PC Minutes 10-5-04
()' I _ _, .
__ '-t _.,-........
-
-
Planning Commission l.~~eting - October 5, 2004
Lillehaug: I have one other quick question.
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Is the City comfortable with that touch down point at Butternut there? I mean
as planning and engineering, are we, are you guys pleased with where that is because I
mean even though the County's telling us that's where they want it, I mean are we, is that
where we want it?
Oehme: Yeah, the AUAR and the traffic analysis that went along with that, we need that
east/west connection point to facilitate development in this area. We feel on the, it's
really limited in terms of where we can put that along Audubon and the grades are
restricting us, the connection points to roadways. We always want to try to make T
intersections instead of off sets so. So those are the things that are really hampering us in
terms of where we can locate that connection.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Very, appreciate to get an update on that. It's a
big project for the city. With that let's move to our first public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8.068 SQUARE
FOOT BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
WITH AN AREA OF 1.24 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
INTERSECTION OF WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
THE GODDARD SCHOOL. FRED RIESE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Bertelsen
Joel Hussong
Andy Martin
Brandy Geiger
Fred & Valaire Riese
Chris Thompson
Rick & Kathie Engelhardt
Judy Schmieg
Joanne Meuwissen
Fred Prinz
Dick Mingo
Jack Atkins
201 West Travelers Trail, BV
2428 Minneapolis
1016 W. Ninth Avenue, King of Prussia
1016 W. Ninth Avenue, King of Prussia
9154 Sunnyvale Drive
Remax Action West
403 Santa Fe Trail
200 West 77th Street
20 1 West 77th Street
408 Santa Fe Circle
7601 Great Plains Boulevard
220 West 78th Street
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report and Kate Aanenson clarified the role of
the Planning Commission in reviewing this item.
5
-
-
Planning Commission h~.::eting - October 5, 2004
Sacchet: Questions of staff. Kurt, go ahead.
Papke: Throughout the proposal here in the report, this is referred to as a school. If
everywhere in the report we replace school with daycare center, would that change any
planning and zoning regulations, city code, treatment of any way, shape or form?
AI-Jaff: In fact what we did for instance for school standards and parking, there isn't as
much parking spaces required if you use that standard. What we did is we used for
instance daycare standards for the parking which is substantially higher. So we tried to
be more restrictive with our requirements of the applicant.
Papke: Okay. The only other question I had was, you mentioned from a traffic
perspective this compliments the use of the church parking lot and so on and that makes
great sense. The only concern I have from a traffic perspective is the Dinner Theater is
right across the street and during the week you do have some matinee performances I
believe.
Aanenson: Wednesday's.
Papke: Wednesday's. At what time? Do people start streaming in?
AI-Jaff: Do you know Justin?
Aanenson: I believe it's afternoon.
Miller: Late morning.
Sacchet: Late morning.
Papke: Late morning so there shouldn't be any interference because that was my only
concern when I looked at this where the entrance was. You know the people that come in
and look for where to park in the Dinner Theater. They're not always paying attention
and that would be my only concern from a traffic perspective would the traffic going in
and out at the appropriate pick-up and drop off. Obviously the drop off times in the
morning is going to be a non-issue, but at the pick-up time is there going to be any traffic
conflict with the Dinner Theater?
AI-Jaff: We'll be more than happy to double check on that tomorrow. The one thing that
we did do today for instance was to go out to the site during rush hour. See whether we
can get in and out of the parking lot easily and that wasn't an issue at all. But we'll be
more than happy to check that tomorrow.
Sacchet: Okay. Bethany, go ahead.
Tjornhom: I have a couple questions Sharmeen. There's a school located across the
street from this school.
6
-
-
Planning Commission lh.::eting - October 5, 2004
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Tjomhom: Now what are the hours of dropping off kids for this, the new school? Do
you know?
AI-Jaff: That's something that the applicant can answer.
Sacchet: The applicant will be able to address it. Okay.
Tjornhom: Okay, because my only concern is that you know you've got one school
dropping kids off in the morning and then the other school across the street dropping kids
off and everyone trying to merge into the same traffic area together, so you know I'd
assume they'd both have kind of the same hours of the day, morning and you know mid-
afternoon for that. Maybe not.
Aanenson: I'm just assuming, Chapel Hills starts a little after 8:00. Most people have to
be work by 8:00 so I'm assuming that the daycare would probably be loaded by the time.
Tjornhom: Before then.
Aanenson: That's just my.
Tjornhom: So then this is a school like, not a daycare but for younger ages?
Aanenson: Well yeah, but you're going to take them to school on your way to work more
than likely, yeah.
Tjornhom: So then okay, that was my question was what are the real ages of the kids?
Aanenson: They can address it more specifically.
Tjornhom: Is it more like a preschool or is it?
Sacchet: It's babies up to 6 years old, that's clearly what I read.
Papke: The drawings show the ages of the different groups.
Sacchet: It's 2 or 4 months starting. I mean really little.
Tjornhom: Little, okay. And then where is the location of the playground equipment?
Sacchet: Both sides.
Tjornhom: Both sides?
7
-
-
Planning Commission lh.::eting - October 5, 2004
AI-Jaff: Both sides of the building.
Jack Atkins: On both sides?
Tjornhom: Okay. And that's it for now I think.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Dan, any questions?
Keefe: Just a quick question. Can you speak at all to kind of the safety and security for
that particular location? Just given there's a high volume of traffic which goes along
West 78th and I drive it you know morning and afternoon and I know there's a lot of
traffic and there's a fence and I saw they got playground equipment on both sides. Any
consideration in terms of you know security or safety concerns? Particularly in light of
the.
AI-Jaff: Not really. One of the things that we thought of was, before Chapel Hills, St.
Hubert's used to be there and to my knowledge there's never been an issue with, from a
safety standpoint with the school.
Sacchet: Yeah, we'll get to the hearing in a minute. Anything else Dan?
Keefe: Well, just in terms of where it's mostly a drop off I'm assuming and no bus
service and.
Aanenson: No, it's not like across the street where they'd be walking or something like
that.
Keefe: Yeah right so it's drop off at the door. Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Steve, any questions?
Lillehaug: Just a couple. Looking at the compliance table on page 8, and the building
setbacks, it looks like only 12 foot.. .12 feet is pretty close. Does engineering or planning
have any concerns with the building being that close to the property line?
AI-Jaff: Not really, no. And it is.
Lillehaug: Is that standard along?
AI-Jaff: 5 feet from.
Aanenson: If you look at Medical Arts is probably pretty close to.
Lillehaug: Look at what?
Aanenson: Medical Arts, which is just across the street.
8
-
-
Planning Commission h~,-,eting - October 5, 2004
Lillehaug: To the north.
Sacchet: The north side, yeah.
Lillehaug: So it kind of matches what goes through that corridor?
AI-Jaff: Axel's is right up to the property also.
Lillehaug: Is it that close?
AI-Jaff: Yeah.
Lillehaug: Okay. Looking at the model here, it looks like there's adequate landscaping
but in the landscaping table, how can we be off so much on the required and the
proposed? Does the proposed not take into account the fact, or the existing landscaping
out there? Is that why the table is kind of skewed?
AI-Jaff: Yeah.
