7. City Hall Expansion: Site Plan.CITY OF
�, CHANHASSE
PC DATE: 4/17/96
CC DATE: 5/6/96
CASE M 96 -3 Site Plan
By: Generous:v
7?
J
' a
1
1
1
1
1
1
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review of a Two Level Expansion to City Hall totaling approximately
11,000 square feet, City of Chanhassen
LOCATION: 690 Coulter Boulevard
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
OI, Office & Institutional
3.7+
N - OI, City Center Park
S - OI, office building and vacant
E - OI, post office and fire station
W BG, West Village Center
Available to site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The expansion site is over the existing western parking lot and the
baseball field in the southwest corner of City Center Park. The sit
slopes to the south and west with steeper grades down to Coulter
Drive and Kerber Boulevard.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Public /Semi - Public
9l*fA 0 to
City P Hall Expansion - Site Plan
' April 17, 1996
Page 2
' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The city is proposing a two level expansion in the northwest corner of the existing city hall. The
' proposed expansion consists of approximately 11,000 square feet. The building materials would
match as to courses and orientation, and continue the existing building materials which are two
tones of brick, sandlewood and sand. The proposed expansion covers the existing public safety
parking lot area and necessitates the expansion of the parking area to the north. The driveway
access to the south of the public safety parking area will be closed and the driveway revegetated
and a new driveway entrance will be located across from the West Village Center (Byerly's north
' access) driveway. In addition, a driveway connection will be provided from the eastern to the
western parking lots of city hall.
r
F
To provide safer pedestrian access and reduce turning movements in the west parking lot, staff
has redesigned the parking lot with a larger center median (Attachment No. 1). The median will
also provide additional room for landscaping materials. The drive aisles will also be increased
from 22 to 24 and 26 feet wide and turning radiuses increased to provide sufficient turning radius
for truck traffic. These changes will result in expanding the westerly parking lot four feet
towards Kerber Boulevard.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in the staff
report
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 1980, the City Council approved the platting, rezoning, site plan, and public
improvement project necessary to initiate the construction of the city hall and library. On March
25, 1988, the City Council approved a 6,411 square foot expansion to city hall for the western
side of the building. In both 1980 and 1988, it was envisioned that the city hall would need to be
expanded in the future as the city continued to grow.
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The city is proposing a two level expansion in the northwest corner of the existing city hall. The
proposed expansion consists of approximately 11,000 square feet. The building materials match
as to courses and orientation, and continue the existing building materials which are two tones of
brick, sandlewood and sand. The proposed expansion would cover the existing public safety
parking lot area and necessitate the expansion of the parking area to the north. The driveway
access to the south of the public safety parking area will be closed and the driveway revegetated
and a new driveway entrance will be located across from the northerly West Village Center
driveway. In addition, a driveway connection will be provided from the eastern to the western
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 3
parking lots of city hall. Pedestrian access to city hall is being enhanced through the inclusion of
sidewalk and stairways from both Coulter Drive and Kerber Boulevard.
GRADING
The building expansion will require relocation and expansion of the existing westerly parking lot
facility. Since the property is relatively flat, very little site grading will be involved to construct
the parking lot and drive aisles. Landscape materials impacted by this construction are proposed
to be relocated. There is an existing irrigation system around City Hall which will be disturbed
in conjunction with site improvements. Considerations for a new irrigation system should be
included in the plans.
DRAINAGE
Expansion of the parking lot and drive aisles will require additional storm drainage
infrastructures. The plans propose on extending the storm sewer line from Kerber Boulevard to
convey storm water runoff to the downtown storm water basin for pretreatment. The catch
basins proposed in the west parking lot drive aisles should be relocated to the westerly curb line
and parking lot grades adjusted to drain accordingly. Staff has worked with the project engineer
in the design of the storm drainage system and these modifications can be easily incorporated
into the final plan sets. Erosion control measures will need to be incorporated on the final plans
as well. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrance and protection around
storm sewer inlets will be necessary.
