Loading...
2l. Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1996.0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: None. j4L' STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.17 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOO FARMS SECOND ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address 6444 Murray Hill Road 6474 Murray Hill Road 2161 Melody Hill Road 18285 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka 6370 Murray Hill Road 2161 Van Sloun Road, Chaska 6398 Melody Hill Road 2300 Melody Hill Road 2280 Melody Hill Road 6231 Murray Hill Road 2098 Melody Hill Road 6341 Murray Hill Road Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Jim Hoben: About a year and a half ago. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address? Gilbert Kreidberg Chuck Spevacek Lorraine Clair Jim Hoben ' Mr. & Mrs. Paul Burkholder Steve Woida Clifford Woida Phil Bonthius Linda Nicoli ' Randy & Jennifer Koski Denise Artley Dick McFarland 6444 Murray Hill Road 6474 Murray Hill Road 2161 Melody Hill Road 18285 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka 6370 Murray Hill Road 2161 Van Sloun Road, Chaska 6398 Melody Hill Road 2300 Melody Hill Road 2280 Melody Hill Road 6231 Murray Hill Road 2098 Melody Hill Road 6341 Murray Hill Road Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Jim Hoben: About a year and a half ago. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address? in Commission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 ' Planning Co g p , Jim Hoben: Oh, I'm sorry. Mancino: Thank you. Jim Hoben: I am Jim Hoben, Hoben Corporation. About a year and a half ago we appeared ' before the Planning Commission with a proposal for four lots on the Shogren property, which is this one over here. It met with some good deal of opposition by the neighbors in the area and then after, I've got it upside down. Sorry about that. I did go back from that meeting . ' and talk with some of the neighbors in the area and I did change it to three lots because of the major streets, Sommergate and Murray Hill Road. And I'm in the process of concluding ' building of that site. At the end of that time, I did talk to the neighbors who asked me if I was interested in the Woida property, and I said that I was. I was questioned as to what my intentions there would be and I said well, if I do want to act on the Woida property I would ' be coming back with four lots instead of three, as I ... on the Shogren property. And this possibly that would be okay with them. They wanted to see what I intended to do and, I'd better turn it back to what we were talking about. And I did that last summer. I got that ' ready and went back and showed and as far as I know it met with their approval. Late last fall, or sometime last fall I was advised by staff that if I were to proceed with this, that they would be asking for the extension of Melody Road. I had, at that point in time ... contact with ' the Woida's for the purchase of that property on the basis of the four lots. This is the first time I've seen what I've put up there as far as Melody Road is concerned as the suggested way out. However, I would not be interested doing it that way and the simple reason is that ' I, my idea is to tie in the homes on this development with the homes on the end of Murray Hill Road, which are all in excess of $300 and some thousand... they were built I think about 10 -12 years ago. A lot of them. We're talking in excess of $350,000.00 for the one I'm ' doing on the corner... As I had toured the area over there... following the concept that I saw presented like it is now, it would change the nature of the homes that I would be building because the nature of the homes back towards the school would not be of the same—as far as ' I know as the ones that I would be developing on the, filling in with the ones on the end of Murray Hill Road. Because those are being planned to be in the 300, plus or minus, $50,000.00 range. I find myself in a unique position. It's not for me to come before the city , and argue whether the road should or should not go in. I'm in the position to purchase the property from the Woida's to do it more or less on the basis that I had it planned for there, and not on some other plan. I really haven't had a chance to look at that ... I would not ' proceed on that basis with the types of homes that I probably thought facing on that road. So I think it's a matter of the city. ' Mancino: Mr. Hoben, you did receive staff report? You have gone through the staff report? ' Jim Hoben: Pardon? u ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 g g p t Mancino: You have received the staff report and the drawings that came with it. Jim Hoben: Yeah, I g of that... ' Mancino: Did you see this? Jim Hoben: No. But in any case ... I got a lot of other things to do in this ... city and anyplace and argue about whether how these things go together. I made a presentation ... would be my preference to do it that way. Like I just said, at that point it becomes an issue between the ' city and the neighbors in the area as to whether it's desirable... At that point I just sit back and wait and hear what develops. That's just my position. ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open for a public hearing and a second please? ' Mehl moved, Faimakes seconded to open for a public healing. The public healing was opened. I Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue please come forward. State your name and your address. ' Chuck Spevacek: Thank you Madam Chair. My name's Chuck Spevacek. I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road in Chanhassen. To put that address in perspective with tonight's proceedings, that's 3 houses south of the proposed public street... Madam Chairman, members ' of the Commission. I'm the author of the letter that is attached to the staff report which—the petition signed by the residents of this neighborhood strongly opposing the new public street which the staff report advocates. I'm pleased that my letter and the enclosed petition made ' it's way into the staff report. I sent that letter nearly a year ago to the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Engineer, to the Chair of the Planning Commission, the Director of ' Planning Development and to the then City Council members. And to date I have received no response to that letter from anyone. I did not even receive notice of this meeting, except that which I found published in the Chanhassen Villager. I bring this up only because I ' sincerely hope this is not indicative of the city's responsiveness to the very serious concerns the residents have concerning this project. As that petition indicates, the residents of this neighborhood are very much opposed to this public street. The extension of Melody Hill ' Road would in our opinion, irrevocably alter the essential nature and the character of our neighborhood. We are concerned because the extension of Melody Hill Road would turn it into an unnecessary shortcut between the two heavily traveled north /south routes it would t connect if extended to County Road 41, and west to Galpin Boulevard to the east. Thus instead of living in a neighborhood where traffic levels are low and where what traffic there 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 is is generally related to the neighborhood and it's activities, we believe the proposed public street would transform our neighborhood into a high traffic area with the majority of that increased traffic simply passes through saving the 2 minutes or less travel time it would take to otherwise use TH 7, TH 5, or the other roads to the south of us that would serve as connectors between Galpin and TH 41. I am troubled that the neighborhood is concerned about increased traffic and the noise, safety and economic concerns that go with it were not addressed in the staff report. It is certainly it was brought to the staffs attention in my June of 1995 letter and that's... Instead the staff report claims only benefit to the neighborhood as a result. According to the staff report, that benefit is in the form of the improved access to the existing neighborhood and the creation of an opportunity that the adjacent parcel, owned by Paul and Betty Burkholder, could be subdivided as well. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Paul Burkholder signed the petition opposing the road extension and I understand that he's here toady and may well choose to address... Moreover, none of the residents in this neighborhood are anxious to see another of our large lots carved into numerous smaller parcels just because such a carving has potentiality under, and allowable under the city's current zoning ordinances. As to improve access. To my knowledge no one ever asked us if we felt access to our neighborhood or to our concerns was a problem. Certainly none of the signatories to the petition believe access is of such concern that we are willing to accept the proposed road extension as a remedy. And virtually every resident of Melody Hill Road on both sides of the Woida property, Murray Hill Road and Sommergate have signed that petition. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the last time I appeared before this body was to strongly opposed Mr. Hoben's plan for the development of the Shogren property, which he spoke of and which he showed to you. The Shogren property being the property two parcels north of the property that's at issue today and what is now known as Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition. What I've learned from that experience is that the city's zoning ordinances cannot help me to protect my neighborhood from the development totally inconsistent with the character of my neighborhood. Many of you sympathized with our concerns, while admitting your lack of authority to help because you were constrained by the regulations as they exist. Fortunately Mr. Hoben heard our concerns and revised his plan to minimize it's impact on our neighborhood. This commission commented when Mr. Hoben came back with his revised plan how lucky we, the residents of the neighborhood were, that we had a developer that listened to the neighbor's concerns because this commission was powerless to help us. Well this time this commission's not powerless to help us. I know we can't avoid having four houses put on this lot. A lot that... I know the city ordinances would probably allow for more than the house houses. I dare say that if the road doesn't go through, and Mr. Hoben withdraws from the development as he plans, the next developer who comes along will purchase this with plans to maximize the density on that property that the ordinances enacted by the city will allow. In any event we apparently have Mr. Hoben again to thank for presenting a proposal which at least considers our concerns. But if we are powerless to oppose there be four houses on a lot that previously M I 7 J Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 g g p > ' held one, please don't compound the impact on our neighborhood by putting through the proposed public street. The neighbors have clearly made their voice heard as to what they feel the proper result on that should be. The neighbors have mobilized themselves and have ' taken the time to present nearly a year ago a petition to this committee letting you know what our thoughts were. This time you are not powerless to help us. This time you do have the power to help us preserve the character of our neighborhood and we ask that you act upon it. ' Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. ' Paul Burkholder: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning. My name is Paul Burkholder and I am the, my wife and myself reside directly abutting the subject property. ' The previous speaker's remarks were very eloquent and I agree whole heartedly with them. I also want to state that we are 100% against the road. I see no benefit for myself to have a road through there. I am aware that I can split my lot up at some time in the future. I do not ' care about that... character of the neighborhood which is the reason that I moved to Chanhassen from Deephaven where I had a 40,000 square foot lot. Now, and I have to admit myself. I'm very surprised that this road business would come up. No one, no one has, I ' have not received anything in the mail. I've not received a phone call. No one has ever, ever approached me from the city or anywhere else stating, we think we should have a road