Lillehaug: So if you were to put.
AI-Jaff: The majority of the landscaping is actually existing and what we're trying to do
is maintain the existing landscaping. That has been a goal for our City Forester in this
case, and if you look at the conditions of approval, the penalties are for trees. Existing
trees lost.
Lillehaug: So are you saying if you added the proposed trees up and the existing trees
which we don't have a count on, that it would be pretty close to what's required for that
site? That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Do you have another question Bethany?
Tjornhom: I have one more question Sharmeen, and I think that the school is a good mix
or it is a good blend for that area of town. What happens if the school leaves and the
building is there one day?
AI-Jaff: They will be able to address this issue as well.
Tjornhom: Okay. Because it is a historical part of town.
AI-Jaff: Correct. And that is true with any development that comes to town. What
happens if they left. We always make sure that from a parking standpoint they have to
meet requirements. The use has to be permitted within that zoning district. So there are a
number of things that we still have to address and make sure that they meet ordinance
requirement.
9
-
-
Planning Commission lhveting - October 5, 2004
Tjornhom: So they couldn't turn into like a fast food place in 10 years?
Aanenson: Well again, it would have to meet the performance standards. So they'd have
to modify the building which would require coming back. And then, as Sharmeen
indicated, they would have to meet the parking standards. So there is some trigger points
that will, and based on that square footage of building, I doubt that that would happen,
yeah.
Miller: Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager. As one of the requirements in the
purchase agreement, we did put additional restrictions on the property that run with the
property and those restrictions are no automotive uses, no fast food, no convenience, so
even if this property does sell there's limits on what it can be.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Thanks for clarify that Justin. I have two questions still too. My main question
is that the retaining wall, and it's probably more an engineering type of question. First
when I looked at the plans, I was trying to figure out is this retaining wall up or down,
and I finally realized that it's down, so you basically have the road level, and it goes
down quite significantly, like about 4 feet or so. So there's quite a drop. We have that
fence, that wrought iron fence with the nice brick pillars but then it goes down 4 feet and
there's a retaining wall. And then it's basically level with the parking area, for more or
less right? And I wonder, on one hand it seemed a little abrupt. A little much to me. It's
just kind of make it flat and then have a retaining wall. Are there reasons from
engineering viewpoint why it couldn't be maybe terraced or why it has to be like that?
Are there concerns like, one of the commissioners already brought up the concern about
safety. I mean is there a safety concern? I mean if a car bumps into that fence, goes
through the fence, bumps right down? Stuff li ke that. Has that been looked at?
Saam: Sure, yeah. But I spoke with the applicant's engineer prior to the meeting and I
think they're going to address a little bit on this.
Sacchet: Okay, so we'll hear from the applicant.
Saam: Yeah. Basically the building elevation was set to standards such as there's
accessible, there's slope standards for accessible, what people used to call handicap
routes. You can't go over a certain slope for wheelchairs that expects accessibility.
They're keeping a lot of the existing parking so that elevation's kind of set. Then you
have West 78th Street and that sidewalk so that elevation's set so maybe the applicant's
engineer can talk to this a little better than me but basically with those two, the bottom,
the top being set and then the maximum slope requirements, that sets your building
elevation. So, and again maybe the applicant will add to that but that's.
Sacchet: Can you just clarify the height of the retaining wall on the north side where it's
probably the highest? It's about what?
10
-
-
Planning Commission l\wèting - October 5, 2004
Saam: Yeah, it is. 4 1/2 , I see 4 Y2 at the highest point. If I'm reading it right. Yeah, 4
Y2 appears to be the highest so.
Sacchet: 4 1/2 , and that kind of leads to my second question where we have this
building that's kind of recessed 4 feet roughly into the ground and so that takes away
from the height of the floor, for this is one story building. Then we have, it seems, what
seems to me a pretty massive roof structure on top of it. Now Sharmeen, you mentioned
that you already worked with the applicant to try to reduce that as much as possible.
AI-Jaff: What we did was, they changed the angle of the roof system.
Sacchet: Okay.
AI-Jaff: And that resulted in 4.3 feet less than what they initially put, so the roof that you
see today is essentially lower than where we started.
Sacchet: So from staff's perspective that is a balance thing, because my concern is since
the building's kind ofrecessed down, which makes it first look smaller, it's going to
make that roof structure even appear more massive. And it seemed like there was really a
massive amount of space in that roof structure, which is really just decorative the way I
understand it. I don't think it's being used.
AI-Jaff: They will be able to address this issue in more detail but it is intended to house
their roof top equipment basically and hide it from views. They have introduced 4
dormers, different sizes to just break up the, rather than looking at one large roof. But
they will be able to address that.
Sacchet: That's probably what we'll hear from the applicant on that part, okay. Alright,
I think that's all the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward
and tell us your story please. See what you can add to what staff presented and if you
would please state your name and address for the record.
Fred Riese: Absolutely. My name is Fred Riese and my wife's name is Valaire Riese.
We live at 9154 Sunnyvale Drive here in Chanhassen and it's been a pleasure working
with the city staff on this project. There's been a lot of cooperation and it's been our goal
from the beginning to work with maintaining the historic site for those working now in
the architecture of the school. And we are very proud to actually bring the Goddard
School to Chanhassen because we know it's going to give parents an alternative to a
regular child care facility for bringing their children to a preschool type business. My
staff here is John Bertelsen from John Oliver and Associates. And also Joel Hussong
from John Oliver and Associates as civil engineers. Brandy Geiger from Goddard
Systems, and Andy Martin from Goddard Systems and they are here to help me in
answering any of your questions. So please feel free to do so.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant.
11
_.
-
Planning Commission l\wèting - October 5,2004
Keefe: Yeah, I'm interested just to hear a little bit more about the Goddard School and
what it is and if you could just describe the business a little bit in terms of what it is.
Sacchet: How you distinguish yourself from other schools.
Papke: As you speak to that, it sounds like this a franchise of some sort.
Fred Riese: That is correct. Yeah, we are.
Papke: That's where, you know how many others there are and how does this compare
with the others, etc, etc.
Fred Riese: Sure. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask Brandy Geiger from
Goddard Systems to step up and she'll be able to fill you in on all those details.
Brandy Geiger: Good evening. First let's start off by yes, Goddard School is a franchise
business. They are not corporately run schools. They are owned and operated by local
residents. Fred and Valaire Riese are purchasing a license to operate our program and
they will be on site and operating it. They will be under our auspices and we will be
helping them develop curriculum and that sort of thing. We have a 170 schools open
right now in 23 states. This will be the first one in the State of Minnesota so we're real
excited not only for it to be the first one but to be in this community because of the
support we've gotten from the city has been incredible. A little bit about what the
Goddard School is and how it's a little different, or very different from a lot of the other
centers that you look at. If daycare or child care centers. This is a preschool. What we
do offer full educational curriculums to infants up through 6 years of age. It is 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. We really see ourselves more as the home away
from home for our children because of the interaction with the staff and the children. It's
very low ratios of staff to the children in the classrooms. There's a lot of interaction with
the parents with the on site owners because they're probably there with their neighbors,
co-workers and that sort of thing. We pride ourselves in our quality assurance. In our
health and safety and our commitment to making sure that the school is the highest
quality it can possibly be and that's evidenced by the interest that we have in people from
across the country who want to invest in this and want to open schools, either in states
that are already established, or in newer states like this. Like Minnesota. We just
recently, you know we're just about to move into Arizona and that sort of thing. We're
really spreading out over the country. We have been ranked over the last 3 years by
Entrepreneur Magazine as a solid business for the entrepreneurial type people that the
Riese's are, so we're very proud of that and we are leaders in our industry in just about
every aspect of what we do from playgrounds all the way up to curriculum. You
mentioned a couple things about our hours, which I just addressed, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m.. Little bit about drop off and pick up and how the traffic flows within our parking
lot, if you'd like me to address that, I can do that. We do have a staggered drop off
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in the morning. We do that because we don't want to
have the problem that a lot of schools run into where they have a drop off time where you
12
-
-
Planning Commission l\.~_.::ting - October 5, 2004
have you know the cars cueing in all morning and standing there and blocking traffic.
