The URL can be used to link to this page

1f. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1996.CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, and t Ladd Conrad who arrived during discussion of Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes i STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, and Steve Kirchman, Building Official PUBLIC HEARING: ' PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.57 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED TO THE EAST OF HWY 41 AND ADJACENT TO MELODY HILL ROAD, MELODY HILLS, SPRINGBROOK CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Howard Kyllo Tom Murray Gary Druysvold Rich & Linda Nicoli Susan & Phil Bonthius Karen Peterson 10640 Lyndale, Bloomington 10640 Lyndale, Bloomington 6287 Chaska Road 2280 Melody Hill 2300 Melody Hill 2240 Melody Hill Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. (The recording was poor quality of this portion of the discussion.) Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? 'Peterson: Is the only reason for the setback variance is the trees? Al -Jaff: Correct. They could use the setback with the variance but it will result in- losing additional trees. 1 Peterson: More trees. Fortunately I did get a chance to drive by it. The only trees—are those substantial trees or. Al -Jaff: It's a cluster of trees actually. They're not... they're not as nice as the ones that you find in the center of the property, but still there is a large cluster of them. Mancino: Excuse me, if I can add to that. They're not like old growth trees but they certainly are our next generation of trees that will come. Can we make sure that if we do do a variance ... the reason why we would do the variance is to allow that canopy coverage to stay and so that we have an easement, a conservation easement or something over that area so that somebody doesn't go in there and cut them down because that's the whole reason why the city is giving a variance to the applicant. Al -Jaff: Definitely you can require that. Skubic: There are also some significant trees... Al -Jaff: Those that are within the grading limits will be removed. There are a few what is on Lot 3. There are some trees that will be preserved in this area. Mancino: Sharmin, don't we usually see or ask the applicant to show us which trees will remain after the grading so that we can see which significant trees we'll save? Al -Jaff: Correct. Jill calculated, the City Forester, calculated all the tree canopy that will be removed as well as those that will remain. The applicant also gives us a tree canopy coverage detailed plan. Mancino: So that we will know prior to any grading that's started, which trees are to be saved and which trees are to be removed? Any other questions at this time? Is the applicant and wish to address the Planning Commission? Howard Kyllo: Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Howard Kyllo, Springbrook Corporation. First of all I want to say that it's good to be here. This is the first time we've ever been in Chanhassen. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the staff for all of the help they've given us to bring us up to speed and what it takes to build in Chanhassen. I'd like to thank Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Dave Hempel, Bob Generous. They've all helped us through several meetings to understand what the parameters are for development in Chanhassen... We also appreciate the fact... For this site we feel very strongly about we have developed an affinity for it in more ways than developers usually do. It's been lovingly cared for over the past 70 years ... As Sharmin said, there are mature trees. Flower gardens that probably won't survive but we are going to make a special effort to ... to preserve as many trees as possible. Even in light of getting a mass grading plan. Ve would like to evaluate almost on an individual basis... Try to design houses for the site ralher than shape the site to, or force the site to accept houses. We've been working with a builder now 2 n fj C C t 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 that is especially sensitive to ... and he has shown a willingness to ... so Sharmin's done a good job of presenting the plan. It's pretty straight forward and I would like to answer any questions you might have ... the one issue of Lot 8. We will be addressing that ... by addressing the... ' Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Number one, allowing a variance. You had figured a driveway. On my plat, I don't see how you get in and out of ' Lot 1. Is that all ... off of Chaska Road ?...some back up area... location of the driveway be from the dedicated public road, the cul -de -sac that's going to go in... Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. The lots you're referring to are located on Chaska Road... Given the grades of Melody Hill, the majority of the time... ' Howard Kyllo: That's correct... Mancino: I would think you'd want to keep that buffer for Chaska Road and... My only other question has to do right now with the cul -de -sac. It seems huge. Howard Kyllo: Well our first vision for the site was a village green ... and that turned out not ' to be possible... First of all it helps the frontages on the lot rather than taking them all down to a little narrow, 50 foot frontage... and this would allow us a little larger center island which ' is... Mancino: Any other questions? ' Joyce: I have a quick question for Dave. I'm trying to find where it is. The storm sewer line. I think ... put it between Lot 4 and 5 and you're suggesting it go through 5 and 6. I'm curious why. Hempel: Based on the area topography... drainage ditch along Trunk Highway 41... i Joyce: It looked more natural to me between 4 and 5 and I was just curious why. I Hempel: ... Joyce: Okay. Mancino: Thank you very much. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 1 Howard Kyllo: In anticipation of any of the audience questions, our lot prices are going to be low 70's to high 80's. Houses to be built in there will probably, at the very minimum be $250 to $400. Not being builders we can't... Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion and a second to open this for a public I hearing. Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing was opened. , Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time. If you have any questions or if you have any comments. If you would direct all questions to me. Thank you. Rich Nicoli: Hi. My name's Rich Nicoll. I live on Melody Hill, 2280. I have a number of ' concerns and... Right now there's 7 houses on Melody Hill... 10 house in the development is a tremendous... that's number one. Number two, I ... about the trees... increase in traffic in that area. Adding 10 homes, most people have two cars ... so that's a significant increase for that area. Also concerned about the... Mancino: Dave, can you comment for a minute... upgrade Chaska Road in the future and ' when Lake Lucy Road goes all the way through you'll have less traffic on Chaska Road. Hempel: That's correct. There some possibility to improve Chaska Road in the future... ' Mancino: It's not a priority for the City at this point so it would be probably a few years before that's done. , Hempel: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Hempel: To touch base a little bit more on the traffic... i Joyce: Dave, is there a sign out there? I can't remember now. Is there a sign on Melody ' Hill and Chaska? A stop sign there. Audience: No ... bottom of Melody Hill: , Joyce: But there's not one. -- C Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: But there's not a stop sign on Chaska Road so when you turn off TH 41 from... Joyce: You can go directly west, or east on Chaska Road without stopping? Mancino: Without stopping there, yes. Joyce: Would that be something that we'd look at that...? Or is that too small a spot for a stop sign? Mancino: You would be off on TH 41. Joyce: Yeah, that's what I was afraid of... Mancino: ...if we put a stop sign there so I don't think that's going to happen ... it would just be horrendous. Trying to get it and out of TH 41... Anyone else wishing to address the Planning commission on this issue, please come forward. I'd like to hear your comments. Questions. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and second please. Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Any other comments, questions from the commissioners. Peterson: Question for staff. Based upon this being zoned ... for single family, what is the maximum number of lots we could put in here logically on 4.5 acres...? Al -Jaffa They have to have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, which they meet. Density of 2 to 4 per acre. No, 0 to 4, I'm sorry, per acre. And they meet that as well. Peterson: I mean the point of my question is, another developer coming in couldn't really get any more in there. Maybe one more lot. Aanenson: I don't think so. I don't think you could get any more. ...generally we look at plats at 1.9 ... some larger lots but yeah. I mean they're basically... Mancino: The hard part that's in this area is ... they all have...1 1/2 acres and those may even subdivided in the future also which makes it very hard when you have some people who are subdividing and some who aren't. Any other comments? Peterson: No. I think as we look at the development itself, I think the applicant has worked with staff and provided a nice neighborhood feel ... cul -de -sac being that large is unique and 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 add some ambience to the area and the development. I want to emphasize to the residents, as you said Nancy, it is going to change the feel but it is going to be developed and is this a good development and I think yeah. The applicant meets everything that I look for anyway in a development... I'm a little concerned about Chaska Road. That area has always scared me. There's a lot of traffic in there and it's not a natural feel to drive through that going one way or the other. It just doesn't feel like you should be turning or there's ability to turn so people get confused. I don't know what the accident ratio out there is but I suspect it's relatively high. There's nothing we can do about that but all and all, I would be supportive of the development. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: ...everything is altered but ... In looking over the grading plan here, there's... large trees that are quite close to the area that you're grading so we'd appreciate... Mancino: Okay, Kevin. Joyce: Not much else besides what the other commissioners have said. I think it fits nicely into that piece, that property. I think the development looks like nice ... best thing that they can come up with for that particular parcel of land and I think it's pretty well thought out and planned properly. The only real question I would echo is that traffic. I was out there at rush hour. Bad time to be out there... something the City just keeps an eye on and you know, if you have... accidents out there or something, we might have to rethink what's going on out there but I agree with Nancy ... stop sign there. I don't know. I'd just like to keep an eye on it. Mancino: ...does go through, all the way to Galpin ... I have a couple of questions. Sharmin I had one. On page 6, the compliance with the ordinance. The lot width, the ordinance is 90. 90 feet. And yet Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 aren't 90. Can you explain to us what that means? Al -Jaffa Yes. The ordinance allows the lots that are on the bubble of the cul -de -sac to have a reduced frontage, but at the 30 foot setback they have to meet that 90 foot. These lots, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are on the bubble on the cul -de -sac. And at the setback they do meet the 90 foot setback, and I should have put a note underneath that... Mancino: Thank you. Good. Dave, question for you on the downstream settlement pond off Highway 41.. Where is that, and my other question is, is you know that the Middle School is going to be adding on to it and they'll have more impervious surface, etc so we'll have more into this downstream settlement pond. Is this pond built there ready for all this added runoff? And by the way, just because I live in the area, where is it? rel r 0 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Hempel: Madam Chair, the existing storm water pond is actually south of the property... It's approximately 400 feet west of Trunk Highway 41 ... Development at this time, or the additional runoff generated from this will be minimal. Mancino: Minimal? Hempel: ...any future expansion to the school however will have to be further evaluated... Mancino: And that's what they have to figure out when they do the school, okay. Great. My only comments are... development, I would like to add some more language to the tree preservation condition and that would be that on condition 1(a), so the applicant hear too that in the second sentence, installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a minimum at least 15 feet from the trunk. (b) is fine. (c) is fine. (d), I would, the landscape buffer plan along Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval. Landscape buffer plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees. So that the 24 trees are within the subdivision be Highway 5 or arterial plantings that are done along TH 41 are in addition. That plan is in addition to the 24 trees. I just want to make that clear. And I'd like to also, (e). That all significant trees must be shown on the building permits so that we make sure that we preserve those. And (f). I am in favor of the front yard variance. The reason why I am in favor of the front yard variance is so that we can save those trees so I would like to also put down that for (f), the vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement so that we do make sure that we are saving, and I'm sure that the applicant wants to save these buffer areas too. Those are my comments. May I please, I'd like to entertain a motion. Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision 996 -4) for 10 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received June 14th with conditions 1 through 19 and to add onto condition 1(a). Installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. On 1(d). Landscape buffer plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees required. 1(e). All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. 1(f). The vegetated areas which will not be affected by development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the City with a legal description of these easements. Mancino: May I have a second please? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Peterson: The only question I'd have is, is the conservation easement the most appropriate way to handle that issue? Al -Jaffa It's the only way that we can require the applicant not to take down any vegetation within a given area. Peterson: Okay. Mancino: Any other discussion? Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the prleliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision 1496 - for 10 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received June 14, 1996 with the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation conditions: a. Applicant to install tree preservation fencing at grading limits prior to any grading or construction activities. Installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a minimum of 15 feet from the hunk of the tree. b. Applicant must submit tree removal plan for the development as a condition of approval. c. Applicant will be required to preserve any trees not scheduled for removal. Trees removed in excess will be replaced at a rate of 2 times the diameter. d. A landscape buffer plan along Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval. e. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the City with a legal description of these easements. 2. Building Official conditions: a. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. N. I I F�� L� I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 b. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, ' using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. I c. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. ' 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. the street lamps, ' trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable tv, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City ordinance 9 -1. ' b. Install one additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Melody Hill Road and the new planned road. ' c. Submit street name to Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. ' 4. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances. ' 5. The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with the City and /or State codes. ' 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MnDOT, and comply with their ' conditions of approval. 7. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a permit. ' 8. The frontage on Lot 8 shall be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements of 90 feet lot frontage. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water ' Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits. Rock construction entrances 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 12. The proposed single family residential development of 4.50 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,600 and a water quantity fee of $8,910. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 13. Lots 2 through 10 should be mass graded prior to utility installation. Lot 1 may be custom graded when the building permit has been obtained through the City. 14. The applicant shall consider installing retaining walls in the rear of Lots 8, 9 and 10 in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss. 15. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate demolition permits for removal of the existing house. Sewer and water services shall be abandoned and disconnected the right -of -way line at Melody Hill Road. The dwelling shall be removed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. 16. Staff and the applicant shall evaluate the location of the proposed storm sewer line between Lots 4 and 5 to see if this is the most feasible location. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated to the final plat and centered over the storm sewer line. 17. Prior to .final plat approval, the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for staff review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with 10 [i 0 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 final plat approval. As -built construction drawings will be required upon completion of ' the utility and street improvements. 18. The cul -de -sac island shall be reviewed by city staff to ensure a proper turning radius ' for Public Safety vehicles and the cul -de -sac reduced accordingly. 