Loading...
PC 2004 08 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 2004 Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bethany Tjornhom, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A1-Jaff; Senior Planner, Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A BOARDWALK/DOCK ACROSS AN AG/URBAN WETLAND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 6745 LAKEWAY DRIVE~ MATTHEW AND SUZANNE WOODS~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-24. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Questions of staff. Keefe: Yeah, ! have a question. Slagle: Go ahead Dan. Keefe: Just in regards to the dock portion, is the dock going to be straight out as well, like it's depicted on, or is it going to T at the end or, is there any mention of that? Haak: No. The information that staff has at this time is that it's going to be a straight dock, so you may want to address the applicant with that question for more detail. Keefe: Great. That's the only question ! have. Papke: How long is the dock? We had a very similar case to this, ! don't recall exactly how long ago it was. Maybe 9 months or so ago, and ! don't recall the details of the debate but ! remember there being quite a bit of discussion around how to define the maximum/minimum length of the dock. Could you please briefly review what the city code calls for and exactly how long this dock is and how it meets those requirements. Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Haak: Certainly. In many cases it's difficult to determine the exact length of the dock until you start to install it. Simply because you don't know what the depth of the water at that point is until you've worked your way out to it. So with this application, as with all other docks that we consider or other people with whom ! discussed docks at the staff level, the length of the dock really varies, so the criteria are this. The first is that the dock cannot exceed 50 feet in length, unless it takes more than 50 feet to get into 4 feet of water, and that's the city's criteria. Now the other component of the city code that comes into play at that point is that the dock cannot be an obstruction on the lake or to other property owners access to their property so let's say Mr. Woods in this case is the middle property of 3 properties in that subdivision. There is one person to his west that also has a dock. If Mr., if the man, the property owner excuse me, to the west were to call the city and complain about the length of the Woods' dock, we would ask the Woods' to remove sections of their dock so as to not obstruct navigation. Papke: So how do we check compliance of that? Is the dock inspected after it's constructed? Haak: Typically it's not. Unless there is some sort of a complaint. Typically we don't, unless we receive complaints about it, navigation or something of that nature. Papke: Okay. Keefe: ! just have one follow-up question. In regards to the setback. The setback is from the dock itself to the edge of the property line, or the extended property line out to the lake. Haak: That's right. Keefe: It's not, it wouldn't be, so you could still have a boat on, within the 10 foot area, is that correct? Haak: That's right. Keefe: Okay. So it is just the structure itself. Haak: That's correct. Keefe: Right, okay. Good enough, thanks. Tjornhom: Does the DNR require a type of material to be used for the dock? I mean is there like a set it has to be wood or could it be? Haak: No. No, they don't really, the DNR has given those types of considerations over to the municipalities and we don't have anything that determines that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Slagle: ! don't have any questions. Is the applicant here? And if they'd like to, come up and state your name and address and share with us your application. Matt Woods: Thank you members of the commission. My name is Matt Woods, along with my wife Suzanne I'm the applicant for this application. My wife and ! moved into the neighborhood about 2 years ago. Built a house in White Tail Cove and thankfully we're able to get onto Lake Lucy. A very beautiful property. Beautiful area and for a number of years now we've been eyeing being able to access the lake. We've talked to both our neighbors on both sides. We are using the same dock installation company that both the neighbors had used. It's a company by the name of Fine Line. Commissioner, to address your concern and your question, the materials being used are a combination of metal, for the permanent aspect of the structure and then on, a polymer type for the decking and that is comparable with what the neighbors on both sides have used. With respect to the length, it is estimated about 150 total. Not just the dock portion but the formal boardwalk portion, given all the setbacks from a tangible or solid point of land to the one out to reach that depth of water. ! tried myself to walk out there several times and it's really, it's really marsh over the area that we're considering the boardwalk. personally believe we're going to be well within the guidelines that have been laid out here. But if! can answer any specific questions the commission may have. Keefe: ! just have a question. Actually it's a question ! should ask staff. The dock itself, is it going to be just straight out or are you going to T it or what are you thinking? Matt Woods: Right now all we're applying for is the straight line. The company that's offered it as a proposed to us a 6 foot crossing of the T so to speak. So at the end of there commissioner, there would be like a 6 foot on so 3 foot on both sides. Candidly, until you had raised the issue ! didn't know that that was an issue. It's not critical to us but it had been proposed by the company. For us it's not important one way or another. Keefe: ! guess I'd go back to staff in regards to the setback, would it, if they T'd at the end, would the 3 feet technically then be within the setback? Haak: Yes. Then it would need to be setback 13 feet from the side. Or the main portion of the dock rather. Matt Woods: And with respect to that, the angle, what the company is telling us, because of the lay of the land, I'm sorry ! don't know how the overhead camera. Oh there they are. That in fact the dock might actually angle a little bit away from the neighboring property in order to take advantage of the most, there's certain sections there that are more solid than others. In order to get, to minimize the impact and to create the shortest distance to open water. They were proposing taking with that line area, adjusting it slightly so it's coming out that way. Also keeping in mind the 10 foot setback. Slagle: Okay, any questions? I've got one. And Lori, if you wouldn't mind putting up that geographical overhead. And it's maybe a staff and an applicant question but if you use your neighbor to the west as a measuring point and his or her dock, where would Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 your's be in relationship to that as far as length goes? Do you anticipate it being any further out? Matt Woods: Our's, the total length commissioner will be shorter because our property is, it's a diamond shape. It juts out. The property itself juts further out as you enter it. See approximately here whereas our neighbor property had to start his deck from here and his juts out approximately from there to the open water area right about here. The total length will be shorter. We anticipate that we would stop at the same approximate point along a latitudinal line so to speak. Slagle: Okay, where, if I can ask, is the property to the east as far as their dock goes? If someone can just show me roughly. Matt Woods: The best, there is actually a white line commissioner, maybe you'll be able to see it. ! believe that that is in fact. Haak: That was the pre-existing dock. Prior to the subdivision. Slagle: Okay. About there? Matt Woods: About there. Slagle: Okay. So it, in essence it's not on their western border with this applicant's spot? Haak: No. It's further toward the eastern end of the property. Slagle: Okay. Okay. No other questions? Dan, you have? Keefe: Just one quick follow-up. The e-mail that we received, is that, is it Jack Randall. Is that correct? Is he to the east or to the. Matt Woods: The Randall's are up the hill. Up approximately, and ! can't tell the exact plots here but they're approximately up in this area. They also have a dock ! believe it's this white one here. Slagle: Okay. Wow. You're crossing, ! mean safe to say you're crossing a lot of wetland before you reach open water. Is that a correct statement? Matt Woods: I would have to say commissioner a lot is somewhat of a. Slagle: How about greater than 100 feet? Matt Woods: There clearly is a substantial amount of cattails and material there. In terms of actual amount, ! honestly couldn't say because ! haven't done the express measurements but ! mean clearly there's a lot as you can see from the photo itself. There is a fair amount. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Keefe: And that lake has, was started out kind of low this year. It's come up some. Matt Woods: Yeah. Over the 2 years that we've been there commissioner, it's been all over and it's actually probably, from what we've seen in our short time there, probably average at this point but it did start out low, yeah. Keefe: So in some years you get a lot of wetland and other years not so much. Yeah. Matt Woods: This is at the bottom of a big bowl so there's a lot of... Slagle: Okay, thank you very much. Matt Woods: Thank you. Slagle: Lori ! have one last question. There's been no discussion on, and again correct me if I'm wrong but there's been no discussion of a community dock or any. Haak: No. Something of that nature would have needed to be done with the subdivision. Slagle: Okay. Okay, well. We'll bring it up for the commission. Any discussion that folks want to share? Keefe: It looks to be pretty consistent with the other docks that are in that area and it sounds like Fine Line's put, installing all the same dock company. I'm alright with it. Slagle: Bethany. Tjornhom: Yeah, ! have no problem with it if the city has no problem with it. Slagle: Okay. Well then I'll entertain a motion. Papke: ! make a motion that we recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04- 24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the conditions 1 through 3 as listed in the staff report. Slagle: Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04-24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for watercraft. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement. 3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2.61 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TM STREET, CHARLES R. STINSON, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-26. Public Present: Name Address Charles Thiss Charles R. Stinson Ralph Burrell Kay Touchette 5090 Greenwood Circle 4733 Eastwood Road 7555 Frontier Trail 7541 Frontier Trail Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Start down here. Any questions for staffKurt? Papke: Yeah. When ! look at the topographical drawing, ! know one of the original issues was setback from the bluff line, and according to our definition of where the bluff begins and ends laterally on the topographical map, how precisely are those boundaries determined? ! mean if ! look at the topographical drawing, ! don't know that ! could pick out very well where the bluff begins and ends, so could you comment on how precisely that beginning and ending of the bluff is determined? If at all. Saam: The definition of the bluff per our city ordinance I believe is a 25 foot elevation change, or drop and the slope has to be 30 percent or greater, so basically a 3 to 1 or greater. Using that criteria and the applicant's surveyor, and staff reviewing the site, that's how we do it. Sharmeen, do you want to add anything else, but typically staff goes out there and we kind of both agree that this is the top of the bluff. This is kind of where it starts and this appears to be the bottom. Have it surveyed. Give us the slope percentage and let's see if it qualifies. Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Papke: I'm not concerned with the top and the bottom. I'm concerned more with the north, south boundaries. You know if ! look at how for instance the southern boundary, where it sits and ! look at the topographical drawing, you don't see any radical change in the topography where that border is, so that's more what I'm concerned with. Saam: Okay. Now I'm going to toss it back to Sharmeen. A1-Jaff: There is one qualifier. Matt's mentioned the 25 foot rise. The slope of 30 percent, but then is also a distance of 50 feet. At any point within that 50 feet, if you no longer have a slope of 18 percent? Saam: I believe that's right. A1-Jaff: Yes, 18 percent, then it's no longer a bluff. You draw the top and the bottom, and then you connect the sides. From the sides you need to have a distance of 30 feet. Does that answer your question? Papke: Yeah. Qualitatively you're okay with, as you walk the site, you're okay with these boundaries as shown on the map? A1-Jaff: Yes we are. Papke: Okay. On the pond you mentioned there's already a pipe coming into the pond and a drain pipe going out. Where does the water come from and where does it go? Saam: Yeah we don't have a good overall area picture but basically. Papke: Not the drainage into the pond but you mentioned there was some sort of a drain pipe that comes into the pond, is that correct? Saam: Correct. It's coming from the south part of the parcel, basically where my finger is. It's hard to see and that pipe is ! believe coming from the street. Papke: So it's a street storm drain? Saam: ! believe. ! believe so, yes. And the name of the street escapes me but we went out there. Erie? ! believe it's Erie Avenue. And then to follow-up the rest of your question, where the drainage goes. Kind of following this blue line off the site, eventually it gets to Lotus Lake but it does come up. There's an existing development here. Kind of following a ditch type system up around to Frontier Trail and then it follows down ! believe a beach or homeowners association lot into Lotus Lake. Papke: Okay. So there's quite a distance of overland carry if you will for sediment to come out, etc. Saam: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Papke: Especially with the dams that are going in place there? Saam: Excuse me? Papke: Especially with the damming that's going in place there to slow down the water velocity. Saam: Correct. Correct. Papke: Okay. ! wasn't quite clear. ! know one of the issues was the placement of the retaining walls. Could you show us exactly on the map where the retaining walls are that are being built up here. There's apparently some that are fairly substantial. Saam: Sharmeen's colored them in in blue. With this revised plan set it appears that the retaining walls have been taken out of the bluff setback and that was one of the conditions that we had in there. Previously they encroached into the setback a few feet. Papke: Right, okay. Okay. No further questions. Tjornhom: Okay, I'm not sure if this is for the applicant or for staff so, you guys can choose. In reading the proposal, Lots 4 and 5 don't meet the minimum requirement for lot sizes so they have to be moved over. A1-Jaff: Correct. Tjornhom: My question is, are we doing more damage than we have to to the trees and everything else just to make that lot requirement or is it something that is okay ! guess. ! mean, ! kind of get the feeling that the developer's main goal is to kind of preserve as much of the natural trees and everything that is there, and so are we just pushing over Mother Nature for numbers or is it okay ! guess. ! tried to see the lot lines and envision how much would have to be moved and pushed. A1-Jaff: And ! understand the question and it's a very valid question because it's one of the things that we looked at. What is the impact on the trees? However, we did not want to penalize Lots 4 and 5. If we reduce the size of the lot to 12,000 on both of those parcels, they were a little over 12,000 ! believe. Two things happen. You minimize the, well the hard surface coverage becomes an issue. So you've got multiple variances that begin to take place. We did not advertise the application for a variance and in all honestly we could not justify a hardship. The applicant in this case is creating a brand new subdivision and no matter of how you look at it, there will be a self created hardship. As far as the tree removal, there will be trees that will be impacted regardless of where we place the structure. The applicant will be working with the site and some of these comments are based upon our experience with what he has done on Frontier First Addition but we will work with him very closely and minimize the tree removal. Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Tjornhom: That's all I have. Slagle: Dan? Keefe: Again ! really don't have much. The question would be in regards to building setbacks and driveway setbacks. ! mean they're still working on placing these homes and getting them in place so ! mean with the movement of the lot line on 4 and 5, in terms of his intent to get the right homes in here, there's still enough room to maintain setbacks and everything, even with, presuming when he first set it up he kind of had an idea in the lot size. But he maintains that there's still plenty of room and particularly it looks like Lot 3 is the one that kind of took the brunt of the. A1-Jaff: Sure. What I did here is in that I highlighted the buildable area and as you can see on all of those parcels there is plenty of building area. That's after the lines have been adjusted. Keefe: Right, and as far as you know he's comfortable with that adjustment. We can ask him, yeah. And then in regards to sidewalks, and I'll leave that up to you. Is there anything that we would ever do on this in regards to that? A1-Jaff: On Frontier? Keefe: Yeah. I'm curious about your opinion or what we'd do. ! don't think there are any, are there? Saam: No. Keefe: So this would just be one kind of spot that we'd have it, right. So it really doesn't make a lot of sense there. Yeah. That's all. Slagle: Okay. ! have two questions. You mentioned Sharmeen on Lot 4 and 5 met the depth, met the requirements. But if you move the driveway to Frontier Trail, does it still meet the minimum because doesn't that become then the front. A1-Jaff: No. The way a lot frontage is defined is wherever the narrower. Whenever you have a corner lot, wherever you have the narrower width, that becomes the lot frontage. Slagle: Gotchya. Okay. Papke: Just to clarify, that's the existing drive. A1-Jaff: Correct. That's an existing drive. Papke: We're not changing any access to that corner lot? Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 A1-Jaff: No we're not, and ! believe ! made a mistake in the staff report. ! said the two existing homes gain access off of 77th. I apologize for that. Slagle: No, no problem. Now also when the applicant had the informal discussion with us we talked about Lot 1 attempting to place that home more to what ! would call the southeast. To get it away from the lot line to the neighbors to the north ! guess it would be. Anything discussed about that? A1-Jaff: We did talk about it and maybe the applicant will be able to address that further. The homes were placed wherever they would, the term that the applicant uses is the quality trees. Wherever there is less impact on the quality of the trees. Slagle: Okay. I have no other questions. Any others? Okay. If the applicant wants to come up. State your name and address. We'd like to hear from you. Charles Stinson: My name is Charles Stinson. I'm the architect and owner of, developer here. I, as ! think most of you know, I've been involved in the last 10 years with the neighborhood down below. We've got a couple of the homeowners here. That's how we got involved in the project. We really wanted to just preserve what we started here and continue it and we were approached by the owners of these two buildings to, who were interested in having it developed and selling it and were we interested or not so we got involved. And the background on the bluff line. With computers today, it's pretty easy to do the calculations so before we did anything we had a survey done and had the engineer talk to the city. Find out the criteria which he is already familiar with and just run the numbers and tell us where the bluff line is and have the city verify it and go there and then we worked around it. A couple of things. This house will stay as is. The Lot number 4, we may keep the house and remodel it or it's hungry even for a little bit of improvements so we'll either do that or we might put a new house there. We're not sure. The other ones, we really tried to do everything without any variances. It just makes a lot of things easier so we, kind of like the words of Frank Lloyd Wright, limitations are an architect's best friend and we try to embrace that. But because, in this case we have control over all the architecture, the areas that we were given, that has to be the big buildable square, we don't want to use that whole square. We want to do something smaller. The other thing, our ideas, we don't want a conventional big yard. We want to keep it natural, so what the Lots number 1 and 2 really, the goal was to have them almost have a tree house. ! mean they'll meet the requirements. We want to minimize. We've shown some retaining walls here. We really want to minimize all that and use the architecture actually as the retaining walls. The building itself, so in this case there's someone we were talking to at this point, we'll probably build a 3 level cool house that you actually enter on the top level, so the house is taking up all the transition in the grade. That way we can, and have all the open space towards the east and the south and minimize the relationship of the house here. In this case Frank and Jennifer's house is here. Their garage is on that side of the house, and their idea is that we'll do landscaping inbetween and luckily we have the luxury and the opportunity to create all these homes together so there's a language between them. And the same thing with this one. We actually will move the house closer to the road but meeting the setback. Not to where the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 square is, and this one we want to move back. The idea is this house, we want a view here and here. This one, you know across the bluff line and this one over in this area. That way we're preserving all the trees in the valley for everybody. Coming down the street, we want to keep, all the circles I've drawn are existing trees that our goal is to save them. We'll be adding, even where the pond's coming in. At first ! was kind of concerned about what was proposed to do here because it's a pretty big job and ! was concerned about all the trees going down. And, but as we, you know I'm starting to warm up to it but ! would like to put white pines on this side and then some silver maple or working with the City Forester to come up with trees that would survive there so that it will fill in again, so we don't have a big hole. And then even between these, between 5 and 3 and 4 and 3 and 4 and the street we'd like to bring in some pines. The white pines and the different pines we've already integrated into our neighborhood and we'd like to continue with those so the idea is we want to make you know just, you kind of fall in love with this neighborhood so you feel connected to it and want to... And the approval is, all the drawings are for preliminary and the final approval. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Slagle: I've got one just to start with. More to staff a little bit but do we know in the end, is this gentleman adding more trees than he's actually taking out? So we should all videotape this for the rest of our developers. A1-Jaff: I was afraid you'd say something like that. Slagle: Alright, that's it for me. Go ahead Dan, if you've got some questions. Keefe: I really don't have any questions. I think it's terrific what you're doing and I think it will be great. Charles Stinson: I don't have the chance to say this very often but I've got to say, working with the city, we work with a lot of different cities and Chanhassen and the staff is really awesome. ! mean there's really a dialogue with everybody, from planning to engineering to the preservation and environmentalists. There's a really a working relationship of trust and everybody wants to do the right thing and it's just delightful. Slagle: And ! think include the commission in that? Charles Stinson: And the commission. And I've used the example of the other meeting we had, the informal one and how helpful that was and I've actually I've used that as an example to other cities. So it's great. Slagle: Bethany? Tjornhom: I don't have any questions. Slagle: ! don't either. Thank you very much. Well, I'll bring it back here for discussion. Any thoughts? Comments? Oh I'm sorry, ! forgot. Public. Apologize for that folks. It 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 is a public hearing so if there are any folks here who have any comments they want to give to us, we'd certainly be open to listening and just state your name and address. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and then bring it back. Thank you Kurt. Papke: I have no concerns. This is a great development. I appreciate the architect's desire to keep continuity with what he's already done there and I look forward to seeing the results. Keefe: Second your thoughts. Tjornhom: Yeah, I have to agree. I think that a community is only as good as it's developments are, and ! think we should work harder as a community to make more developments like this so we have character and quality. That's all ! have to say. Slagle: Okay. ! would also concur. ! mean ! would love to see more developments take the form and the process that this has over the last, whatever it's been, 6 months to a year. A lot of folks could learn something from your process so appreciate it. Do ! have a motion? Papke: ! have a question. The developer said he was seeking final approval and the only proposal we have in front of us is for preliminary. A1-Jaff: Correct. Maybe just a clarification. Planning Commission approves preliminary plats only. City Council approves preliminary and final. So we will make that recommendation at the time it goes to City Council. Papke: Okay. I'd like to make a motion then to approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-26 for Frontier Second Addition for 5 lots as shown on the plans received July 2, 2004, subject to conditions 1 through 23 as stated in the staff report. Slagle: Is there a second? Tjornhom: Second. Slagle: Any friendly amendments or comments? I guess I have one just point of clarification to staff. Sharmeen, you mentioned that there were some things that were not complete perhaps. I mean receiving today. Is there anything we need to be adding on the conditions or anything? Okay. Okay, with that answered. We have a second. I guess we'll just take a vote. Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-26 for Frontier Second Addition for 5 lots as shown on the plans received July 2, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 10. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on three of the five lots. Two lots are exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family homes on the property. The park fee on three single family homes totals $8,400 and is payable at the time of platting. The northerly lot lines for Lots 3, 4 and 5 shall be shifted to allow for 15,000 square feet of lot area and a minimum depth of 125 feet. The pond must be designed to NURP guidelines and sized/located to maximize water quality treatment while minimizing the amount of tree loss. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a building permit through the City's Building Department for any retaining wall over 4-feet in height. On the Grading Plan: a. Label the bluff setback limits. b. Add silt fence adjacent to grading area. c. Show the grading limits. Add the following notes to the Utility Plan: a. Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6"PVC-SDR26 and water services l"copper. The remaining street assessment balance with interest due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $6,517.70. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sanitary sewer service to the new lots, the lateral sewer connection charges will be waived; however, water connection charges will be required for each of the new lots (1-3). In addition, sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The applicant must be aware that any off-site grading will require a temporary easement from the property owner. Add the following City detail plates to the plans: 1005, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202, 5300 and 5301. On the Utility Plan: a. Show the existing sanitary and watermain pipe size and type. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each of the new lots at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. The retaining walls will need to be moved to comply with the 30-foot setback requirement. A permanent 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the length of the new sewermain. The bluff area shall be preserved. All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the bluff area and the bluff impact zone. Drainage and utility easements, a minimum of 20 feet in width, shall be provided over all drainageways and storm water ponds. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time flames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 20. Soil tracked onto public streets shall be swept daily street or as needed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 21. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $9,325. 22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Building Official Conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Lots 1, 2 and 3 must be provided with separate sewer services be served by a public line. c. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CENTURY PLAZA BUILDING "C"~ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL-OFFICE MULTI-TENANT BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 4~ VASSERMAN RIDGE~ ZONED PUD~ CPV DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC~ CRAIG ALSHOUSE~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-25. Public Present: Name Address Lori Day Craig Alshouse Steve Lanak 8229 Stone Creek Drive 1300 Willowbrook Drive 548 Apollo Drive #10, Lino Lakes Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Any questions of staff?. Bethany, why don't you start. Your turn. Tjornhom: Alright. Alright Sharmeen, ! think ! talked to you before this meeting started. ! was confused. ! had read that offices and restaurants were permitted in this PUD so my questions will be regarding that. If you're going to have a restaurant in a building, does that require a traffic study? A1-Jaff: If they meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance with what they are proposing, then no. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Tjornhom: Okay. So like a 3,000 square foot restaurant, you wouldn't have to analyze how many cars would be coming in and out along with the 3 businesses? A1-Jaff: What will happen is we will look at the space and 3,000, the ordinance, assuming that they have a liquor license. Well see if they have a liquor license we will have to come back before you because then they would need a conditional use permit. So I'm going to set that idea aside. Assuming there isn't a liquor license, they would need 1 space per 60 square feet. 3,000 divided by 60 is 50. 50 parking spaces, and again ! mean that entire space would have to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Tjornhom: So then if a restaurant would come in. A1-Jaff: If it has a liquor license. Tjornhom: Yes, but even with parking spaces, do they need that amount right now? Are you making the parking spaces, I mean my question is, it's the unknown of what's coming in and then how do you determine what's needed to comply with the ordinances and what makes sense. A1-Jaff: What the applicant is proposing at this time is retail. They, parking was based upon retail square footage. Tjornhom: Okay. Slagle: Let me dovetail if ! may. Let's assume for a second that within the next 6 months things change and the applicant says instead of mortgage, title, realty and 3,000 or whatever it is, 5,000 for the retail. 3,000. He changes that or she changes that up to gosh, we want to have 2 restaurants and so forth. ! mean what are the requirements ! guess may be the question. What are the differences in requirements for parking for a title company, a real estate company and a mortgage company versus a restaurant? A1-Jaff: For an office it's 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: For a restaurant with a liquor license it's 1 space per 50 square feet. Slagle: Okay. And would that change if there was not a liquor license? A1-Jaff: If there is not a liquor license, then it's 1 space per 60 square feet. And that, what you just, the scenario that you just presented would hold true with any development that comes before the city. Slagle: Understand. So let me ask in a different manner then. Would you be comfortable if the plans changed from what we're seeing today? Regarding the amount of parking spaces. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 A1-Jaff: Yes. If there was a variance required for such a development, and that has happened in the past. For instance, why don't we say Edina Realty development. And a lot of staff members get upset with me when ! mention this. Dairy Queen wanted to occupy a portion of that space and there wasn't enough parking and staff said we can't give you occupancy for that space. So we basically said no. And we also mentioned that if they applied for a variance for parking, we believe that there might be a problem and we wouldn't support it. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: So it won't be treated any different in this case. Slagle: Fair enough. Tjornhom: So then our job tonight is just to look at what's in front of us and not to do the what if' s? A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Any other questions Bethany? Tjornhom: No. Slagle: Okay. Go ahead Dan. Keefe: Had a couple in regards to, one would be landscaping and berming. The landscape plan, along Highway 5 it looks like we're going to have like 2, it looks like about a 2 foot berm but it doesn't look like there's a lot of plantings along there. A1-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: And it looks, we've added that in as a condition. A1-Jaff: That's correct. We said that they need to meet the minimum requirements of the city and in fact the city forester and the applicant met this morning to discuss the landscape plan and they have, they were able to communicate and revised plans will be submitted. Keefe: And then, did that also include then on the north side in regards to additional berming over there. A1-Jaff: Correct. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Keefe: Okay. Alright. ! guess to sidewalks and how you access this property. We've got a sidewalk which kind of goes through the middle of the lot and then it goes out to 78th Street. It looks like it ties into the sidewalk maybe in the adjacent property and then to 78th Street. Are you guys comfortable that that's sort of the best solution for a sidewalk? ! know one of the comments ! think that Steve had, it said, ! think his comment was related to the sidewalk going under the, where it accesses 78th Street up at the top. Up there. Is it also the best way to kind of come from this development through the parking lot or would it be better to kind of come along the building and go out? I'm just interested in your comments. A1-Jaff: Absolutely, and this is something that staff and the applicant discussed at length. Right now there is an existing, if you were out at the site. The striping is already in and the apron is already in as well. This portion, there's Class V and it's just waiting for the concrete to be poured. So it's safe to say that this is pretty much done. When we looked at this site and how people will potentially use sidewalks, we envision people coming out of this entrance and basically taking a straight line across the parking lot rather than going up here, crossing here, another crossing here and then go. So it was just what made most sense. It's more than likely that people will go across the parking lot. Keefe: They'll come out and there's no other cars or they'll just kind of go straight out. Because there's really nothing to draw them necessarily to the right. Well, is there sidewalks that go along 78th on the south side. On the north end of the property and then. A1-Jaff: The sidewalk is on the north side. Keefe: The north side, yeah. So if there were people coming out of that building, they might go along the front of the buildings and cut through the parking lot. Kind of, well ! was even going to say, yeah. A1-Jaff: Like that? Keefe: Yeah. A1-Jaff: We wanted to discourage several crossings. And this again, this was discussed at length when this. Keefe: Yeah. Okay. One further question in regards to signage and lighting. There's going to be monument signing added on the south side of the property, right? And then in terms of lighting, there wasn't anything specified so without any, it would increase the landscaping and does the applicant want to have, you know have their sign sort of illuminated more? Is it an illuminated sign or we don't know how that's sort of lighting and signage kind of works together. Or does it? A1-Jaff: The signage would have to meet the minimum requirement of the ordinance. Definitely no glare. Nothing that would impact traffic. The sign that the applicant is proposing in this area, which is the north, would have to come out. They're only entitled 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 to the one sign on the site. As far as light fixtures, they cannot exceed half a foot candle, and again all light fixtures have to be shielded. Keefe: Now just one other question in regards to the retail and it looks like there's a sitting area or something that's just outside of there. How far is that from the car wash? I'm just curious. And just I'm curious to know kind of what the use is of the sitting area. Is that sort of a rest area for the office people or is that related to the proposed retail use or? Papke: Smoking. Keefe: Smoking room, yeah. A1-Jaff: At the closest point it is 50 feet. Keefe: And in terms of the landscaping, then we're talking about increasing the landscaping along that. I'm just saying if you're going to use it, it becomes any sort of, it's like a public area for the use of the office. I'm just thinking aesthetically next to the car wash and in terms of additional landscaping along there might be nice. ! don't know if there's enough room in there so. A1-Jaff: We can work on that. Keefe: So ! just don't know the exact use of that and whether it's, but if it is something that you know significant people would want to utilize, ! would think that an increase in landscaping and/or you know the aesthetically improved, especially in light of it being next to a car wash. Okay, that's it. Papke: Yeah, a couple questions to follow up on the sidewalk pattern here. Given that 80 percent of the occupancy is real estate related, one can perhaps predict that there won't be a lot of little children riding their bikes to this place. That most likely the primary traffic pattern is somebody going to the gas station to get a package of gum or something to drink. Do you feel that the way this is laid out that that traffic, that natural foot traffic will be properly accommodated, given that people are unlikely to follow the path over to the sidewalk and walk all the way around. They're likely to walk along the edge of the building and cut right over to the gas station. See what I'm saying? They're not likely to follow your finger there and walk all the way over to the sidewalk. They're going to cut right along the edge of the building and walk straight line to the gas station. To get their cup of coffee or whatever. A1-Jaff: Go around the car wash and. Papke: Yeah. A1-Jaff: Are you suggesting that we add a sidewalk in this area? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Papke: I'm just asking the question. I'm not making a suggestion at this point, I'm just asking the question whether you feel, you know given that 80 percent of the occupancy is that real estate, has that traffic flow been properly accommodated? A1-Jaff: Chances are they're going to get their coffee, or will pick up their coffee before they come to work. Saam: Commissioner Papke, I'll add one thing Sharmeen. I don't, I see your point and I think it's realistic. However, I'm not sure we want to promote or encourage people to be crossing at either end of the car wash. You know if they choose to do so, so be it. It gets back to kind of this crosswalk thing and location of it. That's something we struggled with with the overall development. Where should we encourage people to cross so I think we're fine with the one crosswalk right here. Have it striped and it will be noticeable. And hopefully the people will utilize it. I mean we're not talking a very far distance out of their way to get to the gas station, but if people so choose to cross the car wash, that's kind of their own choice. Papke: Okay. A couple architectural questions. You mentioned that the building materials match the surrounding buildings. How about the architectural style? The way the building is laid out and appears, other than the materials, do you think architecturally it matches the surrounding buildings? A1-Jaff: One of the features that you will see on the existing, well it's under construction still. But the pitched element is a replica of the pitched element that's on the building that's under construction. Materials again, they are a replica. Papke: So similar geometric pattern. A1-Jaff: And then the use of the brick. I mentioned the staggered roof line. Again, all of these elements mimic the existing building. Papke: Okay. Okay. One last architectural question. I know we're not supposed to play what if again but assuming that some day the, just as they are now, the real estate business moves on and this becomes 3 completely separate businesses. Right now the retail ! believe there's 2 entrances for the 3,000 square foot of retail. Has the building been constructed architecturally to be able to accommodate 2 more entrances for those separate businesses someday were that to become an option? A1-Jaff: What I have seen in the past, whenever they want to make changes, such as the one that you mentioned, is they would take one of those windows, the larger windows and replace it with a door. Papke: Okay. So it would accommodate that. A1-Jaff: I've seen that happen, correct. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Papke: Okay. Slagle: I've got a couple. Touching upon a brief discussion before the meeting started, the mortgage, realty and title companies, since limitations as staff notes. No single user may occupy more than 5,000 square feet. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Will any of those exceed 5,000? A1-Jaff: We will make sure it doesn't but that is something that the applicant will be presenting to you. Slagle: Okay. And are we defining, how do we define single user? applicant this question as well but I'd be interested in your comment. business entities owned by the same parent company? And I'll ask the Are these single A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: They will be able to address that in further detail. Slagle: Okay. And then ! had one last question and was there discussion with the applicant of switching the retail to the north end and the 3 single users to the south end? Just curious. A1-Jaff: It was touched upon. We left it up to them. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: They figured the majority of the people will be coming to Edina Realty. They wanted to be closer to the entrance. But we didn't pursue it any further. Slagle: And just for the, my fellow commissioners. The reason I'm asking that is, Commissioner Keefe's question about the car wash. ! mean to think that you would be outside at a table with a car wash right next door doesn't seem to be the most appealing, but that's just one comment so. Okay. Anything else for staff?. Okay. Thank you very much. Applicant would like to come up. State your name and address. We'd love to hear your presentation. Craig Alshouse: Certainly. Commissioners, my name is Craig Alshouse. ! will be the owner and developer of this property. ! worked very closely with Edina and their companies and develop, and own and manage a number of their properties throughout the metropolitan area. We're very excited to find a new home for them here in Chanhassen. We've been looking for quite a while. We've looked at a number of options, both 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 downtown and south and on 101 and here. And for a lot of reasons this really fits all the needs of hopefully the community, the city, the neighborhood and companies. So we're very excited about it. ! would like to tell you that the goal of. Slagle: If! could ask you to move the mic. There you go. Craig Alshouse: You bet. The goal of our presentation and our development here is to make sure that we do have a continuous architecture, continuous style and towards that end we have used the exact same materials that they are using on the buildings next to us that you now see going up. They have not put the block and the brick on those buildings yet but you will see the metal studs and the siding. And we've chosen to use the exact same materials so that it looks like a contiguous development even though there are 3 separate owners, Ron Clark's retail, the gas station and car wash, and then our's. Secondly, we have used the exact same type of architectural style if you will. It's approximately the same height and we do have the pitched element which is the same type of material also. And with me tonight is, in case you have any questions, is our architect Steve Lanak. His company also represented and did all the work on the original PUD and the original site planning. He's very familiar with the city and he also did the design and the work on the building that is now being done. I'd like to address a number of your questions, if you wouldn't mind. You had some questions on the north side there on the berming. ! just took some notes and our berming on the north side there, we would like to make continuous, approximately the same height as what you see behind the retain building that Ron Clark is now building. And so it'd be about the same height and so it would just kind of continue outside of coming down for the entrance into our building, and the sidewalk. ! wonder if Sharmeen if we could put this back up again. With respect to sidewalks and location. I'd like to address that. You know there's never any perfect solution. Everything is give and take. We did look very seriously at putting retail on the north end here. Our feeling on that was two fold. One, staff did not want any signage on the north side of this property because they thought that that might interfere with the residential area to the north on the other side of 78th. Secondly, retail as you know is location oriented and is signage oriented. People have to know it's there, and when your main traffic is on Highway 5, if you had a small retailer here, he would have absolutely no visibility from people going east and he would have some visibility from people going west. However, if you put him in this area, he would have much higher visibility. Staff really wanted retail there and we said we would do our best to try and find 3,000 square feet of retail for that site. It's possible that there may be 2. It may be two 1,500 square foot users or a 1,000 and a 2,000 square foot user. Or maybe one 2,000 square foot user and the other one 1,000. I'm not sure what we'd do with it but so, we looked very seriously at putting it on the north end but for those reasons it didn't make any sense. Therefore we said well if that's retail, maybe it's a sandwich shop, maybe it's a coffee shop. Maybe it's a Laundromat. Maybe it's a hairdresser. We're not sure. We're not sure if we'll use that type of a patio for seating for the office or seating for the retail, and we'd like to get that as far away from the car wash as possible so we moved the entire building up this way so we could get more space here. It didn't make much sense to put retail here and put the patio up here. So on the fifth rendition of this drawing we moved everything up here, and you will see from the staff report that we 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 have 1 or 2 parking spaces there that are within 5 feet of the property line and now we need to kind of gerry rig that back down a little bit, and we will do that. We talked about sidewalks, and certainly Commissioner Papke, you're absolutely right. Will people walk across the parking lot if they're going to? This retail building here does have, as far as ! know, a hair salon. They've been talking to a coffee shop. ! don't know if they've signed them yet. And if they do, is it possible that these office people will want to go to that area? Absolutely. Can we prevent them from coming out this area and walking on the blacktop and cutting across? No, ! really can't do that. Do ! want to encourage them to go that way by putting a sidewalk across the exit to the car wash? No, ! sure don't want to do that. Especially in the winter when you've got ice and that kind of thing. We really felt it was the best of all worlds is to provide a cross walk area here and sidewalk across tying into the only sidewalk that this area has, and that ties right into the retail. Most of these people if they're going to walk to the west, they're going to go to the retail, probably not the convenience store ! would think, but you know who knows. There's 6, 7, 8 retailers there and they're yet unidentified so it'd be difficult for us to know. But that's why we put that sidewalk there. We thought that was the best solution. Of course we could have left it out but then ! think without question they'd be walking in the parking lot. Signage, there will be no signage here and certainly the monument sign is only 5 feet so there will be signage on the building here and here. And when you pull in there will be smaller signs on the front of the building just identifying who the tenants are. So that covers the locations of the retail and the sitting area and the signage, the sidewalks, the berming, landscaping. ! think we're going to move some things around. We probably had a little too much planting in this area and too little down here and a couple other areas and Mr. Lanak, the architect met today with your staff and ! think worked that out and so we'll resubmit that. So I'm open to questions. Slagle: Kurt, you want to start? Papke: ! asked, ! sent an e-mail to staff this afternoon concerning the definition of the legal entities that ! think, that issue was brought up before and ! don't think you've answered that question yet. Craig Alshouse: Oh right. There are three legal entities. Those are Edina Title, Edina Mortgage and Edina Realty. They are all owned by Home Services of America and that is the holding company that owns all of those businesses and all of those companies, as well as other real estate companies throughout the United States. Papke: So when I walk in through one single door, what will I see? Will I see three interior doors to three separate businesses or will ! see three sets of desks clustered in one big room with papers being passed from desk to desk? Craig Alshouse: Well the quick answer is yes. You'll probably walk in, because we haven't laid out the interior yet. You'll walk into the main entrance here and these three entities will share a lot of space. There isn't any question about it. They will share conference areas. They will share common areas. They will share bathrooms. They will share some hallways and they'll share the lobby. In most cases we do have a demising 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 wall between Edina Mortgage, excuse me, Edina Title and the other two. And in most cases Edina Mortgage is not separated by a demising wall, and those people just have offices next to what you might say are realtors. So when you walk in, and we haven't laid this out yet but more than likely you'll have one direction to Edina Title because this title company will do a lot of title work for not just Edina people, but also for Coldwell Banker and others. The general community. It's a title company so, one direction there and the other direction to mortgage and realty with a lot of shared space. Will most of the space be real estate versus title? Yes. It would be. There will be more of that then there is anything else, yes. Papke: You mentioned in your opening remarks that you've been looking for a location for a while. This one appeals to you. Could you tell me why this location appeals to you? Craig Alshouse: Well yes. First of all it has excellent visibility. It is located out of the downtown area. We looked at some newer sites across Highway 5 by Culver's and the manager, Lori Day from Edina Realty felt that that was just way too busy and ! concurred. With the new supermarket that's going in there and the bank and everything else, it's just almost a traffic nightmare getting in and out. We looked at some other spots on the south side of 5. They either were not available or were undevelopable or were part of 50 or 100 acres that had not yet been subdivided. We would very much liked to have been on the south side of 5 next to the Holiday Inn Express, and that is zoned for restaurant and so that was unavailable. We'd very much like to have been on Highway 41 and Highway 5, but the city requires that to be one big user and not a number of users. We would liked to have been on one or two other spaces on the north side of 5, west of their existing location and those locations were zoned for restaurant and the city would prefer to have a restaurant there. When you really got down to it, there weren't any other locations. And so ! hope that answers your question, yeah. Slagle: Dan. Keefe: In regards, can we go back to the plan and the sidewalk. When we're talking the retail, and this is due to my unfamiliarity with the project next door. Most of the retail that she said was on the north side of that property next door? Craig Alshouse: This little corner right here, that's the end of the retail building. 60 foot deep and. Keefe: Yeah, and then the use, what is the use on the south end? Is that also retail? Craig Alshouse: The whole building's retail. Slagle: Sharmeen, if you could put up. Keefe: I'm just trying to get a better comfort level with the sidewalk and the way that you design it, and you said something which made a lot of sense to me, which is if the 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 users, particularly on the retail on the north end. I mean ifa lot of them are coming out of this building and would be going to 5 or 6 uses on that side. ! mean ! can see conceivably where a good chunk of people would cross through that parking lot, use that sidewalk and go to that side. If they were to go to the building's adjacent to the car wash, we might see more people cutting across. Craig Alshouse: Yes, and that's a gas station/convenience store if ! understand it correctly, is it not Sharmeen? A1-Jaff: Yes. Craig Alshouse: Convenience store, so yeah if they want a package of gum, ! guess they'd go there. Unless they, well ! don't know if they're going to put a superette or anything on the north side. ! really don't know what they're going to put there yet. Keefe: Right. Okay, and then going to the seating area that you had, and this is kind of a combination question. Sharmeen, maybe you can help me with this. Would we ever have a seating area that would be on, if there had been a berm along Highway 5, would we ever consider a seating area right along, on the south side of that building? ! don't know if that was considered or not. ! guess it depends somewhat on the use and whether you would even consider that as a possible. Craig Alshouse: Well most the people in this building are office and do they want to sit and look at traffic? Probably not. Keefe: Well and again, depends on the landscaping, berming that you put in there and so. Craig Alshouse: The topography there is pretty steep. Keefe: Right. So the question, I'm still struggling a little bit with the seating area next to the car wash and maybe you can try to address that and shifting it back. Craig Alshouse: You know the seating area is, you don't have to have a seating area. Staff preferred one and said you know the city likes to have a little seating area here and that worked out best for us to put it there. There really wasn't any other place to do it. On this side you have a retaining wall. And on this side you have all the traffic, so. Keefe: Is the use, is this in any way similar to the Wayzata building in terms of square footage? I'm familiar with that one. Lori Day: That's a two story so much larger. Keefe: That one's considered a little larger than this one? Okay. Alright. Craig Alshouse: Yeah, that's a multi-tenant building. Office building. It's probably a 30,000 square foot. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Keefe: Yeah, you've got the title on one side as you walk in kind of...title's on ! think the right as you walk in and the mortgage and the real, yeah. Okay. Alright. That's all ! have. Tjornhom: I really didn't have any questions but now as he's talking about sidewalks and the concern with the car wash and the patio area. Tell me why you couldn't just plant trees? Craig Alshouse: Could. Tjornhom: Like just to block off that car wash and then. Craig Alshouse: Well ! was wondering if there was any landscaping requirement on the part of the neighbor on that side of the car wash and ! found out there was not. As far as ! know. Maybe I'm mistaken but ! don't see anything on their. Do you think, oh ! am mistaken? Oh good. I'm glad ! am. If there is some landscaping here, that would certainly help us. Tjornhom: Yeah, ! mean if you just made it so people couldn't pass through for one thing with trees and. Craig Alshouse: Oh ! don't think they can. Tjornhom: Am ! crazy, where were we concerned that people would be crossing over to get a pack of gum? Craig Alshouse: This way. Tjornhom: Right here, so even. Oh, on the road. Not, ! thought they were talking about crossing over. Craig Alshouse: No. This car wash goes this direction. Tjornhom: Right. Craig Alshouse: So ! don't see anybody wanting to go back around this way. That'd be more difficult with walking, ! don't know why they'd want to do that. And especially most of the year, you're going to have snow plowed up there and it's going to be a mess so the only unplowed area is going to be up here. Tjornhom: Right. Okay. Okay, that was my only comment was just about the, blocking the patio off with trees and not having a problem. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Slagle: Alright. Couple thoughts. Touching upon Bethany's comment. To the north of the garbage area, if you will. That green space, which I'm going to guess is what 30 feet? 50 feet? From the garbage area up to the road. Maybe more. Steve Lanak: It's a 20 foot stall so probably 35. Slagle: So ! mean I'm just going to throw out that maybe some evergreens or something like that there would prevent people from maybe cutting across, because ! think the key concern is, at least in my mind is, trying to keep them as far away from the exit of the car wash as possible. ! mean ! don't think you're going to get them to always use the sidewalk. Craig Alshouse: Yeah, we can discourage that, sure. Yeah, with plantings on either side ofthat. Yeah. Slagle: Okay. I'll leave that up to your discussion with staff, but I want to get back to the three uses. Because based upon your conversation or your presentation of the shared resources and shared areas, I'm sorry to staff more. I mean are we sort of walking a fine line when we're talking that they're really not three distinct uses? I guess what I'm saying is, had the question been answered yes, there's three doors. They all have the name plate and you. Craig Alshouse: I do have three distinct leases and as the owner of the building I signed three distinct leases, so ! have three users. Slagle: Okay, and does that meet? A1-Jaff: That meets the intent of the ordinance. I'm going to give you one other example I did, before the meeting I did mention one building. Think of the Medical Arts building. You walk in. There's one entrance. They do share a lot of facilities within that building. There is one common hallway. Bathrooms are shared. Think of this as something similar. Within that building there is a dentist. There is, one doctor can refer you to another doctor in the next door building, or next door office. Think of this building in those terms. Slagle: Okay. ! don't think ! have anything else. Anything else? Okay. It is a public hearing so any folks out there wanting to stand up and make a comment, please state your name and address for the record. Lori Day: I'm Lori Day and I'm the manager of the Edina Realty office and we have been in Chanhassen for 15 years and ! think fortunately, like everybody here, we've seen such great growth in the community and it's been good growth and we just hope that we can stay. We've looked for sites for a couple of years. Found this one that seems to work and we hope we can be here and continue to grow and serve the homeowners of Chanhassen so thanks for considering it tonight. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Slagle: Well you're welcome. Anybody else? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Any further thoughts? Comments? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Tjornhom: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan review 2004-25 SPR for the construction of a multi-tenant building, Century Plaza Building C as shown in plans received July 2, 2004 with the following conditions 1 through 25. Slagle: I have a motion. Is there a second? Keefe: I'll second. Slagle: There's been a second. Any friendly amendments? Further discussion? Tjornhom moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan review (2004-25 SPR) for the construction of a multi-tenant building, Century Plaza Building "C" as shown in the plans received July 2, 2004, subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for bufferyards, boulevard trees and parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to city council approval. 2. Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 3. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 4. The trash enclosure shall be built with the same type of materials used on the buildings. 5. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 6. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 7. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. 8. Add the following City detail plates to the plans: 3101, 3104, 5201, 5214, 5232 and 5234. On the Grading Plan: a. Show all storm sewer rims and invert elevations. b. Revise the FES invert elevation to match the pond NWL. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 c. Show the existing topography of the site along the east side, including the existing pond and the pond NWL and HWL. d. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. 10. The retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a permit from the Building Department must be obtained for its construction. An approved safety fence will also be required along the top of the wall. 11. Revise the sidewalk elevations off the northwesterly corner of the building to avoid draining stormwater toward the building. 12. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the lot. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. 13. Revise the grading in the southwesterly corner of the site to show the correct 980 contour line. 14. Revise the width of the parking stalls to 9-feet wide, as per City Code. 15. On the utility plan: a. Show the existing and the proposed sanitary manholes rim and invert elevations. 16. A 15-foot wide clear zone must be maintained in back of the curb along West 78th Street. 17. The proposed berm's slope must not exceed 2% within the 60-foot sight triangle of the intersection. 18. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Excel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Copy enclosed. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1991. Copy enclosed. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. The two fire hydrants shown on the plan will need to be relocated. Hydrant number one on the north end of the building is to be moved northwest to the parking lot island and hydrant number two shown on the west side of the building can be eliminated and relocated on the island across from the main door. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact relocation. 19. Building Official conditions: a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a building permit and the plans must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. d. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. e. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 20. The applicant shall revise the plans to maintain a minimum of 10 feet parking setback along the northeast corner. 21. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 22. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 24. The monument sign facing West 78th Street shall be removed. 25. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit." All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3to 1. Slagle: Okay, the plan passes 3 to 1. Do we have enough Sharmeen for a majority standpoint? With only 4. A1-Jaff: It's a simple majority so 3 to 1, yes. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay, it passes. Thank you very much. Keefe: Do you want to? Slagle: Oh, if he so chooses. Papke: Yes. I believe this application satisfies the letter of the law, both in the type of business that's being placed here as well as the number of businesses, but ! think on both accounts ! think it goes against the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here. ! would much prefer to see this type of business in the downtown banking area, in the redevelopment of the bowling alley, something of that nature where there are... This is the kind of business that belongs in that kind of an area as opposed to a neighborhood area where we'd like kids to be able to ride their bikes there. People to walk to restaurants and so on so ! don't think it benefits the surrounding Vasserman Ridge development much to have this real estate agency there. So that's why ! oppose it, even though it does follow the letter of the law. Slagle: Fair enough, okay. Thank you very much. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 20, 2004 as presented. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004 Slagle: Anything else? Sharmeen, anything for us? A1-Jaff: Kate wanted me to remind you that your next meeting you will be leaving here at 6:00. There will be box lunches and that's when you will be going to Moon Valley to look at the site. She would like to be back here at 7:00 to start the design standards for multi-family. Tjornhom: What is that date? A1-Jaff: That is August 17th. Tjornhom: I'm sorry, you said again, 6:00? A1-Jaff: Yes. You'll be taking two vans. ! guess Matt is driving one and Kate is driving the other. Slagle: Do we have our choice of who we drive with? Papke: What part of the grading are we looking at the development going in on the top of the bluff or are we actually looking at the gravel pit? A1-Jaff: You're looking at the gravel pit. Papke: Okay, so this is for a proposal that we have not yet seen? A1-Jaff: There will be an interim use permit that you will be looking at. Slagle: I'm actually going to close the meeting. Meeting is closed. Chairman Slagle adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 32