The URL can be used to link to this page

1o. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1996.' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' AUGUST 7, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce ' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; John Rask, Planner I; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 1 L L Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Skubic: I have one question. Is the trail to the east of Stone Creek Drive, is there any connection on the development to the south for that trail? IC Generous: Well there's a proposed ridge or a culvert system that would be put in and then within Creekside there is a trail that continues down along the creek. Skubic: So the western side of it. Generous: Yes, that's correct. Skubic: So the eastern side and adjacent to the road, is there also a trail? Does that trail end at Bluff Creek there? Generous: No. It will follow the creek down, so they'll converge where the two branches of the creek converge. Skubic: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: So it will actually cross the creek at that point? Generous: Yes. PUBLIC HEARING: ' CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 7.03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF ' COULTER BLVD, AND EAST OF THE STONE CREEK DRIVE EXTENSION, REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD -R, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25 LOTS 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 25 TOWNHOME UNITS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND FILLING WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, HERITAGE ' DEVELOPMENT. ' Public Present: Name Address 1 L L Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Skubic: I have one question. Is the trail to the east of Stone Creek Drive, is there any connection on the development to the south for that trail? IC Generous: Well there's a proposed ridge or a culvert system that would be put in and then within Creekside there is a trail that continues down along the creek. Skubic: So the western side of it. Generous: Yes, that's correct. Skubic: So the eastern side and adjacent to the road, is there also a trail? Does that trail end at Bluff Creek there? Generous: No. It will follow the creek down, so they'll converge where the two branches of the creek converge. Skubic: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: So it will actually cross the creek at that point? Generous: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Where the two converge? Generous: Yes. Mancino: How do you do that environmentally? Sensitively. Generous: With the pedestrian type bridge structure that actually goes up. I don't know if they've determined the final design yet of that crossing. Mancino: Okay. And is that something that we are asking the applicant to assure us that the design is a trail system and how the two converge together? Generous: I'm not sure on that. Todd Hoffman was working with the applicant. Mancino: We may want to add that as a condition so we're sure that is approved. Any other questions at this point? Peterson: How close are we to coming off the cul -de -sac to get to units 15, 16 and 17 as far as fire and safety? I mean it looks as though we haven't got a real good turn around there. Generous: The Fire Marshal didn't have a problem with that little driveway area. Peterson: That's surprising. I mean normally we have that issue, don't we? As far as. Generous: Well if it's a long back up for them, he didn't feel that that was a problem right there. Peterson: That's all I've got. Mancino: Okay. Bob, will you please explain for me the conditional use permit for excavating and filling within a flood plain, where in your report you have staff is unclear on how the applicant can alter the flood plain. If we are unclear, then why would we be okay with conditional use permit for it? Generous: Well it's a little confusing on how it's defined. I believe Mr. Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson has a little better graphic there. Mancino: Okay, why don't we wait and once we open this up for you to come in front of us, if you could answer that question. That would be great. Thank you. I'll wait. My only other question Bob is, and staff is, we have some Livable Community goals as far as multi - family. And according to a document that the City Council has signed and mandated for the City to uphold, is that we are looking for the multi - family to come in. The majority of the projects, six units an acre or higher. Does this meet, and will this satisfy our Livable Communities density goal that we have? And if it does or doesn't. If it doesn't, let's say, will that put an onus on other areas? Aanenson: I'd be happy to respond. As you may or may not recall, during the Highway 5 corridor study one of the objections to re- evaluate some of the zoning and this was a property that we identified as kind of a transitional piece based on some of the surrounding uses. And we felt that this could be up zoned so we gave it from a low density to a medium density designation. This is some of the concern we had. This wasn't our first choice of product. This was the issue that we raised before when we had a medium density property designation and go on the lower end. This is just over 4 units an acre. We lost an opportunity that we'll have to pick up somewhere else. Mancino: So our medium density is 4 to 8? Aanenson: Correct. 2 r 1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: And where... four sides, the 4.3. Aanenson: So there is other zoning. There's other housing type products that could be employed. This certainly is the choice of the applicant's. There are other options. Mancino: Okay. So we could recommend upping the density so that we are meeting our density goal for the Livable Communities Act? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to ask about that from a staffs position how you had looked at that. Thank you. Peterson: One last question actually I forgot to ask. Regarding, we've already addressed the need for additional parking on the west side of Building 25. It still looks as though, if we add two more there you've still only got seven parking spots for that whole development. Is there any other, can you put any more between 14 and 15 on the end of that lot? Because that whole section on that side doesn't seem to have any guest parking. I mean you've got a long walk from that perspective. Did you consider that at all? Generous: I didn't really consider that. That parking that they're providing exceeded the requirement. Peterson: It's just a matter of where it is versus where some of the units are so, and it's not going to be used. People on 16, 17 and 15 aren't going to use the one in the cul -de -sac. They're going to park on the street probably. Just adding to the safety issue probably. Mancino: Good question. Any other questions of staff? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Please do so. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs from Heritage Development. I believe we've gone through the requirements ... come a long ways from the time, from the first one. I have brought a bigger drawing of the elevation side, and that front as well as some materials. I was talking to Dave this morning ... but we were talking about doing some brick and... This would be the siding type. This would be the light, I mean it's vinyl siding. Try and keep the maintenance cost down. There will be brick on the foundation and then a shingle kind of a color and then the soffit. And then double pane on the windows. And I guess all and all I think it's come a long ways and we've done a pretty good job on, Todd Hoffman and I talked a couple times about the... I think to answer Craig's question earlier, there is a trail that stubs on Stone Creek and... I think Todd was talking about either putting a pedestrian bridge in to cross the creek ... that was, where it would temporarily flood. If the creek came up so we didn't have to do a lot of construction. We're trying to do an overall construction project with the trails going from Coulter Boulevard all the way down to the culvert crossing underneath Stone Creek and south under Timberwood as one project so we're trying to get to that... And Ken has some, Ken Adolf from Schoell and Madson has some graphics on the flood plain and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mancino: John will every unit, the 25 units all have the same coloring? The same brick. I mean everything look. John Dobbs: Currently that is the way that it's oriented. There could be some diversity easily and the building wasn't ... to the colors as long as there was a universal scheme on each building that matched and made sense but they could definitely do some diversity in colors if that was a strong wish. Mancino: Thank you. Ken Adolf. Hopefully to clarify the issue of the flood plain. The flood plain prior to any grading having been done in the area in conjunction with the Creekside project to the south is the line shown in red. As part of the Creekside project there was a storm water basin excavated on the north side of Bluff Creek, and Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 that actually resulted in the flood plain elevation moving farther north, or what's shown in blue. And then what's shown in gray would be the flood plain elevation with the construction of Stone Creek Drive and of the townhome development. So there's a fair amount of flood plain filling in conjunction with the Stone Creek Drive crossing. Some of that lost volume is being replaced with the excavation that's occurring in this are and actually in here on the original flood plain that's being excavated from the lower elevation. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant have any other? John Dobbs: Just briefly. The only other comment I would make is about the density as a whole. As you can see from the graphic, as you know there's a good setback from Bluff Creek. Will this impacts two sides of this 7 acre site so there's 100 feet that is essentially... plus the flood plain and the right -of -way so out of the 7 acres, it's fairly. Mancino: It's small. John Dobbs: And also the times we've been ... make sense of the cost of financing. So that would be the only other comment. Mancino: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. May I have a motion to open the public hearing and a second please? Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this particular item number? Please come forward. State your name, address. Mark Foster: Hello. My name is Mark Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane in Timberwood. I just have a comment about the density. I realize the density is the lowest it would go for residential on a 7 acre parcel but it's, if I look at it, it's already ... it seems. The density level. I live on the north side of Timberwood and my neighbor... on the northeast corner and our two lots together are about 8 acres, so we're going from two houses on 8 acres to a 7 acre parcel with 25 townhomes. My concern is the density and if the density can't be lowered for residential, I would prefer for the City to look at alternatives like commercial and... That's all I have. Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second? Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Comments from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: This has been picked over pretty well. It's an improvement and I have a few things to add in the conditions. I'll leave it at that ... and that's it. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: I have no comments. I'm agreeable to what staff has prepared here. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: Just the only comments relative to I do believe that I feel very strongly that the color of the buildings and the texture do have some variety to them versus one succinct color throughout the whole development, and Jeff that's maybe one of your conditions. I would like to see staff try to get parking scattered in there a little bit better, if it's all possible to look at it again. Those are really my only two issues as far as overall, I think it's a good plan for what the space they have available. C L u I J Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Okay, thank you. I also agree with the architectural concerns. Having a variety. The only other concern that I have, or two others. One I already brought up tonight, is the landscaping on the east side. And that is that I would just like the applicant and staff to review that on the east side, as you cross the creek, what we have east of the creek is office and industrial and I didn't see for those townhomes, for 11 through 17, 1 didn't see too much buffering... they will have an office industrial so I would just like to see that revisited and have the landscaping enhanced on the eastern side. Audience: Could you speak up? Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry. I would just like to see the landscaping enhanced on the east side of the plat and that is mostly because they will be facing those townhomes. The backs of them, which are lovely, they'll be facing industrial office and I have a concern that there isn't enough vegetation buffering that so. I still have a concern. I think the townhomes are quite nice. Quite lovely. And I think that the applicant, I'm sorry I was not here at the last public hearing for this when it was tabled and I think that there has been a lot of work between the applicant and staff. I do have concerns that we are not following the mandate from our City Council for the Livable Communities Act and making sure that we keep our densities where they should be so I have a very big concern with that. May I have a motion? Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, PUD, for a 25 unit medium density residential development on 7.03 acres rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD -R, preliminary plat of 26 lots, 2 outlots and the associated right -of -way on approximately 29 acres, site plan approval for 25 townhomes units and a conditional use permit for the excavation and filling within the flood plain, Townhomes at Creekside, subject to the following conditions listed on the staff report dated 8 -7 -96. I'm going to go down the list because this has been modified somewhat. 1 through 3 deleted. 4 as is. 5 as is. 6 deleted. 7, 8 as is. 9 would be revised to read, the storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading. 10 through 21 as is. 22 deleted. 23 modified to delete the second, or rather the first sentence, the center of. That should read, all structures shall be set, or excuse me. Yes, all structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the project boundaries which are adjacent to Bluff Creek and it's tributaries. 24 deleted. 25 modified to read, Stone Creek Drive shall be designed and constructed in accordance with city standards, i.e. standard boulevards. 26 deleted. 27 as is. 28 should be modified to read, if the applicant installs the trunk sanitary sewer, they shall be compensated by means of credits against their Coulter Boulevard assessments for the cost difference between an 8 inch lateral line and the 18 inch trunk sewer line. 29 should be modified to read, Street A shall be constructed as a private street with a 26 foot wide street section. 30 deleted. 31 deleted. 32, 33, as is. 34 deleted. 35 as is. 36 modified to read, if parking on the street is desirable, the roadway must be widened to 28 feet. However, this will allow parking only on one side of the street. No parking fire lane signs must be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #06- 1991. 37 through 40 as is. And 41 in addition, staff shall work with the applicant to come up with a variety of base colors for the units. 42. The staff will review the parking issue. And 43. Landscaping shall be enhanced on the east side to improve buffering. Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: May I make a friendly amendment that we add 44. That the applicant shall submit for approval a foundation planting plan for each of the units. Would you agree? Farmakes: That's fine. Mancino: Okay. And is that seconded also? Peterson: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, PUD, for a 25 unit medium density residential development on 7.03 acres rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD- R, preliminary plat of 26 lots, 2 outlots and the associated right -of -way on approximately 29 acres, site plan approval for 25 townhomes units and a conditional use permit for the excavation and filling within the flood plain, Townhomes at Creekside, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood plain maps to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed floodplain boundary and provide justification for the changes. 2. The applicant shall notify and obtain a permit from the Bluff Creek Watershed district as needed for the activities of altering a flood plain and discharging storm pond runoff into the Bluff Creek. The city shall review comments from the Bluff Creek Watershed District before final plat approval. 3. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 4. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements over all utilities, wetlands and ponding areas outside the right -of -way. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. 5. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading. 6. Water quality fees will b based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived. Water quantity fees will b based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans. 7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 8. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 9. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post - developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and I u 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 MnDot, and comply with their conditions of approval. 12. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi -lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot. 13. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas. 14. The lowest flood elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of two (2) feet above the high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines. 15. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Additional erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances may be incorporated on the final construction plans. 17. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet shall be maintained adjacent to ag /urban wetlands. The principal structure setback shall be 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 18. All structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the project boundaries which are adjacent to Bluff Creek and it's tributaries. 19. Stone Creek Drive shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City street standards, i.e. standard boulevards. 20. The storm sewer system shall be redesigned to limit discharge points to one on Stone Creek Drive. 21. If the applicant installs the trunk sanitary sewer, they shall be compensated by means of credits against their Coulter Boulevard assessments for the cost difference between an 8 inch lateral line and the 18 inch trunk sewer line. 22. Street A shall be constructed as a private street with a 26 foot wide street section. 23. The developers and designers should meet with the building official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 24. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. 25. Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to remove projections. Adjust property lines to permit screen porches or revise plans to remove porches. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. 26. If parking on the street is desirable, the roadway must be widened to 28 feet. However, this will allow parking only on one side of the street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #06 -1991. 27. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 28. Land within the 50 foot creek setback will be dedicated public property. 29. Heritage Development will construct Trail "A" and Connector "A" within the 50 foot setback. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and engineering costs associated with these trails. Heritage will also be granted park fee credit for the linear area required for these trails based on a calculations of length times 20 feet in width. The proposed plat, at 25 multi - family units generates a land dedication requirement of two- thirds of an acre. 30. Heritage Development will also construct Trail Extension `B" within the right -of -way of Stone Creek Drive. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and engineering costs associated with this trail. The staking of these trails are to be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to construction. These improvements are to be bid as a unit of the larger public improvement projects being sponsored by the applicant as a part of this site work. Upon certification by the city of a low bidder for the trail components, said work shall be completed. Upon completion and acceptance of trail components, the applicant shall be reimbursed for engineering and construction costs associated with the trails utilizing trail acquisition and development funds. 31. Staff shall work with the applicant to come up with a variety of base colors for the units. 32. The staff will review the parking issue. 33. Landscaping shall be enhanced on the east side to improve buffering. 34. The applicant shall submit for approval a foundation planting plan for each of the units. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mancino: I will be the one nay vote and I would just like, the reason for the nay vote is I would like the City Council to look at it and to decide whether it is something that they want to look at the density and the density goal with the Livable Communities Act. To highlight it for them. Thank you. This will be on the City Council agenda. Generous: August 26` Mancino: August 26` Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 30 X 44 CANOPY OVER THE EXISTING GAS PUMPS AND A SIX (6) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 25' FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 7910 DAKOTA AVENUE, SINCLAIR STATION. Public Present: Name Address 1 11 Larry Feldsein 6602 Portland Avenue, Richfield I I Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Bill Davis Ivan Johnson r 6602 Portland Avenue, Richfield 7920 So. Bay Curve, Eden Prairie John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions from the commission at this time? For staff. Peterson: So you're recommending the plan that is up front now right next to TH 5, the monument sign being left as it is? Rask: Yes, that's correct. Mancino: I have a question John. The lighting that's there right now, at the gas, where you get the gas pumps. Will there be significant more light generated from the canopy than what's there now? Rask: It's hard to tell at this point. Those are unshielded lights. I imagine they do emit a fair amount of light. That is something we've asked the applicant to provide as part of the conditions of approval is to provide us with a report. A photometric report which measures the amount of light at the property line. In conversation with the applicant it is believed that that can be obtained. The standard that is generally used for lighting for parking lots is a half a foot candle measured at the property line and we believe that we can obtain that with this. With some modifications to what's being proposed. Mancino: Okay. I'll wait and talk to them. Any other questions? Is the applicant here and do you wish to make a presentation to the Planning Commission? Larry Feldsein: Commission members, my name is Larry Feldsein. I'm with Sinclair Oil. I have with me tonight Mr. Bill Davis who is also with Sinclair Oil and Ivan Johnson who operates the station at 7910 Dakota. I guess I'd like to first of all explain why ... canopy. Basically it's to add a convenience to our customers to better serve our customers. And while we're doing that we want to improve our image and... graphics and our colors. I don't know if you, I think I saw John passing a pamphlet around and you'll note that the older colors were let's see, green, white, green, red. So we're changing to just two colors which is basically green and white. Even though we'll still maintain the red in the spelling of our name Sinclair. At this particular location, Ivan has been here for about 15 years and has, and we want to continue to operate at this particular location. We also wanted to, as I mentioned, improve our image and provide more convenience to our customers. I guess as far as the staff report's concerned, we take exception to two things mainly. One is the canopy height. Staff has recommended that basically what turns out to be a 13 foot clear height. We are on a highway and we are in a highway district. Clear height on freeway bridges is 15 feet. Trucks can be built to 13 foot 5. Or 13.5. 13 foot 6 inches. We do have a number of rental trucks that come in. We do have recreational vehicles. And we have highway... and even though we don't sell diesel, we still get the trucks coming in. From experience I can tell you that anything lower than 15 feet, or plus or minus 6 inches from that is going to give us problems because we have had a number of canopies hit all over the Twin Cities area and you say well if you don't sell diesel, you won't get the trucks. Diesel trucks stop for cigarettes. Back into canopies and I've had many, many experiences regarding canopies, just for that exact excuse or reason or accident or whatever you want to call it. So we would like to see that clear height. We've I guess kind of reached a little bit of a compromise in that I could agree on 14 foot 6. On clear height under the canopy. This also allows us, these canopies last for 20 -30 years and in the process sometimes we overlay the pavements and is required of us just to increase the thickness of our pavement, without tearing everything out. It's just more economical for us. And to me it doesn't make any sense to tear the canopy down to raise the road or the pavement or adjust to that thickness. It becomes very expensive. Also, at this particular location we have a little bit of a frost heave problem. I don't know if it's going to be significant. We will be taking some precautions to minimize that but it does fall into a safety factor, if you will, in the clearness. With respect to the lighting. I did some, I had somebody do some preliminary calculations on the lighting and... This is the point by point photometric analysis as John requested. However, this is a trial run and you'll have to maybe excuse a little bit of the overlay here. I didn't get this done until like about 4:00 this afternoon. However, with this analysis and this is using a 450 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 watt fixture with a 450 watt ... bulb in it. And with the projected 12 lights that we propose to put under the canopy, on the south boundary line or the south property line, we don't have any problem with making less than half a foot candle of light in that area. The rectangle that was superimposed here is that we only ran a 100 foot by 100 foot grid and I propose to do this