19. All lots with the exception of Lot 1 shall access the interior proposed street. No direct ' access will be permitted from State Highway 41 or Chaska Road. Lot 1 shall access from Melody Hill Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL KENNEL, COMMERCIAL STABLE, TWO BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE LOT, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL AND STABLE, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A METAL BUILDING AND A PYLON SIGN IN A BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF HWY 212/169 AND TH 101, PAWS, CLAWS, AND HOOVES PET BOARDING, NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD. Shaimin Al -Jaff presented the staff »epoit on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Skubic: I have one. Were there any neighbors that were close enough to require notification for a public hearing? I didn't see the list in the packet here. Al -Jaff: It's in the file. There was one and it was mailed on July 11th. Mancino: And they have to be what, 500 feet? Al -Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: It went to 17 people. Mancino: 17 people it went out to, okay. Any other questions? Joyce: Who does all the periodic inspections? " 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Aanenson: As far as compliance? Joyce: Yeah. Aanenson: The staff does that. Joyce: The staff? Aanenson: Yep. That's what John does is work with compliance. Joyce: Okay, thanks. Peterson: In going by this, one of the issues is, that I'm struggling with is the building materials, as you can probably imagine. I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time on. One of the key things... driving by I really can't get a sense in the winter time, if you truly won't be able to see the structure from the highway. I think that my biggest concern is that you can't. We have an opportunity, it's a highly visible, obviously the road isn't as highly traffic so if during the winter whenever the vegetation is obviously diminished, you can see the buildings. It's a lost opportunity. As you perceive the site, and if you've walked it, how much of the building are you going to see during the winter? Al -Jaff: The building is going to sit on higher elevation than the highway. Significantly higher so you will be able to see quite a bit of it. The applicant brought, and they will be able to share more of what the building is going to look like. They have some renderings and some material samples. One of the samples that they will show will give you an idea of what the building is going to look like. Aanenson: Just on that same note. When we discussed this, as far as screening it, that was one of the questions that Sharmin and I spent some time discussing and the visibility, so one of the recommendations that we had as far as landscaping replacement was to put more trees, conifer type trees to help as far as the replacement. I think that's in the protection. To try to put some of that back in when you're screening more of the building. Peterson: So when you look under signage and I think the narrative talks about the fact that the buildings will be screened with the topography and existing vegetation. That's what I'm struggling with is. I'm getting mixed. Al -Jaff: There is existing vegetation. In some areas it's very thick and quite mature. And there's only one way to go. I mean it will only get larger. 12 u 1 11 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Peterson: Because of the bluff aspect... Mancino: I have a couple more questions along those lines. Is there any other road, arterial road in Chanhassen where we allow metal siding? Corrugated metal siding. Is there ' Highway 5? Is there TH 101? Is there any other area? So not allowing it stays fair to everything else that we're doing in the city. And as we see our city changing quite a bit from rural to urban, more and more, and we're going to be looking at this area in the next couple years, it certainly won't stay the same. Aanenson: That was the concern had. There's existing buildings on there—Does that mean ' we continue to put those type of buildings on there. On this was a big discussion we spent internally trying to resolve that issue because at what point do you say now you have to become more up to the standards of the rest of the city. I guess the reason why we supported this type of building, and it's really specifically the use. We looked at this use as. Mancino: It's a good use. Aanenson: Well we looked at the use-as, it's kind of a rural type use. You don't see a dog ' run, a horse stable in an urban setting. That's the only way we came to the conclusion that we could accept this type of construction. If this was something, a retail, we wouldn't be supporting that type of materials. But we said because it's a horse barn and animal shelter ' that really is rural in character and we felt, and I think that they can show you the types of materials, because we struggled with this too. We said it felt it met that rural kind of character. And that's the only way that we could say, well it does seem to fit that type of ' character. Mancino: I mean we have a ... and in this more natural, it goes in with that whole area down ' there by the river. Aanenson: Sure. ' Mancino: Yeah, okay. I mean I, obviously we're all struggling. What's the difference between a, I mean a pylon sign and a monument sign? Can't you just have a taller monument ' sign that's? Aanenson: They cap at 8 feet. Mancino: They cap at 8 feet, okay. From there on they're called pylon signs. ' Aanenson: Yes. 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Regardless of architecturally design wise, what it looks like. Any other questions? We can ask more specific things as, I'd like to give the applicant a chance to come up. Is the applicant here and do you wish to present? Thank you. Nancy Lee: Do you want to start with the metal buildings, as long as we're discussing that right now? Mancino: Wherever you would like to start. That'd be fine. Nancy Lee: The reason there's different colors is because I can't decide yet. What we're looking at is ... that's the actual metal pieces... actual color chips and what we're looking to do, that was as close a coloring job as I could do. We did have ... and light color walls and one of the ... those walls will actually be 12 foot back because we're going to have a foot long ... and it's going to be... We want it to look nice, as much as you do. We're trying to use the colors ... as you can see on these panels. The only things you're really going to be able to see on this side ... and as you're coming ... You won't be able to see the sides of the building. One faces 212 and the other faces the hill. The stable goes back even further on the property which we're able to see ... so it's not something that's going to be ... but it still has a lot of coverage... Mancino: Explain the columns to me. What are the columns? That's that part, okay. And that's going to be painted? Nancy Lee: That's the same ... just of the accordion metal. The little chips there, those are the actual color samples on the metal of the building... Mancino: Nancy, my concern is, one of the concerns that I have with metal is rusting. I mean after so many years, I mean it always looks. Nancy Lee: There's a 20 year warranty on it. Mancino: There's a 20 year warranty. Nancy Lee: ...on a building. Any building has to be kept up, whether it's metal or wood or anything else. And that was one of my concerns too, the 20 year warranty. It has a 10 year warranty on any type of fading. - Up to 20 year warranty on the paint itself. It's not like the old buildings that you used to have all the red rust ... and that's exactly what it was. All the red rust... They've taken care of that problem... If I get red rust in 20 years, they'll come out and take care of it for me. 14 0 i i Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Okay, and you don't mind us putting some sort of a condition in here that says you know, any rust will be taken care of or maintenance of the building in particular with the metal if that's the way the commission goes. Nancy Lee: ...with the business so we're already... Mancino: And I'm assuming it runs vertically like this? Nancy Lee: Yeah. The ridges are for strength. There is, underneath those chips if you take that clip off, there is a... Mancino: Oh, okay. Kirchman: What's the height on the sides? Nancy Lee: ...on this it's going to be 8 foot ... and then 10 foot vertical... Mancino: So what's the overall height of the kennel? And what's the overall highest of the stable? Nancy Lee: The sight lines... Mancino: No, but I mean with the roof too. The peak. Nancy Lee: I don't know. I can't give you those answers. This was done by ... and it's in proportion to this... Mancino: So that's 10, the roofs got to 8 to 10 because it looks almost 50 %. Nancy Lee: ...This is the stable. There's a small one here and here's where the horses will be. And then here's where the indoor riding arena will be and so it's a 14 foot height right here. The roof will be a 4:12 pitch. Mancino: Okay. Peterson: Not that steep. Mancino: Not that steep, okay. Nancy Lee: Yeah we didn't... 15 u Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 ' Mancino: Okay. Nancy Lee: Okay. And then I would like to touch base on the driveway. We have proposed to pave the driveway to the kennel ... and propose to put ... Class V driveway up to the horse stable. And it was ... put on our plans 20 foot wide... The only people utilizing the horse stable ' will be the people who have horses in the stable, and of course ourselves and our employees. So I guess what I'm requesting is that we ask to pave only... To us it's a driveway. It's not a road. It's a private roadway... To be quite honest, the additional paving would be ' approximately $30,000.00 to do that additional part because it's... The other request I have is in reference to the recommendation of the wetland delineation. We're as conscientious about the wetlands ... and what we did is we purchased the aerial topography from the City itself, assuming that that would be ... and what we have been requested...142 feet from the wetland. We're required to have a 60 foot setback ... one foot setback and a 20 foot buffer strip ... asking to do a wetland delineation, I don't think's... Mancino: I must tell you that we ask everyone, absolutely nobody has a preliminary plat ' approval without doing that. Nancy Lee: Okay. That was the first we learned about it. We just heard about it a week ' ago. Okay. I think that really covers... answer any questions that you may have. Mancino: I have a few. Does anybody have? Can you explain a little bit about the stable. ' Are you going to be doing, is there going to be outside grazing of the horses in the area around it? Are you going to have, I know you're going to have an inside arena obviously, but won't people want to ride their horses outside around or have a jumping ring or whatever? , Nancy Lee: What we plan... Mancino: Oh good. Is there in the conditions a perimeter fencing around the whole other r area, because we need to put that in. Maybe someone who's had a couple horses and having them get through down Galpin Boulevard, it's important. We wouldn't want them. ' Nancy Lee's answer could not be heard on the tape. Mancino: Okay. Because you're on 212 and 101. , Nancy Lee: We don't want them lose ... so we do have that perimeter fencing. ' Mancino: And I think the other reason why it's important is that, so that people who have their horses out and they're riding around, don't go into other people's property. They know ' 16 ' Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 the boundary delineations so they can't get on other people's property. Are you going to be teaching lessons, obviously for people who come and board their horses and teaching some riding lessons? ' Nancy Lee: ...at the start, no. But I guess that's not in our plans right now... Mancino: Okay. If I want to come and I don't have a horse there, can I come and will you have a couple horses so if I want to ride around a little bit on a Saturday afternoon, I can do that, and I'm an accomplished horsewoman? ' Nancy Lee: Somebody else asked if we're going to have a lease a horse program. We haven't set one up... ' Skubic: ...access to parking in those areas, there will be congestion. There won't be any parking area where...? ' Nancy Lee: ...as you're coming down... Skubic: Will there be room adjacent to the stables for more parking? Nancy Lee: Actually there's a lot of-but obviously any additional parking will probably be up closer to TH 101. As you come in down the driveway, it goes through ... Do you see that on there? ' Skubic: Is that the existing concrete foundation? Nancy Lee: Yeah. That would be... Mancino: Any other questions? ' Peterson: None of the applicant, no. A couple for staff. Mancino: Okay. One of the recommendation I'm going to make is that the dogs in the dog ' kennel be inside, not from 10 :00 to 6:00 but from 9:00 to 7:00. 9:00 at night until 7:00 in the morning because I think that 6:00 is kind of unreasonable for kind of neighbors in the area to have dogs outside and if they were barking at all, to have to call Public Safety all the ' time. So I just wanted to get your reaction of that. I thought the hours were a little unreasonable. ' Nancy Lee: ...from 7:00 in the morning? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: They need to be inside, inside the kennel area. Not outside in their run area from 9:00 at night until 7:00 in the morning. I didn't think that that would be a problem. Earlier either. Nancy Lee: When I... Mancino: Those are kind of our construction hours and where we try and be neighborly and make sure that people aren't out making a lot of noise. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing, and a second please? Skubic moved, Joyce 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 at this time, please do so. Any comments. Any questions that you have. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second. Joyce moved, Con►ud seconded to close the public heating. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments. Questions. Before we start, Dave. About the road and the paving and only going part way with the paving. Do we run into erosion problems? I mean is that one of the reasons, because it's going to be a commercial driveway and we're going to have big trucks and everything on it. Why did we ask for it to be completely paved? What's the reasoning? Hempel: One of the reasons for that is that the erosion and maintenance of it. In an all weather surface like that, you want either to place gravel ... and pot holes and so forth. Another reason is access from a public safety standpoint. It's a little better year round, especially like during the spring thaw and weight restrictions are on, asphalt surfaces seem to hold up better. Peterson: What kind of conditions could we put on there that would be reasonable, as far as maintenance? I mean have we ever done that before to any success? Hempel: I can't think of any other site that we've got gravel. Aanenson: -- In- that area Sorenson and Halla. - -- -- Hempel: Sorenson. We have had erosion problems. Aanenson: That one's got a steep grade. W. I I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 ' YHempel: The driveway grades here are much flatter... p Mancino: But we could have a condition about how it has to be maintained with the gravel. Hempel: I would think you could get another ... do a few inspections on it... Aanenson: Or I was going to say, if it becomes a problem we could say it has to be hard ' surface—if there's a problem or something. Hempel: Or if the use intensified. The stable riding ... if there's traffic through that area which may warrant it. Mancino: So we could put something on it that if the use intensifies, that we could go and ' re- evaluate and decide whether. Aanenson: Or if there's a nuisance problem, yeah. Right now riding academies are ' permitted. We have to come back and amend it. When we amended that district. And it may work in fine. That it fits in with the use and we might decide to amend it but right now they'd have to come back to intensify that. But I think the direction that you're looking for is ' can we put a condition on there, if it's a problem, or even intensify. Let's say there's more trips back there and it seems to be wearing on it. ' Mancino: Okay. Any comments? Kevin. We have a couple variances here with the pylon signs. The architectural standards. Joyce: That was the only concern I have. I remember Kate referring to this area as the southern gateway to Chanhassen so I'm sure that's something you guys struggled with and ' well, I think weighing it out, I really do think it's a good use. I think it's appropriate. I don't have any problems with it. I really don't at this point. I think it probably is a pretty good project for that area. I agree with you. The one thing I was looking at those dog kennels wondering what time frame they're going to be barking. I'm glad you added that so that's the only concern I had. I have no problem with it. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: Just to clarify the roadway from the Fire Marshal and the engineering would need to ' have to approve the deviation in the road. Aanenson: Well technically not. The way the ordinance reads and Dave can comment on I this too. It says all loading, parking driveways shall be surfaced or asphalt, concrete or an 1 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 approved material accepted by the City and that's why we're saying right now, we want some control if it gets to be a problem, and that's where Dave's coming from. The durability and erosion and safety. So if we can find how it's designed to meet that, and I think that's your objective, if I'm understanding. That's in our subdivision regulations, or zoning ordinance too. Skubic: Okay. On condition 13 where we talk about Fire Marshal conditions. That the fire road shall meet UFC Section 10 -204. Must be submitted to the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. Aanenson: Right, and that's a weight restriction dealing with fire trucks. How close ... can get so we'll make sure that that still complies with that. Skubic: That it still complies with that, okay. Yeah, I like the plan. I think it fits the area. It's certainly something that, something new for the city. It's unfortunate that we are making some exceptions here to the bluff grading and building materials, but I think it fits and I'm in favor of it. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah sorry I'm late. I like this plan. I like this. This is so much better than other alternatives that we've looked at down there, and I apologize again for being a little bit late but noise is not a problem Kate? That's not an issue? Aanenson: Nancy had made a change on the hours. As far as barking dogs, that's something certainly we're going to have to monitor. Conrad: Closest house is how far away? Al -Jaff: Over 400 feet. Conrad: Okay. Access Dave. I always had problems with the access on this site. There's no special turning lanes out there. It's just there and that's the way it is. You expanded the width of the road going in and it just, well I have nothing to say. It just seems like a very difficult place to go in, but I don't have an alternative. I have nothing. Mancino: Do you have any concerns with the variance fora..? - Conrad: Variances are fine with me, yeah. They're okay. I think they're justified here. I do care about the wetland on site so what the staff report said on wetlands, I really, that you have to follow. The delineation of them and all the ordinances. Those are absolute. You 20 I L� F Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 just have to hang in there 100% on what we say in terms of wetlands but the variances I'm okay with. I think staff did a good job of rationalizing or justifying them and I buy it. That's all. Mancino: And you haven't even been here that long. Conrad: No. Mancino: Clear. Focused... Okay, Craig. Peterson: Sharmin, I need your help in understanding. Will you put up the overhead again, as to how much of the stable and how much of the kennel will you see in the winter time as far as, the southern, the exposure. ' Mancino: We've got a picture. 