Everybody has different times that they need to get to work in the morning so the staff
will work with the parents to organize a drop off that's as streamline as possible. We do
the same thing in the afternoon. Our pick up is between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. I do want to
add that a lot of our students are part time. It means that they either come half days or
they only come 2 or 3 days a week. In that case about 30 percent of our student
population leaves midday every day. So the amount of traffic that you have in the
morning or the parents are coming in and dropping off, they will be coming back 30
percent of them come back in the afternoon and then you have less in the evening that
they are coming to pick up. I also want to mention that we do have a drop off procedure
that they do pull into the parking lot. They park. They stop their car. They take the child
into the building. And we do that for the safety of the children obviously, and it's also an
easy transition between the child and the staff member that they're getting turned over to.
I think you mentioned, I think it was, I think maybe I did cover the primary things. If
there's anything else that I can answer please.
Papke: From an architectural perspective, how does this particular unit compare? Is
there a look to all the Goddard Schools that this one adheres to or are all these unique?
Brandy Geiger: We have, we've been around for 15 years so we have a lot of schools
and Andy can come up and speak to that. He's one of our construction managers. We
have a lot of schools that have very different styles. Over the last couple of years we're
trying to really focus in on having that high quality look to the schools to reflect what's
going on inside the school. This is close to what our prototype is currently, but we have
adjusted it quite a bit to fit in with the site, with the desires of the city and with the needs.
Based on what this State of Minnesota tells us that we have to have within the building.
And anything else you'd like to add to that.
Andy Martin: Good evening. My name is Andy Martin. I also represent the Goddard
School. To give you a little history on the layout to start before I get into the
architectural aspects of the building. In fact, do we have the layout? First I'd like to
point out that our standard building of course, 8,000 square feet in size. Measures 80 by
100 foot. Due to the site constraints with this, I'm going to call it a pie shaped parcel,
and with what was existing parking there, obviously we chose to plot the building at the
northern portion of the lot. We discussed with the tenant and we looked at it from two
angles as far as how to place the building. Generally our entrance is from the 80 foot side
of the building, and we did inquire with the State of Minnesota to see if it was feasible to
modify our floorplan to accommodate an entrance off of the 100 foot side. But in this
location it did make more sense, it gave us a wider playground to the east and west side
of the building, which was much more appealing for the operation of the center. Then,
once we have, we're set in working with the city here and the plotting of the building, we
moved onto the roof and the architectural aspects of the building. Generally our building
has a 6:12 pitch. Unfortunately that didn't sit so well with the church as the back drop so
we were able to redesign the roof structure as minimum as we could, because currently
we do have all our mechanical equipment in the mezzanine of this building. This one
story building. All the furnace units, everything is located in that area. So though it's
13
-
-
Planning Commission l\.~,-,ding - October 5, 2004
usable space and the large mass of the roof structure, it is used for the mechanical
equipment. So I believe we did our best to make the roof line work within these
characteristics of the surrounding buildings in this area. Second, I know Fred Riese did
of course do research with some local vendors on the brick color and what not trying to
accommodate a suitable shade of brick to work within the church. The characteristics
and colors of the church. I'd like to touch base on the safety concerns as well, if that was
satisfactory to you. I know, I believe we are 12 foot from the right-of-way with the
setback of the building. And unfortunately, well I'll let the engineer, John Bertelsen, or
Joel discuss the grading and the reason we recessed the building for the accessibility
reasons but as far as for the location and such close proximity to 78th Street and of course
Great Plains Boulevard, we still feel very confident that with the local speed limits on
these two roads being 35 miles per hour, we are within adequate distance from that in the
event something were to happen there. We do, we did beef up the fence with the brick
columns inbetween the spans of the wrought iron type fence.
Sacchet: Alright, questions?
Keefe: Well I still have just a business question. Who do you guys compare yourselves
to in the market locally in Minnesota? I mean what sort of, who's kind of a comparable
operation? Yeah because obviously you fit in somewhere. Where do you...
Brandy Geiger: As far as part of the industry and who?
Keefe: Yeah.
Brandy Geiger: Our chief, if you want to call it a competitor I guess the one program
that's probably the closest to our's, I actually think, I don't even think they're in
Minnesota yet either. It's call Primrose Academy which is another preschool educational
facility. There are a couple in locally that I've seen. I think you have maybe a
Kindercare or something like that. They're probably in the same industry. Their
program is different. They're considered more of a daycare/child care. We do with our
educational standards, but they are in our industry. There's Children's World, New
Horizons, if that rings any bells.
Sacchet: Maybe you could give us a little bit of a nutshell insight of what your
philosophy is. How you deal with little kids. I mean you're calling a baby a student so
you must be trying to teach him something. There must be some sort of a basic principle
that you're following I would suspect.
Brandy Geiger: Right. Our entire curriculum is a Peoget based curriculum which
basically says that children learn through play. They learn through interaction. They
learn through integration with what's going on. It's not just static learning. It's not that
they're sitting in a corner playing by themselves. You could have an infant that's having
interaction with a staff member. They're on the floor playing with that staff member.
With maybe the other children. They're not in a swing or a crib all day long. There's
interaction. They get that contact that children need at that young age. I did get a lot of
14
-
-
Planning Commission l\~,-,ding - October 5, 2004
strange looks when I say we had educational curriculum for an infant. Anyone would
have said the same thing. What do you teach them? But you teach them there's
interactive skills and you really include them in group and that has been shown to help
tremendously. Then you move into pre-toddlers and toddlers and pre-kindergarten and of
course you just get into a huge range of things. Anything from sign language to foreign
language. We do have a lot of Spanish programs in some of our schools. Into dramatic
play. Of course there's the arts and there's the science and there's language and there's
all kinds of things that we try to involve them in that are activity based that they can
interact with and they get status reports. They go home with them every day. That the
teacher hand writes notes on each student every day that gets home with the parents so
they know what they did. They know what they experienced and I have several parents
who say you know they, sitting at the dinner table and all of a sudden the child starts
counting in Spanish. And of course that doesn't mean they speak Spanish but it means
you know they're listening and they're retaining something and they enjoy it.
Sacchet: You say it's based on Peoget?
Brandy Geiger: I'm sorry?
Sacchet: Who was it based on?
