, would be a better fit for this? I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. A1-Jaff: That's the question that came up at several of the meetings and one of the options that was expressed to Southwest Metro was, would you consider swapping property with. Slagle: Whomever. With whomever. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: It's the property here or the parcel here. And Len Simich, the Director of Southwest Metro did look at this option. Access was an issue and then the fact that funding? Len Simich: Yes. Slagle: I mean I think it's a fair question to ask. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: It's a valid question. Do you want to address that please? Len Simich: Sure. In terms of the site, either site probably would work. Both have advantages, one over the other. The big issue there was the funding, or lack thereof to go in at today's market value to purchase that site. What we always envisioned and wanted from the get go was at the intersection of two major highways. 101 and the new 212. So this site happened to fit within MnDot. What we're doing is getting MnDot excess right- of-way. That's what the site is. ! have a payback provision to MnDot on anything we develop. In terms of the housing, I've got to pay fair market value for whatever that property is worth, so in that case it's one versus the other but for our use specific, we would have to purchase that additional properties and the funding it at today's value. I'm assuming it's over $100,000 an acre today versus when they bought it probably at $2.00 a square foot so it's a little bit different. That's the only major disadvantage. In terms of use, both have some advantages. Slagle: So technically MnDot is the owner of the property at this point? Len Simich: Correct. MnDot still owns the property. Will convey it over to us after we go through all the, and we're, ! get you we're better than halfway through the process with MnDot. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you, that helps. Did you have something Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah ! did. ! might be reading too much into it but with respect to the neighbors comments on safety. ! don't think it was necessarily restricted to vehicular. ! think there's a pedestrian component to it with the adjacent neighborhood there and introducing some commercial convenience stores and such. And if you could just discuss what points perhaps were tackled by the city staff and Southwest Metro. A1-Jaff: Are we looking at potentially theft? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: No. I'm not looking at potentially theft. I'm looking at kids potentially coming from the adjacent neighborhoods, sure exactly. And just how are they going to address that particular issue because once it comes to fruition, that will be a concern. Sacchet: Are we to that level of concern already or to what extent has that been looked at? Do you want to. Claybaugh: Just in very general terms. You don't need to get into anything specific. Len Simich: I touched on it briefly in my presentation. Part of the whole idea of a transit oriented development is to have a very walkable site and we're going to maintain the trail that's along 101. That will be part of the whole concept, but also the interior park portion of the site. We're doing a number of things to make it from a connectivity standpoint very open and usable for the pedestrian, and Kyle touched upon it in terms of our traffic calming. You know much to the chagrin of our traffic engineers, instead of having just a straight shot through, we're trying to make it as unattractive as possible off of Lyman. Slow up, slow that traffic up. Looking at ways, whether we have it meander through the site, or we've even thrown out the idea of a traffic circle so we haven't gotten down to the complete details but what we're going to do is A, it's going to be very walkable. And B, we're going to slow those speeds down and calm them as much as we can. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes Sharmeen. A1-Jaff: There's another thing that we attempted to do through the design elements within the PUD. For instance the larger signage that lists all the users is going to be located off of 101 as a right-in/right-out only. The access off of Lyman Boulevard is going to be a 24 square foot low profile basically pointing at the residential element of the development, so we've also attempted to put less focus on the full access off of Lyman and encourage traffic to access off of 101. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Well the public hearing is still open. Do I have to threaten to close it for somebody else more to come up, or are we done? Do we have anybody else who wants to address this item? This is your chance. If! see nobody, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for comments, discussion. You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I'm personally prepared to support the application. Number one, I believe it's a very necessary component for the community. Number two, it's consistent with the comp plan, and number three, to, at least on some level in general terms, address the residents that spoke concern. It is a measured process so the traffic studies that apply to this particular layout, when they come in for site plan approval, go through the preliminary process. Again, they're going to have to update those studies and they're going to have to make them relative to the design that they're putting in front of us at the time so. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Kurt. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Papke: I'm very supportive of this proposal. I had the opportunity to attend one of the early public reviews and I've been very impressed with how well Southwest Metro has responded to the concerns. ! think you've come miles from where you first started out. The first proposal had the buses coming all the way down to Lyman and it just didn't look real good, but ! think you've made tremendous progress. You've listened to the community and ! think you've done a great job of designing this. ! think we've, I'd really like to commend Southwest Metro for this so I'm very supportive of this proposal. ! think it's, this is the best spot for it. The improvements that were made were to a great extent the utilization of the bus slip and that would not be possible, as far as I'm aware, at any other site, and ! think that's, you know it's a great design. So I'm very supportive of this. Sacchet: Rich, no comment? Tjornhom: No. Sacchet: No comment. ! don't really have much to add. I'm terribly biased about this project. Having grown up in Europe where you have so much public transportation that you may choose not to have a car because you have so many options of getting around with public transportation that you literally don't need your own transportation. ! find that increasing the offering of public transportation in this environment here is so sorely needed and ! really want to commend the applicant for, as it was expressed, ! think the applicant made tremendous efforts to accommodate all the concerns that were brought up by the city, by the neighbors. ! understand that there is some apprehensions on the neighbors side, and ! want to encourage you to come back as this process goes forward and as we get the specific site plans and building plans and all and give your input because we do listen to you. It's a team effort and ! think having an applicant that shows this much willingness to work together is really fantastic. ! want to thank you for all that. That's my comment to this so with that I'm willing to take a motion please. Claybaugh: ! make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of 212 and 101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from residential single family to planned unit development, mixed use incorporating the following design standards. Sacchet: As given in the staff report? Claybaugh: As given in the staff report, yes. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development- Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses · The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. · Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) · Office · Day care · Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint · Convenience store without gas pumps · Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) · Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). · Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 · Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses · Drive-thru Windows · Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Lyman Boulevard Highway 101 Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps Easterly Project Property Line Internal Project property lines Hard Surface Coverage Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well Building and Parking Setback 50 feet 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access 50 feet 100 Feet 0 Feet 50% 70 % 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less 1 stow 25 or 3 stories, whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 f. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 go ho 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. i.I. Project Identification Si~n: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. io2o Monument Si~n: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. io3o Wall Signs: 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. io4o Festive Fla~s/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. io5o Buildin~ Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. i.6 Directional Signs On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 io7o io8o jo signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. Prohibited Signs: · Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. · Pylon signs are prohibited. · Back lit awnings are prohibited. · Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area · Menu Signs are prohibited. Si~n Design and oermit requirements: The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. Lighting 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). * Aufit/Ue Street L-~ I~-. Modd CP 12/I~A~K 12 Ft Ht 10 Inch lk~ lq~,ure 3~ - Clumbsss~ Ligh_a~. Uigt D~iga 41 All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. Non Residential Parking Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much for all your comments. Good luck with your project. With that we come to our second item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads Address 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions. Claybaugh: The overhangs, what are they? Seeing as how the variance goes to the overhangs. Sacchet: It sounds quite a bit. ! mean 2 feet is a pretty big overhang. Greg Hastings: ! think it's just matching existing. Sacchet: It is currently that much? Greg Hastings: It's right down from the windows so it's just a different design. Claybaugh: But the side yard setback with respect to the variance is measured from the property line to the overhangs? Sharmeen? A1-Jaff: Pardon me, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Claybaugh: For our purposes, the side yard setback is measured from the property line to the eaves, correct? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: It's from the property line to the eaves, that's correct. Claybaugh: Okay. So the size of the eaves is an important component. So that being said, that 4 foot 5 to 7 feet on that, where it runs askew to the property line is actually what, 2 foot 5 or, yeah. 2 foot 6. A1-Jaff: That would be correct, yeah. Claybaugh: So 2.6 to 5 feet it'd be. Okay. Let's see here. With respect to, you said the engineering staff was out on site looking at possible alternatives with the applicant. Where an addition could be placed, or just out by themselves ! take it. No? Yes? A1-Jaff: I believe Chairman Sacchet contacted staff and it was, this was, this information was given to me by Nate and Kate so ! apologize. One of the commissioners contacted staff. Sacchet: Yeah, it was about the slope I wanted to. A1-Jaff: About the slope and whether you can add onto the rear of the house towards the lake given there is a slope in the back. Our engineering department did look at that slope on the site and they concluded that yes, you can