1 Conrad: So imagine that without any leaves. Peterson: Well that is the issue that I'm struggling with is that the building materials. We've got a highly visible area. I like the usage. My only concern is, because of that visibility I'm not really comfortable with metal there. I think it's, I think as visible as it is, it's going to come across cold and I hate to say impersonal when you're talking about stable and the kennel but it's still a building that is at the forefront of the entrance to Chanhassen. I would offer as an alternative perhaps the sides of the ... exposure of both buildings would be wood, and I don't think that would be cost prohibitive to do that and I think it'd add a certain, a great deal more warmth to the construction in the field from the roadway. So I can't support the variance on that basis because I think that we can compromise and have the areas that are visual to 169 and 212 be wood. At least I'd like that to be considered. Aanenson: Craig, can we just show you the pictures? If it helps. Peterson: I think that the height is probably going to be higher than this, isn't it, as far as exposure. The roof line's going to be set up higher than these buildings. These are probably what? To the roof line maybe 15 feet and the construction of these is going to be, at least on the stable side, significantly higher. Aanenson: To the pitch? Peterson: Yeah. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Aanenson: Yeah. We have 14. Mancino: 14 to the side wall. Aanenson: Yeah, side wall. So the pitch side will be higher. Peterson: So you're going to see a lot more of the metal from the road because it's facing. This is what I don't want to see from the road. Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I'm not sure those are the best examples as far as looking at what they're going to put on there facia. yeah. Right, I agree. Mancino: Can you pass that down? Okay, any other comments? Peterson: I would support the roadway going to Class V with conditions that would support the upkeep and maintenance of it. I don't think I spoke to the sign but I'm comfortable with the sign variance. Just the issue of the wood being... concerned about, yeah. Mancino: Okay. Any other? My comments are a couple. I'd just like to wait and see some of these pictures but I have a question on the crematory. What all, I hate to ask, what all is burned in the kennel crematory? And I guess, Nancy I ask you. Nancy Lee: Animals. Mancino: Carcasses. Dead carcasses. Nancy Lee: And animal waste. Mancino: And animal waste? Nancy Lee: The crematories are very ... pathological waste. ...and I had talked with them about... Mancino: Okay. I have some questions on that for staff. Number one, is that permitted? And secondly, what about odor? Aanenson: No, it's not. There's separate permitting for that. The carcass thing, they have to get a permit. And medical waste, any of that kind of stuff is not permitted. Mancino: It's not permitted? 22 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 h That would regulated through Carver County so an permitting of an Aanenson: Yea at ou d be eg g ty y p g y ' of that is under the jurisdiction of Carver County. They would need permits from that, is our understanding as Sharmin has talked to them. ' Mancino: Okay. And is that in the condition that the applicant needs to go to Carver County and get those permits? ' Al -Jaffa What we've stated was, they would have to get any applicable, they would have to meet any applicable regulations from State, as well as County agencies. So this will include PCA, Carver County, Environmental Services, Watershed. I mean any applicable agency that ' has ordinances regulating any of these issues, they would have to obtain permits from. Mancino: Okay. So that's in. ' Aanenson: That's condition number 10. ' Mancino: Okay, good. Aanenson: So if they can accomplish that and they get the necessary permits, that would be ' fine. But again, it's our understanding right now that that can't be done. Mancino: Okay. My other comments are that I think it's a very good use for the site. I ' think that it's a good service to have in our city. I do agree with the variance on the pylon sign. I have a harder time with the variance for the metal. You know we've had people in here before or neighbors in the area come in and say, you know you don't think of us as in your city. You just kind of leave us out and I'd just like to think that we were fair and have the same architectural standards for everywhere in the city and I think that this is an important area and I would like to see more natural materials used as in wood. But I very highly support the use, and I also would be in favor of the driveway being paved to the kennel and then having the gravel the rest of it but making sure that that is addressed periodically to make sure it's working for public safety and there aren't huge potholes in it. So with that, may I have a motion please. ' Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan 496 -8 for the construction of a 8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot commercial kennel, and a pylon sign in the BF, Fringe Business District, as shown on the plans dated July 14, 1996 with the following conditions, and I welcome any friendly amendments to there. Excuse me, is it okay if I read that differently than how it was stated here and did not include a variance for the metal building. Is that appropriate? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Aanenson: It's a variance, you should note the variance in your motion. Mancino: You need to make the motion so that you clearly state the variance including the pylon sign but not the, allowing the metal building. Skubic: Okay. It should read to include the variance for the pylon sign but not the variance for the all metal building. Mancino: I'd like to add one friendly amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not that one. On this one, there should be a friendly amendment on number 6. I think that's it. The drive aisles shall be a rolled bituminous drive aisles constructed to a 7 ton design to the kennel. Dave, could you help us to where the cut -off would be on that? Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. Maybe one point of clarification. The staff report reads the drive aisle should be increased to 24 feet width. Does the commission agree with that? The plans were proposing a 20 foot wide drive a majority of the way. Mancino: And what is our ordinance and what is standard? Hempel: Ordinance I believe is 24 to 26 feet wide... Minimum of 24 in width... Mancino: Okay. Then the friendly amendment still reads that the 24 foot width, where I'm not sure is where that ends and where we can start with the gravel. Hempel: The bituminous surface, all weather surface, I want to clarify within that kennel, gravel surface can support a 7 ton axle design would... Skubic: I accept that friendly amendment. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: I'll make a second. Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: . Sure, just a little-bit... The. ordinance -says on metal buildings, not at all or, not at all? So what we're doing is, there's still a variance. Aanenson: We noticed it as a variance for materials, right. Your motion now. ir1l J Li I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Conrad: But the motion says, what's the motion say? Aanenson: You're not going to grant the variance. Skubic: Not for an all metal building. I would make exceptions... Mancino: It can be trimmed. Aanenson: Support materials. ' Mancino: It can be support materials. Conrad: Craig's comment was, at least wood on one side but I don't think we've given any clear direction on this. Peterson: That was my only discussion point too is that I'm open, and it really is for cost ' reasons I would imagine from anything else. I don't know how substantial the wood or whatever material they decide to use within the code, would change. My concern's for the visual aspect of it more than I am the total building required to be wood. So I'm indifferent ' to the rest of it, although I prefer the whole thing being within code. I would be open to having those exposed to the roads and visual areas to be of code material. Skubic: The intent of the motion is to comply with code on the sides of the buildings that front Highway 169. ' Peterson: Are you comfortable with that Nancy or not? Mancino: Well I think a building's pretty weird when one side of it's one material and the other three sides are something else so to me, no. It doesn't make sense just to have it one sided ... so I would be uncomfortable with it. But is this discussion or did you want to add this ' as a friendly amendment? Peterson: It's discussion at this point. I mean I'm torn between, I know I don't, I'm not ' comfortable with all metal, and you have a valid point. Now, I've seen, if the back of the building is totally obscured from anybody's sight 12 months out of the year, then I'm not really concerned about that being metal. So I think it can be done. If it's only one side or ' two, yeah. But if it's going to be trees to the back of it or no road to the stable, you've got probably three sides that are going to have exposure to visitors that are going to be on the back side, which is on the north side. I suspect there's not going to be any or any ' access to there other than maybe a horse walking around, if he can even do that with the ' 25 r. Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 grade going up pretty steep from there. I doubt that that would be the case. So you've really got three sides of both buildings that would have exposure. It's the back side that I'd be less concerned about. What about the houses? As I look at the plan, I'm assuming that the houses up towards TH 101 that would overlook the kennel aspect of it. Or am I mis- reading this? Sharmin? Al -Jaff: The houses are on Lakota. You have a trail that separates them and really there's ... of the site from up here is very limited. Peterson: Okay, I'm looking at this and I see a building here and I see a structure here so I figure, they're not existing? Al -Jaff: They're not there. Peterson: I guess I'm not comfortable, I am comfortable with the back being metal if the applicant desires to do that but I'm not, I wouldn't want to do it. Mancino: Any other discussion? Conrad: So Bob your request, your motion is to disallow the variance? Or am I putting words in your mouth? Mancino: Right now it stays that it would disallow the variance. Skubic: That's what we're working towards here, yes. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Peterson: Second. Skubic moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review 996 -8 for the conshuction of an 8,152 squ,-ule foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot commercial kennel with a valiance to allow a pylon sign, and to deny the valiance to allow a metal building, in the BF, Fringe Business Dishict, as shown on the plans dated June 14, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. 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. 26 J 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 2. 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. 3. Type 3 erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Type 1 shall be installed on the remainder of the site. Additional silt fence or rock filter dikes shall be constructed at the culvert inlets. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored, revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 4. Storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify culverts are sized correctly. 5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, MnDot and the Chanhassen Building Department. 6. The access drive shall intersect Trunk Highway 101 at a 90 degree angle. All drive aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 24 feet wide. The curb shall be a rolled bituminous and the drive aisles shall be constructed to a 7 ton design up to the kennel. The gravel portion past the kennel shall also be constructed to a 7 ton design and inspected periodically. The maximum grade for the drive aisle shall be 10 %. 7. The waste water holding tank and /or proposed drainage swale shall be relocated to avoid potential contamination of the storm water runoff. ' 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water ' Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type 1 erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type 3 erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 9. 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. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 10. The applicant shall provide a storm water runoff plan that does not drain directly to the wetland. A water quality pond to pretreat stormwater shall be constructed adjacent to the wetland outside the street right -of -way. The pond shall be designed in accordance with "NURP" standards. Detailed pond calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 11. The applicant shall retain a professional wetland delineator to determine the wetland edge and, if necessary, adjust the development accordingly. 12. Building Official conditions: a. Install holding tank(s) to directly receive wastewater and toilet room waste, with tanks sized and monitored in a manner approved by the City. b. Obtain a feedlot permit from Carver County. c. Provide covered, containerized onsite storage for animal waste in a manner approved by the City. d. Provide copies of solid waste disposal contract(s) to the City. Contract(s) must provide for continuous disposal of all solid animal waste generated. 13. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Pursuant to UFC Section 10.204(c). Submit radius turns for the west driveway on the stable. b. Fire lanes signage in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 06 -1991 shall be installed on the service road starting at the west end of the kennel to the east end of the stable. This is to assure that fire apparatus will have access in the event of a fire. c. Driving surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface as to provide all weather driving capabilities pursuant to UFC Section 10- 204(b). Submit road design to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Submit radius turns from the driveway off State Highway 101. 28 1 7 r I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 d. Comply with Fire De artment/Fire Prevention Policy 29 -1992 regarding remise pY p Y g gp identification. Additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Number, size and location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. ' e. Timing of insulation on fire protection including fire apparatus access roads for fire protection is required to be installed. Such access road shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to UFC Section ' 10 -502. 14. The applicant must install tree protection fencing at the grading limits near any existing trees. Fencing must be installed at the time of the silt fence installation. 15. A complete sign plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the ' Planning Commission and City Council. 16. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 38 parking spaces. The City has the right to require the applicant to provide these additional specs if staff determines that additional spaces are needed. ' All voted in favor; except Comad who opposed, and the motion caiiied with a vote of 5 to 1. Conrad: I'm comfortable with the variance request. ' Mancino: Okay. Now we need another motion for the conditional use permit. ' Aanenson: Oh, we kind of figured, I just assumed it was all one motion. ' Mancino: No, there are two motions. May I please have a motion for a conditional use permit. ' Skubic: I'd like to make that motion also. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #96 -3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fringe Business District, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principle ' building on a single lot as shown on the plans dated received June 14, 1996 with the conditions outlined by staff, 1 through 10. J Mancino: Will you accept a friendly amendment, or two please? On number 2(e): That all dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight, 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Just a very simple hour for having dogs out and maybe barking and public safety doesn't get as many - calls. And it really does follow what our noise and construction ordinance is in place right now to those 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 hours. And number, I guess another friendly amendment would just be to add number 11. That there be perimeter fencing around the area so that when horses are out grazing, etc, that they won't go off site. Aanenson: I think that's in 3(b). Mancino: Is it? Aanenson. Yeah. Unless you wanted to add something there. Al -Jaff: Page 25. Mancino: Oh, thank you. It's here, thanks. Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: I'll second the motion. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Skubic moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 996 -3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fiinge Business Dishict, and a conditional use peimit to allow more than one p►incipal building on a single lot; as shown on plans dated received June 14, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III. 2. The following criteria relates to commercial kennels for dogs and cats: a. Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. b. The proposed chainlink fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be sturdy to keep dogs confined. c. Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any ---well. -The applicant -is- showing a waste -water holding tank located 180 feet from a well location however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such information must be provided. 30 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 d. All accumulation of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no ' leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. ' e. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. f. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) ' is not present at the subject property. g. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as ' defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. h. Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. i. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: * Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ' ventilation. * Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain and snow. * If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. * Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition. * The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degree Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. ' * Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and disease hazards. ' * Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. ' 3. The following criteria relates to commercial stables for horses: a. Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one -half acres and for three horses ' shall be two acres, and additional one -third acre shall be required for each additional horse. The site has an area of 13.16 acres allowing a maximum number of 35 horses. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 9. No outdoor speakers are allowed. 32 , b. The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electrical fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within. ' c. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects. d. Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to the pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste storage is required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To prevent runoff from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect it from rain and snow and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area. e. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet from any well. f. All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 4. All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 50 ' feet from public or private road right -of -way and 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater. 5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code. 6. Both commercial kennel and stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. , 7. Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. ' 8. The applicant is showing light fixtures shielded under the roof canopy. All light must meet ordinance requirements. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as -- - - - required by ordinance. -A detailed- lighting -plan should be submitted when building permits are requested: , 9. No outdoor speakers are allowed. 32 , u I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 ' 10. The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such pp pp Y rY p g �' g as Lower Minnesota Watershed, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc. I All voted in favor- and the motion caned. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSM RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR UP TO 307,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAUOFFICE BUILDINGS, 100,000 SQ. FT. OF INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS, AND 322 DWELLING UNITS; REZONING FROM IOP ' AND RSF TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 13 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE; VACATION OF RIGHT -OF- ' WAY AND EASEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FINDINGS; AND INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT REVIEW FOR THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT ON 66.12 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 BETWEEN GREAT ' PLAINS BLVD. AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. ' Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: I still need help with understanding how, the difference between the code provided in PUD, how we can variance from code. That's what's confusing me. ' Generous: Because you're creating a shared parking opportunity and in a mixed development you're going to have different peak requirements and so you can count on that some of the parking that would be required in your retail could be, and portions of the church school for instance, or some of the restaurant uses might be within the office space, which might have a later peak for, at least in the evening. ' Peterson: So provided is. Mancino: What they showed on their preliminary plat? Generous: Yes. That master plan that we have. I Mancino: So when we, when two of us said this looks like massive parking. 01 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Aanenson: It's the ulti- parking plan. Mancino: It's the pre code or it's the provided? Generous: No. What they showed on it, because they have incorporated some of the standards. The two prairie unit that we were talking about for the residential, they had already incorporated that into the plans so we were able to drop it there. Half a story per unit for the apartments. And the retail about the same. Office, that was just over parked. We believe the office... Mancino: So what we see is what we get? Generous: No. This would be a maximum that they would do. Aanenson: Ultimate. Generous: However it doesn't incorporate all the parking lot landscaping that we would anticipate as the individual sites comes in. It doesn't incorporate the handicap spaces which take up additional space and would delete other parking spaces. Aanenson: The other thing too is we're hoping that we get more street furniture, that sort of thing. Even the backs of buildings and that may push in some of the parking spaces too. In the back where it seems like more of the back of the building you've got parking. That we do some more street furniture or public spaces there and that we have... Generous: As well as pedestrian ways within the parking lot areas. One of the other things that we were just provided this afternoon was a new development data table and I handed that out. They went in to starting to rearranging the northwest corner of the project and if you look at, just looking at their development tabulation tables, you'll see they've already dropped approximately 80 parking stalls through redesigning it and increasing some pedestrian access. I don't want to get into that too far because Mika is going to explain that a little bit more. So you can see that basically what it shows on this analysis, they've dropped an additional 120 parking stalls and they would be able to meet those. Mancino: That's what I wanted to know. Aanenson: Right. Exactly. We believe that it's over parked. That was the question in the first place. We believe it can come under. That's what Bob's demonstrating here and as each individual site comes in we're going to look at that but we believe that, what Bob's looking at, really you're looking at a true mixed use where you're sharing parking. That's the intent, 34 u 1 n 1 �� Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 and that's the beauty of a PUD. Each project doesn't fly on it's own merits. They all use each other and not at peak times. And also we're putting the transit component in here, remember because of the mass transit component. That may reduce some of the parking, some of the people in the residential may not even have cars so we believe that there's enough there that. Generous: One thing that we should point out is that for the apartment buildings, all the required parking is shown within garages so the 1.5 would be underground parking. Bob Generous and Kate Aanenson continued with the staff nepoit. Mancino: Bob, on page 42, does number 5 need to be there? If we're not going to allow, if your suggestion, your condition is not to allow the tennis court, why would there be tree removal for the tennis courts? Generous: The first part probably doesn't. We didn't permit plans for parking lot area either. That's not in this plan. It might happen. One of our concerns about the location of the soccer field down on the southern part of the site is where are people going to ... long way for people to walk. Mancino: Okay. Bob Generous continued with his staff report. Mancino: Okay, any questions? Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Joyce: I have one question regarding the soccer field. Access would be with the trail then, correct? Is that what's been decided? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: I'm just curious...voted against the soccer field would have no significant value to the local soccer associations but then we will have an agreement with St. Hubert's so the CAA can use the soccer field? Or how's that going to be handled? Aanenson: -I don't know if we can address that. It's really up to the Park and Rec Commission. Generous: And St. Hubert's. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Joyce: So that's just kind of an open ended thing. A joint agreement. Aanenson: As this moves through the process, they'll all come to terms on exactly what that negotiation is, sure. Joyce: Is there any way, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if we're giving up the natural area over there, I'd like to have, help me with this. Some sort of agreement that the community can use this soccer field. I guess I'm trying to see if that's. Aanenson: ...the commission is saying. That they will take the park and trail fees and use that money to maybe acquire something else or do something else with the money. Joyce: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Peterson: Is there any discussion regarding the berming between TH 5 and the project? Generous: There is a condition in there already that requires a 3 to 5 foot berm and also we've discussed it with the developer what we anticipate doing. Aanenson: And again when you see the hotel, which will be one of the first ones coming through, they'll have to have a specific plan showing that. Mancino: And there are others of us that will add a condition to it that there be something computer generated from the Highway 5 view. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here and do you wish to make a presentation? Vernelle Clayton: Thank you Madam Chair... vernacular which he has done and... northwest corner of the PUD ... although I'm going to ask you, are you comfortable, we're trying to ... and not go over everything twice. He just explained the parking issues. Will that suffice? Are there other questions on the parking issue? Conrad: And you don't have any problems with the recommendation? Vernelle _Clayton: _ No. No. - As you move through, certain ones will be lost for additional landscaping and certain ones will be lost for, currently the handicap stalls... We needed a little extra for that... 36 1 J 1 u Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Vernelle, could you cover one other thing and that is that I noticed through my plans that there seems to be, in the church area, the institutional area, dotted lines around the church edifice. I mean it seems to go, I mean is there going to be expansion? Is it planned for expansion or something? Vernelle Clayton: ...the dotted lines that would indicate their future expansion and they will... site plan approval. Mancino: Okay. I was concerned about impervious surface. ' Vernelle Clayton: ...adding onto the school, in that area. That's where they're at. Aanenson: Can I address that real quickly? This has a maximum threshold based on the ' EAW document so if you get from one, you have to take from somewhere else because there's only a maximum that this property can hold, unless you want to go back and amend the document. Mancino: So what does that need? Aanenson: You may need additional study as far as some of the environmental impacts, because they have to be a cap as far as the, and they're at that. Mancino: Okay. Does it also mean that we're at impervious surface at a percent? I know that we have to keep that as we look at the entire site. To make sure that we. Generous: The proposed, the maximum proposed expansion on that... significant impact on impervious surface because all their parking would be in place. It would just be the additional building. Mancino: But it may go back for another EAW, okay. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Thank you. Mika Milo: My name is Mika Milo with ... and I'm back for the second time to explain a couple particular items. One is the full revision to the northwest area in response to staff and Planning Commission comments and concerns. And I would... This is the views ... if' does not show any embellishment, trees and shadows or anything at this point ... It shows that northwest area. The concern that we had voiced from the staff was that we did not have enough ... of a 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 pedestrian situation between the motel and the restaurant, as well as from that northwest corner to the central area, and also it was sort of thought that maybe a lot of ...parking. In response to that we have moved...the building all the way here and ... Just in case that we don't have ... we would need to have also back -up situation from the south... approaching to the motel on that site. Right now as you see the property from that building... approach from the south... to re -work that northwest area and this is what we came up with, and I'd like to use that projector for a moment. As you see that is the northwest edge where the... Here comes TH 101 along here and then here is TH 5 on the top. North is here on the top. So what we did, we have allowed that turn to happen here and we form now more of a ... parking plaza here that was not before. Then we move that building further away from that walk. From that direction towards the hotel and to provide rather a ... good connection straight, right through here and where you've got sight lines straight to the hotel. Once we reach the hotel site, then we have provided another landscape...and buffer here and ... east/west side. This is the north /south side. That it comes, it actually comes first to the road plaza. Again the road plaza in the northwest area. From here it goes here to north and then from that point, it goes east or west towards the motel and east towards the restaurant... So that we have four ... kind of a T. This way and that way for the... circulation. These restaurant use would be here and... Now the restaurant is now going to be rather surrounded with a walker than a back bone, at least looking at that east side portion. And as we are doing that we are also ... the site area for there is a motel area and we have this ... instead of being just straight. Going straight like we have...is swinging slightly down and up here, thus allowing the hotel to be a little bit wider and shorter this way. So shorter here but longer here, thus allowing for that straight shot. Straight approach from the south into the site. That, at the same time lies out all the buildings here nicely ... so that along that edge we are forming another pedestrian, clear, strong pedestrian circulation along all these areas. Actually now the people can go all the way from the southern area with the church and go all along here... pedestrian safe area. Along this... going to motel and going to the restaurant or going to the northwest downtown. Very important... and the northwest connection to downtown with the restaurant and with the pier point and the promenade and the main street, which is coming from that point. So if this is the strong, actually that... pedestrian circulation that has... pedestrian walkway and trail to connect from the downtown over there... By shifting that street slightly this way and rearranging the buildings, opening up that point there and access point from south, making this pedestrian situation much stronger in ... as well as connecting the motel and restaurant, we believe, and also adding these embellished pavements at the plaza and intersection, we believe that we have enhanced the design of that northwest corner. We have also, on top of that, there is— facing TH 101. A storm pond here. All of that may be even will be extended back one. We are not quite sure. We didn't have much time to organize... incorporate and work with VFW and ... so that is something to work... This is my brief report on the revisions to the northwest. Any questions at this point? W. il� F-1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Mika, it's nice the way it gives you an alternate main street. I mean not quite the same look but. Mika Milo: And I think that's ... that you have the small 11 x 17 that has been distributed... what we are showing is Just ... the BRW and the landscape portion. Mancino: Is the concept still to stay towards TH 101 with the lower height buildings? The one story buildings and become increasingly taller as you go into. Mika Milo: At the square. We are going in keeping materials.... Shall I move to the next presentation? Mancino: Please. Mika Milo: We spent quite a bit of time trying to prepare really a ... not only for the sake of-what kind of architecture. What kind of additional village character we would like to have. That was really excellent question that you asked because that put us into work—what did we really want and it's... How we assure that the people ... tell the people what do you like to see... One kind of examples and guidance to give them as they go ... individual buildings. That maybe we will not be around all the time but the language will be there and the pictures and so on and... So we have prepared... what I thought, initially I thought maybe just a single page of-saying to that respect but ... and so because of the short time we didn't have really a chance to distribute that to you ... but at least by now I can distribute to you two color copies and ten black and whites of the text... so maybe you want to share for now the color ones and... Mancino: Did everyone get a black and white? Does staff, do you have one? Aanenson: Yes. Mika Milo: What we did on the first three pages we went into the discussion and explanation of what we would do. What we really mean on traditional... and we explain that traditional... really means not only the look of the building but we managed to really explain what everybody's... understand the traditional village character relates to the overall... conceptualize and to focus then and understand that they are designed... with the master plan itself and therefore the village has been designed as ... or the street project of the texture. And so those buildings are not isolated from urban monuments... they are intended to be some self expression but rather more modest so that you should one by one ... to create a village, to create a public feel. This is what we are saying here in the first couple pages. W0 are relating to some nice examples that exist... the buildings are there to create the public open 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 space and as declarations so that we are sharing... Once we explain that on the first page, we go to second page and explain about architectural design... expressing individual isolated buildings on the pad. And number two, that we going to find that architectural ... as well as sources we are saying that the architecture may... Another source may be the architectural example of.. However in no case shall the architecture lead to the... expression of the ... main street—all can greatly contribute to what's... traditional European architecture can be also another source of inspiration... interpretation. ...but even more so in regard to bad experiences... for the requirements of more shopping and shared pedestrian oriented streets. Even though the ... the architects must draw upon their own experience... successful examples of traditional village architecture ... so we show the pictures of the villages and then after that we saw the exhibits of-just some examples that we have from TH 5. One is also ... street level because that's where our focus should be architecturally. That shows very interesting... landscape, pavers... passages, signage ... and the second page, two story. On the second page we have two story examples of retail or office and ... of windows are also being used for the exhibition and show, as much as the first floor. And then we go into the ... arcades and then signage ... Then we are showing some pictures about restaurants, arcades, and treatments of the awnings and the outside seating, as well as ... shows how the projected signs can be very interested... and then some passages... interesting and just what we are ... we have been doing the parking ... use the front door from the street rather than the street, the shop being... We want everybody and the conditions I think as Bob has also done some of the conditions that the shop owners have to have the main door and the street rather than the parking. They may have additional... but the main entrance is from the street, especially for the small shop owners. Maybe the big ones can have also additional... passageway and that would be ... we do have these exhibits that ... any questions? Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one but I think I will wait and ask that of Vernelle. Mika Milo: ... Vernelle outlined that I should report... as far as the parking total numbers ... so unless you have any questions, or maybe you have anything Vernelle to say. Mancino: Thank you very much. Mika Milo: You're welcome. Vernelle Clayton: - ...number of things that ... talk about landscaping. - Mancino: Yeah I just had one for you and maybe Bob can respond. And it has to do with, some with architecture but when I read on page 2 about the village core, the Sector 1, that structures may be increased to three stories and a loft, and I don't have a problem with the .I F , L ei 11 J I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 loft. But you know my vision that I keep seeing and keeps being reinforced is that the center will be three stories and there will be residential up above the retail, office, etc. But when I see the word may, there's just this kind of trigger for me. What does that mean? Vernelle Clayton: ...the plan is that there will be three stories and they may be. Isn't that what you were thinking? ' Generous: Yes. The thing I wanted to avoid is that if they didn't put the residential on, I didn't want them to go higher. That's the limitation. So they have to include residential if they want to. Aanenson: To get the height. Mancino: To get the height, okay. Thank you. That helps me because I could see one story in here and it'd be more like a strip mall effect than it would be your village so I wanted to ask that question. Thank you. I Vernelle Clayton: With that ... Dean Olson who is here to talk about the landscaping... so he's going to talk about that and include in the discussion a little bit about the street furniture... Dean Olson: Good evening. What I have here is a copy of the revised site landscape portion of the package and also some examples of some of the... furnishings. A couple of revisions that we made ... on the standards. In Section 1.7, we expanded the statement that says all site developments, associated plantings which abuts Lake Drive, Main Street and we added and other prominent drives... additional drive, shall follow up with a landscaping and hard scape design established... Down on 1.12 we also added the fact that plant material, the fact that they should be salt tolerate ... as well for plant material. On the following page, 1.17 we added hedge plantings shall be utilized ... and further down where we talk about site lightings. At staffs recommendations, we're keeping all of the proposed site lightings at a maximum of 20 foot height. We also added under 1.7, decorative pedestrian scale light fixtures may be used within individual parking and site developments as well. Also down further on site furnishings, we mentioned that we wanted to keep this a little bit open and work with the actual vernacular buildings so we stated the furnishings shall be of the style and color which is characteristic of the adjacent buildings. A variety of styles and colors is encouraged within the PUD. And also finally at the bottom, the introduction of public gardens is encouraged as well. The package of site furnishings that you have show the character of the pedestrian scale or the decorative fixtures that we were thinking about for the project, which obviously has a much nicer character than the standard shoe box fixtures. Then the following is that several pages of various examples of the types of fences that might be used throughout the complex. Both more expensive teak benches, metal benches with scroll work and also a combination of I'll Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 wood and metal and then some of the potential site furnishings for cafe areas and then various embellishments that could be added to the faces of buildings. Also include some things that... and then some examples of some of the... development. First thing I want to do is talk to the landscape plan. You saw a little bit of what Mika had proposed quickly in terms of changes in the northwest portion of the site, and I'll just embellish that a little bit by talking to a couple things. First, in response to your concern for planting and screening along TH 5. We're proposing that the pedestrian pathway along ... and also fill that with plant material. That plant material in that area will probably have to be ornamental scale trees, shrubs and at the very most evergreen trees because there is the NSP right -of -way or easement which runs through this portion of the site so that plant material height will be limited by that easement. Although you can see it will be pretty heavily planted in here, we're trying to keep some views open to the signage on the end of the hotel in here. And also in keeping with that, we're proposing shorter scale ornamental trees up in this portion with the overstory trees on the bottom portion of the hotel. Another thing that has been tossed around with staff is the possibility of making an additional connection around the pond to this side so it can not only come from the east and move through the site this way, but also possibly from the top edge of the pond. In talking with Beth Kunkel, the wetland specialist in our office, she suggested that that would probably need to be in the very most, the boardwalk type of walkway through there. That would begin obviously somewhere in here. Carry through to here. It would really be on the edge of that more open water area and the existing wetland and buffer edge that would be planted through that zone. And that buffer area would carry around this sedimentation pond, up into this corner and then what we're proposing right now is to do a little more manicured lawn edge along the bottom 2/3 of the pond. Mancino: How many white swans will there be in the pond? Dean Olson: As many as we can attract. Depending upon how many decoys we put out there. Also we're proposing a berm up in this area to help screen the parking here, although the view would be sensitive to views to the restaurant or retail ... from the highway corridor. We are closing it off a little bit here. This represents that existing group of trees that we're proposing to save. And of course we need additional buffering along the wetland area. The overstory trees, Mika had shown them on his plan and I'll just reiterate the fact that we are looking at trying to provide as strong boulevard entry to the motel/hotel up in this corner and also that strong pedestrian connection through this area and to the main floor and to main street there. And then I'll show you also an image actually looking across the pond to some - of the buildings which... elevations that manicured edge around here. Bringing in the hedge which we had mentioned last time would be desirable along the top of that lawn area to screen directly behind it. Then coming in with some planter boxes at various areas the facades and then down in this area, a series of steps, actually seat steps down here: plantings within those planted with public flowers, shrubs, that sort of thing. And then vines L'L 7 LJ � I i 1 1 iJ I n LJ 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 on the actual signage here which starts to close that. And then street trees along this edge at the front, it will be spaced slightly wider than, we desired a 30 foot spacing so that we get more open views to the building in that location. And one more piece in large land of character of main street. And as we had in our narrative, we talked about two types of accent paving. One which would be down the center portion of main street, but could actually be the driving surface through here with parking, bituminous, parking on either side and that actual drive lane carries through and hits the promenade street at the front of the pond. And also turns here so really the character of this is so that the accent paving takes over these spaces and creates the town square, center portion of the drive lane and this feature element down here as well. And the curb lines become secondary through this whole area. The second type of accent paving would be primarily pedestrian circulation through the space and along the store fronts and out to this edge and then down out onto here so the ... is here, we have a grade change somewhere through here and also here and we're proposing probably about 18 inches or 20 inches here. Somebody can sit along those edges. At the pond edge but then also I would manicure the lawn edge for whatever we need to accommodate the treatment along the promenade. At the store fronts there's some opportunities that if you look at the pictures that Mika provided, there are a lot of variations on how the actual shop fronts can occur in terms of plantings. Little treatments with canopies and so forth but there are some opportunities with the amount of space that we have in here, of 15 to 16 feet, to come in and either do plantings at the base of shops, or actually take that planting a little bit further out and create actual areas for seating for things like restaurants and so forth. There were some pictures of-tied to the buildings but still had planting at the outer ridge. On these areas, depending on what the ends of the buildings are. For instance if these were cafes or coffee shops, the actual area in here could be open to provide more seating area with tables and umbrellas and so forth. Really sort of inject some color and some character to that simple town square. Or the other option, as I've shown here, is to provide some planter areas. We need a transit shelter at this location, and then also some benches around the outside edges there. I foresee this as being an at grade sort of planter... really the edge of that town square. And keeping actually the plantings and the trees to the other edges of the square... In terms of character, do you have any questions? Mancino: Anybody have any questions? Dean Olson: One area that was brought to my attention today is the resolution of the retaining walls on the eastern side of the site. Mancino: Is there a way to also bring a narration element into the storm water ponds on TH 101? I mean those could be just quite nice. Dean Olson: The edge? 43 u Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Yeah, the edge here that it's a whole other area. Dean Olson: There are areas that I've worked with ... in some of those cases the water quality created, we are fairly deep so we would have the opportunity to do that. The pond out front right now, I think we're proposing about 4 foot dredging for that area so it'd be about 4 foot deep. Aanenson: We've been talking about that one with him too ... revised. We've talked about making those and get a future. The opportunities ... rather than make it just a pond. Mancino: We kind of reflect that the pond would be another main street. Aanenson: ...buildings along that edge. Take that water out and make it an enhancement where you've got the treatment ponds. Not the wetlands but the treatment ponds and if you see, maybe revise that and put walking out there. It'd be a good place to sit. Again, kind of bringing the public, the furniture and the open space and art or something like that. Take advantage of those opportunities. Dean Olson: I did take some liberties with the pond edges and trying to do some... Mancino: Thank you Dean. Vernelle Clayton: ...I have determined that we can talk a little bit about signs at the same time that we review our response to the conditions of approval. With that... about soccer fields. From the soccer association... Jay Johnson and Randy Koepsell. Jay Johnson: I didn't have anything. We're here just to support it. Vernelle Clayton: Okay... building preparation and... Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a member of the Building Committee and I'm actually here in that capacity as opposed to represent Opus. We talked last week about this ballfield being an important issue to St. Hubert's. I mentioned last week that we had some plans that we were developing to hopefully alleviate some of the concerns and so on and I think we've seen from the Park and Rec meeting last night that there has been some developments in the plans and the Park and Rec supported those plans but I wanted to just take a couple of minutes to maybe explain to the commission why it's important to St. Hubert's. St. Hubert's is growing quite rapidly, along with the rest of Chanhassen. T think as of about the first of year we were over 1,600 families and we were growing by something like a family a day I think it was. Like 350 families in 1995. So we're growing quite rapidly .. 'I L� 1 I 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 along with the rest of Chanhassen. We anticipate within 10 years we'll be about 3,000 families. If you translate families into parishioners, it might be something like 9,000 parishioners and if you translate that into youth, it's maybe 3,000 or 4,000 youth. The school may have some day up to 700 or 800 kids in the day school. An awful lot of people and an awful lot of youth. Clearly one of the reasons we're looking to expand is to expand our programs here has really been lacking. I think it's fairly clear that we need green space. Yes, we've got some green space for recess off of the south of the school and we're also planning a portion of the parking lot be designed and have it used for recess ... or a popular basketball area that could be used for parking ... but I think clearly there's a need for a play area. Efficient play area besides just the recess. We've got a number of soccer teams, ball teams of various sorts and we need some space for that. I wanted to talk a little bit about the why maybe some other locations we felt didn't work. Just as staff has recommended that we look at placing the ballfield up north of the trail, that was clearly the churches first choice. In our first 15 -20 plans that we did had the ballfield north of the trail. And I think that one of the things that we've clearly seen, and you've talked about at the opening of the meeting tonight. One of the big benefits of a PUD in this development is the shared parking. And of all the various plans that we've looked at, placed the ballfield, or a little over 2 acres, a 2 acre ballfield north of the trail. It took up parking and building space is what it comes down to. I think there's been some comment previously that that area north of the trail kind of east of TH 101 and north of the trail is fairly dense as it is. To try to squeeze that 2 acre ballfield into that, clearly something's got to give. That something we think is at least 80 to 100 parking stalls. To eliminate 80 to 100 parking stalls and replace them somewhere else, I think there's several buildings that end up having to drop out. As buildings drop out, again shared parking drops away and it's almost a domino effect and I think it has a very significant impact on the overall effect of what the villages concept is all about. If you're going to put the ballfield in lieu of buildings. So with that we felt that it wasn't viable to place the ballfield north of the trail, much as we'd like to. We just felt it wasn't viable. We are reasonably comfortable with the access. It's 400 to 500 feet away from the other parking lot. Clearly we'd love it to be 2 feet away but we think 500 feet is not an unreasonable distance, particularly since we do have the space within the main property for recess and those types of activities. I want to talk just a little bit about some adjustments that we've made around the plan. We've made a few adjustments to the plan that have been submitted as part of the PUD and in order to mitigate some of it, concerns for putting the ballfields in this location. One of the concerns, one of the bigger concerns has been tree loss and the significant trees and so on and so forth, that the significant trees have been mapped out and the majority of the significant trees are actually, the majority of the significant trees on the west side of the knoll are actually within the Highway 101 right -of -way and will need to be removed in order to construction the new TH 101. There is, I believe only one 12 inch ash that is about this location that this particular plan requires tree removal. What the PUD originally showed is that the ballfield was located basically right along the east property line here and tucked up 45 t Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 ' against the south property line as well. What that would have done was removed the only other significant trees on this knoll, which is on this east bank and there are some nice trees , here. There's a tree, if you look at the significant tree survey, something like 90% of them are box elder and cottonwood and so called weed trees. There are some nice trees along this bank that we think we can save. We're confident can be saved. This is a 36 inch burr oak ' here and a 23 inch burr oak here. A couple of 12 inch red oaks and a number of 12 to 17 inch ask. What we've done is we've moved the ballfield away from this slope and these trees in order to save them. We've also raised the ballfield up in order to deal with the grade change, primarily from these significant trees of 36 inch oak. We're locating the ballfield at approximately the same elevation as this oak tree so we have minimal impact on that oak. In addition to shifting the ballfield in order to save the remaining significant trees, we're also ' proposing that we would construct a landscape buffer by adding additional trees, ornamental trees and deciduous trees and that type to restore a little bit of that natural feel. I know that it's not the same kind of feel as leaving that brushy... because I think the bulk of this is brush I and we've talk about that with staff and Mancino: Called new growth trees. Dave Bangasser: What's that? Mancino: Saplings. New growth, next generation of trees. Dave Bangasser: Right, that are there now and so on. And again I'm not saying that this is going to look like it but it is still going to be open space. Either way it's open space and it won't be exactly the same but maybe there's also some benefits in that I think it may open up ' the views now as you drive down TH 101 and not only be able to see Lake Susan to the west but also see Rice Marsh Lake to the east. That's really all I wanted to indicate. Again it's an important issue to St. Hubert's and either way it's going to be open space. It's going to be green space. I think there are some benefits, not only to St. Hubert's but also we have I think a history of cooperating with the city and other organizations within the city for joint use and things and ... talk about that. Clearly the summertime there's no school, whereas we don't , typically use, we don't anticipate using the ballfield a great deal. I would also think that it's also time when the neighborhood is, the neighborhood kids are out of school and maybe that's a time when there's additional demand for parks in these areas so with that I'll stop what I ' had to say here, unless you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them. Mancino: I just have a couple for staff. Bob this is, this space is 100 % canopy coverage. Generous: Yes. 46 ' L� Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Correct. It's not 80. It's not 70. It's not 60. Generous: Based on my analysis. Mancino: Okay. And there would be, I'm assuming complete grading. There's a 30 foot, 25, 20 foot grading that would need to come out to flatten it. Generous: 20. Of course we haven't seen the revised. They said they had raised this elevation so. Dean Olson: What this plan would do, I think the top of the hill is at 904. What we're anticipating is that it would all be at about 10 feet lower than that so we'd end up with about a 20 foot knoll with closing it. Essentially we'd take the top of the knoll and slide it to the northwest so we're again about halfway up on the knoll. Mancino: My second question is, in the office building that is north of this, right here, is there underground parking underneath this building at this time? Generous: Not on the one story design. When Alternate A would have underground parking. Mancino: This one. If it has residential on the second? Generous: No, that's an instance where we don't have residential above but they increased the office space so they provided some underground parking. Mancino: Okay, so if it goes from one story to two story, the two story Alternate A would include some underground parking. Generous: Correct. Mancino: For the second story. Otherwise, if it's one story it doesn't have any underground parking? Generous: Not as it's shown on the site, master plan. Mancino: I'm just trying to find options of other parking areas. Okay. Any questions for Dave at this point? Conrad: Just to reiterate. There's only one significant tree? !y/ Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 1 Dave Bangasser: This plan that we're proposing, we believe it only will eliminate one 12 inch ash tree. Other than the trees that are already being lost by TH 101. , Mancino: Which are the majority of the significant? Dave Bangasser: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. 