Brandy Geiger: Peoget. Ah yes. We also have a very well known child psychologist
that I believe is with Harvard University, if I'm not mistaken. Dr. Kyle Pruitt who is one
of our, who is our main consultant. Who is renown in his field as very knowledgeable of
the development of children. He writes books on our behalf. He, we just finished a
series of parent discussions with him that we do a lending library with our parents on
everything from biting to moving to divorce to all these sorts of things.
Sacchet: Well I appreciate you sharing a little bit about that. That's not necessarily what
we're judging here but it's good to have the framework. Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Back to planning. I have a question for Mr. Riese. If you can comment on
the parking agreement with the city or with the church and the adequacy of the parking in
your mind and possibly, you know I don't know if, I don't know what that church
operates as far as weekday events, but my church has some events during the day that
may overlap with the parking in your school there.
Fred Riese: The church has indicated to us, Justin Miller and I had a meeting with the
church, and also with Remax and the church had indicated to us that during the day
hours, the regular work day hours, that they would only require around 3 spots maximum
during the day hours, except on the weekends of course, for services. Which doesn't
interfere with the Goddard School because we are closed on the weekends. The church
is, in easements that are being currently re-written as we speak, the church is going to get
3 designated spaces on the east side of the parking lot which will be their's and their's
alone for the daytime hours. And so, and city hall will get 4 designated spaces which will
be their's and their's alone during the daytime hours also. The easement with Remax is
15
-
-
Planning Commission l\.~~.:ting - October 5, 2004
going to be maintained almost exactly the way it is, except that they're going to be
allowed through mutual agreements with the new owner, myself and my wife, that they
will be allowed to have overflow parking for special events and things like that. The
church will be using the parking obviously to a greater extent on the weekends. I believe
they have a congregation of about 50 right now and the parking lot holds 51 currently.
That's how the new design will be, about 51. So there should be adequate parking for
them on the site.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any more questions?
Keefe: Yeah, just planning related which will be related to dropping off the kids and the
adequacy of sort of the staging area for dropping them off. It just seems, I was just taking
a look at it. It doesn't seem like there's a ton of space between where the entrance to the
door is and the curb cut to go out to Great Plains Boulevard. I mean in terms of just the
volume of traffic that you expect to go in in the morning and sort of the circulation in that
parking lot, can you just speak to that a little bit in terms of...
Fred Riese: Yeah, the circulation in the parking is two way. It goes both ways. The
parking that's going to be right in the front of the school, okay which you can probably
see in the model there a little bit. Actually that's right here. That is going to be
designated as drop off and pick up and then the hatched area here, you can see this is an
area that's left open for parents and the children to have access to the front of the building
without having to go between cars.
Keefe: That's it.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Another design question. Sharmeen, when you showed the layout of the colors
of the brick and so on, given the 4 foot elevation change and the design of the building,
about 60-70 percent of what we're going to see is shingles as we drive down 78th Street.
What, I hope that the color, the shingles aren't going to be white as they're shown on the
scale model over there. I suspect there's been some thought about the color and texture
of the shingles. They are on there, okay. Okay.
Fred Riese: Yeah, the shingles are a weather wood. I matched it to the church's cedar
shingles the best I could. The church shingles are obviously you know extremely old and
actually moldy and green in a lot of areas. So weathered wood was the closest I could
come. It's going to be an architectural shingled roof.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: You already touched on the height of the roof and that it's being used for roof
top equipment like heating and cooling and all that sort of stuff I presume.
16
-
-
Planning Commission l\..L,-,.::ting - October 5, 2004
Fred Riese: There's going to be that type of equipment inside.
Sacchet: It does need that much height and space in there? It seemed quite bulky to me,
but on the other hand you comment on how you already reduced it so it looks like you
already did something in that direction, but I'd still like you to comment a little more on
that.
Fred Riese: Yeah, I had many discussions with Sharmeen, the architect and Andy Martin
on this subject. To bring it down to the 5: 12 roof line and we're doing that. As it is they
tell me that the space for let's say any maintenance done on the mechanicals up in the
attic area is they said is going to be extremely tight. Even with you know, and then the
mechanicals will fit but for someone to go up there and do maintenance after the project
is complete, will be more difficult they said because of the limited roof. The limited area
that will be available.
Sacchet: So in other words you think you went about as far as you reasonably can go
with that?
Fred Riese: That is correct.
Sacchet: Because my concern as I voiced before is that since the building is recessed and
that will make the roof look even more substantial because what's underneath is going to
be visually shrunk since it's recessed into the ground.
Fred Riese: I understand what you're saying, yes. If you look at it from a certain angle
like, let's say you're looking from west to east down 78th Street.
Sacchet: Right, you see mostly roof.
Fred Riese: You're going to see a lot of roof, but if you look at the 3D model, you're
going to see a lot of trees which actually will help block that roof. And those trees are
going to, they're existing and they're going to be staying so.
Sacchet: Good. And then my other question was the recessed aspect. The retaining
walls. It was mentioned in terms of accessibility and all that. Staff mentioned that was a
concern. I would assume you probably explored possibilities that you wouldn't have to
dig into the ground and put the building that far down.
Fred Riese: Yeah, I mean I would love to just keep it right on the flat surface where it is
now but for safety reasons, and actually I should probably let John Bertelsen, or Joel go
into this. For safety concerns we needed to bring it down, the grading down so that the
parking lot and the area in front of the building, that it would be safe for pedestrians.
Otherwise it was going to be like a ski slope, and would have been very dangerous.
17
~
Planning Commission 1, .::ting - October 5, 2004
-
Sacchet: Okay. Now in terms of where actually the playgrounds are, that's just small
area of the area on both sides.
Fred Riese: On both sides, yeah.
Sacchet: So what's the rest of the space being used around the playgrounds themselves
because it seems like the playgrounds are those small fenced areas with the play
equipment. Or is it the whole area?
Fred Riese: The whole area. The whole area is the playgrounds. Where this area here
and here is just where the playground equipment is.
Sacchet: Okay, but the whole area would be used for playground, okay. I want to be
clear about that. Okay. Yeah, so I'd like to hear a little bit more about this.
Fred Riese: Playground?
Sacchet: Elevation stuff and playground.
Andy Martin: In looking at the elevations I would just like to touch base on the
requirements of our playgrounds for the Goddard School. With finished side yard. With
finished side yard. We do have I believe approximately 3,500 square feet to either side,
which does meet Minnesota standards for playground... these rectangular boxes
underneath these piece of equipment is for, what's called a rubberized poured in place
surface. It's a resilient rubber surface. It's much better nowadays than sand or mulch.
So, but that is the use that is required under those equipment pieces. Otherwise the rest
of it, the yard is sod.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that's good to be clear about that. Thank you. Do we want to
hear about the elevation aspect from the engineering people?
John Bertelsen: I'm John Bertelsen with John Oliver and Associates in the Burnsville
office. The building and the elements around the building are very tightly related to one
another. The main components here are the building, the sidewalk to the north, the
sidewalk to the south, both of which are just about immediately adjacent to the building.
