1989 05 03
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 3, 1989
-
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad
and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B
WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY
PETERSON.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
Brian Kihle: Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Kihle at 234
penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I'm not going
to be changing the flow of the water or anything. I just want to backfill
up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that's
basically why I want to grade into that area.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote
to approve it.
Ellson:
I agree. I don't see any problems.
Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it.
I think it's a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it
now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted
the same? Is that the best definition we can give?
Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To
specify exactly what we want.
ElIson: Aren't you basically saying not altering it?
Olsen: Right. We just don't want the lawns.
Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if
you mentioned a certain type of plant, that might be as natural 5 years
from now.
-
Olsen: The natural vegetation does come back if it's left.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 2
e
Headla: And then they can't mow it or anything like that? Okay, so that
transfers from owner to owner of the future?
Conrad: Which is a good question and it was my only question. How does
that...
01 sen: It's recorded.
Conrad: On the plat?
Olsen: The permit is recorded with the lot at the County so anyone who
purchases a lot in the future hopefully will research the title.
Headla: What's the mechansim? How do we know like it's, it seems if you
have an owner and you have a requirement, how does that get into that
deed?
Olsen:
It's recorded against the lot.
Headla: What the Village records against that? Oh, that's how they do
it.
Conrad:
I have nothing else.
Is there a motion?
e
ElIson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-2 as shown on the Site Plan
dated "April 25, 1989" with the following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the proposed
grading areas and the Class B wetland prior to any improvements to the
site.
2. The proposed lawn area as shown on the site plan shall be limited to
20 feet around the front of the house and the remaining area between
the house and wetland shall be maintained in it's natural state.
3. The area between the driveway and the Class B wetland shall be
maintained in it's natural state and not be seeded up to the edge of
the wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MICHAEL CARMODY, SOUTH LOTUS VILLAS TOWNHOMES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE
ADDITION:
eA.
PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.475 ACRES INTO 14 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS
AND ONE OUTLOT.
B.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6 AND 8 UNIT TOWNHOME BUILDING.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 3
e
Public Present:
Name
Address
Paul Struthers, Architect
Jannette Lapin
Mike Carmody
Bobbie Kussard
Curt Robinson
Dean Potables
Clutz, O'Brien, Struther
140 South Shore Court
Applicant
7604 South Shore Drive
202 West 77th Street
200 South Shore Court
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Jo Ann to just discuss, the ordinance requires 28 spaces and
they're providing 63 with 7 visitors. Quite a difference between this one
and 2 weeks ago. Now I'm really confused. 63 parking spaces versus the
required 28. Maybe the applicant will have more comments.
Olsen: Again, they're counting internal parking. Outside. Same thing.
It's including the garage parking and parking outside for the cars.
e
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
Paul Struther: I'm Paul Struther with the architectural firm of Cluts,
O'Brien, Struther. We did the design drawings for th~ project. I have
some boards here. This is TH 101, South Shore Drive. The project is
entered off of South Shore Drive in the corner. A private drive along the
north corridor with several drives to the buildings. The project consists
of two buildings. One 6 units. One 8 units. We're developing the
project and some site elements such that we can interface the multi-family
with the adjacent single family residential. Maintaining the existing
berm. Planting heavy of plantings of Douglas Fir. Plantings along TH 101
and South Shore Drive. We would like to leave the view to the park open.
Staff has recommended some additional plantings and we'll certainly
accommodate that. The parking that you described, visitor parking.
There's 2 here, 3 here and 2 here. The rest of the parking that we showed
in the count is on the 2 car garage aprons as well as storage within the
garage. We've included 2 car garages to minimize the amount of cars
stored outside the garage. Most families have 2 cars so at times they'll
be contained within the buildings and not be visible to the neighbors.
This board represents a view of the building to develop these as manor
homes rather than row houses to again provide some interface between the
multi-family use and the adjacent single family use. Building materials
are brick and redwood siding with asphalt shingles. There were a couple
of times that I'd like to clarify with staff based on the recommendations
they gave us today. I haven't had a chance to talk to the City Engineer.
They all really refer to or relate to site utilities. They've asked us
to upsize the sanitary sewer and the water service and I believe that with
some discussion with them, they may be anticipating some things that
aren't happening here. For example, I think they may be contemplating all
of the sanitary sewer coming from a single unit as opposed to a variety of
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 4
e
stubs. In addition to that, the building inspecto~ had mentioned a need
fo~ fi~e sp~inkling of this building which is not ~equi~ed given this use
and that may have some impact upon the City Enginee~'s wate~line. One
othe~ item I'd like to cla~ify was the extent of the cu~b that's ~equi~ed
fo~ the p~oject. The statement in the staff ~ecommendations indicated
B6l2 cu~b th~oughout and it's ou~ unde~standing in ea~lie~ conve~sations
with the City Enginee~ that that's ~equi~ed on the p~ima~y service d~ive
and not on all of the edges of the bituminous. It's uncommon fo~ instance
to have B612 on a ga~age app~oach. I think with those exceptions, we'~e
willing to accept the staff ~ecommendations but we just want to be su~e we
clea~ly unde~stand them.
Jannette Lapin: Hi. I'm Jannette Lapin. I live at 140 South Sho~e
Cou~t. I'm one of the single family dwellings in the a~ea. I guess we
just had some conce~ns. The develope~s we~e kind enough to send us the
Covenants and thank you. The Covenants had some compliance things that
mentioned the landscaping and no sheds, the maintenance of the exterio~,
etc., etc. I guess we we~e a little unclea~ whethe~, is a convenant
something that can always be enfo~ced or is it something that if these, is
it 14? These 14 people can get together and say, oh we want to change ou~
covenants now. Now we want to put sheds up and now we don't want to
maintain the ya~ds anymo~e. And now we want to pa~k boats on the side of
the lawns or whatever o~ is it something that can be enforced fo~ the life
of the townhome?
e
Con~ad: Good question. My unde~standing is the covenants can be changed
if they get ag~eement and I'm not su~e what kind of ag~eement they have to
have. If it's 100% o~ a majo~ity o~ whatever.
Jannette Lapin: I guess that ala~ms some of us who have lived and been
around inexpensive townhomes like these in the past. That it sta~ts out
with good intentions but as the life of the townhome gets longe~, you get
mo~e and more ~ental p~ope~ties and the exte~io~ and eve~ything can go
downhill. Is the~e anyway, the~e's no way you can enfo~ce something like
that fo~ the life?
Con~ad: Steve, anything?
Hanson:
I don't know of anyway. The covenants a~e among themselves.
Olsen: We do have ~egulations ove~ sto~age sheds and as fa~ as pa~king
boats and things like that. The City itself has ~egulations cont~olling
that. We can not enfo~ce covenants. They will be inidividually owned
townhomes.
Jannette Lapin: That was my othe~ question. Is that something that can
be changed too? I ~ead all this in the convenants and it sounded just
wonde~ful but if 14 people can just get togethe~ and change that, I mean,
and that's what can happen.
~ Olsen: They would still have to apply the same cont~ols that we apply to
your house as fa~ as sto~age sheds and boat sto~age.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 5
e
Jannette Lapin: Yes, we had to meet a lot of very strict covenants in
terms of our siding and our roof and the square footage on our house and
things like that but us as homeowners, we have a lot more invested than
the townhome people will have. I guess that's why we were a little
alarmed because there is a really dramatic difference between the price of
these townhomes and the price of our homes. We have a lot more at stake
if they let the townhomes deteriorate.
Conrad: Good comments. Any comments on what she had to say?
Mike Carmody: Yes, I'm Mike Carmody. If you check Article 8, Section 3
it gives the remedy in that article. It gives the Association the right
to give an owner who does not comply with the covenants and the rules of
the association 10 days notice. Then it also gives the Association the
power to go in and do necessary repairs and file a lien against the
property. Also, as far as the covenants, the covenants run for 30 years
and then they're automatically renewal for 10 year increments after that
so they can not be changed, I believe after that 30 years it's 90% have to
agree.
Conrad: So they are fixed for 30 years?
e
Mike Carmody: Yes, the covenants. They run with the land.
words, through the heirs and...
In other
Jannette Lapin: How are they enforced? Just basically neighbor to
neighbor?
