Loading...
1987 07 22 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1987 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT ~ REICHERT'S ADDITION, NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION, APPLICANT. Public Present: Name Address Valerie L. Rossback David L. Rossback David J. Rouse Mr. Low ~ayaur R. Schelitzche ~y M. Schelitzche Cynthia Rouse Susan Conrad Cindy Gillman 670 Pleasant View Road 670 Pleasant View Road 620 Pleasant View Road 650 pleasant View Road 680 pleasant View Road 680 Pleasant View Road 620 Pleasant view Road 6625 Horseshoe Curve Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit Request. Susan Conrad: I just have my usual concern about the wetlands and that you're real cognizant of where they end. It appears by the proposal so they weren't clear where they're at but let's make sure we know the definition of where they end and take precautions. At Council on Monday night there was in one of the developments that came up that was adjacent to wetlands, they talked about having DNR post the no wake signs which I think would be real positive in this area with the cattails. Be real careful when you start up motors that the wetland out there doesn't get disturbed and that none of the vegetation is cut. They also, Monday night at the Council, required on two different proposals and Jo Ann I need to talk to you about this, that there be no chemical or uprooting weeds in a wetland area. Today I find while I was doing this purple loosestrife stuff that purple loosestrife is responding control wise to an herbicide called Rodeo and so if we write that into everything it's going to make it impossible for us to control purple loosestrife and we've got to get a handle on it. I just haven't had a chance to talk to the City yet about rescinding what has passed and make ~re that we allow these people in the wetland areas to control their purple Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 2 4Itoosestrife with a herbacide. That requires DNR approval. Cindy Gillman: I think the other thing is with the no wake that Susan brought up, I did speak with the DNR today and it is officially on the map as a bass spawning ground where the dock is going in. That in and of itself is not grounds for stating no to the dock but I think it needs to be thought about and realized that that is exactly where it is and possibly a no wake could preserve that spawning area for the bass. Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: For clarification Jo Ann, is the beachlot in a wetland? Olsen: A portion of it is if you consider this whole area a beachlot. Again, this has all been cleared. Whether that was at one time a wetland, I don't know. David Rouse: Can I make a comment? That is not a wetland as far as I'm concerned. That area has been maintained for at least the last 8 years that we know of so there is no vegetation in the area at all where we plan to put the dock. Noziska: You're saying Jo Ann that the north end of it is in a wetland? ~sen: Yes. It's classified as a wetland on the map and it has the ~finite wetland vegetation. Emmings: But where they're proposing to put the dock it's already open and they're not asking to alter what's there any further? Olsen: Right. Wildermuth: If you take what's considered wetland away from the beachlot portion of it now, what square footage are we looking at? A little less than half? Olsen: It's probably about a third actually. You have the 200 feet of lake frontage. Wildermuth: Is that legitimate to include the wetland figure in the beachlot area? Olsen: It is all part of the lot. It's not a separate parcel. A lot of plans have been permitted in the past where Lotus Lake where the area overall was used in the calculation but just one area was cleared. Conrad: wetland? So on the map the proposed beach where it's been cleared is a _. Low: Can you give us a definition of what a wetland actually is? Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 3 4Itonrad: There's a map that's been prepared by the DNR that has designated where wetlands have been. That's what we use as a guide to say this is a wetland. They're classified. They have a lot of different classifications and we are concerned with a couple of those. We're concerned with all classes. We have a lot of wetlands in Chanhassen and almost every Wednesday night we sit here and look at wetlands and we get a little bit tired of it but on the other hand there is some real value to what they do as you could empathize with when we had the 6 or 8 inches of rain the other night. They do a nice job for keeping the lakes a little bit purer and you know how bad Lotus is. It needs a little bit of help. Olsen: This dark area is where the wetlands boundary is. It's hard to judge because this map doesn't have the streets on it but I would judge that, where it is cleared now will effectively be just outside of the wetland area. Susan Conrad: Jo Ann, I was assuming that this was all in here. That the contour of the lake right here on the overlay map that the wetlands are coming right to that corner. David Rouse: How would the wetlands or how would the dock effect the wetlands at all? You're talking about the use of the dock? The boats running in? ~san Conrad: If there's a boardwalk that goes over it and wouldn't, e motor action moving away from the dock, all those wetlands are kind of ike on a carpet, a floating mat and as boaters turn right there they break parts of it away and as you break away it's starts breaking the whole thing. It doesn't seem like a big deal but eventually... David Rouse: So we're not concerned mainly about the dock, we're concerned about the boats pulling away from the dock? Susan Conrad: Yes. Emmings: And the beach. Headla: The dock we're talking about putting up is just a temporary dock that comes in during the winter? David Rouse: Yes it does. Headla: Let me digress this whole thing for a minute. I asked Ron to look at a different situation at Lake Minnewashta yesterday, did he get an answer to that? Olsen: Yes, they're submitting a grading plan and providing erosion control. Headla: So what he did is somebody went in and stripped the land, they ~ckfilled it right to the shoreline and Monday night we had a nice rain. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 4 ~l of that dirt and everything else went into Minnewashta and now he's going to submit a plan. Now if I look at this situation, if I look at this, so he states that he's going to put in a dock and I've looked at Lotus and say Lotus really is torn up, what incentive do we give the people not to tear that lake up? I just don't see where we have any take. I think the people who put in a dock and canoe is fine but boy you put in boats and you're just going to tear up those lilies and they're disappearing anyway. Mr. Low: They cover the whole bay down there. Headla: They're aren't as many as there used to be. Mr. Low: How long ago is this? Headla: them. I don't know, I've swam in there years ago and there were a lot of Valerie Rossach: But why do we want the lake covered them? Headla: I don't know if it should be 2% covered or 99%. knowledge. I don't have that Mr. Low: The last 8 years that I've lived on Lotus they've been coming out. .....lL.eadla: I see where we say no alteration to existing sites shall be .rmitted and I don't know how we monitor that. If you bring boats in and you go on Minnewashta or Minnetonka where people bring boats in and to a certain extent I think that's beneficial. I live on Minnewashta and I know where I had my dock it's clear. The kids can swim and I have a pontoon boat and there are more fish and more ducks coming in there than ever but I don't know what's good and what's bad. How much do you clear out? Valerie Rossbach: The City of Chanhassen just put a public landing on Lotus Lake. They must expect they're going to put more boats on the lake and have constant usage and yet you're saying the residents should not have a dock because our boats might dig up the lilies. I don't feel that that has justified ... Headla: I think you have every right to have access to the lake and the people at the public access. Mr. Low: In answer to your question on what prevents damaging that shoreline further, if you live on the lake, we use that area for the same reasons and we have the same concerns. It's not as if we're going to come in... Headla: My observation is that people who live on the lake tend to really take care of it. Does anyone have any guidel ine as to how much we can police this? _nrad: It's tough. We're really trusting the neighbors and the residents. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 5 eeadla: I guess what I'm looking for is we should not allow power boats to come right into the dock but I don't know how you police it. I would like to see something like that in that area but I don't know what you do on that. Emmings: You've got a problem too Dave because the ordinance already allows them to have, they can take boats in there now. They just couldn't have a dock before and they couldn't have boats overnight but now they get to have three boats overnight but I don't think we've got any grounds to tell them what kind of boats they can be. Maybe we should but we don't. Headla: Powerboats coming in there and maybe all we can do is just put a minimum wake. That means they come in at idle period. Maybe that's a reasonable thing to do. Mr. Low: That's what we would prefer anyway. David Rouse: Would that be posted on the dock? Headla: We had bouys that said minimum wake, I guess I would kind of like to see that and I think you have a vested interest if you see somebody abusing it, you would probably be the first ones to notice it. I guess the other one, I think Susan had a very good point on that loosestrife. Is it Round-up or Rodeo that you're talking about? ~san Conrad: Rodeo. Round-up wipes everything out. Headla: It wipes everything out that's why I asked that. Susan Conrad: No, Rodeo is aquatic approved and I don't want to say we should use that but the DNR is saying it's safe for water and I think that's real hopeful. Headla: And you really have a lot of them on the lake. I drove by there and I was impressed by the amount. Is that a herbacide? Susan Conrad: Yes. Headla: Then we probably should put in something, unless DNR approved and maybe that's it. Wildermuth: I was going to ask if the Near Mountain Lake Association has any connection with the Near Mountain subdivision? Mr. Low: None whatsoever. David Rouse: The notice that we got, that everybody got, if you want to take a look at this, notifying of the public hearing, I think if you guys would be a little more explanatory in these notices it would kind of curb possibilities that may arise because of this. For one thing Near Mountain ~ke Association, the name itself did bring some concern on what we planned Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 6 4Ib doing on our outlot. If you could say for example that we're talking about one dock 40 feet long for the use of eight lots. Explain it a little more clear I think would be better for everybody. I don't know what you've done about that, what your policy is but we had to let people know, inform people before this meeting of what we planned on doing. We had to do some footwork because of that. Mr. Low: People were concerned when they heard through all the angles and stuff that we had enough time in the last month or so that we received this notice that certain parties here... Conrad: I'm not sure if it applies totally here but I do agree. I've received some notices for public hearings and based on the notice Jo Ann, I don't have the foggiest idea of really what's happening. Why don't you tell us what Staff feels. Olsen: Usually we just give the location, what it is they're going for. Conrad: But what it is they're going for is real brief. It's a conditional use permit or whatever and it really doesn't give somebody that may be interested, much of a background. They really have to take another step. They have to call City Hall to find out what the issue really is. Olsen: We can be more detailed. &nrad: I've received quite a few of them and literally I don't know what's ~eally happening and I think there should be a little bit more information in terms of what it is that's being requested. Three more sentences. Noziska: I would imagine Jo Ann with the addition of one more line here. It says, the purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Near Mountain Lake Association, Reichart's Addition, to receive a conditional use permit for recreational beachlot on property zoned blah, blah, located at Outlot B. Perhaps if it would have said, Near Mountain Lake Association, consisting of eight homeowners or something like that. Have a line. Right away you would have known that it wasn't going to be a marina with big ocean going ships pulling in as I can imagine some people when they see that name might have conjured in the back of their minds. Conrad: It could have been the eight homeowners. It could have been asking for one dock and one canoe rack. Those types of things would have given perspective to the issue and I guess I'm not picking on this one specifically. I've seen a few and if you could add a little more detail I think it will be a service to the community. Mr. Low: Talking about that Rodeo, is there more than just that one type of plant that's beneficial to control? Conrad: That's primarily the one that we're looking at. e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 7 4Ik. Low: Or is there going to be another one. I just wonder if there's a way we could word it to include other types of plants that inhabit the shoreline and then also, rather than just specifically Rodeo, maybe something, how long do know this is not harmful. They say it's not harmful. Headla: I think we could say based on DNR approval. Olsen: Right and not be specific. Emmings: This slow no wake designation, when that was done by the City Council on the Pemtom, what does that mean? . Requesting approval? It says the City requests a slow, no wake designation for the area. Who designates it? Olsen: We've contacted the DNR and they haven't gotten back to me yet. Emmings: Is that who we have to talk to? Olsen: I think so. I'm not sure. I haven't done it before. I think it goes through the DNR because they have control. They would have to approve it and I don't know if they supply... Em m i n g s : So as far as the con d i t ion we go, we w 0 u 1 d be ask i n g 0 N R to designate it as a slow, no wake area? ~sen: Right, that's how it was worded by the City Council. Emmings: Then, as far as use of chemicals or dredging in wetland areas go right now, is that allowed anyway? Olsen: No but a lot of these people do it without contacting the City. Emmings: People wanting to put chemicals into the lakes, they have to go to the DNR now don't they? Assuming it's outside a wetland area and get a permit. Olsen: Yes. Headla: I'm looking at this, just to be consistent with what happened at pemtom, going through the water lilies and going through a spawning area. Again, I think we ought to be consistent and maybe a slow, no wake is the way to do it. Emm ings: designate do it and something I agree. I just wonder, I don't think we have the power to that as a slow, no wake area. It looks like we have to ask I just wonder if we're putting out a condition that they do or that the City Staff do something to get it designated. DNR to Headla: I think that's a good point. We've got bouys on Minnewashta. I don't think they're minimum wake though. They're danger bouys. They don't tlfet the standard but I think Carver County puts them out. Do they have Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 8 ~Uys on Lotus Lake now? Conrad: They used to. They don't anymore. Headla: Do you know who put them out? Conrad: The DNR. No, I'm wrong. They put out bouys for bass spawning area. They didn't put, if you're talking about a wake. They used to line your area with bouys out there and then when there was really literally no public access, they said we're not going to maintain any of the fish in the lake until there is a public access. Now we're back to there is a major public access and they haven't come back and designated the spawning areas anymore but they never really did anything on the lake other than that. Anything else Steve? Emmings: No, that's all. Conrad: This is a real good case where a beachlot is the right thing, this is the classic case of where a beachlot is the right thing for eight homeowners who are across the road and live in front of a wetland. This is a real good use of a beachlot. My concerns are with the issues that have been brought up tonight. Mr. Low: I have a point perhaps and I don't know how valid that we have on it, but it was addressed in the Covenants. ~rictlY forbid doing anything with the vegetation with the area that we're requesting the dock permission. the Covenants The Covenants exception of the Conrad: I don't have any problem with the dock, it's just fine. I have problems with the motor boats associated with the dock because that's where you get into the trouble. Obviously when you have the motor boats you have the wakes and you have all this other stuff so I think my concern is what it does to the neighboring wetlands. I guess I would like to see us pass this through tonight but I would also like to see if Dr. Rockwell would go out there and tell us something about that area Jo Ann because I really do think this is a wetland area and I would like to have her perspective on these things that we're talking about. The wake and the bass spawning area. Maybe she can't make a comment on the spawning area but it's a sensitive area. I don't know how to wrap of those concerns. I think the homeowners will be sensitive to the concerns. Administratively how to deal with this, we could approve this tonight but we could ask for a wetland alteration permit but I don't know that it's wetland. Head1a: Couldn't we have approval tonight but not go to Council until Dr. Rockwell has had a chance to review it and get a recommendation? Noziska: We've got no alteration. David Rouse: May I make a comment? We've been working on this dock for a long time trying to get it in and finally realizing that we needed to 4IJntact the City. We went through all the steps it takes to get this dock Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 9 e, I would request that we not wait another City Council meeting. I would like it to be brought to them on Thursday if we possibly can. The City Council meeting is on a Thursday right? I would like to see it brought forth on that City Council meeting and not have it postponed then and brought to a later date. We've been waiting all summer for this. Mayaur Schelitzche: If we would have applied for this maybe two years ago, would it have been necessary to go through this process? Olsen: You wouldn't have been able to have overnight storage. It was more restrictive. Mayaur Schelitzche: All I'm talking about is the dock. We bought our land 7 or 8 years ago and we applied by the Covenants and we didn't build on it until, I built it myself 3 years ago and now we're living out there and some of these people have gotten out here within the last 2 or 3 years and my point is the Covenants. A lot of study went into those. A lot of thought went into those Covenants. We abide