The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2004 11 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, Rich Slagle, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 23 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CROSSING OF A CREEK AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF PIPEWOOD LANE AND CARTWAY LANE, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7. Public Present: Name Address Lisa & Jeff Jewison 3842 Meadow Court Don Peterson 6414 Aster Trail Steve McSherry 6571 Kirkwood Circle Vic Moravec 3821 Linden Circle Rick Hueffmeier 6551 Kirkwood Circle nd Gary Carlson 3891 West 62 Street Kathy Schurdevin 3921 Aster Trail nd Dale Keehl 3841 West 62 Street Cindy & Peter Thomson 4001 Aster Trail Perry Ryan Ryan Engineering Lisa & John Jordan 6541 Kirkwood Circle Casey & Joe Bergquist 4011 Pipewood Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start Dan? Keefe: Sure. A couple questions. The typical housing plan for this, can you speak to that? Is it similar to the houses in the adjacent or is it, are they larger or smaller? Generous: I would, if the developer could answer that. Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Keefe: Okay. Alright. Can you speak a little bit to the trees? It looked like they were going to take out most of them. The grading is such that they’re going to take out pretty much all of the. Generous: Basically all the upland area, or the majority of the upland area will be altered, and so every tree that’s outside of the wetland, and except for a couple corners will be removed. Keefe: Okay. I’m just confirming that. And I didn’t understand the discussion around the retaining wall behind 8. When I looked at Lot 8 on Block 1, it looked like there was a 6 to 8 foot retaining wall I think behind there. But it was just behind that particular lot and I was curious how that worked with you know drainage and why it was just behind that particular. Matt on that? Saam: Yeah, sure. The drainage will come around both sides of the lot. I can go up there. One of our recommendations by the way was to move the retaining wall further to the north to provide more of a back yard area. Something to what Bob spoke about, about having a deck and shed and those sorts of things so, we do want to provide the 20 foot flatter area in that back yard for the future residents. The way the drainage will work is basically it will be split around both sides of the house and it will drain out, there will be a swale here and then also one on this side so. Keefe: So it goes out to what, catch basins in that cul-de-sac or something? Saam: There are no catch basins in the cul-de-sac. It will drain to the street which will then drain down to catch basins right here. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Sacchet: Anything else Dan? Keefe: Just the one last question as in regards to the, there was some discussion around Cartway Lane and the cul-de-sac, you know the street terminates in a cul-de-sac and then there’s going to be utilization of the road that goes, the gravel road that goes to the east from there. Is that, would the developer then be responsible for maintaining that road? Who maintains that dirt road if we’re actually thinking that it might be utilized. Are we thinking it might be utilized? Or, and at least when I looked at it, I’m not sure, I’m curious to know who would maintain that. Is that a city maintained road or is that? Saam: Since it’s gravel I don’t believe the city plows it right now, even though it is in city right- of-way. I was just talking to a resident prior to the meeting and he was saying that they maintain, the residents who access off it directly maintain it right now as in plowing and that sort of thing. And the reason, just to give a little history on that, the subdivision to the east of the property, when that came in in the 80’s, I forget what year, staff at that time was looking ahead to a future connection to that plat, and so they had an easement dedicated for roadway purposes which is shown right here. Now when this plat came in, we looked at basically the same thing. You know do we eliminate the long cul-de-sac’s. We want an alternate access, that sort of thing, so we looked at the feasibility of coming through here. It didn’t take too long to see that this house is basically right on the easement line and then the one to the south is just a few feet off, about 15 feet. Typically we have a 30 foot setback so we didn’t think that was a real good 2 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 situation to put in a road through there. So we had the applicant show how a future whole city street could come to fruition with the development of this property to the north. And we also use as our out, so to speak, is that we do have Cartway Lane right now for emergency type access. Or if the road is closed down, maybe down here, people can still get out this way to the public street up here and get down to Highway 7. So it’s going to be a temporary thing until the development to the north, when they, when the property to the north develops, we can then vacate Cartway and get a public street through some sort of fashion. Keefe: Just for reference purposes, Cartway Lane comes down, goes north to the south and then does like a 90 degree turn. Where on the map does it make it’s 90 degree turn? Is that right at the corner of the cul-de-sac there? Saam: Pretty much, yeah. Right in here. So there might be, to get it to connect to the curb line, you know they may have to feather that out a little but it won’t take a lot of work to connect it. Keefe: Okay, that’s it. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Any questions Rich? No? Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I’ve got two. The first one I’m not sure if it’s for staff or the developer. Lot 1, Block 1, one of the lots that you’re proposing to eliminate here. I’m a little confused as to how the driveway access is with all the wetlands and the culverts there. Is there a proper spacing for a driveway to access the building pad there? Are there any issues with that? You know I would think there wouldn’t be but it just. Saam: Yeah, none that we saw. I mean driveways, we do allow them to go down to 10 feet in tight spaces. Typically we see about 20 but for something like that it might start at 10 and then widen out. Papke: When was this, how long has this been zoned residential single family? Generous: At least since the 80’s. Papke: So at the time the Meadow Court development went in, it was zoned residential single family? So any of the residents in that neighborhood should have had knowledge of the RSF zoning at that point. Generous: Correct. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: I read through this and I guess the first thing that comes to my mind, and maybe staff can clarify this for me, it seems like there’s a lot of extreme things happening. A lot of trees being taken down. Wetlands being filled in. Streets being tampered with. Was there any other way to go about this? Without having to do all this. And maybe that’s not an easy question, 3 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 because I realize the developer wants to get as many lots in as possible and get as many homes in but it just seems that, I don’t know. It seems kind of extreme. Generous: At least for the wetland filling, that’s the minimum that we could do. We, with the extension of Pipewood Lane to provide access to the property, we basically said that. We’re going to cross the creek there, and that’s the only wetland impact that they have is for the road crossing. The rest of the development avoids that. They are providing mitigation adjacent to it but that’s just part of creating it. As far as grading, I don’t know. I don’t know if Matt looked at it. Is there alternatives to not grading this site? I don’t know. Saam: We did mention, it’s not a big deal but in the rear yard of Lot 9, I guess it’s Block 1 on the north there, there’s something they can do there to minimize the extent of clearing into the trees. Other than that, I think that’s more a question for their engineer. I know they’re trying to balance the dirt work on site so they don’t have to truck in or truck out. So I think that’s more a question for him as to the other options in terms of the grading. Yeah, that’s a good point. They have revised it since we originally looked at it on the north side of the plat where the slope comes down into the rear yards. Previously they had walkouts there which would have required larger retaining walls, more severe grading, so we have had them revise that so I think they did a good job in that respect to minimize. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: What is the schedule as far as the deadline that this must be forwarded to the council for a recommendation and approval? th Aanenson: 13? thth Generous: Yeah, it’s scheduled for the December 13 meeting. The deadline is December 14. Lillehaug: Okay. Question number 2. What is staff’s opinions on the condition and type of trees? Obviously most of them are being wiped out. What is staff’s position on those trees? Are they significant? Significant trees or are they you know described mostly as scrub trees or? Generous: Yeah, Jill didn’t mention that she noticed any significant trees out there per se. It was more an older farmed area. So not a good example of big woods. Some box elder. Trees like that. Lillehaug: And my final question would be, do we not have in our city code the requirement that they must demonstrate a 60 by 60 pad? I mean I know we went back and forth on this but is that not applicable here? Generous: The specific language for a 60 by 60 pad is not in there. It says for tree removal we estimate at least 105 feet. But we’re looking at existing, what kind of housing we have out in the community and we’re trying to make these sizes acceptable to that. We’re finding out that it’s really a wider lot, not a deeper lot that’s important for this and so that’s sort of what we’re moving to with the recommendation. That they add additional width to the lots. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: So I wasn’t successful in getting that in city code I guess was I? Okay, that’s all the questions I have, thanks. Sacchet: I have a few questions too. Let me try to keep it to the ones that are really essential. So basically we’re saying that staff recommends that lot lines for Block 2, for Lot 1 and 13 will be revised to include most of the wetland. I’m not quite sure still what that means. Generous: Well Lot 1 is on the north side. Sacchet: No, I’m talking about, yeah. That one will be eliminated. The other one. Generous: Here, this line would shift over so it picks up the wetland area. Sacchet: So it would. Generous: It would shift to the northeast basically. What I was trying to do is keep these at radial to the curve so that they come almost straight out. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then over on the west, or on the east end for Lot 13, what I drew was a line that just continued the west lot line of Lot 12, but it picks up all this additional wetland area. Sacchet: So that would become then a part of the outlot. Generous: Part of Outlot A which has the majority of the wetland. Sacchet: Okay, we would also crop it not to border Highway 5? Generous: Yes. This is, and there’s a lift station about in this location and then they have a manhole and that’s what I suggested that we go up to that manhole area. Sacchet: That answers that. Thank you. There is no tree inventory that comes with this. Generous: No specific individual trees. Sacchet: We don’t know what significant trees are there at this point? Generous: Not by, no, by what they submitted, no. Sacchet: Is that something, usually we get a tree inventory. That’s not a required component? Generous: Well I think the, we accepted this for the area. They were removing everything that was in the upland, so we say, I don’t know that it, that we would get any more information out of having the specific trees in there. Sacchet: Well, we know they remove pretty much everything. I’m just curious what everything is. I mean I went out there looking at it but it’s a little hard to make heads and tails. I mean it 5 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 really, better to have an inventory. Now, when we say they revised some of these lots, we say that, like on condition 8. To incorporate more of the wetland so you have an idea of what more is. You would be able to quantify that specifically. By eliminating some of the lots that you’ve pointed out, this space will be proportioned to the other lots. Do we have any idea how they would be proportioned? Generous: I don’t know. The applicant was going to look at that… Sacchet: Okay, we can ask the applicant to that. Yeah, only my big question is, why is this not worked a little more into detail before he comes here but that’s not a fair question to ask so I leave it at that. You have two more Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Two quick ones. What does staff anticipate as far as ownership of the outlots? Generous: That they would be donated to the city. Lillehaug: Okay. And one specific question. What would be the radius of the roadway curve where it is extended from Pipewood Lane, or better yet does that meet city standards? Saam: Yeah, and we brought that up with the applicant on a previous submittal and you can ask his engineer, or the applicant when he comes up there, but it does meet our minimum radius. Lillehaug: It does meet it, okay. Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, that’s it. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. I mean you already addressed but I want to be real clear th about that. You said the deadline to get a decision for this in place is the 14 of December, unless we get an extension? Generous: Right. Sacchet: So we really either have, we have to make a decision tonight on that basis. If we don’t get an extension on this. th Generous: Or actually continue it to December 7 and then turn it around for the following Monday. Sacchet: Okay. And then my last question real quick here, because that’s something that I think we’ll be seeing more in the near future than here. Lot 12, Block 2. We have a side yard bordering back yards to the east. How’s the city, I mean there’s a little bit of buffer here but still, what’s the city’s position of composing side yards against back yards of another development. Is there anything we do in terms of buffering or mitigating? Aanenson: Well I think that’s one of the criteria you should look at with your variance request on that. If you want to attach specific conditions with that lot of how the house should be 6 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 oriented or buffering, because they are requesting a variance so you can attach a reasonable conditions to mitigate what you think would be appropriate orientation or buffer. Sacchet: Okay, well there isn’t really much play room because it’s already bumping into the wetland there. But alright, anyhow. I think that’s enough of questions. Yes, one more question Rich. Go ahead. Slagle: Actually two if I may. To Matt, Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the southern side, any guesstimate as to the width of those lots at about halfway into them as you go southbound? I’m just getting, trying to get an idea of what kind of houses. Saam: Roughly 70 feet. Slagle: 70 feet. Saam: 65-70 feet. Slagle: Okay. And in discussions, if I can ask with staff and the developer, I mean they were comfortable with side yard setbacks. Aanenson: No, we’re not. Slagle: I understand. I understand, but I mean even if we eliminate one lot, I’m trying to figure out my math as I apply it to 12, potentially 13 other lots. Okay. And then last question is, on the flat lot, was there discussion initially from the staff as to perhaps discouraging. Aanenson: Just to be clear, this is the second draft of this project. It did come in. Substantial changes were made. We’re still requesting some more, but that was discussed, yes. Slagle: Okay. That’s all. Sacchet: Alright, with that I’d like to ask the applicant to come forward and present what you have to tell us. And if you can please state your name and address for the record. Please move the microphone towards you, thank you. Gary Wilkerson: Commission members, staff. I’m Gary Wilkerson, one of the partners in the applicant. I have with me Mr. Ryan who is our engineer and also here to answer your questions. I’ve heard the staff comments. We haven’t had a comprehensive chance to review them and integrate them into our design. We’re sensitive to the comments however and understand the city’s concerns here. And you know, under the way that I understand the comments, we would lose several lots in our development, but it might make it a better development in the end and I’m not saying that we’re opposed to those changes, but we haven’t had a chance to really analyze their impact. I’ve heard a lot of questions about width of lots and so on. I think this would allow us probably an extra 5 foot of width on those lots, and it might allow us a little better building product, so it could be an improvement to our lots. But we have to look at the economics of it and we have to look at the product types that would go on it and that’s a process we’re still going through. Comments are fairly recent and our reaction is kind of ongoing to it. But I would envision just kind of reacting to some of the questions I heard as I sat in the 7 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 audience, probably 95 foot lots if we were to lose the two lots that we’re talking about. Similar price range product to the existing development, but I think a little different type of single family home. We would hope for maybe a little more of a community feel. We’ve talked about prairie style homes with porches and maybe some more comprehensive covenants that are in place on the first subdivision that’s already there. That’s kind of my generic comment and either I or the engineer would be happy to answer any further questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Do you have questions? Rich. Slagle: If I could ask a couple. The development to the south, the one that we approved in ’90, what year was it Bob? Help me out. Generous: 2000. Slagle: 2003, excuse me. 2003. What are the frontage footage, if you will, on those lots? Are they in excess of 100? Gary Wilkerson: Some of them are but not, I don’t think on the overall average they aren’t. I don’t have those off the top of my head. Slagle: Okay. Do we know? Generous: I was going to look, grab that tonight and I forgot. Slagle: Okay. Generous: I know they’re not all over 100 though. Slagle: Okay. Next question. On the flag lot, tell me your thoughts on that. Perry Ryan: Our thoughts as we took a look with the developer, and you’ve got a lot there that’s in excess of an acre and I think it’s actually 54,000 square feet. And that may come down a little bit. I’m just looking at Bob’s notes here. It would come down to about 48,000 square feet with some of the modifications that he’s suggesting. It’s just, it’s a tremendous you know land area that’s sitting back there that has no real good access to it and we’re able to give a tremendous amount of buffer space still to Highway 7 and a tremendous amount, he’s even got some distances on here. Those homes to the east are 118 feet away from our property line. It’s just a, you know you’ve got almost, just shy of an acre and a half. 1.3 acre site sitting there. You know when you look at the overall density I think we’re down to 1.2 and I’d like to speak a little bit, as Gary suggested, we’re still kind of looking at what the ramifications of staff’s recommendations are on the possibility of deleting those two lots and maybe after your other… Slagle: And the last question, thank you for that. Is this gentleman, you mentioned that you’re still sort of sorting things out. Would that lead one to believe that, and I don’t want to speak out of turn Mr. Chair but would that lead us to believe that a continuance if you will might be something you’d be open to. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Gary Wilkerson: Well we certainly would do that if it’s in the best interest of reaching the best project for everybody. On the other hand, the land owners who have agreed to sell the land to us have waited a long time for this project to go forward. I’m reluctant to delay it just on their behalf. Slagle: Okay. That’s all. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Did you want to add anything? Perry Ryan: Yeah, let me just add a little bit on what we were looking at on the setbacks. We’ll look at the lot that they’re talking about, specifically Lot 10, you can see we’ve got kind of two different, three different shaded areas that kind of go back to your question Steve on that 60 by 60 foot pad…show a 60 by 60 pad. On this one originally we did and staff appropriately noted the change. We’re actually showing this entire band through here which we call the building pad corridor, and that is at 60 foot deep. So what you’re seeing here on Lot 10 where we’ve got the dotted shaded area which is the 16 ½ foot wetland buffer and then the 40 foot beyond the wetland setback, that is encroaching by about 10 feet at the very southwest corner of Lot 10. All that’s saying is that, at that particular point in that lot you couldn’t build a 60 foot deep home, and so that may be the garage side but it’s still certainly a viable lot. Lot 10, I’m not sure what the areas, obviously they’re all over 15,000. The other one that kind of came up, and I don’t, was Lot 1, Block 1. And that one there we’ve actually got, at the front setback, it’s actually 45 feet wide and at the rear 60 foot wide and that’s a 60 foot deep pad. And again it’s still a very viable lot. Staff has pointed out that they’d like to see the outlot over the wetland there. The wetland is a fairly thin band here. It gets a little confusing on this graphic showing all the setbacks but the wetland is really about as thick as my finger shows there. We would certainly be open and again this is if we are attempting to move forward with not removing the lots, but we’d be open to placing an outlot or easement over that. The lot would still be sufficient in size to meet the size requirements and I think that Matt pointed out as well, we did take a look at what the driveway access would be, and the driveway access is still sufficiently far away from that wetland to put in an appropriate driveway so that was kind of our thoughts on those two and the same thing with Lot 1, Block 1. You can see, it encroaches into a portion of it. It’s just the, you know that that pad I think still is, I think that one actually, I’m not sure if it is 50-70 feet wide in the back there, so certainly sufficient too. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just comment just for clarity on this issue. Sacchet: Please do. Aanenson: I think we’re not talking about, we’re splitting hairs here but the issue the staff has is, this goes back to Steve’s point. This 60 by 60 pad. As we’ve indicated, we’ve looked at the houses in that area. They’re not 60. They’re larger than that, so herein lies the problem. You have a house that may fit on the pad. That may be true but when you get a homeowner in and the developer’s gone and they come in to put a deck, they’re going to be back to see you for a variance because in this buffer area you cannot put a structure and we don’t think that’s a service for the resident or the homeowner to buy a lot that has no opportunity to do any additions as lifestyle change needs, and that’s the issue we’re raising. Same with this. Yes, you may be able 9 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 to carve a home in there but you’re really constricting the buildability of that lot and that’s the issue that we have. Keefe: How about Lot 8 on the north side there where the retaining wall is. Do they have the same issue? Aanenson: You know you’re going to have some lots that some people are going to discount and to give different choices, and that I think is a little you know, but when you’ve got that much wetland behind you, it’s hard for a homeowner to understand. When you see a wall behind you, that’s a little bit clearer line so. Perry Ryan: Yeah, that’s a good point. Sacchet: Thanks Kate, appreciate it. Slagle: Mr. Chair, one last question for Mr. Ryan. Getting back Nann, if we can look again at that overview. Your building pad area that you show in each of the lots, if I can just ask on the southern side, what would be the average setback from the front of, from the road to the front of the homes. I mean it looks like they’re fairly close to the street. Perry Ryan: They’re all at 30 feet from the right-of-way. Slagle: Okay, 30 feet. Okay. Perry Ryan: From standard required setback. Slagle: Okay. And my guess is with some of these lots that we’re talking about, you would probably be having those homes. Perry Ryan: Yeah, most of them really. I’ve seen a lot of the certificates of survey that came through on the stuff to the south. I mean Kate’s right. I mean no matter how wide the lot is, people are going to build all the way up to the setback. They’re going to start right at the front setback and just capitalize on it. It doesn’t matter if it’s a 9 foot lot or 120 foot lot. Slagle: So one last question, are you cognizant to staff’s concern that in the back of these homes where people would typically want to put things, this current plan would pose some issues? Perry Ryan: Yeah, it would certainly pose an issue I think on Lot 10. It doesn’t quite so much on Lot 1 and 8 does. I think we drew that retaining wall at 20 feet back and I think there’s certainly some room if it can move back another 10 feet, and again that’s a 60 foot pad but you’re right. I mean there you’ve got a real visible barrier so. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. With that, do you want, you didn’t want to add anything? Okay. Gary Wilkerson: Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: You’re welcome. With that I’d like to open the public hearing, so if anybody wants to come forward and comment to this proposal in front of us, this is your turn. And if I don’t see anybody getting up, I will close it. No, there’s somebody getting up. Alright. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. And move the microphone. Thank you. Jeff Jewison: My name is Jeff Jewison. I actually live in the property east of the development, right behind the cul-de-sac. And just had a few items. One, I might have missed it as far as the access to Lot 13, I think it’s Block, he knows what I’m talking about, yeah. Sacchet: Block 2? Jeff Jewison: Yeah, the access to the house. As far as would they be using the cul-de-sac? Sacchet: Yes. Jeff Jewison: And then I envision some sort of sidewalk. Sacchet: That’s the term flag lot. There is a little sliver of land that connects the cul-de-sac to that lot. Jeff Jewison: Okay, so… Sacchet: Do you want to point it out for him Bob? Just to make sure he’s clear. Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I think I see it. Like a long sidewalk? Aanenson: Driveway. Slagle: Right behind your yard. Jeff Jewison: Perfect. And then the other concerns we had was one, this was mentioned already too is the back lot to the side lot, or building. They seem to be fairly close. Granted we’re used to these open wetlands and backs so anything’s going to be a lot closer than desired but if those could be pushed back. And then the other, I guess just strange issue I guess I wasn’t familiar with, or I haven’t seen before but with the cul-de-sac bordering most of the back yard of our property and then basically the other cul-de-sac bordering the whole front yard of our property is just kind of strange having that surrounding front and back yards but that was my concerns. Questions? Sacchet: Thanks for bringing it up. Anybody else? Yeah, alright. You can come one at a time or you can come both. Rick Hueffmeier: We’re neighbors. Sacchet: You’re a team, alright. Alright, want to state your name and address for the record please. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Rick Hueffmeier: Rick Hueffmeier at 6551 Kirkwood Circle. We’re on the south side of Highway 7. Sacchet: Okay. John Jordan: And I’m John Jordan. I’m at 6541 Kirkwood Circle and we abut right up to the creek where it runs across on the south. Rick Hueffmeier: I’m just curious, how much is wetland there now? I mean what is it? What does it look like? Generous: Basically most of Outlot A and part of Outlot C on the property to the south are wetland. There’s a creek that runs through the middle of this. John Jordan: And that overflows. Generous; Yes. These are the wetlands. John Jordan: See something that we have that we’ve been running into, you know you put the Hidden Creek project down. Rick Hueffmeier: And now our water’s not running. John Jordan: It’s not running out. It’s flooding into our property and we’ve lost probably close to about 20 trees so far on our property. Rick Hueffmeier: And I’m going to lose another couple here in the next. John Jordan: I talked to, I think it’s Lori over there. Aanenson: Yes, Lori. John Jordan: And she said that they were going to watch it for a year and they weren’t going to be doing anything…and I haven’t seen anything done yet. And now they’re talking about putting a culvert in that’s only 42 inches in for the road. How do you calculate the number of gallons that are going to be coming in through the lake? Because when that lake is full, I mean that’s a full force and we got that this year. And I had to go over to Hidden Creek to clean that culvert out umpteen times this last year just to keep it open. We’ve got. Rick Hueffmeier: Yeah, well we are concerned about the flow because we don’t have enough, having carp swimming up to your back door kind of gets… Sacchet: Do you want to address that Matt? Saam: Sure, yeah. There’s modeling that’s done based on rainfall that we see in Minnesota and based on the drainage area that goes through there, and that’s how they calculate the size required for the culvert. 12 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 John Jordan: It seems like there’s got to be something, not to interrupt you but that’s a huge culvert. If you look at it, it’s at least 6 feet wide and now you’re going to 42 inches. That tells you, and what they put underneath Highway 7 how much water can go through there at one time. There’s no restriction at the lake to stop the water. There’s no dam. It’s strictly open. So if you get a huge flow through there, I’m a mathematician so I know how to calculate that stuff out and I know that you’re not right. Aanenson: Well I think there’s some other issues that were during construction and Lori may have talked to you about that. There was some construction issues that the DNR was involved in, and also there’s other jurisdictions that have approval on that too. John Jordan: Well they, I talked to the DNR and they did comment that there was a possibility of having a problem here. They did not totally agree with us, but they said that you guys came up with the proper calculations so if I have a problem to come back to you guys, and that’s what I’m doing… Sacchet: Is there not a DNR approval or a state agency approval step involved? Aanenson: Yes. He’s saying that there is. I’d have to follow up on that. Saam: We can review it again too, but Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also looks at this and gives approval so. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Good point. John Jordan: So I mean the other thing too, I want to know what are you guys going to do with the stuff that we’re losing in our back yard. Our trees are dying. We’ve had multiple problems back there. Sacchet: You’re talking about right to the south here? John Jordan: Yep, we’re Lot 31 and you’re Lot 30, right? So. Aanenson: We will follow up on that. I’m not prepared to answer that question… Lillehaug: You’re on the south side of Highway 7? John Jordan: Yeah, opposite side. Lillehaug: Opposite side of Highway 7. John Jordan: Yeah, and we’re getting really hit hard. And by looking at these plans here, I’ve seen another plan down at Carver County and it does show this whole area back here as being a wetland. I don’t know how they zone that residential. I never signed anything where they changed that over. Aanenson: It’s still being left as a wetland. The only part that can be developed is if it’s upland. 13 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 John Jordan: But they want to go over the creek though too. Generous: Include a street crossing. Aanenson: Just for the street crossing. John Jordan: Street crossing? Aanenson: Correct. John Jordan: So if they could get that corrected for us, I think we’d… Aanenson: We’d be happy to look at it. If we can get your name. John Jordan: Okay, yep. That’d be great. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address. Vic Moravec: Vic Moravec, 3821 Linden Circle. I’m about 5 houses from these guys. But what I wanted to bring up was how much fill you’re going to fill into this wetland here. I have their same concern where my back yard, the creek 5 years ago was 2 feet wide and since they’ve changed this, it’s become 4 feet wide and it’s flowing through a lot faster so I think we’re restricting the water flow and I’ve got concerns about filling in the watershed here to get down to that smaller culvert so I just want to reiterate what these guys are saying that we really need to look at that. And I’d like to see more information on it if I could. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Steve, you have a question for him or. Lillehaug: Bob, can you talk about the mitigation of the wetland and the ratio. Filling in that wetland portion. Is it a 2 to 1 ratio? And are they mitigating that on site to answer the gentleman’s question there. Generous: Yes they are mitigating it on site. They’re actually creating additional wetland. We are just saying that we want to relocate it. We think there’s a better location for the wetland mitigation adjacent to the storm water pond, and that the pond be elongated so that we’d have ponding in the back yard and then the wetland mitigation behind that. The mitigation requirements are 2 to 1. You get one acre of new wetland created for each acre that you impact and then the other acre can be through storm water ponding, preservation of upland area. You get what’s called public value credit. And so they’re meeting all the requirements. The filling that they’re doing is the minimum to get the roadway in and across. And then it’s just looking at the sizing for the pipe to make sure that’s adequate. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Vic Moravec: Can I add a little something to make sure… Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Yes, you can come back more than once if you really have something to say. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Vic Moravec: Thank you. He talks about the pond in here. Creating an additional pond. Generous: The storm water pond. Vic Moravec: What’s happened since the development north of 7 where they changed the wetland, the pond in the lot next to my lot has increased in size as well. So my neighbors are all losing property to the pond, the wetland which is fine. It’s beautiful but why are we paying for what they’re getting, what developments are doing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Alright, next. Your turn. Steve McSherry: My name is Steve McSherry and I live at 6571 Kirkwood Circle and I’d like to start off by thanking the members of the commission for doing your due diligence and staff, as well as the owners of the property or future owners of the property. I’d also like to thank my neighbors for stealing my thunder here. Thank you very much guys. Essentially what I’d like to do is echo what they’ve just said. I mean we’ve got our neighborhood on the south side of the highway and we’re losing property. We came to the meetings last time. We took a look at altering wetlands and building back there and everything looks great on paper. Unfortunately we alter this and we alter that and certainly I have a lot of respect for the understanding of the people in this room as far as drainage and that type of thing, and appreciate the fact that you’re doing your due diligence. However, where the rubber meets the road for me is we’re seeing the fallout from the construction on the other side of the road and we get these little flyers in the mail and the first thing I see on here is, wetland alteration permit and a red flag goes up. I’d much rather be watching TV or working with the kids doing homework but certainly something, this is a concern to us because what I need to look out for is what’s in my best interest as you’re looking out for my best interest and the developers are looking out for their best interest. Everyone wants a good product but by the same token, once this is in and it’s gone and everyone’s moved on to the next one, you know we’re bailing out our basements and losing property. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward? nd Dale Keehl: My name’s Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62 Street. I happen to be, if you want to, this lot right here. We’re right on the corner of Cartway and I’m real concerned about, being our road isn’t maintained by the city, and we do our own plowing. We just luckily have people that live on that road that plow. And the traffic that’s going to be, if they use that road. I’m just real concerned about connecting that road for use. There could be something done if it needs to be for emergency but we already get a lot of traffic down there to the tennis courts and they come down our road and I just love the park there. That’s one reason I bought there and I don’t mind the traffic going to the tennis courts and the hockey rink and the, you know we love watching the kids but I really don’t want the traffic from that development going out past my house. That road is very narrow and like I say, we maintain it and really don’t want it for public use. Sacchet: Thank you. Yeah, I actually drove it. I know it’s very narrow. I have a hard time imaging it would be used very heavily. Does staff want to comment about the purpose of the connection? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Saam: Yeah. The purpose is to have an alternate access for emergency vehicles and emergency times if the paved road is shut down, something like that for an interim basis. And I agree. I don’t foresee, at least I know I wouldn’t want to if I was a new resident in here, going out to Highway 7. I’d much rather go on the nice new paved road than the thinner gravel road. So I guess I don’t foresee a lot of traffic wanting to go out that way. Sacchet: It could be regulated too. Saam: Yeah, we could, yeah. And we intend to do that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, do we have anybody else? Yes we do. Gary Carlson: Can we bring up. Slagle: You are? nd Gary Carlson: I’m sorry. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62 Street. I’m the anchor of the city up in that area. My home was built in 1886. It has 15 bedrooms, 9 complete bathrooms. My garage heated 5 stalls. I have indoor parking for another 13 cars. And I’ve been there myself since 1967. And at that time it was a township. Not too long afterwards they came around and said well Mr. Carlson, you’re now in the city. I went wow. Fantastic. Not too long after that they said well you’re R1. Wow. Fantastic. Right now I apply for a horse permit annually. I apply and receive apartment permit to occupy the apartments that are within my home. I apply and receive a beachlot permit. I’m, I keep the same hobby farm however that my dad grew up next to and he worked at these two farms that are now being developed. I guess to start, I need to go back to the first print which shows just the undeveloped property. I guess that will show up. Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it. Gary Carlson: You can see it? Sacchet: Yeah. Gary Carlson: Okay. There are already some mistakes that have occurred within my short time of holding down the anchor. The anchor property I’m talking about where I live is this whole tract here and it includes this home site here which I divided off. This property here. There is, right here where I’m drawing my stylus, there’s already another lot off, and that’s already a platted lot, so that is somehow here in 2004, it hasn’t gotten on the city maps yet but there is another lot right here. It’s right along here. It’s a long line there. I developed Minnewashta Meadows over here on the east side where some of these neighbors spoke. I developed that property and over the years I’ve had a good relationship with the city of Chanhassen. I can’t thank you enough for what you’ve done and what your predecessors have done through the years, and I worked with city staff many times and even on my project. It’s not an easy job and they’ve done you know, they’ve brought this project a long ways along. This particular property is extremely hard to develop. Extremely hard to develop because it has the problem of the only creek in this whole area of the city is Minnewashta Creek. It drains all of Lake Minnewashta. I can’t stress how important that is. Drainage, drainage, drainage. And if it was a 6 foot culvert 16 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 under Highway 7, every culvert from there to Lake Virginia should be 6 feet. It can go completely dry, and it’s been years where it will flow where you can put a canoe and hey, why aren’t we canoeing this every year. That’s how much water can come out of Lake Minnewashta. And because it lies, a lot of this development lies along the creek, every, you’re looking at a little part of this development and you’re looking at a little part of the city but all of Shorewood drains down toward the creek. All of Victoria drains down toward the creek. My property, when I say it’s always the anchor because I’m on a tri city border. So I have, I’ve met with Shorewood City Council and I deal with Victoria because they’re all looking for where their water’s going and why it’s going, why it’s not getting there. And so I want the City of Chanhassen’s engineering department to really look at how much water’s coming. And not only is it getting to the creek but all of these lots across here have to have water across them. From up land and if you look at the elevations, this developer does not have that much elevation to work with. It’s not like he’s got rolling hills and high lands. He’s down at the bottom of the flowage in this area because this whole area drains into the creek. The creek drains into Lake Virginia. Goes into Minnetonka and down the old Minnehaha Watershed District, which everyone’s concerned with. My concerns on drainage are down my west property line, right down here which is also my border with the new development. Right now we split that drainage. The drainage comes under the railroad right there. It drains all of this area up here. There’s a new development up here, Hidden Creek. They’ve already put a catch basin here and now I’m going to use the same culvert. After it leaves the railroad, it comes open. It’s open swale that’s between my property and the previous Collin’s property but it’s now the new development. And if those big bulldozers are out there pushing the soil around and they push it right over to the edge of their property because they’re shaping a new home pad, they’re going to move that flowage that’s in a swale now, all onto my property. I need to have them work with me. I will give them a construction easement, and we can create a proper swale so all that, it’s draining all of that area nd of Shorewood and it drains the whole corner of West 62 and Cathcart. It goes all the railroad right-of-way. Railroads do not have a water stand under their beds and so that’s been graded for years that it goes to catch under and down into the natural flowage and then I don’t know west of me where the next flowage comes out but it’s going to the east. So I don’t know if there’s more issues along the railroad right-of-way. If there’s more…concerns me. That flowage has to be dealt with and if this development has to put in a silt fence, my fencing was put in for the horses all along this property and along the Cartway. Along, on the Cartway I have a horse fence. And when Schmidt divided this up into Schmidt’s Acre tracts, Mort Grace already lived here and he had his driveway here. And that’s why it was turned into a cartway because Schmidt wanted to divide off his lot so each daughter and son could have 8 or 9 acres. But he already had Mort Grace there so the cartway was then established on a piece of paper, but it was already a cartway. So it wanders and my horse fence, which has been there for 20 some years or more, also wanders so. In the process of silt fencing, if you want to come in and set the silt fence, you know they put in the post and silt on the bottom and you can put one more wire on then it can be a temporary horse fence, which is fine with me. And then we can work our two borders properly, and then when it’s all done we can just, if you’ll replace my fence back to the proper setback that the city requires. I’d love to work with them in that matter. Sacchet: Excuse me for interrupting but I think all that would not touch your property. I meant all the development has to take place on the property where the development takes place. Gary Carlson: I know but these lines and fences on the cartway wandered off the property lines. They weren’t even on, they weren’t set by a surveyor when they were put in. 17 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Oh you’re concerned that the lines are not accurate? Gary Carlson: This is my horse fence on the west. Dale Collins saw it go in. You know he’s my neighbor to the west. He says, yeah. That seems like about the right place but. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, maybe I can resolve this issue. I think this is appropriate discussion one, in a pre-con meeting and two, typically we walk a site and I think this is an appropriate application that we walk with both property owners before we begin construction and try to work out these issues. Not in this arena but in that type of arena where we try to work those things out. Sacchet: Right, we won’t be able to settle these things. Aanenson: But I think that we’re certainly willing, the staff is certainly willing to you know facilitate that and… Gary Carlson: Yeah, I am, I’ve worked really great with the city. I would gladly allow… The next issue is also the flowage issue, and that’s on the cartway. Cartway Lane, which I named. It was always called the cartway and never named for years so I finally said let’s name our street. It got named the Cartway. Cartway Lane. That accepts all the water out of the park called Cathcart Park. All that water comes out the southwest corner of the park and goes onto that cartway and it comes down and you cannot, you can canoe down it when we’ve had some rain events there in the park. The park has never been required to manage their own water. I mean they just let it, go right out. And I’ve been before the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood on that water problem. And we’ve got, that water is crossing this property now and it’s just so that again we’re aware of that volume of water’s going to come down that cartway. It will wash a pile of gravel as high as that chair out of the cartway. It completely washes all the gravel off the cartway. I’ve got a video of it. So that’s an issue again, getting back to drainage. Sacchet: So it basically would go across the area where the cul-de-sac is planned? Gary Carlson: It will hit this corner of the cul-de-sac…and affect all the people in Minnewashta Meadows. All their back yards drain into the property. As I said, if you go back to the previous map and it was small hobby farms set back from the creek during all these years. And if the developer has that kind of kahuna’s that wants to tackle a wetland developing into homes, I say more power. I mean I’m glad he’s doing it. But the city and all you folks have to make sure that these new homes and the way these pads are created, there’s space between each one of them for that water to get down there because the creek is the lowest in the whole city and all of the other neighbors around here, all drain through that property. Aanenson: Can I just give clarification of that. This issue’s been going on with Mr. Carlson and the city for a while. We’re trying to resolve those issues, just for your edification. Meeting with the City of Shorewood. There’s a lot of drainage that is coming onto his property that is not in the city. There is the...earlier subdivision going in, Schmidt’s Acres. There was not a requirement for ponding so there’s some pre-existing conditions so trying to separate what the obligation of this application is. Certainly we don’t, as people…said, there’s some problems. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 There was a permit stop for a while. There was problems out there. We worked to resolve them. Certainly but we recognize the need to go back and make sure that we’re in a good spot, but… Sacchet: So in other words we’re aware of this. Aanenson: Correct, and we’ve been working with Mr. Carlson so just so you know, we forward this and we’re working on that issue. Sacchet: That’s important. Important to know, thank you Kate. Aanenson: And we did put a condition in here which is reflected in the staff report on page 14 regarding a catch basin on the cartway. That was a condition that was added to address specifically Mr. Carlson’s drainage issue. So we are aware of that. Sacchet: Thank you. Alright Mr. Carlson, what else? Gary Carlson: Thank you for your patience. On the 51, maybe on page, which is on page 14. (g). The first issue. (g). Add a catch basin on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of the project and how that it will be adequate to accept the runoff that now occurs from Cartway Lane. I’d like to see them put this in here. It’s a tremendous amount of water so I just can’t tell you how much it is. Sacchet: Yep, and there’s certainly other neighbors made a similar comment of the importance of that. Aanenson: Again I just want to separate that there’s two jurisdictions involved and so we’re trying to sort that out as a city staff that some of it’s coming from Shorewood. Sacchet: If it’s somewhat Shorewood related. Aanenson: We certainly understand that we need to work to resolve the problem. Gary Carlson: And the last issue is 51. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane. To be connected to the cul-de-sac to, you know that’s, yes. You have emergency somewhere in that development. There’s a house explosion. A huge accident and then there’s a fire call. And the fire, yes. You have to have a way in. I am wondering, I have heard of it, that there is a break away emergency gate that can be placed at the edge of that cul-de-sac. In other words, a fire truck can run, hit it and it falls over. I mean, but to leave that as an accessible and yes, it’s a good idea to connect that to the cul-de-sac so that the folks in the new development can walk up there and get to their park. Otherwise they’re going to have to be going through someone’s back yard. Sacchet: More for pedestrian use basically. Gary Carlson: Yeah, pedestrian use but some sort of emergency break away. You know unless the city’s going to start plowing the road and, it just isn’t going to happen. It’s just a narrow, little gravel access that was just originally put in as driveways and. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Good point. Gary Carlson: And if it can be an emergency break away gate, that is all just emergency vehicles need to know about it and we’ve got a fire department that’s educated. They can yes, if we get a call in there, we can’t get in. Come in this way. Sacchet: Good point, thank you. Audience: Who would take the liability of going across there? Sacchet: If you want to come up in a minute, you can do so please. Okay. Gary Carlson: Good question. They’ll be on public road all the time. Sacchet: Excuse me. We cannot have discussion amongst yourselves. We’ll never get done that way. We have 3 more items to do that other people are waiting that we get to. Gary Carlson: My father reached into his 80’s worked for these gentlemen and their homesteads are still there. I think a tree inventory would be, there are some, unless there’s no value in saving huge trees like this, but if there is, I think that would be a good request in here. It would put more burden on the developer but I mean he’s jumped through a ton of hoops to get here. It’s a difficult property to develop and I appreciate your time and working so hard on this. And the staff too has done a great job. I mean it’s just a ton of little things you have to think about because each one of these lots is another wetland problem because we’re right at the edge of the creek. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, before you leave I have to ask you a question. I hate to do it but I have to. You own the big lot there and staff is making a, I’m an assumption that this will be developed in the future and looking at an interim connection of a roadway. What is your plans with that lot? Do you plan on developing it within the next couple years or what are you thinking? Gary Carlson: Well the developer’s approached me. He’s done the best he could, it’s just how do you replace that large a home. Lillehaug: So you don’t have any immediate plans? Gary Carlson: I mean I’m ready to do more permits with the city. I mean I’m really thankful having all these permits but I’m willing to go through those hoops too. Yes, I don’t know. I’ve been there, I haven’t changed that property in, you know other than keeping it improved. The layout, and either have my neighbors in 30 years so this is going to change and then again when I might change, it depends. My children are ready to take over the home and so then there may not be a change, and these other neighbors, Mr. Keehl was up here and Mr. Toll. He has the same concerns that Dale does and I own this end home here. But you have to tear down 4 homes to put in the new road and build up 12 more. I don’t know. You know I could argue either side of this. These neighbors to the west, these neighbors to the north, these neighbors to the east, 20 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 these neighbors to the south would all like to continue to look at the wetland just the way it is. They’re not jumping up and down to have 25 homes so that they can say the creek is over there between that brown home and that, whatever. No, we would just as soon leave it. To us it’s always looked like wetland. But now that they’ve brought in the delineators and they said there is room to squeeze in some homes. I’d rather see the city go and say, I’d rather see the city say it’s not time to develop that. Go find a nice farm that’s square, has some rolling acres and put in a nice development. Leave the creek the way it is. If you want to continue a hobby farm, there is your 4 acres and a home. If you want to continue the hobby farm, here’s your 4 or 5 acres…sell it as that. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Gary Carlson: I would rather see that but. Sacchet: You definitely answered his question. Gary Carlson: You really did. I could argue either side of this question because there are pros and cons to both sides. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Gary Carlson: I’m glad to work with you. Sacchet: I see somebody else standing up. I assume you want to speak up. Please come forward. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to say please. If you can get the microphone. Casey Bergquist: I’m Casey Bergquist and I live at 4011 Pipewood Lane. The new development that just went in and I guess my biggest concern is because of the new development that we live in and then the old existing development that was there, we have right now 35 lots that access Highway 7 and then adding 23 more will add 58 lots accessing Highway 7 through the same access. Is that typical for a neighborhood? Sacchet: Good questions. Matt, do you want to say something about that? Saam: I don’t know if typical’s the right word but we do have other subdivisions with more lots than 50. Well Ashling Meadows is about 50 but Longacres. They have two accesses. Springfield. There are other subdivisions. Sacchet: There are, so there’s really only one access to Highway 5 at this point. Saam: 7. Aanenson: Highway 7. Sacchet: 7 not 5, sorry. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Saam: And that’s incidentally one of the concerns MnDot had too is to make sure that there is another access so it’s just another reason we really want to keep another alternate access. Whether just for emergency or what. Sacchet: Now obviously Cartway I would not call another access. I mean the road is this wide. It’s for emergency, yeah. And we yeah, but we’re not at discussion yet. Do you want to add anything else to this? Casey Bergquist: No, I was just then, and I mean and if the plan was to go through, what would be done to slow down the speed because right now we already have people speeding down Pipewood Lane to get to their back neighborhood, so now people are going to be turning onto our road and speeding down our road to get to their neighborhood and we’re expecting our first baby in January and it’s like, we’re going to have cars speeding down our road so I’m wondering what’s going to be done. You know stop signs put in. Maybe a little speed bumps. What can be done to slow down. Sacchet: I don’t think we do speed bumps in our city yet so far but what’s. Aanenson: It’s your neighbors. You know we just have education programs. Be happy to discuss that with you or get the sheriff’s office. Casey Bergquist: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question for you. Were you aware that the road was going to go through? Casey Bergquist: When we developed, our builder told us that possibly it would continue on but it probably wouldn’t happen for a significant amount of years. He said probably about 10 years so that’s what we were told when we bought the house. Sacchet: That’s pretty standard. Casey Bergquist: We moved in in June. Sacchet: So that’s a pretty quick 10 years huh. Casey Bergquist: Yeah, real quick 10 years. So yeah. Sacchet: Well appreciate your comment, thank you. Casey Bergquist: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item. If I don’t see anybody getting up, yes Mr. Carlson has a follow-up. Gary Carlson: Well when you live out there for so many years, you can’t cover everything in one short time. But I won’t take another 40 minutes. That flag lot, you know the City of Chanhassen plows and maintains this pump station down here. Very important pump station. It pumps all of Minnewashta sewage up the cartway. It’s all pumped up by, in a force… Anyway, 22 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 why can’t that flag, I mean there’s a lot of residents that have a driveway on 7. Further west. Further east. There’s a lot of residents that’s the only way they can get to 7. That’s how it was created originally. And the city has got a nice turn-off. It’s paved. Why can’t 13 have access… Sacchet: I don’t think MnDot does not allow driveways on Highway 7. Is that accurate statement to make? Gary Carlson: It’s not a new driveway. It’s not a new driveway. Aanenson: It’s a different type of turn movement as far as the frequency the city would be in there as opposed to a residential use. It’s not recommended. Sacchet: Okay? Good try. Thank you Mr. Carlson. Alright, last call. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, I’m closing the public hearing. I want to thank you all for all your comments. Very good range of comments. Good concerns. I’d like to bring it back to the commission for discussion. And to make a decision. Rich. Slagle: I’ll make mine fairly quick. I would suggest to all of us that we consider, this is not a motion but consider asking for a stay on this and the reason being is one, I do think that a tree survey should be done. I’m surprised there isn’t one. Secondly, I think the amount of lots that the developer is trying to implement are too many. I have serious concerns about the flag lot. And I understand and this developer I’m aware of, seems like a solid citizen but gosh, one of these days I’m really going to be delighted when someone comes in with a parcel like 13 and says, you know we’ve decided to make that a private park for our community. Or something. The trail area, something other than let’s put a house close to Highway 7 and, or I shouldn’t say close but closer than the rest of them. And then lastly, the lot sizes I think need to be re-worked. Totally. The idea that someone can’t put a deck or a playground because their lot stops, and given the quality, and I have to say on a positive note the quality that this developer is known for, I would be surprised that people would buy the homes and not want to put those types of things in, because you do build very nice homes so. I would at this point be open to passing on this and seeing if they would be open to it. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Anybody else? Steve? Lillehaug: A couple quick questions. I agree with everything Rich said. A couple others. I don’t see any sidewalks in this project, and I know we don’t have a huge amount of traffic but wondering why. Slagle: It’s on the north side. Lillehaug: Am I just not seeing it? Sacchet: Yeah, there is on the north side Steve. Lillehaug: Sorry, I’m looking at the wrong one. Okay, there it is. Scratch that. Well, I totally agree. My concerns, I mean we have 51 some conditions in here and there’s probably about 20 in here that should really already be addressed and I realize that you’ve been working with the applicant but there’s just too much fine tuning in here for us to really look at a quality 23 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 development and really put an approval on anything. There’s too much tweaking to go on. And then I want to read something in the report real quick like here. Quote, it says these building envelopes would not accommodate the types of housing the city has typically seen in adjacent development, nor will the building envelopes permit construction of accessory structures, etc, etc. When we reviewed codes I fought pretty hard to get a 60 by 60 pad in the codes and I finally conceded and said forget it. That would have addressed this and now I mean it’s evident that we should have something in the codes on that. If we wouldn’t need this in here, we would have had the proper size lots in here and I think us as a Planning Commission should recommend to staff to re-address that and look at modifying the code to add that in there. So other than that I also agree that I think this should be tabled. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Tjornhom: I agree. Sacchet: Any other comments Kurt? Papke: I was very surprised by the, and pleased by the people that came in from the other side of Highway 7 tonight. I didn’t expect that volume of input from people that far away from the development, and I don’t know, I’m not completely convinced that we have the full impact of the hydrology situation here. If there is that much water flow down into this area, I don’t know. The size of the culvert there, the 42 inch culvert just seems like we should take a look at it, and that certainly has an impact on the decision on Lot 1. That could certainly force that one to disappear. So I just think it’s premature. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Do you want to add something Dan? Keefe: Just a question. What does tabling do? I mean what is the process and what’s the time frame and impacts. th Sacchet: We established that with the current time line we have til the 14 of December for a th decision, which is the 60 day rule, and it would have to go to council on the 13. That’s the original plan. However, we can ask the applicant for an extension to fit into 120 days. We probably would want to get that formally from the applicant. It’s my understanding from the applicant’s comments that he’s willing to consider that and we would probably need to ask you that more formally. And that would allow us to table it, send them back to take care of some of these issues. Because there’s quite a list of them. Keefe: Was it 120 days. Sacchet: From when the application was complete. Which would be 60 days back from the th December 14 date so we’d have another 60 days on top of that. th Keefe: So approximately February 14. Sacchet: Right. Which doesn’t mean it would have to take that long. As a matter of fact, things that we table come back as quickly as possible. It’s really up to the applicant to fulfill the requests that are made and work with staff on the issues that we point out and we see them come 24 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 back within 2 weeks sometimes. Sometimes they even still make the same council meeting that was originally planned so. Keefe: I think it’s a fair solution. Sacchet: Okay. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I don’t think this proposal is cooked enough. There are too many very significant items. The lot lines are being shifted around. There’s wetland issues that are sort of, there’s an idea there but it’s not really specific and how to reassign wetland to the lots is sort of clear but not totally. I’d like to see these things really specific in order to have a clear picture. The tree inventory, the tree plans, there’s what, 141 trees that we’re requiring to be planted. We don’t know where they’re going to be. We don’t know what kind of trees are there now. There are way too many conditions about grading fixes, about hydrology, about the cul-de-sac radius, you name it. Things that can be taken care of that can be focused. That can be to the point. That we can look at and know what we have in front of us. Right now I don’t think we have that. A whole list of issues that came up is the importance of the flooding issue. I mean the importance of looking at the drainage issue, the grading and all that. I think it’s a very valid concern that really in terms of what, watershed aspect, it may have to be looked at in a large context than just the immediate neighborhood. I mean that was a very good aspect that I think we have a responsibility to whether it goes across city borders or not. I mean we have to look at the whole picture. And as far as that’s practical and possible, within the framework of course. And I would look to staff to balance that aspect. Now there are several smaller aspects like the access to Highway 7. The access to who has access or what would be the restriction to the access to Cartway North. Things like that are more detailed. I mean that wouldn’t be a reason to hold it up but it certainly can be addressed too. I think the conditions could be significantly cut down and this be more specific so on that vein I’m ready to get a motion please. Should we ask, now before we do that. Could I ask the applicant point blank, are you willing to give an extension? Gary Wilkerson: I’ve heard the concerns of neighbors as well as commission and I do understand them. We have some contractual obligations with the people selling to us to proceed in front of the council. So I’m reluctant to have this delayed too long. On the other hand, it makes no sense to go forward with an application that you’re not comfortable with, you’re not going to approve. So you know, is there some middle ground short of 60 days or do we have to ask for 60 days? Sacchet: No, it is a 60 day for the formal part. However, there is a possibility even that you could address these issues within the 2 weeks frame. If you can address these issues within a week, get it back to staff, it’s very possible that you could be on our agenda at the beginning of th December and still make the council’s 13 date. Maybe if that’s not possible to slip, but there isn’t another council meeting later in December. It’d slip into early January but we’re not talking about holding you up til February. I mean that’s in your hand how quickly you can be addressing these things and your assumption’s correct that if we don’t get an extension, we would probably end up recommending denial. Gary Wilkerson: Right, and I understand that. I do appreciate and I’ve heard the concerns of the neighbors to the south and if I lived in a home where the creek was rising and I was losing trees, I would have those concerns too. I would point out that they exist independent of our development. That we didn’t create those problems. I understand their concern is that we not 25 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 make them worst, and that’s our responsibility but I would hope not to have to pay for the previous developer. Sacchet: No, it has to be fair in this overall, absolutely. Gary Wilkerson: But given what you’re saying, I would petition for a 60 day extension. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So with that I think we have a good foundation to make a motion. Slagle: I’ll make a motion. I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the preliminary plat approval request for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004, subject to the numerous conditions. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Hidden Creek Meadows to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the residents and commission members. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 26 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS VIEW ADDITION, SUBDIVISION OF 2.83 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. APPLICANT, BEVERAL C. THOMAS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-23. Public Present: Name Address Tom & Judy Meier 695 Pleasant View Road Valerie & David Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road Marianne McCord 6440 Fox Path Beverly Thomas 745 Pleasant View Road Tom Rosenfield 6915 Fox Glove Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item, specifically clarifying the issues of lake access and easements on the site. Sacchet: Now you totally confused me. Aanenson: Let me just shed a little light on that. There’s an issue regarding the validity of the survey. The things they were pointing out on the survey that Sharmeen is point out, while they’re not parochial to the subdivision of this, they’re on the survey and has raised some clouds by somebody so we’re just trying to clarify those. Sacchet: Okay. It doesn’t affect the issue in front of us. Al-Jaff: No. Aanenson: No, except there’s somebody that wants maybe a little bit more clarity on the survey and we’ll modify that as deemed necessary. Sacchet: And you’re going to try to do that. Alright. Al-Jaff: And there is also a name that needs to be removed. When the survey was done, the site was under two ownerships and now it’s under single ownership. So I just wanted to point these things out. Staff is recommending approval of this application and we’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Sacchet: Are there any questions from staff? Questions? Bethany. Tjornhom: Could you go into the garage issue a little bit. Al-Jaff: Certainly. As you can see there are two homes on the site and this is the main house right here. And this is a guest house, so we have a single access point and then a circular driveway. This house does not have a garage. So as you’re approaching the site, this is the driveway. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: It’s upside down Sharmeen. Thanks. Al-Jaff: Okay. This is the driveway that takes you to this house. It passes right next to it and as it continues, Nann can you zoom in please? Thank you. There is a garage right here that serves the main house. It is attached to the guest house. The lower level of the guest house serves as a garage. And in this case the total garage spaces between those two, there’s a total of 9 garage spaces. The two homes are extremely dependent on one another. If we required the applicant to split this property, they would, this house would become non-conforming and would be required to provide a two car garage. I’m sure we can find…on this site however, this guest house is going to end up with 9 garage spaces. So again, dependent on one another. It’s a legal non- conforming situation. They’re not making it any worst and legally they are permitted to maintain the status quo. Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I have two questions about the private street. First of all, how long is it? I didn’t see that in the documentation anywhere. Sacchet: Matt is looking for it. Saam: Approximately 300 feet. Aanenson: To the existing house? Saam: Yes. Papke: No, to the new one. The new proposed private drive. Saam: Yeah, I’m sorry. Papke: That must be about 250 or so. Somewhere in that range. Saam: No, we’re over 300 feet. 340ish. Papke: Okay. So pretty long. Now the existing driveway, the existing private drive is a paver? Are there any requirements or stipulations for matching the materials with the new proposed private drive? Saam: You know there aren’t. The requirements are that it be a paved surface, either brick paver, bituminous, concrete, something like that. However, since it is a variance, if you so deem necessary, I think it’s in your power, you could add a condition that they match it but it’s not required to be matched, no. Papke: That would be a considerably expensive driveway, yes. That’s all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Dan? 28 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Keefe: Just one question in regards to the entrance of the driveway to Pleasant View. If it does need to be moved, does staff see any issues with the placement of that 50 feet to the east? Saam: Well, I can take that Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Okay. Saam: Then you can add something too but all of staff went out and looked at that. Myself, Sharmeen, Jill Sinclair, the City Forester too in terms of trees and that sort of thing. My main concern from an engineering standpoint was trying to not get it close to the curb to the east and I guess 50 feet, while it is closer, there’s still good sight distance there. In a previous version the driveway was coming down some 200 feet closer to the east and then I had more of a concern so. Keefe: What about the grade, because I think the grade is steeper east of there. Saam: It does appear though, if these grades are correct that it will still work. It will still meet the 10 percent grade. Sacchet: Any other questions? To belabor this driveway, alternate way a little more. So we call this a private street. Basically it’s a driveway that goes across somebody else’s land. Is that a fair interpretation of it? So it has to be a private road because it goes across somebody else’s land. Al-Jaff: Actually whenever it’s shared by more than one. Sacchet: But only the really bottom part is shared so why do we call it private road from all the way across there? Al-Jaff: Matt, did you want to answer this one? Saam: I guess it’s my believe because it is on somebody else’s lot. Sacchet: So technically you could say that the private road is just the part that’s shared and then from there it’s a driveway. Aanenson: Correct. Correct… Sacchet: That would probably be a little more palatable ultimately. Lillehaug: But you do need an easement. Sacchet: Yes, that would have to be a 7. Now in terms of, if we have this stipulation here, if it will not go over the neighbor’s land there on the bottom, was there reason to believe that the neighboring neighbor would not want that anymore? Don’t they have an easement? Isn’t that an established situation? Saam: I’m sorry, you referring to the existing one? 29 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Yeah, just where it goes over the corner of the other lot. Isn’t that an established thing with easements and stuff? Is there a question whether that would still be viable? Saam: I, at least I wasn’t informed that the easement was in place. That’s why I put in a condition that where if it’s not in place, then it does have to be. Sacchet: So we don’t know basically. Saam: I do not at this time, unless Sharmeen would. Al-Jaff: There is an easement in place. However, because they were intensifying the use, that’s where we questioned whether it would still be viable. Sacchet: It may have to be re-negotiated because it gets intensified. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Sacchet: Okay, that makes sense. Okay. Al-Jaff: If that wasn’t, if they couldn’t intensify the use, then they would be able to relocate it. We just wanted to cover all the bases. Sacchet: And then the last aspect about there is a condition number 17 that says if the new drive is access was built, basically if that would not be a shared one, it says the existing driveway off of Pleasant View must be removed. Isn’t it going to the other lot too or is it just for this lot touching the other line? Al-Jaff: Well, we’re talking about this portion of the driveway. Sacchet: Right. Yep. Al-Jaff: So this portion would be removed. Sacchet: Because it doesn’t serve any other purpose. Al-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Okay, that was my question. Thank you. With that, I’d like to invite the applicant, or did you have anything else to add Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: No. Sacchet: No? Thank you. Al-Jaff: We’re recommending approval. 30 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: We got that. You’re the applicant? You want to come forward. State your name and address and tell us what you want to add to this, and please move the microphone in front of your face please. It moves. It’s flexible. Thank you. Beverly Thomas: I’m Beverly Thomas. I live at 745 Pleasant View. I purchased the subject property in early July and moved into the big house. It’s, I’m sure you’re all aware, very historical. It was built in 1869 and I’ve always been kind of a civil war buff and I fell in love with the house and I bought it with a love for the house. I wanted to keep it intact. I think other people looked at it to develop it. Put maybe 4 lots on the side. Tear down the house. Put 20 lots on the property. I intend to live there and actually my daughter and son-in-law live next door, so I get the pleasure of seeing my grandson every day. So it’s the best of both worlds. I have my private home. They have their private home but I get to babysit and back and forth, and I think always families will need that, their privacy but bonding with someone that you love. I did buy it with the intent of just taking that east portion that’s all grass and putting another home that’s in sync with the neighborhood and keeps the integrity of the property, so I wouldn’t put up a glass house. You know I mean I would want something that would be similar. And I am from this area. I grew up in the area. I knew people in the area from a long time ago. I knew the Cunningham’s. I went to high school with one of the daughters. I’ve loved this area and it’s my dream come true. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? No? Thank you. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody want to come up and address this item, this is your chance to do so now. Please state your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Jack Fess: My name is Jack Fess. I live at 6280 Ridge Road on Christmas Lake. I’m a neighbor here. The only thing I want to say. Sacchet: Which side of it? Do you want to point out which side of it you are. On the drawing maybe. Jack Fess: There’s a private road that comes right off of Pleasant View right next to Fox Chase and I represent my neighbors. There’s 12 pieces of property up in a line on Ridge Road, a private road there and then we go into Shorewood. The only thing that I would like to say here tonight, and that’s the reason I’m here. I have no conflict with the building on the property, is that we’ve got an awful lot of construction this summer off of Pleasant View Road. Tremendous amount. There’s two big homes down off of Lotus Lake. We’ve got a remodeling job going on at the turn across from the Cunningham’s that she mentioned. It’s about finished now. We have a brand new house going on across from Dr. Swatski’s, up at the top of the hill. And for the last 2 days we get the power company down, there were 4 or 5 vehicles trimming a deal. We’ve been on, just to give you a little history here. We’ve been at the council meeting with a problem of speeding on that road 3 years ago that was pretty bad. We stormed up there. Got the job done but as everything else, it lasted 4 months and that was the end of the police protection. As far as the speeding. This is all going to come back up again this year, I can guarantee you. Because none of these construction trucks all summer long has put any type of signs out there. For instance if you’re going to have 5 or 10 vehicles parked on Pleasant View Road and you don’t even have a marker with all the turns and everything. We’ve got school buses in the morning, so 31 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 what I’m here to ask my neighbor here, there’s plenty of room while they’re developing, it’s two homes correct? Or one. Sacchet: It’s one home. Jack Fess: Oh just one. Okay. You’re going to subdivide into two lots though correct? Just one? Sacchet: Well one she keeps for herself. Jack Fess: Oh okay. I thought there was, I think the neighbors think two homes are going in. Sacchet: One home. Jack Fess: Only one. Well I would ask is, if you’ll make the contractor pull those vehicles off the road, because we’re going to have a terrible accident there. Do any of your folks travel Pleasant View and know what I’m talking about? Sacchet: Oh yeah, and I think that’s a common requirement to have them off the road. Jack Fess: If they would do nothing else but put slow signs down there or construction, you know in front of the cars, like they did today the power company, because last week at that other house that’s being built up there across from Dr. Swatski’s, you would not believe the problems we had there with the concrete trucks. I mean these guys don’t even put signs out on the turn. Sacchet: Okay, good point. Thank you very much sir. Anybody else wants to address this item? If you state your name and address please. Tom Meier: Good evening. Yes, I’m Tom Meier and I’m at 695 Pleasant View and I’m on the south side of the property. One of my concerns, originally I’ve been involved with the discussion of this development from early on, is the, I was told that those two lots were going to be split. Those two homes, and these are rather large homes and my concern is that if somebody moves out of the guest house, what happens to the guest house? It’s my understanding it can’t be rented to outsiders. It can be occupied by family so that’s my first question. The other issue I have is, on the lot. Now I am Parcel A and Parcel B is this boat house, which is a beach house. It’s a very small structure and this whole, these 9 that you’re seeing here, is also shown on the development plan. And it’s not what actually exists there. This cul-de-sac as you just heard was vacated about 3 years ago. This portion of it is gone. The road was supposed to originally travel this Parcel D into that cul-de-sac. But there’s a 30 foot rise from the existing drive to that line right here. Property line, so to retain that much hill back when they developed this back in the 50’s or 60’s, would have been probably too much for them. So they ended up running the road, and I hope you can all see where the road runs. Sacchet: So it’s further to the south, is that what you’re saying? Tom Meier: Yeah, it’s much further south. It’s about 80 feet further south. And this beach house is actually an integral part of the estate. It’s used heavily and it’s for access to the lake, 32 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 which is fine. I don’t have a problem with that but I did have a concern that whoever buys this property doesn’t get use of this beach house and the lake. Sacchet: And I think we already addressed that actually. Tom Meier: Yeah, that was my concern to Sharmeen. The third thing that I wanted to bring up is the elevation at the house is 952. My driveway, in front of my garage, in front of my house, is 920. There’s a 32 foot drop from their main house to my house. There’s about 20,000 square feet of hill draining into my house that I have recently, last year I put extensive landscaping in my yard and put a drain in front of my garage to take care of water. It wasn’t a problem but then, since ’88 and I lived in the property that was right behind it in Fox Path since ’89 so I’ve been in the area 15 years. But when I bought it in ’98 it wasn’t a problem. We were coming out of a drought or we were in a drought, so it’s only been in the last couple years we’ve had these torrential rains and when they come in, I get all this water. Not just directed to my property but into my house. It goes into my garage and I have a basement under my garage and it goes into my basement and I’ve had some extensive losses that are not insurable because it’s outside water coming in. Okay, you can’t get insurance for that. So I put in an expensive drain in but what happens when these rains hit, it brings the sand from the gravel down the driveway and it clogs my drain and I get flooded anyway. So what I’ve asked, I’ve had the city out. Matt came out and Lori and we’re trying to figure out how to, I think it’s a simple solution but I need the water diverted away from my house. And I think it can be done simply by diverting it with grading into the parking area for this beach house would be one solution. Matt also suggested a swale next to my garage but after we talked about it, that’s where I have to put my driveway. Our driveway is 300 feet long. All the snow I have goes into a little section of land next to my garage, so I’m afraid that swale will not be operating during the winter months into the spring. Sacchet: But if I may clarify. The current proposal should actually not impact the drainage to the south. Aanenson: Correct. This is a side issue that we are working with this one on. This subdivision wouldn’t affect the drainage patterns. The new house is on the other side draining towards Pleasant View so this is a pre-existing condition. As he indicated Matt and Lori have been out. We’re working on that but it’s really not parochial to the subdivision here tonight. Sacchet: It does get impacted by this, yeah. Tom Meier: If I may, the reason I bring it up is because the parcel of land that’s being affected is this parcel and what’s been coming across and developing the driveway. To develop this lot and I don’t have a problem with this lot. This is fine, but you know, if we’re going to develop part of the lot, why can’t we look at the whole parcel. That’s my concern. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, I hear you. Tom Meier: This is a problem that you know if they’re draining the water to my lot, I can deal with that but they’re draining it to my house and I brought it up. I have temporarily put a curb in across that driveway to divert it into this parking area and it goes into my garden and then down the hill. These are very steep hills that are in this whole area. This whole area is a huge hill. So what’s going to happen when the plows come in in the winter, that’s just a little bit of asphalt 33 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 that’s going to pop it right out of there. So it’s just a temporary fix but I need some permanent help there. Sacchet: Yeah, I would think that’s an unrelated item that, I understand. If they’re already doing something, why don’t they take care of that too but we can’t from our end lump it in with this application. Because I mean we’re asked to look at this particular request with that new lot. You understand what I’m saying? Tom Meier: Yeah okay, well I do but I’m saying if you’re going to develop part of this lot on the road, it seems to me you ought to look at the whole lot. If you’re going to develop part of it, why don’t we look at the whole lot. I think it’s the opportunity. If we miss this opportunity, then I’m forever stuck with water and I don’t see how I can do anything about, we share that driveway but I don’t share their parking. That’s there so I need them to actually take care of the issue and it’s their water coming into my lot so it’s a pretty substantial issue. Sacchet: Understood. Thank you sir. Marianne McCord: Hi. I’m Marianne McCord and I live on 6440 Fox Path. I am this part. This little bit of lake that I have just right there. Sacchet: Okay. Marianne McCord: The reason why I’m here today is because I am concerned about the dock. Right now. Sacchet: Which dock specifically? Marianne McCord: The dock that they’re going to be using. Especially if there’s two families where before there was always a family and then a grandma and so she wasn’t, so the family would come down. Come in here and use it. They have a real dilapidated, rickety old dock right now so what are they going to do now that they have actually two families living there? …but they’re going to have definitely you know increase there. This particular lot…brand spanking new dock. Sacchet: That’s him, yeah. Marianne McCord: Yeah, which took up a lot of the area that I’m looking out on and most of my neighbors are looking out on, and it has a cover and all that stuff. I’m concerned about, there really isn’t a whole lot of room here and maybe you can say that this lot is not going to have, this house. Sacchet: The new lot. I think that’s already a given actually. Marianne McCord: I know but it’s... Sacchet: You want to make sure. You want to make sure, alright. Aanenson: Can I just clarify again. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Marianne McCord: Can I just? Aanenson: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, finish your point. That’s fine. Marianne McCord: What I would like to see is maybe a community dock that all these houses, we all have one dock that wouldn’t take up all of our area that we’re using. More size, and there’s grants, state grants for the department, and they go ahead and I would like to see it maybe even be an example to the rest of the community how we can develop our lakes and how we can make it accessible to everybody in there. Sacchet: Excellent point. Marianne McCord: Last thing, and I’m so glad he brought it up because he lives on Ridge Road, which is right here and he said just 12 houses. Well what happens is, Fox Path comes out here. We have 4 buses that these little kids line up like little ducks in a row and I don’t know why but they’ll have traffic sometimes blocked from here to here. The cars are coming over here, and I appreciate that you said that the city takes care of that, but I personally have sat down with a policeman saying, you’re going to have to move that. You know this is ridiculous. How many cars they have. One time we came here and they had huge dump trucks. Construction dump things. They were parked on Pleasant View. Sacchet: Yeah, there’s not much room there. Marianne McCord: There isn’t any room. There’s 2, you know I don’t even know how you can have parking on that side but some people park out there, but they just leave their trucks there. And that is an issue that I think that we need to address on Pleasant View because you can say that we have ordinances. You can say that we aren’t being affected but we have tons of building going on and it’s ridiculous that we haven’t somehow said okay, you can’t put 15 trucks here while you’re developing. Put them in a parking lot. Bus those people in. Sacchet: Good point. Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. I see somebody rocking. No. Didn’t stand up so with that. Aanenson: Can I just address the beachlot and the dock issue. Sacchet: Yes, you want to touch on that. Aanenson: Again, staff indicated that the additional lot would not have beach access rights. Just to be clear. Sacchet: But do we have a condition for that at this point? Aanenson: No. 35 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: We can add one, right? Aanenson: No, it has no access point and that’s how it’s regulated. It has to go with the property in place. We do allow, we have done subdivisions with a common dock. We do also allow where maybe there’s 13 lots and we have a beachlot association. We’ve done, you’ve seen subdivisions to that affect. We also do allow for a common dock. If you look at the topography on this, there’s kind of an open area as you go through that marsh and so that’s what happened. You’ve got long docks. It’s shallow at that end and they’re going out, trying to get to that open water area there to resolve that. If there is a code enforcement, we try to get out every summer and inspecting docks. There’s supposed to be, there’s regulations on who can be docking at those, as far as licensed boats. But as far as someone walking down and swimming, if you give permission for someone to swim on your dock, we don’t enforce that. The lakes are open for someone to go down. If you give permission for somebody to be on your dock. Sacchet: Now I mean, this is an existing neighborhood with some existing docks. This basically would be up to the neighbors to organize that. It’s not something we can come in after the fact and mandate so. Marianne McCord: Actually that is a neighborhood… Sacchet: Right. Marianne McCord: …right here has their common docks. None of these are common docks. Sacchet: That’s what I mean. Aanenson: That’s what he’s saying. Sacchet: It would be basically up to these landowners to get together and agree to have a combined convenience. Aanenson: And we have done that. Sacchet: Alright. So I’m closing, last chance. Does anybody want to speak up to this? I close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments. Discussion. Is there any comments, discussion? Anything that needs to be said there. Slagle: I just have two things. One is, I certainly support the applicant’s desire to go into the additional lot with the new home. I would ask, and I think we did this with the Klingelhutz on Galpin. Requesting construction traffic parking on their property. Sacchet: On the construction site. Not on the road. Slagle: So I would ask the applicant be open to allowing the trucks on her 300 foot driveway. Probably would work. And then last. Sacchet: Put them in the garages. 36 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Slagle: Yeah, the garages. There you go. And then echoing this gentleman’s comment on the traffic. We’ve had this discussion before. To the east. And I mean simply put to the staff, and you’ve heard this but the traffic is terrible on Pleasant View. And I mean I would love to see us get a little creative and literally have signage out there. If we have to put cones out there, I don’t care. I drive that all the time and I remember that lady to the east complaining that people go 40- 50 miles an hour. We did the traffic study or some sort of traffic study and we didn’t show that. We showed 35 miles an hour, whatever it was, and that’s not the case. People go fast on that road. I’m not saying you’re disagreeing with me Matt but the results of that study were different than my opinion and so I would just ask with this application we really try something different. Sacchet: Thanks Rick. Any other comments? Lillehaug: I have a couple quick ones. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I support the application, and just to comment on the traffic. It’s not our place to really fix the traffic problem out there right now. It’s not really part of this submittal. I mean it’s really, when Chairman Sacchet indicated that it’s a city problem, he meant it’s a staff problem and not a Planning Commission problem so I’d like the people in the audience to work with staff and fix that and if it’s not fixed, address it with the City Council and not the Planning Commission. We’re not the sounding chair to address that with. I wish we could but it’s not us. And that’s really all I have thank you. Sacchet: Good point Steve. Tjornhom: I support the application also. I see no problem with it. Sacchet: A couple of really quick questions for staff. We certainly can request that construction traffic be on site. We’ve done that before. What happens if there’s two family situation, if they’re not occupied by the same… Aanenson: The city does have a licensing requirement. Sacchet: So it couldn’t be rented without a renting license basically. Aanenson: Right, and it would have to pass inspection for all that sort of thing. There are other circumstances where we have accessory structures with rental. Sacchet: Now with this not being a lakeshore lot, it seems non sensical to put in a condition that says they don’t have lakeshore access because they are not bordering a lake so they don’t have it, right? Aanenson: That’s correct. Sacchet: So that’s implied. I mean we don’t need to spell this out because it’s, anybody can see it. That looks at that lot and it doesn’t border against on the lake so it does not have riparian rights. I think that’s the word, right? Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Point of clarification on that. That doesn’t preclude the owner from like Kate indicated, from giving permission for her guests. Neighbors. Aanenson: To walk down and swim. Something like that, right. Lillehaug: To walk down there and swim. Aanenson: Right, but they could not moor a boat there. That’s the requirement. There are regulations of who can moor a boat on a dock. Lillehaug: So when the residents are asking, you know restrict them from using the beach, we can’t do that. Aanenson: No, if you give someone permission to go on your property to use the dock. Sacchet: That’s a personal thing. You can have your friends go use the dock. Now then there was the other issue the gentleman brought up with the drainage issue. Which we sort of say it’s not related. Can you give. Aanenson: We are working on that as a separate issue, not related to this subdivision. But we are working on that issue. Sacchet: So it’s being worked on? Aanenson: Correct. I guess our point is, the draining, the house was built over 100 years ago. Existing drainage… Sacchet: Right, it’s been going like that for over 100 years. Aanenson: Correct, and the new house is draining a different way. Back onto Pleasant View so we are working on that as a separate issue so it is on our agenda. Sacchet: Okay. Because it seems to be really separate in terms of that it is, if anything it probably gets better a little bit with the drainage rather than worst to the south with the new development. That needs to be addressed as a separate issue. Okay. That’s all the questions I have. And I do think it’s a reasonable request and I’m willing to take a motion. Tom Meier: Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of clarification? Sacchet: We, is it really pertinent to what we’re doing here? Tom Meier: Yeah, it’s just back to the boat house. The original…and there’s no fishing. It’s very shallow by the end of the dock. About 6 inches of water. Sacchet: So it’s really not that big an issue then. 38 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Tom Meier: …but does that, can they use the boat house, give people permission to use the beach house I should say. Sacchet: Well anybody can give anybody permission to visit their home. I mean that’s within the rights of ownership I would say, would you agree Kate? Aanenson: That’s correct. Lillehaug: Just not permanent mooring and. Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s why, if they go sit at the end of the dock and have a cup of coffee, there’s no. Keefe: It’s not a habitable building, I mean… Tom Meier: …kitchen or heated but I’m concerned about maybe the new neighbor in the new house having the rights to use that beach house. Sacchet: Well, the new house does not have lake access rights period. However, somebody, well it does have lake access rights like yourself. I mean if your children or your brothers and sisters come by, you tell them well this is my dock. You can go down there and you can have a picnic. You know, but that’s the level of it. Tom Meier: Yeah, I’m just giving neighbors in the neighborhood rights to use that beach house would be my concern. Sacchet: It’s not possible to transfer riparian rights. Riparian rights go with the lot that borders the lake. They cannot be assigned in another way, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: …someone’s using that house in a way that’s not the applicant, we have no regulation over that. Tjornhom: Can I ask? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bethany. Tjornhom: When you put up the spot up for sale, are you going to advertise that it has lake access at all? Beverly Thomas: No. It doesn’t have lake access. It’s not even heated. The City of Chanhassen is holding the meter. It doesn’t have water. It’s shut down in the winter and it has no lake access. Aanenson: She’s talking about the boat house now. Tjornhom: Well no, I’m talking about your lot. Once it’s. Beverly Thomas: The lot that’s advertised. 39 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Tjornhom: It’s not at all in any language doesn’t say lake access. Beverly Thomas: No. Sacchet: Well the only way, Bethany if I can interrupt. The only way it could be construed as having lake access if that lot to the south goes with it. Tjornhom: Right, but I think the neighbors were concerned that it would become like a side perk you know, buy this lot and come share my lake access and that’s what I was asking if that was all implicated or suggested in this language for your lot being for sale. Sacchet: Okay. Are we little clear on that one? Clear enough to make a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-23 for Lotus View Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow private street as shown on the plans received October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 19. Sacchet: Okay. Do we have a second? Tjornhom: Second. Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? Papke: Yes, I have a friendly amendment. Condition number 20. That all construction parking will be required to be off road. Lillehaug: That is acceptable. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: I have one additional amendment and that would be to ask that on the east and west side, footage to be determined by staff but there would be signage stating construction ahead or something to that effect. Some caution. Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable? Slagle: Let’s try something new. Lillehaug: It’s not proper use of traffic control though really. Aanenson: That’s what we would say too. Just so you know, it is an ongoing problem… Sacchet: Maybe have staff work with. Saam: Yeah, the City Engineer is working with Jim Olson, the staff sergeant assigned to the city on Pleasant View. No parking, that whole issue so we’re well aware of it. We are working on it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay, I don’t accept that condition. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Alright. So we have a motion. We have a friendly amendment. Lillehaug moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-23 for Lotus View Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans dated received October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. b. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Submit a 30 foot wide private cross access easement against all lots and the adjacent property at time of final plat recording. 3. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and Watershed District. 4. Submit drainage calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Add silt fence along the perimeter of the grading limit. 7. Add to the plan the following note all sanitary services must be 6-in PVC-SDR26 and water services 1-in copper. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the city with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for watermain. 10. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Numbers: 5200, 5203, 5204, 5300, and 5301. 11. The private street must be built to a 7 ton design and 10% maximum grade. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 12. On the plan: a. Revise the incorrect bar scale. 41 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Add 5-foot side lot line easements. e. Show the 30 foot private driveway easement. f. Show all proposed grading contours. g. Label the proposed house pad as a walkout or WO. h. The gravel drive located south of the property is partially paved and should be shown as such. 13. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for the proposed subdivision. The plan should include the location of silt fencing and rock entrance/exit access pad. Erosion and sediment controls should meet the requirements as stated in the City of Chanhassen Erosion and Sediment Control BMP Handbook. 14. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to the following table: Time ( maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked.) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include 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. 15. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.03 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,115.00; the water quantity fees are $7,711.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $10,826.00. 16. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. 17. If a new driveway access was built, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Building Official conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. c. House numbers must be posted at the street and on the homes if a private drive is utilized. 42 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 19. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the private street. Direct access is prohibited off of Pleasant View Road. 20. That all construction parking will be required to be off road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FOR THE INTENSIFICATION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE BY BUILDING A CANOPY WITH FOOTINGS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED TH RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 222 WEST 78 STREET, THOMAS WILDER, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-39. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Lillehaug: I have a couple. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: You said denial right? Because this says approval. So you’re recommending denial. Sacchet: It says both Steve. Aanenson: It says both. We have conditions for both. Lillehaug: On the front page it says denial I thought, or approval. Anyways, it’s denial. Tjornhom: You’re right, it does say that. Sacchet: Okay. Lillehaug: Has staff spoken with the city attorney on the liability the City takes with having a residential structure on it’s city right-of-way? Typically I guess I’ve seen where, you know with personal property on city right-of-way, the city requires an agreement indemnifying them of any liability, etc on this. So what is our attorney saying? Saam: Typically we handle cases like this, or if residents have structures in easements, right-of- way, with encroachment agreements. Basically, then that gets recorded with the property so then it’s just laid out that while the city’s allowing you to encroach into our right-of-way easement, what have you, we as the city are not responsible for maintenance, that sort of thing. So the encroachment agreement is the short answer. That’s our solution. Lillehaug: Is that a typical agreement though on an actual residential structure? I mean I’ve seen them for walls, retaining walls, fences but on an actual residential structure out in the right- of-way? 43 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Saam: Yeah, I guess I haven’t seen one for maybe a residential structure but I know we’ve done them for parking lots, for corners of commercial buildings. I’ve done one on the, and that’s similar to this so. Sacchet: Okay? Lillehaug: Yeah. Sacchet: Any other questions? Keefe: I’ve got a couple. The stoop was there. It’s been in the right-of-way for a long time I’m assuming. Is that right? Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Keefe: Yeah, and so this is what, an intensification is that what you said? Al-Jaff: Correct. And actually the footings actually extend beyond, or the stoop or the steps are right here and then if you look at the footings, they extend further into the right-of-way. So it is an intensification and then you’ve added this portion. Keefe: And the additional intensification from a, is what a foot closer into the, or is it? Al-Jaff: Probably less than that. Keefe: Little bit less that a foot. Okay. Al-Jaff: 6 inches to be exact. Keefe: You know I was just looking at the letter I think that, I don’t know if it was the applicant or the owners and just can you speak to the question of the approved drawing that he says he submitted complete with frost footings. Can you give me a sense on what you know about that? And because at least my conclusion just from reading it, and I guess we can probably hear from him shortly, or her shortly, you know it’s sort of like well, maybe he thought that it was approved because the drawing was approved. Can you speak to that at all? Sacchet: Actually Dan, I have a short cut to that. If I may jump in. You mentioned that the nd application was received on June 22. The application has a stamp on it that says approved June th 25. I assume that’s approved by the city. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Sacchet: But then it seems like the non-conformance was not found til the inspector found it, rdth which is dated August 3 or 4. Is that accurate? So it was approved but without a plat, as you described. Al-Jaff: Correct, then. 44 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 rd Sacchet: And then the non-conformance was actually found after the fact on August 3. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Sacchet: I think that should shed some light on what you’re actually asking about here. Keefe: Well a little bit. I’m trying to understand, it sounded like the original plan was one that had a different roof line. The one that was approved, and at least from what I’m reading here is that, is that correct? Sacchet: Not sure about that. Keefe: I’m just trying to understand because at least what he says, it should be noted that my permit was approved with the drawing of the roof over the existing, the roof over the existing… Aanenson: Let me just give some clarity again to this. This came in in a sequence of different applications. So the siding, when it’s a normal siding, the Planning Commission, the planning staff doesn’t look at it. Otherwise planning staff reviews all permits for setback. It was a survey that the inspectors look at. Not even a specific… Sacchet: So it didn’t come to planning. Aanenson: No, it didn’t come to planning. Sacchet: It didn’t come to planning yeah, because it’s just. Aanenson: Right, so when the inspector caught it and said I should let someone in planning know, so it didn’t come through the normal route because it was for a siding permit. And the inspector noted the permits, if you look on the notes, he said you’re proceeding because I don’t think the planning would approve something like this so that’s where the dialogue started. Sacchet: Okay, but at that time it was already built to some extent. Aanenson: The footings were in. The roof wasn’t on yet. The siding wasn’t all the way on the roof or the shingles weren’t on the roof… Keefe: So the footings for the structure which has been built were put in? Aanenson: That’s when the inspector I believe is at the time the inspector found it so the footings were out past the stoop. Keefe: Okay, and that’s when the inspector said it needs to go… Aanenson: Right, because generally for a siding doesn’t always go to the planning department. Keefe: And then after that, that note was made, then the remaining structure was built? 45 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: Is that sort of the sequence? Aanenson: That’s our story. Keefe: Alright, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Kurt. Papke: Yeah. If the Planning Commission were to deny the variance, what would be the next step? What would be the options open to the applicant? At that point. Al-Jaff: They would have to remove the addition. Papke: The entire addition? Al-Jaff: You can appeal your decision to the City Council. Should that fail, then he would have to remove. Papke: The entire addition? Aanenson: You can modify anything within it. Whatever you would recommend. So that’s up to you. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? I think I had one more. Oh yes, I had another question. There’s th another house that’s very close to the road. It’s the one on the corner of Frontier and 78. Do we know how close that is? Because it seemed, yeah I don’t think it made that drawing. I think just slightly west from that. What we see on here. Actually it would be the next lot to the west. Then it seems like that one has at least a stairway or something going into the right-of-way. Al-Jaff: We looked at the area and it appeared that this was the only one that actually encroached into that required. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Al-Jaff: Into the right-of-way. Sacchet: Thank you. With that, do we have an applicant? Tom Wilder: Yes. Sacchet: Please. It’s your turn. State your name and address for the record and tell us your story please. 46 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Tom Wilder: Tom Wilder, 21740 Lilac Lane, which is the county line actually of Shorewood. th That’s where I live. I own the property 222 West 78 Street and appreciate being able to come th out and tell my side of the story tonight. I bought the house April 28. 1898. You know all that part. The house did need extensive remodeling and that, I applied for all the permits. Everything is new, you know. Electrical, from the street in. Had the service, you know plumbing, everything is absolutely brand new. And applied for all the permits in proper order I might add. What is incorrect in staff’s report, respectfully, is the time line. Submitted my drawings June ndth 22. Had them approved and paid for the permit June 25. And the first thing they did was build the canopy. The last thing we did was set it on the footings. It was on a temporary framing and the footing tubes were in. Concrete’s on the way. Doug comes out and says, hey this is too close to the sidewalk. I said the whole house is too close to the sidewalk, and I’m just covering up the existing stoop. There’s a lot of traffic on that sidewalk. It’s good traffic, you know bicycles, skateboards, kids, parents, people taking walks. And I’ve got the situation of the canopy on temporary framing. Do I pour or don’t I pour? I wasn’t about to leave the canopy on the temporary framing, completely built. 100 percent built. Shingled. The whole thing. In fact maybe not shingled but I think it was shingled by that point. I can check. But 100 percent built. We poured the footings. We put in the posts and made a much safer structure. I might add we made the entire house, in my opinion, prior to me buying it was an eye sore. It’d been a rental property for 50 years. It was shot and now it’s been put back together. I consider it a gateway house. 1898. I consider it a nice welcoming structure to Chanhassen. So I want to make that clear. The canopy was built, we dug some holes. You guys came out said, don’t proceed, and then we built the rest of it. That’s not what happened, and you can confirm that with Doug. I don’t, I disagree that the structure encroaches any more than the existing stoop. If you look on th the permit that was approved on June 25, you’ll note, should I put this under the camera. Sacchet: We’ve got it in front of us. Tom Wilder: Okay. I’m not sure if the pages are numbered. But it’s the one, received June nd 22. Second level floor structure. With the specific note, install 6 by 6 posts. Check foundation. Add footings if necessary. That was check the foundation of the stoop. See if the stoop had footings. Building department said if the stoop doesn’t have footings, just drop them right in front, which is exactly what I did. We’re talking about 6 inches, and I’m not, you know I know there are rules. I might also. Sacchet: So it’s half a foot Dan. Tom Wilder: So we’re talking about half a foot is what we’re talking about. We’re also talking about making an existing stoop, whether it’s in the right-of-way or not or whether it’s on my lot or not, I’m not sure but I think I’m about 99 percent sure it’s not even on the lot line, and I’ll tell you why, but it would involve removing your added for sale, the address over the political sign. There’s something that needs to be seen, and that’s the survey that was done next door. If you’ll note the post in front of the Y and the M in that name. Sacchet: The wood post there, yeah. Tom Wilder: That is the, you know RLS survey of my next door neighbor, which is about 8 inches off the sidewalk. And I’m assuming my lot line is probably continues right down the sidewalk. You know I’m assuming my lot line is about 8 inches off the sidewalk towards my 47 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 house as well, so you know I don’t know who’s right or who’s wrong. I’m not sure. I do know a survey will add another $2,000 to my permit because I did some checking today. So I’m not real excited about that. If that’s what it takes, I’m willing to do that. I would like to leave it just with the encroachment agreement myself. Might also add you know, I’ve worked with the city every step of the way on this house. Tore out 4 layers of roof. Added completely new sheathing. It wasn’t insulated. It’s fully insulated to code now. There were two chimneys. The city made we hire a structural engineer to come out, and you might, you know that was money to approve the chimneys. That they weren’t going to fall over. I had to reinforce them with steel. I mean as far as I’m concerned this is not a paint and wallpaper job. I have a lot of money tied up in this place so, and I’m willing to, you know it’s going to be first class but to tear off the canopy would really be a major, major setback for me, and I think be a setback for the community. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from the applicant? Steve. Lillehaug: I have a couple. When you say existing, what do you mean by existing? Was it existing prior to you buying the house? Tom Wilder: The stoop? Lillehaug: Yep. Tom Wilder: Yes. The stoop’s been there, it’s my understanding the stoop’s been there for decades. Now that might be an exaggeration. The concrete, if you go out and look at it is pretty pitted. And I’m planning on. Sacchet: It’s pretty beat up. Tom Wilder: What’s that? Sacchet: It’s pretty beat up. Tom Wilder: It’s pretty beat up. And I’m planning on putting cobblestones over it. Make it look nice. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Tom Wilder: You’re welcome. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. I open the public hearing. I don’t see anybody standing up. I close the public hearing. Any objections? No. Alright, back to commission. Comments, discussion. Does it need it? Slagle: I’ve just got one and that is, I think anytime one would embark on something like this, a survey certainly would be prudent. 48 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Tom Wilder: Should I come back up? Slagle: No, that’s okay. Tom Wilder: Okay, I did, there was a survey by the way. It’s just old. 100 years. Aanenson: It wasn’t an as built survey. It was 100 year old survey. Slagle: I understand. Tom Wilder: Well, you know measuring tapes I think were… Slagle: But the one thing I would throw out to my fellow commissioners, I think I would like to see the results of a current survey because that might make this situation a non-issue. And I think that would be in your best interest as well. Sacchet: Any other comments? Steve. Lillehaug: My comment is I do not support him improving anything that’s in the city right-of- way and I would recommend tabling this to give him an opportunity to perform a survey so he doesn’t have to re-apply for a variance because he’s probably going to need, still need a variance so I would support probably tabling this. Am I kind of on the right tune here? Sacchet: Well, you know what seems to be the one thing that is significant to me in this whole st trail here is the dates. I mean we have the dates right here. This plan was drawn up on the 1 of ndth June. It was received by the city on the 22 of June. It was approved by the city on the 25 of June, and then they built. Now exactly where exactly the state was in, it was, it certainly in an rd advanced state when on August 3 the inspector found that there might be an issue. So I have a hard time going back with that. I mean I think the city procedures obviously did not require that sort of planning, so it kind of slipped through there. To go there after the fact and consider the possibility, if I’m to tear this stoop down, I think is not fair. I really don’t think it’s fair. If we would look at that from the beginning, I would think it was the balance thing would be to maybe make the canopy a little smaller. I don’t think it would necessarily have to be quite as big. If it’s really as big as the stoop. Now, are we going to raise an issue over 6 inches? I really don’t think that makes sense personally. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, just one comment. This is the second Planning Commission in a row where we have a situation where someone has come in with a variance for something that was either partially or completely constructed. The previous one was a garage footings and so on. In a bluff area. Sacchet: Grading. Papke: And with all due respect to what you said about the drawing here, the drawing doesn’t show any setbacks. There was, unless I’m missing something, I don’t know that there was anything to indicate that there was any issue with setbacks here. So unless one had you know the intuitive knowledge by looking at the address to say geez, I know the houses on that street are built awfully close to the street, maybe we should look at that. You know I don’t think there was 49 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 anything to indicate that there was any issues with setback here or anything that would indicate that this permit should be denied. So perhaps the issue is you know, do we require people to show, you know bring in a plat drawing so that there’s something to indicate where these issues come up, or something. What I’m concerned with as a planning commission is our actions speak a lot louder than any words, and if every time one of these comes in, what we’re sending the signal to the community is that if you just quick get it in and get it constructed, you’re good to go. The Planning Commission will just approve it and I have a big issue with that because that seriously undermines what we’re trying to do in this community so. On the other hand, I hear what you’re saying. It’s 6 inches. There’s no logical reason to deny this, but there’s also the issue of the precedence that we’re establishing in the community so I have some concerns with that. Lillehaug: Can I ask a point of clarification from staff? Is it city policy with building permits to require a registered survey to be included in a permit, building permit application? Aanenson: It’s really an issue of, you know we’ve got 2 ½ acre lots. We use some discretion of where the house sits on the lot and we don’t always require. And it’s a burden. This is an existing house. We’re thrilled with how the house looks, so the building inspector makes a decision, just as Kurt laid out. Try to turn around in a couple days. Keep it moving. And it is an old, old survey. Yeah it was 12 inches but you’re right, unless you look at it in detail, when the inspector got out there and issued the permit, whoops. There’s a problem. Saam: And I’ll just add something. We try to take a little bit of judgment and the size of the improvement, you know really does this require a survey? We go out there a lot of the times to see the grading extent of it. We try to, like Kate said, if it’s not a big improvement, don’t burden people like Mr. Wilder said. A $2,000, $1,000, a grand survey. We try to not burden them. For sure with every new house, every decent size addition we require it. On this one, you know we’re damned if we do or damned if we don’t. And a survey will tell us. It will say whether it’s in the right-of-way, just in the setback, whatever. So looking back on it, for sure we should have probably required it. Aanenson: And again looking at it was an exterior/interior remodel. There was no addition on it so it didn’t raise a flag. Papke: Just one thing about the survey that I want to make sure the applicant understands that this could go one of two ways. I mean the, well a couple different ways. The survey could show that indeed we have a 6 inch issue or it could show that you know, you have no issue to deal with but you could end up spending the money for the survey and be right back in the situation where you’re at right now where you know, it’s 6 inches or more. Sacchet: Well if I remember correctly the staff report states on not just the footings. Actually even part of the stoop or even the entire stoop is in the right-of-way, isn’t it? Aanenson: Correct. th Al-Jaff: According to the as-built survey for West 78, yes. Sacchet: So the whole thing is in, so we have the whole stoop potentially in the… 50 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Keefe: I’ve got a question in regards to that. If we were to make him remove the awning, would we also require him to remove the stoop then? Al-Jaff: No. Sacchet: You know to me requiring to remove this thing makes no sense because I think I’d go one step further. I mean if we would have wanted to dealt with this we’d have to start dealing with it in the beginning. Now when this thing comes in, they’re just looking at it on paper? The building inspector when he puts his approval stamp on it. Aanenson: Correct. Again, let me making the discernment to say it’s a siding. It didn’t appear to be a lot until he got out there and saw, oh my goodness. This is awfully close and didn’t understand the implication of that because it appeared to be siding and interior remodel. Tom Wilder: Can I say something? Sacchet: Sure. Tom Wilder: Doug. Aanenson: Can he please come up to the microphone? Sacchet: Yeah, if you want to come forward. Yeah, the applicant can speak just about any time. Certainly during deliberation. th Tom Wilder: Bought the house on April 28. I closed on it about in this being Doug’s notes, I had him out for a preliminary inspection. Sacchet: So he was actually out there? Tom Wilder: A few days after closing. Sacchet: It’s not like he’s never been there. Tom Wilder: No. He went through the entire house. He went down to the basement with me. st He did the whole 9 yards in April. Well, maybe May 1. So he was well, the staff was well aware of what house we were talking about. Sacchet: Okay. You see that’s where I’m coming from. Aanenson: Again, the building inspector doesn’t always, under that circumstance… Sacchet: It’s not his responsibility in a formal way, right. I understand that. But I do think that the city bears some responsibility and to go back after the fact and put the whole responsibility on the applicant just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s my position. 51 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Or we could have, I mean staff could have had him perform the survey right up front rather than after the fact so it’s not like he’s losing anything. Yeah, they may have made a mistake but yeah, he should have to have, in my opinion, he should have a registered survey done on it. Sacchet: Sorry. Tom Wilder: …oh that’s alright. Maybe I should just stay here. I’m agreeable to the recommendations on approval of this variance. And paying for the survey and paying for the encroachment agreement and paying for the other permits that I’ve paid for. You know the extra physical engineer I had, or structural engineer I had out there. I mean I’ve had, it’s been a unique house. It’s been fun. I’ve enjoyed it. I’d do it again um, but I do feel slighted on the time line. And the only reason I put those posts up was safety reason. I know it states differently in the report but I wasn’t about to leave that canopy hanging on a couple of 2 by 4’s. Sacchet: We understand that. You want me to address your comment Kurt about the precedent. I mean yes, we definitely do not want to project the image that something is done and then we agree, but is this the right case to make an example. I really don’t think it is. Keefe: Yeah, my comment would be in regards to, you know we have to weigh the precedent on one hand and then we have to weigh all the other information we got which is maybe he’s in the right-of-way, maybe he’s not. We’ve determined that through a survey. He’s got the time line I think is, you know what he’s saying is accurate. You know you would think the city might bear some responsibility. Levels of improvement he’s putting into place is pretty terrific so the city’s getting the benefit from that. And it’s 6 inches you know, and I mean we’re not going to make him remove the stoop. We would make him remove the awning which is a violation of 6 inches. I agree with your comment that it’s not one to set a precedent on. Tjornhom: And I think our paper trail does show that he was trying to comply with city regulations by pulling his permits and going through the inspections. I don’t think he was trying to pull a fast one on anybody or sneak a porch on. I just, I don’t think that was the case with the whole thing and so I would also agree that what’s done is done and I think he’s done a lovely job improving the home actually. And so I’d hate to punish him for your good works. Sacchet: So in terms of the things we have to look at, I mean I would propose that yes, there is a hardship the stoop, to tear this down. It’s a hardship at this point. Which, is it self created? Well yes he created it but the city helped create it by not catching it earlier. Therefore I consider it a reasonable request, I mean in terms of putting some foundation under what my position is. Do we want to venture a motion or is there more discussion? Keefe: Just one…question which is, if we were to approve the variance it says that we need to, we could have them submit a lot survey by the surveyor. Is that something we would still want to require? Sacchet: It wouldn’t hurt. Lillehaug: I would absolutely say yes. 52 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Aanenson: I think we need to get an encroachment agreement so we know exactly where it sits on the property. Sacchet: In order to make an encroachment agreement we need to know how much is being encroached I think. In other words it holds no water. Alright. Ready for a motion? Slagle: So point of clarification. So we’re suggesting that, that we’re not tabling this upon. Sacchet: Why would you table Rich? Slagle: What my thought was, is you would table it to get the survey done and then determine if we should even be here having this discussion. Lillehaug: And to add to that, my position is I don’t, I would not support any encroachment agreement for this. Regardless of, and so I would see it mandatory that a survey is done and if it did show an encroachment, I would not support it. A variance. Myself. Sacchet: I’d be willing to close it out right now but. Keefe: So would I. Tjornhom: I would too. Sacchet: We need more than 3 or 4. We need 5? Aanenson: Well it would just move up to City Council. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Then City Council can look, take another stab at it. I mean since we’re kind of laboring. I mean we have a range of opinions. Maybe that’s the solution is that we pass it on to City Council. Lillehaug: It’s up to you. Keefe: Is it an issue that we want to pass onto City Council? Sacchet: I don’t. Keefe: No. Sacchet: I don’t. Papke: I think I can support this one. I think it needed to be said about the precedence setting issue but I’m…given the situation. Sacchet: So it comes down to you Rich. Slagle: Take the vote. 53 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Alright. Somebody make the motion please. Keefe: I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission approves the variance for the construction of a canopy with footings without any setback and within the right-of-way based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions, 1 and 2 I believe. Sacchet: Yep. We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approve the variance for the construction of a canopy with footings without any setback and within the right-of-way based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and with the following conditions: 1. Submit a lot survey signed by a registered land surveyor. The survey must show the following: a. Right-of-way, property and easement lines in relation to the existing structures. b. Existing sidewalk location. 2. An encroachment agreement will be required if any of the existing structures are determined to be in the right-of-way. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed, and the motion failed with a vote of 4 to 2. Sacchet: So we have 1, 2, 3, 4 to 2. That means it goes to City Council, right? Aanenson: That’s correct. Sacchet: Yep. Thank you very much. Good luck with it. PUBLIC HEARING: VILLAGE ON THE PONDS BUILDING C-1, FOOD COOP, REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 18,200 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH VARIANCE TO THE COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ON 1.35 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, VOP I, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-40. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Who wants to have any questions? Are we still awake enough? Papke: I’ll start. Just a question on fenestration requirement here. Boy, I love to be able to use that word. On page 6 of the staff report here, just below the table, it states as can be seen by the table, the percentage of openings and faux windows. By faux you mean fake windows, yes? Generous: Yes. 54 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Papke: Okay, so just to make sure I understand here. So we really have a, we’re really 9 percent off our requirement for windows. And okay. To that end, are there other buildings in the city that have similar fake windows that were used to meet this design standard? Aanenson: Actually on Villages on the Pond there’s a couple of them. AmericInn. Also I think Houlihan’s has some so we’ve used it in other applications on that specific. Generous: Kwik Trip. Papke: Okay, so there’s. Aanenson: Office Max. Papke: So there’s several others in the area that have used this similar technique, so we’re not breaking any new ground here. The only other thing that was just a minor cause for concern when I was looking at the plans was the amount of parking. You know it certainly seems to meet all the city code for parking and so on but Culver’s gets busy. Foss Swim School. They occupy every single square inch of parking on the streets when they have swimming lessons going there so I don’t think we can expect to see much spill over onto the street there capacity. Are there any concerns in terms of the sizing? The expected number of people we would anticipate seeing at the coop versus the number of parking spaces. You know also taking into account the number of employees. Generous: The quick answer would be no. We think the spillover will actually go into the bank parking lot, and that will be during their non-peak hours. It’s the, you know the evening time that people will be coming here. Also you have, well with the coffee shop, their peak hour is morning. These are midday and then evening and then weekends actually so the rest of the development will pick it up but yeah, that’s where we foresee the overflow going to the southwest. Sacchet: Any other questions? Lillehaug: I have some adding on that. Boy, I remember the development of the bank there and it seems like the overflow as going to go to this development when we looked at that, and it was a lot more than, like on page 7 you indicate, boy where was it? 6 additional spaces. Boy, it was assuming a lot more than 6 spaces. Aanenson: The bank has underground parking too. Lillehaug: Say again? Aanenson: The bank has underground parking too. Lillehaug: Well I mean it did when we looked at it too and it was including way over 6 parking stalls on this site that we’re looking at now as part of it’s. Sacchet: Did it? I don’t remember. 55 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Aanenson: I don’t remember that. Lillehaug: Well I just remember a line drawn and it included about 18 stalls plus. Again, I guess reiterating the concerns with parking. Sacchet: Definitely a concern. Lillehaug: Boy, I hope we don’t miss it and I’m not seeing data in front of me that’s saying we’re not going to miss it on parking, so that’s not a question I guess but I have concerns with that. Does the architecture of this match kind of the general theme that we’re wanting to do? Generous: Within Villages, yes. Lillehaug: Okay. That was just a question. I have absolutely no clue, just wanted to make sure. What type of vehicles do they plan on having in the loading dock? I can ask the applicant that. Sacchet: There’s actually a drawing that is kind of scary where it shows the really big trucks sticking out. Lillehaug: I’ll ask the applicant that. On page 8, can you explain your table there. Really explain one thing and that would be the balance after conversion for deficits, and this is relating to the balance of the shifting of all the different types of commercial. Generous: Right. There’s excess capacity to the site that’s not being used, that’s what a positive balance means. Sacchet: So that can go anywhere? Generous: Yeah. Well it’s not going to be used so. Sacchet: They’re under their threshold. Lillehaug: So it’s a positive. Generous: Right. And also this includes buildings that aren’t built so we have, we estimate that Building G will have so many square feet and it may not. Lillehaug: Okay. On their previous drawing it said front lit letters with a neon logo. I just saw a neon sign go in here and boy, is that pretty. The blue one. Sacchet: The Mattress. Lillehaug: It’s pretty obtrusive there. I mean when they say neon, do we have anything in our code to say not that extensive of a neon? Holy buckets. 56 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Generous: It’s type of glare and part of the problem, and Vernelle pointed this out to me as the nomenclature, that it’s really, the lighting will be behind. In the sign itself and the front will be, allow light to come shine through it. Lillehaug: So maybe I’ll ask her and take her word for it that it won’t be like that. Aanenson: Another just side bar to that is…we didn’t ask photometrics. We’ve learned to ask for photometrics and that was a matter of intensity. They have reduced the intensity of that particular sign. Sacchet: They have? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Oh good. So that’s something that we need to ask. As Bob said, there’s different applications of neon, whether it’s covered or not, but that was a very intense bright light. Lillehaug: On page 3. You know we were looking at the background. Why are we, you’re drawing a little attention to, you have on page 3 at the very top of the first paragraph, number 3. Are we drawing attention to the maximum building height for a reason? Are we. Generous: Well that was just to say that this area, we specifically said that no more than 2 stories. Lillehaug: So we’re fine there? Generous: We’re fine. It’s under the limits, yes. Lillehaug: Okay. I’m trying to hurry along here. 9 foot parking stalls right? That’s still a requirement in Chanhassen? Generous: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. And then I wanted to get your, the staff’s opinion on a, I have big problems with this one. And if you look at the site plan it’s the little drop off area. You can just look in the drawing and it kind of defines it right there for me. You’ve got cars facing each other in the drop off area. That really defines it. I mean there’s no good path and circulation for cars at all in there. You guys want to take a jab at that one? Sacchet: Matt? Saam: Well yeah, I guess I don’t think that drawing’s really realistic. You know to have, we aren’t going to have people like that. I guess I would maybe defer to the applicant to see if that’s going to be, yeah to see if that’s going to be a pick-up you know area where they do that sometimes at the grocery stores. You can drive up and get them, or if it’s just a dropping off type of thing where you may be dropping off an older relative or something like that. Aanenson: And I believe that can just be cued for striping too. In a directional. 57 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Saam: Correct. Slagle: But if I may, Steve may I? Lillehaug: Yes please. Slagle: You march 15 feet to your northwest, you are in essence in the middle of a very busy intersection for a good part of the day. And all I’m suggesting when I see this drop off area, which I think is a nice amenity for grocery stores, I mean you probably couldn’t pick a worst spot from a traffic volume standpoint. Because I can see whether you go, you know whether you’re coming from the south and then exiting onto that intersection or you’re having people go the other way, the Culver’s, the Starbuck’s, the evening traffic trying to get home, cutting through, I mean this whole area, and Vernelle, you’ve heard it before but the area is ripe with traffic. Sacchet: Well wait a second. Isn’t this the internal part towards Culver’s? This is not over towards the main drag. Slagle: It’s towards Culver’s. Sacchet: Yeah. Slagle: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: If you look at the, you’ve got the blank. The original one said pick-up. I believe that’s the intent. I think Mika, in response to the language put drop off on some of those but it should be pick-up. Pick-up groceries. I think the idea was there when we met with them, that we could cue that to circulate. Sacchet: It’d be one way basically. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: On the way out. Slagle: So, just so I’m clear, you’re suggesting that if someone came down Great Plains, took a right. Cut right in front of Starbuck’s, and wanted to take a left into there, they couldn’t. Aanenson: No, I’m saying if you go to the drop off and cue them to go one direction so if you came in this way and it’s cued to go that, you couldn’t get in to pick-up your groceries. You’d have to… Slagle: And again maybe it’s me and I’ll not say anything more but I think this whole area between Culver’s and Great Plains is a very, very busy area for traffic. And I’m just saying if you are expecting your pick-up traffic to either exit or enter in that area, you’re asking for 58 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 trouble. I’m not sure I have an alternative for you, given your building site. I’m just saying for the commissioners, be prepared. I mean that to me, I see cars waiting. And it’s not like we don’t already have enough traffic there. Sacchet: Traffic calming. Slagle: Yeah, here we go. Traffic calming. Lillehaug: And I’ve got one more question. Looking at one of the drawings, boy where was it? It wasn’t actually on this site but it was on the bank site and it showed 4 drive thru’s. Sacchet: Oh yeah, there was. Lillehaug: Did something get changed there? Sacchet: All of a sudden it shows, looks different doesn’t it? Lillehaug: Yeah, and then it’s over. Generous: It’s Mika. Lillehaug: It wasn’t us I know that. Aanenson: It’s an old drawing. Sacchet: It’s an old drawing. Generous: Yeah, because it’s also showing the access into the Building C underneath a bridge like construction and that’s no longer the case. Sacchet: So the next door thing is not the current state of affairs. Generous: It’s more parking all the way up and then a driveway out. And then there’s a ramp going down into the building. Lillehaug: So this is totally inaccurate what we’re seeing. Generous: The off site to the westerly end of that parking area is wrong, yes. Sacchet: On the next part, not on this part. Correct? Lillehaug: Did things change on this bank site dramatically from what we had. Generous: Not on the bank site. But Mike never did that one. He was just doing the concept plan to show the overall project. Aanenson: It’s not an as-built. 59 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. That was my question. Because I had concerns with that. So that’s all my questions. Sacchet: Alright. Questions? Slagle: I just have one left for Matt. Traffic study. Is it still your opinion Matt that the intersection of Great Plains and. Sacchet: Lake Drive West. East. West. One of the two. Slagle: Is not in need of a 4 way stop. Sacchet: Good question. Saam: No it is. Yeah, and I’ll just tail off of that. The city retained the services of one of our consultants, Kimley-Horn and Associates to update the few traffic studies that we’ve done in this area. I guess to answer your question, the results of the traffic study basically said, and then I’ll let Brandon Borden from Kimley-Horn speak. Or you can ask him questions. Results of the traffic study said, this development wouldn’t require a four way stop. But it did concur that with the ultimate development of the entire site, one would be needed and again it said to monitor, basically we’d have to do another traffic study again when the next site came in. Slagle: So are you, if I can ask specifically, a study shows that we don’t necessarily need it now but it is staff’s position that we should put it in? Saam: We certainly can. Slagle: Okay, I’ll take that. Sacchet: Is there a reason why you wouldn’t? Slagle: Yeah. Saam: Maybe I’ll let Brandon tail off. I guess the hard numbers aren’t requiring that. Brandon Borden: I mean the review that was done, the Minnesota MUTCD and looked primarily at volumes and level of service. And the requirements for 8 hours of minimum volume requirements on the side street and the main street. Now this is different from a signal warrant where there’s some more flexibility. Where it’s not a shall statement. It’s a should statement. And so depending on different demands and pressures from people, it isn’t something that cannot be installed. It’s close after the food coop is installed. It’s about 6 hours of that requirement is met. Looking at analysis on how things, the peak hours would vary a little bit, it’s kind of right on the border line so if there’s not a lot of objection one way or the other but technically it’s not quite there. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah actually that was one of my main questions too because this has come up before and we discussed this point before and what at this point I read from your study is that it will, yes it will be required. I mean that’s not a question. It’s a question of when. Then on that 60 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 basis, that’s why I ask, why would we not do it now? Because we know it’s going to be required and I mean having lived in that neighborhood some 5-6 years ago when it was much, much less developed, even then. I mean when St. Hubert’s let out, you could not make a left turn. You’re lucky of making a right turn if you come off Lake Drive onto Great Plains and so I would think that you explained that pretty well. Let me see if I have any other questions. One thing that kind of scared me is you used painted stucco. I mean isn’t stucco usually the color mixed into it and, well that’s an application. Applicant question. Not really a staff question. We’re still at staff. Current grading plan doesn’t work. Can you touch on that Matt please? Saam: Yeah, sure. It’s not really maybe as big of an issue as it sounds. Just the submitted one, the grades didn’t drain. We didn’t have overflow points. We had received a revised grading plan but we didn’t get it in time to get it to all your folks and for me to revise my report so it’s not an issue anymore but I just wanted to point it out. Sacchet: Okay. And then one last question. It’s also for you Matt I would think. I’m not quite sure how the point it is. If you look at the drawings in the packet, it’s the third drawing where you see actually a truck by the loading dock. And that truck sticks out so far that it seems like it cannot really go around through there anymore. So I wonder does that, did you find the drawing I’m talking about? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: It’s the one that says retail plan. Slagle: It has VP on it. On the truck. Saam: Yeah, it says coop retail plan. Sacchet: It says yeah, the service area where, it’s the only one where there’s actually a truck in the service area and I think the way it looks like it’s big enough to pretty much block. Saam: Three of the stalls and the vehicular movement around that. Sacchet: It’d be pretty tricky to get past. I mean you can with one car but certainly not going to be a two way situation. Is that acceptable? Saam: I guess it’s not the best situation. I mean the tight is pretty site. Again it goes off of what Commissioner Slagle’s point was on the pick up area. You know where do you move that? Where do you move the truck? The loading dock to on this site. I would think that is the best location. It’s furthest to the, closest to that sidewalk. It’s farthest out of the main drive aisle. And I’m not sure again how often the trucks will be loading… Sacchet: Yeah, we can ask that of the applicant. Saam: Early morning, late evening, you know… Sacchet: Yeah, if it’s the middle of the night it’s not an issue but alright, we’ll ask the applicant about that. That’s all my questions. Kurt, one more? 61 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Papke: Yeah, just one other clarification question. Page 8 of staff report…table here. Misunderstanding the project though. Presbyterian Homes, is it really only 9,000 square feet? Generous: Of commercial. Papke: Of commercial space. Generous: Retail or office. Aanenson: On that first floor. Generous: First floor. Papke: Okay, I got it. Generous: Then the rest of it is residence. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Alright, with that I’d like to invite the applicant to tell us your part. State your name and who you are. Vernelle Clayton: I’m Vernelle Clayton. Live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. Great to be back. It’s been a while and great to be back with what we think is a really nifty addition to Chanhassen. We’re so pleased with the way the building turned out. We, as many of you know, and some of you probably don’t know, we have from time to time a chance to work with Mika Milo who is, I mean he gets it. He gets it for Chanhassen. He gets it for what we need as a village and just a delight to work with, and he’s sorry that he can’t be here tonight. Hope that you had a chance to read through his, what I thought was thoughtful comments on the project, and for those of us that know him just imagine reading it with an accent and therein is my segway to a couple of problems that we’ve had with your interpretation of some of the plans. He was unable, at the time he wrote the description of the sign to come up with the right words to mean that it was lit at the front. I don’t know what he was trying to say. We said whoops, we don’t want lights shining on it. No, that’s not what he meant so we do have a specific and creative sign requirement that are listed as part of the PUD requirements agreement, and we always encourage the folks to try to deviate from the ordinary for the signs out there so we can have a variety of signs. And I think that Lakewinds will try to do what they can to meet that requirement. We’ve talked with them about having the banner arm and we’ve talked to them about having the menu board sign on the wall for the area where they’ll have their little deli and hopefully they won’t run out of money before they get all those signs put up because I think it will make it pretty nice out there. I could get to, I will get to some of your specific questions. I have one, we don’t have any basic issues with the city staff conditions of approval. We’d like the option to consider using wood on that one, what Mika defined as a sort of separate building. He tried, his reason for doing that was to kind of connect it with the building to the north which is 3 separate buildings. One siding, one stucco, one brick, and this building was called the silo building. It has the Starbucks in the end, and to create some interest on that side of the street as you’re driving along that’s the most boring side of the building. It’s the building, it’s the end of 62 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 the building where inside they have their storage and refrigeration and so forth. So as he was talking along the north side they’re going to be having their home store. They have an in-store home store of natural products, and environmentally friendly product, if any of you have been to Lakewinds. And by the way, it’s fun for me to say Lakewinds tonight because this is the first night we’ve been able to say it. There’s sort of an uncodified rule in real estate law that you never get any of the documents done until you absolutely have to, and so we got the lease done at 4:30 this afternoon and therefore we can talk about the identity of the grocer now. Anyhow, so another thing that they’ll have in there is a deli and so these are kind of stores within a store. And this location, unlike their other locations, they’ll actually have a bakery so that’s positioned along the north wall and we’re trying to work it out so there might actually be a window when people walk by and they can actually see people in there making bread. Trying to work that out. So then we move around to the east side where, that’s where they’ll be doing their meat processing and Mika got hooked on the idea that this is their, now the name is escaping me. The smoke house. That blue building then is the smoke house, and so that’s how this all kind of, you know you’ve got to have some fun when you’re designing. So we kind of like the option to not have it be so bland going across there. To have it a little more lively. We could talk about the color, if the color’s a little too abrupt. I think it’s more abrupt on the picture than it is in the actual color board. Sacchet: Do you have a sample out there, down there. Maybe you should pass that around. Vernelle Clayton: Is it the top one there? Generous: The top one, yeah. Vernelle Clayton: So the color matches. We can’t deny that it’s different and we all agree that it’s subjective and so we’re not going to lose any sleep one way or the other but we just think it’d be better if it were colored. Then let me see, you talked a little bit about parking. I just, I empathize, no wait, sympathize for those of you that weren’t around but I can certainly understand hardly anybody’s been around since 1996 when we first began this. We just spent series after series of meetings in describing how we’re going to do this. What it meant and what all the options were and one of the things that we talked about then was parking and that every, that the understanding was that the benefit of doing it this way, of this mixed use, both vertically and horizontally is, and incorporating St. Hubert’s was that, the parking requirement for any particular site would not have to be met on that site because of the cross parking and the variety of uses and the way that people can get from one place to another. One of those things, one of the design issues for the main plan that helped to enhance that likelihood is the, at the, what we call the core. The intersection of Lake and Main where there will be the four buildings. Those buildings will have hallways going diagonally out from each intersection. Each corner of the intersection so you can park here and walk around the corner and shop at another place. All of those things were kind of put it so it’s a little hard, it’s hard even for us to remember all the things that we talked about at the time but those are, that’s a couple of them. You asked about the truck situation. I think you asked what was going to be at the loading dock. It will be a variety of things. Probably the least frequent use would be the semi’s. But it will be everything from farmers bringing their produce in, in very small trucks, to the occasional semi truck. And just by the way supermarkets work, those are done anywhere from like 5:00-6:00 in the morning and then they’re gone. Just the way they operate is that those larger deliveries come very early 63 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 in the morning, and we’re counting on that. So there was another question I said, I thought to myself I’ll answer when I get up here. Sacchet: The crossing. The signaling of the crossing. Do you want to address that at all Vernelle? Vernelle Clayton: The stop signs at the crossing. Is that what you mean? The 4 way stop. Sacchet: Yeah. Vernelle Clayton: I think it’d be a good idea. And if we did for it, the stop signs would we not have the right turn lane marked? Saam: Yeah, that was our recommendation to stripe the right turn lane and then the left through lane just to cue them up. Vernelle Clayton: There are some folks involved in the project that think that probably it wouldn’t be a good idea because it would kind of back things up as a stop sign would, and I have a feeling if any of you at all go to St. Hubert’s you’d just as soon not have it there. You like to get out in a hurry. But I think that it would go, I think that it would be a good idea and I encourage it. We’ve had questions about this corner for a long time. I’d hate to stand here and say no and then have some little kid get run over by somebody that’s going too fast, so I don’t want that responsibility. I kind of question whether there’s really room to have that right lane drive. I drove through there a couple times today trying to figure out how we could have a left turn, a straight through and a right. It’s tight. Saam: It’s shared. Vernelle Clayton: Oh, the light is shared right and. Generous: Right turn only… Sacchet: The right one is separate. Vernelle Clayton: Through and left. So then anybody going down. Okay, so that’s not so good either then because then if you’re turning left. Saam: Can we just clarify that quickly? Sacchet: Please. Saam: Maybe Brandon, you can speak to it. Brandon Borden: Well my thoughts on that were, it is a relatively, it’s not an extremely long storage length but it operates in the a.m. essentially as a right turn lane as it is based on observations when the traffic was counted. And right turn volume’s a lot, very high. 250 vehicles currently in the a.m., so it was based somewhat on those thoughts. The all way stop, 64 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 there would be a change made to it through a left lane, and a through right lane. Still a shorter area but would allow two cars to reach the stop bar. Sacchet: Instead of one you have two. Brandon Borden: Instead of one. And operationally it will work a little bit better with the stop sign travel speeds will be much slower as people approach the stop sign so. Vernelle Clayton: Well, a large part of the problem out there is that people are cutting through. They come, they turn down at the south end of Main Street or they turn at the west end of Lake Drive so they don’t have to hit the light at Highway 5 and maybe the next one. So everything as we can do to make it inconvenient to get through there is what we need. Sacchet: We don’t want it a through way, absolutely. Vernelle Clayton: No. Right, I mean they’re supposed to go on 101 and 5 and the more we get built up, the less convenient it will be for them. They have to stop 2 or 3 times before they get through the project, they’ll go somewhere else so that’s why I think that the stop sign would be, a 4 way would be a good idea. As long as we don’t have to pay for it. Sacchet: Well then. Vernelle Clayton: What else? Lillehaug: Drop off. Vernelle Clayton: The drop off. Lillehaug: Pick up. Vernelle Clayton: Pick up. I noticed this, his English is a second language. I noticed that they drew one of the cars backwards too. I thought I’d just see if anybody else picked up on that so we didn’t make him redo it. Sacchet: Steve did. Leave it to Steve. Vernelle Clayton: That is something that is very important to the manager of the grocery store. It was a big item from the day one and we kind of tried to discourage it because of kind of the look and all that. We wanted the building close up to the street and everything but we compromised and it’s, she didn’t need it very large. She doesn’t, this is not as big a store as, it’s half the size of the County Market and less than one half, let’s see I think Byerly’s is what, 50 some thousand square feet and County Market’s 35. So and this is 17 footprint for the, it gets to be 18 with the mezzanine but the footprint’s 17 so they got 17,000 square feet of folks doing shopping. So they won’t have the traffic that the Byerly’s pick up has. Sacchet: Can you describe how that drop off/pick up is actually being used? I mean are they, is it like a Byerly’s when you can get your bags out? 65 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Sacchet: Is that, that’s the idea? Pick up. Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Sacchet: You pick up your bags. Vernelle Clayton: You’re right. They have little guys bring it out the door. They aren’t going to have the conveyor belt. So you guys picking up. Keefe: How does this building compare to the one on 101 in Minnetonka Boulevard? Is it bigger? Smaller? Vernelle Clayton: It’s bigger. That one is quite small and very old. Keefe: Was it like 10,000 square feet there? Vernelle Clayton: You know I’ve never asked them what it is but it can’t be, it just can’t be any more than that. It’s very crowded and very inefficient and. It started and then they just kind of added on and added on and added on. Keefe: Yeah, right. I’m just thinking, just from a parking standpoint. I know how busy that store gets because I used to go there quite often when I lived up that way and I’m just trying to get, just a feel for you know what the size of this and what this might generate. I think this will be busier than that store. I just think it, yeah right. Yeah, I mean that’s a pretty busy store and this one’s going to be busier and I’m just thinking the parking here, it can’t be that much more than what’s there. Than what we’re looking at. Vernelle Clayton: Well it’s, what do we count this was required. 85 was the requirements? Keefe: Yeah I mean there it’s over 100 there… Vernelle Clayton: I don’t think they have anywhere near 85 cars. Right, right. Keefe: So I mean from your perspective 85 is? Vernelle Clayton: I’d be surprised, I shop there occasionally, man. I don’t think that more than 40 or 50 cars are there when it’s full. We’ll all go there and count tomorrow and see if I’m right but that’s kind of, that’s what it feels like to me. Keefe: And they don’t have a drop off or pick up. Vernelle Clayton: No. Keefe: Yeah, right. 66 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Slagle: I have a question. Vernelle, on this pick up area. If the drawings are anything to scale, and we’re seeing 3 cars, assume for a second it’s just a little bit off. I mean if it’s as busy again to Dan’s point, I’ve been to the Minnetonka store often. It gets busy and I’m thinking that if there are 5-6 people wanting to do the drive up, which I would think a lot of people would enjoy that amenity, could you see cars literally park in front of the entrance? Waiting, I mean it’s like almost Byerly’s. It’s just not as long of a. Vernelle Clayton: Well they do park in front of Byerly’s sometimes. Their entrance, right. I suppose it could happen. Slagle: I mean is that a concern? Vernelle Clayton: You know you’re talking to the wrong person about traffic and cars and congestion because my whole philosophy for shopping centers is the more difficult it is to get around the better because then it’s safer. Sacchet: Yeah you. We remember you for that. Vernelle Clayton: You’ve heard me say that many times. If you do run into somebody, you do it very slowly. You know many it’s stupid but traffic, the congestion, that’s what keeps everybody safe. You’re watching. Does it bother me they park right in front? I suppose they should not be parking right in front so they may have to have no parking. Slagle: I guess maybe what I’m trying. Vernelle Clayton: If you want to have people walking through. Slagle: Maybe what I’m trying to ask is, do we believe that the size of the drive up or pick up is adequate? Vernelle Clayton: We’re taking our cue from the owner of the store, or the manager of the store. It’s a coop so it’s owned by a lot of folks but the manager thinks that that’s what she wanted. Sacchet: At Byerly’s, if I can pipe in here. I mean there is a little more stacking space but I don’t remember ever having seen more than maybe 3 cars in there. Papke: Except at Christmas. Sacchet: At Christmas it goes up. Vernelle Clayton: Well yeah you have those, but you’re right. Whether it’s 2 or 3 cars or normally. Sacchet: Normally, yeah. Okay. Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: If I can add to that. That’s assuming the first car pulls all the way forward. Then you can get 3 in there. If there’s 5, well then they’re going to start stacking in front of the handicap 67 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 spaces so that’s an issue in itself. Yeah, there may be only, they may only be there 15 seconds but they’re still going to be there in front of those handicap stalls if it does stack up so would you be willing to entertain relocating those 2 handicap stalls? It doesn’t sound like parking’s an issue if we lose 2 parking stalls, right? Sacchet: They’re required handicap. Lillehaug: But you can shift them to the other side. You can get rid of them there and move them to the other side and they’re still handicap accessible. Aanenson: How about if we evaluate it over time. If that becomes an issue, that we can certainly relocate those. Vernelle Clayton: Re-paint the stripe because that’s. Aanenson: I’m not sure that, how much. Lillehaug: How are you going to get them to do that after time? That’s a little. Vernelle Clayton: They don’t own the building. …they’re tenants so. Aanenson: We can make it a condition that we monitor that for 6 months or a year after it’s open and evaluate that and if it’s a problem then we have them move it. Vernelle Clayton: We’ve had similar. Lillehaug: Well I have concerns with it I guess. I’m just 1 of 6 or 7 here but. Vernelle Clayton: Let me just say we’ve had similar situations, not exactly the same but where we’ve agreed to monitor things at Market Square for example. It hasn’t been a problem. We’re all still around and we talk about it, if we agree or disagree so. Lillehaug: I have some other questions. Slagle: Just one last question. Vernelle, can you show us where the sidewalks are surrounding the building. On the map. Vernelle Clayton: It’s in the front back here. Running down here and then we need to connect with this. This sidewalk is existing. And then it runs down through here. Generous: And then it goes internally. This one is… Slagle: So basically surrounding the parcel, okay. Sacchet: Steve? Lillehaug: More questions. 68 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I can’t let our Kimley-Horn representatives get out of here without them talking about it. I’m not too sure of what everyone’s opinion is on the stop sign. I’m pretty adamant on only installing stop signs that are warranted for specific reasons, and they’re safety reasons. I just kind of want to add to maybe get more information to actually warrant this. Is through the city measurements that the data that was collected out there, were the speeds measured on the cars and were they above 40 miles an hour? Saam: No, we didn’t measure. We didn’t do speed data. Lillehaug: Were there other specific warrants. You know the different warrants in the MMUTCD rather than level of service that didn’t meet any specific warrants as far as in the year 2007, which would I think indicate build-out of this building. Brandon Borden: For this all way stop analysis? Lillehaug: For the all way, yes. Brandon Borden: It meets, it currently it meets 4 hours of 8 required hours. Sacchet: I thought you said 6. Brandon Borden: No. Looking at the food coop build-out option, it’s in the range of 6 depending on how you look at peak hours it could be a little bit more but 6. Lillehaug: Okay. We’re not at comments yet are we? Sacchet: No. Actually we’re. Lillehaug: I’m done with questions. Sacchet: Are we done with the applicant? I think we had all our questions from you Vernelle. Thank you very much. Vernelle Clayton: Okay, thank you very much. Sacchet: Appreciate it. So with this we come to the public hearing. I open the public hearing. Anybody want to address this item, do it now. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and now we’re at comments Steve. Lillehaug: That means I start. Sacchet: Well you asked for it. Lillehaug: Well, stop sign. It doesn’t quite meet the warrants in 2007, but I think we need to not change it 3 years later when it would meet warrants. I think we need to, we don’t want to re- stripe it one way and then change it 3 years later. So maybe I support an all way stop sign there. 69 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 That’s a, I don’t know how the rest of you feel. I think Rich probably supports it for sure. You know what? 9 foot parking stalls, I want to get that added into a condition. I really don’t support how that pick-up is laid out. I would like to see a little less, a little better layout of that and what it would take for me is probably getting rid of those two handicap stalls on that side of the building. And make it just walk and part of that pick-up area. So that would be, you know other than that I think staff has really covered everything that I have a problem with. The loading dock, kind of concerned with blocking a couple vehicles in there, but not much we can do other than get rid of those parking stalls. That’s it. Tjornhom: I think it’s a great project. I know staff was concerned about the blue or the wood that’s going to be stained blue but if the blue is accurate on the board, I guess I don’t have a problem with it. I think it blended well with the rest of the colors in the building so I don’t think that’s a major issue at all and I think Steve covered everything else and so I’m in favor of it. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Any comments here to the north? Papke: Yeah, just real briefly. Great project and I do support Steve. I think one of the things we haven’t chatted about in addition to the, in theory this is a pick up area but I think a, it’s not a typical for a grocery store to have people drop somebody off to go in and do the groceries while the driver goes and parks the car. And so I think lengthening the drop off area or eliminating those two handicap spots there, moving them to somewhere else will give you, will give us a better opportunity to have a true drop off area here so that we have a better flow in that area so that’s it. Sacchet: Any further north here? No, okay. I don’t have much to add. I mean I’m ecstatic. I love Lakewinds and I’m just really thrilled it’s coming to town. I don’t think the blue is any issue at all, having seen the real sample so I think we, I would recommend taking that condition 5 out. And do we need the 4 way stop? I really think we do. It’s kind of silly to wait a couple of years and then so it if we already pretty clearly can proceed right now. We will definitely fully be able to justify in a couple of years. I think it would be a positive addition to that situation to do it now. I agree that really doing it premature, as he states Steve would not be good but I don’t think it’s premature to the point that it’d be detrimental. I think it would be very beneficial. Now with this drop off thing, yeah. A little more space could be good but then if we move those two handicap stalls we kill 3 parking stalls at least. I don’t know, that’s kind of contrary a little bit to the concerns we heard about the scarcity of parking so I’m a little torn there. I probably would be able to settle for monitoring the pick-up area but then it creates another problem. Is it going to be changed after a year or so when we see, so we have to, I think we need to make up our minds how we want to do it at this point and then go for that. Now the safe way to do it is to give it more space from the start. So I don’t have very hard opinion on that one. That’s my comments so with that I’d like a motion. Lillehaug: I guess I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #04-40 for an 18,188 square foot commercial building with a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less than 50 percent of the first floor façade that is viewed by the public to include transparent windows and/or doors, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Incorporated date October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 28. I think we can 3 and 20 are the same, if I’m reading them correctly. 70 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: 3 and 20. Lillehaug: So I think we can get rid of 20. And what was it, get rid of 5? Aanenson: 5. Lillehaug: Yep. I’d like to add number 29, and that would be revise the plans to reflect 9 foot parking stalls. Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, that’s already in 18. Sacchet: Yes it is. Lillehaug: Scratch that. Then 29 I would like to read, extend the pick up area to include the area of the two handicap stalls directly adjacent to the pick up area and relocate the handicap stalls to the south portion of the building and then in essence losing 3 stalls. And I think that’s all I remember here. Aanenson: Stop sign? Sacchet: Stop sign. 4 way stop. Aanenson: And the fire marshal’s conditions. Lillehaug: Yeah. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. Friendly amendment. Stop sign. Stop sign. Is it fair to attach that to this application? Commissioner: Yeah. Sacchet: It is, okay. Alright. Friendly amendment. Install 4 way stop sign on the intersection of Lake Street and Great Plains Boulevard. Is that acceptable? That’s the big question. Lillehaug: Hesitantly I accept it. Just don’t tell anybody in Edina. Sacchet: Well you said maybe you know. So it’s accepted. Aanenson: …with modifications to striping. Saam: Commissioners, could you then just revise condition 28. It should be to stripe a left through lane and a right through lane. Versus just a right turn lane only. If you want to go with the 4 way stop, we need a right turn lane. 71 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, friendly amendment as such. Is that accepted? Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have amendments. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Case #04-40 for an 18,188 square foot commercial building with a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less than fifty (50) percent of the first floor façade that is viewed by the public to include transparent windows and/or doors, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Inc., dated October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. th 2.Outlot A, Village on the Ponds 8 Addition must be replatted in to a Lot and Block configuration prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.The sidewalk in the northeast corner of the site shall be connected to the sidewalk on Lake Drive. 4.The developer shall install bicycle racks on site. 5.Deleted. 6.All landscape islands and peninsulas in the parking lot requiring trees must have a minimum inside width of ten feet. 7.Two overstory trees are required in the parking lot. 8.A total of seven bicolor oaks are required along Great Plains Boulevard. 9.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. 10.The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 11.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 12.An eight foot wide access aisle must be provided for one of the accessible parking locations. 13.The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 14.The City’s standard detail plate for silt fence installation shall be included in the construction plans. 72 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 15.Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. 16.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days Daily scraping and sweeping of streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. 17.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 18.Show the dimensions of the new parking stalls on the site plan. The new parking stalls are required to be 9-feet wide by 18-feet long. 19.Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 5203, 5214, 5215, 5300, 5301. 20.Deleted. 21.On the grading/utility plan: a.City as-builts show the size of the existing sanitary service as 6-inch diameter; revise the proposed pipe size shown on the plans to comply. b.Show the proposed sanitary sewer service invert. c.Show all proposed contours. d.Show a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance. e.Revise the size of the proposed storm sewer to be a maximum of 12-inch diameter. f. Revise the plan to show the correct elevation contours and spot elevations. 22.Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. 23.The applicant must show the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point for the parking lot that is 1.5-feet lower than the proposed building elevation. 24.Storm sewer sizing calculations are required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a 10-year storm event. 25.Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain. The 2004 SAC charge is $1,425 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of 73 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 SAC units calculated by the Met Council. These charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel. 26.The minimum drive aisle width required for the parking lot is 26-feet. Revise the plans to comply. 27.An NPDES permit from the MPCA must be obtained for the site grading. 28.The northbound lanes of Great Plains Boulevard, south of Lake Drive, must be striped for a through left-through lane and a right lane along with appropriate signage. 29. Extend the pick up area to include the area of the two handicap stalls directly adjacent to the pick up area and relocate the handicap stalls to the south portion of the building. 30. Install a 4 way stop sign at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. 31. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and location of signs to be installed. c. Submit utility plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: Good luck with it. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Papke noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 19, 2004 as presented. Sacchet: And I do have something about minutes. On page 19 I think it is. Yes, 19. You know, page 19 of the, it says we denied all appliance sales and services. I think we only denied big ones. We actually allow them if they’re small. Aanenson: There was a lot of ambiguity in that motion. You can’t deny but yet approve something. It’s either approve with a selected list, so there was ambiguity in your motion on that. Sacchet: Well. 74 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Papke: What page? Sacchet: On page 19… Aanenson: You recommended approval but then you gave a qualification so you had to go one way or the other. Sacchet: If you read the text, it’s pretty clear that we allow appliance sales and services that do not exceed 5,000 square feet. But now the way it reads here is that all appliance sales and services are not. Aanenson: What page are you on? Sacchet: 19. Top. Lillehaug: You can also look on page 6, the actual motion. Tjornhom: I think it’s 39. Slagle: 39, yeah. th Sacchet: Well page 40. Page 40. Actually page 40. It’s October 19. Sorry, it’s page 40. Top. Lillehaug: Can I agree? I mean it’s, we denied approval of any amendments so there was nothing amended. Aanenson: Right, exactly. Sacchet: So we did not amend it so therefore it. Lillehaug: That’s not what we did though. Aanenson: Right, but that’s, there were 3 or 4 motions struck. I wasn’t at that meeting but I got clarification. This went forward to City Council so you can’t, if you amend a PUD. It just…a conflict with the motion. So however you want to re-strike that, what we said is that you did allow for exercise club that didn’t exceed 5,000 square feet…so you did amend the PUD to allow, because you said you don’t allow any amendments but. But for, but you had to, then you are amending it. Sacchet: We are amending it. Lillehaug: There’s not an amendment number though because we denied… Sacchet: Oh gosh, so you know what we mean then? Aanenson: Yeah, it already went through council. 75 Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, we’re done with it. Minutes have been noted. Tjornhom: It didn’t go through council. Aanenson: No it’s not. It was tabled… Sacchet: Meeting adjourned? Aanenson: ....on your upcoming items, this kind of goes to what Steve was, Commissioner Lillehaug was talking about. If you go to future items, trying to track those for you. Two things that we are bringing forward. Steve mentioned the 60 by 60 pad. What we’re finding is when we have, in the late 80’s amended foot lot width, almost all the homes are being built now with 3 car garages. A 90 foot width is not working. As you see on the subdivision that’s coming forward, the standard is 72 foot in width. Gives you 10 on each side is 92. So we’re not making it. You can see the problem we have so we are coming forward with code amendments to address the lot width. That’s what our problem is. It’s not the 60 by 60 width. Everybody is outside the 60. Lillehaug: Can we look at, you know not just at the frontage either. It needs to be for the whole length. Aanenson: We’re willing to look at all that, sure. So I just wanted to let you know that was coming forward. And the other one that we are coming forward with the code amendment. We’re just trying to slip these in where we don’t have such full agendas but we need to be addressing it. The other one is we’re seeing now in areas where there’s not restrictive covenants, people putting up temporary garage structures and cause angst among neighbors so we’re coming forward with some language to bring to light those. I just wanted to let you know. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 76