through here. The property has been there for many, many years. Why at this time does somebody bring up the road? I'm not opposed to Mr. Hoben putting four houses on the lot. I'm a real estate broker now starting my 31st year in the real estate business. I believe that the best use for the neighborhood and for the property is, I'd like to see two houses on the property frankly, but I can live with four. And as Chuck said, it could really, from the standpoint of the statue, could probably hold more houses. I'm against that. And as far as ' myself is concerned, I want to state again, I'm aware of the fact that I can cut... I don't want to do that. I don't see any benefit at all to myself, as long as I live there and in the future. I can't imagine anyone living in the metropolitan area of 2 1/2 million people who would not ' appreciate buying from me and my wife at some time in the future, the lovely property on 1 1/2 acres of land. It's just you know, I believe that my property is worth as much in the whole as it would be in the sum of the parts. So I want to state again, my wife is here now. ' I'm sure that she'd be happy to come and speak to you personally to say that she also is opposed to this road. Thank you very much. ' Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Denise Artley: Thank you. My name's Denise Artley. I live at 2098 Melody Hill Road. ' Couple things I want to tell you. First of all I am a transplant from Minneapolis and one of the reasons I came to the home I did on Melody Hill Road was because I did live on a street G Meeting -Aril 17 ' Planning Commission ee g p , 1996 that was a shortcut. It didn't need to be a shortcut but the streets were crafted in a way that ' our's was one of the only streets in South Minneapolis that did not have the curbs ... pass thru traffic. I understand the impact of that on the homeowners. I understand that the pizza delivery guy is the only person that I've ever heard who complained about the fact that ' Melody Hill did not go all the way through. And I would hope that this Planning Commission would not respond to the pizza guy... There is no one in our neighborhood that I know that has any complaint about access. And in fact, I had a conversation with some ' neighbors who would love to see Chaska Road closed off at Highway 41 so we would have even fewer people coming through. Now given that kind of experience of having the ... kind of wonderful experience I have where I live now, I would hate to think that I would now live on ' a thru street. And I cannot think of one neighbor who would feel any differently. So I would like to see you reconsider this road, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. , Linda Nicoll: My name is Linda Nicoll and I live at 2280 Melody Hill Road so I'm right on ' the curve to the west of the proposed development. I've lived there for 18 years and I've raised four sons there and if anybody should really want better access to their property would be me, We live right on the top of the hill and for the last, I don't know, probably 8 years ' I've many times had to park at the bottom of the hill and walk up because I couldn't get my car up the hill. And my solution to that was to get new tires on my car and I'd much rather continue to walk up the hill in the winter than see the proposed road go through. One of my ' major concerns, having raised those four boys there. They're all soccer players and those fields now in the summer are so heavily used. The Tonka United Soccer program uses those fields, has grown in an expediential rate the last few years and every night of the week there ' are soccer games going on on 3 or 4 fields across the street. And the way they had the fields configured last year, the soccer goals were up against the fence on Melody Hill, and every game that I attended there and every game that I saw from the deck of my house, at least 4 or ' 5 balls went across Melody Hill and into our front yards and followed immediately by 2 or 3 little soccer players chasing those balls. And I'd hate to see those kids being in jeopardy by people using that road as a shortcut to get out to TH 41. And then also, I'm just not sure ' how the configuration, how the new Lake Lucy Road is going to be also. The way I understand it, that is going to be another cross access between TH 41 and the property to the east and so I think that makes it even less important that we have an access along there. , Mancino: Okay, thank you. I Dick McFarland: My name is Dick McFarland. My wife and I live at 6341 Murray Hill Road. Right on the corner of Melody Hill and Murray Hill Road. We've lived there for 27 ' years. We raised four children. They're all gone now. But it's been a delight for us to see 6 1 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 g g p 1 ' the young families moving into our neighborhood and there are lots of kids that are running around there. I think it would be absolutely outrageous to put that road through to connect Melody Hill so I would hope in your good judgment that you would not allow this to happen. ' Thank you very much. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? ' Betty Burkholder: Nancy? Was this about the road tonight... ' Mancino: Would you please state your name and address please. Betty Burkholder: Betty Burkholder, 6370 Murray Hill Road. Right adjacent to the proposed ' roadway. I didn't know that this meeting was supposed... because it didn't say anything in the stuff that we were sent. It did not mention a road. I Mancino: I didn't see the slip that was sent to you. Betty Burkholder: Well the one that we were sent does not mention a road. I Mancino: But it did state that there would be some, a subdivision. Betty Burkholder: Exactly. Mancino: But it specifically did not say the road. ' Betty Burkholder: ...four parcels on the existing lot ... so I'm wondering why we're talking about the road. ' Mancino: Because it involves the subdivision and how we're oin to et access into that g g g ' subdivision. Betty Burkholder: Yeah but are there people that know that there would be talk about roads? ' Mancino: Well I get the impression that your neighborhood is well aware of that. ' Betty Burkholder: ...that I talked to a few people tonight that didn't have any idea. And did not know that there was going to be any talk about a proposed road. On Melody Lane and on Murray Hill. Down the road a ways so. So I'm wondering if it's apropos to bring up this road. If this is a good thing to bring up. If there might not be more people here if they thought that this was the reason for the meeting. II Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 1 Mancino: Well it's in conjunction with the subdivision and it has been notified in the ' newspapers. We have made public notices. Betty Burkholder: You have to only notify people within 500 feet. ' Mancino: Is it within 500 feet? Yeah, and I think we've heard some very good. Betty Burkholder: I think we're not notified but there might be... ' Al -Jaff: We received quite a few phone calls. Those who contacted us, we told them what I was happening with the subdivision and that staff was recommending a street extension. Betty Burkholder: But who was recommending the street extension, because nobody ' petitioned for a street extension. Not any neighbors in our neighborhood want a street extension. Mancino: And that's what we'll talk about. ' Betty Burkholder: Unless it's the city wants a street extension. Not us. Not the I Woida's. Not anybody on the property wants the street extension. So. Mancino: So we have heard those comments and... ' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Mancino: ...Melody Hill and the Middle School is to the right of you. And that particular grade is 10 %, or is it more than 10 %? ' Hempel: It exceeds 10% in some of the areas. Mancino: It exceeds 10 %. Now if the road were to go through, they wouldn't change the ' grade of Melody Hill there. All they would do is what they, for public safety is to give those people on Melody Hill, there are 7 houses there right now. Instead of just using the approach ' from Chaska Road, they could also use the approach on the east side from where Murray Hill and Melody intercept. Does that make sense? Mehl: Okay, sure. So they could in effect avoid that portion of the steep grade if the ' weather doesn't permit using it by going around the other way, is that right? l 8 1 I Planning M in -Aril 17 199 a g eet g p 6 ' Mancino: Well to some degree. I mean if you live, I think it was Linda. If you live, just a minute. If you live in the middle of that, of that hill, you can make a right hand turn and go down it to go to Chaska Road. Or you can go left, which is going to be harder than heck ' anyways. It's not going to make it any easier to go up over the hill. If you're coming from Galpin, and you go up Melody Hill. You make a left hand turn going west up Melody Hill and you live on that west side in the middle of the hill, you can come down and kind of ' approach it. Instead of having to come up from Chaska. So that's where it does make it easier access. Possibly. You could also keep sliding down the hill also, so. Dave, do you want to add to that? t Hempel: No, you stated it clearly. I Mehl: Yeah, that helps me out here. I didn't know how the 10% grade was going to be affected, either way. Whether it was a thru street or not. ' Hempel: No, it will stay the same. Mehl: Okay. I guess my opinion is with this development being developed, this area being ' developed and with the potential in the future. Sometime in the future of the property to the north being developed, I think a thru street makes sense from getting access and joining neighborhoods. I guess I'm not convinced of a great, large amount of additional thru traffic ' through there. I guess at this point I would support the road going through and the development as staff has laid it out. ' Mancino: Okay. Jeff. ' Farmakes: Different point of view. Usually when we look at these things, on these road extensions, we get a large group of existing homeowners that come in ... comes to mind. The extension on there. And usually trying to take a crystal ball and look at how the traffic t would affect the quality of the neighborhood is usually pretty ambiguous because when it comes down to it, half the people go left and half of them go right. Unless you happen to be on the west side of the turn in which case when you come forward and look at the plan, ' everybody's going to be heading to the right. I think in this case, I've driven through this neighborhood for 17 years. The neighbors have a legitimate concern here. The reason is, is that there's a destination of a commercial area that's off of Chaska Road. The locals use ' Chaska Road. People around my area tend to go up along CR 17 and cut over because the access to the highway's goofy. Highway 7. Even Chaska Road is goofy, particularly in the winter time. If this thru street goes in, I'd go up Melody. I'd go right up over there to make ' several trips a week through there. And I think the city needs to look at this from a common sense point of view as to how that would affect the existing neighborhoods there. That have I ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 1 been there for some time. From a planning standpoint it makes a lot of sense. If you live ' there, it will change significantly how that neighborhood, the dynamics of that neighborhood. I don't know if what the city is gaining here is worth that. The type of development that would be ... even to the property to the north, although it would be somewhat restricted with ' having a thru street that still would be accessible. The one thing I'm concerned about too is that even though you're looking at notification with the 200 feet or whatever, it's going to affect everybody up and down that street and they should be notified. Usually when we look ' at this, like I said, there usually isn't the destination up here of a commercial access point up on TH 41 up there. Both in Shorewood and in Chanhassen. All of these people, if they're not going to this commercial area here, are whipping up into here. And when they come off ' of CR 17 or they come off of Lake Lucy Road, that's going to be where they cut through. Mancino: Until they're able to cut through on Lake Lucy. I Farmakes: Yeah, until. But my point is that even so there's some wetlands through there and so on. They may, that would be a pretty direct route that's out to here. That would probably ' be