Mike Carmody: It's enforced through the Association's right to lien the
property and foreclose a lien. I've done several associations and this is
by far the most stringent covenant and restrictions that I've ever done
because we had a concern for property values in the area. We actually had
a neighborhood meeting with the owners of the property so we could go over
all this to find out what their concerns were. We tried to address all of
those concerns.
Conrad: So in your mind or based on the covenants, they can't be changed
for 30 years and then only with a 90% agreement?
Mike Carmody: I'm trying to figure out where it was. When you read it
quite carefully, it does say that.
Jannette Lapin: Well, 30 years seems pretty good.
I read the covenants.
I didn't see that when
ElIson: Maybe it should be spelled out so you are comfortable with it.
If they can just add it to that point to make it really clear to someone
moving in.
e
Mike Carmody: At this point this is just a rough draft of what we're
proposing. After they read through the whole thing, if anyone has any
questions regarding those documents, we're open to talking to them about
it.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 6
e
Conrad: Did you get a copy of the covenants?
Jannette Lapin: Yes I did.
Conrad: They seem, based on what I'm hearing, it seems pretty strict and
I think basically I don't think we're going to get people who want to
change things in there. I don't think that but then again it can happen
and it's probably to your benefit to read through the covenants again to
see if they are stated that 30 years it won't change. I think that's
pretty strict. It sounds pretty much in your benefit.
Ellson: I have a question of Mike I guess it was. The association, does
it have to be just the people that own the townhomes? Couldn't it be some
neighbors that are across the street too? In other words, they'd be part
of this voting since it would somewhat affect them as well.
Mike Carmody: The Covenants that are recorded along with the deed apply
to all 14 units. The association does have the right to annex another or
deannex with another association. That's pretty typical of an
association. However, there isn't anything in the immediate area that
would probably be affected by that.
e
Conrad: I don't know that you could give away, the association is for the
property owners in that block so to give somebody outside any voting
share, I'm not sure.
Jannette Lapin: I used to live in a condo and I think that would pretty
much be outrageous. We'd vote for them to do a lot of expensive changes.
I just wanted to clarify if this landscaping was really going to go in or
if they were like imaginary bushes or something.
Conrad: They have to. They submit a landscape plan and we enforce that.
Jannette Lapin: Well, thank you very much.
e
Bobbie Kussard: My name is Bobbie Kussard. I live at 7604 South Shore
Drive. I'm a new resident to the neighborhood. I recently lived in the
Chaparal twinhome development. I lived there for approximately 8 1/2
years. When we first moved in we were the first home on Chaparal Lane. It
was beautiful. It was wonderful. Everybody worked together. It was a
great association. I was involved. We got out because it went to hell,
pardon my french. People didn't care anymore. We couldn't enforce
anything and it's getting worse and worse. I intend on staying in my new
home for quite some time. I'm sure their development will look beautiful
as ours did when it first went in. I can't imagine that they will have
enough money in their association to do the exterior maintenance. The
insurance for an association, I was on that with ours. It's tremendously
expensive because you have to have the common grounds insured. I just
can't see this place, they're selling the units for $75,000.00. Most of
us, our homes are $160,000.00 to $300,000.00. I'm concerned about the
value of my home. When I want to sell, perhaps when I retire and those
things are going to be ramshackles so that's a big concern of mine. I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 7
e
can't see how 14 units can get enough money in an association. We had to
repaint every 2 to 3 years and it was very costly. I admit we had some
200 units. They're only talking, we had a lot of money coming in as well.
They're not going to have much money coming in. I'd like to see expensive
multi-unit houses. I know that those lots can't take anything else but
some sort of multi-unit but I think $75,000.00 an apartment is
outrageously low for what we've put into our homes. That's it.
Conrad: Thanks for your comments. It's an interesting question. To
make sure that this type of development and the association does have
enough money through their association to maintain the maintenance. Now
it's to their, typically it's their benefit to have that much money in
there because again, their units, they have to buy and sell their units so
I think the 13 others are going to, I think there's internal pressure on
each other to maintain a budget that's going to take care of the
maintenance. That's my experience talking to other people who live in
developments like this. It does become a problem and I don't think I want
to, the associations and, it is an area that can create some controversy.
Do we staffwise, does the City get involved in making sure that the
associations dues are enough for the ongoing maintenance? That's really
not our role is it? I'm sort of answering the question.
e
ElIson: Do we have any say in what their exterior is or anything either?
We can't say we recommend aluminum siding or make it a condition?
Olsen: That's been done before.
Emmings: In this case the question maybe is a little different than in
some other ones because this thing is part of a larger PUD and should the
people that got the PUD and got to build the single family, can they break
this off and leave it just with it's own association or should they
somehow have to account to everybody who's within the PUD?
Jannette Lapin: In one sense I think the City Council...would have to
police it but in the other sense I feel like you're the one that decided
on the land. Zoned the land the way you did and we pay a lot of taxes and
we're just really concerned about the property values and our resale
values. In that sense we feel like the land was zoned kind of strangely.
Maybe that's something we should have been more aware of when we bought
the houses.
Conrad: When
built there.
to you but.
it relieves
maintenance
it came in, we said he knew exactly what was going to be
This is not a surprise to staff or us. It may be a surprise
Michael, tell us a little bit about association dues and how
some anxiety maybe from the neighbors if you can on
issues.
e
Mike Carmody: We're applying for FHA financing and they have to approve
all of our association documents...so we are putting together a proposed
budget for everything that relates to insurance of the building.
Maintaining of the grounds. Maintaining the exterior of the building.
The maintaining of our roofs. The composition of the driveways. It's in
our proposed budget based on for example a 5 year painting cycle, every 5
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 8
e
years...30 years on the driveways plus we allow for maintenance for
sealcoating. Insurance, we know exactly what all of these costs are going
to be.
Conrad: what do you think the monthly maintenance?
Mike Carmody: It's going to be $55.00 initially plus the association in
anyone year can raise that by 5% plus they have the, they can levy a
special assessment to do improvements if necessary. That special
assessment will be by two-thirds of the votes of the association. Also
someone was wondering about how long these covenants ran. It's Article 9,
Section 6. It states in there that these covenants and restrictions run a
period of 30 years from the date of recording them...
Bobbie Kussard: But a two-thirds vote can also change that. One small
item in there that they want to change, they can change it with a
two-thirds vote. The 30 years, believe me you guys. It's all typed up in
paper and stuff but once those people own the houses and they're the
bosses, they can do what they want. They can rewrite that anyway they
want. I've been there. I've seen it happen.
e
Mike Carmody: I don't think anyone can see what will happen 10-15 years
down the road but because of the location, we feel that the property
values in the area are going to increase with the park which will
eventually be built there. The lake access. There's going to be an
incentive for the property owner, the people who own those units, to keep
them up because they're going to increase in value and they're going to be
a desireable unit. Also, I've done a number of associations and I've
found that the problems that they have out in Chaparal are related to a
couple of things. One, they're a 4-plex. In other words, an over
building of 4-plexes during that time plus the size of the association. A
large association. Smaller associations, I've done a 32 one out in Eden
prairie and that's going on 6 years now and that's beautifully maintained
so there's a lot of pride in ownership. It's next to a park and
residential area. It has a lot of similarities to this site. This is
even more desireable than that location. It's a factor of a lot of things
but I think the prime thing is that people perceive that they've got
something that's unique and in a good location and they're going to take
care of it. If there are what, 500 or 600 other units in one
associations, there's going to be a big turnover. There's going to be
less incentive because of the resale for people to take care of them.
There are condominiums associations that are disasters and the problem
there is the condominium market is so flooded with resales, it's
overbuilt. It's something that's unique. It's built of quality and good
architecture and a good location. You can see examples of it allover
town that are generally well maintained.
Conrad: Thanks. Other comments.
e
Curt Robinson: My name is Curt Robinson. I live at 202 West 77th Street.
I've lived there about 16-17 years so I've seen the property since it was
a cornfield. I was wondering if there was any consideration given to
opening up West 77th Street into South Shore. Right now it comes to a
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 9
e
dead-end. There's approximately 20 feet from where West 77th Street ends
and South Shore connects there.
Olsen: That was discussed during the PUD approval and it was decided not
to open that street. It will still remain closed even with this
development.
Curt Robinson: Okay. Can you tell me, and this is kind of unrelated but
when there will be shurbery and a berm put in there? People are driving
over the grass constantly now.
Olsen: I would contact the engineering department and Jerry Schlenk. You
could let them know that or I can give them that message.