You have the head in parking that's directly south of the sidewalk on the south, and then
you have the dri ve aisle that's just south of that. The existing parking lot right now ends
approximately here, and if you obviously are aware of the site. The upper portion is
fairly flat and then you have a parking lot which slopes fairly consistently from the north
to the south at about a 6 percent grade, which is really more than what you'd like to see in
a parking lot because of the stop and starting that comes, that happens in parking lots.
Joel has actually attended a wedding at the church here in the winter and has had slidden
all the way down this entrance here unable to stop so it's really too steep for stopping and
starting movements. So when I looked at the site, and I looked at the grades in that
parking lot, I said unacceptable. However we really don't have the flexibility to redo all
the grades in the parking lot so we've got to work somewhat with what we have. We've
18
-
-
Planning Commission k _ding - October 5, 2004
got to take into consideration the use that we're proposing. So what I did was, just
relating to itself, you've got a building that's flat. Flat elevation. Obviously it's one
level. You have a sidewalk to the north and the south which slopes at 2 percent which is
the typical slope for sidewalks. We have handicap parking here, ADA parking which can
be a maximum of 2 percent, and then we have the drive aisle which I set at what's kind of
my maximum of 3 percent. I'll go to 4 but really in 24 feet, 3 to 4 percent is only about
that much, so it really isn't that good but it's way better than the 6 percent that's out
there. So when you take that in relation to itself, you have to drop it down or raise it up
until that southerly edge matches the existing parking lot. When you do that the rest of it
bam, is set. So you just take that elevation of the existing parking lot. Run those
percentage to grades, which is 0 in the building, 2 percent base because you're parking
and sidewalk, all the way through to the north to the south. South to the north excuse me,
and you get an elevation. There's really no way to change that other than adjusting the
floor in the building, or putting some more space between the building and the sidewalks,
it just isn't available on this particular facility. So it just happens that we ended up with 4
feet at the north end. 4 feet is a pretty nice dimension when you have these segmental
retaining walls that you see being put up all over the place. The standard block units. 4
feet is a maximum height that you can go before you have to start putting some geo grid
fabric back behind the wall to keep the wall stable. So in this instance it just happened to
be 4 feet. We didn't really choose 4 feet. We didn't choose to put a retaining wall there
really either. It just happened to come out that way. And we would like to reduce that
because the retaining wall obviously costs money. We'd like to reduce the amount offill
coming off the site, but it just isn't there because of the existing parking lot grades, and
the relationship with sidewalks to the building and ADA requirements.
Sacchet: So for this type of use, terracing or anything like that wouldn't really work?
Okay.
John Bertelsen: No, it just doesn't work. As Andy had mentioned, if we could have
turned the building 90 degrees, that would have helped but you would have lost
significant playground and really it wouldn't have been nearly as functional as it is today.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Well I appreciate your presentation. You want to add
something more from your end?
Fred Riese: Not unless you have some more questions for us.
Sacchet: I think we about exhausted our questions so thank you very much for excellent
presentation from all of you. Excellent team here. With that, this is a public hearing. I'd
like to invite any of the residents that are here to come forward. If you have something to
comment about this proposal. This is your time to come forward and please state your
name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say please. Please get
the microphone somewhat targeting your mouth. Yeah, you just pull it right over. It's a
flexible arm. There you go.
19
-
.-
Planning Commission 1. ~èting - October 5, 2004
Fred Prinz: I don't want to talk too loud into it. My name is Fred Prinz. I live at 408
Santa Fe Circle, which is a couple of streets away from 78th Street. I just found out today
that basically all I can do is comment on my presentation and that what I'm saying is not
bonafide as far as the building itself. But I ran a survey with a bunch of members of our
city and basicall y I've accumulated about 160 signatures here which I'd like to gi ve to
the Planning Commission to submit along with whatever else you do. But basically the
160 people are requesting that the property remain vacant. I know this is probably not in
your purvey at this point to make.
Sacchet: But are they willing to buy it?
Fred Prinz: Huh?
Sacchet: Are they willing to buy it?
Fred Prinz: No, the city already bought it. We paid for it already. And so I don't see
that we have to buy it again.
Sacchet: Okay. That was semi joke so.
Fred Prinz: I understand...so I'd like to submit this and give it to wherever this
organization that we have, who is composed of that organization? That EDA.
Sacchet: The EDA that is?
Fred Prinz: Yes. Who are they?
Aanenson: Justin, want to address that?
Sacchet: Justin, do you want to speak up to that please.
Fred Prinz: Because if I have to address them, I'd like to be able to know who I'm
talking to.
Sacchet: Well here's one of them, right?
Miller: No. I don't get a vote. The EDA is the Economic Development Authority and
it's made up of the 5 members of the City Council.
Fred Prinz: Currently.
Miller: Currently.
Sacchet: It is the City Council.
Fred Prinz: With the mayor and all that?
20
-
.-
Planning Commission L ~eting - October 5, 2004
Miller: The mayor and the 4 council members make up the EDA.
Fred Prinz: So then in this case I would, just for elaboration on my part, whatever my
next step is, would have to deal with the City Council, is that correct? Okay, thank you.
That's all I had.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to come forward? Jack, please.
State your name and address.
Jack Atkins: My name's Jack Atkins. I live at 220 West 78th Street. About 2 blocks east
of the property. I guess in lieu of not being able to bring Pauly's back, it seems to me
there was some reference made to the open space and usage on it. It looks to me like the
entire property, right up to the right-of-way is being fenced in with a wrought iron gates
and there's no public access to any of that. It's basically being locked off. I think you
have to go through the building to get out into the play areas?
Sacchet: I would definitely think so considering the use of it.
Jack Atkins: So I mean from a public use standpoint we'll get to enjoy it by looking at it
through the wrought iron fence.
Sacchet: And you can look down too from 78th Street.
Jack Atkins: Yeah, and look down. I guess from my standpoint, I mean certainly the
EDA has to make economic as well as whatever type of decisions but I mean this would
seem something at least should be sited along the frontage road on Highway 5. To me
there's plenty of space there to accommodate that, and I understand that going from a
6:12 to 5:12 was an accommodation but 5:12 over a distance of probably what, that's 40
feet there. It's 17 feet of pitch to the top of the roof from the top of the first floor, which
is pretty significant like you said. It's a lot of roof, but I mean it's better than a Chill and
Grill but anyway that's my comment.
Sacchet: Thanks Jack.
Dick Mingo: Good evening. We're missing a good ball game here. My name is Dick
Mingo. I live at 7601 Great Plains Boulevard which is about 3 short blocks straight north
of the site we're discussing. I'm a 47 year resident of this community. I've lived here
since the population was about 110 when I married my wife and moved in here. It's
changed quite a bit. My very quick comment is, a number of comments I want to make
about this site. First off I'm not against a school but I think it's in the wrong site. It
definitely does not belong on that site. We've got two historical things left in this whole
community that kind of are our original items, and one of them we moved in there. Of
course the old city hall. And St. Hubert's original church of course goes way back.