add. Claybaugh: And judging by the applicant's nodding his head that it can be built, it just isn't cost effective. Okay. Greg Hastings: No, I don't think any of that has anything to do with the addition's size. Sacchet: We'll have you up in a minute. And you can tell us that part. Actually ! was curious about that too so we know kind of in general terms it could be done but not in specific terms. Is that what I'm hearing pretty much? A1-Jaff: That was what. Sacchet: Then you can tell us the specific terms, I think that is fair. A1-Jaff: That was what was stated by our engineering firm. Sacchet: Alright. Any other questions from staff. No? Rich no? I have a couple questions. First of all we have this list of variances that were approved in that neighborhood and I just want to clarify, I'm confused which one is actually from this property. In the text on page 3 it says 91-16 is the same property line but ifI go by the address it's actually 98-6 is the property line here. I mean is the property we're dealing with so it seems like 91-16 is a different. I mean I see, and I would think the resident would know. He's adding his head yes. So that answers that question. Thank you. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Now, we've had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 example variances, out of which 6 lA were approved, correct? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Most of these variances ! would consider quite a bit more intensive than what we were asked to do here, right? Is that a fair statement to make? A1-Jaff: Not necessarily. Sacchet: Okay. Can you explain a little bit? A1-Jaff: I'm going to rely on memory here. Sacchet: That's fine. A1-Jaff: For instance 92-2, the 7 percent hard surface coverage variance. The original hard surface coverage variance was actually higher than that. Sacchet: So they're decreased. ! remember some of those, yeah. A1-Jaff: Yeah, so they actually did... Sacchet: Usually we try to have a balance like if we have to give one area, we try to get in another. It has to be a balancing act, okay. A1-Jaff: 96-9 did something similar. Overall the city avoids granting variances for hard surface coverage along the lake. Typically what happens is either.., hard surface or... Sacchet: Reduce, okay. Now, what I'm trying to get at is the staff report also on page 3 states, a portion of the expansion that will require the variance is trivial. Trivial specifically meaning how much? A1-Jaff: ...that encroaches, well we figured 2 feet encroachment. Sacchet: Alright, that's what ! want to know. that encroachment, okay. A1-Jaff: Without the eaves. Sacchet: And that's probably. A1-Jaff: With the eaves you're going with a 4 foot. Sacchet: It's going to be 4, yeah. That's going to be an interesting one for the applicant to give us a little insight why they want to go all the way out to the line because basically So we're basically talking about 2 feet of 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 intensification is at the same line of the building would be carried forward. By what is it, 10 feet? Or even less. A1-Jaff: The overall encroachment into the required setback that it used to be let's say 100 square feet of the building encroached and now all of a sudden we're adding another. Sacchet: Okay. The staff report also talks about the roof line. That's probably more an applicant question to address that, okay. The alternatives, yeah. Yeah, ! think that's probably enough questions for you Sharmeen. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to tell us your view of this. Do you want to state your name and addresses for the record. If you want to have something to hand out, that's perfectly acceptable. Greg Hastings: My name's Greg Hastings: One half of the team. Kelly Hastings: I'm Kelly Hastings, 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard. Ironically enough we are one mile away from the park and ride so ! saw Sharmeen for 3 neighborhood meetings during that time and just as a side note ! mean they, although ! know that a lot of residents weren't necessarily excited about it, they really did address our questions and concerns and it ended up being a positive experience so ! appreciate getting to know her on that level. What we have is a situation where we're long time residents of Chanhassen. Have a first and third grader. We like where we live. Don't plan to move so we're happy in our home. The one thing though, because our house was built in 1950 and ! actually brought a picture and ! don't know if we can take a look at that. The house was built in such a way that when you come in the front door, you're immediately in the kitchen, so you know our kids come home from school with backpacks and coats and boots and there's no place to hang anything. ! mean that's our pantry there and a desk. There's no where to put anything so ! use the term hardship only because it's consistent with what we have to identify, but ! guess ! would determine it to be a hardship for our family from that standpoint. And so what we really were hoping to do is that because the kitchen and entry that doesn't exist is set up this way, and because the placement of our home on the property and we'll look at the survey again ! guess to take a look at that. That we really are pretty limited to where we can put an office. The reason we need to relocate the office is because what we're hoping to do is by moving the view ! just showed you, that's the front door that you walk into and then you're right in that kitchen area. What we want to do is that front door, if it just slides over. See where those windows are, that's an office, and my husband actually works at home so we do need to have a home office for him. We just want to slide their front door over, but what that does then is eliminates his opportunity to work out of our home, and he needs to have a spot to work. So when we brought an architect over, she actually helped us then with the design and some ideas and we talked about what we were trying to accomplish. What she drew then would require us to ask for what we're requesting and that's the 7 foot side yard setback. And as ! mentioned, let's see in that survey, because we are already so close here, you know extending it of course. This seems like the logical spot to place that office. And there were a number of things to consider ! guess. First of all the fact that we really want the office to be on the main level. Greg gets the kids on and off the bus. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 You know if they're outside playing, whatever it might be. From a safety standpoint we really want to have that home office on the main level, and so we're hoping from a lifestyle standpoint to have that you know be available to us. And when we talked to our architect about it, when she drew the plans, her concern was that if the, see the back of our home has kind of, yeah. It already has this kind of peak in the back so that consistent peak would be carried through with the office. But if it gets too close to the existing part of the house, she was concerned about there being a build up of ice and water type damage situation, so by sliding that over there's actually a hallway that helps with the roof line and then that office, as you mentioned, would be then consistent with the edge of the garage. So it kind of just extends straight back. The other thing that the hallway does that's really important is that that becomes then our access off the main level into the back yard, so that's how we would leave our upper level to get onto the deck or the kids to go in the back yard to play, whatever it might be. And the final thing that it does is, it acts as a place for our service door to come in from the garage out to the back yard. So those were all, ! guess all the reasons why she recommended that location and it seemed logical to us to put it in that spot. We do have a couple shots here too of what that area looks like, so that's the service door ! was talking about. And then right here, that's the garage. So then the hallway would come right here and the office would be right next to it. And again it would extend, and then the roof line would come up this way, and there'd be enough room here in the hallway to help with that potential drainage problem. Greg Hastings: Excuse me. One of the things that you had mentioned, ! think you had said something you would have the applicant address, was the reason for bringing it to the end of the garage instead of putting that office right. Sacchet: A little bit in. Greg Hastings: Right, and you can see from the roof line, the reason the architect had designed it that way is because of, if we were to put a gable end on to kind of match the look of the home with the office, the gable end would come against the house on the side and create the ice problems, the issues and she said the only way to correct it was to, it would have been extending the roof of the garage up another 4 feet to be able to match up those roof lines and just had explained it, a tremendous amount of...hand framing and just labor and expense was another big issue that she had pointed out. And so there gives us another reason for us to try and think this might be the best option for us. Sacchet: Okay. Papke: Can I ask for a point of clarification, as long as you have that picture up there? I'm confused. Before we were talking about a 2 foot eave. Now are we looking at the east corner of the house here? It appears as if there is no overhang on the northeast side. Is that the place where we will have the setback? Greg Hastings: You'll have the setback from this corner extending back to this direction. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: So the gabled end is facing the property line? Greg Hastings: ... explain the ordinance, and you guys know it much more than ! do I'm sure is that once the building does not meet the 10 foot setback, then you have to include the eaves in that so that's the request for the variance so no matter what it is, it's still going to be a little bit closer. We don't care what that overhang is. That's just, we'll do that, whatever we have to do. We don't have to have it be a 2 foot overhang. It's matching this portion of the house where that is going to match up with. This section, the house has a 2 foot overhang. The garage only has 12 or 16 inches ! think it is. Something like that. ! don't remember the exact number. Sacchet: So it could be less than 2 feet basically. Greg Hastings: Yeah, it can be less than 2 feet and yeah, so that is an option. But it wasn't going to make a difference he said in this request because the building already has come within the 10 feet. So he said to him, in the conversation ! had with him before and afterwards were that you know we still had to do something with a variance and let's try it the way it is and see what happens. Slagle: Two quick questions, again as long as we have this photo here. Is it your intent that the deck would go behind the office? Greg Hastings: No, the deck's not going to change. It's just going to get cut off and then fill back in to where it currently is. It's not going to get extended to the end of the building. It actually may be torn down because it's getting to the point where we're, we don't use it anymore because we have a screened in porch on the other side. It's used only for drawing and we don't need any more deck space. Slagle: That brown building too ! guess would be the northeast? Greg Hastings: Well that's actually orange, which is one of the people ! did speak with about this. Slagle: And how is that? Greg Hastings: It's Kurt Pryor. You've probably all heard his name just because he's one of the people in the neighborhood that gets a phone call you know we call every year because of the way he keeps his property. Grass grows up this tall. We have to make some phone calls before it gets taken care of and he's perfectly fine with it. His attitude was that, you know anybody that's trying to improve their property, he's fine with it. He said you know do what you want. We said great, thank you. and. Slagle: I just have a follow-up deal on that. To staff. It looks like his building is pretty close to the property line as well. Do we have, it's not? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Greg Hastings: His is probably 15 feet from the property line. He's got a big asphalt piece that goes back to his, which we've learned is probably some of that is on our property. We have, you know because he's only about 2 feet from the corner of our house with that black top or asphalt that he has there. But he's quite a ways from the property line itself with the building itself. I don't know about the eaves and all that but from what I understand it doesn't have the. Sacchet: So his house is much closer to the lake than your's. I mean that's his house corner that we see on this. Kelly Hastings: That's the garage. Greg Hastings: It's quite a ways. I think in the report it states that we're 20 percent or less coverage of the property. But the back side of our house you don't see here is also, you know we can see the garage piece but then the house is a walkout in the back so there isn't any other spot to put a main level, and that was the part that we wanted to address. You know a conversation about there is a slight grade change going down. The whole part of the deck it changes with maybe a foot. This tight to the ground that the deck is, to the far end of the deck which is just beyond the corner of the picture there, is about this far. But then half of that is sloped down significantly to the lake and we have made some changes and some things there since we've been neighbors. Retaining walls... Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you wanted to add to your's? Kelly Hastings: Yeah, and then we just kind of elaborated ! guess just after having read the plans, just that we did also notice that statement that the expansion that would require the variance is trivial. And we know that there are numerous variances. As a matter of fact we were granted a variance. We were one of those identified there and that variance was for, actually a front setback. So in the same sense that because of the position of our property, we added a third bedroom, ! don't know, 6 years ago. After our daughter was born we didn't have a bedroom for her upstairs, so because our home was already so close to the front yard when we added on we were granted a variance here. So ! guess in the same sense you know our garage is here, so we want to extend and hoping to get a variance for this. And then we also did notice you know like you said, there were a number of other variances that were granted and that our addition doesn't have an issue with the lake setback or the exceed the surface coverage limits. So all of those conditions were not certainly an issue. But ! guess overall we were just that this is really about improving our home for our family. You know when our kids come home from school and having places to hang back packs and coats and we just feel like this is an important change for us to make and you know, it having an impact on the neighborhood, it really doesn't seem to do anything to negatively impact the neighborhood or our property. And it does angle back, so then we will be actually further away from the garage wall where it currently is so it does angle back this way. And you know we did notice the conditions that Sharmeen mentioned. If we're granted the variance is granted, there were certain conditions that, the amount of time we had to complete the building and we certainly 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 would be in a position to be able to comply with all of those recommendations so I guess all that being said, we were hoping to be granted the variance. Slagle: Quick question if! may. When you requested a variance, did you say in 96? Sacchet: It says '98. Slagle: Did you at that point also expand your master bedroom and the porch? Did that go to the southwest. Greg Hastings: Yep. Slagle: Okay, so it wasn't just the bedroom, it was. Greg Hastings: It was that whole end of the house actually. It went out 17 feet by 30 some feet because we only had, we had a master bedroom that was about 10 by 12 and that turned into you know. Kelly Hastings: We had 2 kids so then we ended up moving our bedroom to the back and then the kids got each have a bedroom in the front. Boy and a girl. Slagle: Sharmeen, do you know if! can ask staff, was there a side yard setback variance for that as well? Greg Hastings: No, the building's... Sacchet: It only says front yard setback in the table. A1-Jaff: It's only front. Sacchet: 7 foot. Slagle: So when you expanded that you weren't close to the neighbors to the south? Kelly Hastings: No. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: ! guess ! have one I'll just throw out. As long as you're coming back in with the addition, the home office portion, devoid of the hallway and adding the gable roof and tying that back into the garage structure, is there anything restricting you from setback standpoint from turning that perpendicular? 90 degrees to the way it's running now. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Greg Hastings: The big aspect would be cutting out views of the lake. Quite honestly we would cut off, we would then have a tunnel coming out of our kitchen to just see you know.., cut off the angle to the north side of our kitchen so that would change our view and any future owner. Because it's 14 feet ! believe and currently that is 7 lA or 8 feet. It's 6 feet further and you can see by the one picture that we had here, currently, well you can't see that other section of the house there but there is an addition that comes off the back of that house. Well you can see on the plans ! guess. On the. Claybaugh: ! guess the other place ! keep looking at that garage and unless the picture's terribly deceiving, with your new office addition put on per plan, how much separation do you think would be between your side wall on your office and the closest wall on his garage? Kelly Hastings: There's at least. Greg Hastings: He's at least 15, I would say, well I shouldn't say at least. I'm willing to bet that he's 15 feet from the property line. Kelly Hastings: Well ! know he's had a car sitting next to the garage and you could easily fit another car so that's probably at least 2 car widths. Yeah, it's probably, it must look deceiving because it' s. Greg Hastings: What you don't see in that picture is that the front of his house is tan and the sides are orange and the back above the deck are tan. That is just a side note to. Kelly Hastings: And there's like our shrubs are there and then he has a, on the other side of this is a driveway. That's a driveway in the side. Claybaugh: Okay, it's just terrible deceiving. Kelly Hastings: Yeah, it is though. It's quite a ways. ! mean like ! said, he had a car parked here. And there's a lot of things there still so you could easily fit maybe... Slagle: So the office would hide the view of the car. Kelly Hastings: Well the car's gone. Yeah, so. Greg Hastings: Well it would definitely improve on our view of the side of his house, there's no question about that. Because our shrubs haven't been able to get tall enough yet to hide any of that so. Slagle: Well you'll put a window on the side won't you? Greg Hastings: That's where the closet's going to be. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: ! have a question too, actually more than one. So the use of the hallway is basically a traffic place? Like to get out onto the back and into the garage and the roof line but it could possibly be shifted in a little bit. ! mean is there a reason why it has to be quite as long? Greg Hastings: Well because it's got a patio door. A sliding door. Sacchet: You need some space for that. Greg Hastings: And as was mentioned, things to sit on when we come in next to the service door coming in from the garage... Kelly Hastings: Kind of like a mud room type thing only... Sacchet: Right, right. When they come in through the garage. They would come in there, alright. Alternatives. Alternatives, as staff was gracious to point out there are alternatives. Greg Hastings: Well in the conversation I had with Bob about that was that, when he said that their task is to, you know if there is an alternate way it could be done to meet the setback variances, then they recommend it not being granted. And ! said, well what about all the items that we've talked about over the time and he said, those are things you'll definitely have to tell people. Tell the group about because of, he said it makes sense to him and it is logical to what we have addressed to him as the concerns and why we want to do this. The kitchen space and not taking up the office space and putting the hall back there, and the roof line issues and the ice and water issues and stuff, and he just asked to go through those things. To make sure that you guys were aware of those issues and at this point we'd like to see it be done the way it is because we really think it's a great plan for us, so that's why we haven't come to you with an option plan. Sacchet: So in other words you really don't see any viable alternative, or at least not one that would accommodate your needs to the same extent. Is that what you're saying? Greg Hastings: That's what I'm saying. It addresses what we feel we need, or what we would like to see the way the house, the back of the house looks. Sacchet: So the one area where he's able to mitigate all of this much overhang, but other than that you'd pretty much like to see it the way. Greg Hastings: We'd really like to see it this way because ! think it just looks great and it gives me an office big enough.., samples and one thing and ! have to try and store those somewhere so my office space is kind of a deck and then a lot of storage. Samples and things that ! sell. And so yeah, and... Kelly Hastings: Or to get out of the garage. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Greg Hastings: Or the garage. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If somebody wants to address this. Add any additional aspects. Name yourself and state where you're from for the record please and we'll listen to what you have to say. Good evening Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. ! just am curious a couple points they brought up was the fact that the neighbor's asphalt might indeed be across their property line. So ! wonder if there's a survey that shows exactly you know where that asphalt comes because that could play in, not having the green space to absorb the water. ! mean ! have a 12 foot side yard setback in my yard and with this rain now, it is saturated. And if that water has nowhere to go except onto the asphalt and start running down, if it's a slope. You mentioned a slope. Sacchet: Especially by a lake. Debbie Lloyd: I'd be concerned that if you go for approval on this variance, that there be a condition about the drainage and how that is going to be handled. Sacchet: Good point. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Question from staff. We were talking a little bit a delicate line with something like that because it starts affecting the neighboring property. A1-Jaff: This is something that the engineering department will take a very close look at at the time of building permit. Sacchet: So engineering would look at drainage aspects when a building permit comes in. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: And then in this case, if there would be no impervious surface that overlaps over their property and impacts the drainage, that would be a time when it could be taken care of?. A1-Jaff: Typically what they do is they require the natural drainage way to, and drainage patterns to be maintained. So you can't re-direct the water onto the neighboring property. Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this? This is still an open public hearing. Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussions. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: Let's see, with respect to the grades ! didn't see any problems with altering the grades.., pure footings and not a continuous strip footings, so ! don't believe that that will cause them any problems for maintaining the same grades. ! guess ! have some issues with taking it the length of the garage. ! look at it from the perspective that if the existing garage was where it should be, or we'll say not necessarily where it should be but let's say that was set back 10 feet. And we were looking at approving that new office without that existing condition, would you approve it? ! wouldn't. And that's kind of the platform that ! look at it from. Slagle: You would? Claybaugh: I would not. Slagle: Okay. ! believe that the concern that the addition for the new office perpendicular. Granted you're going to give up some sight lines, and ! understand that. But there has been previous variances to the home. It's any time when we look at a variance it's a function of the occupant's needs versus the site's capabilities and part of the site's capabilities are those setbacks. And looking at that you do have an alternative in that location. Keeping the same gabled roof line. Granted coming off that hallway you'd have to go to a single atrium door. Remove the double door there to allow the closet to go up against the back of the garage but you can spin that and take it out and get it right up to the 10 foot setback. And ! don't know, ! believe that would actually allow you a wider office than the 8 feet. If you turned it on end so ! believe that's an alternative that's right there, and it's a trade off. It's a trade off on the sight lines for the lake. On how far you want to project with that. ! think that can be mitigated and off set by widening up that addition towards the property line, right up to that 10 foot setback so. ! guess bottom line is I'm personally not prepared to support it. Papke: ! agree with the previous commissioner and also my mind was made up when ! looked at this particular drawing here and it's quite clear that the eave projects out and actually increases the incursion into the setback if you look at this drawing. Either this drawing is incorrect. There will be on the addition from the dormer. It looks like the eave of the dormer projects out beyond the current existing setback, and that's an additional incursion into the setback and ! cannot support that. Sacchet: Comments Rich. Slagle: You know I've been thinking about that situation and ! think the fair question to ask would be, and maybe now is not the time but it might be, given the vote. But I'm wondering if the applicant would go ahead with those eaves going into the side yard setback even further or to agree to maintain what appeared to be at least in the pictures no eaves from the side going to the gentleman that we referred to, his yard. If that was the case, and we did not increase to the side the non-conformity, ! could support the request. If it does penetrate further, then ! couldn't. So ! don't know if we want to ask that or if we just vote on it as it is. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: We can discuss it first. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany. Tjornhom: ! guess ! kind of agree with Rich. ! don't know if I'm real hard core against it. ! think that if they were able to lessen the encroachment with the eaves, ! think that maybe that would be a more meeting halfway and everyone being happy with the whole situation. Sacchet: ! don't have too much extra to add. ! mean in principle ! support this variance with the exception of intensifying the encroachment. ! think that's what we're hearing here. ! mean different versions of how everybody expresses this. ! mean as our responsibility to the city is that we keep this balanced. In this particular case there is not really a hardship by definition of a hardship. However that's not the only criteria we have to look at. The one balancing aspect to that aspect is there a hardship is, is it a reasonable request? And ! would argue that yes, this is a reasonable request. Within the framework however and that's our responsibility as planning commission that we'd like to see a lessening of the non-conformity. Certainly not an increase. Now with the envelope, the building and the property line kind of all apart, by maintaining it, the straight line we could argue that you're not really increasing the non-conformity. You're not particularly explicitly lessening it but you're certainly not explicitly increasing it. It's longer but it's a little further back so you could say well that's somewhat of a wash. But if you have an overhang, that kind of shoots that in the back. So ! don't know how far we can go with this that you don't have to come back for a variance. ! mean one thing is we could say no variance and you try to have this 2 feet and make instead of the more rectangle thing, maybe more square type of office and then kind of balance it that way. ! would think you'd still have plenty of room from the other roof parts so you don't get into an icing issue. The hallway might be a little shorter or depending how you shape the office, it may not necessarily even have to be shorten all that much. But I'm struggling with this trying to determine whether we want to insist on there being no encroachment whatsoever, or whether we're willing to give them some encroachment into that setback that does not further encroach. Basically that cannot go beyond, ! would be prepared to give them a variance that if doesn't go beyond, including the eaves, beyond the line of the garage. Slagle: Well point of clarification. And ! don't know who can answer this but if we went back to the picture that was shown earlier, it did not appear that there was an overhang on the side. Papke: The garage does not but if you look at the dormer that they're building, that does. Slagle: Okay. So ! guess the question, ! guess the question, getting back to your point is, is the applicant willing to maintain the same situation with no eaves to the side. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: Or it could be an eave with the office being set in. ! mean if he wants a 2 foot eave, then the wall from the office would be 2 feet in. Papke: But if you're going to move that wall in, why not move it into the point where it does not... Claybaugh: Yeah, see if you moved it in the 2 feet, they're only projecting out 8 feet, okay. If they bring it in 2 feet you lost 16 square feet. If you take it out 2 feet after you do that, you've got 2 feet, 12 feet, you gain 24 square feet by just projecting out 2 feet. That's why I'm saying there's a very viable alternative by just shifting that space. Greg Hastings: In order, I need a variance it sounds like we needed to have the wall, it needs to be moved in 4 lA or 5 feet is the way...within the building structure would not be within the 10 foot variance setback need. So in order for us to do that we'd just...the office would have to shrink and the hall would have to shrink. We'd have to compromise on both things in order to accomplish what we're trying to do. To gain the space that we need. Papke: But wouldn't the closet move 3 feet. If your currently 7 feet away from the property line, you could move the wall in 3 feet. I'd be willing to compromise and saying okay if you've got a 2 foot easement, let your easement, or eave. You could let your eaves stick 2 feet. Greg Hastings: Well I'll cut the eaves down to a foot if that helps or down to nothing if we have to .... ! mean ! don't know if you can do that architecturally to have the water... Claybaugh: You're not going to like your final product. That's what I'm saying, if you step in 2 feet you'd still remain your or retain your architectural balance. Okay. Your eaves can die in with your existing garage line and your gabled end. You're taking it in 2 feet to accomplish that. Now what you have is 12 feet. So if you want to re-capture the additional square footage, take it out from 8 to 10 feet and you gain square footage. That way you're not intensifying the non-conformity. Greg Hastings: ... one of the things that we were looking at is you know I mean. Papke: We're not able to design it here but if we could give an indication that as long as the wall does not encroach into the setback. You can work with your eaves and work with staff to make that happen. Sacchet: Question from staff. Did you want to say something first? A1-Jaff: ! would like to explain something that the way the ordinance, our city ordinance reads. As far as an eave. Minimum setbacks. Minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. If that is the case then your, the eave on the house may encroach a distance of 2 lA feet into that required setback maintaining a 7 lA foot setback. If a variance is granted, that's no longer an option. So your eave has to maintain whatever, let's assume that you said 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 okay, you have to, or we're going to allow you to maintain a 5 foot setback. The eave has to maintain that 5 foot setback as well. So ! Just wanted to make that point of clarification. Claybaugh: If it's a function where it doesn't intensify the non-conformity, and like ! said, in the final analysis when you look at the product without the eave, on a balanced gabled end like that, ! don't think you'd be satisfied after they've seen it illustrated. But within the context that you don't intensify the non-conformity, whether you choose to take the wall back and go with zero eaves, that ! can support. Any further intensification ! won't support. Sacchet: Now Sharmeen, ! think we have some sort of a consensus. Possible consensus ! should say here that if the applicant does not go beyond the current line of the garage on the side, eave, wall, whatever, then it would not be a 7 foot side back variance would it be? Or how, about what would be the number? ! mean if we would want to put that into something that then the applicant can take and all they do what they want. 3 foot eave, that's fine. It will go back 3 feet if they want a 1 foot eave. Then you have 1 foot to that corner of the garage. How would we define that? A1-Jaff: That maintain the same setback and the foundation of the garage. Sacchet: Of the garage including the overhang eave. ! mean the new, potential overhang eave. A1-Jaff: The new structure, including the eave, shall maintain the same setback as the current garage foundation line. Sacchet: Would that accommodate everybody? Tjornhom: I think so. Papke: I think there's a slight eave on the garage. A slight intrusion. Not much but. Sacchet: Just a little bit. Yeah, just a little to drop off. That makes sense. Papke: We don't want to see the roof line go out any farther than what it currently is. That's the bottom line. Sacchet: I believe we could support that, right? And then we don't express it in feet, we just explain it in the language like Sharmeen suggested. Okay. Alright, ! guess we have our discussion. Would somebody like to try. Greg Hastings: Excuse me, does that require another variance? Do we have to bring it back to you? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: No, that's what I'm trying to do right now so you don't have to come back. Somebody want to try to make this into a motion? Claybaugh: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends. Sacchet: No we approve in this case. Claybaugh: Approve. Oh, the Planning Commission moves approval of variance #2004- 19 to allow. Sacchet: A side yard, or side setback variance. Claybaugh: Yeah, a side yard setback not to exceed the existing foundation line running parallel to the applicable property line. I'm not sure what, there is no north arrow on this drawing. I'm not sure what property line we're talking about. A1-Jaff: That's the north. Sacchet: It's north. Greg Hastings: The property line and the house aren't parallel so I think they're... Sacchet: Specify that's the garage. Claybaugh: Against the garage. What direction? The north wall. North foundation wall of the garage. North wall, foundation of the Sacchet: North wall. garage. Claybaugh: Correct. Sacchet: A1-Jaff: I'll accept that Uli. Does that include the overhang? Do we need to say something about that? Including the eave. Claybaugh: No portion of the addition shall protrude beyond the foundation, northerly foundation line, be it building wall, eave, any combination of the above. Not to protrude beyond that line. Sacchet: And do we have those conditions here? Claybaugh: Yeah, what do we have for conditions? And conditions identified 1, 2, and 3. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Papke: Second. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #2004-19 to allow the new structure, including the eave, to maintain the same setback as the current garage foundation line on the southeast side of the property, with the following conditions: A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 47