the first way you'd cut across. And like I say, I think there's a couple of stop signs now and 3 or 4 blind curves going down Chaska Road and it's dangerous. Particularly with snow service in the winter time. So I think in this particular case, if you're familiar with the ' neighborhood and how it works, they have legitimate concerns here. Their argument is a good one if you happen to live there in that neighborhood. Because there will be a funnel of cars going through there. And like I said, usually we don't have that. Pleasant View are seen ' as other areas. We don't have that type of perspective draw of outside driving. Anyway, if I look at the issue of sizing of the homes. The city has a base minimum for lot sizes. We don't have a large lot. The fact that you built your houses some time ago or however the ' dynamics of that works and you're familiar with some of the people who have been in real estate for a while, we can't legislate that you put in a half million dollar home there. It doesn't work that way and you're familiar with the city has no basis for that. There's a trend ' in development of putting as many homes as you can on a small piece of property and there are other influences for that. It's cheaper to provide support facilities. Many houses... restricted area so there's a natural direction to do that... We usually in larger developments try ' to get a buffer of some sort of development where you have some transition. In this type of lot it's nearly impossible to do that... There's not enough area to put in a park or some type of buffer that you normally look for. So as far as what I'm looking here as development... is ' about how it would work out. So there's not much movement for flexibility there ... I would not support at this time a thru street simply because I feel that under that type of development, for that length of time, how long it's been there, that the city should be doing ' that. 10 1 1 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 g g p , ' Mancino: Can you speak to the comments made on the subdivision as it is proposed? As far as the private street, etc. ' Farmakes: I don't have, I don't see how else really that you would handle it. Unless somebody else has some alternatives that differ significantly to change the issue of the thru street... As I stated, if the property was larger or there might be possibilities there... ' Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I'm torn by this. I believe that we need to efficiently develop our city and certainly our comprehensive plan is directed towards that purpose. And there are federal agencies also that are guiding us to do so to limit urban growth and my concern is that we restrict ' development of the Burkholder properties, that we are indeed compromising our plans. It's a little difficult when the owner of the property, and all the neighbors coming here are opposed to it to and say they're not going to develop it. I am interested, if staff could help me ' understand what the alternate access to the Burkholder property would be if the road did not go through. Hempel: Madam Chair, commissioners. It would limit it to another private driveway, either off of Melody Hill from the west or off of Murray Hill. ' Mancino: Dave, why would it limit it to a private drive? I mean if we could put a full sized, standard road in all the way from the cul -de -sac on the west side, why can't we put a road, a regular public road up to the Burkholder property and then have them subdivide two lots off ' that? ' Hempel: If I understand, you're suggesting that a public street go partway through this parcel to serve Burkholder piece and the Woida piece at this time and not connect through? That's also a possibility. ' Skubic: I would be in favor of something to that effect. ' Mancino: So you would not be in favor of connecting Melody Hill? Skubic: Not if there was a good alternative, and this sounds like it could be a feasible alternative. Mancino: Kevin. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 17, 1996 Joyce: I have two questions for planning staff. Number one, and I don't mean to butcher t your name. Mr. Spevacek. Is that how it's pronounced? Chuck Spevacek: Yes. I Joyce: Thank you. Bob. Is Mr. Spevacek within 500 feet of? Al -Jaff: Yes. And typically what happens is Carver County Abstract and Title supplies us ' with the names. The applicant would go and put in an application. We do our best to notify everybody. You will see attached the list of names that was sent out to all the neighbors within 500 feet and Mr. Hoben, the applicant spoke to me during the meeting and said he realizes that a name was missing. Chuck Spevacek: The whole cul -de -sac. ' Al -Jaff: Okay. I Joyce: I was a little disturbed by that. Resident: Yeah, I'm the property directly to the south. Joyce: I mean that's an oversight, number one. Number two, you wrote a long letter here ' and I think someone should have cross referenced that with something. We've got to make sure this guy gets some information. So that bothers me. The second thing is, in your report it says we'd like to improve the access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide access to the , school facilities and provide the Burkholder parcel future subdivision capabilities. And I'm new to this process. Maybe I'm off base but would it have helped if you would have talked ' with Burkholders possibly about this? Al -Jaff: We did. Well he did stop by and what we. ' Betty Burkholder: That was after the fact. Mancino: Excuse me. I don't want to open discussion. ' Joyce: Yeah, we shouldn't open it up. I'm stating a fact that in the report it seems to me you're acting as a proxy for them. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I don't want to open it up. That's my opinion, okay. I think that they are owners of that property and if they came to you and said, listen. I'm concerned about this development because I can't access my ' property, that's a whole different ballgame. They're against this. Thank you. 12 1 ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 g g p ' Mancino: Ladd. Joyce: I have one more thing and then I'm done. My point is, the developer's against it. The ' adjacent owners against it and everybody in this room is against it except for the planners and this is the city here. Not the planners. So I'm totally against it. Okay, and that's my opinion. Thank you. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Got some problems in the neighborhood in terms of long cul -de -sac grades. Have two road segments that really should be connected. I think if everybody got notified in the neighborhood, they'd all be here. I don't think we'd learn anything else. Most everybody ' would be against it. So we could send out public notice but to be real honest, you're not going to hear anything different than what we heard tonight. I like preserving neighborhoods. It's hard though in this particular case, unless I hear a real compelling. I've got two real ' problems. Almost every neighborhood that comes in talks the same thing. Seriously so from a standpoint of, as development occurs, you know cars and what have you, we probably hear that every 2 weeks when we're here. And there are probably 3 subdivision proposals here a t night. We just have to deal with it. If I were you I'd be ... really angry. Don't do it. Two things though that I haven't heard. One thing I really don't know and I'm not sure how we solve it is, if we connected those two, I'm not sure, I haven't been persuaded by either group ' that. Development just causes more traffic. That's the way it is and welcome to Chanhassen. We live in a wonderful spot and unfortunately people are going to move out here. I'm not convinced that I've heard a compelling argument one way or another that the traffic is going t to be burdensome or not. I just don't know. I tell you, we could stop all roads from going into Chanhassen because some child is going to be hurt and yeah, I have to listen. I agree. That's what happens. But on the other hand, I haven't been persuaded by any member of the ' commission here tonight that there's a supreme risk that a typical neighborhood deals with. Now this may be an untypical neighborhood and we may have some situations that we should ' look at but maybe that's a challenge for the staff. The other thing is, this really, what I've seen tonight is a real obvious turn down. It's for road or whatever. It doesn't pass to what is necessary for a private drive so regardless of whether you agree with me or not on my position, it doesn't fit into our requirements for a private street so it's a turn down as far as I'm concerned. Now maybe there's some other solutions but tonight the solution is, from my standpoint, it doesn't go in the way it's presented tonight. ' Mancino: So you would like to see it come back? I Conrad: It's a turn down. 13 Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 ' Mancino: Craig. Peterson: Similar Yp thoughts. If I had m reference, yeah I'd love to see a street go through. ' g But that is for growth. That is for future safety needs. Development of Chanhassen. A lot of that is for 2 lots that may be developed down the road. And part of that, on the ' Burkholder property we have to think about not what the Burkholders would do but what their future owners of that property may do 20, 25, 100 years from now. Is an issue that I ' think ... but I do like the idea of potentially extending Melody Hill to address that issue... I agree with Ladd that the issue is gray enough where I'd like to see more of a clear cut issue that the city should go through for public safety reasons. For access reasons. I don't feel that ' tonight but I think also can't approve staffs recommendation as it's presented... Mancino: Thank you. I have a couple questions. And that is for Dave on some public ' safety issues and this is about the street going through. Has the city not been able to plow Melody Hill west because they had real problems getting there or plowing it? Hempel: To my knowledge, no. Mancino: And has there been any problem other than the street names, because how do they I know, how does Public Safety know which Melody Hill to go to? East or west... Hempel: That's a very valid point. They've learned from their mistakes in the past. Now ' they do require streets that have a west, north, south, east on them. In this situation it's, look at the address map and try and determine which side of Murray Hill it's on. Mancino: So luckily there are only 7 homes on that west side so they probably have those ' memorized. Have they had any problems, has Public Safety had any problem responding to fire calls? Anything like that in that western area during winter? I mean has there been any, ' I suppose quantifiable, qualifiable concerns from Public Safety? Hempel: I guess I can't answer that. I'm not aware. I've not been informed from Public , Safety on that. Mancino: Okay. How do I feel? I live very close to the area and I use Chaska Road every i day. I exit off of Highway 7, take Mayflower to Chaska. I never cut up Melody Hill or cut through that area at all. Actually I'd like to at different times when I kind of want to slow ' myself down and calm myself down because it is such a nice area. I tend to, in things like this when we have older established neighborhoods, and I don't see any clear cut value in connecting, I lean towards keeping it the way it is. The way the neighbors in the area want it ' to be. So I don't see a huge reason to connect it. I think that the neighbors tonight have 14 , ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 been very articulate in all of their reasons and have done a good job of presenting it. I also ' think that staff has done a good job in their report of presenting why they think the road should go through, and they're supposed to. They're looking out for our best interests and they are supposed to show us and to give us information to make those decisions. I don't feel that the Hoben, so I would not be in favor of connecting Melody Hill. On the other hand I don't feel that the Hoben subdivision, as I see it right now, should have a private drive. I ' don't see that it is fulfilling any of the conditions that should have to be a private drive. It certainly isn't doing anything environmentally to save trees or grading. I am concerned, so I would like to also turn it down. Have that come back as a public street into that development ' and I want to make sure that there is a way for the Burkholder property in the future to be developed. I want to make sure that we address that. May I have a motion? ' Conrad: Yeah Madam Chairman, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends disapproval of the preliminary plat to subdivide, Subdivision #94 -15 under the rationale that the access does not meet the current city standards. ' Mancino: Is there a second? ' Peterson: Second. Comad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City ' Council deny the preliminary plat for Subdivision 1495 -15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition under the rationale that the access does not meet the current city standaixis. All voted in favor and the motion cailied. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 38,948 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, ' BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION, LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE WEST, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES II, RAY COLLINGS. ' Shaimin Al -Jaff pi- esented the staff nepoit on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission please. ' Rick Wesling: Yes I do. My name is Rick Wesling. I am with TSP/BOS Architects. We have been working with the owner of the property to coordinate all the... Very briefly I will ' walk through the design rationale that we had used to put this package together. This is a rather low bay... warehouse building. In other words, it's got... therefore the exterior wall 15 Planning Commission Meeting s April 17, 1996 material in an 8 inch, 10 inch, 12 inch kind of block arrangement you know... unit works just fine for this use. We have chosen a concrete block where color is integral all the way through the block. This is the block that has an applied finish on it. In addition to a block with colors integral... construction will really be sealing this block with a water resistant sealing. So the colors will change slightly. It's not significant. You probably wouldn't notice if I hadn't told you but we will be sealing the block. That's a water proofing issue for the... building. As staff has said, the feel of the building if you will, will be a smooth face block of this beige color, with darker accents. The very lowest portion of the building as it meets the ground basically will be this tobacco color with the dark accent bands, the chevrons if you will, the squares, being this dark coffee color. To carry that color scheme through at the entries we're proposing two colors of brick. This red brown brick for the body of the columns. I apologize for the reproduction here. The photograph. The colors didn't quite fit and then the darker band to carry the darkest band... The standing seam metal roof on the sloped portion would be this color. This deep, deep red with the roof coating being a dark brown color here, which will be darker than what we've shown it here. That was a fine tuning of our own design process. We have received and reviewed the staff report. In fact this drawing, this civil engineering drawing addresses some of engineer's concerns already in regards to moving the drive to avoid this existing fire hydrant. Widening the entrances from 24 to 26 feet I believe is their recommendation. We've done all that stuff. The water service and sanitary service will be off the existing stub in to the property. In regards to the landscaping, that's staffs recommendation and I can't say I can ... disagree with that one. Obviously there's a balance in any development process of dollars expended versus the landscaping but if that is their recommendation, and that's what it requires to receive plan approval, we will certainly screen. And the recommendation on I believe it's 11 additional trees, we will use those trees to buffer the... Mancino: I was going to ask, if you don't mind just off the top of your head. What will, what kind of landscaping will buffer that dock area? Because that's tall. That's high. You can see it from miles around. I went out there and stood and you're going to see that whole west side of that dock area. Rick Wesling: That is a tough nut to crack. I'll be very honest with you. Mancino: Can you increase the berm from 3 feet to 4 feet? Rick Wesling: Along this edge of the property? Mancino: On the west edge. Rick Wesling: Unfortunately the land drops off there... 16 I r r L n Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: Can you lower the building? Rick Wesling: No... No, I have no place to put the dirt that we have now. We are already in a situation with the present building elevation that we're exporting a significant amount of dirt. There's two things that are driving that. One is the soils that are out there—and the amount of undercutting put underneath the parking... We've got to move a lot of dirt off site so lowering the building is... Along this side, that's a tough one. We can perhaps increase berms here and here without impacting drainage, sight lines and such too dramatically... I'm going to have to rely on my landscape architect to help me out on that one. I don't have the answer. Mancino: Thank you. Rick Wesling: We have taken a look at the ... of this building. 5 feet by however long ... 5 feet tall. We made the decision that this is the appearance of the building. Particularly in a single wide masonry wall building could be a problem. We've moved them almost to the center of the building and we have taken the opportunity to ... cut three sections through the site from locations where vehicles will be driving on Commerce, on Lake Drive West. Section A at the top, the mechanicals, let me back up a moment. The mechanical units are set almost in the middle of the building. They sit 100 feet back from this face and the closest one on this face sits 50 feet in so there's a mechanical unit right about right here. As best we can we've represented a section cutting through the ... to the height of the building. These units are clearly screened. From Lake Drive West, for their view, again the units are screened and the one area of concern, but the distance is greater and there's some lower portions of the building. Section C it does, to the best of our ability to predict. We've screened the units by moving them back and that was ... we're buying more duct work inside the building versus... That's again a measure of economics versus long term. Now I'll answer any questions. If not, I'll let the commission deliberate. Mancino: Commissioners have any questions at this time? Thank you. Peterson: Couple of questions... The size of the brick that you're ... I assume they're not going to be that size. Rick Wesling: No, this is simply for the purpose of our board. The CNU units would be the standard 8 inch tall, 15 inch long. The brick here, as we've designed it right now would be a modular size brick. 8 inch long, 2 1/3 inches tall. Exactly the same size as the brick that's behind you right there. Peterson: And the majority of the walls are going to be that smoother style? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 ' Rick Wesling: The feel of the building will be the smooth block. Now I will also address the issue of staffs desire to step out portions of the building. In conversations with the owner ' of the property, and the way the building looks like it's going to lease up, the owner has expressed a desire to put some windows on that side and we are in the process of working through some scenarios to put some windows on this facade that will meet the tenants needs ' in terms of office space. We've estimated this office space is going to rent out between 20% and 22% office space and we've sized the parking... ' Peterson: Just for my edification ... I can make the safe assumption because of the interior of the building but it's fairly... you've got two entrances on the left that makes the building look ' lopsided, for lack of a better adjective. Rick Wesling: We can put a more positive spin on it. We call it asymmetrical. I Peterson: I mean I assume that that is the design that's most logically... Rick Wesling: There was a desire to take advantage of the fact that we've got Lake Drive ' West and Commerce here and then this cul -de -sac kind of T's up here... The primary exposure for tenants would be on this corner and recognizing the fact that we can't have everybody's ' lobby in one place. The building has to work with both corners of the site. And that's what drove that as we were planning. Peterson: And lastly the trash site is going to be where? ...to the docks. ' Rick Wesling: If the owner decides to have tenant leases that allow trash outside, there will ' have to be a trash enclosure and it will have to be out of these materials. I would presume this plan is in error. We've eliminated this connection to the cul -de -sac as per engineering's request. That's fine with us. It is now a hammerhead here. I think that probably shows up ' more clearly on the civil engineering drawings, and I would recommend if they do it, that any trash enclosure occur back here. You want them to be out of sight. Tenants may feel differently. They may want a trash enclosure here. But at any rate, it will have to follow ' your guidelines in terms of trash enclosures being consistent with building materials. Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin, I have a quick question for you to go along with that. ' Because it is so high up and it says no materials are allowed to be stored outside. Now in the back does that mean that there can be trailers? Truck trailers back there. , Al -Jaffa Typically what will happen is they will stop in, either unload or load and then they would move on. I 18 ' u ' Planning ommission Meeting - April 17 1996 g g p ' Mancino: And they can't stay overnight. Al -Jaff: Not typically. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please, and a second. ' Faimakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. ' Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. ' Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments, questions from the Planning Commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I think my earlier question, I guess I've ... I think everything seems to fit and Madam ' Chair, as you offered earlier, I'd like to raise the berm or lower the building but that not being the case, then... ' Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Only one point of clarification. In the staff report it eludes to each property shall be allowed certain signage. We're talking about one property here. One building, right? ' Al -Jaff: Correct. Conrad: One pylon sign. ' Al -Jaff: Correct. ' Conrad: Okay. So whoever makes, I guess my concern is in the motion, point number 11. It says all free standing signs shall be limited. I think the applicant, I believe they're only asking for one pylon sign and there aren't more than one properties here so that is something ' that should be clarified. Again, it's says that each property shall be, that's sort of our, that's being taken out of our ordinance but I think it should be applied specifically. One pylon sign is allowed for this project. That's my only comment. Mancino: Kevin. 19 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 , g g P Joyce: The only comment I have, I believe I missed it was the applicant proposed using water off of Lake Drive West and it will be used off the regular line's been extended, is that ' correct? Rick Wesling: We have, well I'll let engineering address that. ' Hempel: Madam Chair, commissioners. That has been addressed to date. They relocated ' that driveway entrance from on Lake Drive West slightly not to impact that and they will be utilizing the existing sewer and water service off... Joyce: Looks like it's fine to me. Mancino: Bob. I Skubic: It looks like a nice plan and appreciate that it's a very visual area of Lake Drive there. People will be seeing it. We have one concern about the roof mounted equipment that ' I'd appreciate that the applicant moved it towards the center where it's out of the sight line from the adjacent streets. My concern is what about some of the streets that may be a little further away and higher elevations, that they still might be in your sight lines so I would like ' to leave condition number 10, or the equipment, the mechanicals must be screened. That would be my preference. Staff, do you feel comfortable with the mechanics being in the center where they're proposed? ' Al -Jaff: We drove along Valley Ridge Road and as well as Audubon. Both those streets sit at a much higher elevation. Other than either painting the equipment with a color that ' somehow matches the building so that it kind of fades away into the background, or actually putting a fence around each unit, there really isn't any other alternative. Will it be seen from Audubon Road? The answer is yes. , Skubic: I'd like to see something further be done to screen. , Al -Jaff: Okay. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. , Farmakes: Nothing further to add. , Mehl: Yeah, I have nothing further either. 20 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: I don't really either. The only thing that Rick brought up was, instead of the stepping out to provide variation and detail, of doing the window ... that sounds fine to me. I mean I would want the applicant and staff to work out those variations. If you would see the ' little... windows in instead of providing that setback. The only other thing that I would really want to address is, as I said before, the truck loading area. Since we can't take all that dirt and create a berm with it and put the building down, the screening I think needs to be year ' round screening. Not just seasonal and from what I see out there right now, and I look at Power Systems which has two docks which are very, very visible from Audubon. And they're not as high as this building will be. I would like to see a denser sort of planting than what is ' out there. And I don't know if staff, I don't think I need to be more specific. If you could work with the landscape architect on that, I would feel very comfortable. But I would just add the year round screening adjectives to that. Otherwise just fine. May I have a motion. Skubic: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan 996 -2 for a 38,948 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 1, Block 1, ' Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated Received April 2, 1996, and subject to the conditions provided by staff 1 through 17. ' Mancino: Any discussion? Peterson: One point. Going back to the screening aspect of it. I vacillate back and forth on the aspect of whether it's better to try and screen something and maintain that screening. I guess I turn the question back to staff. What are we using ... what are the other alternatives that have a longer life value? ' Al -Jaff: There's been metal. Parapet walls. ' Peterson: Parapet walls in this case aren't viable. Al -Jaff: No, they're not an option really. Painting the units, but it has to be done in a manner that it's either going to work or it's going to turn into something that will scream at you. We will work with the architect and investigate that option of either painting the unit. ' Peterson: Bob, were you thinking of that as an alternative? I sense that you weren't. ' Skubic: No, I'm comfortable letting staff deal with that to their satisfaction. Peterson: I have no more questions. 1 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: I just have a friendly amendment that on number 15, the applicant must provide additional year round screening of the truck loading area. Skubic: I accept your amendment. Mancino: I would also like to make a friendly amendment on 16 that the applicant will work with staff to provide variation and detail to the architecture. Skubic: I accept that amendment also. Mancino: Thank you. Any other discussion? Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to add an amendment that condition 1 I be restated to indicate that there is only one monument sign allowed for this site. Skubic: Amendment is accepted. Mancino: Okay. A second to the motion. Peterson: Second. Skubic moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan 996 -2 for a 38,948 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated Received April 2, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The grading plan needs to be modified as follows: a. The westerly parking lot grade needs to be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot north and a catch basin extended from the cul -de -sac to convey stormwater runoff from the site. b. The overall site must conform to the master drainage plan. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Drainage calculations shall be for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. c. Grading limits shall be adjusted to end at the property line to avoid impacting existing boulevard improvements. 22 ' a. Additional information will be required with reference to warehouse commodity classification, height of storage and shelving plans. Contact Fire marshal for details. b. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy 904 -1991. "Fine Department Notes to be included on Site Plans." Copy enclosed. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991, 'Prefine Plans." Copy enclosed. ' e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 929 -1992, 'Premise Identification." Copy enclosed. ' f. Comply with Inspection Division Installation, Policy 934 -1993, "Water- Service Installation for Commercial and Industrial Buildings." Copy enclosed. 1 23 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 g g p , ' 2. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances, protection around catch basins, and silt fence around the perimeter of the site need to be shown on the final construction plans prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall use the existing sewer and water service provided from Commerce Drive. Utility extension from Lake Drive West shall be prohibited. ' 4. All access driveways need to be 26 feet wide face -to -face and the turning radius on the drive aisles from the easterly parking lot on to Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive ' need to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet. 5. The easterly curb cut on Lake Drive West needs to be moved easterly 8 to 10 feet to ' avoid impacting the existing fire hydrant. 6. All driveway curb cuts along Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps. 7. All driveway access points shall be constructed with industrial driveway aprons per City Detail Plate No. 5207. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: ' a. Additional information will be required with reference to warehouse commodity classification, height of storage and shelving plans. Contact Fire marshal for details. b. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy 904 -1991. "Fine Department Notes to be included on Site Plans." Copy enclosed. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991, 'Prefine Plans." Copy enclosed. ' e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 929 -1992, 'Premise Identification." Copy enclosed. ' f. Comply with Inspection Division Installation, Policy 934 -1993, "Water- Service Installation for Commercial and Industrial Buildings." Copy enclosed. 1 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 , g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 936 -1994, "Combination Domestic /Fiie Spiinkler Supply Line." Copy enclosed. ' h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 940 -1995, "Fire Spiinkler Systems." Copy enclosed. ' i. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on water service. ' Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 9. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the ' necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 10. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 11. The freestanding sign shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sigh display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. The property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The sign should be consistent in color, size and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 11 Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off - site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line. 13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. 24 C Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 ' 14. Applicant must provide 49 trees on site to meet ordinance requirements. Trees must be a minimum of 2 1/2 inches if deciduous and 6 feet if evergreen. The applicant is required to guarantee the trees for two growing seasons. ' 15. The applicant must provide additional year round screening of the truck loading area. Landscaping must be provided on the north, west and south sides of the area. ' 16. The applicant will work with staff to provide variation and detail to the architecture. I 17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building. I All voted in favor- and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF CHANHASSEN FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN EXPANSION TO CITY HALL ON PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND ' LOCATED AT 690 COULTER DRIVE. Public Present: ' Name Address Bill Schubert 640 Conestoga Trail Todd Haunen Minneapolis, MN ' Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this time from staff? At this point. Mehl: I have one. With the, in looking at that roadway up to the north side. If there were ' an emergency or something where you needed to get a big fire truck back there, is that easy to do? I mean does that turn into that area allow access for it? Or wouldn't it ever go back there. Maybe there's another way. Another side of the building. ' Hempel: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. That's one of the reasons behind increasing the drive aisle width. Was to accommodate public safety vehicles. Also contractors periodically will stop at City Hall to pick up permits and they have a dump truck 1 25 J Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 , 1 with a trailer or Bobcat on it. This will enable them to maneuver much easier through the parking lot as well. ' Mancino: Thank you. h r 's plenty ' Mehl: So t e e p ty of room? Hempel: That's correct. ' Mehl: Thank you. I Peterson: I had a question on that same driveway. It says there's four stalls and parallel parking. Is that same grade as the parking lot... The grade on the upper level thru street... and I the lower area where the parking lot is now? Generous: Correct. The water will flow to the west. I Peterson: Just for curiousity's sake, is there a reason why the main lot parking stall isn't at grade level...? ' Generous: I think the applicant, our architect might be able to answer that one. Peterson: Not that I have any bias on that... ' Todd Haunen: I might be able to help answer that question. I'm the planning consultant , from Hoisington Koegler, Todd Haunen. Landscape architect... and I didn't hear your question. Peterson: It was just that the grade of the thru parking street seems to be at the entrance level and the handicap parking seems to be down at the lower level. Why wouldn't you use the four stalls at grade level versus the ones at...? , Todd Haunen: The front... parking along there was for contractors. It's 10 minute parking so ' contractors can stop in, get their permits and leave. So it's more or less temporary parking than long term parking and in order to get water to drain properly, stalls there on that... parking lot are about 3 feet lower and they need to be that way just so we have proper , drainage to the south. Mancino: But that doesn't mean you couldn't reverse it and have the developers stop there ' and get out for 10 minutes. 26 t C Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Peterson: Yeah, I guess I don't see a developer with a big 4 wheel drive pick -up truck doing parallel parking personally. Mancino: That's a good comment. Is there an applicant? Generous: Well there's our consultant. Mancino: Okay, does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Or their designee. Richard Palmer: Good evening Madam Chair, commission members. I'm Richard Palmer representing KKE Architects. Todd Christopherson, the construction manager with Amcon retained by the city, couldn't be here this evening... Mancino: Okay. Any questions at this point? We may have some later. Thank you very much. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue. Bill Schubert: I'm Bill Schubert, 640 Conestoga Trail. First question to the commission. It's my recollection that at some point, approximately about a year and a half ago, that this was brought to the people to vote for expansion of this city hall and it was turned down. Is this a true statement? Mancino: I don't know. Bob? Was this brought? There was not a referendum was there? Generous: I'm not aware of that but I'm not really certain either way. Mancino: I am not aware of a referendum. Bill Schubert: ...and it's certainly been discussed and my recollection is approximately 2 years ago ... got turned down and I was wondering if this was a similar situation associated with the community center that was voted on and turned down and happened anyway. On the plus, Bob was kind enough to return my phone call and explain the justification for this thing. I am for this. I'm questioning. 