Dates to old times. We have got a park there, and I know we've paid for it. You also
paid for Bandimere Park. You paid for some other parks. You just have to write it off
21
-
-
Planning Commission L ~èting - October 5, 2004
that this is a park. I think that should remain as a park. You've got a beautiful
unhindered view of those historic sites as you come down from the west, real neat
looking area. In the next few weeks we're going to see beautiful trees along there. One
of the prettiest sites in all of Chanhassen. In fact I would like to see at some point in the
future if we could keep it a park, which it should be. That that would be a site for a
Veteran's Memorial or a Pioneer Memorial honoring the pioneers of this community. I
think it's a great gateway to Chanhassen. As the people come into town. We've got
literally thousands and thousands of visitors visiting our Dinner Theater right across the
street and I would think it would be very nice to maintain that park and that historic site
for our visitors as they come in. A couple things about what I'm seeing here. The
playground. That was one of the thoughts I had. Where are they going to play? In the
cemetery? But I see you've got that and you've got one playground that's going to be
sitting right outside the front doors of the two historical sites. The other one will be in
the west side that you'll see as you come down 78th Street toward it. I love playgrounds.
I'm a retired school teacher. Taught school for 30 years but playgrounds are not very
pretty. They're there for fun and again I just think this is the wrong thing in the wrong
spot here in Chanhassen and I would just plead that we keep this as a city park and
maintain it for future reference. Again it's the only green area left in all of old town
Chanhassen. Once it's gone, it's gone. There are no other green areas that I can think of
in old town Chanhassen. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else? Please come forward.
Judy Schmieg: How long do I get?
Sacchet: Until you're done.
Judy Schmieg: Thank you. First I have a couple questions.
Sacchet: Name and address please.
Judy Schmieg: Judy Schmieg, 200 West 77th Street. And then I would like to ask some
questions of the people that are here that have come up in the procedure, and then I'd like
to comment on some of the school issues.
Sacchet: Okay, let's get going.
Judy Schmieg: Okay. Is this the first public hearing on this?
Sacchet: I would think so.
AI-Jaff: On this plan.
Aanenson: On the site plan.
Judy Schmieg: Yes or no?
22
-
-
Planning Commission lhèeting - October 5, 2004
Sacchet: For the site plan, yes. I mean the public hearing is about the site plan. I'm sure
there have been discussions about this parcels before that I'm aware of.
Judy Schmieg: Is this the first public hearing on this site?
Sacchet: On the site plan, yes. This is a new site plan.
Judy Schmieg: Thank you. Okay. Does the city, let me clarify that. The residents of
Chanhassen still own the property that's described as Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall.
Miller: Yes.
Judy Schmieg: Okay. So this is the time and the place for those citizens, if they're going
to sell a piece of property, to come and have an opinion about their piece of property. Is
that correct?
Aanenson: That's not correct.
Sacchet: No it's not.
Judy Schmieg: Okay. .. .just one more. Can we just back up then? That's not correct.
Aanenson: No. This is the Planning Commission is here to decide whether or not this
site plan meets the zoning code. That's what this hearing's about. Not to decide, this
body does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not this piece of property should
be sold.
Judy Schmieg: Okay. So can you just tell us citizens that keep waiting for
communication for all of this, how we do this? We wait for a public hearing. We have
160 signatures. We wait until it's told and then it is our property. We should at least
have a voice in it. You people are representatives of us. If there's 160 people that don't
want to sell this, like how do we do this then?
Lillehaug: You need to contact your, the EDA which is our City Council. We don't
represent the ownership of the land period. We up here don't other than.
Judy Schmieg: Is your recommendation then that the, that we need to do it at the City
Council level? So wait til all of this is done and then come back from the neighborhoods
and say to the City Council, we don't want to sell this piece of property. It's very small.
It's 1 acre. We don't want to sell it. And the city hopefully, council would listen to the
people because that's what they're there for.
Lillehaug: I would hope so.
23
-.
-
Planning Commission lhèeting - October 5, 2004
Sacchet: There is no reason why you can't contact the mayor or City Council at this
point. About this, since you have that concern. Because I understand where you're at.
Judy Schmieg: I'm a single citizen. There's a public hearing. We, you tell us right away
when we come they can't decide anything.
Aanenson: No, that's not what I said. Let me just clarify again what the Planning
Commission's role is. The Planning Commission by law has to process an application
within so many days and make a recommended.
Judy Schmieg: I read that.
Aanenson: Right, so that's what their role is.
Judy Schmieg: I know that. So you tell us right away that that's all their role is. To
approve it. Okay, if everything is done and the city planner approved it, and they've
done everything, there's nothing for them to approve. They're abided by the laws. They
did everything right so they're not, and they can't make any choices whether we think it
should be a Dairy Queen or a school. So that means you're saying they can't tell us, the
citizens that.
Aanenson: Well just to back up. Again, within that zoning district that's probably the
most, the largest number of uses can go in that district. So if it wasn't a daycare, could it
be a liquor store? Yes. Could it be a bar? Yes.
Judy Schmieg: Let me comment to that. In answer to Justin's question. Bethany I think
you asked Justin, what happens if they move out in 10 years? Justin nicely said they
can't because we put in there that they can't open up a Quick and Easy and a liquor store.
And they can't do that, right?
Miller: That's right.
Judy Schmieg: No Justin, they did that to us. Exactly that. They said nothing will go in
there. Now it's a park. That's exactly what they told us. Just like you're telling Bethany
that we won't let it. We put that in there they can't sell it to a liquor store or... so that's a
frustration that the city is meeting right now. The other thing is, if it's a school, if it's a
school, is it charter? It's in a daycare. It's a daycare. It's 6 weeks to 6 years. They go to
school at 6 years old. This is a daycare. And it should, is it licensed by Minnesota, here
in Chanhassen that this is a daycare. It's a New Horizon. It has all the same issues New
Horizon, everybody else has. Another thing, if you do take wrought iron gates for
children, have you ever seen a head hit against a wrought iron railing? With 134 kids,
you want them to climb up 4 feet so they can hang on the railing and smash their head.
134 kids. That doesn't make sense. Why would you even care? Then when you stick
them right on traffic, I went by there at 5:00 today too, and unless you put a semaphore
light across from Frontier Dinner Theaters to let those people out, people will never get
out and you'll back up traffic to 101 because I stopped my car to see how long it took. I
24
-.
-
Planning Commission lneeting - October 5, 2004
just pretended and killed the engine. And how quickly I could back up traffic coming off
of 5. This is not the place for this particular thing and I agree with you. There is nothing
wrong with a daycare. St. Hubert's, new St. Hubert's has a front parcel and a back
parcel. They have playgrounds. They have traffic control. They have parking spaces.
You have 31 spots. That doesn't even include staff parking.
Sacchet: Okay, that was the comment part?
Judy Schmieg: But I'll let someone else, so that everyone can get a chance.
Sacchet: Alright, thanks Judy. Appreciate your speaking up. We have somebody else.
Chris Thompson: My name is Chris Thompson. I don't live in Chanhassen but I
represent Remax Action West, which is an adjoining parcel. And I have two issues that I
just want to bring to your attention. One has to do with the traffic, and I guess if we can
have a camera on here. This is the entrance to Remax right here. We have a perpetual
easement to get into Remax. I'll illustrate which lines in that direction. And my
comment is that what we would like to see is in the re-writing of this easement which is
occurring, to lose one of the spots in the parking lot and to cut back on this existing island
here. To make the entrance into Remax a more reasonable entrance as opposed to kind of
being in the back of this parking lot as it exists today. The reason that that ended up
being like it is is because of the existing island that's in that parking lot. I was not
involved, my father-in-law Darrell Berger who is the owner of Remax and I wasn't
involved in the writing of this easement but I believe, from what I understand, the idea
was not to disturb that island at that time and that's how we ended up with an easement as
we did.
Sacchet: So you're proposing that that would change that island.
Chris Thompson: What I'm proposing is to change this island, and if one looks at, the
easement is supposed to be 26 feet wide and it actually requires, if you ever use this
parking lot, and I have a few times, to turn in, in this direction, many times you're going
to run over the curb here. The turning radius is too sharp and it would not be something
that I think the architect would plan on in the absence of this island being here to begin
with. And the way I've laid it out, it would just require one parking spot to be lost, which
based on the parking count that I see is, as it was laid out in the site plan, and I could
have an older site plan but my copy suggests that the school needs 28 spaces. And if the
church is shown with 7, although I think it's the church and the city hall, if you lose one
space, on my count you get 33 spaces. And you had mentioned 51 just a few minutes
ago, I'm not sure where that came from so I just thought I'd point that out. So anyway,
my main point is, has to do with the easement as it exists with the city right now. There
is a written easement that's described. I'd like to see, I don't have a problem or we don't
have a problem with this development and contrary to some of the other comments, you
know I can take it or leave it. But if there's going to be a change.
Sacchet: Like to improve that.
25
-
-
Planning Commission hièeting - October 5, 2004
Chris Thompson: I'd like to see a more reasonable entrance to Remax. It wasn't really
the entrance that we had hoped for, my father-in-law had hoped for to begin with. I know
that. And so there were some accommodations made at that time. The other thing has to
do with signage and we would propose that there be some common sign age associated
with Remax with the proposed school and the church and/or city hall in this general area
to help guide people as to where they're going. So we would propose that if there is to be
some kind of stand alone monument sign or something, that it be a common sign.
Sacchet: Okay, good point.
Chris Thompson: And that's my comment.
Sacchet: Appreciate it very much, thank you.
Li llehaug: Can I ask.
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: It doesn't look like they're touching that portion of the parking lot. I don't
know, are you willing to pay them money to redo their parking lot in that area? Just a
question.
Chris Thompson: The removal of that small amount of island is not going to cost very
much, and we would be willing to share in that cost of just that.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: That's fair, thank you. Anybody else wants to address this item. Public hearing
is still open. If nobody else wants to speak up, yes. We've got a retake here from our
friend Judy. You going to ask me how long you have this time again? Alright, go ahead.
Judy Schmieg: You are the Planning Commission.
Sacchet: Yes, we are the Planning Commission.
Judy Schmieg: And that is important for the planning of how things work together in this
city. And to have no say other than to meet the regulations doesn't seem right either.
That there should be a lot of thought put into planning and I think I was commenting to
you Sharmeen, when you take a senior citizen high rise with the age of 73, average age
73 and you put a bicycle shop next to it, how great you know that is for those senior
citizens to go to the bike shop. When you put a Houlihan's where they love to eat
because they can't hear anybody is like that whole planning is an issue in this town. We
have become a strip mall. There are 15 strip malls in this town and what, 19 banks are
we up to or something.
26
-
-
Planning Commission lHèeting - October 5, 2004
Sacchet: They're definitely sprouting.
Judy Schmieg: ...you are the Planning Commission. It is important. It's very important
that you have, and we've worked hard to keep that little bit of green space and if that
takes planning to do it, then it should be done. Coffee shop, we haven't started there.
Sacchet: Yeah, well you want a Dairy Queen there?
Judy Schmieg: It should be stayed with a park.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. So do we have any last takers here for the public
hearing? Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the public hearing. Bring it back to the
commission for discussion. Comments. Steve, you want to start?
Lillehaug: I have a couple questions first. Is this land zoned for the use of the, what
they're?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then maybe a question to Justin. Were there previous, was there
previous verbiage attached to this property when the city bought it that precludes this
use? Putting a school or a daycare on this property or that said it was going to be a park
from here on out.
Miller: No. As far as I understand, this land that used to be Pony Express, Pauly's Bottle
Shop, I think John Pryzmus had an office there. So they call it the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus
property. As I understand there were no restrictions on the land when we bought it.
Lillehaug: When the city bought it there was no restrictions?
Miller: There were no restrictions.
Sacchet: Where's the notion that this would be park come from?
Miller: I do not know if it's, I don't know that it's ever been decided by the city that it
will be a park. If that's the case, I would stand corrected if somebody can produce those
records but.
Sacchet: It's something I think should be researched.
Miller: There might have been a recommendation from the park commission.
Aanenson: There was a recommendation. The City Council never acted on that
recommendation.
Sacchet: So there was a notion but it wasn't implemented.
27
-
-
Planning Commission Ihèeting - October 5, 2004
Aanenson: The park commission discussed it...
Sacchet: Okay, as a possibility.
Aanenson: ... but the City Council never said we're going to re-guide it open space as a
park. It was never rezoned or anything like that.
Sacchet: So in terms of the comprehensive plan, in terms of the zoning, it was always
considered full commercial.
Miller: It is not denoted as a park in our park system. It doesn't have a name as a park.
Judy Schmieg: Heritage Square.
Aanenson: And it's commercially zoned. All our other parks are zoned parks/open
space. So this still has a commercial zoning to it.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, did you have some wisdom since you've seen this all unroll in
front of your eyes?
Dick Mingo: Could I add one other thing?
Sacchet: Real quick, yeah.
Dick Mingo: Originally the business places that were located were, the spot we're
talking about of course, were I think picked up through condemnation, am I not correct
on that?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Dick Mingo: And it was my understanding when that occurred we would not replace,
you eliminate a business place that had been there since 1933 and now replace it with
another business place. I think that's dirty pool when we do stuff like that and I know
time has changed things but still, as I recall going back historically, the only thing that
was ever proposed for that property, other than a park possibly, was a library and they
decided it's not big enough for a library to go in there.
Sacchet: Too small for a library, yeah. Especially the size of library we got. Alright.
This turned out more lively. I think we can compete with Chaney and Edwards here
tonight. Alright, we have comments and discussion here. Kurt, you want to.
Papke: In general I support this. This seems to satisfy all the zoning regulations,
requirements, comprehensive plan. I understand the issues the citizens have had with a
perception, or an expectation that this would be a park but that's really up to the City
Council to decide. I think the request brought forth by the Remax representative were
28
-
~
Planning Commission lHeeting - October 5, 2004
very reasonable. I think the suggestion of, for sharing of the costs of the island certainly
makes sense. I can see where that could be a real issue, particularly with all the slopes
and so forth, and I liked kind of the idea of the common signage too. Has that been
considered? Is that?
Aanenson: Yes. We've talked to him about that.
Papke: Okay. Okay, so other than that I have no real issues. I have some concerns about
the aesthetics of this, given that we're going to see a lot of roof here as you come down
78th Street but I think the EDA has decided that this is how they want to develop that
property and I think that's how it goes.
Lillehaug: Well said.
Sacchet: Anything more to add Dan?
Keefe: Yeah, I generally, you know I don't think we have jurisdiction over getting into
whether it's a park or not and I think they seemed to have worked with you guys really
well and seem to have a pretty well designed building and I don't know that we really
have anything but really to support it because I think they've done a pretty good job in
regards to the planning issues. I did have just a couple of questions, just so I can clarify.
The area outside of the play areas that's within the fence on either side of the building,
what is the surface?
Aanenson: Grass.
Keefe: Is it grass?
Aanenson: Grass, except for the area underneath the play structures...
Keefe: Okay, so it is grass.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: I guess in terms of lighting of the building, any sort of after hours. Is it going to
be a well lit area or what was your?
AI-Jaff: Well there is existing light fixtures out there today. They are adding a few light
fixtures on the building itself and that is denoted on the light plan that you have. They
are not adding any new fixtures to the overall site. You've got lights on West 78th as well
as Great Plains Boulevard and I think there are five fixtures between the plaza and
between Village Hall and this site.
Keefe: Yeah, even one of my thoughts is just you know as you're driving down, it may
be after dark and you know, how's it going to change. I mean we've done a lot of work
with the roof, but you know are we now going to have lighting in places which is going
29
-
.-
Planning Commission luèeting - October 5, 2004
to kind of detract from some of the changes that we made in terms of that? And they
have to come back with more specifics on lighting but I just kind of want to bring it up as
maybe a concern that we just want to make sure that we.
Aanenson: Follow through.
Keefe: So, that's it.
Tjornhom: My comments, well the first was going to be directed to some of the people
that were here but they left so I can't. I was going to say that I am sympathetic to how
they feel. I drive by there all the time and I like the open space in a perfect world. It
would be nice to have a gazebo or like he said, a memorial to the pioneers or something,
but that's not my job here tonight. My job is to review this site plan and see if it meets
the standards of the city and I think it's a good use for that area. We have a school across
the street and I think it fits in well, and so I also, I see nothing wrong with this. So that's
it.
Sacchet: Alright. I don't really have much to add. We have to be clear what our scope is
of what we're dealing with and it's a good proposal. I think it's compatible with the
surrounding. It fits with the comprehensive plan. With the zoning. Seems like an
extensive effort went into working with staff and making it as much suitable as possible
in every which way. The concern of the residents about trying to make this a park is
really not our decision here. I mean it's something that City Council's going to have to
look at. So with that I'm willing to take a motion.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan 04-32 for an 8,068 square foot building to house a school as shown on the plans
dated received September 3,2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 18.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Papke: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan 04-32 for an 8,068 square foot building to house a school as
shown on the plans dated received September 3, 2004, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall preserve all existing trees south of the grading limits and outside of
the property lines. Any trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter
inches.
2. Applicant shall move the red maple shown in the southeastern corner of the site to a
location within the grading limits. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the
city.
30
-
-
Planning Commission hièeting - October 5, 2004
3. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained including
but not limited to the MPCA and Watershed District.
4. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1006,2001,3101,3102,5201,
5203,5214 and 5300.
5. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for the new building. The
2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the
parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the
number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council.
6. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil
engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
7. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota and require a permit from the Building
Department. A 4-foot safety fence must be included on top of the wall where
adjacent to a pedestrian walkway.
8. On the site plan, revise the handicap parking stall from 9-inch to 9-feet.
9. On the utility plan:
- Revise the sanitary sewer pipe class from SDR35 to SDR26.
- Revise the watermain pipe from CL55 to CL52.
10. Show all existing easements on the plans.
11. Revise the plans to provide a minimum of 1.5 feet of elevation difference between the
FFE of the building and the emergency overflow elevations of the side yard areas.
12. Storm sewer sizing calculations for a lO-year storm event must be submitted prior to
building permit approval
13. Tree protection fencing must be installed around all trees in the construction zone that
will remain.
14. All roof top equipment shall be screened.
15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the
necessary financial securities.
16. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The building will be built to the 2000 International Fire Code as adopted by the
State of Minnesota not the NFP A 10 1 2000 Life Safety Code.
31
-
-
Planning Commission lueeting - October 5, 2004
b. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention policies (copies enclosed):
· 01-1990 regarding fire alarm systems
· 04-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans
· 07-1991 regarding pre-fire plan drawings.
· 29-1992 regarding premise identification
· 36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing
· 40-1995 regarding fire protection systems
· 34-1993 regarding water service installation
c. The 4-inch ductal iron pipe as shown on page C4-1 should be no smaller than 6-
inch per NFP A 13 Sect. 9-1.3.
17. 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. The accessible parking spaces must be located on the shortest possible route to the
buildings served.
d. Roof drain piping must be air tested within 10 feet of the building.
e. Detailed occupancy related requirements will not be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted for a building permit.
f. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
18. 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 and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Sacchet: We wish you luck with this. Excellent project.
Lillehaug: Could I add a comment to this?
Sacchet: Yes. This is going to council. We do want to summarize.
Lillehaug: I just want to make a note that, at least in my opinion, my support wasn't for
the actual use of this land for this building versus leaving it open space. It was strictly
looking at the site plan because I'm not sure if I support it or not leaving it open space or
not so it was strictly looking at the site plan and if it adhered to the city comp plan and
ordinances.
Sacchet: Yeah, in summary for our council I think we have to be very clear that we look
at this as a site plan. How it fits with the ordinances. The comprehensive plan. With the
uses in the surrounding, which in those context it seems a very good fit. However the
32
-
-
Planning Commission ld.eeting - October 5, 2004
concern that's been brought up very strongly from the local residents that they would
prefer this to be an open area, a park, possibly a memorial or something like that. I think
that's a consideration that has merit but that's not our scope to decide upon so that's
going to be up to the City Council to look at, which I would hope has been looked at to
some extent when they made the decision to consider this. So to some extent I would
expect that this is a little bit of a done deal as such, which then poses another difficulty
which was brought up by the residents that felt they had not any opportunity to input into
that process. I mean the fact that they have a list of signatures of 150 or 60 long certainly
shows that there would have been a voice from the citizen side that should be heard, and
maybe there should be an effort made in retrospect to put that into the picture and see
how that can be duly considered in the process. So I would very much want to encourage
the City Council to consider that but that's not our job here as Planning Commission.
Anything more we want to add to the summary for council? Alright, that's it for this one.
Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Rick Dorsey
Krista Novack
1551 Lyman Boulevard
Town & Country Homes, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Along those lines Kate, unfortunately I wasn't here last week for the Town and
Country materials but if you look at what you have here in place and you look at the very
first one we're going to see here, how does it line up? How close are they coming? You
know are we kind of.
Aanenson: Yeah, well they presented an excellent presentation to the Planning
Commission at the work session the last time and actually we asked them to hold off until
we came in with the design standards, and actually I think the Planning Commission at
that first review, I'll let Dan and Steve comment if they want to say something different
but I think we were pretty pleased as introducing a different product. Looking at the mix.
The pitch of the roof. Open space. That project now proposes actually public open
space. Looking at some of the natural features. Orientation of buildings. Some of those
things that the current ordinance doesn't address orientation so I believe that that is
moving in the direction that we want to see on the rest of the project. So very pleased.
Papke: .. . effect on some of the developers.
Aanenson: Correct.
33