Curt Robinson: Would you please.
ElIson: It's not planned to have berming or shurbery right now is it?
Olsen: No but they did have a barricade didn't they?
Curt Robinson: No. They've never had anything. We put a couple fence
posts up with an old rag and a rope hanging on it.
e
Olsen: I'll have them look into that.
Curt Robinson: Thank you.
Bobbie Kussard: Do you object to the children taking their bikes over
that? I have two children that are bike age and I don't want them going
out on TH 101.
Curt Robinson: No, I sure don't because mine do it too.
Jannette Lapin: I have another question. Will that ever come up again?
That street, will that issue ever come up to open the street again?
Conrad: Only if somebody brings it up. I think when the PUD, there were
so much neighborhood concern that when the PUD was approved, that street
was closed but anything can change anytime. On an annual basis somebody
can bring up, even more often than that can bring up requests so nothing
is forever but at this point in time, that street is the way it is unless
somebody applies to change it.
e
Dean Potables: My name is Dean Potables. I live at 200 South Shore Court
and I'd like to discuss that further. I have another subject besides but
at our meeting last week it was discussed that that was part of the plan
that that street would be opened in order to alleviate some of the traffic
going out onto TH 101. When you have 14 units there, you are going to
have a lot of increased traffic in and out and having the access from
South Shore Drive directly onto 77th is going to give everyone a more
direct route to downtown. When they redo TH 101, I think it's going to
become important that that street be another area traffic flow and not to
stay blocked off. And we discussed that in our meeting, town meeting last
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 10
e
week. Now I believe that was one of the things that was mentioned that
was in the plans to be opened up. So I guess some clarification on that
would be beneficial.
Olsen: I can look into that. That's news to me. with TH 101 that might
have been suggested.
Dean Potables: Okay. The other subject that I wanted to address, and
this is a little bit again for the developers, there's some wording in
here about additions to the existing property in the covenants. I'm
unclear as to what it is and I guess I'm just bringing it up for further
clarification. What is the intent of that, it says Article 2, Section 2
where they can add to the existing property if they get two-thirds vote
and a merger with an association I understand but what is the other intent
of that? Are there plans one, to either rezone some of the single family
into multiple family units such as the ones adjacent to the unit now? Is
it planned that it could expand? Is that what this is giving them the
ability to do or is it intended to, if there were another association
among us homeowners for example, that we could possibly combine that? I
guess what I'm looking at is, is the 14 unit the limit or can they with
something like this rezone more and continue building more townhomes.
e
Conrad: I think that just gives them the ability to do that. It doesn't
preclude it. Whether they have that in design or not. Again, a lot of
your agreements try to give you as much flexibility as possible to do
something.
Dean Potables: Do you interpret it to say that it does give them the
ability?
Conrad: It does. More than likely, based on the surroundings, I'm not
sure but again...
Olsen:
It wouldn't be able to.
Conrad:
I really don't know. Michael any comments on that?
Mike Camrody: There isn't any other land that would be available right in
the area here. This is the only piece of land that we own. A lot of this
is standard format for an association from an attorney's draft. That's
all I can tell you. I suppose there is a potential to merge with another
association. That's not planned or any other land. We can't annex land
that we know.
Conrad: Even if they wanted to, I think it would be pretty unlikely.
Let's say there was a residential house across the way that they wanted to
turn into a 4-plex or 8-plex. Unless there was total community support,
the City wouldn't go along with that.
e
Dean Potables: What if it's currently just a lot that's for sale and
zoned residential?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 11
e
Conrad: If it's zoned residential, again what we try to do is cluster,
from a planning standpoint, we try to cluster things and if you start
sneaking in multi-units into a residential single family area, that
doesn't make sense and we don't go along with that. I don't see anything
from our standpoint that we could agree to. I don't think anything makes
sense for them to change the configuration here and add. This is a
clustered group and I don't know how they'd expand. Other comments?
Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Explain to me, on your first paragraph on your report here. On
the initial PUD that was approved for 23 single family homes, 28 townhomes
and 6 twin homes. Then you go on to say now we're looking at 14
townhomes. Then you go on to say the applicant states that the overall
number of units originally approved would not change. I'm missing a
little history here.
Olsen: I don't have the plan before this one but it included additional
higher density and mostly duplexes in this area. Then they amended this
plan and it's all single family instead of the duplexes.
e
Erhart: So what happened is the 28 townhomes were not built?
Olsen: No. But the overall number is still, what would have been
committed as an outlot is what they're proposing.
Erhart: The original townhomes, that initial proposal, was it based on
individuals owning things like this?
Olsen: It wasn't. It was just a concept plan just showing townhomes. It
wasn't discussed whether or not they'd be individually owned.
Erhart: You mean the property?
Olsen: Right. It was just showed that it was proposed as townhomes. No
details as to what.
Erhart: Essentially this got zoned RSF at the time and they came in with
this PUD in order to get the townhomes in. High density in there.
Olsen: Right but one of the reasons they also did the PUD was to get the
parkland in there. They were doing the transfer, the swap with the city.
Erhart: Okay because that wasn't required. Okay, now I recall this one.
The parkland wasn't required at the time and that was a part of the
negotiation.
e
Olsen:
It was all a part.
Erhart: Because it's a PUD, are we required to change the land use plan?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 12
e
Olsen: It should still be.
Erhart: High density?
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: So anytime we have a PUD and there's townhomes then we have to go
back and revise this?
Olsen: We should do, like for the Lake Susan Hills, we did that. We went
back and amended the land use to correspond to the high density, medium
density.
e
Erhart: Other than the contract, there's not a whole lot to this. I
think considering this and the one we saw last time, I think one of the
notes I had last time was whether we ought to consider, the City wants to
require double car garages on all these kinds of things. I think that's
one of the real nice things about these units compared to what we saw last
time. Going back to this issue of how do you retain attitudes and values
in townhomes and condominiums? There seems to be a fine line there
involving number of units. Involving quality of their initial
construction. Part of that might be single garage versus double garage.
Floor area. Parking space. Lots of things because there's no question
that in today's market a lot of these shared ownership things, some of
them have devalued tremendously in value. It poses a real problem to both
people who bought and lost money on it as well as the City in trying to
maintain the quality of the structures we have in the area. Obviously
we're not experts in trying to define that line but I think it probably
would help us if we better understand it. My concern in what we saw 2
weeks ago, they were below that line. I guess they start out at such a
low value. Yes, I think they could go lower. I think I'm a little more
impressed with this one but it's a concern. I really don't have any other
specific questions on this particular one. Considering the history of
this PUD, it fits.
Emmings: I was just, and this may be more just idle curiousity than
anything else, do you remember when we looked at this one 2 weeks ago,
what the square footage was as compared to this?
Olsen: I've got the plan here. I don't know if it's in here though.
Emmings: Does anybody remember those numbers?
Conrad: They were around 1,200 I thought.
Olsen: I think they were comparable.
e
Emmings: So square footage wise, as far as the lots are concerned,
they're about the same. Then as far as the, I remember we were concerned
about the impervious surface and here we're up to 54 and what were we
talking about on that other one?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 13
e
Olsen: 50.
Emmings: We were looking for something quite a bit lower weren't we?
Erhart: What was the density, if you were taking the density I think that
would be different.
Olsen: The density got up to 14.
Emmings: Yes, this is definitely lower. The numbers aren't too different
but I guess one significant difference between the one last meeting and
this one is this is contemplated as part of the overall PUD. I don't
think we've got the same leverage here. I didn't hear any response to his
questions about the curb.
Olsen: Okay, I can look into that. I can't answer whether or not he'd
have to require that. I do remember meeting with them initially and it
was discussed just the main road so I can confirm that with the
engineering department. They would have to specify what they mean.
e
Emmings: I do agree with Tim's comment in general that maybe, again this
may be another one of those things on our wish list. The things we wish
we had time to do but, involving some standards for townhomes is probably
a real good thing to do. Something that should be done. Things like
parking and things like the double car garage. Here we're saying there's
63 spaces but really all they're really saying is there are 4 spaces per
unit. 2 in the garage and 2 right outside and the neighbors aren't going
to be using each others so really the parking is not that great here.