1 Vernelle Clayton: ...Next I would like to talk ... we have the AmericInn folks with us ... hour is moving on I'm going to try and do this in a way that you all can focus on their issues before us and... and with that I'd like to move to the requested modifications to conditions of approval and the first item is that we ... is delete conditions 4, 7, 14 and the second bullet at Condition 15 ... soccer field. The next item would be to ... are the ones that relate to the soccer field. , Number 2, we want to accept condition number 6 provided a change is made. One of them was just pointed out by Bob and that was the tying in of the ... Another is, we have a couple others... I wanted to talk a little bit about the AmericInn. The land use that we're proposing and for that we ... The AmericInn is the only building that is proposed to be three stories and so we're proposing the following language, within Sector II the top of the signs shall not ' extend greater than 35 feet above the ground. The reason for that is that the language previously proposed... that the top of signs throughout could not be higher than 20 feet ... after the last meeting that would work ... We also are suggesting that ... tenant/logo signs shall be permitted. That language is already there... There are a lot of reasons why a 30 foot high sign on the top of 30 -35 feet at that location, it is a three story building. It would support that ... This is an important issue for them... We have just committed to putting in some ' landscapings in that area in order to screen the cars that are parking in our parking lot... it's very important to them, and very important to us. And I'd like to... Truman Howell: My name is Truman Howell. Truman Howell Architects. I'm an architect i for the AmericInn project here, and we have brought forward a design for the building with signage at 35 feet above grade which we feel... certainly would not be objectionable sign for this development. We feel that it would be necessary to have the sign in that location, not only because of the steady stream that will be along the Highway 5 access way but also ... we do need the opportunity to have that exposed to traffic coming both ways on TH 5... If there ' are any questions, obviously tonight we're not bringing the site plan for you to review but we do feel that this is a very important part of our project. If there are any questions I could answer. , Mancino: So you're asking for just blanket permission for 35 foot signs? Anywhere in this village development? , 48 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Truman Howell: No ma'am. Only on the building that we're talking about, the motel itself. Mancino: Or in the rest of Section II. Any building that is on the highway. Vernelle Clayton: That is three stories high. Generous: Vernelle has some language. Aanenson: There is a copy of the plan that was passed out. That shows the 35 feet. A sketch plan they gave us tonight. ' Truman Howell: I believe you have a sketch of the... ' Aanenson: Just to give you some background of where the staff. Truman Howell: ...towards Highway 5... questioning the height for the obvious reasons that you saw on the landscape plan. That's a fairly heavily treed area, and will continue to be, as well as the berming which we have not seen... Mancino: So that decision can also be made at site plan review. Aanenson: Well I guess that's the question. There's two issues. First of all we said there ' would be no pylon signs. They wanted a pylon sign. The second issue that we said, they don't have the channelized letters so they came back and said, well that doesn't work for us so they want to take what would have been the pylon sign to put it on the building. Okay, so it's not channelized letters so there's kind of two issues that we... 1 Truman Howell: It's primarily a logo. If you've seen any of...that is the logo for AmericInn. Aanenson: As I was saying, the concern that we have is, once you put one on there, whether it's a logo or not, what's to prevent somebody else? Now beyond the height issue is somebody else doing the same, we were trying to go to the channelized letter. So I guess our concern was when we looked at this is that, if we put it go on this one, then there was ' pressure for some of the other uses that may come in under corporate or have the visibility issue along TH 101 that they want the same. So I guess we need, if it could be integrated into the, somehow that we felt okay, this would be the one, again along this sector, if it's ' integrated. I mean it talks about height here but that doesn't mean you can't have other ones integrated the same way, and our objective was to have as many channelized, have all channelized. So if you are going to do something, we need to be specific on this because this ' is the PUD standards for the whole thing, and that's why they're here right now because once ' 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 you address these as they move their way through, these become the standards for all them so the way it was written here reflects separate too but if you have issues about that specific building or buildings within Sector II or how you can be specific as you feel you need to be regarding that. Mancino: Well, okay. Any other questions for Truman at this time? Ladd? Any questions of Truman? Joyce: Can we take it on a site by site basis or is that what you're saying we can't do, right? Generous: This is the standards. Aanenson: Right. Then what have we got? I guess that's what we're trying to say. There's some architectural uniformity here and that we have kind of put one in place but then we're saying the first person in the door, it isn't going to meet their needs so here we are. Mancino: But as we've always discussed, signs have a lot to do with color. Has a lot to do with the garishness. How big it is, etc, so all of that plays an important part to just do a master and say yes or no at 20 feet or at 35 feet. A lot of it depends on the design of the sign and how it works in with the building architecturally. So that's why it's very hard to sit up here right now and just do a blanket yes or no. Aanenson: Right. I guess our concern is, if you take this off, right now it doesn't allow for that anywhere else. There's no, that doesn't allow. We made a special provision for Sector II. Some other sort of sign treatment because of their needs. So if you don't put that in there, you'd have to amend the development contract. Mancino: Is there any other way to have some flexibility here? Vernelle Clayton: ...Section II ... 35 feet. Can we say in Sector II the height be determined by site plan approval? Aanenson: That's fine but then you're taking, you have to understand they may not give you 35 feet. They may give you 10. Vernelle Clayton: -- I know but I think that they're more likely to be comfortable to give them the 35 feet ... than they are tonight, not seeing anything... 50 1 M Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Truman Howell: The problem that we have is that visibility, as you know with any motel operation is very important. It is the, especially... it would be the only sign that we are able to use. Mancino: But it also has to fit within the character of the Villages on the Pond and that's what we want to make sure that we don't have an auto related use that sticks out there that does not fit in with the rest of the character of the Villages on the Pond and there's no way that we can be, that I could approve it without knowing that. Without seeing the architecture of the whole building. I don't know, are there any comments? ' Peterson: Right now we're discussing the same exact thing. The impression that this rough draft gives doesn't fit with the ambience that ... has been presenting for the last few months. So that's my first impression. My first impression. I won't speak for Ladd but my first impression is that the height doesn't bother me as much as potentially as the sign size and character fits into, or doesn't fit into it. F1 Aanenson: If we leave it the way it's written right here, in the before. Within Section II architecturally building integrated panel signs may be permitted. If you want to put some caveat, and I could check with the attorneys... but this says depending on how it architecturally relates to the building scale, whatever other things we want to put... Vernelle Clayton: ...without the height because otherwise we will have to ... higher signage. Mancino: No, you're saying we won't have to. We'll make sure that we have that flexibility. Truman Howell: Well obviously it's... Mancino: Well I think you're hearing our reservations. Truman Howell: Yes I hear them. Vernelle Clayton: ...The signs, the reference to the sign changes are attached to the list of requested modifications. It'd probably be a good idea just to move right into them. They relate to paragraph 2(d). Mancino: I'm sorry Vernelle, where are you? Vernelle Clayton: On the sheet here that says requested modifications to conditions of approval. I discussed item number 1 and we are... discuss item number 2(d). All the sign comments attached on the attached page. 51 F, Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Vernelle Clayton: I'm still, Kate, are you going to look at paragraph...? Aanenson: Yeah, we're going to take that out and leave it the way it's written in the development contract. And changing the language as per City Attorney. Vernelle Clayton: Right. Okay. There is one change in that area which, if you look at the underlined language on the second line from the bottom ... we need to have something in there for your sign. Then in Sector III, one sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed on streetscape walls. However, the top of the signs shall not extend greater than 8 feet above the ground. I thought... probably as high as you would want and what we wanted to accomplish here was interpretation of what constitutes a wall, when we're talking about wall signs. Within here... pursuant to the negotiations that we had with them, in an effort to bring our building closer to the street... it's not flat, although they have made a ... so we've recommended that they have some street walls constructed which ... bring it up to the street and also the... That then would be the wall that we're referring to that we want to fit the definition of a wall sign. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: We also submit they'll probably put something on there like church service hours and that sort of thing. I mean that's a given ... there may be some sort of...changeable copy. I think that's kind of accepted with... But we want it architecturally. Mancino: But we need to look at it architecturally ... fits in. Aanenson: Yes... Bulletin board. Vernelle Clayton: Number two of the existing language. Randy Herman, we talked with Randy and he said given the look that we want to see and the pictures we've all seen of signage, the existing language fits what we think we're trying to do and he said I would really recommend that you ... want to do and this is the list that he provided. One would be exposed neon and then he recommended fibre optics because that's kind of the thing of the future. Open channel with exposed neon. Channel letters with acrylic face. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted). Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. Do you want us to, are you comfortable with that or do you want us to add ... We talked about that we didn't want spotlights. 52 L s i Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Generous: Yeah. There might be some instances where you might want it up lit. I think that would be a function of the site plan review. Mancino: Yeah, I was just going to ask, are we getting too specific here? Generous: Well this is pretty flexible. There's five different choices. Aanenson: I guess they want to make sure that we're using the correct jargon for the lighting industry. I guess that's the direction, that's fine. Mancino: Okay. So you don't have any problem with that? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Anyone on the commission? Conrad: I'm getting a little confused. Mancino: Me too. Aanenson: These are different types of individual letters. We're saying that they're not all going to be brass with a light behind it. There's different options. These are the different ones. Using the correct terminology for lighting. Conrad: Yeah, and I do like the flexibility but it's terribly difficult. Mancino: I don't know what they are. Aanenson: Right. Well that's part of Mancino: I mean I can't say yes to this list. I don't know what they are. Aanenson: Well that's part of what the design book's going to do. I mean for example. Were we happy with the, you know instead of having it inset, or excuse me, individual letters. The inset we had with Capelli. You know the carve into the stone. Mancino: Yes. 53 Planning Commission Meeting e July 24, 1996 1 Aanenson: Right, exactly. So we're saying there's different approaches to it and this covers all that. We've gone through it with them. Looked at all the different designs. They've just got the different terminology on there. Mancino: Okay. I just, we just want to have flexibility also to say that it architecturally, I design wise has to be right. Aanenson: And we believe we've got that. Right. We don't want them all to be the same. We want some variety, depending what the building is. Vernelle Clayton: I think we're all comfortable... there are other areas ... we're comfortable. Do , you want me to go through a, b, c, d and kind of explain what I understand it to be? Or are you comfortable? Mancino: No, but I do think that we need to come in for individual site. I mean you will need to bring examples of what that is. Generous: You'll get a booklet and have the colors. I mean if it's going to be neon, etc. Down to detail and that we do have the ability to say, no or smaller or. , Vernelle Clayton: Otherwise... Sector II, that's part of what we're keeping... Any questions on that? i what work far language. Aanenson: That's still a maybe, depending on at we wo out as a as a wage. Vernelle Clayton: Right. ' Peterson: You're responding to which one Kate? Aanenson: Right underneath, Sector II. Integrated panels may be permitted. That's going to say you're going to look at the architecture. How it relates to the building, and we're going to put some other criteria in there that gives you that flexibility to say yeah, it works here at this height or it doesn't. Vernelle Clayton: Well I should point out Kate, that's not new language. What I'm pointing out here is a change... Aanenson: But it says shall. Shall be permitted. Vernelle Clayton: Would be may...? 54 J Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Aanenson: Yes. I Vernelle Clayton: Oh, okay. Mancino: So we'll keep it with may. Vernelle Clayton: Alright. Number 3. The change that we're recommending there... earlier ' when we went through this before and just adding at the end ... 15% of the sign area, to add logos. In some cases the whole sign is their logo and so we had to add unless the logo is the sign ... awning signs... 12 inches high and building architecture. I think that... ' Mancino: When you say awning signs, you just mean silk screen lettering on the awning. Vernelle Clayton: Yeah. Mancino: On the fabric. ' Vernelle Clayton: ...yes. ' Mancino: Vernelle, one of my conditions or one of the things I wanted to change in this area is on (1). Is 1 under signage, excuse me. And that is in the middle, 1, 2, 3. The fourth sentence on page 22. Or I'm sorry, 1. It's getting late. Number 1 under signage. About the project identification sign with a maximum height of 28 feet. Again, I think the ordinance is 20 feet and I want to be able to, once the signage comes in, a drawing of it, etc, once we see it in scale with the other buildings in that Sector 11, I don't want to say 28 feet right now, yes. I want to have the flexibility that when it comes in that we can discuss the height. So I'm not saying yes or no. Aanenson: Maximum height of 20 feet. It may be allowed to go higher is architecturally compatible as approved by the Planning Commission. Mancino: Exactly. I mean we haven't seen the sign. We don't know what it looks like. We have no detail. ' Vernelle Clayton: ...we need to show that it's compatible with... We may not be able to show that.., Aanenson: It's just a matter of showing us the materials and how it's going to be done, sure. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: And some relationship to the trees and the plantings. Just so we get a realistic. I mean we've only seen renderings but. Vernelle Clayton: Do you have any other questions of Truman...? Bob are you? Generous: Yeah, address the window signage. Vernelle Clayton: No, I didn't address that because we didn't have any. Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that Vernelle on page 24? The 25 %? Vernelle Clayton: I was a little uncomfortable the first time I read it and I hope that it's not subject to misinterpretation because I do hope that we can have a whole window that has the neat lettering like...Amish Quilts start at $19.95... I hope that's the interpretation. Generous: Yes. Vernelle Clayton: Okay. Mancino: And you're fine with the second about the garishness and the neon paint and, okay. Any other questions or comments of Vernelle at this point on the signage? Okay. Vernelle Clayton: We're now moving away from signage but still in number 2 where it's condition number 6. We agree to, this is now we're getting back to, there are standards that are referenced. On page 19. The highlighted material in paragraph (e)(2). As of the four materials... the intent and concerning vinyl siding for residential, if that would ... the residential portion above the retail, which we would like to have a wooded kind of look in some cases be allowed to use vinyl. That they, not ... because it's more expensive than what ... but rather on that...particularly when they end up someplace ... so that's the reason for I think the vinyl siding, the option for vinyl siding. Again, not for all of them but... Mancino: I think that our concerns were two fold. Number one, on the western side of TH 101 where it is all residential, that that not be a three -four story building completely vinyl sided. And two, that the upper portions in the core downtown area, core main street area, not be, those two and three stories, not be completely vinyl sided but have some other materials with it. To give it the flavor and the variation that we're looking for. Vernelle Clayton: ...intent of the materials incorporated... L LI 11 U 56 , Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Brad Johnson: I think we're saying the same thing... Our real concern has been.At's just that we're now seeing that it really holds up. It is cheaper. A lot of cheaper this way... Aanenson: To just change that, vinyl siding in the residential instead of as a support, or with support materials. Brad Johnson: Yeah... Vernelle Clayton: Any discussion on that before we go onto something else? I Mancino: No. r Vernelle Clayton: On page 21, under roof accents ... it would be our interpretation that we be permitted to adding ... not a bad idea to add, and that is that in the area of roof accents, add the following. Accent elements on roofs such as towers, turrets, spires, and that's supposed to be etc., may be higher than the roof heights prescribed. Aanenson: That's already in the code. We just want to make sure it's clear because of the PUD. Those architectural features can go higher. Vernelle Clayton: And condition number 16. This is something I mentioned the other night and took... Final plat approval shall be contingent upon, clarification of the issues relating to the vacation of Great Plains Boulevard, and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. We know there are some ... to resolve those problems and add as much flexibility... Mancino: Okay. Vernelle Clayton: And condition number 23 ... the other night. While we re- designed the northwest corner ... that we might not be able to provide a right -in and right-out ... and we want to put that. That is also something... Aanenson: We can't put that in there though I don't think. Can we? t Vernelle Clayton: Well we put it's up to MnDot. Hempel: Could you repeat that? Aanenson: It's up to the traffic study. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Hempel: A combination of MnDot jurisdiction and also the results of the traffic study. Aanenson: So we understand the issue that you want the ability to have it but we're saying that's contingent upon the City's review of the traffic study and ... If you want to enhance it just say subject to MnDot and City approval. Vernelle Clayton: Okay. Alright. Then condition number 41. Again, something that happened the other night... provided there is in place an agreement that the City will turn back the portion of existing 101 which the future 101 will replace. Dedicate... Hempel: Point of clarification... Mancino: As long as we have the right to do it. Vernelle Clayton: Number 49. We really want that condition deleted. That's pretty scary. A pretty scary thought for a number of reasons. Generous: 48? Vernelle Clayton: 48. You don't have a 49. Aanenson: That's really scary. Vernelle Clayton: ...present Council members but I just certainly don't have a clue who might be on the Council 5 years from now and, or the Wards and St. Hubert's and ... and all the folks that have ... between now and next year there will be many, several million dollars spent on this and to do that based on a change of heart of a Council in 5 years is really scary. I don't think that's what you're looking for. I think what you're looking for is probably is a chance to review... wouldn't have an objection I don't think if you want that language ... but if we can get financing, I don't think we could get people to buy. I don't know if St. Hubert's would want to be out there if they thought in 5 years the entire concept could change. I don't think anybody would buy for example one of these sites up on the pond if they thought, or certainly not down on the lower portion down in here, if they thought this part was not ... could be changed to office warehouse. I mean it's something that was ... and I don't think that's what was intended. Mancino: Well one of the discussions that was around this was when we got together, the Planning Commission and the City Council, it was about a year ago and we were looking at subdivisions that had PUD contracts from 10 years ago. That we were kind of stilt stuck with and there were some things that we wanted to add to it that we weren't able to. And so the 670.1 J C 1 J 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 suggestion was brought up, we should have some sort of a sunset so that we can add some ' conditions, whether it's in the environmental area because now we're doing wetlands differently, etc. Some of them have such a long life that 10 or 12 years later you look at what you thought was a good at that time, and when things weren't built out and it took them 12 years to build out, we didn't want to have, we wanted the options. The city wanted more options. That's how it came up to a discussion item. Vernelle Clayton: Without having thought this out however, one of the things we're trying to accomplish here ... to some extent is something that people can depend on. There usually is something unique about a PUD and we need to be able to depend on the fact that it's not... Now on the other hand, there are differences between the Market Square PUD or a residential PUD and this specific. This is a mixed use PUD where there's much more reliance on the integration of all the parts. Mancino: And the flexibility. Vernelle Clayton: Correct. So yes, that flexibility has to be there but also as we heard I think in, I don't recall ... is that predictability of what's going to happen to your property and to the property next to you is causing the value to be and the investment, contrary to what it 1 might be on the corner of South Minneapolis... you might end up with a Holiday station down on the corner. You know here you won't have that but if we say it can be changed in 5 years, suddenly you...and who's to say what might be fun and interesting to people in 5 years that certainly wouldn't fit with... And in addition to that, we'll have lots of covenants and restrictions... ' Mancino: Will they be reviewed and updated? ' Vernelle Clayton: You can amend covenants by whatever percentage you put in the By -laws and usually it goes to... r Mancino: Yeah, I agree with that. Any questions from commissioners on those? Or any comments. Conrad: I think it's a tough condition. I wouldn't want to get into a project where you said the rules are going to change in 5 years. If we can think of something better, more appropriate, or define what we're talking about. I don't know that I could do it right now. Aanenson: Bob can. Mancino: Okay, Bob. You're on. 59 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 1 Generous: I did, well we might make it onerous on the developer that the developer shall 5 years after the final approval of the plat review the development, the status of the ' development. Compliance with conditions of approval and the development design standards and conditions of approval and may, in conjunction with the city revise the standards and conditions. ' Brad Johnson: I don't think the developer can do that. The owners can. You've got to remember, it's all... ' Generous: Yeah but then, are they assignees? As an association. Brad Johnson: I think you're into an area that... unless we have some legal document that ' would hold them on forever. Think about the townhome project... This is just an association. The Rottlund project... Are you changing anything in there right now? Everybody's moved in. I don't know how we'd do it. I know they ... it's multiple buildings ... I just don't know how you can say, let's say the City Council decides somebody owns 5 acres in here and the City Council says I don't like the plan. I'd like to build a big box ... and the City Council at that time says fine. What does that mean to the other owners? I don't know how to do it. Aanenson: Well we've got the reverse concern though too. They come in and want to change something themselves. I mean that can happen too. Brad Johnson: Yeah we can change. We can always come in to change things. Mancino: It's one sided. ' Aanenson: Yeah. Mancino: Because that's what we found out with these other PUD contracts. We're about to ' get a new tree preservation ordinance. Aanenson: The development contract is ... at any time, it's recorded and the development ' contract can be amended at any time. Whether, if they're selling off the property. An owner comes in, can ask for it to have that piece of property rezoned. The development contract ' amended. That's a rezoning. That can be done at any time. They have that right to do that. Mancino: They have that right to do that. Aanenson: To ask for it, yeah. An amendment to the development contract, you bet. 60 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: And I'm just saying on the other side of the foot, as a business person, I mean the city needs these options too. As I said, when we had our old PUD ordinance and we have a new tree preservation and we couldn't put it in because the PUD ordinance, or the PUD contract was set in place in 1986. ' Brad Johnson: What you have to do is go to your law office and say, is this legal? Or is it... I mean there is an area where you've got property rights and all kinds of stuff. There's a lot ' of reasons the city can't ... after they approved it the first time. But I don't know. Aanenson: Sure, you could go back and rezone it. The City could. Mancino: Okay. Is that something you could have just Roger review and look at? Leave it out for now and if it needs to come up. ' Aanenson: We can talk about it at Council... Mancino: Yeah, because I know there was one of the Council members who did bring it up. Okay. Is that it? ' Vernelle Clayton: I think so. Oh I'm sorry, Dave asked... Dave Bangasser: The roof issue came up here earlier and I was asking Mika what it all meant and part of that ... if the church and schools were going to have 50% sloped roof. Is that the way it's written now? ' Mika Milo: ...current design of the church and school... ' Dave Bangasser: What our intent is, by the way is that the first—beyond that, the school and the gymnasium and the office portion, if you know, administration offices would be proposed to be a flat roof. We do have a number of areas that have an eyebrow along the top of the ' roof line that projects out about 4 feet and slopes down as to kind of highlight it but... Our intent was that I think... ' Mika Milo: The slope roof is mainly meant for the residential portion. Aanenson: And the commercial. It wasn't just for residential. What Sector is that? Generous: That's Sector III. ' Peterson: What page are you on? 61 Planning Commission Meeting s July 24, 1996 Generous: Page 20. Mancino: Page 20, number 11. Aanenson: Yeah, the church is in Sector III. Mancino: It says a minimum of 50% of the roof area shall be sloped. Aanenson: Are they attached? Mancino: The church and the school? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Dave, if they're attached, would you say 50% if they're attached? Mancino: The church and the school. Dave Bangasser: Well they are... Aanenson: I know but ... 50% if both buildings, if the units are attached. Dave Bangasser: Sorry, I can't answer that question... We're about a third right now. But again in addition to that we cannot, the intent of a sloped roof is to provide some ... slope roof on the church has the eyebrow in several locations. Vernelle Clayton: Well we're...is there some language we can use here similar to that? Mancino: What is staffs recommendation? Aanenson: Do you want to just take everybody. Mancino: No, there have to be some guidelines. Aanenson: Well yeah. That's our point. Yeah. Dave Bangasser: Can you see what we're looking at... Aanenson: Sure, yeah. Yeah, I do. 62 C Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Vernelle Clayton: Why don't we just say that the ... in Sector III. Mancino: And that's the only building? Generous: That's the only building. Mancino: Okay. I haven't seen it. I don't know what to say. Aanenson: We'll call it the St. Hubert's special... Mancino: Okay. Anything else, because I think this is going to take a while. Any other comments? Vernelle Clayton: I have none. Thank you for your time. Oh I guess I should really say thank you also to staff and all of you and all of the time that you have spent... preparing for all this and all the time staff has spent. And we're not done. You guys have ... but we really enjoyed all the cooperation. It's a great project to work on. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. I am going to not open this for a public hearing. Well first of all, is ' there anyone here who wanted to say something at the public hearing? That wasn't here the last meeting. Seeing none, I will go ahead for commissioners comments. With the addition, the comments of adding modification of the conditions of approval. Obviously the comments for the soccer field, I think is one of the bigger ones. And any other comments that you would like to make. Craig. I Peterson: Again in reality I think we've hashed through a lot of the issues. I think the predominant one left is the soccer field. The issues that I had last week, I think have been adequately addressed and if you recall my comments on the soccer field last time is that I wasn't negative if we could make the transition somewhat reasonable so it's not a stark field. I think the idea of bringing the elevation up a little bit. Moving the soccer field towards the road so you save some of the trees. That further alleviates any concerns that I might have had before so I stand in favor of leaving the soccer field there. Ideally I'd like to have that left a wooded area to fit with the original intent of some transition areas. But I also don't see that it fits logically anywhere else. At least in my humble opinion. I think all the other modifications that have been talked about tonight are reasonable. My other big concern about parking I think Bob has done a great job in really addressing that, and I'm still concerned but I'm less concerned than I was last week. It still has the feel of a lot of parking but as staff has reviewed, we need to look at each plan that comes forth and address that. I think we can do that effectively. So all and all it's been a long and at times tiring road but I think that we are, in my mind, there and I'm ready to move ahead and say yes. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I agree with most of what Craig just said. A couple quick points. Has staff reviewed the landscape for the soccer field prior? Have you seen what was presented prior to tonight? Aanenson: No. But we'll see it with the site plan that St. Hubert's has already submitted. You'll be seeing that on the 26th. 7th. Mancino: Of August? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Yeah, we're not meeting again in a couple days are we? Mancino: Next month. Conrad: Over flow from Pond 2000, where does that go? Hempel: I'll double check with Pond 2000. Conrad: That's the main one. That's our reflecting pool, as Kate likes to call it. Hempel: That would flow easterly... along Highway 5 ... towards Rice Marsh. Conrad: Okay. That 35 foot standard on signage, height wise. Was that standard set from the sign ordinance? Is that where we picked that up or did we just make it up? Generous: We just. Conrad: Pulled it, okay. Generous: Technically it's, for wall signs it's the building height which would be 40 feet... Conrad: I like a lot of the things I heard tonight. It's terribly confusing. You know you - guys are working with it and for us to come in, even though we worked with it for months, it's still confusing so it's tough to get really into the nits and nats on this. It's almost, want to just say hey, get it out of here. Which we'll hopefully do but a couple issues I think have to happen, and I guess Kate has just said they will. I've struggled with the soccer field and both, one way another and once I saw the relocation and the impact of trees being minimized, I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 my only concern was putting it down, and also seeing how Highway 101 has just taken care ' of the bulk of the real big trees. It makes it a little bit easier to go with what's recommended. What I really want to do, and we will get that option. We personally, if we approve this, is when it comes back in, I want to make sure that that is all in sync with the surroundings in terms of landscaping. I want to see it fit in the area. I don't want to just see it stand out. I'm still terribly concerned with parking and access. I think we've all identified all the problems. On the other hand, I'm not sure that we can't make it a place where people can... ' and use the natural features down there. So I can structure it so it's agreeable to some degree, but that does mean that a landscape plan for that area. The other issues, the Park and Rec comments I think should be incorporated into our motion tonight, if we agree with what they ' are. Again, the trail connectivity is something I really believe has got to be there. This is the right place to have it so that has to be there, and I think that's in the Park and Rec comments. I like the boardwalk idea. That's cool. That solves my problem with Pond 2000. I think it ' will give us a chance to be a little bit more polished around the area where there's more people and within the ... itself But then also, it's sort of a transition area to the natural, and I think that's what Kate and Bob have been pushing for and I think it makes some sense to me. Again I need a good landscape plan for that area. I just have to have those two things. So landscape plan for that area. Landscape plan for the soccer field are probably taking care of the needs that I have. Terrific job to reduce the parking Bob, and that's just great. And then ' I think that's it. That's all my comments. The rest of them are real nitty gritty and they, I get lost on some of the issues and it's, like I don't know how to deal with number 48. I ' understand what we want to do. I also understand the applicant saying hey, I don't want it there and I think it could be a deal killing and so I think 48's got to be ripped out of there. But on the other hand, I also know that it's such a huge project it would be of interest to ' review some of the conditions. I open up my mouth and I don't know where I'm going on that one so I'm going, I've got to just stop. It's a tough issue to get into. It could kill something out there and I'm not sure we want to do it with that section. ' Mancino: I'm going to take a minute and just challenge you on one thing, being the environmental, or having concerns about some of the environmental issues and that is, under the PUD, the intent of the PUD is the preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space. So where are we doing this on this PUD? And how are you thinking that through? ' Conrad: That's a real good point and I think staff has got to battle with that and they've got to justify this and we do too. To be real honest with you, when we do the PUD, about the only thing we can ever negotiate is protecting the natural area. Seriously, because we're not smart enough or visionary enough to do something else. So protecting the natural features is - a real easy one to put into our PUD ordinance and say that's what we're going to do. We're going to protect an extra 12 square feet of this or that and therefore, in my mind, this is a ' classic PUD and I guess I'm not trying to save the natural features with this PUD. That's the 65 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 least of my concerns on this project. Therefore, it's a valid question. I'm maybe not living up to what our ordinance says but I'm also saying that ordinance wasn't wise enough or visionary enough to be looking for other elements in the PUD that we want. So on this one what we're getting is a whole lot of other things. I think we're trying to get affordable housing. We're trying to get a mix of rental housing. There are a lot of things that are worked in here so, it was never an issue for me to try to figure out whether this met the PUD ordinance or not. Mancino: Until this one? Conrad: I think we have to justify it Nancy. We have to justify this meeting the intent of the ordinance but to tell you the truth, in this particular case, the natural features of the land is really not what we're getting. We are... Mancino: Other things are outlined. Conrad: We are doing other things and therefore in my mind I'm, I think we have to document and justify why we're doing stuff so we don't set a precedent for other areas. But on the other hand to start applying some rules to this one where that's not really what our intent is. If we wanted to plant natural habitat, this would be not the area that I'd be trying to focus our attention on. Plus, take a look at, we could talk for a while on this. Take a look at what it looks like out there with that pond, my favorite Pond 2000. It's not a very attractive thing right now. It is, it is less than anything. So I tell you, to justify the improvement we're going to get as a holding basin, as an attractive element to the city, real easy for me to justify that. But again what I challenged everybody to do is say what does it look like and let's make sure it looks appropriate in the long run, and that's really what I have great concerns with. I love natural. I love wetlands. I'm just not sure that they maintain themselves in a setting with, in a commercial setting. They can look ugly. Mancino: No, but thank you. I appreciate that because I think that's very important in our PUD. Whether or not we're following that intent. Thanks. Bob. Skubic: I was going to discuss the soccer field. I certainly