UTILITIES
No new utilities will be necessary with this expansion. The existing fire hydrant at the northeast
corner of City Hall will be relocated as a result of the new drive aisle from the north side of the
building.
STREETS
The current access from Coulter Drive will be abandoned and relocated to Kerber Boulevard
across from Byerly's northerly access drive. Another access drive is proposed around the north
side of the building from the east parking lot to provide continuity between the east and west
parking lots. Staff has reviewed the traffic and pedestrian circulation and has recommended
changes. To provide safer pedestrian access and reduce turning movements in the west parking
lot, staff has redesigned the parking lot with a larger center median (Attachment No. 1). The
median will also provide additional room for landscaping materials. The drive aisles will also be
increased to 24 to 26 feet wide and turning radiuses increased to provide sufficient turning radius
L
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 4
for truck traffic. These changes will result in expanding the westerly parking lot four feet
towards Kerber Boulevard.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the new city hall appears to sufficiently accomplish multiple items: the number
and placement meet ordinance requirements, provides good coverage of the site, and will act as a
windbreak for the addition and parking lot. 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.
Suggested species for the landscaping have been chosen based on the city's approved tree list and
the plantings that exist downtown and will occur along highway 5. For the overstory or large
deciduous shade tree as described on plans, recommendations include: Sugar maple (to honor
our city tree), red oak, hackberry, Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak. For the small deciduous
' shade tree, recommendations include: crabapples, hawthorn, amur maple, Japanese tree lilac,
serviceberry. Recommended evergreens include: red pine, Black Hills spruce, and Austrian
' pine. Large mulch beds should be considered under groups of trees and shrubs to reduce the
need for mowing in those areas as well as set an example for the proper care of the plants.
' The park land located north of city hall will continue to be used as a skating rink during the
winter. Landscaping recommendations should include installing electrical outlets at the base of
proposed evergreens to be planted north of the building drive. This would allow the park
' maintenance crews to decorate the trees with seasonal lighting. This type of lighting is currently
being done at the Chanhassen Recreation Center and has been done in the past at City Hall using
the existing crabapples located on the northeast corner of City Hall.
The southern most island in the new parking lot will need aeration tubes installed. The island is
approximately 5 feet wide, a tight fit for most trees. Ordinance requires islands less than 10 feet
' wide be fitted with aeration tubes.
LIGHTING /SIGNAGE
' The development shall comply with City Code in the provision of site lighting. Lighting shall
use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right -of -way and adjacent property.
Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate
levels of safety. To minimize off -site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall
' not exceed one -half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of photoelectric cells
for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color. Parking lot lighting shall be
corten type poles with shoebox style light fixtures.
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 5
The proposal shows the relocation of the building signage to the north elevation of the building
expansion. City code permits wall signage on street frontages only so the signage would have to
be relocated to the west building elevation. Signage shall comply with city code requirements
and must receive a separate sign permit.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
r
LI
' City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
' April 17, 1996
Page 6
' circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
' (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed expansion creates a functional and harmonious design for
structures and site features. The proposed development is consistent with the City's
Highway 5 Corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance,
and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to
previous development in the area. The site design is compatible with the surrounding
development and enhances the open space and landscaping of the city center.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed site plan for the city hall
expansion on April 17, 1996. The Planning Commission voted five for and two against to
recommend approval subject to the conditions of the staff report and the requirement that the
' parking on the north side of the building be reevaluated, both from the provision of accessible
parking and from the perspective of individuals making U -turns to access the locations.
' The Planning Commission was also concerned that they are only reviewing the current expansion
plans for city hall and not a master development plan for current and future expansion to city hall
and, therefore, do not know where the city is going. They felt that they did not see the vision for
what city hall and the city center would ultimately look like, how it would fit in to the downtown
area, and how it would look from the vantage of the downtown area.