We're still going to have the problem if many people would show up to
visit at a time, the parking would be exhausted very quickly and then I'm
afraid would result in parking along that main entrance road which I
didn't see any comments in the community safety comments from the fire
inspector or anybody else that they'd be concerned about cars parking
along that road but that could be a real eye sore for the neighbors who
back up there too. I know there's going to be a lot of landscaping in
there but still you can see there could wind up being a lot of parking.
Basically I think the plan is not a bad one. It points up our need to
look at standards for townhome developments sometime in the future more
than anything else.
e
ElIson: I think everyone who talked today, maybe with the exception of
Curt, I guess he's been there quite a while, probably moved into their
house when thi s was zoned that way. In other words, whether you knew it
or you had a chance to find out about it at the time which the same thing
happened to me in my neighborhood. I didn't realize something was
happening right behind me until I moved into it so it's easier said than
done. I'm the first to say that but I think that the smaller number of
units in a neighborhood with higher valued homes will tend to keep that
area up. I agree with Mike in the fact that when you get to these huge
developments with practically names just to get between one house of 12 to
the next is when you can run into a lot more problems. I think people
will move in here because it's more like a residential area. I picture
the ideal couple that doesn't want to fix up their home anymore and just
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 14
e
e
wants to be in a nice little residential area without the maintenance and
maybe they flyaway every winter or something. But I don't think it
necessarily means that these are going to turn into atypical. We might be
jumping the gun and making big assumptions with an experience that maybe
Bobbie had with something with 200 units or what have you. I think the
bottom line is we really can't tell people to please keep up your home
because you're my neighbor. Whether they're a single family home next to
you or whether they're somebody across the street in 14 homes. We try to
do it allover the place but you might have a boat out and they wouldn't
like it or you might paint your house pink and they wouldn't like it and
the fact that people are owning their own homes gives them those kinds of
rights. I probably wouldn't like this so much if it hadn't been for the
last one we saw which was just so chintzy. It had a single garage and it
had no places for parking and it had squished areas. All these buildings
were so close that there was nothing but tar everywhere and these people
were coming forward all proud of this plan and then I see this one. I
think it really had some forethought going through it. I like the size,
that it's only 14. The other one was 50 or so. Oh, 100 total units,
that's right. So I think their plan, especially compared to what the
possibilities are is a little bit better. I made the point to staff and
I'm still wondering, the people who came forth before us said they
purposedly went to a maintenance free exterior and they made the comment
because, in our experience in building these things, the maintenance is a
real pain on the associations and they were going to brick the whole way
or aluminum siding or something like that which number one can look very
nice and number two, if it's definitely going to keep up it's look for 30
years, I can see putting something like that in like a townhome
requirement or possibly because this is tied in with our PUD, we could ask
them to make the exterior something that's maintenance free. I know that
the redwood siding is gorgeous but I also know that stuff needs staining a
lot and looks horrible when it's not stained. If it starts fading so I
could see possibly doing something like that and I appreciate your
comments. The other guys what you think about that but in general I like
it. I see Steve's point about the parking but I don't see it as much of a
problem as maybe he does. I think maybe I'd ask my neighbor if I could be
in their driveway or park two-thirds the way down their driveway. The
other place didn't even have enough driveway space to try to do something
like so those are my comments.
Headla: Where do they pick up the garbage? Drive right in on the roads?
Mike Camrody: Yes. Right into the private drives. Up to the driveways.
Headla:
driveway?
Okay, people bring their garbage cans out to the end of their
Well you're going to have a strong base under the blacktop?
Mike Camrody:
the engineers.
inch limestone.
Yes. That's one of the things we wanted to discuss with
They're asking us to upgrade the base of the road to an 8
We're proposing a 6 inch limestone with a 3 inch...
e Headla: The reason I'm asking that is, if there is a fire in there and
you have 3 heavy fire trucks, particularly in the spring of the year, if
you don't have that heavy base it may be more of a disaster than just the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 15
e
fire itself. I hope the engineers insist on an adequate base to handle
the garbage trucks or the heavy fire trucks. I see they wanted a 20 foot
width road. The reason for that was?
Olsen: The fire trucks and just in case somebody does park on one of the
sides there. Outside of the driveway area.
Headla: Does that allow for parking along the side?
Olsen: It gives them, if that does happen, they still can get through.
We still would prefer not to have the parking along the side there but
they could get through. Whereas the one on 16 feet, they would not be
able to.
Headla: Okay, and you're making the assumption that there's no snow on
the sides and that people park way off as far as possible.
Olsen: 20 feet is the typical width that they've been requiring.
e
Headla: I get back to my favorite page. I want to see a checklist from
the fire department on what in the world they're looking for. I don't
understand why, if it's this serious that they're insisting the contractor
go to that expense, why aren't we putting no parking signs along there?
We do that for businesses. We don't allow that. Now we don't even talk
about it in this. I think that's totally inadequate fire department
report. I think they should get that shaped up on how they report. Do we
need any extra fire fighting equipment?
Olsen: Got that new truck. That should take care of even Rosemount.
Headla: Our taxes our paying for it. We screwed up before. We should
have addressed that at the time. Not after the requirement came that we
had to have that. We should have addressed that before that became a
requirement. There's a reason we needed that fire truck. We let
buildings come in here that required it. Those buildings require that
type of equipment, they should pay for it. Not the general taxpayers of
Chanhassen. I got hung up on the roads. I spent too much time thinking
about that and wondering what is a good thing. The rest of it, I think
it's fine. That parking just drives me up a tree. I see these places and
I can just see New Year's Eve. A lot of people come in. A lot of cars,
and rightly so. Then if we have a fire, where does the fire department
go?
Conrad: Thanks Dave. My thoughts kind of reflect what I've heard. I'm
still at a loss for visitor parking and we've seen an extreme 2 weeks ago
and now we're seeing something else and I really don't have a feel for it.
Steve out in Colorado, did you deal with units like this? Townhomes and
how you handle parking because it can be a problem. Are you comfortable?
Have you dealt with it?
e Hanson: It can be a problem. Some areas will require specific guest
parking areas. I think a lot of communities have tried to deal with the
worse case situation if you will. The New Year's Eve party or
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 16
e
Thanksgiving when you have a lot of people over. ...provide parking for
that situation. Then you probably ought to look at changing your coverage
requirements so you would allow them to pave a whole lot of property to
accomplish that. There are a lot of trade-offs. I don't think there's a
simple answer because you can run into the same problem with single
family. Typically I think in a multi-family area like this, you have the
opportunity to work with the neighbors. I think some of the fears are
people are going to have a party all the same night which obviously then
you would have a problem. I think a lot of the times that generally isn't
the case that it works through that way because these people tend to have
to work closer with the neighbors than a single family. I think as a
result of that a lot of times they will share each other's parking spaces.
Conrad: Building standards for units like this. Do we have an
opportunity to look at building standards that might be different? We
have building codes which are basically set at State level.
Hanson: Are you talking about exterior materials?
Conrad: Well pretty much. Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
Hanson: I think you do in this case in that it's under a PUD which gives
you more flexibility than you would under normal site planning process.
But it's not like you have a standard that you're dealing with.
e
e
Conrad: I think that whole area is intriguing especially as you get into
storage requirements. This looks as if, as everybody else has said, this
looks far better than what we saw 2 weeks ago. Yet on the other .hand,
I think situations talking about, do they have basements and their storage
area there and I think we have to, maybe we're looking at the only two
zero lot line or whatever that's going to come before us. On the other
hand, I think it's probably wise Jo Ann, because you're going to be left
after Steve leaves us, I think we should take a good look at that. We
probably have the right, because this is a PUD, to request some exterior
maintenance free siding on these units. I don't know. I tend to want to
stay out of that business and yet I think we probably do have that
perogative here because it is, this whole area is a PUD. Based on what
I'm hearing for the maintenance, and again this is apparently not anything
we can deal with, association rules and regulations, but the $55.00 a
month maintenance is probably reasonable from what I've seen other
comparable developments having. It seems like it would set up a pretty
good kitty for maintenance. Just responding to some of the neighborhood
comments, we sure hear what you're saying and it appears to me that the
mechanics are there for this to do a good job in maintaining the property
value versus diminishing it. At least that's my personal opinion. I
don't live across the street or in the neighborhood but it looks like the
mechanics are there to appreciate versus depreciate and a couple reasons I
think is simply because there are only 14 units or whatever. I think
they've done a few things that look like they're a nice way to design
townhouses like this. I'm fairly comfortable with that but I guess my
directive to the staff would be for us to start looking at some of the
standards. Whether they be building standards or whatever and then just
to report back to us on our role with association. Do we have any role in
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 17
e
that and I guess you've told me no but I'd just like you to double check
and make sure that we don't. Those are my comments. Anything else? Is
there a motion?