27 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 g g p 1 Mancino: You are for it? Bill Schubert: Yes. Yes I will ive you that component. A couple things that I see ' g Y p p associated with this plan. First of all, this city is growing. Unfortunately ... I enjoy the small , atmosphere of when I first arrived but unfortunately progress does occur. We've now greater than doubled in size since this... building was built and now we're increasing by a third. Would this expansion ... is a way in the future to expand this building even further? Has that , been considered on this board to determine expansion? Generous: Yes I am aware of that one. There is potential for expansion to the south. It I would be. Bill Schubert: Can I see that...? ' Generous: I don't it... Bill Schubert: Okay, just if you could point it out... Generous: It would actually encompass the land that's located south of Coulter Drive. Which ' is the road that runs south of the building. Expansion would be in this middle area and it would move out into that area. There are some ideas for a plaza area out there and expanding possibly the Council Chambers out there and Library and the senior area. ' Mancino: But there is no time line to this expansion at all? Generous: Not currently. Not that I'm aware of, no. , Bill Schubert: What would happen to the current building that is across the street? And what would happen to Coulter Drive? Generous: Coulter Drive would be vacated and turned into a parking lot, plaza, landscaped ' area. The city center, if you will. Mancino: And what would happen to the building? ' Generous: That would be demolished because there'd be parking on both sides of the I building when that did occur. 28 1 ' Planning ommission Meeting - April 17 1996 g g p 1 ' Bill Schubert: Okay. Another question is, what is the ... first of all going south on Kerber. We're currently on ... some trees and ... and very little parking area and I would have a large parking area... ' Mancino: That will be around the perimeter of the parking lot. Bill Schubert: Okay. And the last ... how much of the... Generous: All of this, the ballfield located right to the northwest of City Hall. That basically the infield area is part of the new parking lot. And the drive aisle would be expanded out to the north. The plan is to maintain the skating rink that is just on the north side there of the City Hall and some of the... ' Bill Schubert: Okay. Is that ballfield going to be moved or removed from... ' Generous: Bandimere Park would be the next major facility that would have ballfields that I'm aware of ' Mancino: But yes. I mean the answer is yes. It would be permanently removed because there will be parking lot. ' Bill Schubert: So it's not being pushed further out into the soccer field area? Mancino: Not that I'm aware of Do you know? Generous: I haven't heard an plans and Todd didn't mention anything. Y . p Y g ' Mancino: Okay, but that's a good, very good question. ' Bill Schubert: ...still has a sign in the middle of a cornfield saying future site of. Do we have a more set date of when Bandimere will occur? ' Mancino: No we don't. We will be having a park referendum to decide that. Bill Schubert: Okay. I was just concerned that if we lose this ballpark, certainly we are in a ' shortage of ballparks all over this town. Mancino: I can tell you that those of us who volunteer and work with the city are well aware ' of that and are doing planning right now. And if you would like to be involved in that planning, please leave your name and address because we'd love to have you loin us. Okay, 29 Plannin g Commission Meeting e April 17, 1996 ' good. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? ' Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was , closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don. I Mehl: Yeah, I'm still looking at that street on the north side. Where that roadway and I'm looking at those four stalls that are for parallel parking. I assume that roadway is going to be ' a two way traffic. Are those four stalls intended for vehicles either eastbound or westbound? And if you've got a westbound vehicle, isn't it going to be maybe a little awkward to pull over into the eastbound lane to line up to make a, to be able to back in and park in that I parallel parking spot? Do you follow me? Mancino: Kind of Dave, I'll let you. I Hempel: Madam Chair. That's correct. It's intended for westbound, eastbound traffic to use those parallel stalls. It's not intended for westbound traffic to try and do a U turn at that ' location and fit in there. It would be a very tight turn. They would have to jockey back and forth to do that. Mancino: You do know there are some of us who would try it. t Bill Schubert asked a question from the audience. I Hempel: No, it'd be a two lane road there. Mehl: But there will be p eople probably be parked there that are facing west. ' Hempel: One point we could look into further is possibly 45 degree angle parking there too ' and eliminate that temptation. Mehl: That would make additional spaces too, wouldn't it? ' Hempel: That would also increase or push the drive aisle further to the north. But we can ' certainly look at that. Mehl: Other than that, I think it's a reasonable plan. I really have no comment, anything I further at this point. 30 1 u Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to use this opportunity to make a comment in the hope that maybe somebody at City Council might read it. It's funny how we deal with government buildings when we look at this stuff. I'm thinking in terms in comparison say with Chaska City Hall. They worked out a plan ... We seem to deal with this, and particularly building that's ... we start out with a 70's, early 70's building and then we kind of, we had a baby and we decided to build another room. We have another baby, we build another room. We deal with this thing and we approve this stuff on the basis of little compartments. And what we wind up with as a whole is, in the 90's we're still building a 70's building and we look at the building and how it fits in this main street here. We're continuing to make these same process mistakes. It seems like the city has a really difficult time dealing with our own buildings. We seem to have a much easier time dealing with somebody else who comes in here with a PUD. There are compelling reasons for this, because we're spending taxpayers money... government buildings in many cases are some of the nicest architecture that we have in various cities. How come they can do it and we can't? We seem to have a way to continue this building the way it is. We're doing that again. Now looking at where this parking's going, I think this is where the parking should go. What I'm looking at must be 30 different plans for this building over the last 10 years and the various ways that they're kind of going to do things. We're doing these things as we go along and we don't have that phase expansion II, phase expansion III, IV and V as we look at it as a whole. There's still a lot of arguments as to what we would park... integrate. There's the issue of ballfields. We had some of these discussions when they talked about moving some of the recreational facilities to the new school. But it seems to me that one of the things we could learn here is that if we expand parking, if there is an addition, how does the parking go into that also, and as the expansion heads to the south, or is it, I sure think that it should expand to the northwest. Or excuse me, northeast where the hockey field is because it seems to me that that's a grossly incompatible use for this park as it stands now. We're also missing the opportunity for a city square at the junction of Market and our main street, which is at the center of the city and as it stands now, it's being wasted. There is no front to this building. Nor has there ever been. There's a couple side entrances and architecturally when you look at it ... where the image that's coming out, there's no door there. And there's a good reason for that. Because half the building wasn't there at one time. It was added onto. So to me nothing in this building really works and every time I drive by it I kind of cover my face up because I really don't want to look at it. But I get emotional about buildings and some people don't. I still don't think the city should expand at all to the south because that's very precious land out there, or will be. Or there's potential it will be, and I don't think it should become a bar -be -que yard for the city or bar -be -que deck type situation. The city, contrary to my opinion, to their advice, there is enough room there to support a fairly large gathering of people. Because I don't think all of Chanhassen shows up at the same time for any particular one function. And in looking at the 31 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 ' g g p relationships to how it's being used now, or even if we add another 10,000 people to here, I still think that that's far more visible to what's happening in town as an area as the civic ' potential, than sticking it back up the hill. I think. And I wish what we would do would be to look at all of this type of thing at the same time rather than trying to fix all these little bits and pieces of the problem, which is what we're doing. And I kind of go back to how they ' develop when they cut the street out and put the old city hall there. We did that for two parking spots that after this year probably will never be there again. So here we're stuck ' with. Mancino: Say that again. I Farmakes: Well, the old city hall over there. The old city hall that's kind of trapezoid over there. They stuck that in that position so Pauly's could save a couple parking spots. We spent $55,000.00 in a foundation that we now can't move. But after this year that parking lot will ' be out of there probably. It will be gone. So what did we save for the future of the city? To me 50 years from now they'll be scratching their heads wondering why that building's like ' that. Unless they read the Minutes, they may never know. I hope we don't wind up doing that here, is what I'm saying. That we try to solve a little problem and have everybody scratching their head wondering why, what does that have to do with the parking lot as it is ' now? When we approved the city center, the senior citizen add on down here. It was just like this. When you approved the other expansion for the public safety office, just like that. We look at the little piece and all of this area, we should be looking at the whole thing. We ' have a comprehensive plan that we look at. The same theory behind that. We don't have a guide for any of this. Basically it's whether or not the coffers are full at the year we come up with a plan and I wish we would take a little better long term thinking on that. ' Mancino: Is there a plan? A fully integrated plan for the area for this public space. Generous: pp g g Hoisin ton Group put something together. I don't know Todd are you...? g Todd Haunen: Yeah. I wrote down a plan, maybe you can turn this back on. Early on, about a year ago we had done some master planning to try to incorporate those things that potentially would happen up here meet and mimic some of the same things happening up here. So what we wanted to do is create this very strong corridor along the side of the ' building that would invite people back and forth. So rather than this be a single entity in itself, City Hall and a park in the back and the front, with the parking would all become one entity and work together. But that was some the master planning. Then from there we did , several different schematic drawings of how the parking would work with the building and hence we are where we are today. I 32 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Mancino: So this is following a master plan? ' Todd Haunen: Yeah. I mean we had done several different ones and although this parking is g p g different from one of the original master plans, it's very much in line with what we originally ' did with the last master plan that was approved. ' Farmakes: When did you first start on working on a plan? What was the date? I know it's three separate design groups have worked on this plan the last decade, none of which has gotten any funding approval so I dust, as far as loading and going through the process. As far t as I know nothing has come before the Planning Commission that I know of other than bits and pieces. ' Todd Haunen: June of last year was when we started doing the master plan. Farmakes: Okay. So I think my point's made that. ' Mancino: That we haven't seen it. ' Farmakes: Well not only we haven't seen it but this is, there's been many renditions of this, what to do with this and my concern is the process as it stands now, how it's being one. It's not very integrated, I think. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. ' Skubic: That's tough to follow. I just have one small comment ... what Don and Craig had said... diagonal parking in front of the building be ... handicap parking also... ' Mancino: Okay, Kevin. Joyce: I appreciate what Jeff is saying. I think it's important what he said. I don't feel ' knowledgeable enough at this stage yet to make any statement except it looks to me like we're adding on to a building and adding onto the parking and ... it says Chanhassen City ' Common site. We're only going to ... commons itself ..ballfield so that's my feeling. And I can see where Jeffs coming from. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I'd like to address the handicap area too. In terms of where it's located. I think ' Craig brings up some good common sense points so if staff could review that and make a recommendation... I think it's just a good common sense thing to look at. Unfortunately, not 1 33 Mancino: Craig. ' Peterson: Ladd, I think your last comments summarized my thoughts ... in that we are, as a commission asked to think about the future. The city asks us to play that role and tonight ' we're looking at only a small part of the future. We talk about we ask other developers to 34 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 a g g p unfortunately but I think what Jeff said, you know when you don't know a whole lot, it's real easy to comment. Jeff was fairly involved in reviewing some of these designs and some of ' the things he said, I really believe him and I also know some of the decision making is very practical. We have so much money. We can only do this. I just want to reinforce what Jeff said. From a Planning Commission standpoint, really don't know that there's a master plan. ' How this fits. I know that, I'm not convinced that we have the right vistas in the future, and that's not a knock on our, who's guiding us. I mean I'm just not convinced of it yet. I think we need those vistas. We're going to be a big town and I guess I just haven't seen what we're ' going to look like. Doesn't mean it's not there but I haven't seen it. I'm real convinced that the Market Square type concept is important. A good city image is important. I see we're going to be expanding certain ways and I'm not sure how that really fits in and reinforces our ' image so bottom line is, really to make some comments. I guess we should probably pass this along but also with the note saying that we don't get where we're going. ' Mancino: Is this something that you think that the Planning Commission should have a work shop on? ' Conrad: I think City Council's played with this. I think they have seen 30 versions and the word is not real tight, or aware of what those versions are in their decision making but you , know, so I guess it's just worth somebody presenting the long range plan. If there is one, a master plan, I think we should see it and then we'd be much more adapt. We challenge all our builders to do that. Well what's phase II and III. Well we don't, we're approaching this, ' the next little piece and I'm not sure we're treating us differently. Farmakes: One of the questions you often ask is, where's the front of the building? ' Conrad: And again, there's... answers for us and it's real practical Jeff but I think you really bring up some, I don't think we should be so short sighted and cost conscious that we don't ' develop a good long term look for the city. In terms of vistas and buildings. I hate to think we're forcing parking towards 78th Street. Just hate that. I think that would be dumb. I also believe that under, different versions of what I saw does not give us the right presence along a road over to, pointing to the east here. At least in my, if my memory is correct so some things that I thought were important probably aren't being incorporated into the plan right now. ' Mancino: Craig. ' Peterson: Ladd, I think your last comments summarized my thoughts ... in that we are, as a commission asked to think about the future. The city asks us to play that role and tonight ' we're looking at only a small part of the future. We talk about we ask other developers to 34 1 J Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 provide us with the vision of the future and now we're being presented tonight without one. We're asked to just focus on this. What we have here now and that's part of-and I was confused by it. It's although it's been done before so now it's being processed through as just as ... somewhat uncomfortable with that. With the aspect, being specific to the plan however. The idea of having stalls, if there is an entrance to the building, it's probably where those four stalls are going to be and whether there's handicapped parking there really isn't as much of an issue but I think that is the focal point that people will be utilizing... contractors stop in for 10 minutes and having contractor vehicles... City Hall. It's a nice thought having four stalls there but I don't think it was thoroughly thought through as to what the impact would be, or if we think the staff should relook at that ... not having it there at all for both the aesthetic value and from a logistics of having on a one way, you're going to have people parking at 45 degree angles. You're going to have people coming in the wrong way... Mancino: I really have no new comments. I mean I just agree completely. I read it through and thought, where are we going? What philosophy do we have in our public spaces? What do we want them to be? I looked at this and couldn't figure it out. All I knew was that the parking space is bigger than the footprint. This new parking space is bigger than the footprint of the City Hall. And all I can see is adding more and more parking spaces. And I think Jeffs right. It's a 1970's building. Anyway, let's get on with this. May I have a motion? May I have a real live motion please. Peterson: Madam Chair, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96 -3 for the City of Chanhassen Hall expansion prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., stamped received March 28, 1996 subject to the conditions 1 ' through 7. With condition 8 that staff re- address the parking area on the north side of the building to further investigate the viability... ' Mancino: Is there a second? ' Conrad: Yeah, I second. Mancino: Any more discussion? ' Conrad: Yeah. I guess I just want to document the fact that, which will probably come across if the Council listens to this and reads it, but document the fact that the Commission ' really doesn't know where we're going. I'm going to vote yes for it simply because I think the City Council spent a lot of time reviewing this. I think they really did spend many of their hours trying to figure this out so at this point in time I'm just saying, hey it's your deal. ' But if I'm wrong I think they should kick this back and we should take a look and see where the overall building plan is going for Chanhassen. 1 35 Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 , g g p Mancino: Any other discussion? Peterson moved, Com -ad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan 996 -3 for the Chanhassen City Hall expansion, plans preparred by Hoisington Koegler ' Group, Inc,, stamped received March 28, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan should be revised as shown on Attachment No. 1. ' 2. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the storm drainage inlets should be incorporated on the final plan set. 3. The proposed storm sewers in the west parking lot shall be relocated to the west curb line and parking lot grades adjusted accordingly. 4. Evergreen plantings should be increased along the northern side of the new entrance drive and to the north of the building to achieve a more complete windbreak for the site. ' Electrical outlets should be installed at the base of the evergreens planted north of the city hall. t 5. For the overstory or large deciduous shade trees as described on plans, recommendations include: sugar maple, red oak, hackberry Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak; for the small deciduous shade tree recommendations include: crabapples, hawthorn, amur , maple, Japanese tree lilac, serviceberry; and recommended evergreens include: red pine, Black Hills spruce, and Austrian pine. Large mulch beds should be considered under groups of trees and shrubs. ' 6. The southern and northern landscape islands in the new parking lot will need aeration tubes installed. ' T Signage shall comply with city code requirements and must receive a separate sign permit. ' 8. Staff shall re- address the parking area on the north side of the building. ' All voted in favor, except Mancino and Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 20 ' Mancino: Do you want to give findings for opposing? 36 1 Planning ommission Meeting - April 17 1996 g g p , ' Farmakes: No. I just want to reiterate my thoughts... reason for opposing is just... I think the process is flawed. I think it's the same process that's been responsible for some of the other problems that we've had. It's an issue of integration. ' Mancino: I'm of the same feeling. The motion carries. It goes in from the City Council. J Generous: May 6th. NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: Do you have any new business? Generous: I can tell you about the... Mancino: Tell me about what? Generous: ...center. Mancino: Okay, that would be good. Generous: Creekside Second Addition will be coming in sometime this summer. That is, it's a small, approximately 7 or 8 acre townhouse development north of Creekside in the corner of Timberwood there and south of where the industrial... are coming in. We've had discussions with T.F. James Company and the last two lots on the West Village Heights, the Byerly... center should be coming in this summer. I'm meeting tomorrow to talk to the developer of the industrial property next to the school site. So they look like they're coming forward this summer also. Mancino: With what? Generous: An industrial office park. Conrad: Where? Generous: Just east of the school, I'm sorry. On the east side of Bluff Creek. Also Lundgren Bros will finally be final platting the Rogers - Dolejsi piece on Lyman and TH 101. Mancino: That abuts the Bandimere Park? Generous: Yes. 91FA Planning Commission Meeting m April 17, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Peterson: The all important question. Taco Bell? Generous: Taco Bell is submitting, well they have building permits so they should be going shortly. I think these road restrictions are holding up a lot of construction right now. Mancino: Taco Bell? Was Taco Bell approved? Generous: Yeah. That's next to the Boston Market and Perkins. Conrad: You said you liked it. Mancino: Are you sure? Generous: And we're reviewing the Applebee's site plan, or building permit plans so that will be going shortly also. Tires Plus, as you can see is already on the way. Mancino: And do you know what's slated for those two, the Charlie James, the end of Byerly's complex? Generous: They wouldn't tell me. Another strip center. But they're looking at a conditional use. Two buildings. I was trying to negotiate that they push straight up. It was like a descending building so it cascaded back as the lots narrowed and I wanted to talk them into breaking up, the farthest piece and pushing that up towards the front. Conrad: Gotta do that. Gotta. Generous: So at least I know the ... that's where I was coming from. Peterson: Do you hear anything... planned for the Prairie House? Generous: Yes. We received a site plan for that. It's a retail building. Sharmin will be working on that. Mancino: The other thing is the Villages on the Ponds. We'll be having work sessions in May. Generous: Right. We meet next week with Brad Johnson to finalize his, how he wants to go forward on it. He was discussing with Kate possibly moving to three sessions and I met with I Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 the Environmental Quality Board over in St. Paul today. The size of the, the scope of the project is such that now they are required to do an Environmental Impact Statement. They're looking at an alternative urban area review, which is a slightly shorter process. It's more efficient if we get the church in there on pretty close to their time frame. We'll address all the same issues. Mancino: How many acres is the church buying? Generous: I believe it's like 8.5 or 8.6. Mancino: So a small percentage, okay. Generous: But we'll be busy this summer. Mancino: Thank you. Approval or so noting of the Minutes from our last meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 3, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Generous: April 8th, Council did the second and final reading for the buffer yard ordinance. There was one change that you might be interested. They wanted a little equity in the process so after we determined what the landscape requirement is, based on a formula that ' was in there, then they just provide 75 %. And if the abutting properties want their 100% screening, they should put in the 25 %. ' Conrad: Say that again? Generous: Okay. We have the formulas. We could determine what was the minimum planting for a buffer area. Once you have that number, you multiply by .75 and that's what the developer is liable for. So they're not going to have to put in all the landscaping if the neighboring single family homes want some of that landscaping to the 100% buffer, they're going to put in the 25 %. Mancino: So why didn't you just reduce the minimum buffer? Generous: Well we already did that. Mancino: Okay. Would someone from the City Council like to speak on that? 39 Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 ' Steve Berquist: I think Bob's almost right. The 75% was adopted with the stipulation that if the adjoining property owner wants more up to 100 %, they shall, it should be paid for on a 1 ' to 1 basis. So if they want 80 %, and that includes 2 more bushes. One of which would be paid for by the developer and one which would be paid for by the adjoining property on up to the 100% mark. Is that clear? ' Mancino: Why? ' Steve Berquist: We just decided that. Mancino; It was too onerous? ' Steve Berquist: ...some equity and if the adjoining property owners were adamant in their ' request for additional buffering up to the 100% mark, that they should share in the cost. Mancino: Steve, is that with single family... I Steve Berquist: Between for instance, Lake Ann Highlands and Windmill Run and situations such as that. That's the sort of development... I Mancino: I understand that better. Any other questions? Other updates. Generous: The bluff side, or side of bluff ordinance was also approved. I did have one note. The D.R. Horton project, the applicant for that land use amendment from office industrial to residential... ' Mancino: The 504 units or something. Generous: Yes. The applicant is withdrawing his application. We just have it verbally. ' Mancino: No, I think that the City Council should go through that presentation. Sit through ' that presentation. Conrad: At least three times. ' Peterson: Did they give a rationale for it? I Generous: They didn't want to fight anymore I guess. We told them there's other lands available. Maybe they want to look at those first. ' 40 ' ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 g g p , 1 ' Mancino: Any other major? Generous: No. Not that I know. Mancino: Did any commissioners that attended that meeting, are there any comments? Any other comments from staff? Thank you. ' ONGOING ITEMS: ' Mancino: Do you have any ongoing items? Generous: No, we just touched it. The Villages on the Ponds will be coming back. We'll t break it into smaller pieces so we're not inundated with all the technical details. What I found out today, through this process we can approve the development contingent on the AUAR. They being approved by the EQB, Environmental Quality Board... environmental ' impacts of the project. Mancino: Anyone else have any ongoing items? So we can make Jill stay late. ' OPEN DISCUSSION: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION UPDATE: Generous: Do you need to adjourn or something? Mancino: You want us to adjourn for this? ' Generous: Well how do Y ou do that? ' Mancino: We'll go ahead and have Jill present and then we'll adjourn. ' Sinclair: Thank you ... members of the Commission. My main objective tonight was to give you an update on the Environmental Commission and basically what was written in the memo is about all that can be said about that right now. We're still ... on the 29th. Monday the 29th ' so it's kind of in a holding pattern as it is. Mancino: Okay. Jill, how is the Environmental Commission different than the Park and Rec ' Commission? What's it's mandate? Sinclair: I did make up a mission statement for the Environmental Commission and I'm ' sorry, I didn't include that. It will be included in the next packet. It's more of a comprehensive ... kind of environmental issues whether it's boulevard plantings or community L 41 Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 1 gardening clubs. That kind of thing. Not just things that happen on public grounds but things that could happen on private property too. Getting... things like that. , Mancino: So with the addition of the new City Hall, will you see some public spaces used for gardens? ' Sinclair: Maybe. If we're lucky. But anyway I just included a number of different things ' we've been working on ... so I thought I'd give you kind of an update on some things that go on. I can go over each one but we could get out of here in record time so I'll hit the highlights. One of the ... Tree City USA. At the end of March I attended a luncheon... ' highway sign on the east side of town... We're limited to the amount of signage we can put on a four lane highway. Mancino: How can they say that? There are big billboards on 494... ' Sinclair: ...operation signs are a minimum height of 7 feet... underneath this which means you ' have to raise everything up which would cost the city $200.00 for each sign... We also got a plaque... A flag that we will fly during the month of May, which is Arbor month... Mancino: That's great. , Sinclair: There's 154 cities in Minnesota that are Tree City USA so it's an honor. Among ' other things ... the Arbor Day celebration. That's on the last Saturday in April. This year we have five groups that are planting trees ... but a lot of Girl Scout troops ... Do you have any questions about any of the other programs? The compost site just opened last weekend and ' it was a fairly busy day... Peterson: Who's ... that Highway 5? ' Sinclair: MnDot. There is $300,000.00... The majority of them are going to be large over story trees. There's lots of oaks. We have a wild flower prairie area on the corner of Powers , and TH 5 ... so as you come into the city it will be mostly ornaments. As you go out it will be large overstory trees. ' Mancino: How many trees are the Girl Scouts planting? Do you have any idea? Sinclair: Two of the groups are planting 100 each and another group is planting about 50. ' So last year we had a Boy Scout and a Girl Scout troop that planted 400. 42 ' ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996 g g p ' Mancino: Do you ever get homeowners associations involved in that? In their neighborhood parks. ' Sinclair: I've advertised for things like that and not yet. But that's always an option. Mehl: ...test program, is Chanhassen a problem area based on tests or not? ' Sinclair: All of Carver County is high risk because of the soils so there's a number of factors that determine whether or not your home in particular is a high risk. If you have an older ' home, there's a little more air spaces. It's a looser house. There's more ventilation which would kind of reduce your risk basically. The gas moves out of your house. There's less of a risk. In some of the newer homes with really air tight, good insulation and sealed basements, things like that, you may have a higher risk of having radon in your home. I also mentioned, the County is applying for a grant that would be used to supply builders with radon abatement kits I believe they're called. Which would be installed in the new homes. And it'd basically be a ... system up through the roof from the foundation up through the roof to let all those gases out so. ' Mancino: Would that be city code that they have to? Sinclair: No, it wouldn't be city code. ' Mehl: Why not? As long as it is potentially a serious health threat, why wouldn't it be city code any more than having a deck railing so high or you know? ' Sinclair: Yeah. Good sure w q uestion. I'm not really h that's never been addressed before. Y ' I know the building officials were concerned, these kits that would be supplied to the builders, because one of the installation requirements is that you lay a plastic sheet underneath the foundation, which is concrete. If you do that, it takes 2 to 3 times as long to cure the ' concrete. Builders will not take that time. So they'll end up punching holes in the plastic, which kind of forgoes the purpose of it all. So the building department thinks that there might be a problem with people actually adhering to the requirement of the installation of this. But t the builders who care will do a good job ... but that's one of the problems. If it isn't done properly. ' Conrad: Jill, you have an environmental commission that's being established. I'm trying to figure out what their job is. Right now we're collecting fees for water quality improvements, are we not in our taxes? ' Sinclair: Yeah, storm water. 43 Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 ' Conrad: Is that under your? Generous: That would be Y art of it. The would have to prioritize those programs and ' P proj ects. ' Conrad: See that's, Steve that's really important that somebody manages that function. We spent a couple years of our life trying to get that going and I don't know what's happening so ' that's part of the environmental committee's direction or management responsibility. Generous: Exactly. The storm water committee didn't have enough to keep going and neither I did the tree board. Conrad: No this really, this is the right, the whole committee, a commission that looks at a ' variety of things I think makes a lot of sense but also we develop some direction. I just don't know how this direction is carried out. Sinclair: Yeah. I'll put the mission statement in the next packet and you can look at that. ' Conrad: I'd like to. Secondly, one of the real simple things that we looked at in terms of , water quality and things that we can do, we're dealing with sewers and getting Girl Scouts out painting manhole covers. I've never seen that happen. Has that happened? Sinclair: Yeah. Around Lotus and Minnewashta I've seen storm sewers that have been... I ' don't know if there are maybe in certain neighborhoods around those lakes. I'm not sure what. t Conrad: Is that a responsibility that you share or? Sinclair: I think that would be Phil, somethin g to do with water. ' Mancino: Water Resources. ' Mehl: I saw them doing the painting last year on our street. ' Conrad: Did you? Mehl: Big Horn Drive. ' Conrad: It's a real simple thing to do to make people aware that this stuff goes into your lake. I I really didn't ... so that's not you? And Phil reports to who? 44 , L Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 Sinclair: Kate. The oil tank storage program. Mancino: Where is that? Sinclair: That has been put on hold by the State so that's not going to happen this year but what it is is, the County and the State which supply us with a large container where people can bring their oil and oil filters. Right now I believe there's three locations within the city that you can bring your oil. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear and SuperAmerica up on TH 7 and TH 41. And this would just be one more spot that people could bring their oil to help promote proper disposal. Mancino: Hazardous waste disposal. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. Comnad moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 45