' Staff has reviewed the proposed parking area located to the north of city hall. As proposed, the
parking area is intended for limited duration parking, e.g., 15 minutes for building permit pickup
or drop -off. While it may be feasible for an individual to make a U -turn to access the parking
' stall, this movement would be inconvenient and difficult and, therefore, staff believes will not be
a problem. Staff is concerned that the relocation of the accessible parking to the north side of the
' building will create unsafe conditions for users of these spaces, since individuals would be
exiting their vehicles into a traffic lane, rather than at a protected location. Staff does not
recommend this relocation.
1
5. For the overstory or large deciduous shade tree 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. '
Signage shall comply with city code requirements and must receive a separate sign
permit." '
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENT '
I would like to discuss the possibility of reducing the width of the drive connecting the two
parking lots to 16 feet and making it one -way. The following points support this suggestion, i.e.: '
• A 26 -foot wide "road" would be out of character; and '
City P Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 7
'
RECOMMENDATION
'
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan #96 -3 for the Chanhassen City Hall expansion, plans
'
prepared 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 city
'
hall.
5. For the overstory or large deciduous shade tree 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. '
Signage shall comply with city code requirements and must receive a separate sign
permit." '
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENT '
I would like to discuss the possibility of reducing the width of the drive connecting the two
parking lots to 16 feet and making it one -way. The following points support this suggestion, i.e.: '
• A 26 -foot wide "road" would be out of character; and '
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
' Page 8
• Given the number of kids skating or playing soccer/baseball, a one -way condition would be
' much safer; and
• We do not want to encourage "thru" traffic trying to take a "shortcut" to get from Chanview
' to Kerber.
NOTE: The drive would widen to 22 - 24 feet in the parallel park section.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
t 3. Revised site plan
4. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/17/96
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
� ( n
ADDRESS:
d l fuJ.�t� crte'L(
TELEPHONE (Day time) )
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non - conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
_ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost **
($50 CUP /SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/Z' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
C
r
J
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
Joanne Kopet
Administrator
City of Victoria
P.O. Box 36
Victoria, MN 55386
I Re: Victoria Water Supply Plan - File No.
1
Dear Ms. Kopet:
The City of Chanhassen has recently been notified by the Metropolitan Council that the City of
Victoria has prepared a water supply plan which is currently in the review and comment period.
As a neighboring community of the City of Victoria we would respectfully ask for a copy of this
water supply plan and the opportunity to review it. Please send this document to my attention in
care of the City of Chanhassen. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHAN
Charles D. Folch, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CDF:ktm
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager
' Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
I g.\cng\charlesVettersV:opet.ltr
n
PROJECT NAME C , ,. L � '
LOCATION 6% c l C16, k:,' 6 �
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTALACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT YES V NO
PRESENT ZONING 0
REQUESTED ZONING (i �
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION L-
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 9- X.
' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
n
r
�J
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
ti
Signat�eoCcant _ Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, APRIL 17, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: City Hall Expansion
Site Plan Review
Developer: City of Chanhassen
Location: 690 Coulter Drive
LOCATION
�N
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, City of Chanhassen, is proposing site plan review for an expansion to City
Hall on property zoned OI, Office and Institutional District and located at 690 Coulter Drive.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4 :30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 1996.
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -0147
ISD 112
110600 Village Road
Chaska MN 55318 -1358
' National Lodging Companies Inc
9855 W. 78th Street, Ste. 220
' Eden Prairie MN 55344
HRA
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9683
Chanhassen Retail Ltd Partnership
c/o Weis Asset Management Intl.
8524 Irwin Road
Bloomington MN 55437 -1523
Dayton Hudson Copr T -862
Property Tax Division
777 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis MN 55317
' Market Square Assoc Ltd Prtnrshp Market Square Assts. II LLC
200 Highway 13 W. 470 W. 78th Street
' Burnsville MN 55337 P.O. Box 250
Chanhassen MN 55317
Mithun Enterprises, Inc.
