Loading...
1q. Planning Commission July 16, 1997CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 15,1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Alyson Brooks, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Allison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous; Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION - HOUSING. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: I've got a question, well actually a comment I guess about you were talking about working with companies. Have companies volunteered any subsidies or any financial support to housing in the community? Aanenson: No, but that's one of the things when we went through the Livable Communities Act, one of the ideas that came out from the city ... that's something that would probably... Joyce: You've got a memo here from Carver County HRA, about 5 or 6 pages in there. And... find information on the residents who benefitted from HRA programs or the City may want to include in your survey and it doesn't look like a lot of activity there. I don't know, is there. Aanenson: Yeah, actually I've got an update on that. In the North Bay project, both Carver County ... 6 to 8. That was just down from the last couple... Joyce: So part of that is just that it's so new to us in Chanhassen? Aanenson: Yeah ... but the North Bay project went in... That money from Carver County is allocated for first time home buyers. Joyce: ... we're talking a lot of this Livable Communities Act and then we have all these programs that are going and it doesn't look like anybody's taking advantage of them so I don't know if we need some better information out there or whatever. Aanenson: We do work with Carver County... Senior Housing. Some of those are also... Joyce: The only other thing I'd say, and I just I've always felt concerned about the goal of 50% of the houses built being affordable. I'm going to put that on the record. I don't see how that Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 could possibly happen and ... meet it. I mean it's like the carrot and the horse, whatever. Land values are such you can't do that kind of business out here so I just... Peterson: Other comments, questions? All right. I guess mine are simple. I think the goals really haven't substantially changed that much and the ones that have are certainly not controversial. I think Kevin's made a valid point but once we sign up to the Act, we have to move ahead with it. When do you think this will be all done and presented and approved by Council? Aanenson: What we'd like to do when it comes back, what we want to do is get input from you. We'll come back and refine. The way this was laid out, Bob and I discussed a lot of options. I think what we're going to do is probably throw the existing format out. How the numbers carry through... it's going to come back in a different format... So we're Ingme back with... h Ma sure you're comfortable with understanding the document and e twocommunity meetings and you will hold the large public hearing. Then it will go on to Council. We're hoping to have those community meetings late in the fall and probably after the first of the year—public hearing. Peterson: All right. Nice job so far. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT - DISCUSSION. Aanenson: I'm going to turn this over to Mark Koegler. Mark Koegler: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I want to take a little bit of time this evening just to kind of update you on progress with the work we're doing collectively on the Bluff Creek watershed report. -You guys have memorized this by now and it's becoming matter of fact but now it's time to actually get into some of the detail of it. The area as shown on the graphic that was on the screen, is on the screen, comprises about 5,000 acres altogether if you delete the portion that's not in Chanhassen and that's in the lower Minnesota watershed; district. Of that roughly 5,000 acres, about 1,360 are wetlands and those are the areas that are delineated by the darker blue color ... make out on the map. So if you delete that total from the 5,000 acres, we're dealing with about 3,600 acres of property which obviously is a very significant chunk of the city of Chanhassen, particularly of the remaining vacant land within the community. Within that 3,600 acres there are a variety of conditions that exist as you basically move from north to south throughout that corridor. There's properties in there that are clearly undeveloped or agricultural in use right now. There are properties that are developed such as Hesse Farm down south ... northern side. There are properties that you've undoubtedly approved plats on that we've not seen construction yet but will be over the course of this season or next season so there's a lot of things happening in the corridor, and I'll come back to that in a minute because that's kind of where our focus and our emphasis is right now. Let me spend just a moment kind of recapping the, basically kind of what is the core portion of the management plan itself and'that is specifically the primary and secondary zones that are identified along Bluff Creek. The primary zone is the buffer zone in which there is direct impact potentially on Bluff Creek itself as a water body so that clearly that is the most critical area in terms of land use. In 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 terms of impervious cover, water quality. Things of that nature. Within that zone the report goes on to recommend that the City either own or control virtually all of the land within that area, and that's been done in a number of areas through parks and other open space areas that are in perpetual easements. There's to be more of that in accordance with the plan. Other measures that we've talked about last time and that were identified include possibly some conservation related zoning. The density transfer that we spent some time talking about is a concept and we'll be getting into more of that at the next meeting when we get into this. Some of the other tools, cluster development, conservation easements, some of the things that this body has seen and used over the years very effectively. The secondary zone which is the more of the buff color, which again is set back one tier if you will from the actual creek itself, is an area that the report labels as being valuable to the balance of what's termed the Bluff Creek ecosystem as a whole. Critical habitat being within that area. That's an area though where development is anticipated to occur but the thing we'll be looking at more closely is what kind of controls will be a part of that process. What kind of impervious cover limitations might there be for example that are different from what they are on other portions of the community because this is truly a unique environment. As I mentioned a moment ago, there is a very diverse land use pattern as you move through this area and one of the things that becomes apparent, I hope this reads reasonably well. That became apparent to us and as we started into this process and I think we talked about as a commission last time, is we really need to have a very good understanding of what the dynamics are of the corridor. What's happening in terms of land use. What's developed. What's not developed. What kind of densities. What kind of cover are we seeing right now and what does that mean in the future. All I've put on there quickly is an overlay to show you some of the sampling that we're now doing via GIS and the computer base that the city has. We're literally going through from north to south and identifying things like the Walnut Grove subdivision that was approved recently. That one fortunately you were able to work with the developer to come up with a plan that pretty much respects what the watershed plan was all about. We've got parks obviously in a number of areas and again these are just representative. They're not intended to be all inclusive. Parks where we've got either through land owned by the City or land owned by the school district or other parties. We've got open space that in some cases is used actively and in some cases is used in a more natural format. As you continue to the south there are areas right now and there are a number of these sites that are being looked at as wetland improvements. The one that's highlighted there is being considered as part of a Bowser wetland improvement project. The capital improvement program in the management plan itself was very detailed in identifying a number of those project sites and we'll be inventorying all of those and those will come back to you to take a look at as well. There's been talk recently about some sites within particularly the southern area of the community that have very high quality habitat, tree cover, topography that's unique in some cases and there may be efforts to try to preserve some of that as open space to use either as parkland or some kind of a dedicated land arrangement. Bluff Creek Golf Course, obviously is a... space right now. Recall though we talked when we looked at the land use plan that there needs to be a longer range vision of what that might be if it ever ceases to exist as a golf course. If it ever ceases to exist as open space, and as such that would mean potentially to take a look at what kind of again restrictions would be appropriate for that property with regard to impervious cover. With regard to water quality issues and things assuming it develops in some form or fashion in the future and that may or may not occur. Obviously Highway 212 right -of -way comes through... another one of those big question marks, but it 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 potentially takes out a significant chunk. That would provide a balance of obviously hard cover but also permeable surfaces as a part of that construction. We're going to try to get a feel for what that means to the whole picture. So in essence what we're going to bring back to you on the 6th is hopefully a very detailed inventory of this entire area so that when we talk about, and we can have examples, about things like density transfers and we might target an area of the community say south of Lyman Boulevard and say okay, when this piece develops hypothetically, what's it going to look like? Here's the traditional pattern. Here's a pattern if we are going to look at some kind of density transfer method that would reflect trying to preserve some of the primary and the secondary habitat areas that are identified in the plan. What we can actually do is provide maybe even a couple of case examples of some site plans as to what the differences might be because again I think it's important for you as a body to have a good feeling that this density transfer is something other than an abstract concept. What does it really mean when we start looking at this corridor. There is a fair percentage of this corridor, and I don't have an acreage number yet but we certainly will, that is developed right now and there is a portion of it as well that will never be developed and obviously we're looking for that overall balance with regard to the entire corridor. So as I stand before you tonight I can tell you that we're inventorying all of that information. We're going to be coming back with that on the 6 1h of August. At that time also we'll probably have some of the initial sections of the ordinance as well, and then we're going to be developing the ordinance immediately thereafter. So I wanted to let you know things are still happening on this project. This project is kind of, it's been held back a bit by a couple things. Information availability as well as agenda time but it's to the forefront again and be back in August. Any questions that you have at this point in time or any direction that you would like to impart, certainly would be glad to listen and react. Peterson: Questions from fellow commissioners? Brooks: The only thing I'd like to say is, it's hard. I can't see that very well up on the screen and I can't see it at all on the TV set. Is it possible next time to make maybe just an 8 x 11 copy for us to look at? Mark Koegler: Well what we should have next time will be actually the computer generated graphics that we can produce literally to any scale and you'll have in your packets so, this was a quickie tonight. Just to provide you with a sampling of the kinds of pieces of information that we're putting together in a technological means. It's a little more advance than this. Brooks: Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Peterson: In the next stage, what evolution will it take? Will it be more defined in specific areas? We talked before about wanting to get a little better picture of where and what lands are going. We've got a step in the right direction here significantly, but it's still a long ways from really a color coated style of how it's going to develop. Mark Koegler: I think though that's the path we're on and I think the, in looking back at this, I think what we've viewed as one of the key things was to have a good inherent understanding of where are these areas that are going to develop. What does it really mean? What's the landscape 4 Planning Commission Meeting -July 16, 1997 there? What's the impact of the development? If we're talking about density transfers and taking it off of a 30 acre piece here and putting it onto a 60 acre piece here, what's that mean to the 60 acre piece and the surrounding development pattern? I think that's kind of ultimately the pattern color thing that you're referring to that we intend to get to. Aanenson: Another letter that I had ... wetland projects. Actually that took up quite a bit... It does take up quite a bit of... Mark Koegler: If you look at the entire watershed, if you start the numbers games, starts out at about 6,100 acres. That's a tremendous amount of property and when you start thinking about density, well we can move it here or we can move it there. But when you really start looking at it and look at the pattern that's developed right now it becomes pockets of land in certain areas where suddenly it's more important to focus on what the impact to that pocket is consistent with the goals for the whole area. Peterson: Other questions? Thanks. Mark Koegler: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 192 SO. FT. ENTRY WAY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 10,000 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, HALLA NURSERY, DON HALLA. Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Would the applicant or the designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, this is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and a second please. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone please come forward to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments. Anything? Sidney: I guess, you know I was thinking of this in terms of, even though they have a legal use, it's still a non - conforming use. I don't know if I like that idea of expanding a non - conforming use. However, it appears that the addition that it does serve a function of providing for the health and safety and protection so I would go along with it ... would not want to see Halla come back for additional expansion... 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I agree with the staff, Brooks: No comments. Peterson: May I have a motion please? Blackowiak: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97 -8 as shown on the site plan dated received June 13, 1997 subject to the following condition. Condition number 1. Peterson: Is there a second please? Joyce: Yeah, I'll second that. Peterson: Discussion? Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97 -8 as shown on the plans dated Received June 13, 1997, subject to the following condition: 1_ The applicant shall apply for a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FORA 30,0 SQUA FOOT TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND HIGHWAY 101 WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SERVICES PHASE 8 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Blackowiak: A quick question. I made a comment that there goes my major problem with the entire building in terms of adding the access onto Main Street. Can you point out on a plan or something where that access would be and also where you're hoping that the plaza will be situated- Generous: Okay, this is the main street of Villages on the Pond and here's that westerly entrance the way that ... steps up to the building. And what we're saying is the south half of this area, potentially in the existing walkway and actually create a crescent shape plaza area, a landscape n Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 area. As you look straight down here you see that... We'll look at as part of a boulevard landscaping to create that opening. Peterson: Any other questions of staff? Bob, I assume that the amount of underground parking is minimal to the percentage of outdoor. What is our ratio? Is it 4 to 1? Generous: For office, it's... In this instance 3 %. We looked at the overall parking plan ... 3 % to 1 per 1,000 square feet. In this project in some areas we'll have 4 %z per 1,000 ... closer to detailed area where we don't have the over abundance of surface parking area. Peterson: What percentage is underground in this one? About. We can ask the applicant. Vernelle Clayton: There's 30. Aanenson: Overall or just the project? Peterson: Underground. I just want to get a sense of what. Aanenson: Just for this project or the Village? Peterson: Any questions of staff? Joyce: Bob, you had a condition number, wait a second. Oh here it is. Condition number 4, an additional landscape peninsula. Where, I'm not understanding. Condition 4 says an additional landscape peninsula. Generous: That would be on the east side of... There's another one on the St. Hubert's side that would mirror this. It's approximately across from the entry. Joyce: So it's going to be attached to the other parking lot is what you're saying? Generous: Yes. Joyce: Okay, good. All right. Okay. Peterson: Questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission at this time. Vernelle Clayton: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Vemelle Clayton. I'm with Lotus Realty and it's nice to see that we have a new person who's name is not Allison, just for the sake of avoiding confusion. I think I'm going to turn most of the evening's discussion on this topic over to Mika Milo and I will explain who he is for those of you who are new. Mika Milo is the, owns an architectural firm with offices in Eden Prairie and in San Diego. He has been with us as the lead architect and the creative behind much of what we've done right. If things have gone wrong, it's probably because we argued with him. He has done a great job for us from the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 time we started this project at the concept stage through the PUD approval. This will actually be the first building within the project that he has done the design work for. So we're excited to get off the ground so to speak with something that we're designing and planning for. I should explain that you will be seeing us one more time before we build on this site because we aren't at this point coming through with a replat. This is an Outlot K. The site as a parcel, the boundaries won't change but it has to be relabeled. We'll do that a little later on. One of the reasons for coming forth at this point with this plan is that we have undertaken to enter into an agreement with a couple of experts on office leasing, and one of the things that they need for the people that they're talking with, and a couple of them so far in the 5,000 to 7,000 square foot range, is that those folks like to see what they're going to be living in. So we needed to get this through the approval process so they could have an idea of what it's going to be. Construction therefore won't be starting immediately but we hope, some of those folks would like to be in in the next 9 months or so so that is our target. With that then I would like to just say that I'll come back and see if any of you have any questions on the landscaping, but I'd take this opportunity to tell you that we don't have any problems with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. I do have an observation though that perhaps the Fire Marshal could become a little more concise in the future. Half of the report seems to be Fire Marshal stuff but assuming we understand all of that, we don't have any problems with the staff recommendation. With that then I'd like to introduce Mika to explain the building. While we always try to be cognizant of your time and wanting to move on to other things and understand that you haven't had a lot of time to look over the plans and so Mika has been told to explain it as thoroughly as he wants but if we go on too long, interrupt us. Thanks. Mika Milo: Thank you very much Vernelle. My name is Mika Milo. Principle with Milo...Group. Pleasure to present the first building design, as Vernelle explained within the Villages that we have come up as developer and architects and were the planners for that. It's really exciting because before we were working for a year or two of just to get the site plan concept, the overall Villages development and now it's an exciting period where the Village is hopefully become, not hopefully, is becoming a reality. And as we have some other parties designing several segments in Villages and we are over seeing that in terms of architectural review committee before they submit anything to you, we also have occasionally a chance to also design something on our own and present here before you. This is, like Vernelle said, the first building that is ... coming up soon with another retail building facing Highway 5. For now our focus is on that office building that is on the southern end of the main street. The Village main street where it intersects with Highway 101. Now next to the church, St. Hubert's church and next to the church plaza. Just south of it. It's kind of surrounded practically with the church parking and school parking and building and it's facing on the main street. It was somewhat a challenge how we are going to organize that building so that it feels still it has own identity but on the other hand we also did not have much problem of having the building being surrounded with the urban corners because that's the name of the game so to speak. For the Villages that we do integrate all the functions together and everything... that will allow and what I'm told that you were trying to achieve with this. As Bob has pointed out, the entrances to the office with parking here and here are also shared by the school and the church as well and then there's a separation, a landscape separation where we are going along between our parking and the office parking and the church and school parking. Before we came up with this design we have as always before, N. Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 we have been in very close touch with your staff here. We had meetings with Kate and Bob a couple times and coordinating all the issues so that I believe at this point certainly we are... therefore I think that in general we are on one page, same page... It was somewhat, typically when you have an office building of that, that you see in our suburbia nowadays, you would see a very recognizable office building. They always are fairly typical with the long glass bands and...straight lines and so on and very ... as an office building. Here, being on the main street that will be composed of really retail buildings and apartments, this is the only building that we see right now that have a...how we can now have that single office... building being on the main street as we still incorporate this within the overall character of the main street. And so our idea from the beginning was let's not develop ... and design it so it be looking as resembling... typical suburban office building but have the building that will have... interest over any building that is on the main street that's not necessarily immediately reveals it's function but rather project various functions to happen in that building or over the period of time ... so the design of that building was developed around that central theme is to make a design that will blend with the main street function and will not be recognizable just immediate with an office building. You can also mistake that building as being an apartment or motel or... and say that looks like an apartment building or looks like a motel. So how we can reach that. Well, we have to start to form another ... that the building does not have to be immediately recognizable in terms of function. That there is some interest—and also it can evolve all the time. So with that in mind we developed the elevations and the design that should fulfill basic function of with the office building that we feel ... with a garage level... The garage level of the building is almost at the same level as the connection drive. Your park and drive ... so that you would go ... The parking lies, as Bob pointed out, from here. From that northern edge of the church plaza down to the southern edge, taking of that one, we are talking about 10 feet or 10 feet ... so that's the reason why we have the entrance to the first floor more towards the northern end and the entrance to the garage from the south. So we are playing with ... We are having the entrance to the garage here and the entrance to the office floor from up above so that makes sense and therefore it'd be necessary for a step down and that was one of the ... and put the money so to speak into the entrance elevation facing the parking. Not to pay too much attention to the so called back side. In this case we don't have any back side. Our back side is actually the ground side facing the street and therefore we ... facing the main street and even the potential that even though we have right now a green landscape area separating the main street and the building, there is no parking for us to go along the main street here because of the curb and because of the grading. The street goes up fairly steep but we were still trying to develop the elevation facing the street that we already have some connection with main street and there is even potential connection even with the side road here that... With that I will show you the elevations now... The materials that we have is for the wall, for the wall we have the exterior wall is the creamy beige color, sandy color overall for the elevation. The roof we are proposing is the light greenish... with some blue in it but mainly a green. Very pastel green. More pastel type of colors than earth tone colors we have on the building. And the glass we are proposing as being brown glass and the base of the building, there is the garage level ... we are proposing to be with a ... gray concrete block which we... similar to stucco over the building. Overall. Finish it with ... and a metal roof here and I'll show the elevation. I found one blown up elevation and the one I think is better to show you... We have all four elevations. One elevation gives one example of one blow up of a bigger elevation. What indicated is that as a creamy, sandy color of the elevation of the office system L1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 with a greenish roof on top of it and brown glass that is brownish but also reflective ... as well. The other thing, the design besides the color consists of two story over the garage level and as you see the drain ... this is the elevation from the main street. This is the main street elevation. And you see that the main street is going... Here is the church plaza on the upper end. The building floor of this level towards the ... coming out of the ground so that you see that line here represents the floor line and to the south and then you start to see that ... base of the building. Of the building is relatively simple and this was purposely done. The old traditional buildings are simple buildings. They don't have all kinds of these, of pretentious, thousand corners and all kinds of things. They are relatively simple. Straight forward. The rectangular shape. It has only one area here that ... out toward the main street and the roof ...and also is finished with a cupola on top of that. So we do have some ... on the roof and the roof is sloped 1 to 2. 1 foot high to every 2 horizontal. This is ... and we have some ... two floors are here. You see that we have roughly ... some arches here... traditional architecture. So the overall extraction of that building is traditional feeling but has some modern twist to it I would say. You see the element of...the round glass element facing the street and the columns supporting it and that round glass element here would somewhat bounce and play off of the church and school. They also have that element in the back so as you approach the main street you will see that area being curved and open back on the church building... So that explains very briefly the cause of the elevation... elevations are similar but different to some extent ... the entry elevation to the parking. From the parking end is similar. However the element that ... facing main street so we have a differentiation of the elevation but every elevation is always different and. There is a nice repetition I see in terms of elements of the repetition of the arches and the two tone of colors of the elevation which is the light beige and heavier beige in the intersection with the accent color. Now the column that you see here as being pretty strong blue. Bluish, violet. Bluish red. It's more blue than the red. The color is the accent color for the top of here as you see. The ... very small on the small ... that certainly is a big chip here, the same as the wall ... looks like it would be a lot of this color. No. This color is compared to this really just a small fragment here from the elevations... so that will be my first explanation to that. The roof is basically sloped roof and is a metal. It has a portion that is flat, a portion in the middle but you don't see. You don't also... You also do not feel that there is ... as it looks at the elevation. It really has a full roof ...We are talking about 25 feet at least that of the roof all around the building plus this... projection area which ... so that the middle portion, there is a very narrow area that is going, that is flat which will be used for... Peterson: Mika, if you would, go back to the first board. I look at your corners of the building and you've got glass on the ends and the corners from basically floor to, first floor to second floor. How are you going to separate the floor itself from the glass? Is this going to be darken? Mika Milo: That's, I'm glad you brought that point. I'm sorry I forgot to say that for sake of giving some interest and ... not to have a completely... repetition of the same thing, we gave the corner of it more special element. This is that very limited area of the first wall that we see on... In that area in order to hide the structural system behind here, it's going to be a ... glass in the same tone as these. This is why we are showing you that here. This is the regular tinted glass that you see has that ... is corner area of that first wall ... be uniform. They are division glasses and there is a structure behind. You will not notice the difference... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Peterson: Just to give us some perspective, what's the length of the building approximately? Mika Milo: I think it is about 200 feet by about 72 feet width. We've giving about 1,500 square, I mean 15,000 square feet per floor times two is 30,000 square feet. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: What is the rotunda going to be used for? Do you have any ideas for that? Mika Milo: Probably used for, this is for ... facing the lake. Lake Susan and Rice Lake and we felt that this is good to have that—on that beautiful views for anybody entering that space. It probably will be a high class conference room. Something like that you know. They'd like to have that... Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I guess I was kind of scratching my head here about the color of glass. On the elevations you're showing kind of a bluish tint and in the samples I see gray and brown. Will it look blue on the building? Mika. Milo: The samples are a bronze. A bronze glass which is more brown but it does reflect the blue sky and everything... I don't know if this is possible but I will, I would throw an idea and I appreciate... to have the, I have hard time deciding between this brown glass and I'm still not quite ... I would like almost to see a larger sample and then decide right there on which color. But the other option I'm thinking about is to use a deep green tinted glass. That might be very nice with the roof here. It would be more reflective... It may be a little more interesting with this beige coloring here... Joyce: Mika, on the north elevation I'm, is there an access into the building there? I see it looks like a sidewalk going into the building. Mika Milo: With the foundation, yes. There is a sidewalk going down. What that is is really not meant to be an entrance, and entrance to the building. What that is here is just a stair going to the garage. In other words, when you are in the garage you have to have two ways of escaping. Not just one way. One way is out here, this way and there is another door on the other end of the garage. Joyce: That's an emergency door basically then? Okay. And I would imagine on the north side is the same. So what do we have two entrances. One from the street. Mika Milo: We have one entrance from the parking only. That's the main entrance right here. Joyce: We're also talking about putting one on the street, right there? Correct. So we've got two. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Mika Milo. This is the optional. We hope that there will be some activity in connection with the low ... and maybe they can have another. Joyce: I think that's a, when I looked at this and you know we didn't have the blueprints of it, what are we doing here? I mean this the whole concept. Vernelle Clayton: Well clearly we're trying to orient things to the street as much as possible. Joyce: Right. Vernelle Clayton: ...there's parking areas in here ... parking over here and coming in here but... The other thing that you should know is there is, there's a possibility that... Joyce: Still, I mean. You've got, we're talking about having this whole promenade here. Vernelle Clayton: Yes. No, we've had this discussion with staff and Mika probably wasn't here... Joyce: Well, that's going to be a condition. Aanenson: It is. Joyce: Oh! I didn't see it. Aanenson: That was our first. Joyce: I don't see it in the conditions. That's why I was going to be making it. Generous: Our plans have the sidewalk. Vernelle Clayton: ...you have a sidewalk... Aanenson: But it's not shaded. But if you want to clarify that, that would be all right. Joyce: I think I'm going to ... yeah, we'll talk about that. Peterson: Well I want to talk about it now. I mean my question would be, if there is a single tenant, and I was that single tenant, I wouldn't want two entrances, okay. So I think there's an issue that we need to not put a condition in there that would prevent it from being leased. Aanenson: Our concern was, whether it's a single ... this is a pedestrian oriented ... so the assumption is because there's no parking. Well the whole premise, we've got 300 units there, residential units ... but it's still given that opportunity... obviously because now you've got a corridor in there but we thought ... I was concerned about that look too. That's kind of what it looks like. You've got a fake ... but this is the first project coming in in a pedestrian oriented 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 project ... but you're working with tenant space and... We think we can achieve it. We're not confusing people but yet there's some... Peterson: Any other questions? Other questions of Mika? Vemelle Clayton: I don't have anything that really I want to say except for one thing. Do you have the overhead or do you want... Just one observation and that is ... and we put some material in here which... That's all I have to say and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Peterson: Good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second to open it for the same please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. If you wish to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address and... John Lund: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is John Lund. I live at 8140 Dakota Lane ... the development. I just had a couple quick questions and you have to excuse me. I was doing a little babysitting during the meeting. Could you please review the view from the south side of the building, and explain a little bit the orientation to the public trail behind the building. Vemelle Clayton: ...which part of the trail are you referring to? John Lund: Rice Marsh. Vemelle Clayton: Okay. I had a question on that too and ... we have yet to see St. Hubert's landscaping so ... and their property is right to the south... This is the trail. This is St. Hubert's property and this is ... so now the south elevation... John Lund: That will be really facing the existing, or the trail. Vernelle Clayton: Right. John Lund: And on their plans, there's somewhat of a bluff facing that trail today. Vemelle Clayton: Along here... John Lund: And as the development has taken place, today that area is basically stripped. Are there plans, and maybe I'm being redundant but are there plans to landscape that area between the office building and to the south? And what are those plans? Vemelle Clayton: ...St. Hubert's and ... we have an obligation and a right to approve it... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Generous: Mr. Chairman, as part of the site plan we did receive the preliminary landscape plan. They are putting in like sumac and some vegetation to help maintain the slopes. They won't have... John Lund: I understand that the site is definitely under development but today there is severe erosion of that bluff down to the trail. There is mud sliding across it almost every rain so I think the landscaping of that bluff area is really critical. That was one of the areas that I wanted to address as well as expanding a little bit of the site elevation and the view from the south. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Dave, is there anything we can do to, I mean obviously the last couple of rains have, almost any erosion control wouldn't have held that but. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. We've had some pretty intense thunderstorms. We have been in contact with the developer, both Opus and Amcon on that. They are to be cleaning that up and repairing the erosion control measures this week out there. Peterson: Good, thanks. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Alyson. Brooks: I actually like that building quite a bit. I think it's one of the nicer buildings that we've seen come through here. I really like the design. I like the fact that you didn't follow, what is it, form follows function. We did something different this time. It's not a pre -fab building like we usually see so I think you should, at least I would like to commend you on the design. I think it really is unique and it's different and like International Market Square has shown, you can take a different looking building and do some very nice things with it so I really have no other comments than the fact that I think it's a nice design. Oh, and the green glass. Yes. I think that would be interesting to see and use. I want to try that. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I have nothing to add. I'm real impressed with our standards in Village on the Ponds. It comes out when you see a real example ... the standards are great. I think the applicant and staff did a nice job on this proposal because it reflects the Village, yet it looks marketable, which aren't always easy to do. I take the person that spoke in the public hearing seriously about the landscaping of the bluff area. I think that's real significant. I don't know how to make something happen but just restoring is probably, that's minimal activity. I guess I'd like something to happen other than thinking that it's going to be restored or stabilized this week. I don't know. I'd be interested if anybody else had an opinion on that but other than that, a good presentation. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I'm very impressed with the building design. I have no further comments... I can really tell that everyone's done their homework. Staff has worked well with the applicant. I really appreciate that. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree. I love the design. It's certainly nice to see, it's very refreshing I should say to see something different. I hope that the applicant and staff can work together to get some type of a street presence near the rotunda because I feel that we've got a pedestrian oriented PUD. Like Kate said, we have to make sure that we meet the needs of pedestrians and whether it's an entrance or a plaza or something, we've got to have something that shows that it's not just a blank building. It looked kind of funny to me. I mean that was my first reaction when I looked at the plan. I said where's the door? You've got to have a door off, you have to have something off the street and that's just kind of what jumped out at me right away. Other than that I really enjoyed looking at it. I think it's a nice looking building. The comment about the landscaping, the bluff, I ran on the trail this morning and it was rather treacherous. It's very muddy down there and there's a lot of water that's being held back by the silt fences and I think there are underground springs there. I don't know what's happening but I agree. Something needs to be done because it's pretty treacherous back there. So I speak from personal experience. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: As far as the architecture of the building, I think it's wonderful. However, I have a strong philosophical, I feel philosophical difference with the developer as far as incorporating the street into the building and when I first looked at the plan, the main entrance was in the parking lot and to me that's the main entrance for every office building in the world out in the western suburbs. I can understand people having to drive and get into the main entrance but I think it's just so important that we do something with that front entrance and I ... Mika and Vernelle, well we're looking at putting the sidewalk in to lead up to this entrance. I'd like to put a condition that that has to be part of, there has to be an entrance into that building. That's my feeling or I'm not understanding what we're doing here. I think that with where the building is, it's number one being the first building that we're going to be approving but where the building is, it's coming right off of Highway 101. We want people to be walking along here. We want people, even though it's an office building, I want people to come out of that office building and go around. And if they're not encouraged to do that, they aren't going to do it. They're going to use the parking lot. People are going to come in and out of the parking lot and the front of the building won't be used. That will be a dead space on that corner of this development. And I see that you have plans for building number 18 and you know I'm not going to force the issue but I think that has to be incorporated as well. You have to have the lighting so that, I mean we have to make this street, main street work. It's going right into that church plaza. And I think this is important. I think this is the kind of detail that is so important to this project. I am really, I don't, I know you have to use functionality as far as the building, the tenants inside. I appreciate that and I'm Ili Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 not, I don't know anything about that. But some way we have to work that into there. And I think the building itself is beautiful. But you know and I was talking about that north elevation, I almost wish we could have had some sort of entrance on that corner there and rounded the building off or something just to have people come in and out of there. My bad taste of this, the only thing I have wrong with it is even identifying the main entrance as off the parking lot. I think that's not what we were talking about as far as this project. So as far as, I think it was a great idea of the staff putting that plaza type of situation in there but you know we have to keep our eyes on what we're doing here and I think office building number 18 has to be, has to really incorporate this from the street and I'd encourage that so that's all I have to say about that. Peterson: Thank you. My thoughts are not at all dissimilar. I think it's a great first entrance into the design work of office buildings and Mika, I certainly hope that you will get the opportunity to design many more within the concept overall because you clearly have set the tone and I'm glad to see that, or following what the original intent was, which is very reassuring. You did an incredible job of maintaining that. Setting atone for future buildings within there. I think that in speaking to Kevin, I may not feel as strongly about the front entrance. You know I think it would be great if we can do that. Whether it'd be you know a picnic area or something like that that would have the access. Again I can empathize with a multi- tenant or a single tenant. There are some security issues and accessibility issues that we'd have to deal with from a leasing basis that I know are pretty significant. But at any rate, I think it's a great first step. With that, may I have a motion please and a second. Joyce: Well I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed 30,000 square foot office building on Outlot K, Village on the Ponds #97 -9, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated June, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 9 and delete number 6. Then the 9th condition, I'd like to put in there, consider just what we're talking about. A consideration of the plaza type feature to the main street and having an access entrance to that main street. Peterson: Is there a second please? Brooks: I second. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed 30,000 square foot office building on Outlot K, Village on the Ponds ( #97 -9 SPR), plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 6/13/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property must receive final plat approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2. The developer and future site users shall be required to incorporate street /plaza furniture, planting boxes, public art, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. within the development and on individual site plans. 3. Install irrigation in east parking lot island planting bed. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 4. An additional landscape peninsula is required in the eastern parking lot area. 5. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The applicant shall provide hydrants as shown on plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403. b. A 10' clearance space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. C. No parking fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. d. Install post indicator valve on the water service coming into the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. e. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to, and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.502. f. Building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy #29- 1992. g. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on combination domestic /fire sprinkler line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36 -1994. h. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991. i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire pre - plans. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991. j. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Inspections Division Policy regarding water service installation for commercial /industrial buildings. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34 -1993. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 k. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy fire sprinkler systems. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division #40 -1995. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on labeling of rated fire walls. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #44 -1997. m. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on fire alarms. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #01 -1990. n. Parking lot layout must comply with Building Code requirements for handicap stalls. 8. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide the necessary financial guarantees to comply with the conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall incorporate an entrance on the west side of the building and consider a plaza treatment in the rotunda area. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW PORCHES TO ENC ROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRO YAR SETBACK. Shannin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Has there been a preponderance of these requests? Al -Jaff: No... Peterson: Is the Honorable Mayor trying to get more porches in our city? Okay. This is open to a public hearing. May I have a motion to open to public hearing and a second please? Sidney moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments. Kevin. Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Joyce: I'm going to wait and see if anybody else has a comment. Peterson: Allison. Blackowiak: Well, I'm one of the people that called and talked to Kate the other day and told her I was confused. I understand what, I believe I understand what is trying to, what we're trying to do here. I don't know that we necessarily need to limit it to 6 feet on each side of the main entrance. I looked at the plans that you had attached, for example plan number 12 to me, the porch that goes much longer than 6 feet however, I think it's wonderful and I think that's the spirit of the ordinance. I think you want to add interest to homes and I don't know if restricting it to 6 feet on either side of the door will allow people to do that. I understand the hopes of not encouraging people to add room additions, and basically that's what you're I think trying to prevent is people adding a large porch. Encroaching into their setback and then at a later date enclosing it. If a porch is narrow enough, I don't think people will be likely to enclose it so maybe we could look at it from that perspective as opposed to a length perspective. I don't know, and again I did talk to the Honorable Mayor about this last night and you know, she explained to me her position. I understand it but if we've only had two requests for variances, I don't know that we really need to get into it at this point. If staff feels strongly that this is something we need to look at, I think maybe I would like to see it back again and toy a little bit more with what you're trying to accomplish in terms of maybe an elongated porch or something. Maybe don't limit it to the 15 feet, or something like that and I don't know what it is I guess right now but. Aanenson: What you're... trying to develop... Anybody that comes in under new construction certainly the front porch ... and anybody coming in today... The issue is when you have an existing home that now wants to put a porch on and they want to encroach. Do we have to go through the permitting process of going through a variance? ...but again, we want to encourage architectural... What we are concerned about is up front space and then... which is good. Blackowiak: Oh definitely. I agree with that and I think maybe an intent statement would help because we don't want to dissuade people from improving their homes and adding things but at the same time I understand the need to maintain setbacks and at least get a handle on that so, so that's it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I looked at this and the first question I asked is ... how many of these requests for variances have we had? Two. So I think to me it seems like pretty much a non -issue in some ways. We're not getting a lot of requests for them. I do see Allison's point because that was one thing that I thought might be nice is if you would be able to put a porch all the way across the house to add some interest to the house, but then I can understand staff's position that it much encourage people to eventually enclose it and use it as living space. So I guess after thinking about this I feel as a first step ... to include existing homes, that this was a good start. I guess I would understand this would be smaller homes on smaller lots and you really may not want to have this...porches in the front anyway. It's more of an entrance to protect from snow and wind 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 and rain. And so I think the way it's written I don't understand the 6 feet part but ... it appears in this formula, I agree with staff. What I'm hearing is go back to the intent statement, what do we write? ...an example here of newer architecture and I guess I don't see that ... so I think what we're trying to do is just provide people with a mechanism to create a better entrance to their home. Not necessarily expand it with a porch... Peterson: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Oh I don't think it's a real important issue and I'd rather not have staff spend a lot of time on this. So an intent statement is appropriate and let's get out of there and pass it on. Peterson: Great, thanks. Alyson. Brooks: My only concern is that if you have an older home that is historically significant that is without a porch, that is not something we want to be adding porches to. We need to be really careful of that. One of the worse things I've seen are those great Chaska brick houses with like a wood lean to on it for a porch. I mean that, it completely destroys the historic visual character of the property. So I would, if we are going to pass an ordinance like this, I think we need some kind of clause about the houses in Chanhassen that have obtained National Register listing, or that have been considered eligible for listing on the National Register and monitor putting porches on historic properties. So I guess before I would pass this I would ask that maybe we consider adding something about historic properties. Peterson: Okay, thank you. I don't want to spend a lot of staff's time either. That was my first reaction. I understand if there was a lot of these, that we take the staff time and commissioners and Council's time to address this. I don't see that obviously as happening. ...because we have an ordinance, you're always going to have another variance so my reaction is I don't think we need an ordinance for this slight adjustment that we're making. With that, is there a motion and a second? Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning staff recommends, well let me think about this. I take back my start of the motion Mr. Chairman. If somebody has ... consider it. Peterson: So I ask for a motion again please. Brooks: I move that we table the motion pending further consideration of it's affect to historic properties. And I want to use Alison's, some of Alison's concerns but I can't. I'm stumped. Conrad: The only other thing was an intent statement. Brooks: Oh, and with the addition of an intent statement. Statement of intent. Want me to say that again with a complete sentence? Peterson: I think they can sort that through. Is there a second to that motion? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Yes. Mr. Chairman, you would rather not see this back. Peterson: Correct. Conrad: Staff, how much time do you think you'd have to spend on this based on the motion you just heard? Couple hours? Aanenson: Probably. Conrad: Do you two agree with this amendment? Aanenson: I agree with Craig. I don't think it... Conrad: And did the Board of Adjustments, did they grant this variance? Did they? Just a comment. I think it's a well worded amendment. It's very simple. As arbitrary, it seems simple to me. Aanenson: But as Alison had said, is 6 feet the right amount? ...do you just raise the level ... I'm not sure there's a right answer... There's a lot of homes that have landings... Is that the right amount? ...I mean it was an arbitrary number back then ... well thanks for the 5 but I need... Peterson: Any further discussion? Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to table the amendment to City Code to allow porches to encroach 10 feet into the required front yard setback for further consideration to historic properties and a statement of intent. Brooks, Blackowiak and Sidney voted in favor. Conrad, Joyce and Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. Brooks: Well Ladd, what do you want to do then? Conrad: I think. Sidney: Just leave it. Brooks: Do you want to pass it as it is? Conrad: No. No. I think we kill it. I think we kill it. Brooks: Kill it. Oh, okay. Well that will save my historic properties then. So that works. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Conrad: I would recommend that the Planning Commission turns down. I would recommend the Planning Commission recommends disapproval of the zoning ordinance amendment 20 -908 regarding yard regulations per the staff report of July 16 Joyce: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of an amendment to the City Code to allow porches to encroach 10 feet into the required front yard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: And the rationale for the City Council is that we don't see the need or the accuracy of the, if we don't see the need of an amendment at this time, and that we feel that the variance process can handle the few requests that we're receiving. Peterson: Okay, thank you. OLD BUSINESS• Peterson: Any old business Kate? Aanenson: No. Joyce: Any comment on this Kate? Aanenson: The Council directed you to ... trail. The issue that we had whether or not identified a trail out in ... hadn't been identified to the potential buyers. The attorney did state that you'd have to have the underlying property owner's approval and he, Mr. Carlson ... but regardless of where you stop the trail, going north to Lake Lucy, you're able to get over to Minnewashta, that would be a benefit... What we are ... trail, Council wanted to see how that relates, if there's a tie in continuity... before it comes back for final plat. That was one item that was on the Council's... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 18, 1997 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Back to me now? Peterson: Ongoing items. Conrad: We thought you were thinking. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Aanenson: Video Update was approved at Seven and Forty -One Crossings. There was some discussion on... landscape... They also approved Chan Bank addition... Sidney: Have they started the... Generous: I think to date they've given notice. Aanenson: They've gotten permission. Peterson: What did Council do with the sign for Villages on the Ponds? Anything? Generous: We're trying to get... Aanenson: That's all I have. We do have a meeting, for the first one in August. August 6` "... Also have on a site plan on Quattro Drive ... then we also have items for the... Peterson: With that in mind may I have a motion to adjourn? Blackowiak: Excuse me, I have a discussion item. Just quickly. Two things actually. Number one, I was at the Council meeting Monday night and there was a little confusion on the motions, etc. on the Video Update proposal I remember. Anyway, the gist of it is, at one point Ladd we talked about, I mean in general about training session for people on how to make motions. What to do when and City Council went through this Monday night. They were going to table and then they couldn't table because of this and then they were going to deny and then they, I think they were going to try to deny it and that got voted down. So after a few iterations they finally did what they wanted to do but I'm wondering if anybody else would be interested in some type of training session and can we get somebody to, I would certainly benefit from that. Aanenson: We have a fall work session set... Brooks: When's the fall work session? Aanenson: I've got a schedule here... Second meeting, first meeting in October would be our work session. Peterson: That may be something that Roger could put in writing too because every new member wouldn't have the same issues. Aanenson: Yeah, what I've got blocked out is October I" for a work session ... If that's not soon enough, if we have a lighter meeting. That would give us time to go out and... Blackowiak: Because we had talked a little bit also about, when we get to more sensitive issues, you know what to say. What not to say. When to say it. How to say it, and those are things that I certainly feel I could benefit from somebody else you know kind of giving me some guidelines and telling me when to keep my mouth shut and... So that's one thing I'd like. Second thing. In 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 the Council packet on Monday night there was a MnDOT memo to Bob, and I talked to Kate about this and they made some statements about Trunk Highway 5 and how they have no additional plans for TH 5 and TH 41 and I said to Kate, as I read this it doesn't say any good thing and she said, well we think we've got it taken care of and we think we've got an understanding with MnDOT on where we need to be. I said well as long as you get it in writing that's okay but I think we need to discuss transportation because we've had several pieces. You know the Gateway for example we're talking about 30,000 extra trips a day. What do we do? And I know Bob once you mentioned about Florida and how they had to. Aanenson: We're going to talk about that when we get to the transportation element. Allyson went to a meeting that was at Carver County and another follow -up meeting with Carver County next week and their comprehensive plan and ... as far as development. Again, according to the letter that was in the packet, the letter that said they're not going to upgrade. The recommendation from Strgar Roscoe that there be six lanes. Brooks: That was ridiculous. Aanenson: ...right, exactly. So that letter, we're not going to do that. His response was... but Allyson's been involved in the transportation... Brooks: And I just wanted to say, what I want to do, and I don't know what you think of this, because I sit on the steering committee for the comprehensive plan. They're going to break up into a transportation sub group and I would like, I don't know, would like to approach Paulene about being a part of that transportation subcommittee because since I'm on this Planning Commission I think it'd be a really good liaison. Aanenson: That study, the City of Chanhassen... we need to talk about that as far as the comprehensive plan and the Council's talking about that too. Are we going to expand MUSA when our road systems are... Brooks: ...the toughest issue really is, is that, and whoever does the transportation plan is, I have a lot of sympathy for whoever does our transportation plan because the bottom line issue is, there's no money to build a road anywhere. Period. Done deal. And if we don't have the money, what's the answer. Don't build? Aanenson: What happens if we don't build? They're going to go further west... so as we go through the comprehensive plan we're going to have to... Brooks: The other issue I really noticed is that people want to preserve the, the County in doing their analysis of how people feel about living in the County. I don't know if you've been called by this company that's doing the, you know the how do you feel about your county study. People like it living here because they like the rural nature but they hate the congestion. But people are moving out here to live in a rural farmstead but as they keep moving here, then you get more congestion but they don't want more roads because then it's not rural. And I have no idea how you deal with that so. But anyway I think I'll talk to Paul about jumping... 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997 Conrad: On the same issue of transportation, I invited the new Director of the Southwest Metro Transit to talk to you Kate. Aanenson: We've met. Conrad: To bring him in. What's going on as it relates to our transit problems. Aanenson: And that will be for us too when we talk about the transportation component because in the '81 plan, or the '91 plan... Peterson: Further discussion? Is there a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Brooks seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25