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated
April 10, 1989 with the 10 conditions as set forth in the staff report but
as to number 7 and 8, that those items be worked out between the staff and
the developer prior to the City Council meeting so that the City Council
can get an updated status on those.
Erhart: I'll second it.
Headla: Let me ask a question that slipped my mind before. The first
gentleman that spoke, you mentioned that somebody wanted the building
sprinklered?
Paul Struthers: Yes, it was mentioned by the zoning official that the
buildings were required to be sprinkled but that represented a
misunderstanding on his part because of the occupancy. He was looking at
it as an apartment or condominium project which requires sprinkling. For
individually owned with zero lot lines, that's not the requirement.
e
Headla: You're in agreement on that now?
Paul Struthers: The building official is in agreement with me that it's
not required.
ElIson: You guys are in for putting maintenance free or that doesn't
bother you? I'm sure the siding that they have is probably more expensive
than this kind here.
Emmings: I think we've got to have standards.
it's a PUD but I think we ought to develop some
nothing wrong with the materials they're using.
with brick. There's nothing wrong with redwood.
to build. There are cheaper ways to build.
Maybe we don't because
standards. There's
There's nothing wrong
That's not a cheap way
ElIson: Oh no. But the brick is obviously free.
Emmings: No it's not. Everything, there's no such thing as maintenance
free so I'm not for doing that until we have some standards to it.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the
plans dated April 10, 1989 with the following conditions and that
conditions 7 and 8 be worked out between staff and the developer prior to
the City Council meeting so that the City Council can get an updated
status on those.
e
1. The three internal drives shall be at least 20 feet in width.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 18
e
2. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the northeasterly and
easterly lot line of the site.
3. An additional fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of
the second building and that the fire hydrant located between the two
buildings shall be moved to the end of the middle of the driveway.
4. The land use will be amended to residential high density.
5. All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection.
6. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the
submittals, including valves.
7. The sanitary sewer system shall be 8 inch PVC main line with 6 inch
PVC house services conforming to City standards.
8. Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the
plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
9. All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained.
10. The developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface
drainage will not erode the existing ditch system.
e All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DAYCARE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, BUSINESS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE 1/4 MILE EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, G.P.
BAJR, INC.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report.
Conrad: For our clarification on what we are to do tonight, the variances
have been granted?
Hanson: That's correct.
Conrad: So it is not our role to critique, even though we will, the
variances. They are granted. So as we review this tonight, I believe our
role is to assume that those variances are already, the applicant has
received those and now we're looking at how this site plan conforms to our
rules but also including the variances that have been granted. If that's
not confusing but I think it's important that we understand that that's
how we have to review this. I think we should turn it over and have some
comments from the applicant just to react to staff report and maybe talk
about some of the questions that you know we're going to ask you and maybe
anticipate those and help us understand what you're doing a little bit
more.
e
Randy Peterson: Okay. I'm Randy Peterson. I'm the representative for
the developer that's doing the New Horizon Daycare Center over there.
;,;.;..,,-.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 19
e
Staff did an excellent job explaining through it. Basically we have no
problem with the two conditions that they have. The reason we did not
address it on that site plan was to find out if, and I guess staff has no
problem this, that we place them in front of the fence in the play area.
It's rather difficult to put them in there with the children in there. As
far as the parking situation, we have adequate parking. I have
representatives from New Horizon here. I have a contractor here. I have
the land owner. Property owners from around the area if you have any of
those questions. Basically I guess a couple of you are probably aware of
or a few of you are aware that with 16 parking stalls using 8 staff people
at any given time, that allows us 8 stalls for the drop off and pick up of
children. Using this with a very conservative factor of turning them over
every 15 minutes, which would be each stall would rotate then 4 times in
an hour, you would have 32 parking stalls for the use of the people coming
in there and we have approximately 20 to 25 drop offs per hour at the peak
hours which are 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. I'll
let kind of stay right there and if you have any further questions you can
definitely ask of anyone of us. I think pretty much that is everything I
would like to say at this point and kind of open it up for questions.
e
Pat Hallisey: I don't want to get in the way of questioning. My name is
Pat Hallisey. I am the property owner. I represent Blue Circle
Investment Company. We're the people who own the shopping center next
door and this property selling it to Mr. Peterson's partnership for the
New Horizon's Daycare Center. I guess the thing I want to impress upon
you folks is that we have made a fairly major investment in your community
and have been here for about 2 years now and we are concerned. We've
heard a lot of expression about concern of value and what goes on in the
community. We plan to stay here as a property owner for many, many years.
That was our intention when we built our project to begin with. There
have been things that have happened on that corner that have changed the
circumstances surrounding the land and it's use. Changing the zoning.
Changing of future road patterns and whatever. One of the things that
we're attempting to do is maximize the value of our property. We feel
very, very fortunate. Approximately a year and a half ago we were
approached by a different daycare operation and as we are concerned with
the value of our property, we spent some time investigating that daycare
operation and we found that it didn't really have a very good reputation.
We refused to sell them the piece of property. We feel, as their neighbor
and a major property owner in the community, we feel very, very fortunate
to have the opportunity to have an operation the quality of New Horizons
as a neighbor. We just wanted to let you know that and if there's
anything else about the property or any questions, I'll be happy to answer
them.
e
Sue Dunkley: Hi. I'm Sue Dunkley, president of New Horizon Childcare
Centers and I just wanted to address the one issue that I think I heard
about maybe the playground of the pearock. We were fortunate enough to
have been on Michael Breen's program on Channel 5 news and quoted as being
one of the more expensive per square foot childcare centers with a lot of
safety cautions in mind in the building. They particularly noted the wall
carpet on our walls for children that are this high walk into walls and
those kinds of things and one of the things they did was a study on our
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 20
e
playground. Our playground has proven to be one of the very safest ground
covers so I was hoping when you were looking at that kind of thing, the
pearock was allowed to stay in our playground. We've been in business for
18 years and have 27 locations and we've tried sod which looks beautiful
for about 3 weeks but with little feet trampling it, it never stays. You
can't seed it because they're out there and it becomes dirt and it becomes
mud and although you love to see the green grass inside the playground, we
want as little green grass inside as we can and green grass the whole
outside of the playground for them to look at while it's sprinklered and
has underground sprinklers. But the pearock is great because it stays
soft even in the middle of our hard winters so if a child does fall, the
pea rock cushions them and there has been so few accidents on the
playgrounds that put the money into pearock which is a lot more expensive
than grass but we feel very strongly under our pieces of playground
equipment that we'd like to keep the pearock and it is a nice look. So
we're hoping that that doesn't change in your discussions any and I'm here
for any other questions you might have. We've also been trying to be in
Chanhassen for 2 years. I know Brian (speaking to Ladd) you were here I
think 2 years ago when we tried the bond issue property behind the gas
station and didn't get that one for soil condition reasons and then you
were kind enough to approve a center for us in the industrial park. We
were all ready to go on it and our landlord backed out on that one even
though you were all 100% for us and we have about 45 families that call me
once a week asking when our center will be open in Chanhassen so we sure
hope it gets open pretty quickly. Thank you.
e
Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle.
Ladies and gentlemen from the Planning Commission. I just want to make
sure that you're aware that the neighborhood of Hidden Valley was very
excited of the prospect of having a daycare center this close and I would
hope that the little petition that we put together just to show some of
our support might have come to your attention too. It was unanimous
support. I went around and talked to some of the people and everybody was
excited. Everybody thought it was great to have a daycare center that
close. Now I'm not an expert of what the technicalities are with
variances and safety procedures and so forth. I guess ideally we would
want to have a daycare center somewhere in the woods where no cars drive
by but I just wanted to make sure you undestand that the neighborhood is
in very strong support of that project and we would recommend that this is
allowed to happen. Thank you.
Erhart: That's true that the New Horizons site in the industrial park is
not, that's not in the plans anymore.
Sue Dunkley: Gone. He doesn't want to do it. We do.
Erhart: Yes, who was the landlord again?
e
Sue Dunkley: Hyttien. We went through all the procedures and were ready
to go and they turned it down at the last minute.
Erhart: Yes, that is unfortunate. I wasn't trying to get into these
variances, I was just trying to understand. Explain to me again on the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 21
e
spaces again. You feel the 16 is adequate yet you have 25 changes in a 2
hour period so that requires how many stalls?
Sue Dunkley: Okay. In the centers we have now, and they're all licensed
for about this many, around 100 children, we've done studies to show that
we have about 8 staff cars parked at anyone time. Some do drive with
others. Some have their husbands drop them off. Whatever reasoning. We
have 8 staff cars maximum in our largest center parked at anyone time and
that still allows us 8 parking places for parents and we have sufficed.
For instance, we're in the Trammel Crow building in Normandale in
Bloomington with just 4 parking stalls for parents. Parents who trusts
us, a parent who drops off for the very first time will stay 15 minutes.
Rarely do these parents, are fortunate enough to have 15 minutes in the
morning when they've gotten 2 children up and ready and dressed. They
usually run in pretty fast and out pretty fast. They have the children by
their hand. We require them to sign them in in a sign in place in the
front of the building and then deposit the child in the classroom to the
teacher for they have that ability but you'd be surprised how fast they
can do that. Get through there and get back out to work so we feel we
have more than adequate parking with 8 stalls and our parents come between
6:00 and we have so many professional parents that come even late. It
used to be 6:00 to 9:00. We have parents that drop off as late as 10:00
in the morning now.
e Erhart: 100 children, on the average what every parent has what 2?
Sue Dunkley: Almost 30% of our families have 2 children so you're looking
at about probably 70 cars, not 100 cars. We have one family with 4
children and that gets quite expensive but on the average, 30% have more
than one child so you're looking at 70 cars coming in and out of 8 spaces
in about a 3 hour stretch in the morning and about a 3 hour stretch in the
afternoon. In that time range and at that time, the nice thing about
that, at that time our staff is also leaving. They're coming and leaving
so it also opens some staff parking also. We've never had a problem yet
with parking. The only time New Horizon has ever had to make arrangements
for parking is when we have the parent programs in the evening and the
open house and we are sure our good neighbor will allow us to do that
twice a year and make arrangements for the parents to do that. Come and
see their children perform but we haven't had a problem at this point.
Erhart: Thanks.
The HVAC was then moved in front of the building?
Randy Peterson: Yes.
Erhart: And then that's going to be surrounded with some kind of an
opaque fence or what? What's that on the plan?
Randy Peterson: That will have a fence around the HVAC.
e
Erhart:
windows?
What was going to be in front of the building before?
Is there windows on that side of the building?
Just
Randy Peterson: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 22
e
Sue Dunkley: I have a picture if you'd like to see it.
Erhart: Is the HVAC going to cover up a window now?
Randy Peterson: No, it will be below.
Erhart: What I'm getting at here is what's this thing going to look like
from the street? Normally if you have a brick building with windows it
fits in. Now you put HVAC equipment on the outside, I just want to make
sure that it's not...
Contractor: It looks like basically a condenser unit on a residential
house. That's basically what it's going to look like.
Erhart: I know what it's doing but we don't allow HVAC equipment in
people's front lawns either.
Contractor: What will eventually be the front of the building is more
like the side. The front faces Lake Drive.
Randy Peterson: The front faces east. This would be all landscaped.
Basically what it would look like is some type of a planter type set-up.
e
Erhart: Anyway, you've taken into consideration. Steve, are you
satisfied that that thing is going to be aesthetically acceptable in front
of that? I consider that the front of the building.
Hanson: I would too.
Erhart: Anyway, that's just a point that I'd ask you to moniter that.
Again, you have the same situation with the trash. I'm trying to
accommodate this building here. We're putting some things in the front
that normally you find in the rear and I just want to make sure that these
things are adequately covered up. Not to adversely affect the value of
your neighbor or the value to the neighborhood. What kind of fence is
around the play area? Is that a Cyclone chainlink fence?
Randy Peterson: Yes.
Erhart: How high?
Randy Peterson: About 4.
Sue Dunkley: Our kids are only 2 feet so 4 feet is good.
Erhart: Is there going to be any kind of landscaping in front of that
fence between the sidewalk and the fence or does the fence go right up to
the sidewalk?
e
Hanson:
It goes up to the property line.
Erhart: Oh there is no sidewalk on this is there?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 23
e
Hanson: No.
Erhart: Currently is there a trail or a sidewalk going along Lake Drive
East now?
Pat Hallisey: No there's not. There's nothing in front of our property.
Erhart: And not on the other side either?
Uli Sacchet: To my recollection, there is a sidewalk on the side...
Erhart: On the south side.
Uli Sacchet: It's 3 feet wide...
Erhart: Yes, that's on the south side of Lake Drive.
Uli Sacchet: North side.
Erhart: Then that would go right through this property then wouldn't it?
Olsen: It's in the right-of-way.
e Randy Peterson: There's no sidewalk on our property.
Conrad: It says existing walk on the plan.
Erhart: So does the fence go up to the existing walk?
Hanson: Yes.
Conrad: Is there a walk or not a walk?
Erhart: Yes, for your information there's a walk. So the fence goes up
to directly adjacent to the walk?
Olsen: The property line, yes.
Hanson: There is probably about a 6 inch. The sidewalk is going to be
off 6 inches from the property line.
e
Erhart: Is that of any concern? I guess my preference and I think I
realize the constraint that you have with space here. I don't have
experience with daycares or probably will have within the next year so I'm
just trying to conceptualize if that would be difficult. You guys
probably have experience but I just point out that the fence goes to the
sidewalk and maybe you can see if there's any potential problem with that.
The northeast side of that is essentially all woods in there or all
landscaped at this point. One of the things I guess regarding evergreens
in a narrow section like that, I think putting deciduous trees in there is
fine. One thing you can do with evergreens if you're concerned about
running into the street, it's something we're going to have to do in
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 24
e
downtown here as these evergreens get bigger on the south side, is you can
trim them up. They don't look quite a nice but it does solve the problem.
The one last thing I had was, one of the original requirements you had to
add parking spots to parking spaces and then it goes on they have to have
curbs. I don't understand that. Item 5, you have add parking.
Ellson: Stops.
Erhart: Then item 8 you're required curbs.
Hanson: The parking stops are, I'm asking for those to be added so you
can't drive all the way up to the curb. If you drive all the way up to
the curb, you're going to hit the trees with that.
Emmings: Where there's a tree would they have to have a stop?
Hanson: Well I suggested that they do it on all of them.
Erhart: Why don't they just make the parking spot a foot shorter then?
Essentially that's what you're doing by doing that. In your
recommendation you didn't include that item 5 so are you leaving that out?
Hanson: They've added that. They've shown that.
e
Erhart: Oh they have. Would we get the same effect just by shortening
the parking stalls 12 inches or what am I missing?
Pat Hallisey: Excuse me. There's a difference between shortening the
parking stall and putting the stop in. You can leave a stall, I believe
it's 18 feet is your city code for the length of the car. You can put the
stop in like 2 feet behind the front of the stall so when a person pulls
up they hit the stop. You still have the overhang in the front of the car
past that that is within the parking stall. If you try to shorten the
parking stall up, that doesn't occur. They can still drive right up to
the curb.
Erhart: How are you planning on anchoring these things?
Randy Peterson: They don't really get anchored. They sit there.
Erhart: What I visualize when you use those things, somebody hits it too
hard and then it gets cockeyed and then they all sit cockeyed and they all
end up...
Hanson: You can tie them down with rebar. A lot of times they'll drive
that down through.
-
Randy Peterson: We can do that. We'll do either or. We'll remove them.
We'll leave them in. We'll anchor them. I don't have a problem with it.
It creates a little problem in the winter plowing but that's the real hard
part. They get chipped up. They get hit trying to keep everything clean
and you end up with snow building up inbetween those and the sidewalk.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 25
e
Erhart: If the landscaping is so close to the front of the parking lot
that that cars are going to damage it, it will happen so I guess I'd like
to see us take Steve's recommendation but include that they be anchored so
they don't move around. I think that's a real eyesore and problem when
they do that. That's everything I had.