900 Wayzata Blvd. E.
Wayzata MN 55391
John M. Howlite, Jr.
Box 195
Chanhassen MN 55317 -0195
Evelyn N. Thysse
' 7613 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9611
Anthony M. & Patricia Pieri
7607 Laredo Drive
' Chanhassen MN 55317
'
Mr. Ted Bigos
c/o Park Towers
Highway 7
' 4820
St. Louis Park MN 55416
n
Joel W. & Faye E. Hedtke
7611 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9611
Brian S. & Christine M. Beniek
7605 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
T.F. James Company
6640 Shady Oak Road
Ste. 500
Eden Prairie MN 55344
State Bank of Chanhassen
680 W. 78th Street
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9585
Bloomberg Companies, Inc.
P.O. Box 730
Chanhassen MN 55317 -0730
Mr. John Dorek, etal.
c/o Chanhassen Bowl
P.O. Box 513
Chanhassen MN 55317
Beddor Enterprises /E.J. Carlson
6950 Galpin Road
Excelsior MN 55331
George B & Mildred I Hassmar
7615 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9611
Charles F. Littfin
7609 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -9611
Elaine D. Bjornson
7603 Laredo Drive
Box 261
Chanhassen MN 55317 -0261
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. '
17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen I
the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building.
All voted in favor and the motion caiiied. I
PUBLIC HEARING: I
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. 1
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. 1
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 n °an 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 I
25 1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
with a trailer or Bobcat on it. This will enable them to maneuver much easier through the
parking lot as well.
Mancino: Thank you.
Mehl: So there's plenty of room?
Hempel: That's correct.
' Mehl: Thank you.
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
the lower area where the parking lot is now?
' Generous:
Correct. The water will flow to the west.
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 arkin street seems to be at the entrance
p g
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
con *ractors 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.
1 26
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 I
parallel parking personally.
Mancino: That's a good comment. Is there an applicant? t
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.
'
Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing 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
t
brought to the people to vote for expansion of this city hall and it was turned down. Is this a
true statement?
'
w r ? e e.
Mancino: I don't know. Bob. Was this brought. There was not a referendu m as there?
Generous: I'm not aware of that but I'm not really certain either way.
'
Mancino: I am not aware of a referendum. I
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. I
27 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
' Mancino: You are for it?
Bill Schubert: Yes. Yes, I will give you that component. A couple things that I see
' 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
would be.
I 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 buildingO
' Generous: That would be demolished because there'd be parking on both sides of the
building when that did occur.
r
�I
W
'
Planning Commission Meeting April 17, 1996
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... I
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
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. ,
Yp
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 I
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 join us. Okay,
29 1
' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17 1996
g g P
' 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, Com -ad seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don.
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
parallel parking spot? Do you follow me?
Mancino: Kind of Dave, I'll let you.
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.
Bill Schubert asked a question from the audience.
Hempel: No, it'd be a two lane road there.
' Mehl: But there will be eo le probably be parked there that are facing west.
p p p Y P g
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
further at this point.
1 30
'
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 1
'
Planning ommission Meeting - April 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.
7
Mancino: Say that again.
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: Hoisington Group put something together. I don't know Todd, are you...?
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.
32
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
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. t
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. I
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
33 1
'
Planning Commission Meeting a 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
different from one of the original master plans, it's very much in line with what we originally
did the last that was approved.
'
with master plan
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
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. t
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. I
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
33 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
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.
r�
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
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 17, 1996 '
g g P
1
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 dust
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...
t
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 996 -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 I
the overall building plan is going for Chanhassen.
35 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
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 prlepar-ed by Hoisington Koegler
Gi 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.
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.
7. 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 cmiied with a
vote of5to2.
Mancino: Do you want to give findings for opposing?
36
L
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
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
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.
37