don't favor it south of the trail, but it seems inevitable that that's where it's going to end up. The Park Commission voted for it. 4 out of 5 members. St. Hubert's Building Committee favors it... Bob or Kate, is there any possibility, is there any reason why that all could fit north of the trail? What's your opinion on that? Aanenson: We always thought there wasn't, I think at this point ... we rest. Let's put it that way. W r F � u J I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Skubic: That's what I hear. It seems like everybody is reluctantly say it's going to go south of the trail. And I think as Dave eluded to, the justification made for that in terms of tree preservation. I had not heard the same arguments for tennis courts on the other side. Canopy coverage there, and I wouldn't be in favor of having... Other than that, I think it's been ' covered... Joyce: I don't have much to add. The one thing that bothered me about the development was ' that northwest corner, and I couldn't put my finger on it and through the process we got that resolved and I think it looks great now so I think that was nice. As far as the soccer field, I could take it or leave it. You know if this landscaping plan is what we can do with that, ' that's even better so I'm more in favor of it now than I was last week. And as far as the condition 48. I see this development being oh, something that's just going to be built on and I think it has to be left open. I hate getting lawyers involved in everything that we do in life, ' and I'll just leave it at that. Good job. Congratulations. Mancino: Final comments of mine. First of I want to thank everyone for ... nights and for going in and being more specific and making I know me feel much more comfortable with the design standards and the lighting and the landscaping, etc. so I want to thank you for all that time and a very good presentation. Personally with the soccer field, I'm still a little on ' the fence. I certainly know where the other commissioners are and that is only because I'm not hung up on the environmental preservation. I do think that in many of the European settings where you go have a core village like this, the one thing that I have seen time and time again around them is that they have kept a green open space or a corridor, and especially when it goes from one lake to the next for not only pedestrian people but for wildlife. And ' they do protect that and they do protect it. That's their green corridor and it kind of stops and shows where the development ends and then they have their green space and then where it starts again. So to me I have a high respect for that. I would love to see it work, a win /win ' both ways. Obviously the soccer field could go up north, next closer to the field and the church and I think everybody tonight has said that so. I don't need to say that again but it would be for me the best location so that it's up for the kids to play near the school, etc. ' Other comments. I really, gosh. I think it's going to be hard for us to put a motion together tonight. I think we're going to be having staff help and asking for a few addendums. The only changes that I would like to see made is that the 45, that there be an architectural and ' landscape review committee. Other than that, great, great job. I know that everybody's worked very hard and thank you very much. May I have a motion? Peterson: Madam Chair, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #92 -1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/Industrial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density, ' to Mixed Use Commercial /High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary 67 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Planned Unit Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial /office buildings; 100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right -of -way, Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right -of -way and easements, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to the conditions 1 through 49, and I'll take a stab at trying walk through some of the additions and deletions. I would offer that we delete, per staff recommendations items number 4, 7, 14 and I believe the second bullet was agreed to on condition number 15. Is that correct staff? Aanenson: Yep. Peterson: That condition number 6. Aanenson: Can we just put as modified? Peterson: As modified by the attached. Aanenson: We've got those all in writing from Vernelle as we've corrected those. Peterson: As modified by the appropriate documents provided by the applicant, including deletion of item number 48. And item number 45 to include that item be subject to architectural and landscape committee approval. I guess Kate if you're comfortable with that and you've got everything down. Aanenson: We need 42. Park and Rec. If you want to put 42. Generous: Revised to incorporate the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations. Peterson: Item 42 would incorporate the recommendations also submitted by staff. Mancino: And on number 40, the first sentence be deleted. Peterson: Item 40, yeah. Delete the first sentence. Mancino: And 49, that there be a detailed plan for the wetland alteration. Joyce: You had to add 49. " -1 u i Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 Generous: So you can see that plan. Aanenson: Landscape plan for the, actually for the soccer field and... Peterson: Creation of a formal landscape plan for both the wetland alterations and the soccer field. Aanenson: We need modification of 43 also. Unless setbacks can be met from current TH 101. Number 43. What we're saying is, the new TH 101 is outside of the ... TH 101. Until that's vacated, he can't put a building there so we just need that clarification. Peterson: Correct. And I think as the applicant presented. Mancino: And 48 be. Aanenson: We could delete that one. Peterson: Also note on item number 4 from the applicant that we accept their revision but it would be subject to City and MnDot approval. Mancino: Craig, on point number 15. The second bullet point. To delete the soccer and tennis courts. Did you mean tennis courts or? Peterson: We had noted that would be deleted, yes. Mancino: So it's both, okay? Skubic: I'd like to retain the tennis courts. Aanenson: Okay, just soccer. Peterson: I concur with that. Mancino: And then did you get Bob's on number 19 about the sanitary sewer should be extended? I don't know how the rest of it went. Generous: At the south end of the school to the east property line. Peterson: And also on page 20, item 11. Section III would be altered from 50 to Any other items? I think that covers it. Mle Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 , Mancino: I think we got them all. Is there a second? Joyce: I'll second that. ' Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? I Peteison moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary ' approval of PUD 492 -1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office /Indushial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density, to Mixed Use Commercial /High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary ' Planned Unit Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial /office buildings; , 100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right -of -way, Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on ' site; Vacation of right -of -way and easements, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for- the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to ' the following conditions: 1. Applicant will be required to provide 208 trees as reforestation plantings. Trees are to ' be from the city's Approved Tree List. 2. All future site plans for the Villages on the Pond development will use the conceptual ' landscaping plan as a guide for numbers of placement of landscape plants including trees and shrubs. No individual uses will be allowed to provide less landscaping for the site than what has been included on the master landscaping plan. ' 3. Applicant shall provide a landscaped walkway between individual sites along Highway 5 ' to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping if the buildings are not moved to the foreground of their parking lots. ' 4. Minimum tree removal will be allowed for the tennis courts to the west of Highway 101. No clearings will be allowed for parking spaces. 5. The development shall comply with the development design standards included in the staff report and incorporated herein by reference. ' 6. Grading shall be prohibited in the area between the bluff areas adjacent to Lake Susan. 70 ' I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 7. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 foot intervals and fire hydrants shall be located at major intersections. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are known and how buildings are positioned on property. 8. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. ' 9. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire Marshall will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing. 10. The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. ' 11. Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 429 -1992 will be used as basic ' criteria for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project numbering on more than one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional signage. 12. Final grading plan shall incorporate the following changes: * Provide compatible site grades for the future upgrade of Grandview Road through Lots 8 and 10, Block 1. * Delete tennis courts. * Relocate NURP Basin No. 4 westerly outside of existing Trunk Highway 101 right - of -way. Consider consolidation of NURP Basin No. 3 with NURP Basin No. 4 and oversize NURP Basin No. 4 to accommodate future stormwater runoff south of the ' development. * Adjust grading limits on Lot 2, Block 2 to avoid tree loss. * Phases of grading the development shall be shown. ' * Incorporate fencing with the construction of the 12 foot high retaining wall on Lot 10, Block 1. * Rerouting of Riley Creek shall be developed and approved by the DNR. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 * Revise grades along Trunk Highway 101 for a future trail underneath Trunk Highway 101. * All NURP basins shall be constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 inch at the normal water level for the first one foot of depth or 4:1 side slopes overall. * Add high water levels to all NURP basins and wetlands. * No berming allowed in any public right -of -way. * Maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over City's watermain along Trunk Highway 101. * Include lot lines, lot numbers, block numbers and storm sewers with structure numbers. 13. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon clarification of the issues relating to the vacation of Great Plains Boulevard and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. 14. The lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 15. The City shall assume maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities and wetlands two years after completion of the site improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over ponding areas and wetlands. The easements shall encompass the storm ponds and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right -of -way shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or it's successors. 16. The proposed 8 inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of proposed St. Hubert's Church shall be extended along the secondary access road to the east property line. In addition, sanitary and storm sewer and water service shall be extended to the east property line of the plat through the northerly access road to Grandview Road via Lake Drive and sanitary sewer shall be extended south of the school to the east property line. 17. All sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building services shall be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. As -built construction plans will be required before the City accepts the utilities. 72 r d I Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 18. The existing house of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat is ' recorded and the appropriate demolition permits will be required through the City's Building Department. Existing wells and septic systems on the site shall be abandoned per State Health Codes and City ordinance. 19. The final plat shall dedicate right -of -way for future Grandview Road over the easterly 17 feet of Lots 8 and 10, Block 2 paralleling existing Grandview Road. ' 20. All access points on to Trunk Highway 101 are subject to MnDot and City approval. 21. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm events along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to ' final plat consideration. 22. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $159,206.00 and a water quality fee of $267,323.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing of the ponding facilities and oversizing of trunk sewer after review of the final construction plans and drainage /ponding calculations. The SWMP fees are payable at time of final plat. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private ' and public streets. The applicant and City staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans. 24. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. ' 25. The applicant shall design and construction the street and utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. ' Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. ' 26. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed at the County with final plat documents. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver County Highway Department. 28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 29. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion control fence on the slopes and /or temporary sediment basins. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized on all slopes in excess of 3:1. 30. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 31. The applicant reduce the impacts to Wetland 2000, create a larger on site mitigation area and present a sequencing plan showing reduced impact to affected wetlands. 32. City staff and the applicant shall investigate the origin of Wetland 6000 to determine if this area can be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. 33. Buffer strips shall be provided around Wetland 5000. The buffer strips shall be 10 to 30 feet in width with an average width of 20 feet. 34. The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36 feet wide face -to -face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which accesses Grandview Road within the plat shall be constructed to 32 feet wide, back -to -back with concrete curb and gutter. A temporary cul -de -sac with a 25 foot radius shall be constructed at the end of the public street for Grandview Road. All private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum 26 foot wide drive aisles and built to 7 ton design. 35. Depending on the phasing of the project, Trunk Highway 101 may need to be upgraded to four lanes, as well as turn lanes and traffic signals. This will be further evaluated contingent upon the outcome of the traffic study being reviewed by SRF. The applicant shall incorporate the necessary traffic improvements as recommended by SRF 74 I�� Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 r_ 01 accordingly. Should the traffic signals not be required with the initial phase of development, the applicant will be required to escrow with the City their fair share of ' the cost for future installation. Security shall be a means of a letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. All Trunk Highway 101 improvements shall meet State Aid standards. The applicants responsibility for the traffic signals along Trunk Highway 101 ' shall be 37% of the total cost. A cost sharing agreement between the applicant and the City shall be drafted for the installation of any traffic signals. 36. The applicant shall provide cross - access easements and maintenance agreements for use of the private streets. Cross - access easements should also qualify the secondary access ' road for public use to Grandview Road. 37. The applicant shall also convey to the City a trail easement over Lot 9, Block 1 and ' Outlots B and C once the trail alignment has been approved and constructed. 38. The applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way with the initial ' phase of development in conjunction with an agreement by the city for the vacation of TH 101. ' 39. The application be approved as presented with certain conditions regarding parks and recreation: ' a. The south Rice Marsh Lake trail connection be identified on the plan. b. if the trail along TH 101 south of Rosemount is disturbed during construction, an ' agreement for replacement be coordinated with the applicant. c. There be a joint agreement for future use of the soccer field between the community and St. Hubert's Church. d. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance. 40. Unless setbacks can be maintained for existing TH 101, development of Block 2 is ' contingent upon the upgrade of State Highway 101. 41. The developer shall create a schematic booklet depicting development design standards ' and definitions. 42. The developer shall create and maintain an Architectural and Landscape Review ' Committee to review and approve development and building plans for buildings within the Villages on the Ponds. r_ 01 Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 ' 43. The developer shall work with the city to accomplish city goals for housing, including the provision of "affordable housing ". I 44. The developer and future site users shall be required to incorporate street /plaza furniture, planting boxes, public art, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. within the development I and on individual site plans. 45. The applicant shall prepare a detailed plan for the design of the wetland alterations. 46. The applicant shall provide specific landscaping plan for Wetland 2000 and along TH 5. All voted in favor, except Com -ad who abstained, and the motion caitied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: They did approve the variance for the Hiway 5 Centre. There was some discussion on the signage issue. They did approve the Bluff Creek, Phase II. Approved that wetland alteration permit. And that was it, as far as Planning Commission items. ONGOING ITEMS: Peterson: Where are we at with the car dealership? Aanenson: We get a phone call like once a month. I'm not sure, I haven't talked to them. Someone picked up ... everything along Highway 5 for industrial. We actually thought we'd have that in for the 7th. Somebody else has picked up the Legion site and doing a project on that so we've been busy. Conrad: What's going on the Legion site? Aanenson: Pretty much what you suspect, retail... So the next meeting on the 7th. Mancino: We have 4 interviews. We had 3 tonight. Aanenson: Correct, and I'll start those at 7:00 so we've noticed the public hearings "to start at 8:00. We've got a small one lot split. A Sinclair station updating. An antenna, ham radio 76 7 C r r Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996 kind of thing at Hesse Farm. Creekside plat is back on. And then Minnewashta Parkway walk. The church will be on the 21st. Mancino: What's Creekside? Generous: Townhomes at Creekside. Aanenson: It's just north of Stone Creek. The Creekside plat. Generous: It was tabled. Aanenson: It was tabled for the flood plain. They're altering the flood plain. Skubic: The Church at St. Hubert's? Aanenson: Correct. That will be on the 21st of August. Mancino: Okay, move to adjourn the meeting? Peterson moved, Com -ad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion cai-iied. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 77