by those Covenants and in order to kind of work through the City Ordinance, we spent almost the whole summer trying to go through this and we're into the end of July now. Gay Schelitzche: And we have agreed to abide by those Covenants that we purchased the land. Conrad: We probably work longer up here on the ordinances and reviewing ~em. Our other concern is precedent. When we review an issue and pass it ~ong, legally speaking if we treat you a certain way, every other group can be expected to be treated the same way and you've got to be consistent and that's why we review these things. If we grant this to you, whatever that is and I'm not sure we're saying we're not but if we do it, then we, as a Commission as saying we have to grant to every other group. We're looking for consistency in how we operate and how we review all these wetland issues. Every Wednesday night or every other Wednesday night we're looking at a whole bunch of wetlands that are being altered. The community has spent a long time deciding years ago that wetlands was one of those things that might help improve the quality of the water. David Rouse: We understand that sir but I'm sure you read our Covenants and that was all, we understood that when we were trying to fight for this. Conrad: But going back to your question if you would have applied for an outlot three years ago, you wouldn't have been granted any docks so now with the current ordinance you are permitted the dock so I think the timing for you is probably better than three years ago. The other factor is, and I guess you're aware of this but the Ordinance really does supercede your Covenants. We know what your needs are and we're not trying to contrary to those needs, we're just trying to be very thoughtful of what the essence of our ordinance is saying to us. Headla: We seemed to have stalled a little bit on the power boats and the 4I'ke, do any of you own one that you would be water skiing behind? Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 10 4layaur Schelitzche: I do. Headla: I was thinking maybe we should just limit the use of power boats until Dr. Rockwell could come out. Valerie Rossbach: If this Dr. Rockwell tested the soil and finds that it is a wetland, what will that mean? What's the outcome then if it's determined as a wetland? Emmings: You may need a Wetland Alteration Permit. Conrad: It may force you through another step and basically you could be back talking to us. What we do, because we're not scientists at all, we use some people that are experts in the area and they go out and review a wetland and they tell us if there is any functioning value to that wetland. So if it's doing something or it should be restored, then we pay attention to that and we set some guidelines based on what Dr. Rockwell, in this case, is telling us and there are cases when she will say it provides very little value. Cases when she will say there is a value and would make recommendations. More than likely the chemicals and no wake and those issues will probably be in her recommendations. I think the sensitivity would be to the power boats coming into that area. That's a real sensitive area down there at that end of the lake. Mr. Low: I would also suggest the one issue with the power boats, the "'board/outboard situation is the fact that would possibly improve that ~tuation. If you presently have a powerboat and can presently get on the lake, if a powerboat can't get in with the depth, you basically have to wade in and get the boat closer disturbing more situation than if... Mayaur Schelitzche: You have to go slow in that area anyway. Conrad: Especially this year. Again, I'm all for the dock there. I think that encourages the good use of the boat. I guess going back to my own issue, I'm concerned with how it effects the beach area and the associated wetland. That's one I have a little bit of a problem with. I don't know how to deal with. Headla: Did we establish the dock would be altering the area? Conrad: We don't know that. The motion could be contingent on the fact that it's not part of a wetland. Noziska: Could you repeat number 6 again? Emmings: Basically Howie, what it says is that they can't go to the City Council until Elizabeth Rockwell has reviewed the area and we know whether any of the active parts of what they're doing is in the wetland. If it is, then they've got to come back on application for a Wetland Alteration Permit tlffore this goes. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 11 _ziska: You want to insure that the area they're going to use actively? Mr. Low: We're already actively using the area in terms of swimming. Emmings: The beach area too. If that's in a wetland, then either that wetland boundary ought to be shifted or they should have a permit to use it but something has to give there because that's got to be looked into. We don't have any way of doing that as we sit here tonight. Noziska: Jo Ann, you did not look at that specifically or did you not tell us that where they're going to put the dock is not in a wetland? Olsen: It's out of the wetland vegetation. I can go out there with Dr. Rockwell to determine if there actually is a wetland area. Emmings: And if she says it isn't then they can go right to the City Council. Headla: Jo Ann, do know Dr. Rockwell's schedule? Is she really pushed? Olsen: Sometimes she is very busy but she usually will make a trip out here pretty quick if I ask her to. I'm sure maybe next week she could get out there. Conrad: She tends to get out relatively quickly. 4Itmings: I'm further not persuaded by rush. They've had their covenants for 10 years and while I think it must be frustrating to live on the lake and want a dock and not just have it now, they could have come any time and I think it's incumbant upon us to consider these issues rather than satisfying their desire for a dock as fast as they can have it. Hopefully, Dr. Rockwell will get out before the City Council meeting and say, I think there's a good chance that she's going to say that the wetland has been so altered already that you might as just regard the wetland border as the border that exists out there now. I have a feeling that's what she is going to say and then you go right to City Council and get your approval. I think you ultimately will get what you want. David Rouse: What you're basically proposing is that you do not allow a dock on any wetland area currently? Noziska: You need a wetland alteration permit. David Rouse: If it is wetland area then we can not put a dock there. Emmings: That's what our ordinance says. You can put a dock out there but you have to get a wetland alteration permit to do it. Mr. Low: with it. It's another step we have to go through. I don't see any problem e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 12 4Ilmings: We just approved on the edge of Lake Minnewashta they want to put five docks in there and they had to go over wetland to get to the lake and we approved all those. It's not that big a deal. Noziska: It's really just a matter of doing it properly. How long has it been cleared out? David Rouse: It's been cleared for eight years that we know of. Maybe longer. Wildermuth: I moved into the area in 1972 and it's been there, that way since then. Conrad: I think we're going to find out more from her than just that issue. I'll guarantee you it's a non-functioning wetland right now but we may find out a little bit more. wildermuth: It's increasing the run-off rate. Conrad: I don't think the motion does that. I don't think the motion as stands... Headla: I would just like to it pass. I think the wording that Steve used we could use on Minnewashta and be very consistent. ,-,mings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ~proval of Conditional Use Permit Request #87-13 for a recreational beachlot with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Article 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. Specifically, as part of this condition that there is no use of chemicals or dredging in wetland areas without a Wetland Alteration Permit and/or DNR approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of one dock and one canoe rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. The City request a slow no wake designation for the area from the DNR. 6. The site be reviewed by Dr. Rockwell before going to City Council and if she determines that any portion of the beach area or where the dock is located is within the designated wetland, that the matter come back on application for a Wetland Alteration Permit. .1 voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 13 e PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SEPTIC AND SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM SETBACK FROM A WETLAND FROM 200 FEET TO 150 FEET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, APPLICANT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report regarding the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Conrad: When have we granted the variances? Are those variances? Olsen: No, they all came in under the old ordinance regulations. Conrad: So, we're still pure under the new ordinance. Olsen: Yes but where it will ca tch up to us is if those are developed within the time period. We have never really had to enforce it yet where a development contract could have been after two years, whatever the new ordinance says is law. Wildermuth: What thinking went into the 200 feet? Olsen: It was right kind of at the last minute one of the Council members said let's change it to 200. '-'nrad: That's not my understanding and I guess I would like to table the ~sue. My understanding is Bob Waibel who helped and got that ordinance, got that figure from some specific referral agency. So it wasn't arbitrary, it was recommended and I guess wha t I would 1 i ke to do is table the issue to find out. I think you're going to have to talk to some of the wetland folks. Maybe even Bob Waibel, wherever he's at, and find out what the rationale was. It certainly sounds like the experts are saying 150 feet but I would like to see why, it wasn't my understanding that it was an arbitrary naumber. It had some foundation. Maybe there's good reason to change it back to 150 but before we do I would like to find out a little bit more about the 200 to begin with. Noziska: It's certainly not a pressing issue. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to table amending Section 5-24-13(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. All voted in favor of tabling the item except Steve Emmings who opposed and motin carried. Emmings: I just don't see any reason not to proceed with it. We've got our City consultants telling us it's enough and the DNR ordinance for lakes only require 150 and I don't see any reason not to approve it. Olsen: Our record has it that it was still 150 at the Planning Commission ~d was changed at the City Council. Is that correct? Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 14 ~nrad: Not my understanding. The first person I would go to is Hank Sosin. He has a very good memory and then you may have to go to Bob Waibel and if that proves of no source, then I think we can review that again. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL 'BU'SfNESSAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CR ..!l. AND WEST 78TH STREET, JAMES COMPANY, APPLICANT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. Conrad: What does condition 14 means again Jo Ann? Olsen: The Engineer stated that there's a ponding area on the large plan that you have on page 2. This ponding area has been referred to by the engineer as temporary ponding area and we need to have a feasibility study to determine. Charlie James: I have with me here tonight Tim McCoy. He's the project architect and he can speak to any questions that you have regarding the building itself. I think to expand a little bit, if I can just go randomly and make some comments here. The last thing that was mentioned here, the temporary status of the storage pond. The drainage on the property, the entire property out there now drains into a culvert which I'll show you on the picture over here. What we're proposing is right now on existing 78th ~reet there is about a 24 inch culvert that goes under the road here and ~is whole property, there's a watershed point along the crest but the southwest portion of this property all drains into that culvert, goes under the road and goes on Mr. Burdick's property where it finds it way down and into a ponding area here. One of the things that is happening, as I understand it is that Kerber Blvd. is going to become a urban segment and there will be curb and gutter put in as a part of the City's storm water detention plan so there are three options that present themselves to us. One is to retain on-site in an area that we have provided over here and what we would be doing is basically gathering the drainage over here and then on the other side here we provided a ponding area and there would be catch basins in here and basically we would retain the historic rate of run-off. Control it to the historic rate. There would be on-site basins on this side here. All of that would be collected and put in this culvert to go under the street. The City has the option as I understand, when Kerber Blvd. is upgraded, of acquiring some ponding areas down along the railroad tracks and a substantial portion of our site then, that water will be taken down that way and thi s site, we can then ei ther decrease the size 0 f the pond or do away with it. Down over on this quadrant of the intersection where the city kind of puts the storm water management plan, there's a pond area down here so the little bit of run-off that comes off of this site then can be piped from this point where the culvert is over to that area or if this whole entire area of the pond can be piped down to that area so basically what we've done is provided three different scenarios for the city and we might have some input on that storm drainage plan that BRW is developing when it _mes but we're confident that we can handle all the drainage on all our Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 15 4Itoperty in anyone of three different manners. When Jo Ann was talking about the landscaping plan, there may have been some misunderstanding. I guess what I wanted to point out is that our landscaping plan as it is shown on the plan here is in compliance with the new ordinace. The question is, when this feasibility study comes along, for instance we've got a tree every 40 feet and it's got to be continuous planting and that kind of thing. Apparently there's additional landscaping that is part of this downtown project and would be everyone's hope, Staff and mine, that when this street alignment is constructed that whatever we do here will visually integrate with what's being proposed downtown so when this feasibility study is in and they have got their landscaping proposals completed, then we can do something with our site here to compliment what they're doing or there very well may be some overlaps in the area but I guess I wanted to make it clear that less you be confused that we are in compliance now. The only issue is will we be, there will be additional landscaping all along here as a part of this new roadway and we just want to interface what we're doing with that so it all looks harmonious and like it was planned. As far as the issue with the highway department goes, what I'm proposing is that I'm willing to donate this 80 foot of right-of-way and this is being required because when TH 5 is widened, the additional right-of-way will come off of the north side of TH 5 so that will place the intersection of TH 5 much closer to existing West 78th Street. We were ready to file a plat over a year ago when the first time we were told this wasn't going to happen then we were told it was going to happen so we've been going on and on and around for months. It's been like pushing a rope on a flat piece of table. I'm willing to donate ~l of this right-of-way, this 80 feet here if I can get this 25 or 40 feet, ~atever this distance is in here, back and use it. The issue of this access here is also going to be a part of this feasibility study but the reason that this access is here is because of Mr. Burdick's concerns about access to his property and his claims about reasonable access being maintained to his property. So I have a draft agreement with Mr. Burdick that says when this becomes the new alignment, we're going to come in here and cut down the pavement to 30 feet in width and since the road is not actually built on the section line, I will replace enough asphalt on my side to bring it up to 15 feet. We're going to cut this thing back and make it a private driveway that will service both sides then I'm going to build this connection here that both of us will share and I will give him easement through here which will provide access to his property at this point here. The only thing that's holding that up is Mr. Burdick would like it to be a three party agreement with the City involved and the City can't sign it until their in a position to vacate this portion and that is in the process. The County has approved it. They've submitted the papers to the State and then we were just notified a week ago that what we thought was all County right-of-way actually starts right here and that the State's right-of-way comes up under some really old document and comes up here a ways and cuts this corner here then shoots across CR 17 and then comes back down to TH 5 again so we've been in conversation with Mr. Crawford of MnDot and they feel that because what we're really talking about here is a swap of right-of-ways that this should not be a problem to convey this back to us but it's a very lengthy process and they have to hire appraisers and I have to buy it back 4IJcause at some point they bought this right-of-way. It's a very Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 16 4lamPlicated procedure but in conversation with him he felt that he could expedite this and I guess what we would like to do is go ahead with the preliminary plans and approvals so that when this matter clears we can go ahead and commence the project. I guess I'll stop my monologue there and respond to any questions that you might have. Olsen: I can address the landscaping and drainage. As far as the landscaping, what we meant was that he might not necessarily even have to provide this landscaping because the downtown development will be providing a strip of landscaping along there which includes the trees every 40 feet and the shurbery so he might not even have to provide that so he doesn't have to provide all this and then just have another strip that's not necessary. As far as the drainage, the drainage pond that they're proposing is approximately right here and then there is a proposed ponding area for the Burdick's property and then over in the Eckankar piece and Saddlebrook has their ponds right here. There are two alternatives for the drainage from this site. One is either to pipe it over to this pond or to pipe it over to Burdick's. It eventually ends up in the creek or evantually to Lake Susan. Today we were going over the draft of the feasibility study and the option that we will be recommending is to go over to the Eckankar site because it retains more water and you can avoid the conflicts with Mr. Burdick at this time. Conrad: One thing that I heard that really doesn't have bearing on this but it's just of interest. Mr. James said that when TH 5 expansion comes in '-"s going to throw right-of-way quite a bit to the north. Is that a ~rprise? Is that a new piece of information? Olsen: No. We've always known that. Conrad: Because I just remember dealing with Mr. Burdick a great deal on that right-in little access down there. That's always been a question in my mind but Staff knew... Olsen: We always knew about the improvements. It's always been clear that any additional right-of-way would corne from the north. Siegel: what is the architectural theme? Is it wood or shake? Tim McCoy: In terms of the exterior material? Siegel: Yes. Tim McCoy: What we're thinking at the present time is that up to the height of the 8 foot would be parkay that would run around the exterior of the building, it would be all masonry construction. probably something like concrete block foundation with looks like stone, rough cut stone material. You may have some brick accents in there like some fans and so forth. Above that where it's dotted I think on the elevation plans, we're thinking of using stucco where we could build those gables where we wanted to get a 4Ifttle more volume to the structure and also do something that with the Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 17 _ble forms would be a little bit more consistent with what you had in the downtown plan. It also takes a building that's about 296 feet long and give it a little more visual presence rather than building something that's 16 feet high for that expanse. We would be using stucco on that and also the signage ban because we can build that out of wire weight steel and stud framing members rather than trying to hold up masonry for those large areas. Then on the pitched roof gables, we're going to be using a standing seam metal roof or a stan roof I think is what you're interested in using which is something that almost looks more like clay tiles but they come in various colors. So that basically will be the two materials, stucco and the standing seam look and also the masonry on the lower portion. Emmings: It says no signage will be allowed on the gas canopy. Did we have that same restriction on the one down on Laredo? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: So we're being consistent with that? Olsen: Although on the Q-Superette, when we did that and it ended up having two signs allowed. They allowed a sign on the western side and the south side but we made that recommendation. Emmings: I noticed there's an open court in the middle there, is this thing ~ing to be built in stages or do you intend to build the whole thing at one Wme? Charlie James: The intent was to build it all at one time. I guess a lot of this is going to be a function of the street process with the Highway Department so what our intent is now is to have, in discussions with Staff and the way we would like to approach this is to have approval and building permit issued when that matter is resolved. If we get into this thing, they propose that horizon on this thing could be 18 months. It's just a horrible process. They have to get all these appraisers in and they said all their appraisers are busy on 394 and I said why is it when I'm trying to give this away I'm being put through the third degree but if you were condemning me the shoe would be on the other foot. I'm trying to give you this right-of- way so if it looks like this horizon is just going to be dragged out forever Tim has discussed with me that there is an option that you could explain where we could build the east end of the building and it will support itself in terms of if you look a t the dr i veways and everythi ng el see I f we choose to go that option then at that point we would come back to the Planning Commission, Staff, whatever and say hey, look, this thing is going to take so long that we would like to phase our project but that is not our intent at this time. Emmings: If they get a building permit for the whole building, if they would decide to go with phases, do they have to come back or not? Olsen: _me. Not normally when they come in with phases if they maintain the If it's everything that has been proposed and approved, no they Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - page 18 4Iln't. If it's an additional phase that was not reviewed. Emmings: So if they're going to do less than they said they were going to do, they can do it without corning back but if they're going to do more they have to? Olsen: Right. Emmings: To me, that bothers me a little bit. I guess I would like to see the whole thing go up like it's proposed. I don't really have any problem with the building but if it's not going to be put up all at once I guess I would like to see it again. Also, when I just looked down at this and I see the impervious surface calculation, when I just look at it with my eyes it doesn't look like it's possible and I wonder if the City has verified those numbers and how they were calculated? Olsen: I did a rough calculation and I didn't figure it all out but it came out pretty close to that. Ernmings: Okay. I wonder does the City routinely verify those numbers? Olsen: I always do as close as I can with the building area and the parking area. Emmings: So this building and parking area only covers 713% of the piece it 4Itts on within the roads? Olsen: I believe you're including Outlot A aren't you in your calculation? Tim McCoy: The outlot? Nothing that is not within the heavy border line of the site. Basically what I ended up doing is doing it dimensionally from what we had with the building and the surrounding walkways and so forth. When we get to an area like the gas pumps or an oddly shaped thing, I broke it down into all kinds of little geometric areas and calculated the areas of those and I believe Jo Ann that I did give you and Barb a color coded outline. Charlie James: It was the subject of a staff meeting and that's why we went back. Originally the property line was going to go to the center line of the eastern most driveway easement and we expanded the property to corne into compliance with that so that has been calculated. It was the subject of a staff meeting. They have color coded exhibits in their files that calculate this area precisely and we specifically went back and figured the site to be exactly in conformance with this. I know that for a fact. I can promise you it's on the money. Conrad: It doesn't look 713%. It looks like 913%. Emmings: It does to me too. I am. This convenience store ~ere, that eastern building, Apparently staff is satisfied and if they are, and gas station, how much of the eastern half does the convenience store take up? I'm just Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 19 4larious about the number of units that are in here. I'm just curious what other businesses you see going in here. Charlie James: We usually have the usual clients that we deal with in these things. Typically what happens is we'll have like a dry cleaners, a video rental place, pizza place, maybe a chiropractor, dentist, realty office, insurance agency. Tim can point out there, what we've done is we wanted, there's some little architectural things that Tim can explain what we're doing with the building but it looks from the air there like that whole end of the building where the convenience store is located is all roofed over developed area but actually underneath that roof there's a little picnic area in there with three tables. It's adjacent to that landscaped island and we've got our tables along there and the whole thing provides covered walkways so you can get from this courtyard that separates the structure in the middle and breaks it up and then there is outside table area and the convenience store itself is about 2,600 square feet. Tim McCoy: Located entirely under this roof gable here and the outdoor eating area that Charlie James referred to is up in this area adjacent to the arcade. Down in this area, adjacent to the convenience store, what we have is an interior area where we intend on locating all of our utility meters and so forth so there might be a double door situation where utility men can have access to those meters. Go in so we don't have something hanging off the side of the building. There will be trash enclosures built up against the south end of the structure. Something I think appears in 4Itur elevations is more or less a little shed structure. Emmings: I don't know what a track room is in number 5? Olsen: I have to admit I don't know exactly what a track room is either? Emmings: Do you know what a track room is? Charlie James: No idea. Tim McCoy: I think that's for the sprinkler service to come into the building is my understanding. Just like your water meter room or whatever. Charlie James: To me, I don't think, if I could just make a comment here. I think it's unusual that a requirement that the building be sprinkled be a condition of a site plan because whether the building is sprinklered or not is a function of the building code and within certain sizes and types of construction of buildings that you can build within the code and not have to sprinkle your building and it's techically possible, is it not, to build a building of this size and to build it of non-combustible materials. Steel studs, this sort of thing with proper separations with one hour ratings and this sort of thing so you don't need sprinklers. Sometimes the fire protection people they pass these plans around and everybody gets a chance to comment and these guys want the optimal kind of situation but it is, I think it really is a fucntion of the building codes and how the person ~ooses to build the building. They can build the building and be in Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 20 4IlmPliance with the City Building Code, State Building Code and not sprinkle that building. I'm not going to get brain damage over it but is. Building Code, Uniform If they want it sprinkled, I don't know what a track room Conrad: I don't think there is such a thing. I went to the Fire Inspectors comment and they said they wanted a sprinkled trash room. Emmings: Are we routinely requiring that every building be sprinkled or sprinklered, depending on your choice of words? Olsen: Now with the new Fire Inspector we are. With the daycare center, that has to be sprinklered. Emmings: I think that's different. Olsen: with the other Retail West, that is now sprinklered. Emmings: We added that in late and for some reason. Olsen: I think it was something they could give us in return for moving the building back. Emmings: Moving the building back because there was access concerns or not? Not really. .adla: It wasn't up to the next building. sprinklered. I think that's why we wanted it Emmings: This building sits out there very isolated. I don't know. Maybe our policy needs to be reviewed there. What he's saying makes sense to me that it is a function of the building code and not really, unless there is some specific planning thing. If it's sitting next to a place where we're making dynamite, we may have more concern but seeing it's sitting out there all by itself and it sounds like all of the materials are non-combustible. It sounds to me like a concern of the building code and not the Planning Commission but I don't know. Otherwise, I like the plan. I think it seems real reasonable for the location and everything. Charlie James: I've been through this before and most recently in Burnsville and usually this is really what you find. I'm going through a building project in Rosevill, Minnesota, a supermarket up there now and what you're finding is it's really a matter of how the local building official chooses to interpret the code. In some cases, what happened out in Burnsville is we placed fire hydrants in certain locations then the code allows some give and take and they said you don't have to sprinkle the building. Then when we went to build the second phase, because of some configuration problems with the site and we were not able to get a driveway completely around the site and there's a provision in the code that says they have to get fire trucks around a building so that one thing. The guy 4IfYS, this building you've got to sprinkle. I said why? He said because we Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 21 4lan get our truck into your parking lot but we can't get it out without backing it out and I said, do you mean to tell me that in the event of the rare occasion if we have a fire in this building you're going to cause me to spend $20,000.00 to sprinkle it so you don't have to back your truck out when the fire is over? So these are really matters that are subject to the local... Emmings: Whim. Charlie James: Whim of the building inspector and I question whether this is appropriate. Emmings: I notice in here he's required to have a fire hydrant at every entrance to the building. It seems like there might be some overkill here. Conrad: Howie, you have comments on issues like this. What do you think? What about sprinkling? What are the requirements in here for? I don't know if it is a function of the site plan review. I know you like sprinkling. Noziska: Yes, I do as a general rule. Sprinkling or fire resistant compartmentization are the two things. One or the other. We don't need any more challenges for our Fire Department than we already have but then our Fire Department builds a wood shed to maintain one of their fire engines in. I can't figure it out. How anybody with good conscience can park a vehicle of that cost in a wood shed I don't know but yes, as a general rule I think "'at either a sprinkling or fire resistant structures make a lot of sense. ~pecially if they're a community on the periphery of the Twin Cities such as we are. I guess whether or not it belongs in the site plan review, I don't know. I think that's kind of getting down to quite a bit of nitty- gritty. I realize that site plan is to discuss all of this stuff but that's maybe going beyond what we should be discussing but at least you know how we stand on fire. Wildermuth: I think it looks like reasonable use of the property other than leaving it vacant. We could make a park out of it. Headla: What color is the exterior of the building? Tim McCoy: It would be natural finish in terms of the masonry. Generally the brownish block is kind of a ground out block. Noziska: You've got two choices. It's either kind of gray or kind of red. Headla: I just don't want another white castle, that's all. On the last page there where it's signage, when they start putting signs above the frontage do they need any approval for that? Olsen: They have to come in for a separate sign permit. Headla: For each store or what? e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 22 earlie James: what we typically do in a center like this is we work with a sign company into establishing a criteria and we say the letters, we're going to insist on cutout letters and they can't be any taller than 4 inches and they have to backlit or something like that. Can we corne in with a criteria like that and say this is going to be the criteria for everyone in this building and get it approved once so that every time we sign a lease these people don't have to corne in? Olsen: We normally do that but you still have to have a permit. We still have to make sure that the signage meets within the measured requirements. Charlie James: Is that Planning Commission or administrative? Olsen: No, you just corne in to the office. Headla: So if we approve this we aren't going to deal with the signs. 01 sen : No . Headla: On the north side of West 78th, what is all that space going to be used for? Olsen: It's an 80 foot right-of-way and what that will include are sidewalks and bikepaths and landscaping. ~nrad: Where's that? Olsen: To the north. The realignment of West 78th Street. The bike path will most likely, it's proposed on the southern side of the new West 78th Street and I believe they are now talking about a sidewalk also on both sides so it will include off-street paths and bikeways. Headla: And this is consistent with the applicant? He doesn't have a hard time with that? Olsen: He's not involved with it. It's our property when it becomes ours. Headla: What about Mr. Burdick? Are we affecting his property directly? Olsen: No. Headla: Not when we start making a private drive? Olsen: The vacation process, that does involve Mr. Burdick. When they do the final vacation. The vacation actually doesn't impact Mr. Burdick. What does is what is done with the right-in/right-out and again they wish to maintain it as a private drive and work with Mr. Burdick. Headla: Has Mr. Burdick seen this? .sen: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 23 ~adla: And he hasn't voiced any objections? Emmings: He was here. He's been here several times when we looked at this and his concern was always access for the corner piece but I think he and Mr. James have been talking about how they're going to use that. Headla: I was wondering if he saw this and if he is actively included... and apparently he hasn't. Emmings: I don't think it is different than what we looked at last time when he was here. Charlie James: This whole issue of the private drive, I don't care whether that's there or not. I don't need it but I volunteered to give Mr. Burdick. Okay, when we originally came in here, we were told this wasn't going to be allowed here and so at that time Mr. Burdick had a plat before this body where he was going to create three lots and he was told by staff, Bill Monk at that time, that he was only going to be allowed a certain number of access points and one of those access points was going to be at the lot line point. These first two lots would share an access point. That point was precisely there and that is the reason we put in this driveway because in talking about it with staff he was threatening this big trouble and I thought, oh boy if there's big trouble then all of us are going to get thrown into this and this can get into the courts and I may never get a building permit and the City'S, it's going to be havoc so I volunteered, I Aid we'll give an easement through here where the road comes to a point ~ere we can get perpendicular from a good planning standpoint. My engineer tells me you want to have a driveway hit the street at a right angle so we've got an arc here and an arc here. There's the straight away so that's why that road is at an angle like that and doesn't come up like this. That point was precisely determined by Mr. Burdick's original plat and I said I'll grant him an easement. I said I'll help you out. I'll give him an easment so he can get across my property and that way, even though the road is up here it isn't any further really to get to the driveway you were going to give him just this little stretch right here plus we platted this as an outlot so nothing would ever get built there and there would be unrestricted sight or vision or whatever you call it. The next thing I know all of a sudden there's another plat with five different lots. Well, I mean I'm sorry but I can't you know but that's how that got to be where that is. This thing here was something that was discussed at great length at the City Council meeting and I know that there is still come question in the minds of Carver County about this. We're trying to say it's a right-injright-out but I guess what we're trying to make them think is hey, this is not a street. This is not like the full impact of a street coming to this point. What this is more like is a driveway entrance so please try to picture Southdale or Ridgedale where you've got these parking areas and circulation areas off of public streets that are private where people can get in and I said I think we're all going to get in trouble if we start thinking this is still remaining a major public street and we're going to downscale this thing, cut down the blacktop so that it doesn't appear to the public to be a public tl5reet. I think I've said enough. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 24 ~adla: The only other one I have is 14. Did you actually object to it or were you just commenting on it? Charlie James: Our preference would be that the ponding area that we're providing across the road go away. We've got 5 acre feet of storage over there. It's a waste of some very valuable land in downtown Chanhassen particularly when you've got existing ponds allover the place so the question is, do we want all these chuckholes allover town full of water, breeding mosquitoes so we would prefer that the thing would go away and that BRW could address this thing so Kerber Blvd. and the curbing that the City would adopt an overall comprehensive storm drainage and storm water management plan for the downtown that would shoot the water down. You've got ponds that are 413 feet below existing areas that are 413 feet below the super elevation on TH 5. You've got natural existing areas for storm drainage so for us to go digging holes 18 feet deep to create more of them. We'll do it if we're forced to do it and we'll cooperate but what I'm saying is it really doesn't, from my perspective, make a heck of a lot of sense. I guess what I'm showing is we can handle the drainage on our site if that's wha t we have to. In the absense of a comprehens i ve storm wa ter plan by the City we can control the run-off on our site to it's historic predevelopment rate. Noziska: Have you talked to BRW about that Jo Ann? Olsen: Yes, just this morning and as far as the feasibility study is .ncerned, for the overall storm water management for the whole downtown ea which Barr Engineering worked out which was what you looked at that wetland alteration permit. That pond is still necessary. Charlie James: I've got a feeling the City probably wants to run some water off of West 78th Street into my pond. Olsen: No. The ponding area will all still be either be going to Mr. Burdick's property or to the Eckankar site so. Conrad: A couple quick questions. There are sidewalks even though I can't see them there are sidewalks. Is there a plan for sidewalks going entirely down West 78th? Olsen: Yes, all the way down the road. Conrad: How do I know that? Olsen: It's in the feasibility study. Conrad: Of what? Olsen: We haven't gotten it yet from BRW for that. We just saw it today and it will be all along the south side and then also on the north side. ,ings: Bike path too? Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 25 _sen: The bike path will be on the south side and then it goes down that Market Boulevard, that new street that cuts down between the Dinner Theater and the new holding pond. Conrad: Some day we're going to want a sign out saying this is Chanhassen at the entrance there. Who's property is that? Olsen: Mr. James owns this property to the north. Conrad: I'm saying Jo Ann that someday Chanhassen, this is the entrance to Chanhassen from the west. Headla: Actually Chanhassen starts farther to the west. Olsen: Actually right now there are no plans for signage here. TH 5. It's all on Conrad: My point is, if Staff doesn't care it's okay with me but I think this is an entrance to downtown. Now where we have control on our CHADDA group, they're suggesting signage and we have some kind of control over that because there are a couple of entrances on the other side of town. We have one entrance on this side and I'll bring that issue up. I'm not going to pursue it any further. I'm just saying this is an entrance and if Chanhassen wants a sign there, I don't know if they should be considering that. you've got an option out on TH 5 and I don't know. I'm not going to Ake a big deal out of it. I just wanted to throw that at Jo Ann and maybe ~e City Council should be thinking about that. When we say there's no signage on the gas canopy, there's inconsistency. CBD we don't want it because we don't want it there but we have granted the signage on the gas canopy at Quik-Stop or whatever the gas station is so what's the difference? Olsen: Our ordinance allows signage on the gas pumps and so what we're saying is just we don't want the signs like on the Holiday station. Conrad: So why did we allow it over there? Olsen: with Q-Superette? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: I believe that was Council. I believe staff was saying no and then in negotiation. Conrad: We're still playing by the same rules? hidden over there? Because they're off of TH 5? Is that because they're I don't understand that. Charlie James: As Monty Hall used to say, let's make a deal. This business about no signs on the canopy, we can live by that. I don't know if I have the right to object to any of this stuff or not. If it's possible I guess we may very well sprinkle the building. We have not determined that yet. I tljess I'm saying I don't have a problem with no signs on the canopy and I'll Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 26 eree to that but I would like to have the issue of the building being sprinkled one that is addressed by compliance to the building code and whether we can, we're still going to run into your fire guy anyway. You may say, fine you don't have to but when we bring the plans into him, since they came from him anyway, he's going to say I'm interpretting the ordinance but it bothers me a little bit that that is in there because ordinarily what they make you do is put baffles up and you run sheet rock all the way to the deck and you enclose the thing off into little cells and build with a certain range and everything and sometimes we sprinkle and sometimes we don't. We don't have any hard and fast rules. It's really a function of the design of the building and materials that are used and this sort of thing. Siegel: But this is just referring to a requirement for a trash room to be sprinkled. Wildermuth: There's nothing in here about sprinkling the whole building. Charlie James: No, it says the building shall be fully sprinkled. Conrad: Why is that in there separately? Wildermuth: Because under the fire protection deal that's a section. Charlie James: Anyway, just let the record show that I raised that issue or 4It was discussed or something. Olsen: I can confirm that. I will definitely check into that. Charlie James: Because it may become a non-issue. We may decide we want to do something with materials in this building that are going to force us. There may be a trade off here. We'll say we want to build this in such a way that we're willing to sprinkle it but on the other hand, if we're going with stucco and steel studs and masonry and all this kind of stuff, it may not. Olsen: A lot of times they don't know until they get the detailed plans, they don't know what the building is made out of. Charlie James: Exactly and if it's simply a matter of putting it into mine because they made somebody else do it, that's not fair either because I'm not designing my building exactly like somebody else. Olsen: I don't believe that's why they did it. It's probably just to protect it as fully as possible. Noziska: One thing you might keep in mind when you're discussing metal roofs is they melt. They're as susceptible to fire damage as wood. They just don't provide fuel to the fire but if you're comparing the fire resistance of metal versus the fire resistance of say heavy timber, the 41tavy timber will char and actually collapse slower than will metal because Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 27 ~e metal gets around who knows, 1,500 to 1,700 degrees. It doesn't turn into a molten blob but it looses it's strength. I can well image Jo Ann that that's what the Fire Department will say maybe we better sprinkle our building so that's just a consideration. Also, the sprinklers will affect fire insurance considerably. It's a trade-off in both ways. It's just not a bad option. Charlie James: That's exactly what we do. What we do is have people who underwrite our buildings look at the type of construction and sometimes people say you save a lot of money if you sprinkle your building but that's as if, for instance if you put a supermarket in an old existing building and it's a remodel or whether you build this building brand new without sprinklers and you have a knock out panels and the access and all this kind of stuff in the building and a one hour rating or two hours whatever. Then that incremental increase in insurance isn't as great. I don't know if you're getting the distinction I'm making there. It depends on whether you're comparing retrofitting an old building and should we add sprinklers for this use or are you talking about building a non-sprinkler building to code as provided in the code and what the insurance rate would be on that and here there's a question of building a building out of wood and god knows what else and then just throwing a sprinkler in it. Instead of using steel studs of sheetrock and all that, build it out of 2 by 4 and plywood deck and all this kind of stuff so that is another issue that we looked at is we looked at the overall cost of the thing to see what's it going to cost to insure this thing and what is the design impact on the building. That's why Asay it could very well being a moot point but I was just observing that ~'s unusual as part of the site plan. Noziska: Since we were just kind of talking among us kids I thought that would be something that you should keep in mind. Also, if you're really looking at fire resistant compartmentalization, that's different than sticking sheetrock on either side of a steel stud. Yeah, that particular assemblage has a fire resistant rating but it's still not too great. If you're looking at cast concrete or precast or bigger block, those types of materials won't burn and provide a true fire resistant structure so it all gets reflected in the insurance cost. I just offered it as a comment. Also, you're little duck pond is 16.7 feet in depth. That's a pretty good size duck pond. I agree with you, I don't know exactly why we need that dug out in the middle of Chanhassen for but the mosquitoes got to breed somewhere. Conrad: Back to the gas canopy. Are you telling me that our sign ordinance doesn't consider canopies in it and that's why we're bringing this out here or are we applying CBD standards to a non CBD area? Olsen: It's not necessarily a CBD standard. Again, it was something that we recommended also for another business district. Conrad: I'm looking for consistency. I don't mind that standard but I do mind inconsistency. Allowing one to have it and this one not to. e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 28 ~sen: It was recommended that the other one not in the other business district but they permitted the two signs. Conrad: What's the rule? There's one free standing sign allowed per property and also one sign on one side of the building? Olsen: One wall sign. Conrad: So we have one free standing and one wall sign, that's what's permitted? Olsen: For each unit. Right. Then you're also permitted motor fuel price signs if they are afixed to the fuel pumps or made an integral part of the ground low profile or pylon business sign permitted in that zoning district so they are permitted. The signs on the fuel pumps or you can have the gas price signs. Conrad: Okay, so they can have a free standing sign for this development? Olsen: Right. Conrad: And then they can have a wall sign but not on the canopy? Olsen: Right. What we're trying to avoid is where you see a lot of gas canopies with the signs just plastered allover it. Again, we haven't ~tten into the details of the sign. Were you planning on having signs? Charlie James: with the canopy, I won't allow a flat roof canopy like they put in allover. I want the canopy to be constructed of the same materials that we're using on these roofs because we're spending a lot of bucks in essence to put the double roof over this building to get that volume that Tim is talking about so it's not just some flat roof, low thing. This is in essence kind of a double roof structure so what our intent is is to put the same sort of pitched roof over the canopy so we don't have that flat aircraft carrier deck out there. Conrad: Do you have a problem with this restriction on it? Charlie James: No. Conrad: Okay, then I'll drop it. I don't know if I solved it for the future though. Do we have a problem or not have a problem? Emmings: Of course we have a problem. You can't get something to go on the walls... Conrad: I'm going to put this one on your back Jo Ann. Corne back and tell us about this gas canopy deal. Olsen: Sure because we don't have specific regulations on it. e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 29 ~nrad: That's all my questions. Headla: What about the point that Steve brought up about doing it all at one time? What's the probability of you only doing part of it? Charlie James: As I said earlier, I guess if we came back in here and we were only going to do part of it I guess we would just come back in and I'm willing to do that if you've got a concern about that. I'll just come back in and say this is the way it's going to be. The Highway Department says it's going to be 2001 before they get this piece of paper from this side of the desk over to this side. Headla: That would be the determining factor? Charlie James: Yes. The whole thing is, I don't know what they do over there in Golden Valley. I see bodies go in that building over there and there are cars parked in the parking lot but I think they all, I better shut up. If we can't build the thing as shown, if we opt to split the building, I guess we will come back. Conrad: Jim do you want to amend your motion to require the applicant to come back if the structure is not built as proposed. Wildermuth: Yes. ~ldermuth moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #87-7 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received July 1, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until a partial vacation of the West 78th Street right-of-way is completed (as shown in Attachment #7) or upon vacation of the portion of Carver County right-of-way and a letter from MnDot stating they are agreeable to the conveyance of their controlled right-of-way. 2. Staff and applicant will work together on the landscaping plan for it to meet city requirements and conform with the feasibility study. 3. A heat and smoke detection system throughout the building that is audible and connected to a central dispatch station. 4. The building shall be fully sprinkled, both the store level and the loft area. 5. A sprinklered trash room is required. 6. Fire lanes shall be provided in front of each door and three spaces shall be provided in front of the open court. e Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 30 e 7. Fire hydrant placement shall be as follows: a. One at each entrance. b. One on the west side of the building in the alley around the building, one-half the distance to the end of the street. 8. No signage will be allowed on the gas canopy. 9. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 10. The trash enclosure shall be screened on three sides with a 10% opaque screen one foot higher than the trash receptacle. 11. There shall be no unlicensed or inoperable vehicles stored on premises and no repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. 12. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel or no sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles. 13. 10 foot easements be placed over all existing utilities in areas of right-of-way to be vacated. 14. The "temporary" status of the storage pond on Lot 2, Block 2 is subject to the feasibility study being completed by BRW along with the City Engineer's approval. e 15. Submittal of a satisfactory Grading and Erosion Control Plan, especially as it relates to fill and ponding areas. 16. The applicant will bring in a revised building plan to the City Council if it can't be built as proposed. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings: On page 21 I made a motion and number 4 reads much softer than I recall making it. My recollection is that that 4th condition isn't what I said or it isn't what I recall saying. Olsen: As far as the condition that I put into the report I did make it stronger. The Wetland Alteration Permit does not permit the dredging or removal of any cattails. Is that what you wanted? Emm ings: matter. it. Well, that's not what I remember either but maybe it doesn't I think they go the message and I think that was the whole point of ,adla: It's different dredging and going through there with boats. I Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1987 - Page 31 4Itink we talked about that. I think you eluded to that too. Dragging boats over the cattails. Emmings: It's always hard to remember because we talked about it so much and said it so many different ways but I think the point was to give him the message that we're certainly, with this wetland Alteration Permit we're... Conrad: Simply granting docks and not approving the dredging. Emmings: Specifically not approving any dredging of cattails and that's the way I remembered saying it but I think maybe I'm remembering my attitude or my tone more than I am what the specific words said. Maybe it just came out softer. I guess I'll leave it the way it is. Conrad: This issue has already been reacted to by City Council. Wildermuth: Was the dredging permitted? Olsen: No, they specifically prohibited and then they also added chemical kill. removal of cattails, they changed it to cattails. any dredging or removal of cattails They changed it to dredging or removal of any material not just Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Commission meeting dated July 8, 1987 as amended. ~ziska abstained and motion carried. Minutes of the Planning All voted in favor except OPEN DISCUSSION The Planning Commission discussed the Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, July 27, 1987 in which the Planning Commission would be present to discuss the Lake Susan Hills West PUD application with the City Council. They discussed looking into penalizing developers who don't conform to development agreements and who do work before meeting with the City and receiving the proper permits to do the work. There was also concern about the quality of building going on in the city and the possibility of improving the Uniform Building Code to bring those building standards up. Howard Noziska stated that due to his job taking him out of town more frequently he would be submitting a letter of resignation from the Planning Commission. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim ,