Loading...
1.j. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1997.i� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Bob Skubic, Allyson Brooks, Ladd Conrad and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION -LAND USE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any commissioners wish to offer their respective thoughts? Brooks: I had a question about the agricultural section. It says here the City has a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as services are available. I'm not sure I guess from reading this if we are going to actively try and keep some agriculture in Chanhassen or we're just trying to keep it as long as we can. Aanenson: That would be something I guess that we would look for a policy statement from you. Right now the Metropolitan Growth Strategies, we can take all the land in the city into the MUSA and we know what happens to land prices.. Unless someone's in an agricultural preserve, what that does and how that does as far as our infrastructure timing. If we have to leapfrog over something. What the cost is to that. The other thing underneath that is we had prior to 1987 we had a lot of large lot subdivisions down by Lake Riley. Hesse Farm. Those large lot subdivisions. And because the topography that some of those areas, it'd be hard to subdivide those. in the future. So what we said is that people that have bought into that rural atmosphere, unless the majority of those people petition to have it changed, it would stay that way. We would just leave it exempt from MUSA, just like we did with Timberwood. Left them exempt from MUSA. Unless the majority of them come in and say you know what, the character of our neighborhood, we no longer want the large lots. We want to be provided urban services at that point ... Then they could further subdivide. Otherwise what we're saying is that that's going to remain, people can be confident that that, the rural atmosphere that will stay. We wouldn't be more specific in that policy statement. So there's two components. Brooks: Okay, not just the rural lots. I guess I'm curious about the actual, you know farming activity. I think a lot of the, from what I can make out from talking to some of the farmers in just Carver County in general is that they're pretty terrified that their property taxes have gone so far up they can't afford to farm. The taxes alone are driving them out and I think if you look at the Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 County mission statement, it talks about preserving the heritage of the County and the agricultural feel of the County and all that. That's kind of tough in Chanhassen but I just wasn't getting real good direction. Aanenson: Right, and that's a good point. I think we have to balance what Chanhassen against Carver County and I think the way we've looked at it is, certainly we have properties in this city that are.. that's in ag preserve that probably most of that preservation will probably occur outside of the city of Chanhassen. It will probably be more rural. But if there is somebody that wants to be in that, we need to address that to say that might be held ... and staging of our urban services might go a different direction so that's a good point. Peterson: In talking about keeping the rural feel and the larger lots you talked about and subdividing. How do you, is that by ordinance? We don't have one now. You kind of mentioned that it would have to be a vote of over 50 %. Aanenson: Right. Right now the way it's addressed is under the zoning ordinance it says that area is zoned 2 %2 acres. For example we've had situations occur where sewer and water is available to somebody. So let's say you're in a large lot subdivision. Sewer and water goes past your property. Your neighbor decides I want to be able to have that sewer and water applied to my property. Now I can subdivide but you bought into a larger lot subdivision and you're thinking, this is what I wanted to be surrounded with so we're saying, even though it's in close proximity, the majority of the property owners need to say we want to change and no longer be rural. So it needs to be a majority. I think that's again what people bought into unless it's ... changed. Peterson: Right now is that in ordinance or is it just policy? Aanenson: Policy. We've had situations where people have asked to do, and what we've said is the zoning is still a minimum 2 %2 acres. So we've had people that have, if they have 5 acres, they could ask for city sewer and water. Let's say that they don't have an opportunity to put in septic on site but they still have over the minimum. Say one of them is 3 and the other lot is 5 acres. They can still subdivide to get... There are areas that may never be subdivided because of the topography such as Hesse Farms. There's areas in there because of the slopes and the bluff ordinance that even though people live on 10 acres, they couldn't subdivide because they wouldn't ... it may be cost prohibitive to run utilities. So they may just always be large lots and that's something we need to identify. Peterson: And that's going to be the balance is talk about the roles for getting more affordable housing and more density than we currently have and yet if you ask the residents, I think the majority of them will say that of the rural type feel, to balance that is going to be the challenge that we all have and where do you set the goals and how much autonomy to act do we as a commission and staff have to balance those needs. Aanenson: I think that's what we looked at too with the Bluff Creek. What you have to realize is that we're already heavily weighted, look at the large lots that we have and just the single 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 family. It's already weighted so even though we're getting away from single family detached, because we're so weighted in numbers to large lots, it's going to take quite a few higher densities to bring that average up. What we are saying is that along Bluff Creek for example, when we come back with whatever districting, we're going to come up with an overlay district, there may be more cluster type where we preserve larger areas and provide open space. That kind of—different way. That being sensitive kind of, sustainable type development. It's going to be a challenge but it's worth trying to pursue. Peterson: You asked about getting feedback on MUSA and where it should or shouldn't go and timing of it. I mean clarify your question a little bit more because. Aanenson: There's a couple different ways to do it. We want to make sure that we've got enough area inside the MUSA that we're not artificially inflating prices. We could look at, we want to make sure we can have so many permits processed. Maybe we want to look at, if we're going to bring in areas, we want to make sure it's balanced. Just not residential but we're also bringing in a balance that need. Maybe it's just a total acreage. We could say we're only going to bring in so many acres. So there's a lot of different ways we can look at that and what we're going to do is try to run some different formulas to see how that works and give you some different approaches to it. What we said from the beginning when we looked at this is we're going to go, bring it in based on where we already provided ... so logically the next place to bring it is TH 5 and TH 41. Highway 5 frontage road going in and our infrastructure's in place there. What that timing is, I'm not sure. And then the next area is off of Lyman where we've got the ... would be the next logical area. How long that all takes place is something for you to give us direction and the Council to ultimately decide. And as we know, we talked about is what can we handle as far as growth based on our road systems and school district and all those things we need to factor in. Sidney: So you'll be providing us with some scenarios? Aanenson: Yeah. That's why I want you to keep this background data to keep adding to it. Sidney: And the same with densities as well? You mentioned that as another issue that we need to talk about. If you can do a similar type of scenarios. I don't know how that would work in that case but low end, high end densities as zoning is looked at. And then you said definitions of certain uses. I guess could you explain that more to us. Aanenson: Sure. For example, on the comprehensive plan some of these areas here is guided as... What the comprehensive plan is very vague as far as what we talk about. It says high density and also talks about commercial. What specifically do we mean? How much of it should be commercial? How much of it should be high density? What if it all came in commercial? What would that do to the downtown area? What if it all came in high density? There's some other areas we've also guided... Old 212 that we've also said some commercial but we need to give specifics of what we're... How does that relate to the rest of the area and architecturally get into what's happening down there. We want to give you some ideas. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Sidney: Okay, so then you'll have scenarios concerning that as well. That would be great. Peterson: Other comments, questions from commissioners? Sidney: I have one more question about employment figures. Any idea when you would have something at all? Aanenson: Jacqueline Schroeder here is our intern that just started and that's something that she's working on right now so. Bob has been working with Chaska and they're doing that business retention study. So we've got a list from them. We believe ... is trying to find the phone number. Hopefully we'll have that in the next month or two. Sidney: Then you need more than just one point. I would think you'd want some past history as well. Aanenson: Yes, we do have that from a couple years ago, yes. We believe those numbers are very low. That's why we're questioning the Met Council's numbers. We want to see where we fit. Peterson: Kate's asking for direction. Now's the time to, before she redrafts it for the 12 time. Aanenson: Sure, or if you want to call me if you've got some ideas or some concerns. Blackowiak: On the land use goals, page 2 near the bottom. It talks about encouraging the development of neighborhood service centers and locating them where they will not impact abutting residential. And it talks a little bit about modifying the goals to make sure that these centers are architecturally compatible. And I would suggest that you consider not only defining specifically what you will allow in a neighborhood business for example, but also what is not compatible in a neighborhood business or in a general business district or however you're defining it. So not only do you define positively and give examples of things that would be included, but also define it in terms of things that would not be included in that type of a district so maybe it would make it clear for people. And then I guess page 3. One quick comment. At the bottom. The development phasing in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. And I'm just asking from a question I guess, how do we define services? I mean you said city sewer, water and streets. Is there anything else that we need to consider in terms of defining the word services? Aanenson: That's kind of the gray area where we talk about ... for demand on services. Park. It gets a little bit more difficult and that's going to be more of a policy decision but we certainly want to apprise you of that information so you can make a decision based on what you believe some of the service demands may be. We think the most significant ones are certainly sewer and water and streets. Whether or not ... services but certainly it's going to have an impact on the school district. Impact on the parks. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Blackowiak: And also I was just thinking that last time we had seen, needing a grading of those services from A through F scale. Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm talking about. Blackowiak: So I mean maybe something like that. I realize it's always objective but if you could give us an idea of whether we're getting good service or mediocre service or poor service. Aanenson: That's something we'll certainly talk about in the transportation component. We're working with Carver County in the transportation element and I think what we'll be giving you is, if it doesn't meet a certain service level... Right now Highway 5, we know what level that's at. Maybe saying we can't expand it until that ... and we have to look at the ripple effect of what Chaska and Victoria is doing. How it still impacts us. Whether or not we... That's why we're working on it as a County. Peterson: Other comments. Conrad: Yeah, I have a couple comments. One thing that I think is really missing here is what we do but it's not in the goals and I think it's preserving the natural habitat, or what we have. And it's real fundamental and we've been, as a commission and as a Council we're just done that very well but it's not here. And that, philosophically that sort of drives what I, I like to stay out of the developer's way but before the developer comes in, I'd like to say you can't touch this. You can't do that. So that's a glaring absence. It's covered in other chapters in our comprehensive plan but in terms of our land use goals, it has to be there. It's hard to come up with a sense of Chanhassen when you go through these goals. It's real interesting to figure out the sense and who are you and it's real important to have 4 or 5 goals that just say, that's us. Which leads me to my second point Kate, and I think there's some things that are common sense in here. Put them in if you like. It waters down the impact. If it tells you how to operate government, then you should keep them in. But it seems very much common sense from a planning standpoint to me. We will not develop before development should happen. You know I'm being cute but there are 3 or 4 goals in there. If that helps, keep them in. But from a citizen standpoint it doesn't help me at all. It's really, there's no other, every other community will say the same thing. I'm looking for things that tell me who Chanhassen is and the direction we want to go. So again, I'll let you figure that out but. Another thing that's missing I think is another thing we're doing and maybe that's just, maybe we don't need a goal for it but it's talking about our mixed use project, and maybe we have others. Do we care to have others? Is this just a stand alone? Do we have no other areas? I think we like the mixed use concept of Village on the Ponds. What do we do with it or just do we say, well it's done. Aanenson: Good point Ladd because we had, when we originally ... a couple of other opportunities we thought that that could be applied. Conrad: If we like it we should say it. If we don't care, we cut it. Two other points I think. The financial thing, and this is, I tell you. I keep talking about this. This is our last cut at you know, this comprehensive plan sort of says how we're going to develop and I really want to force the 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 issue. Do we have enough in industrial and commercial to balance the residential that's coming in? It's going to be a cheaper residential and I've just got to challenge staff to tell us that this is the mix. And I think I've said that, I've asked Mark Koegler and it's tough, but this is it. Brooks: But do we have any infrastructure to support industrial? That's the part that I find difficult is that we don't have the roads and we don't have light rail to move the people and the transit service, I don't know how well that's used by people in Chanhassen. We can't have more industrial if we don't have the roads to move anybody or things anywhere. Conrad: Then don't allow residential. Brooks: Well something's got to give, I agree with you, unless everyone agrees... Conrad: The number one in Chanhassen is taxes. And this is our allocation of land to balance the tax burden. And traffic, I agree with you Allyson. Transportation is a big deal. Brooks: We won't have industrial if we ... industrial can't get their stuff out. Conrad: But if you don't allocate it now, you'll never get it. That's my only point. If you care about balancing the tax burden and putting on industrial /commercial, we have to be real confident that we've allocated it properly. And I don't know where that comment goes but this is it folks. I agree with what Allyson's comment is. I don't think we have a philosophy here of preserving ag forever. It's not. It is don't let it develop prematurely. That's it so make sure that's, well that's my perspective. Make sure we're clear on what that says. It is, we're not preserving agricultural. We are going to be maxed out at 35,000 population, or whatever the number is and there won't be any agricultural there and that's what I assume is happening. Now that's my philosophy but that's just the way it's going to be based on what we've done. So the goal is not to preserve ag. It's just not to let it develop before it should. Peterson: Other comments? Brooks: I have a question. Who won the election? Do we have more parks, or not more parks? Yes, we have more parks. Great. Peterson: Other questions and comments of Kate? My final comment was really kind of tying onto Ladd's. Over the last couple of years it seems that we've been asked more for rezoning and that ties into the fact that what is the impact. I mean we all have a difficult time assessing the impact of rezoning. Whether it's the various types. What is the impact of, the fiscal impact. We're kind of guessing. We never really have had a model and... integrated into this. That may be totally aside from the land use aspect of it but as we make decisions it'd be nice to have that in front of us in some kind of an easy model saying if we do rezone this, is it going to have this kind of an impact. Nice job so far. C9 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 48.99 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 48.99 ACRES INTO 54 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT, LOCATED NORTH OF HWY. 5 ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41, (HAZELTINE BLVD.), SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, JEROME CARLSON, HIGHOVER ADDITION_ Public Present: Name Address Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard Larry Constantino 2340 Lake Lucy Road Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could interject too. We did modify two other conditions. Condition number 12 as a result of discussions with the applicant's engineer. Also condition number 20 was modified as well. Peterson: Questions of staff. Brooks: Dave, I have a quick question. There is some formula, how many trips is it per home that it is calculated per day? Hempel: Generally a single family residential lot will generate 8 to 10 trips per day. Brooks: To 10 trips per day. Skubic: The tree preservation. Is it possible that all the trees could be taken off ...as long as they replace it the 1.2 to 1 ratio or...? I know they're... Aanenson: They cannot clear cut the site. That's city ordinance right now. Peterson: Does that mean they can leave one tree? Al -Jaff: Actually when we worked with the applicant, we've had several meetings with the applicant. Originally, right from the beginning they were proposing to custom grade the lots. Staff wanted to see worst case scenario as far as grading. We didn't want to sit with the applicant each building permit and negotiate how the trees are going to... We wanted some standard established and then... The intent of the applicant is to custom grade the lots so it's really for benefit of staff. What could potentially happen... Peterson: Other questions of staff? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Blackowiak: I have one question. Page 10. Park dedication. Could you talk a little bit about why there are no park dedication fees, or just explain this a little bit more. Aanenson: Condition 4(a) does require park and trail dedication... on page 16. Blackowiak: They're paying trail fees then and there will no nothing further in the lot is that correct? Or in the development. Aanenson: They will be paying park and trail fees. Blackowiak: They will be, okay. Normally there's a dollar amount or something that we see. Aanenson: Well it just says per city ordinance. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: We've tried to move from that because it changes. Peterson: Other questions of staff. Sharmin, I've just got an informational type question more than anything else. On Block 3, Lot 13, there's a substantially different width on the entrance of the lot going down to 35 feet. Do we have a minimum on ordinance for the, on the entrance to a lot or not? Al -Jaffa Yes we do. A lot ... does not specify how narrow it can be. We have approved... Peterson: We weren't obviously. -..in this case but that one was noticeably narrower than the other ones so. Other questions. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address. Donald Peterson: My name is Donald Peterson. I am the project coordinator for E. Jerome Carlson, who is the owner of the land. I'm a registered civil engineer and I've been doing development for, since 1980. Basically on a fee basis for individual homeowners or landowners or for my own development company. This particular project I'm working on as a coordinator for Mr. Carlson. I have with me here Dwight Jelle who is the principle engineer at Westwood Planning and Engineer who we've hired to do the detailed engineering work on the project. We had done, actually hired a planner and two other engineering firms. Mr. Carlson had before I was involved with the project. We looked at those plans. I reviewed them with Mr. Carlson. We made many changes in them. We actually came up with three different proposals before we ever submitted this to the city planning staff. Since that time we've worked very closely with Sharmin and the rest of the staff to try to work out a plan that incorporates what we'd like to do. And as well as take care of the city needs. We've revised the entire street plan on the south end of the project from what we originally presented because of some concerns that the staff had, the engineering staff had regarding the future development to the south of us. So we worked very closely with the staff. I'd like to just state that Mr. Carlson's primary concern with his property P. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 is to be able to develop the land but preserve as much of the character as he can. So our lots are quite large. There's going to be quite a variety in price from the low to the end. We haven't determined all the numbers on that yet but the lots are large. We tried, we moved the roads to work with the land to provide grading that blends with the land and try to eliminate tree removal. And some of the recommendations refer to tree removal. We do agree to a tree removal limit being established. We think that's certainly well worth while. It's just a matter of what that tree removal limit, how long that lasts and what it encumbers we have to work out with the staff prior to the Council meeting. But we do agree with these recommendations that were added, that were changed tonight. One of the things that we had done was we submitted a 28 foot street back to back but I've had conversations with Dave Hempel and he's informed us that they do not go along with that recommendation and he wants the street to be 31 feet back to back of curb and we have discussed that this afternoon and agree to that. One of the things that Mr. Carlson was very interested in, in creating some type of pedestrian movement in the project so therefore we have not only provided a sod pedestrian trail along the east side of the property to serve all the homeowners in this area, but also to make a connection for homeowners to the south to be able to walk down to Minnewashta Park. Hopefully someday there will be an underpass underneath TH 41. We will provide whatever easements are necessary to get to that underpass. At this point in time it has been no determination by the City where that will be but if the City can determine if there will be one or request easements, we'll provide those. Right now we're running our path and a sidewalk down to the trail that's on Lake Lucy Road. And we're going to provide a connection at our intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Highover Drive so that the children and the homeowners can walk across the street at that location, at an intersection to get on the Lake Lucy path to run up to the school. We also volunteered, on our own, to provide a sidewalk on Highover Drive. 5 foot concrete sidewalk so that all of the homes have access to some kind of pedestrian movement. We also will be working with the planning staff to incorporate some neighborhood facilities in there. We feel that it will probably be 3 or 4 gang mailboxes because the post office department will want mailboxes on one side of the street and not on both. So we'll have gang mailboxes and we're going to be working with the staff to try to work out some type of boulevard or property line landscaping which might be some park benches or benches along this area so people can come out from their home at night, pick up their mail and visit with their neighbors. The whole idea is to make a neighborhood, not just a project. We've revised the south end of the project to meet what the request of the city and we're willing to work with the homeowners to the south to incorporate an alignment that works best with their property. We've provided this road where we think it should be. There is some flexibility. Not a great deal of flexibility at that location. We've tried to provide a location which would serve the property to the south, but we really don't control what happens there. Highover Court South used to be a through street going to the south through to the Youngsted property. The City requested to change that because we were going through a heavily wooded area there and the property to our south is also fairly steep so that was revised and we eliminated that connection from what we originally submitted. I don't really have anything more to say other than we're going to strive to reduce the grading as much as possible. We've provided a plan which we're showing you is the absolute worst case scenario. We'll be working with the city staff. My understanding's in Chanhassen, before we get final plat approval we have our construction plans done and during that time we will be working to revise grades as much as possible to minimize grading. And as Sharmin mentioned, we're going to try to provide as many custom lots as we can so that we can E Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 try to save trees in those areas. Granted there may be some trees that we save that might someday die but our experience is that a lot of the trees that we strive to save remain. Some of them will die. But this is an area that, and there's trees that are worth saving in that area. That's about all I have to say. We do have, Mr. Carlson has provided an easement for a pond south of Lake Lucy Road. When Lake Lucy Road was constructed and initially we didn't provide an additional pond to that but the staff recommend we provide a sedimentation pond prior to the water from our project going into that. A plan that was built when Lake Lucy Road was constructed and we've incorporated that into our plan. With that I'd like to just answer any questions that you might have. Peterson: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. Could I have a motion and a second to open it to the same please. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you wish to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Paul Youngquist: Hello. My name is Paul Youngquist, 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard. I apologize. I'm out of town an awful lot and I haven't been able to come in and sit with you so I basically have just a couple questions for staff. Sewer and water, utilities. What is the plan for those? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, sewer and water will be extended through this site from Lake Lucy Road south. There is a grade break where the sewer can service the property. Maybe I can show on the overhead. The staff report made reference to five lots that are on the low side that would have to be serviced... lift station to service these five lots. The high point of the property is... The area to the south is designated to be served by sanitary sewer... Watermain will be ... as well as a loop... Mr. Youngquist's property lies south between this development and the Lundgren development... Paul Youngquist: Is that a NURP pond or what is that? Hempel: The developer is required to provide pre - treatment for water quality and water quantity before leaving the subdivision. The City Surface Water Management Plan proposes a regional stormwater collection pond to be down in this area here in the future. At that time, as the property develops... construction, this pond will be eliminated and incorporated into... Paul Youngquist: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Larry Constantino: My name is Larry Constantino and I live at 2340 Lake Lucy Road. I guess I'm the only resident in that area right now and I had a couple of questions. First of all I'm very supportive of development of this type. I think it will lend a lot to the neighborhood and 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 development of that area of Chanhassen: I do have a concern however in reviewing the plan that the access point onto Lake Lucy Road comes at a point on a hill and a curve on Lake Lucy Road, which may be a potential hazard in the future. And I'm sure that the staff has reviewed that but I'd like to go on record as questioning whether it is in compliance with whatever standards are necessary for that area. Peterson: Comments to that Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, we will look at that with the final construction plans when the final grade for the street has been determined. Right now these are preliminary plans. The location where it does access Lake Lucy Road from a sight line is on the outside part of the curve which would give you good sight lines east and west. The gray part, where there's a hill there, that will be taken into account to make sure that there is adequate sight distance for the speed that the street is posted for. Larry Constantino: Okay, along this same line I have a follow -up question then. What provisions, if any are being at this time for a crosswalk to cross Lake Lucy Road from this development to join up with the Lake Lucy path? And what efforts will be taken to control the speed of vehicles on Lake Lucy Road, which today seems to be excessive. Because it is kind of a rural area. Hempel: Chairman, Planning Commissioners. There is a crosswalk proposed across Lake Lucy Road at the intersection of Highover Drive. Speed. The street I believe is posted at 30 mph, Lake Lucy Road, as well as Highover Drive. Lake Lucy Road is a city collector road. As far as speed goes, that does become an enforcement issue. You can put sign after sign after sign but still drivers that will drive wherever they're comfortable with so it does become an enforcement issue. Right now Lake Lucy Road is a dead end street and it's limited to a number of homes which I believe are less than 6 up in that area right now. Larry Constantino: Yeah, but the plans are for that to go through probably in the next year or so. Hempel: That's correct. Larry Constantino: So again, I'd like to go on record as expressing concern about the plan, the way that it's laid out right now could create a potential hazard in the future. Peterson: Thank you. Larry Constantino: Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commissioners? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Skubic moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 11 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 1997 Peterson: Before I go around I've just got one last question. What's our current either ordinance or policy on landscaping of the islands and the cul -de -sac? Hempel: I'm not sure if we have an ordinance yet. We do have a policy of requiring the homeowners association to maintain those landscaped islands. If not, the city reserves the right to eliminate or remove those islands if we do have to start a maintenance. From a snowplowing standpoint, I'm told that it's actually easier to snowplow those cul -de -sacs with the islands. The circles when they're done versus the back -up, go forward, back -up, go forward so we've actually felt very comfortable with them. The landscape islands that are out there in some of the Lundgren neighborhoods look very nice and are functioning well. Peterson: Are you concerned about the height and the height of the landscape material, i.e. safety? Hempel: Not really. The site, as you come into the cul -de -sac, the island I believe is 12 foot radius or 24 feet wide and the pavement section out there is actually about 46 feet wide to the back of curb so there's a pretty good sight lines around the cul -de -sac. Of course the speeds in there would be relatively slow. Peterson: Thanks. Skubic: One more question of Dave regarding the crosswalk. What constitutes a crosswalk? Does that include a stop sign? Hempel: No. There are other traffic control signs and striping of the pavement that's required at a crosswalk. Crosswalks generally are at intersections instead of mid - block. Brooks: Is it possible to combine a speed bump with the crosswalks? Hempel: No. Speed bumps create havoc on snowplows during the wintertime. I'm trying to think of other crossings in town that we have. We have one in front of St. Hubert's school there on West 78` Street... Again, it's a traffic control and signage issue. Skubic: Thank you Dave. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Alison. Blackowiak: Overall it seems like a well thought out plan. It seems to take into account the varying topography on the site. My major concern would be that efforts be made to save significant trees where possible. And if as in recommendation 1, talking about either an easement or removal limits, I would personally favor some type of an easement. Tree easement to ... just taking them out after the homeowner moves in because once the homeowner moves in, if there's no easement, it appears that they kind of do what they please. ...it seems to be such a significant area for large trees and hardwoods, I would hope that the developer could work with the City to do whatever's possible to save as many of the significant trees as possible. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I don't have a lot of comments but mostly I would say, I just agree with Alison. That it would be nice to have an easement to save as many trees as possible. Other than that I really don't have a lot of other comments. Peterson: Conrad. Commissioner Conrad I should say. Conrad: It looks fine to me. Just one quick question. Do we have a trail running along Highway 41? The other side? Aanenson: It's a proposed trail. Conrad: The other side? Aanenson: Unless we you want to get one... Conrad: We don't need one on this side then for sure, right? Aanenson: We want to get to the... Conrad: But there's a trail running north and south on TH 41 on the other side. Aanenson: Proposed. Conrad: Proposed, okay. Other than that, it looks good to me. I like the sidewalks in there. like the things that the developer has done very much so no more comments. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I agree with Alison regarding the tree preservation easement. There's a number of trees coming out of there, it's inevitable that you're going to build the property. And I think staff and the applicant are taking appropriate measures to try to minimize those. I've seen instances where there have not been easements or very good easements, I've seen easements that have ... west short of Lake Susan for example. And I'd like to see us do whatever we can to preserve what is—so I certainly support a tree easement over a tree removal plan. Other than that I agree with what staff has prepared here. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I don't have any major concerns except the tree removal issue. I'd like to see the applicant work with staff to save as many of the significant trees as possible. I think the development has a lot of very nice elements. I think it's well laid out and I guess I have no further comments. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Peterson: I don't have many other than I agree with one of the residents that was addressing us tonight regarding the access to Lake Lucy. In driving that area, where it is now it's hard to tell with the grading but it clearly is, if the grading doesn't change significantly it does have some sight lines that are pretty restrictive. And I too agree on trees. But I'm very pleased with staff. This is a very large undertaking and really they've worked well with the applicant to present us with a good plan. You've heard very few negative comments on so... With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #97 -1 for Highover Addition for 55 lots and one outlot as shown on the plans received June 6, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 28. Conrad: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Brooks moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #97 -1 for Highover Addition for 55 lots and one outlot as shown on the plans received June 6, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit tree survey showing all trees 30 inches and larger with overlay of proposed development and grading. Establish tree preservation easements or tree removal limits on appropriate lots. If either easement or removal limits are established, designate penalty for encroachment. A tree protection fence shall be placed along the edge of the grading limits prior to grading. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear 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. b. No burning permits for trees will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 4. Park and Recreation conditions:' a. Payment of full park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication or trail construction. One third of the fees shall be paid prior to recording of the plat. The remaining two thirds shall be paid at the time of building permit as identified by city ordinance. 5. Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 4 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. 6. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 7. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 8. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 9. The proposed single family residential development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $31,512 and a water quantity fee of $77,992.00. The water quality fee will be waived upon the applicant meeting NURP design for on site runoff. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 10. Prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for staff review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. Plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to the City Council meeting. As -built construction drawings will be required upon completion of the utility and street improvements. 11. All custom - graded lots shall provide a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan in conjunction with building permit application for City review and approval. 12. Lot 1, Block 2 should be designated as a tuck -under type home on the grading plan and not a ramble unless the applicant can demonstrate to staff that a rambler -type dwelling could fit on the lot without excessive grading or tree removal. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 13. Cross - access driveway easements 30 k et in Lots 5 shall and be p rov keg for Lot 1, Block 2 across Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 4, Bloc 14. The street construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm drainage pond. 15. All storm water ponds shall be designed on oowith of depth of water or 4 1 slopes overall. at the normal water level from the first 16. The storm sewer proposed along the rear e and connected to the proposed sewer through along Highover Way to Highway Driv Lot 28, Block 3. 17. The existing well and septic system will need to be abandoned per City and State of Minnesota Health codes. 18. Parking shall be prohibited on Highover Court North and South adjacent to the landscaped cul -de -sac islands. The City shall sign these streets accordingly. 19. The developer may plat Lots 1 through 3, Block 4 and Lots 27 and 28, Block 3 contingent upon the developer installing and maintaining a temporary lift station at the end of Highover Drive. The developer shall also be responsible for the abandonment and removal of the lift station with the extension of service of gravity sanitary sewer for these lots or the developer may plat these 5 lots as an outlot until future sewer service is available. 20. The developer shall install a 12 inch watermain versus an 8 inch watermain along Highway Drive. The developer will be entitled to credits against their utility hookup charges for the cost difference between an 8 inch and 12 inch watermain. 21. The developer shall loop the water line system in Highover Court South along the common lot line of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 for future connection with the Lundgren subdivision, The Woods at Longacres. 22. The erosion control fence along Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4 and Lot 28, Block 3 shall be Type II. 23. Temporary cul -de -sacs will be required at the ends of Highover Drive and Highover Trail. Traffic barricades shall also be installed with a sign indicating "This street shall be extended in the future." A condition will also be placed in the development contract to notify future property owners of the street extension. 24. The street widths throughout the plat shall be increased to 31 feet back to back of curb. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 25. The driveway access to Lots 1, 2 and 3- Block 1 shall be restricted to the eyebrow area of Lake Lucy Road. Direct access onto Trunk Highway 41 shall be prohibited from all lots in the subdivision. The existing driveway access from Trunk Highway 41 shall be eliminated in conjunction with site grading. 26. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee with the terms of final plat approval. 27. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for public improvements which lie outside the street right -of -way. The exact easement width will be determined in conjunction with final construction plan review. The minimum utility and drainage easement width shall be 20 feet. Drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated over all wetlands and storm water ponds up to the elevation of a 100 year storm event. 28. All existing structures on the site need to be removed prior to recording of the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Skubic: It appears we need a motion for rezoning. Peterson: Correct. Skubic: Then I'll make that motion. I'll move that the City Council approve rezoning #97 -2 for property zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family for Highover Addition as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1997 and subject to conditions 1 and 2. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #97 -2 for property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family for Highover Addition as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #97 -1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: RE QUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A 14,610 SO. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN ON _ ---- "Y% d"r1►PTn A r r2rTCrNTi CC "FQTRif T_ AND LOCATED A7 WEST 78 STREET HTG ARCHITECTS. Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions for staff. Brooks: How many parking spaces? Al -Jaff Required? All together required, 98. They are providing 71... The 27 will be provided off site. Peterson: More questions? Brooks: Could I just take this thought one step further? For the size of the building you're required so much, but do you think that bank really needs that many parking spaces? Aanenson: Another option which the code would allow which is proof of parking demand and the mix of uses. If they would come in to and demonstrate to us the mix of uses. Similar thing we did with the hotel. They came in. We asked them to demonstrate the hours and demand. That is the reason why that condition was... The reason this whole issue got struck was when the City was looking at expanding City Hall. It was ... the parking lot would be built in the City Hall and the Council Chambers would have been... We believe the mix of use would have worked then because the demand for this space would have been at night when you're having a Council meeting, and not necessarily during the day when the bank has use of spaces.. That was the original intent. But you're right, maybe they don't need that 27 spaces but ordinance does say they need to demonstrate that and we need to look at that to make sure that we're not approving a use that can't meet what they need. They have to somehow demonstrate to the City, or we have to do, we're obligated to provide the spaces. Demonstrate that those spaces aren't needed. Brooks: I'd just hate to see us building parking spaces that are unnecessary. Aanenson: Agreed, and that's something I think that we're going to... Brooks: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? The only question I had Sharmin is, prior to the applicant coming up. They may address this but reading it I assume that the style and textures of the new addition are virtually identical to the existing? Al -Jaff: It carries through basically the same style. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Peterson: Basically is being defined as: Aanenson: The same color brick. Peterson: So I can see is the same but materials and colors are the same. Any questions? Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. Jeff Pflipsen: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission and staff. My name is Jeff Pflipsen. I'm with HTG Architects. Our address is 7401 Metro Boulevard, Edina. We, all the items in the staff's report we agree with. We don't have any real issues. I won't hit all of them but there's a couple of them that I'd like to address at this time. The first one regarding the trees. Five additional trees is not a problem. We have, in the report it says we had to remove a few trees and if we can do it we may want to try to relocate them but some of them are pretty big and we've been told that if you try to dig those out, the odds are they're probably not going to last. But either way we'll either relocate some of the trees or add the trees back so the 5 trees is really not a problem. I do have a photo here. Sharmin asked that if I wanted to bring a photo just to show you the materials but we will, everything on the exterior of the building will match. The new building, the addition will match the existing. Even the, right now you have two big ... or steel columns at the entry. Basically that's going to push over to the west side at the new entrance so that the materials will be the same. Another item in the staff report was, they asked about the stormwater calcs, 10 years and 24 hour storm event. I thought I had submitted one but I have an additional one here if you need that. I apologize. I thought there was one in the report or the package we gave you but. One other item I did want to address is that Sharmin and I had discussions in the last week or so about some of these items on the list of the report. And one was in regards to the existing 4 inch watermain coming into the building and because we are sprinkling the entire building, that we got some conflicting information. Our mechanical engineer had spoke with, I believe it was the Fire Marshal and addressed that issue and the Fire Marshal stated that the 4 inch watermain would be acceptable. And then when I talked with Sharmin she spoke with someone else but I'm under the impression as of today, from what my engineer told me, that the 4 inch watermain is sufficient. Is that correct? Is that how it stands? ...and from my impression was when our engineer talked with the Fire Marshal, then they went and talked with the Building Official and it was agreed upon that it would be okay and so I just wanted to make note of that here. An item noted in the report. It says to show a trash enclosure. The current building has one and it is enclosed in a brick area so we're just going to reuse that existing one. The other items are all fine. We would be happy to talk about the parking at this stage. I do have Mr. Kevin McShane. He's the President of the Bank with me tonight and he is more familiar with the 1995 agreement with the City, if we want to get into that discussion. The bank currently has just 30 employees. Just, they have 30 employees and our thought was that parking, the employees would park on the northwest or northeast side of the site and leave the parking along the west for customers. The lower level of the building, the addition is basically unfinished space. We have a mechanical room. We have a storage room and at this stage we really don't have any intent. There was a thought to potentially lease it out but there, who wants to go down into the basement to lease but there is a potential for that. The second level has a potential. That is designed for tenants and with the design of the second level I believe there's roughly 2,500 to 3,000 square feet so if you put that into how many people would actually fit into 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 a space like this, I correlate to our firm. We have 11, or we have 12 employees in our firm and we're in a space roughly 2,500 square feet. So if you start saying there's 30 employees, say 15 people would lease, be on the second level. Now you're up to 45 people. Say they even leased some of the basement. Add another 10 so I think you could start to say that if we get up to 50 employees, then you have spare, another 21 parking stalls for customers coming in and out of the bank. And so we can, I guess we can talk about the rationale of 71 probably is sufficient but we also think, agree with Sharmin that... potentially using some of the post office. Developing that area and/or like in the 1995 document, there were some drawings showing when the existing, the old bank building across Market Boulevard would be removed. That parking could occur over there. So any questions? Conrad: Did you even consider building the bank towards West 78` ". Jeff Pflipsen: That was a thought but our concern is in regards to where people have to go through it. Now functionally from inside the bank where you have your teller line, your employees, your officers and your offices, it functions better on the west side so yes we did address that. And then our other worry with that was now, we put that over there. There's no place for parking so now all the parking is on the far side of the site away from it so we felt that was a concern. Peterson: Questions? Thank you. This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open that to the same and a second please. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened Peterson: Thank you. This is a public hearing. If you wish to address the commissioners this evening, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Sidney: Well I guess I don't have any concerns except parking at this point and I actually kind of have a question for staff at this point about what happens during construction. Where do people park? So I guess I would like to see that issue resolved as quickly as possible and I guess my vote would be for using the post office space if possible if the timing is right. But other than that I guess I don't have anything else. Peterson. Bob. Skubic: I don't have any. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah I like it. I wish Kevin would have put the drive through on the north side many years ago Kevin. Why didn't you do that? Kevin McShane: I wasn't here. Conrad: I know you weren't but that's too bad that we don't have the opportunity to push the building forward. I think the addition will give the bank better presence. I like it. I think it's just, I like that. I'm not worried about parking at all. They'll solve that. That's solvable. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I don't really have any comments. Just to say that I, you know am concerned that we don't over build the parking spaces and I'd rather see more landscape than parking but, keep that in mind. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: No comments. Peterson: Nor do I. It's a nice job also. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Skubic: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval for Site Plan #97 -7 as shown on the site plan dated Received May 16, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 16 as outlined by staff. Conrad: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97 -7 as shown on the site plan dated received May 16, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant needs to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The site plan shall be revised to include water and sewer service to the new addition and extension of the storm sewer lines to convey storm water runoff from the northwesterly portion of the parking lot and eliminate the existing concrete spillway onto Market Boulevard. 3. All drive aisle widths shall be 24 feet wide per City Ordinance. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 4. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 -year 24 -hour storm event to each catch basin segment. 5. The applicant's contractor should inspect the City boulevards adjacent to the construction for any damage to the sidewalk or curbing prior to commencement of site work. The contractor will be held responsible upon final inspection for any damages to the City's sidewalk, curbs or boulevard. 6. The proposed retaining wall on the easterly portion of the site should be revised to not exceed 30 inches in height. 7. The applicant will be responsible for additional sewer and water hookup charges calculated on the number of additional SAC units being charged. 8. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views. 9. All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping. 10. The applicant shall increase landscape plan to include 5 additional trees. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Show location of trash enclosure. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 12. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. 13. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 14. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 15. Building Official's conditions: a. The new addition and existing building must comply with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1306. b. Water service sizing should be analyzed to determine its correct required size. C. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 CL Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. 16. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon parking requirements being met. The current plan is deficient 27 parking spaces. The spaces may be accommodated off site in a location agreeable to both the City and the Bank." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9,680 SO. FT. MULTI - TENANT BUILDING WITH THE MAJOR TENANT BEING VIDEO UPDATE ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SEVEN AND FORTY -ONE CROSSING, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND 41, R & A RETAIL CENTER, MARK A. DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Davis 2333 Sheridan Terrace, Wayzata, MN 55391 Richard Heise 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, MN 55115 Roger Gordon 6508 Parkwood Road, Edina, MN 55436 Jennifer Greene, Welsh Companies Inc. 8200 Normandale Blvd, #200, Mpls, MN 55437 Brian Pellowski, PBK Investments 5500 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, MN 55416 Sharmin Al4aff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Conrad: Yeah. Do you have a bigger, I see the site plan. I'd like to see the context that it fits into and I didn't see that. Was it in our, I didn't see it. That's it. Yeah. That's not. I'd like to see how it fits in the shopping center and the traffic flow. Al -Jaffa I will go get it. Peterson: Other questions that Kate may be able to answer. Other questions of staff. Maybe one for Sharmin too Kate but, as I look at the west elevation. Primarily the west at least and it's what we consider the back of the building. There's a large area without a lot going on that's pretty high visibility. A look at the landscaping plan and I'm trying to balance what's in the landscaping plan versus this huge brick wall that people are going to see. Predominantly, I assume the west elevation would really be seen coming from the west on Highway 7, right? 23 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 1997 Aanenson: Right. And also there was a condition increasing the parking lot landscaping too. It did ... some of that. Peterson: That wouldn't be in the west side though would it? It goes back to the Kinko building. That one keeps rearing it's ugly head again but we didn't do a good job on that. Aanenson: Right. And I think that can be addressed by putting additional landscaping just off on that side. Peterson: From an architectural standpoint, maybe I'll let the applicant discuss that because I haven't got a good feel for what the upper area of the building and what that is and how it's going to make the rest of the building feel. Whether it's cold or not. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just interject. The westerly portion of the building does have a large berm as you go up that is pretty heavily vegetated. They are proposing to cut in the northwest corner of that berm to fit the building and disturb the vegetation there but there's a pretty significant hill there on the westerly side. Peterson: How much of the building would you be able to see from TH 7? Just guess. Hempel: Just probably the northwesterly corner of the building back probably half of the building. Peterson: Good, that's helpful. Conrad: So the TH 7 traffic is coming in where? It's coming at the SuperAmerica site. Okay. Hempel: A one way. Aanenson: Back out onto TH 41. This was the concern you were talking about ... back side? Peterson: Well on the west side too. Right there, and then Dave said there's the berm. Ladd, does that give you the right feel? Conrad: So Dave the parking comes in, the traffic comes in from TH 7 and swings, it goes south between the two sites. And then we swing west and then north... Aanenson: You go westbound on TH 7. Peterson: East or westbound? Both. Hempel: Yeah, get back onto Highway 7 at that north drive aisle is a one way. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Conrad: What kind of structure for the exiting do we have? We're kind of going through the parking lot. I've actually gone into there. I've been there but I didn't, is it a typical parking lot that you're driving through? Does it have any kind of curbing? Hempel: It does have curbing around the perimeter of the drive aisles in the parking lot itself. I do not believe there is any islands in the existing parking lot installed to protect the turning movements through there. Conrad: This is the way SuperAmerica traffic exits. Aanenson: Yeah. You slip in and then you come back out onto TH 41. Conrad: And why did we let that happen again? Hempel: I believe the State had some play in that. Peterson: I'd be willing to bet you that 5% of the traffic that makes that first turn is thinking they're going on TH 41 like I've done about a half a dozen times. It's good for the businesses because well I'm here. I might as well stop and get something, you know. Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward please. - Richard Heise: My name is Richard Heise and I'm President of HRMA, a St. Paul based architectural firm. I live at 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, Minnesota. And the presentation this evening, my portion of the presentation is going to be quite simple. You're familiar with the site plan I think so I think what I'd really like to speak about is the exterior of the building. The exterior of the building is designed in such a way that it allows future changes to the building. I think that that's very important that when we first were approached by Video Update, we had been given a prototypical building and the prototypical building had fins and horns and all kinds of things to it and through discussions with the client we came back to a relatively classical building. And when I say that, what you see in front of you is a building that has a protruding area in the front centered on the building. It also has some very, very nice brick detailing to it. The upper portion of the building has soldier courses. As you come down the side band there's an additional soldier course above the sign band. And then the windows are held in place with a painted steel beam. Now this is very similar to the existing building that's on the site that are firm also designed. We're proposing the same face brick that was done on the existing building. We're also, instead of using painted split face rock, using painted split face concrete block. Boy, that's a lot of words there. We are proposing using a decorative rock face block and as was indicated in the staff report, basically one, I'm trying to give you some sort of a percentage. I'd say 35 -40% of the building is clad and face brick. Where the windows exist. Around the corners we have the decorative block and brick banding. We're proposing and endicote brick which is a very fine face brick. It has steel spots to it. It's a dark burgundy in color. Natural grout and we would be using black window trim so it's very understated and the sides of the building then and the rear of the building would be in a natural rock face block. All of it would be done in a natural mortar so there's a contrast. If this doesn't fall down. The lower left hand corner would be the 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 companion colored rock face block with the endicote brick and we would use natural mortar so the endicote brick looked more defined. Also as per staff request what we've done is we've created pilasters on the building, or little bump outs at each corner which give a shade and shadow kind of relief to what could be a very severe looking building if it didn't have it. So if you could follow my fingers I'll show you where these little protrusions are which give it a nice sense of relief. Here—and here. So as you walk around the building it doesn't have the appearance of just being a concrete block building. It's held in place with four corners that are protruding out 4 inches. And we're screening all the mechanical equipment. And we have, as you've seen, a fairly significant planting plan. The other thing, we agree with the majority of the comments in the report. We would however like to discuss a couple of them, or actually four of them. Five of them in particular. The first one, the 10 foot setback off of Highway 7. We will in fact do a landscape plan and a serpentine type of berm condition and additional plantings to comply with your request. The curbs on the islands in the parking lot where you're requesting island curbs. Because of the size of the parking lot and the snowplowing capabilities, we elected not to curb the islands. It's been our experience in a parking lot of this size that the snowplow, if there are any cars, and there is a terribly difficult time maneuvering around such islands. So that was the reason in which we, certainly not to save money because it's not significant. It was more to do a better job of handling the snow. We will definitely add an additional handicap stall required by the zoning ordinance to have 48 stalls. We're showing 50 so we'll have no difficulty whatsoever getting an additional handicap stall. As far as the trash enclosure is concerned, because of where it's located against the building we have chosen the rock face block in lieu of the face brick simply because the face brick will show up as a dark spot against the natural rock face block and I think that you will see the trash enclosure a lot less if we were to use the rock face block in lieu of the face brick. Not a big issue but that's how we see it architecturally. Otherwise I think I'm going to turn it over to Mark. Peterson: Before you move on you mentioned. Richard Heise: I'm sorry. I should have said do you have any questions. Peterson: Well I got you here anyway. You said not curbing the islands. Are you saying that you're going to get rid of the islands themselves or just not curb them? Richard Heise: No. What we would do is we would have striped islands in lieu of actual islands. If we put landscaped islands out there without curbing, they would, you know they just die so our proposal was based on just the efficiency of basically, because of the size of the parking lot and the fact that snowplowing will be difficult. You know it really becomes the plowers issue, not ours so much but we see them get destroyed so much in the confines of a parking lot of that size. Peterson: Does staff want to comment on that and your perspective on it. Aanenson: It's city ordinance. Sharmin Al -Jaff made a comment that was not picked up by the microphone. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Richard Heise: Well we said that we'd do it'.' It's not practical but we'll do it. Any other questions? Thank you. Roger Gordon: Actually I'm going to say a few words if I could. I'm Roger Gordon. Richard Heise: Oh I'm sorry Roger. Roger Gordon: Yeah, that's okay. I'm the attorney for the applicant and we've worked with the applicant on the Video Update lease and most recently we've been working with the applicant on this easement issue on the ingress and egress and I know that's a condition of the approval and I certainly agree with that. As staff has pointed out, that's really an issue between the two landowners to work out and not an issue for the City to get involved with, other than to make sure that before the development starts you have assurances that there is adequate ingress and egress. Obviously we believe we have adequate ingress and egress already by the existing documents that are of record. The adjacent landowner and their attorney don't agree and that's something we simply have to work out between us. The only technical point I would make on the recommendation is, we would like to be able to satisfy that requirement, not necessarily by a recorded easement. It may come another way. We could very well get a court order indicating that we already have ingress and egress, either by an existing document. There are other legal theories that provide ingress and egress in this situation. Obviously the site was subdivided with every intention of the parties at that time to have ingress and egress and the Courts recognize that sort of thing so what, again it's just a technical point. If we could just add in there or such other evidences as acceptable to staff to establish adequate ingress and egress. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Mark Davis: Mark Davis, 2333 Sheridan Terrace, Wayzata. I'm the project manager, developer for the project. I think we've kind of gone through it and I'll answer any questions if you have anything further. Peterson: Questions? Mark Davis: Thank you very much. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to do so and a second please. Skubic moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council or Planning Commission, please come forward now. Brian Pellowski: I'm Brian Pellowski. My address is 5500 Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley. I'm the adjacent owner of the mall. I have a number of real concerns with this project. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 One of which, berming the north part only blocks my center more already than it is. Have SuperAmerica on one corner. Now we're going to put a building up there and then you're going to put a 5 foot berm. That will detract from the ability of myself to market the property to perspective tenants as well as taking away the value of the building, which as the City of Chanhassen knows. If the value of the building goes down, I'm going to be appealing for a reduction in taxes. Also on that corner property where the staff eluded to there's a play yard there for the daycare. The daycare is no longer a tenant in the building. That piece of property in the plan is zoned to put in approximately 6,000 square feet of additional retail, office. Whatever we chose. That was in the original plan. The problem with putting a building up there and if I wish to utilize and put a building in that space, the value of that parcel is diminished immensely. Plus it will be choppy all the way through. The other point that is of paramount interest is the amount of extra traffic coming in. I think putting a 9600 plus square feet of space into that area is a real parking issue. It's not only a easement issue. It's a matter of who's going to police the parking. I mean 50 stalls, right now Video Update on Tuesdays. By the way Video Update is currently a tenant in my building. Their lease runs till January of '99. They have a clause in their lease that they can't go dark, which means basically they have to be open and if they wish to go into another spot, they have to maintain both locations. The situation, when they have their Tuesday video sale, their number of cars in there are much more than 30 or 40 cars. We've got, I don't know what the other uses in the space are. There's 6,000 feet plus you know 3,600 feet of additional. No one knows what that tenants are but if it were to be a coffee shop or a bagel shop, which would be considered a restaurant type, you've got more parking problems which means they're going to use my parking lot. Currently I have, in my parking lot I have a 8.24 cars per thousand. And what they're proposing is, if they use the 10 feet they can get 50 cars. If they've got the 25 feet which would make more sense, the number of cars they can get in there is significantly less which means the square footage would have to go down, which impacts their development. I'm in the business of development. I understand it. I've been in it for 17 years. Mr. Gordon alluded to the fact of their thought process on this easement issue. I think for the City to compromise my position and give them an ability to use other issues other than us going through the Court system, puts the City in jeopardy of having a lawsuit. I did not bring my attorney. My attorney has written a letter to the City addressing our concerns and we will proceed on all avenues if their choice is to proceed with the City on that issue. I've made proposals to the applicants to buy the parcel. I've made proposals to give them an easement and on both cases, because their feeling is it wasn't what they wanted, have not responded. My stance at this time is to basically ask the City that this project be tabled until something can be worked out between the parties and do further due diligence into the traffic concerns I have going across my parking onto TH 7 and you know onto TH 41 basically is the only ingress and egress in that parcel. Thank you. Peterson: One question for you. What was your assumption for the property as far as the potential development of it prior to coming forward? Brian Pellowski: I bought the property in 1993 from Park National Bank. The people who owned all three parcels here, they sold the site to SuperAmerica. They kept and developed the site which I purchased, which is the existing center. They happen to be the people who also own P Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 the outlot that they're proposing to put the Video Update in: I think for them to say that they sold the properties and they don't know what they're doing, I don't think it's a fair assumption. Peterson: Well my question was more direct though is what was your assumption of that outlot at the time that you purchased? Brian Pellowski: Other than it was for sale at $6.00 a square foot. Peterson: But you knew there was the potential of something, something was probably going to go in there. Brian Pellowski: I realized there was potential for something but when I purchased the property my full intent was that if there was something to be developed on that parcel, they would have to come and deal with me from an easement standpoint. And from a cross easement standpoint utilizing my parking as well. Peterson: Thank you. Brian Pellowski: Thanks. Peterson: 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, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. Comments from commissioners. Alison, do you want to take a stab at this one? Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think that there are, I guess maybe three issues that I can really see. First of all it would be the traffic issue. Whether or not the existing or the proposed plan can deal effectively with traffic. It seems that the entrance off of Highway 7 is fairly straight forward. It seems as the exit onto Highway 41 is fairly straight forward. It's just the getting from Point A to Point B that's going to be a problem so I guess I don't feel my job is to resolve that problem but I realize it's there. The second problem potentially I guess is parking. I don't know how many stalls are required of this type of tenant but I'm assuming that it meets city codes and in that respect we have to assume that our codes are adequate and will meet the needs of the tenant. I guess the third issue is really how the owners of the property are going to deal with it and I really don't feel that as a commissioner it's my job to dictate how they have to come to an agreement but I think that they need to come to some sort of an agreement before I would feel comfortable moving forward with this. That's it. Peterson: LuAnn. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Sidney: Well I agree with Alison's comments. I think the traffic issue is a significant issue of this proposed development. Also I guess I'm also concerned with the berming that was suggested along Highway 7, or the landscaping that's adequate if they decide to go with, if the 10 foot setback is what is followed. Also I would hope that that would be followed all the way to the back of the building on the west. That we do get some screening of that space as you go east on Highway 7. For the difficulties with the parties involved I guess I don't have any comments at this point. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: A couple of observations. One regarding the west side of the building—berm there with a... I don't think it gives a very visible vantage point of building. I think it's pretty well... from my perception, what I saw. The other thing, the few times I've been over to this parking lot I've actually found the traffic flow quite good. I thought the drive lanes were pretty well laid out and it was easy to navigate. Much easier than Market Square. At this point what happens with the other, whether it's building in there it's hard to say. I haven't heard a good rationale for what's going to happen to the traffic and what the traffic's going to be appropriate here but I think there needs better definition. I'm at a loss to understand what we're accomplishing... I certainly can understand the... landscaping other than take up parking spaces, I don't see what we're accomplishing there. Aanenson: With the painted or with landscape islands? Skubic: With the painted islands. As far as I can see ... to have there. I guess that's all I have. I'm not going to comment on the easement. commissioner's responsibility. Peterson: Thank you. Ladd. That's something I think that s beyond the Conrad: I'll ask this question of staff. When we put the island in, is that a landscape island or, is it a landscape, okay. Then that's real clear that it does have to be a landscape island. A little bit of concern, you know although we're trying to hide cars, I really don't want to hide the shopping center. So it's one of these let's hide the, we really don't want to destroy visibility and the visibility's going to be blocked to a degree but we don't need to, I don't know how to get my hands around that issue but there's no need to further block the shopping center so if we're talking about a minor berm, I don't think that's going to do it. Aanenson: The berm is just to screen the cars. Conrad: Which would be how high? A couple feet are we talking. So we're just talking a couple foot berm. Aanenson: Five feet usually. Conrad: How high? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Aanenson: Three to five. We can work. That's the intent. Conrad: I really want to be sensitive to the shopping center behind there. There's just absolutely no reason not to be. I think that's important. I hope the applicant saw the staff report which talked about the neon sign on the west and south. That was not in the staff recommendations. It was in the staff report. I think that's real important for you to recognize that we've gone through so many neighborhood meetings that that was real important to the neighbors from a historic standpoint. I still have a problem with the traffic flow. I guess I have, but Bob your comment is interesting. You find the traffic flow to be okay in this parking lot. It's not a Market Square situation_ Skubic: No. Conrad: That's good. I'll buy your perception. It just worries me that we have meandering traffic patterns here when we don't really have a very good plan for egress. It's just not what you like to see. The only other comment, and maybe it's back to staff and not to the applicant is, we really, we don't have connectivity again in this site, which we talk about occasionally. Sidewalks and stuff like that. You know we've got, this is street. This is car stuff. Now you didn't talk about it and I'm not going to be, I don't know. You didn't talk about it in the staff report so I guess your assumption is we really don't need it here. Aanenson: Well I think it'd be nice. Trying to get the road access. That would be nice to be able to walk... Conrad: Yeah. It's a real contradiction to what we call good planning in a shopping center and we've got a conflict between owners you know. And even if we didn't have a conflict, we'd have problems getting things connected. I don't know. That bothers me. It just, and I guess from the standpoint of just having staff tell me, let's not worry about it. Or that we can't accomplish much with connecting the video store to SuperAmerica to the shopping center you know. Aanenson: How about this? If we commit to looking at it. Conrad: That's okay with me. Yeah, I'd like you to do that Kate. I guess yeah. I think that's important. Again, the whole reason I asked for the whole site is just to look at these things. When it comes in in a partial and you just look at the site plan, you don't look at the big picture and again we're looking, we were looking at a snap shot and if you look at the bigger picture and again Bob, I respect you. That's real interesting that you like the traffic flow through. You get a lot more cars now going through there without really concrete direction so I guess staff looks at that. I don't know that I want it back. IF somebody else feels uncomfortable, you could bring her back. Peterson: Allyson. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Brooks: Well I'll just follow everyone else and say that I'm not comfortable with the traffic pattern either. It just seems like it is meandering a little bit and as for the dispute between the owners, I have no comment on that. I do agree with Ladd too, that we should keep the berm low. Lower so that people can see the mall so they know it's there. Those are my comments. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not dissimilar. I guess I'd maybe beg to differ with Bob a little bit. I found that traffic flow in there to be confusing. Perhaps it was because of my anger at thinking it was TH 41 that I was turning off onto but ... whether it be for gas or stopping for a video or whatever. I think now is the time, if there is any confusion, take a look at it again and see if we can address some of the flow better. I mean I doubt that we can in looking at it by better minds than mine. Nobody's really discussed the architectural design. I think that generally means that it'd liked and I too like it. My only concern is it is a pretty basic design without a lot of character and definition. I shouldn't say a lot. It has some. It's just a matter of we're putting up another standard style building. I know to change from the standard increases the cost and that makes it prohibitive, but it does, the reason why I'm acquiescing, it does match the current standards that are set out there so I just wanted a conversational point or for future reference I guess. Really what describes, be a little bit more creative on the architectural lines... Those are my comments. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'm going to make a motion Mr. Chair but I'm going to' do you want to see this back as the Chairman? You know Kate volunteered to do some work and move it onto the City Council. Peterson: What do you feel Kate. Join in on this. What do you feel that we can gain if we see it again? I mean what questions will we, as a commission, be able to have answered if it comes back again. . Aanenson: The issues that we looked at, that Sharmin examined was, we talked about the pedestrian. Right now TH 41's not.a four way, and either is Highway 7 at that intersection. Someday it will be four lanes. We don't know the time frame on that but right now it's probably more ... to get, but that doesn't mean we still can't have internal ... as we're getting more development on TH 41. We feel in looking at the architecture that it's blending in with the center. It seems consistent. We certainly can appreciate... We believe the breaks in the lines and the use of materials... As far as the issues between the property owners, we believe that they can solve that problem but... something to us that says that they have access to the property. That's an issue whatever they resolve... I'm not sure exactly what, we can certainly try to look at pedestrian internal access. I'm not sure, this whole center was approved. It meets the parking standards. You meets all the criteria. I'm not sure exactly what we could examine further. Peterson: I think with that I can't, Ladd unless you see something that we can get back, I don't think there's any... Conrad: Yeah, I'm comfortable sending it on but yeah. I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97 -4 as shown on the site plan received March 17, 1997, subject to the conditions of the staff report dated June 18` with the following modifications or alterations. In point number 3, that the staff would review the berming to 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 ensure that it's not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. All the other points stand. Point number 15, and that would be to have staff review the pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the entire shopping center to make sure that it meets any requirements that we believe is important for a shopping center to have based on today's standards. Peterson: Any second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Yeah just discussion. Dave, I don't know what control we have but my experience when I've been over there has been like Craig's. It's typical going through a parking lot scenario which makes me real uncomfortable. It's like, it's not, we're now putting in another store and we do have more traffic and it's like it's not an identifiable, at least it wasn't to me and I don't know. Maybe it was the wintertime but it wasn't an identifiable exit and I'm moving all over the place. It's a real bad, it's real bad and so I don't know if we have any control over it right now but that's what I would expect from you and the analysis to recommend to the City what, if we have any control, let's do it. If we have none, we're out of it. That's okay. Peterson: Other discussion? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97 -4 as shown on the site plan received March 17, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign. If a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, it shall be limited to the east elevation only. 3. The applicant shall either provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the north perimeter of the site to provide screening of the parking lot or increase the parking setback to 25 feet. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. To ensure that grading does not impact the existing trees along the west portion of the site, the applicant must install a tree protection fence before grading on the site begins. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. Also that the staff would review the berming to ensure that it's not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): a. A post indicator valve is needed on water main to building. See plan. b. Provide an additional hydrant at entrance to parking lot. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403. C. Fire department connection will be needed on the front of the building at time of sprinkler installation. NFPA 13 1991 A -4 -6.2.1 d. A lock -box will need to be provided on building above fire department connection. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302. 6. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. Building Official's conditions: a. Revise Site Plan and/or Paving and Dimensional Plan to match. b. Revise accessible parking stalls to comply with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. C. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. d. Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. 9. The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of a cross access agreement between Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing. 10. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City and the Metropolitan Council approving a minor comprehensive plan amendment from residential medium density to commercial. 11. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on SAC units. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 12. The interior landscaped islands in the parking lot shall also have concrete curb and gutter. 13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 14. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views." 15. Have staff review the pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the entire shopping center to make sure that it meets any requirements that we believe is important for a shopping center to have based on today's standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: We have no meeting next during the 4 th of July week. Traditionally we've tried to not have a meeting just because it's hard to get a quorum. But we will have some items for the 16 We'll do the next section of the comprehensive plan which will be the housing element. We'll also be talking, have our first look, first blush look at the Bluff Creek overlay district. We've got an office building in on the Pond. The one next to St. Hubert's so that's exciting. And then Sharmin's been doing an amendment on how porches and how the setbacks ... so we will have some items on the 16 And then I introduced you to Jacqueline Schroeder, our intern. She will be starting on her second year... graduate school so she's helping us this summer doing some projects. Attending meetings. Learning. That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 4, 1997 as presented. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35