PC 2005 09 06
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt
Papke and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh
Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PLACE A SIGN ON A CANOPY, AMERICANA
COMMUNITY BANK, PLANNING CASE 05-28.
Public Present:
Name Address
James Ziegler 600 Market Street, Suite 100
Paul Punt 14680 James Road, Rogers, MN 55374
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Any questions?
McDonald: I have a question.
Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: On the sign, one of the reasons that I guess we can look at for turning something
down is that it poses a hazard. The way that this sign is put up, is this going to pose a hazard as
far as either a high winds or obstacles to fire fighting?
Metzer: Building officials did not feel it would.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I have, one of the reasons why staff was feeling
that we should reject this was because they are getting a monument sign, but as I read through
here, there may be an issue with that. What’s the status of that particular sign?
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Metzer: Well it’s currently in the permit process. Submitting drawings and elevations. Footing
drawings. It’s been approved as a part of the sign plan originally. We’re just working on getting
the sign to where it’s acceptable to be built.
McDonald: Okay, so there are no problems with putting a monument sign?
Metzer: It’s just basically in the design phase.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I think Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: Any other questions? One question. In terms of when Market Street was originally put
together, Market Street Station, there’s a comment on page 4. The site plan approval for Market
Street Station provided for wall signage placed on the north elevation of the building. So at that
time there was no, I mean that basically according to our ordinance, that’s how much signage
they can have. Or is that accurate?
Metzer: Right, well that was on the north elevation of the building. That’s in reference to
tenants further to the east in Market Street Station who don’t have street frontage. Their main
entrances are going to be on the north elevation, so Chanhassen city code allows.
Sacchet: So that’s my question. I mean for establishment there’s a limit how much signage we
allow across the board. One of the main things is that we try to be fair. We try to treat
everybody the same way. So the signage that is allowed on the north is for the businesses that
otherwise would not have any signage place.
Metzer: Right, because they don’t have street frontage.
Sacchet: Okay. While the Americana Bank has, they’ve maxed out their amount of signage that
is by ordinance allowable by having the sign on the south and west.
Metzer: Right. And the monument.
Sacchet: And the monument sign. So, and the monument sign is sort of on the north. Okay.
Okay, that’s my question. Thanks for the answer.
Keefe: Well just a clarification. Is that signage that they will have will be on the south side
facing south and then the monument sign facing which way?
Sacchet: South and west they have wall signs.
Keefe: Okay. And then the monument sign faces to the northwest? Is that…just so I’m clear.
Metzer: This is north. Monument sign here facing towards City Hall. West wall sign. South
wall sign. Market Boulevard and Market Street.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Keefe: Okay. And the road to the north of that going east/west is what? Is that a driveway?
Metzer: That’s just, yeah. It’s an entrance into Market Street Station.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
Sacchet: Alright?
Larson: I have a quick question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: So would they be willing to in lieu of having a monument sign go up to, I mean would
they prefer to have the high sign versus the monument?
Metzer: That would require council approval. It’s a change to the sign plan.
Larson: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright. Is that it for questions. So I’d like to ask, do we have an applicant here? If
you want to come forward and add anything you’d like to what the staff presented and maybe
you have some questions for you as well. If you want to mention your name and address for the
record.
Paul Punt: My name is Paul Punt. I’m with Attracta Sign Company and we’re the ones that are
requesting the variance. I guess the first thing that I’d like to speak to would be the fact that
when a corporation comes before the Planning Commission and puts through a site plan
proposal, it’s impossible for them to at that time determine everything that’s going to be going
on in that property. And different issues come up as far as what types of businesses. Where
they’re located, that type of thing and there’s got to be some flexibility in that area. The other
thing as far as the canopy, the sign of the canopy. One of the reasons they told us it was rejected
is because they don’t allow signage on canopies and by ordinance this is true and I realize there
are some around town that were probably grandfathered in. But this isn’t the standard type of
canopy you think of as like a gas station canopy, that type of thing. This is more of a part of the
structure of the building almost. Similar to what Byerly’s has. Byerly’s has a canopy where
people drive underneath to pick up their groceries. They’ve got signage on that canopy. TCF.
They built a quite elaborate on it just so they could have more signage, but it looks like part of
the building but it’s still a canopy. And I think this is more in lieu of that type of a canopy. The
other issue that we’re looking at is the signage as far as the signage on the west side of the
building. There are all pine trees planted along that side of the building and when those trees
grow up, even at this point already they block that sign somewhat as you drive by. And the taller
th
they get the worst it’s going to get. And if you stand on the corner at the stop light on West 78
Street, you can see the end of that canopy. And you can see it under through the trees, the more
mature trees there that are on the hotel property, and that will remain that way so they will have
th
visibility from West 78 Street where that small monument sign that’s going in there, that will
not be visible until you’re right at that entrance where you’re ready to turn in. I believe staff had
3
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
a picture in the whole thing here. Yeah here they took a picture of the building showing where
that sign would go, which is about right in here. And this picture is actually taken from the same
side of the street that the sign is on, and if you’re coming down the street, you have to be at this
entrance before you’re going to be able to see that sign. Now there are some small trees that are
planted in front of the end of this canopy but those are more the deciduous type trees that once
they grow up and mature you’ll be able to still see that sign through it. And I don’t know what
the total square footage allowed for Americana Bank is for the location but as far as allowable
signage, I don’t know that they’ve exceeded their allowable signage or not. I can’t speak to that.
What else was I going to. Oh, another location that has a canopy sign would be the Country
Suites Inn right north of there. And I guess what we’re asking for, we don’t feel it’s exorbitant.
The sign is not distractive. I mean it’s not going to distract traffic. It’s not even illuminated
sign. They just want some identification on that side of the building when people pull into that
driveway so that they can readily see that’s the drive thru. Granted they’re going to have that
small sign there which hasn’t been approved yet but those are other issues but we’re just asking
that you over rule staff and vote for us.
Sacchet: Well we may have some questions for you. You have any questions? Jerry.
McDonald: I have a question. On the drawing that’s in here for the proposed canopy sign, is
that exactly what you’re looking to put up? It’s on the first page. I’m not sure if you’re familiar
with that or not.
Sacchet: It’s not up yet right? I mean that sign is a montage.
Paul Punt: No. That sign is actually, the sign that was taken down off their old building and
they just, they want to re-use it on this location. It was on the east side of the building then.
Over the entrance and they just want to re-use it here. It’s a non-lighted sign and it’s individual
letters which meets with the city criteria for the sign standards for that building. Individual
letters, that type of thing so, but that’s exactly what you’re looking at there.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I’ve got for you, in looking at the site. Okay,
th
this will go on more or less a northern face. You know just driving down West 78 Street,
looking, you don’t have a lot of visibility anyway.
Paul Punt: No you don’t but you do have visibility from that intersection of Market Boulevard
th
and West 78 Street. I just drove by there on my way in tonight.
McDonald: And does the bank feel that that lack of visibility can’t be taken up by the monument
sign and such a lack of visibility could hurt business?
th
Paul Punt: Well the monument sign would not be visible at all from West 78 Street.
th
McDonald: So what this is about is trying to get some exposure on West 78 Street as people
are driving down.
Paul Punt: Right.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
McDonald: Okay. No further questions.
Keefe: Just a clarification. The sign that you’re proposing here was on the former building.
Where was it located on the former?
Paul Punt: It was on the east side.
Keefe: On the east side.
Paul Punt: Which face towards Applebee’s.
Keefe: Towards Applebee’s and approximately what height was it at, do you know? Was it up
on the building or was it?
Paul Punt: Yeah, it was up on the building. It was, probably to the bottom of the sign was
probably 10 or 12 feet. So this would be just slightly taller but the reason it’s located where it is
is so that we can attach it right to that heavy steel beam. To give it good support.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Any questions?
Larson: Yeah. Is the monument a lit sign?
Paul Punt: Yes it is.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: You kind of touched on one of my questions already. You mentioned you’re going to
mount it to a steel beam. Is the intent to bolt it on there? I’m trying to get to the safety piece
here.
Paul Punt: It would probably, it would probably be a combination of welding and bolting. We’d
probably weld brackets onto the beam and then bolt the sign onto the brackets.
Papke: And what’s the sign constructed of?
Paul Punt: Aluminum.
Papke: Thick? Thin? Is it flexible?
Paul Punt: .063 aluminum and then it’s painted so the total weight of the sign is probably 150
pounds. 200 max. Two guys could easily pick it up and walk away with it. It’s not real heavy.
It’s not lighted so there’s no electrical components. No transformers. That type of stuff. That’s
where most of your weight comes in.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Some of your comments raise questions that I’ll have for staff but for you, since I
believe that what we’re up against is not so much sign on canopy or not. I think what we’re up
against is how much signage we allow. I think there’s not we say basically two street frontage,
here we do them three. And as I mentioned before, my main concern is that we treat everybody
the same way in the city and that will lead to some questions for staff but for you, since we have
you up here right now, if indeed it comes down that it’s matter of limit of how many signs,
would you be willing to trade that sign for another one? Like you mentioned the one on the west
side going to be hidden behind evergreens or something.
Paul Punt: Yeah there’s a lot of, there’s some taller pine trees.
Sacchet: And then you mentioned that monument sign is not that visible but it’s going to be lit
so is there a possibility of, how important is this? Is it more important than some of the other
signs to you that you’d possibly be willing to give up one of the others?
Paul Punt: I don’t think the bank would be willing probably to trade the west one off, at least not
at this time. But that’s something that, I mean I can’t make that. That’s for the bank…
Sacchet: That’s not a sign maker question. That’s a bank question at that point. Okay. Alright,
okay. Thank you very much.
Paul Punt: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward and address this
item, if you have any comments, this is your chance to do so. Seeing nobody getting up, I’m not
going to wait very long so I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for
discussion and comments. Before we do that though I’d like to ask a question or two of staff, if I
may. Staff. I’d like to be very clear about two things before we start our discussion. First of all
what’s the limit here? I mean what’s the restriction on sign on canopy versus number of signs on
different street frontages or sides of the building? Can you clarify what our ordinance actually
says about that?
Metzer: Well canopy signs aren’t necessarily prohibited by ordinance.
Sacchet: So the issue is not the canopy?
Metzer: No. It’s the issue is street frontage. Lack of street frontage I should say. This does not
have street frontage on this elevation. And also.
Sacchet: And we allow for 2 sides, usually not for 3 sides? Am I correct with that?
Metzer: Well we allow for signage on street frontage. If they have 3 street frontages they would
be allowed 3 wall signs. In this case they only have 2 street frontages. They already have wall
signage so.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: So that’s why they’re doing. Now we could say well, we do make an exception for
those other businesses that are on that side that don’t have street frontage and only have frontage
to that north side. How would that be different in this case other than they already have some
signs? I mean what’s the reasoning there?
Metzer: Because Americana Bank has their entrances, their main entrance is on street frontage.
Sacchet: Is on the other side on that sign. Okay. Now, another question which may be even
more important. In the city here, I know we’ve made some, we’ve given some variances in this
context. The one I can think of is the Panda. How many of these type of variances have we
given? I mean I think that’s important and if you try to treat everybody the same way, if it’s
something that we’ve given variances before, we need to know about that. If we haven’t given
variances before, then it’d be a clear case. Do we know? Have we given variances?
Al-Jaff: Well after you mentioned Giant Panda, yes I do agree that we granted a variance there.
We have amended the ordinance to prevent most of the variances that we received. You granted
a variance for Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings.