Emmings: I really don't have anything different. I think that the
tremendous number of variances they've been given and we're not supposed
to go into that now and try and figure out what happened there but I think
the parking will be adequate and my experience with using daycare, I think
that the place, at least one of the places that we used there were only
about 4 places with about the same number of kids and they turn over real
fast. 15 minutes is much longer than it will take for people to drop off
their kids so I think it will wind up being adequate. I'm not sure that
I'd agree with the staff on increasing the landscaping along that one
portion of the yard there where the pea gravel is because that may be the
only sunny spot that the kids will have to go to because the rest of it
looks like it's either unavailable for play or else it's already shaded by
large trees so I think it might be nice to leave that a sunny spot so I
would not impose that. I'd let them decide what they're going to do.
Elison: I have a question. I guess Sue could probably answer it. Is New
Horizon is it set up like a franchise? Is it self-supporting, each
individual unit? In other words, the tuition is what pays for everything
or you're funded by a major big New Horizon also?
e
Sue Dunkley: No, the tuition pays for it.
Ellson: And what happens when one isn't successful? What happens to a
daycare as it falls apart?
Sue Dunkley: Our company carries each one. The hope is that they will
have enough children that the tuition will do it. New Horizon is a
corporation and has been for 18 years. There are periods in the history
where one center for whatever reason will be lower in enrollment for a
period of time and at that point obviously our company carries those
centers from some of the other centers who are doing well so we are
financially very secure. We do keep the buildings up beautifully and we
do put underground sprinkling in so the grass is always mowed and looks
nice. Our CEO would have a fit if one of our names was off 2 inches he's
gotten so meticulous so I guarantee we will keep the building looking very
attractive.
Elison: I wanted to be on the record that I'm certainly for a daycare in
Chanhassen. I don't like this site for it though to be perfectly honest.
I wanted to ask staff if they knew where the local bus stop was to this
area?
Hanson: It's by the Legion.
e
Olsen:
That will be moved but right now it is by the Legion.
Elison: And it's going to be moved like do you know where?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 26
e
Olsen: The new shelter is up across from Filly's. I don't know if you've
noticed that but once the West 79th Street is opened up, the bus will come
through there and that will be the park and ride.
e
ElIson: Okay, because I've seen people use a daycare location to park
their cars. A great spot to pick up the bus and then leave it and then
I'd be really concerned about these parking spaces which I already am. I
take my toddler to a daycare that has less than 100, probably about 65
kids with 10 spaces that the staff is not even allowed to park in and it's
always the biggest complaint of every parent is the parking and that's got
10 spaces with 65 kids. This is 8 spaces with 100 kids. I know that it's
a huge problem where we are and I think that 8 spots is grossly
inadequate. Once it's in there, it's like impossible to change and we
have yet to have an accident at our daycare but you're just hoping and
praying that it will never happen. Some little thing is running between
cars and cannot be seen and people are driving and parking behind other
people and double parking and it's just scarey. I'd hate to see me allow
something like that to go in without my two cents worth anyway of saying I
don't like the number of parking places. I really want daycare. I just
don't think this is the site. I think it's squished in there. I think it
looks poor with the whole grouping. I don't like the idea that they did
everything right up to the edges. I think the hidden court, or whatever
that group of townhomeowners back there is signing, I certainly agree with
them that we'd like daycare here. I think they would just as easily be
served with another daycare in a better location. I'm also questioning
all the variances. I get really nervous about variances because of the
precedence it sets for other people and I would like it maybe to be looked
over again or something maybe when they get a chance to look at it again
but. Yes, I want daycare in Chanhassen but I'd like it someplace else and
I don't like it on this site.
Headla:
We have
building
what the
I'm concerned about the way we do things. What's the deal now?
these 11 conditions. The fire department recommended the entire
be adquately sprinklered but it isn't in the recommendations. Is
fire department, is that automatically filled in or not?
Hanson: Their recommendations are included when they come in with a
building permit.
Headla: Then we don't even need to talk about them in a planning
commission meeting?
Hanson: Well when it's a building code requirement, they have to meet
that requirement at the time they get a building permit.
Headla: I don't think we're consistent. To me if they see fit to put it
in the planning commission notes and we agree with it, it ought to be
included in the recommendation.
-
Hanson:
We can do that.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 27
e
Headla: I guess I'd like to see both them entered into the
recommendations.
Conrad: Dave, just for my clarification. If it's part of the building
code requiring sprinkling, basically the fire inspector said you've got to
have it and they have to have it. It's part of the code.
Headla: How many times do we add, be redundant on different things just
to make sure it gets done? I see that done time and time again. If we're
not going to do it, let's be consistent and not do it. If we want to do
it, then let's do it all the time and let's say something about it.
Conrad: Basically what Steve and Jo Ann do is they take all this
different input and they determine from the different folks who are making
recommendations and they determine what needs to be in the final staff
report. What you're saying is if the fire inspector said it, they should
duplicate it in the staff report.
Headla: If we agree is what I said.
Conrad: But their perspective on this item would be yes, he said it but
it's required by code anyway so we don't need to make it a special item
and tell the developer they have to do it because they have to do it.
e
Headla: My point is, we've actually put it in many recommendations
previously but it's been part of the code but we want to highlight it.
Now we either do it or we don't do it but let's be consistent. That's all
I ask. I don't know where we sit right now. I don't know if it should be
in there or shouldn't be in there but I want some consistency in the way
we do it.
Randy Peterson: We have no problem with that...
Headla: No, that's an internal thing that I get confused on which way we
should. I like the daycare center there. I drop my grandson off at a
center on TH 7. They don't have fences. A lot of traffic out front. The
kids get a lot of tender loving care. I think they're well cared for. It
doesn't have near the amenities that this has. I like it. And as far as
the heat ventilating and air conditioning thing, what are you going to put
in there that isn't going to be some objection? It isn't all black and
white. You're going to have to concede certain items. I think this is an
appropriate location. It serves an area. That's all.
Conrad: When we grant variances Steve or Jo Ann, does the Attorney
document why? Do we have to do that? Do we go through a statement of
rationale?
Hanson: There's not a formal, if you will, formal filing.
e
Olsen: Sometimes they have though. Sometimes councilmembers have
required that the Attorney list why and it's usually Findings of Facts for
denial though.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 28
.
Conrad: Therefore a variance doesn't set a precedent? You literally can
grant a variance but is it precedence setting?
Hanson: Like I said, it's kind of debateable. I think it's precedence
setting in the sense of how staff would advise someone that came in
subsequent to certain variances being granted because typically when
someone comes in, the question they first have is, how does a city respond
to variances. Do they like them or don't they? Do they grant them or
don't they? What kind have they granted? I think an applicant in their
best interest, if they know what variances have been granted, you would
take those ones that are similar to your case and use those, at least as a
justification to what you want to do.
Conrad: Do we allow parking on Lake Drive East?
Hanson: No we do not. It's signed no parking.
Conrad: In terms of the parking lot, there are about 3 or 4 stalls to the
right in the parking lot that basically they have to back up. They have
to back up a whole long way don't they?
Hanson: Yes, it's not the best. Previously there were 2 others over
there too.
4It Conrad: Got rid of those 2?
Hanson: Yes.
Conrad: We're hearing from the applicants that there's enough stalls and
maybe we've got split opinions here that hearsay from the Planning
Commission whether there are or are not. My question would be then, if
there are not enough stalls and they're licensed for 100 children and we
create a parking problem, if, then what happens?
Hanson: We live with it.
Conrad: So there's recourse to restrict the number of children that
they're licensed for?
Hanson: Not the way that the 16 was arrived at. In other words, it's
essentially an appeal of what the staff would have recommended because the
staff would have made a determination of how many parking spaces. The
Board of Adjustment had looked at it and at the time when it was at the
Board of Adjustment, the applicants had submitted a brochure describing
the size of the actual facility because what we were looking at that time
initially was just a setback variances. So when it went before Council,
that's when at that point in time we were aware it was 100 people and so
many staff employee people so we looked at what we've used in reviewing
other similiar facilities. The one in the idustrial park and that's
essentially where we came up with the number of 37. When it was before
the Board of Adjustment, they had shown 18 spaces.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 29
e
Conrad:
there?
What's the worse if they can't really accommodate enough cars
They'll probably be motivated to solve the problem themselves.
Randy Peterson: You're absolutely right. The development group that I'm
with has developed a very large percentage of the daycares here. New
Horizon owns 27 and we have not had a parking problem due to insufficient
amount of spaces.
e
Conrad: And I've heard you say that and I trust what you're telling me.