in more detail. This was a preliminary run to find out if we could actually make the requirements of a half a foot candle at the property line. At the easterly property line along Dakota Avenue, we may have some difficulty getting to a half a foot candle at that point but in order to take into account and be sensitive to residential neighbors across the street, to the south, that was my main concern and I have no problem with making a half a foot candle at the property line. In fact we'll probably be less than that. Other than those two issues, I really don't have any exception to the staff report. Are there any other questions? Mancino: Is someone else getting up or are you the person that's speaking for them? Larry Feldsein: You can address us or I guess I'd like to have Ivan come up and tell you a little bit about the operation of the station and how long he's been there and this type of thing so. Peterson: Before you go though, what is your recommendation for the canopy clearing height then from the base up? Larry Feldsein: Minimum 14 foot 6. We'd like to have 15. Skubic: Question on your measurements. Just so I make sure I understand this correctly. You did not measure, take this all the way out to the property line here? Larry Feldsein: Pardon? Skubic: These measurements are not made up to the property line. They're made within the grid that you have outlined here, is that correct? Larry Feldsein: That's correct and that grid, you'll note on the south property line we are getting foot candles of .64, .59, .51 and we are looking like probably 50 feet from the south property line. So that's why I'm standing here ... telling you that I don't have any problem making that requirement. Mancino: Your concern is on the east one. John. Do we, the half candle is a requirement for everyone, right? In the city. Rask: Correct. For parking. Mancino: Parking. Regardless of what it is. Everyone has to follow that. Rask: Correct. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ivan please. Ivan Johnson: My name's Ivan Johnson. I'm the business owner at Ivan's Sinclair which is 7910 Dakota Avenue. I've been there 15 years. It's been kind of, the gas business has been kind of tough with all the bigger companies around and stuff. Everybody else, it's just been a tradition that everybody else has got canopies and we feel like, in talking to the experts in the oil business that this is probably about my only way that I can attract more gas customers and so any help would be appreciated. Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 10 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please step forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second ' please. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Bob, comments. Skubic: Regarding the overall height. I think as a functional, as the applicant expressed, there's a ' functional reason to have a minimum height of 14 feet, 6 inches and what we're, I think our point, staff's point here is really to kind of...lighting, having it higher. The applicant I think is demonstrating for the most part that the lighting will fall within the requirements and I think if we can be convinced that the lighting can fall within the requirements at 14 feet 6 inches, I would support that and just receiving this, I can't say for sure whether I agree with that but first look, it looks encouraging at least on three of the sides. That's all I have. Mancino: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I essentially agree with Bob. I would even consider going up to 15 feet on the basis of, I do think they're going to get a lot more truck traffic... because of the repairs, just because of the visibility off of TH 5. I guess the times I've seen canopies that are backed into and not fixed, I'd rather have a canopy a little bit higher than has more probability of getting backed into and not being left as been dent in for years, which I've seen in some places so. I would be comfortable going to 15 feet. That's my only comment. I Mancino: Jeff. 1 I Farmakes: Yeah, I'm not sure how to address this. We talk about issues of height next to Highway 5 and then we talk about issues of existing businesses and allowing them to compete to grandfathering. There's a practical issue if somebody's going to drive a truck or drive a van underneath this issue, but that's also predisposing that it has to be there. So if you look at this applicant saying that he needs to talk to more customers to be able to compete as a small business. A smaller gas station so they need to draw more people in there so i.e. make the sign higher, which is a typical thing to do on a highway. To farther the sight line. How do we treat the rest of the businesses that have canopies in Chanhassen? And is the issue of those stores that don't have canopies, whether they're gas stations or quick stores or whatever, do we start making everything 15 feet high? Mancino: Where there's an Oasis? Farmakes: Well, are we going to let a trucker looking for smokes decide how tall the signs are on the highway? Aanenson: The two issues that we had when this came forward, and John spent a lot of time researching, is one. The aesthetics from the neighborhood. The higher it is, the more visible it is to the people on Lake Drive. The higher it is the more they're going to see it in the back. There's going to be some spillover that way. It's hard to see from the rendering that there's not a perspective from that side. We were trying to lower it. Keep it in scale with the building. That was one issue. Second. It's going to be brighter. You're putting lights underneath it and now you're going to have something that's obviously going to glow. We were comparing it to the one that's in Shorewood. The new Holiday. Very bright. Compare it to the one on SuperAmerica on Highway 7 and TH 41 in Chanhassen... not quite as bright so the issues that we had, even if it met the half point, I mean it's going to be very bright and to try to keep it more in scale with the existing building and the character of the neighborhood without lowering it, that's really where John was coming from. Farmakes: If you look at canopy height from what you define canopy height to those structures are? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Rask: They're around 16 feet. They are taller than. Farmakes: Including the one on TH 41? Rask: Correct. I don't know that for sure. I didn't get the exact measurement but from what I've observed and the ones I did look at, it seems to be up in that height range. The other one I really found that was lower was the one at Brooks, which was 13 foot clearance on that one. That's a smaller station with just one row of pumps I believe. Maybe there's two there. Mancino: They probably wouldn't get many trucks. Rask: No. I think it was intended to serve more the residential neighborhood there and obviously people using the commercial area of the city. Whereas the Sinclair is on Highway 5. Farmakes: Well how much truck traffic do you expect them to get? I mean if you turn off of the highway there, it's almost like you're turning into either McDonald's or to enter Chan Estates so I'm just wondering. Rask: There's no diesel fuel currently offered for sale on the premises. But there are things like Ryder trucks and so forth that use unleaded and I think those are probably the people we need to be most concerned with because they're not used to driving larger vehicles. Mancino: That's true. How tall is a Ryder truck? Rask: That I don't know. I would assume it would clear that with no problem. I would assume it would probably be within 13 feet. Farmakes: So do we have a standard of what that signage should be? Rask: The canopy signs? Mancino: Standard for canopy height or canopy sign? Farmakes: Canopy height. Rask: No, nothing on. We have allowed signage. Farmakes: But if this is back lit, how is it any different than a monument sign? Except that it's on 212. Rask: Yeah, I believe that the height of a pylon in that district is 20 so we should still be below that. I don't think that existing pylon sign is that high. As part of the interpretation we get into the zoning ordinance has been, if you're going to do canopy signs, they're not going to be counted as wall signs and that was part of the agreement worked out with the applicant. That the existing wall signs would have to come down and no signage would be permitted on the building. So it would be kind of a trade -off there. Aanenson: The other trade -off for the variance was to mitigate that would be to enhance with landscape. Farmakes: Thank you. No other questions. Mancino: Ivan, how tall is a Ryder truck? How tall are your Ryder trucks? Ivan Johnson: Most of them aren't over 13 feet, but they're right at 13 feet clear. I was just going to comment on how much of the truck traffic that we get. In the 15 years that I've been there, I've been Chanhassen's, would you say Visitor Center where we give directions to most of... It seems like every trucker or everybody that don't know where they're going, with all the new roads in Chanhassen and all the development and stuff, they come to the first gas station and find out where they're going. You know where 12 I ]], L 1 1 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ivan Johnson: Can I ask just, is there any proposal that you know of for other lighting downtown in that ' area because there's hardly any street lighting down there and we think that there should be. Mancino: Not that I'm aware of. Dave, are you aware of any other lighting in that area? ' Ivan Johnson: I've been broken into 8 times in the last probably 14 years and the last time was Christmas night. You know, I don't know. It gets dark out there. We try to leave the building lights on and stuff like that just to premiere the building. Just to give it a little light around there. There didn't seem to be a lot of street lights in the first place. Mancino: Well, this will certainly help you. ' Larry Feldsein: Before you go on. Excuse me for interrupting but that is a State law for the intercom system and on the islands for self serve. You have to be able to communicate inside and outside so we have no problem with agreeing not to play. ' Mancino: Music and having the loud speaker system used. Thank you. So the height issue. I guess I would be in favor of splitting the difference and making it for 14 feet instead of 13. ' Rask: What he was asking for was 14'6 ". 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 ' to find it and so we do get a lot of trucks in there and a lot of trucks traveling through and I give a lot of directions and now McDonald's has a truck parking lot and a lot of trucks come in through and when they come in and ask, I have to direct them how they can get out of there so we do get a lot of trucks in there ' whether they're filling gas or not. Mancino: Okay. Well my comments are, first of all very good staff report. Brought up the issues that I'm concerned with and I feel somewhat caught in the middle meaning that I understand why you would like a canopy. I mean for customers who come in during rainy, wintry weather. They're wonderful to have some protection. On the other hand there are canopies that I've been under that you could perform surgery. I mean they are so lit up and so lighted that I wonder why they are. And so I have a concern for the ' neighbors. Obviously a concern of what they can see and I know that they have some screening right now. Right now some deciduous screening but they certainly don't have it for, well in Minnesota most people would say 6 months out of the year but maybe this year 10 months. So I'm concerned what they can see ' and how it will affect them too. So it's the business and the neighbors. I do support the recessed lighting part of it, and not having the lights come down underneath the canopy and I also think that that will help trucks backing up and having any problems under the canopy. Ivan I have another question. In some of the newer stations that have canopies, I've noticed that there is, what do I want to say, a loud speaker system ' and they have music or they have other things that are on very loud. I would be concerned about that because of the neighborhood. ' Ivan Johnson: Right, just to let neighborhood know, there will be, I think the only requirement is that we have a speaker out there so somebody can address us inside if there was a problem with a fire or something like that. There will be no music piped out or anything like that. ' Mancino: So you would have no problem with a condition saying that there will not be a loud speaker system? ' Ivan Johnson: No. Not at all. Just a speaker that is probably required by law. By the State law, and stuff like that. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ivan Johnson: Can I ask just, is there any proposal that you know of for other lighting downtown in that ' area because there's hardly any street lighting down there and we think that there should be. Mancino: Not that I'm aware of. Dave, are you aware of any other lighting in that area? ' Ivan Johnson: I've been broken into 8 times in the last probably 14 years and the last time was Christmas night. You know, I don't know. It gets dark out there. We try to leave the building lights on and stuff like that just to premiere the building. Just to give it a little light around there. There didn't seem to be a lot of street lights in the first place. Mancino: Well, this will certainly help you. ' Larry Feldsein: Before you go on. Excuse me for interrupting but that is a State law for the intercom system and on the islands for self serve. You have to be able to communicate inside and outside so we have no problem with agreeing not to play. ' Mancino: Music and having the loud speaker system used. Thank you. So the height issue. I guess I would be in favor of splitting the difference and making it for 14 feet instead of 13. ' Rask: What he was asking for was 14'6 ". 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Oh! He didn't split the difference. He went to 14'6 ". I guess I would be in favor of that. As long as we're sure that the perimeter candle, foot candles is measuring what's in our code and in our ordinance and everyone else has to follow. With that, may I have a motion please. Skubic: I make a motion, and I guess we have to start with the variance. Correct? Mancino: You can do it all at once. Skubic: Okay. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan and variance subject to the plans dated July 5, 1996 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 6 as outlined by staff with exception to number 6 which shall read, the height of the canopy shall not exceed 17 feet, 6 inches and I arrived at that from the 16 feet recommendation that staff had based on what I see in the elevation plan of a 3 foot depth to the canopy, which would leave you with an inside height of 14 feet 6 inches. Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment? Skubic: Yes. Mancino: And that is the addition of a recommendation number 7. That no outdoor speakers or music be played. Only what State law requests during operation hours. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I just have one question. What are the hours of operation for your gas station Ivan? Ivan Johnson: During Monday through Friday we're from 6:30 in the morning to 10:00 at night. And then on Saturdays from 8:00 in the morning to 8:00 at night. Mancino: Then I'm assuming that when you close, that these lights will go out. Ivan Johnson: Those lights ... yeah. Mancino: Okay. Then let's make, if I can add another friendly amendment to the motion. And that is the motion, or recommendation number 8 and that is, the canopy lights will be extinguished, will stay on during hours of operation only. Skubic: I accept. Mancino: Thank you. Skubic moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan and variance subject to the plans dated July 5, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Canopy lighting shall utilize a recessed fixture to reduce light trespass and glare. 2. The applicant shall prepare a photometric report using the point by point method, at the property line, measuring foot candles and reflective light. Light levels as measured at the property line shall not exceed one -half foot candle as measured at the property line. 3. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area adjacent to Highway 5. The plan should consist of a variety of shrubs and trees. Small berms may also be necessary to help screen the parking area. 14 I r Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 4. Signage shall be permitted on the north and east elevation of the canopy only. Wall signs on the building are prohibited. 5. All existing wall signs shall be removed from the building. 6. The height of the canopy shall not exceed 17 feet 6 inches. 7. The outdoor speakers are for State law requirements only. 8. The canopy lights can only be on during the hours of operation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: When does this go to the City Council? Rask: It would be the 26` of August. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND SHADOW LANE, SHADOW RIDGE 2 ND ADDITION, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Elizabeth Glaccum Al Harvey Bill Coffman 1510 Lake Lucy Road 1430 Lake Lucy Road 7409 West 112 Street, Bloomington John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Point out exactly where the driveway is ending up being? In all probability. Rask: Right in this area here. Again, it's been located on the far north end of the property. Very close to where that wood fence is right now. Mancino: John, what trees are being preserved? I went over there and noticed that there's a nice, an Austrian pine and some Colorado Blue Spruce that kind of separate the two lots. Rask: Yeah, that is kind of difficult to tell based on information submitted. I did talk to the applicant today regarding this issue and he believes that they can save the large pines and I believe there's two spruce there now. They're fairly close to where the proposed house pad is but they do have an interest in trying to save those. They were not removing any more trees than what ordinance allows so there won't be any replacement of plantings required. The applicant is going to attempt to save those pine trees. We kind of questioned the location of them here. If that was truly accurate and without seeing where the lot was staked, it was kind of difficult to tell. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to address the Planning Commission? Bill Coffinan: Members of the Commission, my name is Bill Coffinan of Coffinan Development. With me tonight I have Al Harvey who has lived on this property for 31 years. Other than that I really don't have a presentation for you. I am available for any questions that you may have. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Coffinan at this time? So how close to those trees are you going to get? Bill Coffman: Fairly close. It is our intention to save them if at all possible. At this point we will do some of the site grading yet this fall but I think depending on what type of house is built on the property, hopefully it will be a two story which has a smaller house pad so we can fit it in. Because it is mutually advantageous for the new home being constructed as well as the existing home the Harveys live in now, that those trees are preserved. But I just can't say that those trees will definitely be preserved. We're going to do everything possible we can as ... but we will definitely put up a fence. Mancino: Okay. It's a nice development. It's very nice. Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this up for a public hearing please? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone here wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: No comments. Looks fine to me. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Great. Don't have any comments either. It's hard to see people who have lived in Chanhassen for a long time moving and subdividing and going their ways but that's what happens. The only condition that I would like to add to this, because there will not be a development contract, and that is that I would like to make sure that the hours of construction for this, and then I'm sure it can be part of your development contract, is that the hours of construction are Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 7:00 and Saturday 9:00 to 5:00. It's very clear and that the developer knows that. May I have a motion please? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Shadow Ridge 2 with the conditions as shown on the plat dated June 27` '96 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 11. Having 8 deleted and 12 added that the hours of construction for Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 7:00, Saturday, 9:00 to 5:00. Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: It has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Shadow Ridge 2 "d Addition as shown on the plat dated June 27, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on the property fails. 16 L C� I u Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 2. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 3. The applicant and /or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 4. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. Haul routes shall be pre- approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been full restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. 6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with disc - mulched seed, wood fiber blanket, or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. Drainage swales shall be constructed along both the north and south sides of the proposed house to maintain stormwater runoff to the street (Shadow Lane). 8. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and /or State codes. 9. The existing driveway along the westerly property line shall be abandoned. 10. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with building permit application for Lot 2. 11. The hours of construction are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 75' AMATEUR RADIO TOWER ON APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 1225 HESSE FARM CIRCLE, JEFFREY MAY. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Rech ' Karen Dee Jeffrey May 1180 Hesse Farm 1201 Hesse Farm 1225 Hesse Farm Circle Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. (The following discussion was poor quality on the tape.) 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Any questions? Do we, just out of the blue, do we have any other towers this tall in the City? Amateur radio operators. Do you know? Al -Jaffa Not to my knowledge. I'm not aware of any offhand. It's possible but I'm not aware of one. Mancino: Thank you. Farmakes: You started to shake your head. We do have other towers. Where are the other towers? Aanenson: There is one up, excuse me, off of TH 101 and Pleasant View... Mancino: And what about that for a radio? Aanenson: It is a radio. Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to address the Planning Commission? Jeff May: I'm Jeff May. I live at 1225 Hesse Farm Circle. I want to thank staff for working with me on this... I just wanted to point out several things... regards to the second page. Page 2. If you go to the bottom of the page, it says there are three separate antennas present on the site. There is only one. Also on the next page, for your information. I did send letters to everyone... within 500 feet of my property line. I've only had one person call back and they were positive. The second thing that I would like... point out is on item 1. It says that nearest home is located over 220 feet. Mancino: Excuse me, where are you? Jeff May. It's page 3 and it's general issuance standards. Number 1 on top of the page. It says Finding, the nearest homes are located over 220 feet from the proposed tower site. 220 feet is the distance from my own house. It's 600 feet from the tower site to the nearest. Mancino: From any adjacent... house? Jeff May: Yes. That's the nearest house. On the next page. Item number 11. Will not depreciate property values. This tower is simply being moved from a different property that I had on 745 Pleasant View Road, which is 3 %z acres. We were there for 8 years and there were no problems that I know of at that time. And so the tower height... Aanenson: That's the one I was speaking of. Jeff May: Okay. This happens to be the same one. Mancino: Where was it there? Jeff May: Well you wouldn't see it very easily. It was up on top of the hill... yellow house. Mancino: The yellow house on the hill on Pleasant View... Jeff May: Now that tower was visible to some people ... never any problems with it... Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. 18 I I I ' Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Bruce Rech: I'm Bruce Rech and I live on 1180 Hesse Farm Road... I've also discussed this matter with ' four other members who live out in that community ... and all of us at the present time ... what that's going to do to the character of land out there. We all moved out ... open. It was mostly trees and houses and more of a development... and I do agree that it's possible on the lower part of the land... So I know there are at least five members of the neighborhood that are opposed to having ... tower up in the neighborhood. People have ' worked hard to keep that a rural community... Mancino: Have you had the opportunity to walk over and look at the temporary one that's up at this point? ' Bruce Rech: Yes I have. ' Mancino: It is. ..from your property that's your concern. Bruce Rech: No ... but as I said before... ' Mancino: ...most of them were deciduous and I thought there were some coniferous trees too but ... and you also know that the City and the Planning Commission cannot enforce your Association's covenants... That the City does not have any legal rights ... that is up to your association. ' Bruce Rech: ...the Association has a meeting on August the 19`" and the... member of the community has ... talk about it with their neighbors before being brought to the City planning to get approval... City Planning Commission rather than talking to your neighbors... ' Mancino: Well the motive also may have been to ... I don't know. I'm certainly not that person so. ' Bruce Rech's comments could not be heard on the tape. Mancino: ...anyone else? ' Karen Dee's statement could not be heard on the tape. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time? Jeff May: First of all, we've been on the... There's no attempt to avoid meeting... Secondly, I'm aware of the sensitivity. One of the reasons we picked this particular site was because ... but also because of the fact that it is rural. Because of the fact that... If you would look at the application... you would see the number ' of photos taken. On photo number 2 ... and on the back it gives... That photograph was taken ... trees. Right down the road you can barely see my house. Now when the trees cover... about 100 feet higher than that tower will be. And I would point out that... The site plan will give you a good idea as to the... Then if you ' go over to the sight line ... and the way the tower is 75 feet high, it's actually 150 ... so I was concerned about the... I understand the concern that people have. That's why I went to... numerous satellite dishes. There are satellite dishes on the second story of the house... We're not proposing... ' Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. ' Mancino: Thank you. Jeff, comments. Jeff Farmakes' comments could not be understood from the tape. t Mancino: So you're okay with the conditions...? I Farmakes: Yes. 1 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Okay, Bob. Skubic: ...staff recommendation. I appreciate the applicant... Mancino: Craig. Peterson: No additional comments. I concur that it will probably not be seen... Mancino: I also agree... conditional use permit... actually have a water tower near me so I just wanted to see what actually could be seen from the different properties and felt very comfortable that it won't be viewed from the other property owners because I know that... With that, can I have a motion and a second please? Skubic: I make a motion that the staff recommends, that the Planning Commission recommends approval of conditional use permit #96 -4 as shown in the attached site plan and subject to the conditions 1 through 4. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second it. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #96 -4 as shown in the attached site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing towers /antennas shall be removed prior to installation of the proposed tower. 2. The tower shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city. 3. Comply with Sec. 20 -915 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Obtain all applicable State, County and City permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries and this will go in front of the City Council on August 20 Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A PLAY AREA AND PARKING LOT IN THE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 41, APPROXIMATELY %2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, CARVER COUNTY. Public Present: Name Address Jack Mauritz Mike Liddicoat 6930 Tecumseh Chaska Sharmin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. 20 L Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: Do we ... anyone to get us a mylar as built for this? I thought it was a great idea but do we make everybody do that? Hempel: All the public improvement projects... Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and do you wish to make a presentation to the Planning Commission? Jack Mauritz: Madam Chair, my name is Jack Mauritz. I live at 6930 Tecumseh Lane in Chanhassen, however I'm not here as a Chanhassen resident. I have been requested by Mike Liddicoat, who is the Parks Director for Carver County ... so we're here tonight. We have no prepared comments or anything like that. We will certainly try to answer any questions you may have. And I might point out before we get too far down the road that we are in agreement with the staff... It's a fairly complex project... Mancino: Thank you. Question... Your play area. What does that mean? What's a play area? Jack Mauritz: Active play area. Mancino: I ... last night and I saw what I thought is a play area up here in the northern part. It's called a totlot. Jack Mauritz: Yes. There is, the park planners lately have been calling those play areas creative play areas or something in that nature. Basically it involves equipment. This play area as proposed is simply an open, unstructured play area for whatever games people using the park wish to... It is big enough so somebody can throw a frisbee. It's big enough so a pick -up game of softball could be organized. You will see, if you go there during the week, on the first part of this project the play area that was created is being extensively used for soccer by kids from Chanhassen. Evidently it's the one lot big enough to get a pretty good size group of kids to play soccer. And I suspect that the Chanhassen Athletic Association has their eye on Phase 2 as well. Mancino: Now, will there be lighting? Jack Mauritz: There is no ... lighting. In fact there will not be diamonds. There will not be fences. All this kind of thing. The deal with the soccer people for example is that they may bring in their back stops and then they put some lines on the grass so they have boundaries. That's it. And they have no guaranteed access to that other than during the times that they... Here again the regional parks, this is not to provide the play areas. The tennis courts. Basketball courts. The lighted softball diamonds that ordinarily are in the realm of municipal park and recreation. These are rather more outdoor, nature oriented kinds of things, but recognizing that if a bunch of families go someplace for a picnic, the kids are certainly going to want a place where they can throw a frisbee around without... and also where they can get a pick -up game of basketball or volleyball, what have you and that's what it's for. Mancino: Now a question for you. And a couple others. How many trees are you taking down to do this project? Jack Mauritz: Madam Chair, that was the subject of discussion the first go around... and I think there's a little difference of opinion in the sense of, as far as mature, hardwood, long live trees that are on the site. We will take down none. There will be no maples, no oaks, no basswood, you know mature native trees... There will be some willows, some cottonwoods, some ... and trees of that nature. Most of those are going to go, are actually along the edge of the existing wetland and they will probably go when the wetland is enlarged rather than as a result of the work that will be done on the site. With the exception that there is a swale that runs through the center of the site that has half a dozen black willow, and ... and cottonwoods and I can assure you that the minute that's left unattended, those trees are going to be back there. They're, as you know, very fast. I would guess that the average age of the trees that are going to go is less than 30 years. Since most of this site was in agricultural use about 30 years ago. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 199E Mancino: Yeah, I saw your reforestation area there. To make a new play area, did you survey the people who use the park and did they want this? How, why are you doing this I guess is what I'm asking. Jack Mauritz: Well maybe Mike ought to answer that. Except I would point out as a preliminary that this is part of a planned development concept for the regional park that is in the approved master plan. And it was developed with wide public input in 1975. It has been revised a couple of times since then but essentially the development concept goes back to then. The reason we're doing it now is because we finally got the money from the Metropolitan Council to do it. It's taken a while to get those regional development dollars. I flush to say this. I used to work for the Metropolitan Council in the parks program but the priorities attached to park development in Carver County, where there's relatively small development, and the relatively small population. The pressure's not felt over at St. Paul like it is in downtown Minneapolis for instance. Mike Liddicoat: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. The play area was initially designed probably back in the 1975 -76 time period by the Minnesota Environmental Science Foundation. We looked at all the uses at a regional park and they felt that that particular area of the park, being in agricultural ... was one area that could be disturbed out of the whole area of the park where we would do the least amount of environment damage and would open up a large area where people would be able to use for field games like... At that time there was some calculations made as to how big those areas should be and it seemed as though, if the area was graded, it could accommodate, we were looking at probably two soccer fields in size. Other than that, that's pretty much how it was designed. Mancino: So that the master plan that was done in '75, that you still feel that the community support the need for the play area? In the 90's. Mike Liddicoat: Yes we do. If you put that up on there. We designed it a couple different ways so that we placed the play structure that you saw ... and that will open that whole area up. You know that whole area for ... parking, picnic shelter, and slow the traffic down is part of it. And it will have two distinct areas there. First phase which was done back in 1991, which is now as Jack mentioned, would be one distinct area. With a large parking lot that serves as overflow parking for the beach. And the second area down here, which ... all those different activities together so the kids can play ... so we feel it's a really good design and our commission, our Park Commission has looked at this for a number of years. Going back to probably 1988. This plan was approved back in 1991 and as Jack mentioned... Mancino: Any questions for Mike at this point? I just have two other comments and that is, just so you know has nothing to do with your plans here, and that is that I did notice that a lot of people were speeding. They were going pretty fast on some of those roads. Mike Liddicoat: That's a part of... Mancino: Yeah, I was surprised. Mike Liddicoat: A very important consideration of the Park Commission was to put those extra jogs in there. Mancino: Good. The other thing that I noticed is there are a few places in the road where it has the washboard effect. And that's not real nice on those of us who were driving a Jeep or something. So I thought I'd pass that along too. Mike Liddicoat: That's someday. With proper financing from the Metropolitan Council, that we can make that road better. Put a new surface on it. Mancino: And the last comment. It is a lovely park. It is just wonderful to have it in our area and what I like is all the different areas in the park. I mean if you want to go to a trailhead and go to the marsh, you 22 1 C i[L� I I Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 can do that. If you want to look at the new seedlings you have for reforestation, you can go there. If you want to go to the beach. I mean there's just a multitude of activities there and it's very, very nice. Mike Liddicoat: We really appreciate that and we'll be back with... Mancino: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: I'm sorry. Before we go ahead with comments, do I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Skubic moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second please. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: My comments remain the same. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: I have no comments. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Nothing. Mancino: Great. The only comment that I have, that I would like to see addressed in the recommendations and that is that there be some sort of a sign out front so that people know, like if I'm going in to do some sort of a temporary sign telling people that there will be construction going on in this area. And maybe the location of the construction. The project completion time line. You know when it will be done so people will know. And hours of operation for the construction portion of the site. When you'll have construction there because it's nice to know as you enter a park what's going on. Otherwise I have no other comments. May I have a motion please. Farmakes: I'll make a motion. I have to find that part of my staff report. Al -Jaffa It's on page 13. Peterson: 12 actually. Farmakes: Bottom of 12. Mancino: Middle of 12. Farmakes: There we go. It currently says City Council though. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit #90 -1 and Wetland Alteration Permit as shown on the plans for the grading project for a play area for Minnewashta Regional Park, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. Now there are some modifications to 12. Mancino: The Interim Use Permit earthwork fees. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Farmakes: Shall be waived. And two shall read, upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a letter from the Project Engineer certifying that the grading plan has been completed in compliance with the approved plan. Mancino: And would you accept a friendly amendment? Farmakes: Sure. Mancino: And that would be number 14. That the applicant shall install a temporary sign at the entrance of the park for the general public's benefit providing the following information. A, the location of the construction area, B, project completion time line, and C, hours of operation for the construction portion of the site. Farmakes: That's fine. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Peterson: Second. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #90 -1 and Wetland Alteration Permit as shown on the plans for a grading project for a play area for Minnewashta Regional Park and subject to the following conditions: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT I . All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies i.e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. INTERIM USE PERMIT 10 The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT. 2. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a letter from the Project Engineer certifying that the grading plan has been completed in compliance with the approved plan. 1 All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed. Topsoil and disc - mulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. 24 �11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 4. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determines that there is a problem, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 5. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no work on national holidays or Sundays. 6. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. 7. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1996. 8. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. The City Engineer will determine the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures. 9. The applicant shall notify the City Engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site grading. The City Engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of all existing draintile systems. 10. Erosion control fence adjacent to wetlands shall be the City's Type III version. Rockfilter dikes shall be installed and maintained in the drainage swales until the site is revegetated. 11. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10 foot buffer except as indicated on the grading plans. 12. The Interim Use Permit earthwork fees shall be waived. 13. The grading should be revised as follows: a. All stormwater treatment basins shall be constructed with 4:1 side slopes or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for the first one foot depth of water. b. The drainage culverts which are proposed to end at midslope need to be extended to discharge at the base of all slopes or at the normal water level in the ponding basins. c. Combine proposed drainage swales west of Parking Area No. 1 into one drainage swale. d. Add a sediment basin west of Parking Area No. 1, upstream of the culvert crossing the drive aisle at approximately midpoint of Parking Area No. 1. e. Detailed drainage ponding calculations for a 10 and 100 year storm event (24 hour duration) shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval to confirm pond and culvert sizing. 14. That the applicant shall install a temporary sign at the entrance of the park for the general public's benefit providing the following information. a. The location of the construction area. b. The project completion time line. d. Hours of operation for the construction portion of the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Mancino: And it will go in front of the City Council on August 26` Thank you. NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: Just to let you know. Tentatively we do have a full agenda next time. We'll have two discussions items too we want to bring to your attention. It will be kind of issue papers. One is on cellular towers. It's different than ham radio towers. With the deregulation of the industry, we're getting a significant amount of requests. Right now they're required to meet the underlying districts of the A2 or the industrial, which require for example in the industrial, one acre lot size. We've had requests for them to go, split out other portions of property, spacing requirements. It's a big issue so we want to bring that to your attention the ways that we want to address them in the Code. The other one is to bring you up to date on the new wetland law and how we'll be addressing that in the city ordinance. And then also we do have some other site plans and actually, three site plans and a subdivision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The City Council hasn't met since your last Planning Commission meeting. You met the last week and they actually had three breaks. Mancino: What is happening with Town and Country? Aanenson: It is scheduled for the 12 Mancino: And it is going forward on the 12` Aanenson: Correct. Skubic: Is Villages on the Pond also going to appear on the 12` Aanenson: Yes it is. It is a very large agenda. Peterson: Which is first? Aanenson: I believe Town and Country is after Villages. Mancino: Okay. We are going to be at the 12` meeting for Villages on the Pond. Can we both get the packet that the City Council gets for Villages on the Pond? Will it be any different than what we will get? Aanenson: Sure. Mancino: Just so if there are any questions. If there are any extra copies and obviously you know we have some, Aanenson: Who's turn is it to go? Mancino: Who's turn is it? I don't know, I haven't looked. Aanenson: But you both are going to be attending? Mancino: And I look at my schedule ... I will call you and let you know. 26 t Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 1996 Aanenson: Well I can check ONGOING ITEMS. Peterson: When's Taco Bell opening up? ' Aanenson: As soon as they can find enough workers. Mancino: Open discussion. ' Aanenson: If you'd like at this point we can turn the taping portion of the Minutes. ' Mancino: By adjourning? Aanenson: Sure. ' Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 27