Sacchet: That they had sign in the back towards the parking lot, right. But that was not street
frontage. But did they end up with 3 sides of?
Al-Jaff: No.
Sacchet: Just that front and back. So the variance was that it was not street frontage.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Which is in essence what they’re asking here on too.
Al-Jaff: But we amended the ordinance. If this is where your parking lot is, that’s where your
entrance is. Then you can have the sign and then in this case this.
Sacchet: And that would justify why the other north businesses have an allowance and how it
makes it different from the Americana Bank, so there’s a very clear distinction that’s anchored in
the ordinance.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Metzer: If you look on page 3 under Section 20-1303. They’re permitted on street frontage for
each business and multi tenant buildings for individual entrances that do not front on a public
street. A wall sign, this actually says a wall sign shall be permitted on the entrance façade.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thanks for answering that. Discussion. Comments. Planning
Commissioners. Who wants to jump in? Debbie jump in.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Larson: I’ll jump in. Okay, on the previous building they were kind of in the similar spot. Did
they have 3 signs?
Sacchet: Three signs?
Larson: On the old building? I mean because they had one in the back that faced Applebee’s.
And on the front but then they also had one that faced.
Sacchet: They were both street frontage, right?
Larson: No. The other one that they talked about, about putting on the canopy.
Sacchet: No, the old building.
Larson: Was on the back side. By the parking lot, right?
Sacchet: Yes, that was the main entrance. But they have signage on the south and west side. I
think that’s what you’re asking right?
Larson: Well what I’m wondering is.
Metzer: I think the applicant can answer that but I’m not sure exactly.
Larson: Well what I’m wondering is, are they getting less signage now than they had before?
Sacchet: Good question.
Larson: Is like it’s the bottom line of my question.
Metzer: I guess we don’t recall exactly where they had signage on their previous building.
Larson: Well he said the sign that he’s going to put on the canopy was about the, facing east so
that would have been where the parking lot is. But you could see it when you were coming off
of 5 and you could see it when you were coming down Market Street so I’m thinking in my mind
anyway there were 3 signs, no? I just don’t know.
Sacchet: He’s nodding. Can we interpret that as a yes?
Paul Punt: I believe there were.
Sacchet: There were 3 signs there or not.
Larson: Okay. So, is it unfair to not give them what they had before?
Sacchet: It’s a valid consideration, yeah.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Larson: You know. And I don’t know if it was their decision to move or you know people that
are going in there decided to tear down the building, I mean.
Al-Jaff: I think Americana had 2 signs only.
Larson: Just 2. I don’t remember.
Al-Jaff: I’m quite positive.
Metzer: I think they also had a monument sign.
Sacchet: They had a monument out there, yeah.
Larson: I mean I never had a problem seeing it but, there was a bank there so I didn’t really
take…
Sacchet: Interesting.
Al-Jaff: We, I worked on that site plan. I am positive there was no variance done for.
Sacchet: There was no variance for the Americana Bank before.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, well that’s a clear answer. Thanks Sharmeen. Any more comments from
this side of the crowd?
Papke: I think with the monument that’s going on up in front, there’s plenty of signage on that
northwest side. I don’t think we need to have a variance to add a second one on what is
essentially the same side. Granted it’s a little bit smaller and not quite as visible but it’s a sign.
Sacchet: Deborah?
Zorn: I agree with Kurt. In fact I think perhaps the sign which would be over the drive thru
might even be blocked earlier than the monument sign with some of the existing trees that we see
on page 9 to the left so while it might be more visible now, I think down the road the monument
sign lighted might be even more visible and I feel that would be adequate.
Sacchet: Okay. Jerry, more comments?
McDonald: Well I guess you know from looking at this, it doesn’t seem to pose a safety hazard.
There was nothing extraordinary about the sign. It’s not going to be lit and there was a letter in
the report that I guess one of the neighbors directly to the north had no objections. I guess I
could vote for this on two reasons. First of all, this is an entrance. It’s not your normal entrance
but it’s an entrance for a drive up which is cars and again that is part of the bank’s business is,
it’s not only the walk-in traffic but this is the cars that’s coming through. That is a drive up and
9
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
that is the entrance for that. The other point, I did go out there today and I kind of looked at
things. Yeah, at that intersection he’s right. You can see the bank. You couldn’t see a
monument sign but you could see the bank. You move away from that intersection and I think
you kind of lose it between the trees that are further down by where the Country Suites are at and
also at that corner where the old Edina building’s at. But right in that intersection area you
could see the canopy. So from that standpoint, you know that again would give them access as
far as their business and if that’s part of what we look to do with businesses is to give them
exposure. I could vote for it on those two reasons and I think it falls within what our code would
allow. I mean if you look at it from that standpoint, that it is not, you know they do have more
than one entrance and this is their auto entrance and that is a big part of their business. And also
th
if we do grant signage for the street, what about West 78 Street. The monument sign is not
going to give them that exposure, I agree with that. All that does is help point out when you get
down, this is where you turn in. So for those two reasons I guess I would be in favor of it.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, I’m kind of on the fence on this whole but I guess where I come down on it is, I
think I agree that we need to, let me ask you kind of another way. If we’re going to be granting a
variance for this, do we need to approve a hardship in regards to the reasons why? To grant a
variance on this?
Sacchet: That’s not a variance where we need hardship and all that sort of stuff, right?
Keefe: No? It isn’t because I did see something about hardship in here but if you don’t have to
grant.
Metzer: Well on 20, on page 3 again. Section 20-1253. City Council upon recommendation of
the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is
shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements
of this article would cause a hardship.
Sacchet: So, does it cause a hardship? No, it doesn’t.
Keefe: No. I’m having a hard time finding how not having this sign would be a hardship. I can
understand yeah, it might help to promote the business a little bit better. They are going to have
a northwest facing sign. The visibility, you’re going to be at grade. Yeah, so you can maybe
make an argument there’s a hardship there maybe but I don’t think it’s clear cut in regards to
that. At least from my perspective so, I think where I come down on it is, I think I’m just not
finding enough evidence to grant a variance at this point. Even though it’s close.
Larson: May I go one more time?
Sacchet: Debbie, go ahead.
Larson: Well it’s got kind of a goofy driveway leading into this canopy, and leading out. All the
way around the building. What I’m wondering is, as far as if we were to get a real heavy
10
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
snowfall, where is all that snow going to be pushed and will this monument sign be covered?
And therefore it would be hardship because people aren’t going to know where the bank is or the
entrance is on that side. And so anything up high will be visible. And you know I don’t know
the specifics of the monument but would it be tall enough that if we did have a large amount of
pile of snow that gets pushed over there, would you still be able to see it?
Sacchet: Josh, you have some wisdom on that?
Metzer: The monument sign will sit just under 6 feet above ground. The base of it is 30 inches.
The display area itself is 36 inches tall by 4 feet wide.
Sacchet: It’d be a very big snowfall.
Al-Jaff: Well the other thing.
Larson: I’m not saying necessarily the snow but the pushing. You know the piles that get
pushed off the street. You know sometimes those can be, they might be taller.
Al-Jaff: Sometimes, I don’t know how the site is going to work exactly. However, often you
will see snow trucked off site so that might be an option.
Sacchet: Well you know I could really go either way, just to make my comment. I could go
either way on that. If we go literally by the ordinance I think it really doesn’t work. If we go
little more looking at it in terms of common sense. Obviously a business likes to get the more
exposure the better. It’s not a lit sign which to me has some weight. It’s an existing sign. I
mean from that angle it’s nice. But then on the other hand, I think it doesn’t make a difference
because either way it’s going to have to go to City Council because we are split down the
middle. We’re not going to have the majority in that we can settle it here tonight, so this thing’s
going to have to move forward to the City Council to make a decision, and frankly it is in my
understanding very clearly more a City Council question to make a judgment call which in this
case it boils down to more of a judgment call. If we are strict to our role as the Planning
Commission, we probably need to deny it because our role is to look at the city ordinance. If
you look at the ordinance, it does not fit. So on that basis, if you ask the Planning Commission,
you probably should hear a nay, but looking at the overall context which is more the City
Council’s responsibility to look at, chances are pretty good that it may be looked at different. I
mean I don’t know. That’s for you to find out. And so really the way it’s split down the middle,
whether I go yeah or nay is not going to make a difference. It’s going to go to City Council
anyway. So with that I’d like to invite a motion here please.
Papke: Okay. I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance number 05-28
for a request for relief from city ordinances in order to place a non-illuminated sign on a bank
drive-thru canopy without street frontage based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following. Number 1, the applicant has not demonstrated hardship to warrant a variance. And
number 2, the applicant has adequate signage.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
11
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-28 for a
request for relief from city ordinances in order to place a non-illuminated sign on a bank
drive-thru canopy without street frontage based on the findings of fact in the staff report
and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has adequate signage.
Papke, Zorn, and Keefe voted in favor. McDonald and Larson voted in opposition.
Sacchet abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3-2-1.
th
Sacchet: This will go onto City Council. I think a date is already established on September 26
and we wish you luck with it.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPROVE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 6 &
7, BLOCK 1, CHRISTMAS ACRES, FILE 05-02 SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVE
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 860, 890 AND 910
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, FILE 05-09: APPLICANT FRANK BEDDOR.
Public Present:
Name Address
Rob & Mary Reinsmoen 1180 Pleasant View Road
Daryl Fortier 1804 Spring Valley Circle, Golden Valley
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Explain what the role of the Planning Commission is in a case like this.
Al-Jaff: And that is something that I spoke to the city attorney about. As I mentioned in the
staff report, Minnesota State statutes state, and this is verbatim. Shall approve a registered land
survey in the manner required for approval of a subdivision plat. Which means public hearing.
That’s what was getting it.
Sacchet: So somebody who has a problem can speak to it.
Papke: So our role here is to allow public to comment on this. Someone who might have an
objection to the change of the border.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Okay. So we’re not, our role here, since it sounded almost like we’re changing the
process by which this.
Al-Jaff: Nothing is changing. When I spoke to the city attorney, mainly the objections might
come in if there is an exterior property line that is taking place, but in this case.
Sacchet: They’re all interior.
Al-Jaff: They’re all interior lot lines. The moving of the property will still take place regardless,
and that can be done through the deed. The only thing this is doing is taking a simple, or a rather
complicated legal description for these properties and turning it into Tract A or.
Papke: So as a result of the re-drawing of the, there’s actually some interior borders that do
move, yes?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Papke: And is there any impact to setbacks as a result of those? I don’t recall the mention in the
staff report.
Al-Jaff: No. If anything it is, I mean one of the issues that they had with this parcel was the
driveway that serves, the driveway that serves Tract B encroaches onto Tract A. So that was the
reason why that property.
Papke: So this is actually a remedial action. It’s actually solving a setback problem.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Just to be clear I mean what is actually changing. Is it the light?
I assume that the light dashed line is the new lot line or is it the old one?
Al-Jaff: The old one.
Sacchet: That’s the old one. So the new one is the fat one with the little circles.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Sacchet: Okay, so we’re cutting a corner here and okay.
Al-Jaff: And all of these have been approved administratively.
Sacchet: Yeah, and then on the first one where we have the two lots, so Tract B is actually
getting smaller than it was before?
13
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Al-Jaff: Correct. It’s a vacant lot.
Sacchet: And it’s still big enough to have no setback issues since it gets smaller I wondered
about that.
Al-Jaff: I tried to anticipate some of the questions that you might have. Tract A has an area of
1.71 acres. Tract B has 1.5 acres.
Sacchet: So it’s still pretty big, okay.
Al-Jaff: And then on these we have 17,600 for Tract A and 7,900 for Tract B. I’m rounding
numbers. And then 43,300 for Tract C. 58,600 for Tract D.
Sacchet: Okay. And access to Tract D and C both go through that flag.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Sacchet: Okay, so that would be a private street.
Al-Jaff: It’s an existing…
Sacchet: That’s existing. There’s nothing, okay. Okay, just want to make sure since that’s kind
of a sensitive thing. And then Tract B would have it’s own flag situation. Long driveway.
Al-Jaff: Correct. It does have it’s own.
Sacchet: It’s already all there.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers my questions. Alright, thank you. Do we have an applicant who
wants to address this? Do you want to come forward? State your name and address and see
whether you have anything to add to what we discussed here. What staff presented. We’d
appreciate it. You might want to move the microphone in front of your face. It moves.
Daryl Fortier: I’m Daryl Fortier representing Frank Beddor. I’m an architect and land planner.
If you have any questions I’ll be pleased to answer them. Other than that I have no comments.
Sacchet: That was very quick. Thank you. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing so if anybody
wants to come forward. Address this item. This is your chance. And please state your name and
address for the record please. Good evening Debbie.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just seeing Tract A, what’s the width of
the lot?
14
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: In the two lot configuration or the 4 lot? Because they both have a Tract A.
Debbie Lloyd: The new, after the change. What’s the width of the lot? It looks like it would
have street frontage.
Sacchet: You talking about the one with the four lots.
Debbie Lloyd: The one with four lots, yeah. The one that looked like, you know it was Tract A.
With the flag lot and then.
Sacchet: The one inbetween the driveways.
Keefe: It has frontage on Pleasant View.
Sacchet: 114.79, is that what I read?
Debbie Lloyd: This one.
Al-Jaff: …
Debbie Lloyd: And what’s the depth?
Sacchet: 171.74.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay, so it meets all those standards too because you didn’t ask that question.
Width and depth of the lot.
Al-Jaff: The Planning Commission has, is looking at the legal description. Or approval of the
RLS, the moving of the property lines was approved administratively.
Sacchet: Right. That’s not our issue.
Al-Jaff: That’s not what you’re reviewing…
Sacchet: It’s just a formality.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing. Bring it
back to commission for, I hope I didn’t cut anybody off. I’ve been blamed for waiting too long
at times. Any comments? Discussion. If not I’d like a motion.
Keefe: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the attached, approved the
registered land surveys as presented.
Sacchet: Do we have a second?
15
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
McDonald: I’ll second.
Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the attached Registered Land Surveys referred to as Exhibits A and B as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SATHRE ADDITION (6605
HORSESHOE CURVE) INTO 3 LOTS WITH VARIANCES, HARVIEUX SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT RONALD HARVIEUX, PLANNING CASE 05-26.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron & Leanne Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve
Steve Wanek 6615 Horseshoe Curve
Don & Darlene Miller 395 Pleasant View Road
Maryevelyn Monty 370 Pleasant View Road
Joe Pfankuch 6611 Horseshoe Curve
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Jerry.
McDonald: I have a question for you. On this, on the driveway that serves the existing home,
that is an existing driveway that’s currently there, is that true?
Generous: That’s correct.
McDonald: Okay, so it’s currently a shared driveway between those two properties. Or the two
houses.
Generous: The two houses, correct.
McDonald: Okay. It is existing and it’s there, why are we requiring that now he add width to
that if it’s already there?
Generous: It’s not for the driveway per se. It’s for the neck portion of the lot. Our ordinance
defines a neck as being 30 feet wide. And so that’s the only part that we have a problem with.
McDonald: Okay. No further questions. Thanks Jerry. Any other questions?
Keefe: Yeah. In regards to the neck lots, if they make the changes as you propose them to be
made, do we still have a variance? Just to grant a variance for the neck.
Generous: To use that configuration for lots who have to grant…
16
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Keefe: Even with the changes.
Generous: Yeah, even with the changes. Just to have a flag lot with the neck access.
Sacchet: Flag lot in every case.
Generous: Yes, requires the variance.
Keefe: Okay, and then just in regards to the discussion in regards to the impervious surface
coverage on particularly Lot 2. Is the, does the proposed plan right now, is that just the building
or does it include hard surface around the building? So the question I have is, are we going to be
seeing these guys come back in right after it gets built because they want to put a sidewalk in or
they want to put a driveway in or something like that. Or variance for a hard surface coverage
because it’s within the shoreland district.
Generous: Right. What we requested that the applicant do is show us as big a house as they
would put in there and what the maximum driveway that they would have, and so they did that
and then they used those numbers to calculate what the site coverage was. Is.
Keefe: The site coverage includes the driveway.
Generous: Driveway. All the impervious area. It wouldn’t show a sidewalk yet because we’re
not down to that detail, but it does show, you can see the proposed hard cover on the side, what
is it, Lot 2 has a 2,810 square foot footprint, which is a pretty big.
Keefe: So in the back it slopes back pretty dramatically.
Generous: Yeah, it goes down to the east it’s pretty steep.
Keefe: So likely have a patio going in there probably. Like it’d be more of like a second.
Generous: A deck would be able to go onto the east side and then also to the south.
Keefe: So in terms of additional hard surface coverage, the likelihood, and we don’t know for
sure because we don’t know the actual plans but it could be that they would add a sidewalk from
the driveway to the front entrance.
Generous: Right, and they have, if you look at the way that driveway’s configured as it comes to
the back it widens up so that’s usually where we can reduce impervious coverage.
Keefe: Okay, because we’re right up against the ordinance on that.
Generous: Yeah, 24 ½.
Keefe: Okay. That’s it.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Any other questions? Jerry.
McDonald: To follow up on that. Does the owner understand the limitations here? That if we
grant this based upon this footprint, this is pretty much what he’s got to work with and we won’t
see someone coming back in asking us to go to 25.4 or something like that?
Generous: That was my understanding and I’ll have him address that but I requested that he
make Lot 2 as big as he could because the 25% impervious issue would come up and that’s part
of the reason that configuration’s like it is.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Keefe: And just one further clarification. With the changes that you’ve proposed, are we going
to be reducing the square footage on Lot 2 or are we going to be increasing it? So in other words
are we going to, if they go with the changes that you’re proposing in terms of adjusting for the
neck lot, are we going to be bumping up against the impervious surface coverage? And maybe I
just make that as a no. There’s a potential for that…
Generous: There’s a potential but we would recommend that he keep that square footage you
know as it is. There’s several ways that he can do it. He can extend the south lot line. Now if
he’s taking enough. Actually my concern for coverage was on Lot 1 because that’s the smallest
of all the lots in the development.
Sacchet: Okay. I have another question. Additional question Bob. In addition to those two we
already addressed. The staff report talks about this mysterious avenue, Balder Avenue. Which
one is Balder Avenue?
Generous: It was a platted right-of-way on the west side of this parcel.
Sacchet: So it’s the part that turned into the technically private road. It’s the driveway that
serves the two.
Generous: Yes, part of that and it also is the western, there’s actually two parts of it. It was the
western edge of this lot and then the eastern edge of the lot.
Sacchet: Now I see it. It’s actually, it was the whole length of the property there.
Generous: Right.
Keefe: Is that an access to the lake?
Generous: No. It was dedicated as part of the original plat as public right-of-way but it was
never used and as the history has shown, it was vacated over time. In pieces.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Yeah, it looks like it dropped right into the lake. Alright. And so their rationale was
because there was this Balder Avenue and at the time that was vacated there was no issue.
Generous: Yeah, it wasn’t a variance to have either a private street or a flag lot. That came up
later.
Sacchet: And that kind of begs another question. I mean we’re asking the applicant to make that
neck area wider potentially you’re suggesting it should be 30 foot wide. But it’s a shared
driveway. Why shouldn’t some of the land on the other side, does that belong to the right-of-
way?
Generous: No, it belongs to the property owner to the west, because that was vacated also and
the split was where it’s shown.
Sacchet: So, but since it’s serving both properties, really the right-of-way should be on both
properties potentially but then that’s out of our control.
Generous: Yeah, that’s not this property doesn’t have control of that.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: They could have, we could grant a variance for the width of that. He has 15 feet that
he’s showing currently. They could have, we could grant a variance for the width of that. He
has 15 feet that he’s showing currently.
Sacchet: Because logically common sense wise it makes more sense to add land on the other
side because there is this curve and there’s room between the road and this driveway. You see
what I’m saying?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Understand where you’re at with that. Any other questions? Jerry, go
ahead.
McDonald: You brought up an interesting point. How do we do something such as that?
Sacchet: Well the thing is we have an applicant and they have to deal with what they own. And
that’s why I bring this up. I mean it’s a sticky thing. If they want to do something on their
property they have to accommodate the ordinance on their property. Like in this case it gets kind
of hairy because it would make much more sense to have that dedication for that what
eventually, in the terms of city context will be a private road because it accesses two lots. I mean
this land, that’s basically no man’s land between the road and the driveway. And would much
more make sense, common sense wise to have that be part of the dedication of what is
considered the driveway or the private road. But we can’t really deal with that because that’s
outside of what we have to play with right now.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
McDonald: And there’s no mechanism for us to look at, at least within his property forcing what
his share would be in leaving the other…
Generous: You could always grant a variance for that neck width if you will.
Sacchet: We can’t make it conditional, something that’s not in front of us you see. Then we
imply, it’s not really a condition but the implied thought is that then on the other side some of it
would be calculated into that.
McDonald: Well it’s my understanding, we end up punishing him because it was his, he’s got
the land and the impact could be on Lot 1. I guess I just was wondering if it’s something we
could explore in terms of if we grant the variance on the neck and how we make sure that he gets
put off on the other side. You know I wouldn’t want to do one without the other.
Sacchet: Yeah and you see that’s out of our hands. That would be something the applicant
would have to work out ahead of time.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, you could only address it if that property owner later came in for a
subdivision maybe.
Sacchet: Alright. Dan go ahead.
Keefe: Just one follow up question. Going back to Lot 2 and just to the east side of that. There
is kind of a dotted line and it says erosion control. Is there a proposal to have a retaining wall of
any sort on that east side? I mean because you’ve got about a 20 foot elevation change it looks
like from the back of that house going down to the east. And just based on our events of the
night before last, a couple of nights ago.
Morris: Good point. There is, they do show a retaining wall on the east side. It shows up as 5
small circles on the east edge of the proposed driveway right at the garage, so they do identify
the need because of the elevation differences to put a retaining wall in at that location. As far as
putting in a retaining wall at the back of the house, they’re not identifying it at this point because
the builder’s intent is to work with the land as much as possible to reduce the impact. Hence the
custom graded lots that are shown in front of you tonight. So at this point they know they’ll have
to have a retaining wall at that location. They’re not proposing a retaining wall at another
location on Lot 2. On Lot 1, again there’s 4 small dots.
Audience: Excuse me, is it possible to see the plot while this discussion is going on?
Sacchet: Yeah, we can put it up for you, certainly. It’s very small so you probably won’t see the
little dots she’s talking about but we can point out where they are. Can you zoom in a little
Nann?
Morris: At this location here is Lot 2. And the proposed driveway comes in at this location and
they’re proposing a retaining wall right here at the proposed garage.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: And it’s not a very big retaining, at least not a very long retaining wall isn’t it?
Morris: No. It’s shown as probably about 10 feet long.
Sacchet: 10-15 feet. Something along that.
Morris: Something.
Sacchet: Wide, not high. Wide.
Morris: Correct, and it’s very preliminary because they don’t have the house plan but they do
show the need that, because of the driveway grades, because of the house, they do show a
retaining wall required at that location and then over here on Lot 1, again adjacent to the garage,
another retaining wall for Lot 1.
Sacchet: Similar situation.
Morris: Similar situation.
Sacchet: Can you see it at all? Okay. Thanks Alyson. Appreciate it.
Keefe: Can you, just as one quick follow up and I don’t know, but can you speak just a little bit
how the water would flow, the run off would go on that just to the east. Just given that elevation.
Sacchet: You’re prepared, wow.
Morris: I’ll answer that. What we looked at, what I looked at here is I wanted to make sure that
the property to the east particularly of Lot 2 wouldn’t be severely impacted by a proposed lot
here, so what I show was existing drainage pattern at this location and proposed drainage pattern
at this location, and the different basically there’s 3 different drainage areas on the property
shown in the respective colors and where this pink drains to the street. The blue drains to the
lake. The green drains to the east. So that shows what the drainage patterns are doing currently
and what they’re proposed, so when I looked at Lot 2, there’s not a significant increase in area
draining to that existing house to the east. In fact the biggest change from existing to post
development drainage patterns is the area draining to the street. To answer your question about
specifically this drainage pattern to the east, what we looked at doing and we had it as a
requirement for approval is that any lot, any lot, pardon me. Any house on Lot 2 here, that the
roof drains be directed to the southwest corner here so that it wouldn’t be going down this slope
to the property to the east. That it’d be going to the treed area. Have a chance to dissipate the
energy and go to the south.
Sacchet: Great answer. Thank you Alyson. Any other questions from staff? Kurt?
Papke: I just want to make sure I understand the recommendations that you’re making Bob on
changing the property lines there. Now it’s really condition number 5 that you’re using to make
that happen. Is that correct?
21
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Generous: Yes.
Papke: You’re not really stipulating there how they’re going to be moved.
Generous: No, we’re just saying that they need to comply with the 30 foot width and like I
showed, there are several options that they can do.
Papke: Okay. And on the preliminary plat it shows a shed on the north side of the house exactly
10 feet from the property line, so I assume that your proposal isn’t going to.
Generous: Would not go that far east.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright. Okay, with that do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward
and if you have anything to add or.
Ron Harvieux: …good stewards of the land and we intend to do that as we go forward with the
next two lots. Everything we’ve done here has been planned so that we minimize the impact.
It’s very beautiful land. It’s a hill that we’ve been driving around for 26 years and it’s going to
change. I mean there’s an issue there I think for all of us but we’re trying to do that with
minimal grading and so the 2 houses we’re proposing, and we haven’t gotten down the line far
enough to answer some of the questions for the house design but we know we want to put them
where they’d have minimum impact in terms of grading. And also tree preservation. We’re
trying to do everything we can, and there’s some beautiful trees up there to hold onto them. I
think in some ways the only reason we’re here tonight, before the vacation of Horseshoe Curve
and Balder Avenue, and I didn’t want to complicate the issue earlier but Balder Avenue wasn’t
the only thing that was vacated. Back in 1992 there was a spur of Horseshoe Curve that came
down and that’s exactly where the driveway is today. That used to be called Horseshoe Curve.
And Horseshoe Curve is a continuous street up above that as well, so why that was like that I
don’t know but at any rate when that existed we had 285 feet of frontage on public roadway. 3
houses, 90 feet apiece. 270. We had more than that. But back in 1992 when this issue came up,
city staff was aware of what we were doing and the comment then was that we didn’t need to
have the public right-of-way. Everyone wanted to clean up this Horseshoe Curve/Balder Avenue
thing and we knew that there was mechanism for variances, whatever to get access to these lots if
and when we should decide to subdivide, which is what we’re here for today. So the variances in
question have nothing to do with lot sizes or anything like that. They have to do with this
frontage on the road which is kind of a strange and little, you know strange issue that we vacated
that access in 1992, but did so under the belief that we’d be able to come back and do what we’re
doing today which is get access through the variance method.
Sacchet: And the staff report makes that very clear I think.
Ron Harvieux: So with that I am going to try to answer any questions, and by the way to let you
know about the hard cover. We are very, very aware. Staff has made us very aware of how
22
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
close we are to the numbers and I think it’s a positive thing for us because as we design the top
homes, we know what we have to live within so the process has been very helpful and I think we
understand the gravity of it and we’ll live there. We know what the numbers are, so.
Sacchet: But the concern is not so much what you initially. The concern is when somebody
lives there and all of a sudden they want a bigger porch, more deck, more patio. That’s the
concern.
Ron Harvieux: Well decks don’t count, right? Is that correct?
Generous: That’s correct.
Ron Harvieux: Yeah, I mean that’s sort of something that we can, but the hard cover we think
we understand. And I get what you’re saying, yeah. We can control only as far as we keep it.
Sacchet: Right. We may have some questions for you. Other questions for the applicant? Dan,
you have something?
Keefe: Just one thing. You know the runoff question from Lot 2, it looks like that’s going to be
solved by putting gutters on. But then that water’s going to be running off toward your house.
Ron Harvieux: Yeah, we got it through the weekend.
Keefe: But I mean you know, based on this it may not be any significant.
Ron Harvieux: No, we understand that. We’ve, Lot number 3, the house that we have is at the
bottom of the hill. I mean it’s been that way for, you know ever since we’ve been there and
before we got there so, either we’ve been lucky or it’s been built correctly or whatever but we
have been able to not be problemed by that. I don’t believe we will be in the future.
Sacchet: I’ve got a few questions for you. On the plat, it looks like you’re only cutting down 4
of those significant trees. Is that accurate?
Ron Harvieux: Well, as I mentioned to Bob, we didn’t know about the 30 foot neck lot when we
submitted the plans. And I’m meeting a surveyor tomorrow to try to figure out what happens
after tonight you know and what we have to do if we get the chance to go forward. Given the
issue that have been raised already with size of lots and coverage, one of the options we have is
to push the north/south line. This line right here. Push it eastward because Lot 2 is a large lot
and we have a lot of setback here.
Sacchet: But also a lot of trees.
Ron Harvieux: And a lot of trees, and we’ve been, believe me we want to keep the trees as well.
But we’re investigating how we gain back the land that that 30 foot neck lot serving Lot 3, where
that comes from and again, what we are under the tree coverage canopy numbers at this point by
some 11,000 feet. To the plus if you will. I don’t want to lose any more trees. On the other
23
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
hand we have to site house number 2. And there’s plenty of room there. It’s a question of trying
to make a balance happen so in answer to your question…at this point we anticipate only taking
4 trees out.
Sacchet: But it could change.
Ron Harvieux: Well I don’t know.
Sacchet: I understand. It’s a good answer.
Ron Harvieux: But they’ll come out only with pain on our part because we want to keep them.
Sacchet: Yeah, and you basically don’t want to come down further south because you have that
shed and you want to keep that shed.
Ron Harvieux: Well kind of do and yes, so we have to play around with some things. One of
the things we talked about is making the neck lot 30 feet at the road…and 40 feet at the point
where it meets the house. Staff has asked us to move the driveway south in this neck lot and
we’d like to do that. Our neighbors have asked us to do that as well. And we’d like to do that.
South of…but if you cut that back to 30 feet, there’s only so much…
Sacchet: …how far you can go, right.
Ron Harvieux: Yeah, we’ve added and we really want to protect the trees up in that neck lot.
They’re very beautiful and they’ve been there for a long time. So we’re trying to find out how to
affect all this and add the 30 feet to that neck lot. I think perhaps the way to do it is take this
north/south line and move it a little bit east of there and when doing that.
Sacchet: You move the setbacks.
Ron Harvieux: We have to move the setbacks so we’re pushing ourselves by the trees. I’d like
not to do that and that’s not the only option but that’s one that kind of, since Lot 2 has a lot of
land, it doesn’t have a shed on it. The shed is, it sounds like it’s something that should you know
disappear but it’s quite a significant little building so we’re trying to hold on to that.
Sacchet: The shed is pretty important to you I mean.
Ron Harvieux: Well it is today. Tomorrow I might feel differently about it after looking at
what’s going on here but we’d really like to hold onto it yes.
Keefe: And with movement, you also have Lot 1 has an area, potential area issue too. You
know you’re pretty much at the lower limit of lot size.
Ron Harvieux: That’s right, so we have to build it back. I mean we can’t move, yeah.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Now I’d like to stay on this topic just a little bit more because I mean the potential that
moving that north/south lot line west, or is it east?
Ron Harvieux: East.
Sacchet: Cutting more trees would be for me a reason to actually ask you not to move that lot
line. And then that would leave the north and south variables to try to accommodate, but you
think that could be done too, right? But you haven’t studied it so I don’t…
Ron Harvieux: …land we’re giving up to make that 30 foot neck lot happen. You know we’d
like to take the land out of Lot 3, and we can’t do that by…it becomes an angle.
Sacchet: It’s a little harder to manage. But on the other hand it would make Lot 1 a little bigger
too because there isn’t a constraint too with impervious. So you wouldn’t feel that it couldn’t be
done if we can move this north/south line. Okay. Okay. I think that’s all my questions for you.
Any other questions for the applicant? No? Alright. Thank you very much. Now this is a
public hearing. Anybody want to address this item, this is your chance. Please come forward.
State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say.
Don Miller: My name is Don Miller. I live at 395 Pleasant View Road. We’re directly north of
this proposed. The only, the biggest question I have is, there’s 3 trees there…and we want to
save those trees.
Sacchet: So you’re the house right above it there.
Don Miller: I’m right there, yep. Our concern and we’ve talked to them about it and they’re
absolutely with us is we want to get this driveway as far apart from our house because we’re very
close to that side. In recent surveys we’ve lost another 3 feet so it’s to our advantage to have
their driveway moved. If you run the driveway between the 2 trees, I think it’s these 2 right here,
that’s 23 feet. They’re not parallel. They’re kind of at an angle but if you use the perpendicular
distance there’s 23 feet. You can’t get a 30 foot thing through there. You can’t get 43 foot thing
through there and you can’t stay without being under the crown of the trees.
Sacchet: We’re not talking about the driveway being that wide.
Don Miller: …construction traffic and whatever is necessary to build, it’s going to kill those 2
trees. I think you should move the driveway, it’s also right here there’s a stop sign. So you’re
not going to be able to come out of the driveway and make a right turn onto Pleasant View. If
you can move that farther, closer to Lot 1’s line, it will change this line and put the driveway
maybe down here so that it comes because they’re proposing to stay away from that big tree.
These are the two important trees on the lot. This is another one. These are a couple small ones
here. If you can get it down through there, it still doesn’t obstruct this lot. It gives better access
and keeps it away from the stop sign and it also keeps it away from our driveway. So you can
camouflage it with some other trees and it compliments all 3 lots now.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: I would certainly like that too if I was where you are. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Anybody else want to address this. This is your chance. Please state your name and address for
the record.
Joe Pfankuch: My name’s Joe Pfankuch and I live at 6611 Horseshoe Curve. Two lots to the
west and you know none of this directly affects me. My concern is, I’m not sure what the
minimum lot sizes are but if you look at the general area, I would say these are the smallest lots
that have been developed on this shore in a while. I don’t know maybe you’ve gone through that
Ron but I’m on the lake because someone subdivided their lot as well but I have an acre and they
have .9 acres, and I guess I look at it and this is screaming subdivision, cramming houses
together and that neighborhood really has it’s charm because there’s a lot of trees and you really
can’t see all the houses and so I look at this and say now we’re going to have 3 driveways
coming right out to where the stop sign is. Actually really 4 driveways because, 4 houses because
there’s the original lot. The lot, this lot and then the Jamison’s lot there all coming to that
notorious intersection of Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe Curve at the top of a two way hill.
And someone proposing to develop across the street from that. I look at this and my only two
issues, I don’t have any trees near that they’re going to cut down my house won’t be affected is
the safety issue. From where all that ends. And then also just the size of the lot because we can
say now that those trees will stay, but I’ve been around long enough to see people on South
Shore Drive cut down trees that was on park property. You know people just like to have views
of a lake and so I get a little nervous that all of a sudden there’s just going to be a little more
clear cutting, and I don’t know what regulations are involved in that but. So my question is I
guess to Ron and Leanne are more why 3 lots. Why not 2? And is there a minimum size
variance and does this truly accommodate it?
Sacchet: We do have, the limit is 15,000 feet, or 15,000.
Joe Pfankuch: And this is 14?
Sacchet: And this, the whole lot here is, it’s almost 2 acres. It’s 1.99 acres. For the 1, 2, 3
together. And so in terms of the ordinance of the city, the applicant is totally within their rights
to make it into 3 lots.
Joe Pfankuch: What do the lots end up as? Roughly.
Sacchet: The little more is a little more than 15,000. That’s Lot 1. Lot 2 is almost 24,000 and
Lot 3 is 47 so that’s still over an acre.
Joe Pfankuch: But is that consistent with the neighborhood or does that not come into effect?
Sacchet: We can’t, from the city side, we, the ordinance states it has to be a minimum of 15,000
so that’s…
Ron Harvieux: …the home on top of the hill.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: If maybe you want to come up afterwards, but let’s finish with his comments. If you
want to respond, that certainly will be appropriate. But the other aspect is the safety aspect and I
think that is a question that we want to address with probably the city engineer.
Joe Pfankuch: And then also the watershed. I noticed that Alyson’s you know showed that Lot
1 kind of draining primarily towards the street. Anyone who lives on that street knows that that’s
where the big puddle is because there’s a major drainage issue there and the city tried to rectify it
with the sewer but still after days like last week, you know we get big puddles there. And so I’m
wondering does that water add to that? Again at a stop sign. Really that driveway’s a hill. You
know are we creating something.
Sacchet: So we have two aspects. One is the drainage and the other one is the safety in terms of
traffic I believe. If you can address that.
Joe Pfankuch: And I think Ron’s point, the yellow house, the Santana house has been authorized
to subdivide as well, so now all of a sudden you’re going to have a lot of driveways converging
at that point and a lot of watershed so maybe just explain to me how this all works out in the big
picture.
Sacchet: And that is the city responsibility to make sure those aspects are considered and
mitigated.
Joe Pfankuch: Because the two properties across from us, the old, I don’t know what Betty’s
name was, house, and the Santana house, I mean those are now proposed subdivisions so we now
go from 3 houses to about 9 very quickly and I want to know what the overall impact is to that
intersection and to the safety there. If someone could respond to that.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. You want to give that a shot Alyson?
Morris: Thank you. First regarding the drainage. We do realize that there’s increased drainage
areas to that intersection. I did do some calculations. With the increased area, increased
impervious, it’s quite minimal. I was unaware that there was a ponding problem at that
intersection. As everybody’s aware with the storm that the city had recently here, drainage
problems do come up. I can talk to the street superintendent. See what we can do in that area
hopefully to increase the safety of that intersection and not exacerbate the problem. Secondly,
with regards to the safety of the actual intersection, staff’s recommendation was to shift that
driveway to Lot 2, to the south for that very reason. When we did the site visit, looking at the
location of that lot line, pardon me with the driveway, and with respect to where that stop sign
was, it was quite apparent that that was not a good location for the driveway and that’s why the
recommendation came. To shift it south.
Sacchet: So if it’s shifted within that 40 foot, would that make enough of a different or if now
we’re even talking that maybe that would be reduced to a 30 foot at the opening up there. How
does that play together?
27
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Morris: It would ideal to have a larger distance but looking at the location of the lot lines and it’s
one lot. We just asked him to move it as far south as possible to add to the safety. To help with
safety at that intersection. As far as increased traffic at that intersection you’re adding 2 lots.
You typically will, that will add about 8 trips a day.
Sacchet: Which is relatively trivial.
Morris: Which is quite small. I believe that was, were the 3?
Sacchet: That was the questions. Yeah, you can come back.
Joe Pfankuch: That was two. My third question, again Joe Pfankuch is, what’s the overall
impact with the other two developments that you either are approving or have approved. Both
on Pleasant View and I think Santana’s address is Pleasant View as well because all of that is
going to converge and so I want to know how those 9 houses are all going to, where the
driveways are going to be and how it’s going to end up. That also is a potential bus stop
depending on where the houses, number of students are at the top of that hill as well for the
Minnetonka school system. So I’m, now all of a sudden if we add these kids here, that’s a bus
stop and you have 3 driveways, a dangerous intersection on top of the hill, I just you know, I
want to have some long term vision as to how this is all going to play out.
Sacchet: Thank you. Can you say anything about that? I mean 9 houses is still not going to be
really a huge traffic impact is it.
Morris: Unfortunately Planning Commission, I’m not familiar with the proposed developments
that the neighbor is talking about. I wasn’t actually employed at the city at the time that that
came about and I’m having a difficulty visualizing where that, where those connections are.
Generous: The Kenyon Bluff one’s on the north side of Pleasant View I believe and that was a 3
lot subdivision that would access onto Pleasant View. I’m not aware of the other one. It might
be a future.
Sacchet: What I recall is that subdivisions were relatively small. I mean we’re not talking about
somebody bringing in a dozen new places. It’s just like onsies and twosies.
Generous: Yeah, one’s and two’s. That’s what I remembered too.
Sacchet: And from that angle I mean from a traffic engineering viewpoint, the impact would be
quite minimal. If you look at those type of quantities of buildings.
Joe Pfankuch: If we could zoom in, excuse me. Joe Pfankuch again. If we could zoom in on the
subject site. As Pleasant View Road comes up and makes that corner, this is the Kenyon lot.
This is the Santana lot. This is going to 3. This is now 3 off the shared driveway with that one,
off the Miller’s driveway which comes out right there. I don’t know where that development is.
The house that’s for sale and I would guess is going to get split into at least 2 lots. Just my
concern is the long term plan as to how all that intersects because this is a blind corner coming
28
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
up this hill. It’s a blind corner coming up that hill, and I don’t care if it’s one driveway or two
houses or three houses but we have 9, and they all come at a very dangerous place. So we’re not
setting something up that if they have any children, it’s an even more dangerous intersection.
I’m just saying where’s the big picture on all of this and I have small children so I’m concerned
from that aspect.
Sacchet: Yeah you may definitely.
Ron Harvieux: My first comment, it’s a busy road there at Pleasant View and Horseshoe Curve
is stopped at Pleasant View. Horseshoe Curve is a feeder road. Both of the driveways we’re
proposing here would exit onto Horseshoe Curve, the small, it’s not a freeway. It’s a blind
intersection. When people enter Horseshoe Curve they haven’t dealt with a blind intersection.
There’s truth that that intersection’s tough but that’s a whole different issue. These driveways
will exit onto a relatively benign road called Horseshoe Curve. Yes, they’ll have a stop sign in
when they try to enter Pleasant View but so do 40 other houses that come up Horseshoe Curve.
We’re just not pushing people onto the Pleasant View.
Sacchet: And certainly it’s a very valid point that we have to look at the context but ultimately
we can’t keep one property owner hostage to something that affects the whole neighborhood.
But then you could say on the other hand, well that’s how problem rise because everybody does
something and it adds up and adds up and adds up but I mean we have no legal foundation to
hold that against one proposal in front of us. So even we try to consider that and be sensitive to
that to the full extent possible, but there’s so far we can go with that. It’s public hearing is still
open. Anybody else want to address this. Please come forward. Yes you can come back if you
want.
Don Miller: Is there any reason that, Don Miller again. 395 Pleasant View. Lot 1 and 2, that
you can’t run a driveway so you only have one entrance there.
Sacchet: Why don’t you put it so we see it. Okay.
Don Miller: I’m not trying to re-engineer everything that everybody’s done…so you propose
keep it as far south as you can and away from this intersection. You know how you’ve made that
one or maybe one wide driveway or something where you both converge together.
Sacchet: Can it be done? I mean just about anything can be done.
Don Miller: That makes it easier for the Harvieux’s to develop too because…
Sacchet: Right, no I see your point. Alright. Anybody else want to address this item? Yep,
there’s somebody more. If you please state your name and address for the record. Let us know
what you have to say please.
Steve Wanek: My name is Steve Wanek. I live at 6615 Horseshoe Curve. Just down the street
and I just have one question regarding the need for a variance for this proposal. I was kind of
under the understanding that it’s more of an administrative issue. But they’re asking for
29
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
variances. Why, what, where are variances being granted on this property I guess and why are
they being granted?
Sacchet: Can you clarify that please Bob? Thank you.
Generous: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The variances are for access via a neck lot rather than having a
full frontage on the public street. Our ordinance says you can have neck lots but they have to
comply with standards and to approve them as part of a subdivision process you have to grant the
variance. So a lot of times the variances for house orientation and things like that are setbacks or
compromises if you wanted to make it specific conditions to mitigate it so.
Sacchet: So the variance is how the lots are being accessed basically.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And that’s a function of those vacated right-of-way’s and so forth. Alright. Do we
have anybody else? Yes we do. Please come forward and share your wisdom.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You answered a lot of the questions I had. I
only had about an hour to look at this tonight and I had a lot of questions from the staff report,
but the predominant thing hanging out in my mind here remains the fact that the easement was
vacated in 1992 with the premise that a private street could be put in. And the private street had
a different name as private drive but basically the premise is the same. That a private street
could access 3 to 4 homes. Our private street ordinances are there so that you can put in the
private street instead of a public street, and that should help alleviate environmental concerns.
Now the flag lot is a different issue but you know for large subdivisions we always look at what
would the private street look like versus the public street and I think in this instance we’re
cutting ourselves short by not looking at what would the private street look like here, versus the
flag lot. The access to the existing home though is a shared driveway. Now you’re changing
positions. You’re splitting a lot. That shared driveway should become a private street.
Sacchet: Technically it is a private street, yeah.
Debbie Lloyd: It is but it probably doesn’t have today’s standards of a private street. It probably
doesn’t have the same width. The 30 foot is essentially. Now when they gave up the easement,
they did gain land, correct? I mean that easement.
Sacchet: Well actually it looks like the easement was beyond the property line if I read this plat
correctly. Is that accurate Bob?
Generous: They did get a little bit of land. The property to the west kept the majority of it.
Debbie Lloyd: But they did get you know some property with the dedication. With that
easement being abandoned. And so I think that has to be looked at. There may be an
opportunity, I’m not, you guys know, I’m not into slope of land and all this stuff other than I
think the driveway issues and the slope of the land is important. That can’t be overlooked. What
30
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
is the slope of the driveway here? That hasn’t been assessed but could not the driveway, the
private street come in and serve all lots? Have one access. Alleviate some of the stress on that
road. Granted there’s 3 trees we’re talking about saving up here. It may impact a tree or 2 in
another area but I think there’s some alternatives that need to be addressed.
Sacchet: I think that one of the issues we…look at is grading. Is that something you could
address Alyson? I mean how possible is it to feed Lot 2 into that driveway? Just hypothetically.
Is it at all possible?
Morris: Onto the common driveway?
Sacchet: Yeah. With those grade changes I kind of wonder.
Debbie Lloyd: It’s called a private street. We don’t have common driveway in our code
anymore, just it’s one of those irksome things I keep hearing different names for what our code
says and it’s private street. So I’m sorry I’m not.
Sacchet: It’s alright. You want to say something to that Alyson please.
Morris: It’s a question of moving this driveway through here or this driveway through here?
Debbie Lloyd: I wonder if there’s anyway that you could bring it, like I said. It’s…the private
street to somehow share all access on the street.
Morris: So looking at the two proposals of having the private street right here, currently this
driveway is proposed at 9.8% maximum lot by ordinance is 10%. Bringing this driveway, that
proposed retaining wall that we discussed earlier, the grades to go from this garage to this private
street would be in excess of 10%. Would not meet our ordinance. As far as accessing it for Lot
2 onto here, the reason staff didn’t push for that is the environmental impact. There’s some trees,
some oak trees, a hickory tree. Didn’t meet the significant tree requirements but some shrubs
through here that staff just felt it was preferable to maintain the treed area through here and have
access through here than to use this as a shared driveway location. It was a judgment call that
staff made at this point and we just felt that in the name of tree preservation, that Lot 2 would
access off Horseshoe Curve. Should access. We recommend that that is accessed off Horseshoe
Curve.
Sacchet: Good answer. Thank you. Anything else you want to add?
Debbie Lloyd: I highly recommend this be 30 foot as code. I mean it should meet code
requirements. It should be a private street because it is, and when you subdivide I would think
that you have to maintain what the present code. The other thing, condition 5. You know I can
understand that all these things are up in the air but you know I just saw Lake Harrison go
through. You saw what has happened on Lake Harrison today, you’d probably flip out.
Sacchet: I live there Debbie.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. So you are flipping out.
Sacchet: Well it’s not just Lake Harrison. It’s also the other ones around there. There’s 3 of
them happening.
Debbie Lloyd: You know I think perhaps this should go back to the drawing table with what all
of these if’s are. Let’s put in the right, let’s put in where it’s going to be. Let’s make sure the
retaining walls are where they’re going to be. Let’s make sure the impervious surface is right.
Sacchet: This is a subdivision. I mean we’re not quite there yet are we?
Generous: We’re not building a house on a lot, no.
Debbie Lloyd: But the preliminary plat.
Sacchet: All that we have, and please correct me if this is not accurate Bob. We have a
subdivision in front of us so the pads, the idea of where the building is is totally hypothetical at
this point just to show us what it could be and as Bob pointed out for Lot 2, they purposely asked
to show a very large house that most likely will be smaller so that we can see.
Debbie Lloyd: I’m not asking for the house pad.
Sacchet: Okay.
Debbie Lloyd: I’m asking for the streets to be in the right, the driveways to be in the correct
place. The retaining walls to be in the proper place. I mean condition 5 is a huge condition. The
move, it says in the report here that the movement of that 30, let’s see. The applicant shall revise
the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck for Lot 3. Well back here in the report itself it says, the
applicant shall revise the plat to incorporate the 30 foot neck for Lot 3. This will result in the
reconfiguration of Lot 1. Lot 1 which is already 15,152 feet. I mean that’s close to the
minimum. This will result, and possibly on Lot 2. So you know I just think there’s a lot of
questions. I’ve just seen these go on to council and without all the details being attended to,
things get passed that maybe aren’t really ready. That’s my, I think that’s the, that’s really the
short of it tonight, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to address this.
Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission. Comments.
Kurt, looks like you’re ready.
Papke: Yeah. I think there’s the applicant here has gone through a number of permutations with
staff. I think it’s in reasonably good shape. The only issue I have is with condition number 32,
and this gets to the safety issue with the access for Lot 2 and the proximity to Pleasant View. I
think we need to tighten that up a little bit. It just says to relocate it to the south. I think that
needs to be nailed down a little bit. To Debbie’s point so we know exactly what that’s going to
be, but other than that I think it’s in pretty reasonable shape.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Anything from you Debbie?
Larson: Well you know, it looks, as Kurt said…and they’ve been working with staff and trying
to keep the… That’s very important today. So I am willing to go with it at this point.
Sacchet: Okay. Deborah.
Zorn: I share some of the same comments that have been mentioned. My only concern is that
driveway getting to Lot 2 and knowing that Pleasant View Road, it is very difficult to see up
around the bend as you’re driving, yet alone just trying to get out of a driveway so I would hope
that the applicant would look at that in greater detail and placement of that driveway.
Sacchet: Okay.
Zorn: But otherwise I would support it.
Sacchet: Jerry.
McDonald: Well I guess in looking at this, there has been quite a bit of work that’s gone into it.
On the issue of the driveway, you know we’re looking at 30 feet. It’s only a 40 foot wide swath
through there and to move it to the south then I guess we have to give up that one tree. It
possibly could be worth it. That’s something that I think the applicant needs to look at and he’s
kind of given indications to us that he would. His driveway again that’s going to fall upon him
to meet the 30 foot requirement again for the private street. When this is subdivided it has to
meet requirements and it will. It’s just it will all fall upon his property. I feel it should be shared
but I understand that that can’t be done so I think the applicant also understands that. I also had
some issues about the hard surface coverage and I guess from what I’ve heard from the
applicant, he understands what those numbers are. He’ll work with those. I don’t expect to see
him back here when we’re re-doing these houses and everything and asking for a half a percent
or even a percentage variance for anything such as that. And yeah, I guess to address the issue of
detail. This is a subdivision. There is no detail so that’s part of why we do this and then ask the
applicant to come back and you’ve got to live within certain criteria which are the codes and
everything for these lots. There are setback requirements. Those will all have to be met. You
know he understands all of that. So I don’t have any problem approving this. I guess I live in
that area also. I’m very familiar with that curve. Where we’re talking about where the stop sign
is, the majority of the traffic is on Pleasant View Road. Yeah, Pleasant View Road and that is a
problem that the city’s going to have to address sooner or later. It’s not really for the applicant at
this point to have to do that but that is a problem area and it’s been that way for 20 years. Yes,
it’s going to get a lot worst because of all the development that’s happening down there and at
some point the city will have to do something about that roadway, but for right now what we’re
looking at before us, again everybody will come out onto Horseshoe Curve. There is a stop sign
there. They will have to make the same adjustments everyone else who lives on Horseshoe
Curve has to make. So from that standpoint I don’t see a big issue there with the traffic that
can’t be managed that isn’t already being managed. Beyond that, yeah I’d be interested to see
what the compromises are knowing what you’ve heard today as far as the neck lot. What’s going
to happen there because there is some concern on Lot 1. You’re going to have to push
33
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
something there and at that point you may go below the minimums or you may all of a sudden
find yourself up against some of the setbacks so that’s going to be a balancing act there. But
yeah, I would agree with what staff’s put forward and I’d be in favor of this.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Jerry. Dan.
Keefe: Just in a little bit of clarification in regards to what exactly we’re approving. We’re
approving a preliminary plat. I mean what exactly does the preliminary plat do?
Sacchet: Do you want to explain that Bob?
Generous: A preliminary plat provides standing for the applicant. They can go forward and do
the final subdivision, provided they comply with the conditions of approval within the
preliminary plat. Shifting the lot lines or whatever. And provided that the final plat complies
with ordinance.
Keefe: Okay so for them, and in terms of process, does the preliminary plat go to the City
Council or does the final?
Generous: Preliminary plat goes to City Council. Final plat also goes to City Council.
Keefe: Okay, but it won’t come back here right?
Generous: It won’t come back here, no.
Keefe: Okay. You know generally like the layout of this. I’m curious a little bit about private
street but I’m, you know I know you guys considered that and looked at that so I’m going to go
with the thought that you guys have put a lot of effort into this and with your recommendation. I
do like the fact that the driveways go out on Horseshoe Curve versus impacting Pleasant View
Road because as one of the residents said, I do think there’s a potential hazard on that particular
corner, particularly with the new developments coming in. In regards to preliminary plat with
the conditions, I guess I’d be in favor of them.
Sacchet: Okay. You know, I keep emphasizing that the role of the Planning Commission is to
see, does this fit with the ordinances and regulations of the city and it really does. I mean this
fits well. The one thing we have a little bit of a conflict is the area where they need a variance
which is with that driveway access aspect, but other than that we really don’t have jurisdiction to
tell them where they should route their driveways or whether they should make their lots bigger
if they meet the minimum, which they do. However, if we could I would certainly suggest to the
applicant that I would think the shed is less important than the trees and having those lots so
close to the impervious surface, but that’s not my judgment. I mean I’m out of my context by
saying that, but just to give you the example in terms of where our focus is as a Planning
Commission. This meets the regulations and I think the variance is very appropriate, especially
looking at the history of how this came about. I think the applicant is totally within their right to
do this configuration. I would like to add a little more of the specifics, like you started doing that
Kurt and then Debbie you certainly hit on that. The condition number 5 about the 30 foot neck
34
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
requirement and how that needs a little more land. I would want to be very specific and ask that
the north/south property line. That eastern property line of Lot 1 is not pushed further west, if at
all possible. Work with staff on that because it’s going to push it further into the slope and into
the trees. But again we have to be careful how far we can go with that because we don’t want to
infringe on the rights of the property owner to configure this, how it may be a work with staff
would be appropriate rather than make it a firm condition. I think that would certainly be within
our rights into how we express ourselves from the city. Similar I would suggest that we say
something like staff, or applicant will work with staff and it will investigate or look at the safety
issues of the access onto the road there. I do have a question with the recommendation, it’s
number 32 that the driveway to Lot 2 be shifted as far south as possible. That doesn’t
necessarily mean that another tree needs to be cut. That’s just, I mean the driveway can curve
around the tree and so I want to be clear about that. And then the question also that came up that
we have not touched on, I think one of the neighbors brought that up, in terms of the construction
traffic going onto Lot 2, weaving around those oaks. I mean what’s going to happen to those
roots? I mean they’re going to be damaged. Is that something that needs to be looked at? Has
the City Forester had any input on that or, do we, I mean I assume that the construction traffic
will go where the driveway will be. And that means you’re driving around those oaks and I
think that’s a very valid comment that the neighbor brought up, that we’re basically killing those
by doing that. Or at least hurting. So that’s maybe another, an aspect where I would say work
with staff and maybe that the City Forester could get their recommendation and then see whether
there’s any way that can be mitigated to the point that these trees have a realistic chance to
survive, which is in everybody’s interest. Property owner and most. I think that’s all the
comments I have so unless there is any other comments, Kurt. Do you want to comment or make
a motion?
Papke: Make a motion.
Sacchet: Go for the motion then please.
Joe Pfankuch: Mr. Chairman?
Sacchet: Yes.
Joe Pfankuch: Is there a statute about the distance a driveway from a stop sign?
Sacchet: Is there? Is that something you could address Alyson?
Joe Pfankuch: And what is the distance? In this case and for these… I know you can’t park
within 10-15 feet so I’ve got to believe you can’t have a driveway. Isn’t it 30 feet?
Morris: As far as state statute, I’m not aware if there is a limit or not.
Sacchet: Yeah, I don’t know the exact answer without researching it but there are different
requirements based on what the road is classified as. Like if it’s an arterial road, I’m sure there
are restrictions. If it’s a neighborhood type road like that I would think that it’s much more
relaxed so I don’t know what the specifics are but I want to point out it’s important to see the
35
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
context. I mean it’s a busy road. I’m sure there are all kinds of restrictions with the
neighborhood, and that’s, and I don’t know what Pleasant View is classified. Is that a collector?
Generous: Pleasant View, yes.
Sacchet: It’s a collector so there is probably more restrictive while Horseshoe Curve has a
neighborhood type of road, is probably relatively small, if any restriction in that context.
Joe Pfankuch: Well as Jerry pointed out that this problem, this intersection has a problem. That
point is we concur so the really simple question is, is this adding or deleting risk from that?
From that area and so I just don’t want, because think about people have parties and they park in
the street. I mean I’ve lived there only 6 years but long enough to see what happened and it’s a
very narrow road to begin with, and so I look at an intersection that we’ve already admitted by
City Council we’re going to have to improve at some point, are we…that stop sign thing a little
bit and everything.
Sacchet: Yeah, I appreciate your comment and the public hearing has been closed. And I think
we touched on that before. Really that it’s an issue in a larger context. I mean it’s an issue for
the neighborhood, and yes, this development has an impact on it but it’s one of multiple things
that impact that so, and we can’t really solve a neighborhood issue here. We’re looking at a
subdivision and how it applies to the ordinances so I don’t mean to shirk the issue but we have to
kind of stay on task at the same time, so Kurt you were going to make a motion.
Papke: Yes. Mr. Chair, I’d like to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Harvieux
Addition with a variance for the use of flag lots, plans prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land
Surveyors, Inc. dated 8/04/05, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to
conditions 1 through 34 with two changes in wording. Condition number 5. The applicant shall
revise the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck lot for Lot 3 and to work with staff to minimize
western movement of the east lot line for Lot number 1. And an alteration to condition number
32. To relocate Lot 2 driveway access to the south as much as feasible without loss of the
western most 34 inch oak tree.
Sacchet: Do we have a second?
McDonald: I’ll second.
Sacchet: We have a second. Let me try a friendly amendment to see whether we’re still within
our rights. If we expand another little quirk to condition 32. Applicant shall work with staff to
mitigate as much as possible the construction traffic access around those trees. I mean does that
do anything? I mean I’m wondering whether, what do you think Alyson?
Morris: We could put a recommendation in there Chair. It’s called…plowing and it’s a system
where you go in and they cut a root system of a tree out to an extent so that you’re not driving on
the root system of the tree and that’s something that we can look in, in an instance such as this
where you’ve cut the roots of the trees so that the traffic over it would not damage that root
system.
36
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: So there are things that could be investigated. I wouldn’t go as far as want to say you
have to do this or that, but go ahead Bob.
Generous: Mr. Chairman there is also a bridging mechanism that they can incorporate it over
root zones.
Sacchet: So indeed there would be something to work with staff.
Papke: Okay, so your friendly amendment is to work with staff to take actions to minimize root
damage to the historically significant trees there?
Sacchet: Yes, specifically by the construction traffic.
Papke: Okay, I accept that.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Yes Bob, you want to add something to that?
Generous: Mr. Chair a point of clarification on that condition 5.
Sacchet: Yep.
Generous: You said minimize, was it eastern movement of the easterly lot line?
Sacchet: The eastern lot line of Lot 1.
Generous: Correct. We don’t want it to go any further east.
Sacchet: We don’t want it further east. We want to minimize that. I mean we don’t want to go
as far as say it can’t be moved but we would definitely want to minimize it.
Generous: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Alright, we have a motion and a second. We have some friendly
amendments.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the preliminary plat for Harvieux Addition with a variance for the use of flag lots, plans
prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. dated 8/04/05, based on the findings of
fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Only trees shown on the preliminary plat as being removed shall be allowed. No trees
are to be removed on Lot 1. Four trees are allowed to be removed on Lot 2. Any other
trees removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
2. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the grading/clearing limits prior to any
construction activities and shall remain in place until construction is complete.
3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for
Lots 1 and 2 at the time of building permit application.
4. The front lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 are the westerly lot lines.
5. Neck/flag lots must, by definition, be a minimum of 30 feet wide. The applicant shall
and to work with staff to
revise the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck for Lot 3
minimize western movement of the east lot line for Lot number 1.
6. If grading will be done, a final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the
Inspections Division before building permits will be issued.
7. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot.
8. Addresses for each home must be posted on Horseshoe Curve and on each home.
9. No burning permits will be issued. Trees must either be chipped or removed from site.
10. Builder/developer must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1991
regarding premise identification.
11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days (Maximum time an area can remain
10:1 to 3:1 14 days open when the area is not actively
Flatter than 10:1 21 days being worked.)
12. The existing erosion control fence drawing shall be replaced with City of Chanhassen
detail plate 5300.
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
14. Any hard surfaces (e.g. retaining walls, patios, decks, sidewalks) that may be needed
shall be illustrated on the proposed subdivision plan to ensure maximum impervious
coverage is not exceeded.
15. The plans shall show the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lotus Lake (896.3) and the
required 75 foot setback.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
16. The applicant shall pay for the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of
final plat recording. At this time the estimated fee is $7,558.00.
17. The developer shall pay full park fees for the two new lots at the time of final plat
recording.
18. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District.
19. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
20. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
21. Extend the silt fence to the north along the west side.
22. Add a note to the plan: All sanitary services must be 6 inch PVC-SDR26 and water
service 1 inch copper.
23. 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.
24. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2005 truck hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
25. All disturbed areas as a result of construction must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
26. Add the following City detail plates to the plans: 2001, 5200, 5300, and 5301.
27. Gutters must be installed on the house on Lot 2 and must discharge to the southwest
corner.
28. Submit a security to ensure that the street cuts are properly restored to city standards.
29. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be
designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will
require a building permit through the City’s Building Department.
30. Maximum side slope is 3:1, adjust 956’ contour north of proposed house on Lot 2
accordingly.
31. Cleanouts are required at all bends of the sanitary sewer service or every 90 feet,
whichever is less.
as much
32. Relocate Lot 2 driveway access to the south along Lot 1 northerly property line
as feasible without loss of the western most 34 inch oak tree.
39
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
33. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the front, side and rear
yards within the subdivision.
34. A cross access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over Lot 3 for the benefit of
Lot 46, Pleasant View Addition for the existing driveway.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
th
Sacchet: We wish you luck with this. This goes to the City Council, it’s scheduled for the 26
of September so if the neighbors want to follow it through the process, I don’t know whether
City Council does take comments or not. Sometimes they do. But basically the public hearing is
what we do here at the Planning Commission and then City Council reviews that and depending
on what the situation is, they may or may not take further comments.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS
PARK, APPLICANT MINGER CONSTRUCTION, PLANNING CASE 05-27.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not really. I do have a few
questions. So I want to be real clear because I wasn’t here when the overall thing was looked at,
and when I first looked at this particular design I was a little bit concerned about how many trees
we’re actually cutting here. I mean I went out there and they’re fantastic trees. I mean there’s
not a sick tree that I could spot. They’re all in really good shape. It’s a beautiful, beautiful grove
of trees here. We’re cutting most of them here that are on this lot. I mean we have a few token
trees maybe so basically in terms of the overall development we balanced that by that, it’s an
outlot that remains wooded and that.
Generous: That is correct. It will be a conservation easement dedicated over this. If Nann you
could go to the overhead. I don’t know it’s difficult to see but if you look at this site, the
significant band of trees in existing conditions run through here. The applicant is actually
putting the shared, the private street on the property to the north so that they’re able to preserve
this area. Then the building will be located back over where it’s more open. There may be some
shrub trees back there but nothing that showed up as significant on the survey, so they are doing
a good job on this lot of preserving the significant trees out there now.
Sacchet: Yeah but my point is actually different from that Bob. I mean what I’m saying is that I
feel they’re cutting a lot there. Yes they’re saving a little sliver there but there’s this outlot on
the north of this whole development that’s going to be preserved, right? What you pointed out
before. I want to be very clear about that because that’s important in terms of balance of this
whole thing.
Generous: Correct.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Okay. Because you know me with trees. The same thing applies with wetland
impacts. They were looked at as part of the overall, and mitigated.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: About the grading there’s a comment and that’s one for you Alyson, that staff
recommends that the swale in the southwest corner of the site be filled to reduce the height.
What swale? Can you just point out what we’re talking about here?
Morris: Certainly. There’s an existing swale at this location. There is a piped outlet that they’re
showing here. Currently this is draining some portion off from Chaska and Mr. Minger is
actually working with those properties to ensure that they take care of their drainage, but when
looking at the details, grading plan review, looking at filling the swale and either extending or
eliminating the pipe depending on how they can alter the drainage through there, we can
eliminate the, either eliminate or reduce the height of the retaining walls required at this location.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you. Then there’s another one, similar one I want to make sure I
understand. It’s towards the end on page 7 there. Staff recommends that the access for Lot 5,
property to the north align with the access to the Minger site. The eastern curb radius of this
access to Lot 5 must be adjusted to accommodate turning radius of small delivery truck. Can
you just help me to fully understand what we’re saying there?
Generous: Mr. Chairman, what we’re saying is that this curb for the private street coming in
come over to this point, and then the access be made like an intersection right here. And so we’ll
have an island on that side and then this will all be landscaping on this side.
Sacchet: Okay. So it’s not this staggered parking lot type of thing.
Generous: Right. They’ll come in at the same point and then truck traffic will be directed
between the two to go to the rear and then auto traffic would come in on this side.
Sacchet: So they would be lined up.
Generous: But they’ll line up, yes. These curb cuts will come all the way up. Additionally we
are looking at them providing a sidewalk from the site out to the street and that would follow the
south side of the private street, and in the future they’d have a connection to the building to the
north.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. I think that’s all the questions I have. Dan you have something?
Keefe: I’ve got a couple. In regards to trash removal. Where’s that located in terms of the site
for trash on the building?
41
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Generous: Currently they don’t show it anywhere on the plans so the assumption is it’s interior.
If they want to put it outside they should provide a building that’s, or a structure that’s consistent
with the building. Through the use of landscaping create an enclosure area that’s screened.
Keefe: So we don’t know the answer to that.
Sacchet: You can ask the applicant.
Keefe: And then again to signage. Is this building going to be signed? I didn’t see anything.
Generous: It may. They have an area on the front of the building.
Keefe: And they’re allowed one sign?
Generous: Well the ordinance permits, based on the area of their unit how big a sign. Because
it’s behind trees you’re not going to have a lot of visibility. We anticipate there’ll be a
monument out on the street frontage just maybe the building.
Keefe: Okay, that’s it.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff? Yes go ahead Kurt.
Papke: On the requirement for the additional islands and peninsulas. How do you count 6
islands and peninsulas in there right now? I’m a little confused as to how you arrive at the
number 6.
Generous: That’s a good one. 1, 2, 3, 4. I don’t know…then she counted this as one area. Six.
Yeah, that would be the sixth one.
Papke: And the rationale for going to 14 in this space is?
Generous: Oh just complying with ordinance requirements because what the ordinance tries to
do is break up asphalt areas on parking and vehicular use areas so we want them to be staggered.
The applicant is actually come up with some good locations for those and we’ll get before the
construction plans come in we’ll get all the details worked out on that.
Papke: Okay. So you don’t anticipate an issue with hitting the 14 around that?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Alright. With that, thanks staff. We have an applicant here? If you want to come
forward. If you have anything to add. If you want to mention your name and address for the
record please.
Patrick Minger: Yes, I’m Patrick Minger. I live at 2218 Lukewood and during the meetings
today a comment was made that you know, in the PUD, in the development we can have outside
42
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
storage and we aren’t anticipating any except the, my renter is going to be moving in here. He
has erosion control supplies. That’s what he sells and growing up on a farm, that’s rolls of straw.
I really don’t want him having rolls of straw in a building like this so I mentioned that you know
I would like to have storage outside, cold storage to put this straw in rather than have it inside. I
don’t think the fire marshal would really appreciate hay inside of a public building anyway. And
so today I had him, my renter come up with what he had in mind to put that in and this is what he
came up with. Just for covering that hay outside and I plan on putting that back in this corner. I
can grab that plan. This will be an island where I propose to do, and I don’t know if you can get.
Put this structure right here along the Chaska side and then put an island here with trees with an
island here looking. The only way you’ll see this, that is from Lyman Boulevard. Once you put
an island here and an island off of this area with trees, you will not be able to see that at all, and
that’s what we’ll get, you know we’re requesting 14 islands. And filling this ditch here,
extending the pipe, which we have to put in because it drains the outlot to the north. Many years
ago when we developed this, we had to install this because of the tiling…and so there is a pipe in
there now. We’ll extend that down. The reason this ditch got put in, Chaska when they put the
addition on…ditch appeared and nobody caught it. This other lot is supposed to stay in Chaska,
so we’re working that out with Chaska and so my goal is to straighten this out as staff
recommends. Extend the pipe out and extend these islands where at this point, one up here and
then around here to basically hide everything from Lyman Boulevard. Other than that I don’t
have any problems with the recommendations of staff.
Sacchet: Questions of staff. I mean how do we deal with something that is not currently on the
drawing, like this shed.
Generous: That’s why I requested that he put it up. Normally you would show it as a storage
area. As part of the site plan.
Keefe: Is it a permanent structure or is it a temporary structure?
Patrick Minger: Well it will be temporary because if he leaves, he’ll take it down.
Sacchet: It will go.
Larson: So like the islands, are they going away?
Generous: What the PUD says it has, outdoor storage areas have to be approved as a part of any
site plan review.
Sacchet: So would this qualify as outdoor storage?
Generous: That was my interpretation that it is the type of outdoor storage. You have to provide
screening and this would be a method that he could do that. The other one would be to put up
wing walls around it or you could fencing with landscaping. There’s berming. Many different
ways you can do it and he’s proposing the use of landscaping with the structure.
Sacchet: And there will be enough room for circulation of trucks and all that.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Patrick Minger: Yeah, that’s pretty to north and south. They will have still plenty of room for
circulation.
Sacchet: Okay, do we have questions of the applicant? Questions of the applicant, no. Alright.
Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. Is there anybody that wants to comment to
this? This is your chance. Alright, I close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission.
Comments, discussion. Dan, you have something?
Keefe: I think generally, you know it’s the first one in this new PUD so, and I think it looks
pretty good overall.
Sacchet: Yep. Any other comments?
McDonald: I have no comments to add to it. It appears to meet all the criteria that we talked
about before at our previous meetings and they’re I think doing a fairly good job to develop a
rather difficult site so no comments.
Sacchet: Anybody else?
Zorn: No comments.
Sacchet: This side of the crowd.
Larson: Well my only question is, is this…tent. But if the city’s okay with…
Generous: And that’s part of the reason I wanted them to bring out at the public hearing and also
we’ll bring it forward at council.
Sacchet: Was it an aluminum shed or?
Patrick Minger: No, it’s canvas.
Sacchet: It’s a canvas shed. So it is kind of a tent.
Larson: Similar to what they put up for special events.
Generous: Little bit more substantial than that. And it would have to comply with building
code.
Sacchet: It doesn’t have requirements?
Generous: It would have to.
Sacchet: It would have to.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Generous: Because it’s larger than 120 square feet.
Sacchet: So it has to comply to building code. And we do allow a canvas type of structure like
that? Didn’t we get into that before?
Generous: Well the ordinance prohibits.
Sacchet: I know we don’t allow the teepee.
Generous: No, that was the use that we didn’t allow. He was making that a permanent structure
when a temporary would have been permitted. Well screening is provided… Planning
Commission and Council, they can say no. We’d rather see walls around this area with a metal.
Sacchet: Do you need a roof over that straw? Because like when you start talking about it,
usually what we do with these things, we make like a wall that is like the same, we say it has to
be the same material.
Patrick Minger: You know the watershed district’s new requirement is to use wrapped hay for
their erosion control. He’s found a nitch in supplying that.
Sacchet: So it should be dry.
Patrick Minger: Yeah. Because the problem is you don’t…
Sacchet: …got seeds in it and they…so it needs to be covered from the rain. Okay.
Larson: Do you put it up or does he?
Patrick Minger: He. Well, I’m a utility contractor. I don’t do erosion control but you know.
Larson: No, I mean the structure itself.
Patrick Minger: Oh the structure. Oh, there will be a contractor come in. The company that
sells it.
Keefe: Are you saying it has to be refrigerated?
Patrick Minger: No.
Keefe: I thought I heard something.
Sacchet: No, you heard the cold. Cold storage.
Keefe: …that’s what I heard because cold storage is actually refrigerated storage in the storage
industry so that’s why I was wondering. Outdoor storage.
45
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Sacchet: Alright. Thank you. The one concern is definitely with that tent, as you call it.
Outdoor storage with a roof. I would certainly want to put in a stipulation that it should be
shown on the drawings when it goes to council. I think that’s probably the balance point. It’s
certainly not a reason to hold it up here from our angle the way I see it. But it should be defined
and shown visible when it goes to council. I would ask for that. Other than that I don’t think I
have any comments. I’m glad to hear it’s in line with the overall beauty framework. Looks like
I missed a good one on that one too.
Keefe: Should we add something about if they have external trash.
Sacchet: Yes. That would be a good one to say if they for trash, is that something that has to be
looked at in terms of like if there’s trash, usually there’s like somewhere a trash thing that.
Keefe: Must be screened from the surrounding areas.
Sacchet: Must be screened, yeah I mean there are city ordinances how that would be handled.
Since it isn’t, we assume it’s inside the building. Maybe you should express that. Something to
that effect. I think that’s a good point Dan. And signage, is that something we need to say
anything about?
Keefe: It looks like they’ve already addressed it.
Patrick Minger: We have to put it out on the access road.
Sacchet: Yeah, we have probably a monument sign or something out there, yeah. Okay, so that
would be just stamped. Alright, unless there’s anything else, let’s do a motion.
Keefe: I’ll do the motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Planning Case
No. 05-27 for a 46,152 square foot office warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell and
Madson, Inc. dated August 5, 2005, subject to the following conditions, number 1 through 39
and I’d like to add number 40. To be should the building have external trash disposal, trash
containers must be properly screened from the surrounding area. And do you want to say
something else about the temporary storage?
Sacchet: Let’s do a second first.
McDonald: I’ll second.
Sacchet: Okay. And then if you could add 41. And I’m open to suggestion and guidance from
staff here. Do we want to make a condition that the outside storage should be shown on the
drawings and be defined before it goes to City Council. Is that a reasonable addition?
Generous: It shall be shown and approved by City Council.
Sacchet: Yeah, and it would have to be shown on this, okay. Alright.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
Keefe: Accepted.
Sacchet: Accepted. Alright. So we have a motion. We have a second. We have an addition.
Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Planning Case #05-27 for a 46,152 square foot office warehouse building, plans
prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated August 5, 2005, 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.
2.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
3.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
4.PIV is required on the building water service.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
6.Fire apparatus access road and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
7.A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant
to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
8.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4.
9.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 that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
10.An additional fire hydrant will be required in the island off the northeast corner of the
building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
11.Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1991 regarding
premise identification.
12.Revise the lighting plan to incorporate shielded light fixtures. Lighting shall be high-
pressure sodium.
47
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
13.Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an
enclosure for each lotdeveloped in the Business Park.
14.All wetland impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Chanhassen West Business Park.
15.All wetlands and proposed mitigation areas shall maintain a 16.5 – 20-foot buffer strip
around the perimeter of the wetlands.
16.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s
wetland ordinance.
17.The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
18.All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the
wetland buffer.
19.Silt fence shall be installed along west property edge behind retaining wall near flared end
section to minimize sediment erosion.
20.Silt fence shall be installed outside of wetland buffer edges.
21.The contractor shall use a Wimco or similar catch basin erosion control BMP.
22.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
23.All erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver
County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements.
24.A NPDES permit will be needed for the site and a completed SWPPP is needed for the site
and should be available at the preconstruction meeting and on site during construction.
48
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
25.The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on
BMPs as needed or required.
26.The storm water pond on Outlot A shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the
development of this site. All storm sewer infrastructure between this site and the outlet into the
storm water pond on Outlot A shall be installed prior to or concurrent with this development.
27.The applicant shall increase the number of trees and islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to
meet minimum landscape requirements.
28.Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the grading limits prior to any construction and
remain until construction is completed.
29.The applicant shall locate additional landscaping at the southern end of the property. Native
species shall be used.
30.The existing swale west of the parking lot shall be filled in to eliminate or reduce the height
of the proposed retaining wall.
31.Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by an Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota and require a building permit.
32.If feasible, the proposed storm sewer west of the parking area shall be eliminated and
rerouted to the storm sewer system to the east.
33.Disturbed areas must be restored to a minimum 3:1 grade.
34.Pipe bollards must be installed around all locations where the pavement grade exceeds 5%.
35.The eastern access to Lot 4 must align with the eastern access to Lot 5. The radius of the
access to Lot 4 must accommodate the turning movement for a small delivery truck.
36.The grey line type shown in the legend should be labeled “by others”, not “existing”.
37.Verify that the storm sewer on the west side of Lot 4 will be constructed with the site plan
improvements for Lot 5 or adjust the line type accordingly.
38.The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots. As
such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9-ton design, and enclosed
within a 40-foot wide private easement. A cross-access easement must be obtained and
recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports
verifying that the driveway is built to a 9-ton design.
39.A sidewalk connection to the public street must be constructed. The sidewalk shall be
installed on the west side of the eastern site access and on the south side of the private drive.
The sidewalk shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
49
Planning Commission Meeting – September 6, 2005
40. Should the building have external trash disposal, trash containers must be properly
screened from the surrounding area.
41. Outside storage shall be shown and approved by City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
th
Sacchet: Good luck with this. It is scheduled to go to City Council on the 26 of September
also.
Generous: Chairman, the final plat will also go to council on that meeting too.
Sacchet: Okay. So it’s going to be preliminary and final all at the same time.
Generous: No, they have preliminary already. They’re just seeing the final plat.
Sacchet: Okay. Oh this is the final.
Generous: They’re approving the site plan within that plat.
Sacchet: And then the final plat is going to go at the same time, okay. Alright.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated August 2, 2005 as presented.
Commissioner Zorn noted the minutes of the Planning Commission work session meeting dated
August 16, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50