The only thing I'm saying is, I don't want the City to solve a problem
later on. That's my only point. It should be a safe access and it's your,
I think you're motivated to take care of the problems but I literally
don't think, because we are forcing something over sized on a smaller lot
and I think in this particular case, I just don't ever want to see the
city having to bailout because we allowed this to happen. I think the
applicant should know that they got the variances obviously and that the
City is not going to come back and solve a problem downstream. I think
the applicant is motivated to solve a problem yet on the other hand, I
don't know what we do and maybe there's not anything legal we can do but I
just don't know that we certainly have solutions to cut into more of the
green space and make more parking but I guess I really don't think the
City should contemplate ever doing that. Anyway, I think parking is my
only problem on this particular issue and more than likely it's not going
to be a problem but I've got too many conflicting pieces of information.
I just don't want the City to have this in 5 years or whatever. That's
probably not even a concern. We're fairly consistent, in terms of
setbacks Steve or Jo Ann, we're kind of consistent with the building to
the west. We're kind of in sync. This building. Not totally out. The
only other thing that the fire inspector didn't comment on is the narrow
space between the two buildings for fire but I guess they know what
they're doing and I guess maybe that's not a significant issue. Those are
my only comments and I'll vote for this given the fact that the variances
have been granted previously. I would certainly accept a motion.
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #89-5 dated, what date are we looking at?
Hanson: Today, May 3rd. That's the revised plan.
Erhart: Dated May 3rd with the 5 conditions correct?
Hanson: No, two.
Erhart: Your second condition is that they use the conditions what, 8, 9,
10 and ll?
Hanson: 7 through 11.
e
Erhart: Okay, the first condition you were proposing was additional
landscaping along the fence?
Hanson: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 30
e
Erhart: Which is the area in front. I tend to agree with Steve on that
one. I'm going to leave that one off. That's the one you were debating
right?
Emmings: Yes.
Erhart: So my motion then will only include the one item which refers to
your conditions 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Conrad: What are you saying about them? You're keeping those?
Erhart: Those I'm keeping. What I'm deleting is the one referring to
additional landscaping.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it.
Headla: There's some discussion going on on what you're deleting. I
don't understand.
e
Erhart: When we talked about a motion earlier, that staff was
recommending additional landscaping along the front fence. As much as I'm
mostly in favor of a lot of landscaping, I think there are some places for
sunny areas as well. I guess it was my opinion that it would probably,
the area they have open now could be left open just as well as it could be
landscaped so I left that one off. So my motion does not require that
they provide additional landscaping along the front fence.
Headla: You want it every 40 feet average?
Hanson: They have that on the average. What I had suggested that there
be some added in that area that's just along the fenced area which
essentially would be along the hard surface and the pea gravel area.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site plan #89-5 as shown on the Revised site plan stamped "May
3, 1989" with the following condition:
1. Final verification of the following conditions by the City Engineer
prior to City Council review.
7. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals.
8. Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the
plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the
site.
e
9. A construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required
since the proposed utility is crossing private property.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 31
e
10. Add sanitary cleanout to proposed 6 inch line between existing and
proposed manhole.
11. Revise grading plan to direct surface water to Lake Drive East and
not to neighboring private property.
All voted in favor except Annette ElIson who voted in opposition and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ElIson: I think it's too big a piece of development on too small of land
and I don't agree with the parking sites.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 19, 1989 with the addition of a disclaimer
stating the sound equipment malfunctioned and this is a very incomplete
set of Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS.
~ Erhart: When is contractor's yards going to the Council?
Hanson: Monday.
Emmings: My thing on old business is, this is sort of like when we try to
get staff to tell us what City Council had done with items that we had
made recommendations on and they never did and they won't yet and we ask
them every time and they just don't. It's sort of like, there's a story by
Melville called Bartle B where this guy's works at this place and the guy
fires him but he lives there and he doesn't leave when he's fired.
Every time the guy says I fired you... Finally the guy has to move his
business to get away from him. But anyway, another item that's a lot like
that is under old business we ask that they list, that the staff list
discussion items that we were carrying on from meeting to meeting so we
didn't forget about them from our list.
ElIson: Well you've got your folders too.
Emmings: I'd still like to see what's on there and now we should add
another one on there and that is standards for townhomes.
e
Conrad: Jo Ann because obviously Steve's leaving, both of Steve's
comments are real valid and they're real important to us. We really do
need that feedback from City Council. If we have to reduce the caseload,
the number of cases or whatever that you have to bring up to us by one
every 2 weeks, I think just to free up. I've got to believe it's an hour
to 2 of your time to condense what the City Council said. We really do
need that feedback.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 32
e
Erhart: Ladd, I think one of the problems that we have is this is a very
official agenda. Some of these things are not on the agenda and won't be
discussed that time. I think it might be easier to get this thing
actually implemented and working if you'd create a second form that comes
with the packet.
Olsen: We had a list going.
I remember getting that list before I left.
Erhart: What you need to do though is to get into the habit of having
this form, all the items that we're currently working on listed on that
and then you have last action and required action. You're not going to
change everything on every meeting. What you do is you just get in the
habit. Make a form up and it always comes out with this. Each time we
can review what the issues are. The old business we're working on. It
says on there hey, this is the actions because we don't know. Everybody's
got full time jobs including you guys, it doesn't relate necessarily to
all these things all the time. What it does is it keeps you focused on
those things so you don't lose them. When we actually address one of
those things, then you just change a little notation in there that the
next action of the next item or something.
Conrad: You were going to compueterize that weren't you Steve?
~. ElIson: If nothing else, that matrix was like the greatest thing I ever
.,., saw in my life. I love it.
Erhart: That kind of thing.
Olsen: We won't go into details. We compiled that list for you to keep
and then we would be adding any new ones on there.
Emmings: It only has to be a list. We mayor may not have them. It's
hard to keep track of pieces of paper but we should have it in front of us
every time.
Erhart: Every time these get mailed out, that list should be updated. If
nothing else, at least the list be updated.
Hanson: The special projects or the developments?
Emmings: All of the things that we've said...
Hanson: But you're not talking about the developments?
Erhart: No, no. These are the zoning issues. The one we want to add
tonight I think we have to very seriously have to look at this townhouse
standard thing. I'm real concerned about townhouses with one car garages.
i.
ElIson: I'm concerned that we're going to wait and not act on it today
but wait until we get a thing and then we've got this 140 one and we won't
have anything enacted by then so can't we at least send some signals of
what we're planning to have it be? What always happens is that yes, we
think this is a problem but we won't apply it to that one yet because
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - page 33
~
there's not a standard and by then we've got 4 or 5 that aren't what we'd
like.
Erhart: Jo Ann, in the previous zoning ordinance we had, what was the
highest density we had in that ordinance? Do you remember? Wasn't it 8?
Olsen: Or 10.
Erhart: 12 was new because I remember when we went through this ordinance
change, we had a lot of heated discussion about whether 12 was really
something that the City wants and boy looking at that proposal in here
last time, the real gut hit is it's simply too much. Maybe an apartment.
Steve and I were looking at the ordinance and maybe what we ought to think
about is looking at R-12 and saying that's apartments. Not townhomes.
Emmings: No ones ever going to be able to come in and say we're entitled
to R-12 zoning for townhomes here because they're always going to need
zero lot lines and we're always going to have to make it a PUD aren't we?
Right now we don't have any zero lot line provisions. They can't come in
and say here's our townhome plan and we've scaled it to R-12. They can't
do it. They could do it but...
.
Erhart: In our standards just say that townhouse density the maximum is 8
or 9 or something but 12, I just don't think makes it.
Olsen: They could still choose to go with the PUD though.
Erhart: Yes, but we could still limit it.
Emmings: But we don't have to approve a PUD.
Erhart: We don't have to approve it and particular if we have standards
on density.
Conrad: There's nothing wrong with 12 or 15. I could have gone,
increased the density to 20 as long as, I'm not too concerned about how
people are stacked together if they want to live stacked together. I'm
more concerned with how that fits in the neighborhood and also the green
space around it. You can still keep open space but I don't think what we
saw last week was any example. It really takes an intent to allow some
lower income housing and multiples in and all of a sudden we are kind of,
we're going away from some very philosophic directions that the City has
and it's a problem.
Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m..
-
Submitted by Steve Hanson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim