Loading...
1h. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1995.1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and outlined for the public how a Planning Commission meeting is run. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, Don Mehl, and Ladd Conrad. Craig Peterson arrived after item 1. MEMBERS ABSENT. Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY 1 TWO UNIT STRUCTURE AND 9 EIGHT UNIT STRUCTURES ON 12.34 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND HWY 5. SCENIC ENTERPRISES, INC., AUTUMN RIDGE 2ND ADDITION. ' Public Present: Name Address Derrick Passe 9115 East River Road Robert F. Kopp 2208 Manor Drive Joseph Miller 18133 Cedar, Farmington Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Bob, can you just go over for us the trail system and some of those amenities that are in this subdivision. ' Generous: Of course along Coulter Boulevard the city will be providing a ... Within Autumn Ridge itself the applicant will be providing a trail system from the south and near the Trotters Ridge up to Highway 5 corridor... So they will be building... ' Aanenson: Maybe we just add to that too. Additionally the Park Commission has worked to acquire, some of this property is in the ownership of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy, to acquire that. ' We're working with the Gateway property to eventually have a 100 acre plus passive park in this area so we believe this is a nice amenity with the passive park for this development 1 1k, F-� Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 providing a lot of open space and there will be trails through that. As Bob indicated, it will tie into Trotter's to the south but we also see this being an amenity package to the west as well. Trails around that. Mancino: Okay. And do you see the trees to the north, the existing coniferous trees that are on Highway 5 at this point. When Highway 5, when. When Highway 5 gets widened to four lanes plus I'm assuming some turn lanes, so it will be 5 or 6 lanes at that area. Anyway, are those existing trees, will they still be there or are they in the right -of -way and will MnDot take those down or will those still be used as a buffer? Do we have any idea? Hempel: I believe that those pine trees will be removed as a part of the widening of Trunk Highway 5 some time in the future. We've expressed that concern to the applicant as well and he has increased landscaping in that area as well with berming. There's a natural high berm there right now on the western part of the site which will remain with the site grading of this development. Mancino: And what will be the elevation from Highway 5 when it gets down and traverses. I mean how much berming will the berming do? By the time we- get the new Highway 5 and this subdivision is completed, will you see, how will those? _ Hempel: The preliminary grades are going to maintain at pretty much what's out there today. It's not going to deviate much from the existing center line grade out there but the widening of the road may require some filling in some points. There's a lower depression kind of about the middle of the site up in there which is a natural drainageway ... pick up that drainage when the berm is constructed. Aanenson: As you recall, that was one of the issues that we had when this first came forward when they had the road going along Highway 5. Kind of ..we felt that was, really would be better to try to eliminate that road and provide additional screening and that's how we ended up with a single load. We saw that as an issue that really we need to provide additional screening, berming, landscaping from Highway 5 so we think this plan is superior then to the original one. But that certainly is an issue for widening. Mancino: And do we have a date on that? When we think Highway 5 will be widened? Hempel: The latest we've heard is post 2000 now. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Conrad: Yeah. Impervious surface standard versus real. And the standard Bob is what? 2 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: 70 %. No. Conrad: For this medium density, isn't it... Generous: I have 50 %. I know we've reduced the amount of impervious surface but I didn't check the numbers. Conrad: Yeah, I didn't see it in the staff report. We should have that. Second question, while Kate's looking that up. The 34 points. How does staff administer those 34 points in the recommendations? I've never asked that in all these years. There's 34 points. What is the trigger that says go ahead after all those 34 points, how do you manage that Kate? Aanenson: Well a lot of these will disappear at the time of final plat. You know getting watershed approval. A lot of these things are marching orders in order to achieve final plat. Conrad: Do you do that? Aanenson: Sure. Conrad: So you've got, this is sort of your tickler? Aanenson: Yep. Conrad: Dave comes to you. Aanenson: Yeah. Conrad: You tell him that's taken care of. Point number 7 is taken care of. And Kate you've got this little log that says all these points, and what can't they do before all, what can they do before all 34 points are happening? Aanenson: You can't record the plat generally is how we. Conrad: They can't record it? ' Aanenson: Well there's different ways we can do that. If they've got all the information into us, normally we don't proceed until there's surety in place. If there's escrowing for public improvements, landscaping, that sort of thing but normally you don't issue building permits. M Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad: Do you invite the applicant in and say okay, here we are. Let's go through these 34 points. I want to see... Aanenson: Well that happens after it goes to City Council for final. They receive a letter from us telling them exactly what they need to do in order to receive. Conrad: Okay, so maybe they're not 34 points anymore after City Council. They're down to 32. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Or up to 38. Conrad: Tell me, seriously. I'm real curious. So do you invite the applicant in to your office and you go through that or is it a moving process? Aanenson: It's a moving process. They work between Dave and myself or Bob, if Bob's working on it. Sure. Generally it's done over the phone. Sometimes they have to drop stuff off. Additional information. You work with their engineer. Their architect. Whatever piece of information you're working on. Sometimes it's a bank. Sometimes it's a lawyer. You just work with a lot of different people trying to get all this accomplished. Conrad: So you've got 20, 30, 40 of these in your file. They're all working out at 34 points. Aanenson: Yep, it's a lot of management. Conrad: Is it computerized? Aanenson: We have our's computerized, yeah. Conrad: But the key point though, before the applicant can do anything, the applicant can be moving ahead. I've got to go back to that. Aanenson: You can't do anything. First you have to record the plat. To record the plat there's certain things that have to be accomplished. Generous: Well, they can try to get the outside agency review. Get those processed right away and so those can be resolved by the time you come to final plat. Mancino: Ladd, they escrow $10,000.00 for every point. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad: Every point? Mancino: Every point. And as you go through it, you get your money back. Conrad: So it's not real clear. I guess that's my point. In the process, things can be moving ahead but Kate, you are the administrator of the 34 points? Mancino: Between engineering and planning, sure. Conrad: Okay, so it's shared. Mancino: It's shared. Well some of them, yeah. It depends on, really if it's public improvements, they generally work through engineering but we talk constantly about where the status of these projects are. Sure. Before they get recorded, both departments. Conrad: Before it's recorded. Can you issue a building permit? Hempel: Often these points are reduced and when it comes to final plat approval... ' development contract. Most of these conditions are boiler plate ones... Those are ongoing as the process is going through Planning Commission and City Council and those points are being eliminated as we proceed. By the time we reach final platting, we're down to probably ' half. And what we've done in some instances, to expedite the project if it's late in the season, we would go ahead and allow them to begin site grading once they get final plat approval, and enter into a development contract with the city to provide the necessary security for that. ' That would be the most they could do on the site prior to having the final plat recorded. At that time all these conditions would be either met or some of them remain in there like... ' Conrad: So for a plat to be recorded it requires the city approval? Hempel: That's correct. Aanenson: But it's a dynamic process and you could ut, there are certain thins that people p g p P will be working on. For instance on this. Conrad: Who signs that? Who gives the approval? g g pp Aanenson: Well the City Council does but it's our obligation to make sure those things are followed up on. Conrad: Who signs? Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Aanenson: The plat? The Mayor and the City Manager. But this type of project is more complex because there's more things to negotiate as opposed to a subdivision now because we've said we want to see the mix of colors. So that will take a little bit more negotiation to make sure we've satisfied that requirement. So some of these are. Conrad: The Mayor signs it and then you walk up to the Mayor and say Mayor Don, here's my 34 points and they've done a pretty good job to most of these. Aanenson: And they go up to the City Attorney's office who also reviews them all. Conrad: ...general issue but 34 points is a lot of stuff. Aanenson: It is. Conrad: It just triggered a thought. Back in the old days we used to request the staff to only give us 7 or 8. Aanenson: You know what we did, we cheated. We just combined them and made them bigger. Conrad: I don't mind this because it is a good list. It's a good list. It says this is what you've got to do applicant. I think it's really good. I just didn't know how you administered it. I'm still not sure. The second question though, going back to impervious surface. Generous: The standard is 30% and they're about 27 %. Conrad: And you do measure that before you do what? You're always. Generous: Before we can give it final approval. Aanenson: Yep. Conrad: That's all. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Skubic: I have one. Is the dispersed guest parking included in this plat that we have in front of us. i Li ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: No, it's not in there and on this I tried to put in some ideas of where that could be. There could be a small one up here. Another down in here. One in here and maybe another one over here. They meet the requirements of the code but this was because we know that if they meet it, someone will have 6 cars sometime and they won't have a place for people to be able to park except for on the street so we'd like to have additional parking throughout the site. ' Aanenson: And those private drives are no parking. ' Mancino: And I think when the applicant comes up, we can ask if they're open to doing that. They do meet the ordinance as it stands right now though, for parking spaces. So this is kind o£.. ' Aanenson: I guess our issue is that there's no private stretch... ' Mancino: But they do meet. Mike. Meyer: Bob. Where those roads come up to Highway 5. Those streets go up to Highway 5. ' Why isn't that a cul -de -sac or, I don't really see a turn around. Hempel: The intent there was to try to reduce the overall asphalt surface out there. This type of turn around does meet the Fire Marshal's ... T-bone or a Y type turn around ...sea of asphalt there that you may see looking down from Highway 5. I Mancino: And I think it also allows them, I asked that question earlier. It allows them to also put snow there so that they can just snowplow it to the end and stack snow. ' Hempel: Another advantage, yes. Mancino: Good questions. Is the applicant here? And does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Derrick Passe: My name's Derrick Passe. I'm with Passe Engineering. I'm here as a representative of Scenic Enterprises. Joe Miller and Bob Koppe of Scenic Enterprises are also present. To touch on the 34 points, it is an active process. There were 36 at one point. ' There were 34 points. It went up to 36 but actually we crossed out two of them in the meantime so it's back to 34. And that was as a result of our meeting with the staff. We incorporated the changes that staff had made and they were very effective in reducing the ' amount of grading. Thus disruption to the site and cost to the developer. So it's a win /win situation for everybody. The units are 8 unit buildings. This is a ... that I've placed up here. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 All of the units have 2 car garages so the parking requirement is met. We will be able to provide at least 2 spaces at the end of each of the driveways is a place where, we leave an area for people to back out of the driveway. People always park there so we pave it double wide and make it a little bit longer so you can still get out of the driveway... I guess really if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them but I think Bob's done a good job on helping us through this process and I'm comfortable working with the staff. Mancino: Are there any questions for the applicant from commissioners? Mehl: I have one question. Do you have a view from the, I believe it would be the back side of the buildings as viewed from Galpin? Derrick Passe: As viewed from Galpin. Mancino: It would be the east side. Mehl: Right, the east side. So we could get an idea of what the individual units are going to look like and how they might blend together with respect to the landscaping and the slope of the plan and so on. Derrick Passe: Okay. No, we don't have a view. Our view is, as far as the view. It will be similar as far as this area in here. That's the orientation of these buildings up to Galpin. What won't occur is that with the slope, these units will be lower than Galpin and so you'll be seeing probably the second floor more than the actual patio, which is on the end of all the units. There is a privacy wall that I believe is 3 feet high. Just screening the patio... Does that answer your question? Mehl: Yeah. Actually we're looking at the end of the unit there on Galpin. Derrick Passe: Right. It's the same view as here. There was, staff did ... putting a four unit here and a larger unit here but due to the trees in here, it was decided to put the small unit where we'd be saving the most, the existing trees. There's a lot of existing pine trees in that area. Mancino: I have a question just on architecture. Are there different styles to these? Are the 8 units different than the other units, etc so that not only is there a color difference but there will also be a design difference and design detail difference on the outside of the units? Derrick Passe: The units are made up of two different building types. It's the end unit and interior units and as far as the roof line, the only variation will be between 4 and 6 and 8 unit 8 0 fl 1 fl it ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 buildings. The roof lines will vary. There is a gable in the middle of this building here. ' And a 4 unit would typically be, no that wouldn't. The roof line for a 4 unit is here but then the garages will be in the center of that 4 unit building. Mancino: Do any of them have any different brick work on the outside or different window shapes? Derrick Passe: No, there isn't. We don't have any plans at this point. ' Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Mehl: Those units are, along Galpin are you say below, lower than Galpin. You'd be seeing ' like the upper level. So the slope is sloping downward towards the building. I assume drainage water isn't going to be a problem. ' Derrick Passe: No. There will be a berm. The berm there is at the intersection of Galpin and Coulter Drive which is the proposed frontage road. There's a berm which is going to be approximately 6 feet above Galpin. That berm will be about 12 feet above the unit. So it's ' substantial screening. As we get closer to the intersection on Highway 5 and Galpin, we are limited on the amount of berming we can do due to some vegetation. The units have, at that point, are approximately 4 feet below Galpin Boulevard. The boulevard where the trees are is ' approximately 4 feet higher than Galpin so we still have some, probably 8 foot difference between where the trees are and ground floor of these units. ' Skubic: I'm sorry. I didn't follow what you were saying about providing extra, potential extra parking sites by widening the streets in some areas. Can you clarify that a little bit? Derrick Passe: Okay. At each of these driveways, the driveway is extended past the last individual driveway service. By extending these 20 feet past that driveway, there is this space to park a car. These driveways will be 20 feet wide. You can get two cars parked side ' by side in that area. The only place where it could potentially be a problem is where you don't have another individual driveway parking right here to back up into to get out of your garage. In that case, we can extend this farther past the building so that there is 5 to 10 feet to... ' Skubic: I see, thank you. Conrad: Two quick questions and they may be more towards staff and their report. Minimum street width is 24 feet face to face. What's face to face? Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Hempel: Gutter line to gutter line. Conrad: Ah! That's the old term. There you go. So we have a new term. Hempel: Dave is trying to check you there. Conrad: Ali Dave, that's good. But then the next comment, and I just didn't understand. Some of the driveways are proposed at 20 feet wide. Do I care? It has nothing to do with the width of the street. You're just saying driveways are 20 feet wide. Mancino: The individual driveways are 20 feet, yeah. Hempel: The main thoroughfare and the loop street, those are the wider, 24 foot wide streets. Conrad: Okay. What's the price range of the units? Derrick Passe: I guess the price range for these units, probably $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 per unit. Conrad: 120? Mancino: 120? Joe Miller: I think, I'm Joe Miller. I made the comment, as much as I can get. ...temporarily retired but ... custom builder. We always change walls or windows... so that is kind of our customizing that will be done. But the building could be pre -sold or it might be, something might be changed. If we know that buyers are buying certain things, at certain times, that's what they're looking for... Mancino: No. I like variation. Any other questions? Mehl: Yeah, one more I guess. Maybe directed toward staff. Just looking at it, it looks like a real concentrated area with a lot of things going on and I assume you looked at the roadways and so on between the buildings and so on for access for fire equipment and the corners and this type of thing. Hempel: That's correct. That was one of the revisions from the earlier plan. To make it flow better from a traffic standpoint as well as Fire Marshal standpoint. Mehl: Okay, thanks. 10 C� r� n L� I Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: I think that's it. Thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: If anyone would like to come and give their thoughts on this development, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners, your thoughts. Any conditions that you want to add? Ladd. Conrad: No. I think it's fine. I think staff did a good job. I think the applicant, it looks like the applicant worked with staff. I really don't have anything. And I'm not against the 34 points. I want to make that clear, just as a point. I like those points out there. I like to manage towards those points. That was the reason I brought that up. Not that this was excessive. No other comments. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think staff and the applicant did a commendable job of building in variety and preserving the topography of the plat very well so I don't have any comments. Mancino: Don. Mehl: The prints that I looked at initially here did not show the landscaping and trees to the extent that the applicant shows them here tonight and I had some concerns about it but I like the way that we've worked in trees along Galpin and the adjoining streets and intertwined in the buildings. I think it looks good. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Looks good. Mancino: I think it looks good too. I have one additional kind of issue or core issue I have with it and it really reflects something that the staff report brought out on page 10, under miscellaneous so that I would just like to add something to the conditions, and maybe it is condition 27. That we make sure that when, as we know the future of Highway 5 is going to get widened and it will become closer to this subdivision, and we make sure that we plan ahead for that so that when the noise level goes up because of the widening of TH 5 and it's 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 closer to this development, that we are meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. And I would like to make sure that that is one of the conditions because our staff has put in that MnDot will not participate in constructing any of the noise structures. So I want to make sure that we plan for that. Now this is the first subdivision that we have on Highway 5, residential, and so I think that we do have to be concerned with the future widening of TH 5 and the noise that it's going to bring to residential subdivisions. And that may require provisions of a wall or extra berming. But I would like to have that looked into and investigated now, and not later on when Highway 5 is there. Because I think in future years we will get people who live there who are concerned about that. The other condition that I would like to add would be more around the storm water pond that is going to be in the southwest corner. It's a small condition but when two of the commissioners, when Bob and I went out with staff to review some of the new trail system, etc, and what we've been doing out there as a city, we were on the north part of Rice Marsh Lake and one of the storm water ponds there had used some of native seed mixes in with the pond that was adjacent to the wetland. The existing wetland. And it just worked out wonderfully. It looked like it was part of the wetland and it was by the trail system and really added to it. So I would like to see that where the storm water pond is, that they incorporate a native seed mix into that pond. Those were my only additional concerns or additions I'd like to add. Otherwise I think it's a good development and staff and the applicant have worked together to bring it a long ways so it's really appreciated. Do I have a motion? Conrad: Sure. I say that and then I look at the staffs motion and I'm not sure I'm going to make it. It says the City Council in our motion so we probably will change the staff motion to Planning Commission so, you're just getting ahead of yourself Bob. Or you're promoting us and we don't want that. I'll make the motion as per the staff report with the changes that, instead of City Council, that we substitute the words Planning Commission. With all the 36 points in the staff report and then there will be 3 additional points. No. There will be 2 additional points and then I'm going to wait for a friendly amendment because I don't have a clue what our Chairman said for the first point that she'd like to have so that might be a friendly amendment. So the 36 stand. I'd like to have the staff and applicant also, for point 37, provide an impervious surface computation. Point number 38. That a native seed mix be considered or required where the storm water pond is created. And that's the extent of my motion. Mancino: My friendly amendment would be to add to condition 27. That the applicant also get the necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make sure that with the upgrading of Highway 5, that we will not exceed the noise standards established by those agencies. Knowing that that may require the provision of a wall or extra berming in that area. 12 1 fl I n u Planning ommission Meeting - October 4 1995 g g , Conrad: I'm not sure we're following Robert's Rules here but I think that's a good amendment ' so regardless of how we do it, I sure would accept that as part of the motion as a friendly amendment. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a second to the motion? Meyer: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 12.34 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD (first reading); preliminary plat of Outlot A, Autumn Ridge Addition, creating 94 lots and one outlot for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition; and site plan approval for a residential medium density development consisting of one 2 unit, two 3 unit, two 4 unit structures; one 6 unit structure and nine 8 unit structures subject to the following conditions: 6. 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. 1 13 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure ' that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. Fire hydrant placement shall be subject to review by the Fire Marshal. 2. Must comply with Premises Identification - Policy #29 -1992. Copy attached. Additional address numbers must be installed at entrance of driveways to multi - dwelling units. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. On the main looped road there must be posted on one side "No Parking" signs. Signs must be installed with 75 foot intervals. Submit drawing to Fire Marshal for approval. 4. There are fire hydrants shown on the plan that will need relocating. There are also additional hydrants that must be added. These changes will be addressed and shown on the utility plan. ' 5. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 6. 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. 1 13 F Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 7. Obtain demolition permits for the existing structures on site. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. ' 8. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat , approval. 9. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 10. Trail fees for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition, and retroactively for Autumn Ridge 1st Addition be waived in consideration of trail construction. This trail construction shall be completed per city specifications within an alignment approved by the city. 11. Revise the landscaping plan to provide a more equitable distribution of trees and provide additional groupings of evergreens along the northern project boundary to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens with the widening of Highway 5. Conifer trees shall average seven feet with a minimum height of six feet. 12. 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. 13. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has calculated that the proposed development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $36,592.50 assuming 12.3 acres of developable land. 14. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. The buffer strip for Wetland A shall be 18 to 38 feet wide with an average width of 28 feet. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 15. The developer shall construct and 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within a 20 foot wide trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer. The legal description of the trail easement shall be prepared by the applicant after the trail location has been determined in the field. 14 ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 16. The applicant may commence site grading after final plat approval and the applicant ' entering into the Planning Unit Development Agreement and supplying the city with a financial security to guarantee site grading, erosion control and site restoration. ' 17. A condition shall be placed in the PUD/Development Contract notifying residences that Coulter Boulevard will be extended in the future. 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private streets. The applicant and city staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans. 19. The development plans shall be revised to incorporate staffs revisions to the street and building unit layout (Attachment No. 1) including the following modifications. 20. A native buffer strip 10 feet in width should be maintained around the natural wetland. The required buffer strip adjacent to the natural wetland shall be 18 feet to 38 feet wide with an overall average of 28 feet. ' 21. 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. ' 22. The applicant shall design and construct 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 approval. 23. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents. I 24. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. C 25. 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. The applicant shall also get the necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make sure that with the upgrading of Highway 5 does not exceed the noise standards established by those agencies. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 26. 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. 27. 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 basin. 28. 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. 29. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street alignment for the east /west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State Aid review process. 30. The private streets /driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the city's private driveway ordinance for low and /or medium density zoning. Private driveways shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide (face to face). 31. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 32. The applicant shall provide a plan that assures that the variations is siding colors are in fact implemented. 33. The applicant shall provide dispersed guest parking spaces within the project. 34. The applicant shall provide an impervious surface computation. 35. A native seed mix be considered or required where the storm water pond is created. All voted in favor and the motion carded. (Craig Peterson arrived at this point in the meeting.) 16 ' Planning ommission Meeting - October 4 1995 g g , ' PUBLIC HEARING: A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND ADDMON INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,742 SQUARE FOOT TIRES PLUS FACILITY LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD. ON WEST 79TH STREET. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Mehl: Yeah, I've got a question. If, you know the rest of the two restaurants there and the ' Tires Plus are going to generate a lot of traffic. My concern I guess would be is that roadway going back there, is that adequate to deal with it? I guess the other thing too is that, Tires Plus places I've been to have been very busy. A lot of things going on. And they deal ' with a lot of used and new tires. How are they going to get those in and out of the facility? Back a truck in off of West 79th into the area or is there enough room to maneuver once you get down in their facility. ' Generous: Well they would be able to drive on site. They're actually, I believe their storage area for the used tires is up here where the ramp is so they would be able to pull off and back into that driveway to access that area. As to the specific operation, maybe the applicant can. Mehl: And then all the new tires, if I recall, were on the back wall. If they have problems of trying to get them back there. They need a way to get a truck back into there. I don't see any big doors for access. One thing I noticed on the prints there, there was a gravel surface near the front, left front corner, or right front corner that looked like about 20 x 50. What is ' that? Generous: This area? ' Mehl: No. It was actually little farther, a little lower to the yeah. In that area. Y >Y Generous: I believe that's additional landscaping. It used to be part of the sidewalk when they had the handicap ramp on the eastern edge of the building. But to the revisions and the ' need to shifting the building, they eliminated that space and moved it over right next to the entrance. ' Mehl: Just one other question too I guess. Again... there's going to be a lot of activity and a lot of things going on and I believe the drawing that I saw showed, it must have been 7 or 8 1 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 stalls for working on vehicles. I also assume that there's going to be a big air compressor in there with a lot of impact wrenches and a lot of noise producing things and in the summer time you're likely to have the doors open for ventilation and so on. I wonder, has that been looked at for noise standards and that sort of thing? Generous: Well that's one of the reasons they only have two overhead doors on this building. They really wanted to put all 8 bays with direct drive in and back out on the south elevation and we said that we didn't believe that was appropriate for this area. I haven't gotten into any detail about looking at it as far as other standards for what it would be at the property line. Could we request the applicant, if he has that information, to provide it. Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Thank you. Ron Fiscus: I would be happy to. I'm Ron Fiscus with Yaggy Colby Associates representing Tires Plus. ..for us to give you just a little more background on how far we have come with this project since we first started talking with Todd Gerhardt and Kate about it about a year and a half ago in fact. ...at that point was that Tires Plus had control of a piece of property across 79th Street to the south that had a little bit of developable area and a lot of wetland. The city had a piece of property that had a little bit of wetlands and a lot of developable area so it seemed like a match made in heaven at that point. So we started working with staff to find a way that Tires Plus might be included as a part of this city's redevelopment project. One of the first concerns was the appearance of the building and as we started talking about that there was a Tires Plus project that went into Apple Valley in the area of County 42 and Cedar which last year won the Minnesota Shopping Center Association award for a building in the under 10,000 square feet. As staff had a chance to take a look at that and we supplied them with some photos of that and they said well, that seems to address a lot of the concerns we have. Some of those concerns being, getting the building mass to perform an end point. An end to this piece of property to start screening some of the railroad right -of -way and the area beyond from that Highway 5 and 79th Street corridor. So the building that's proposed on the site, that's shown here, is that Apple Valley building with a couple logistic changes. One is that it has been lengthen by one stall. There are 7 stalls in there to provide more building mass. There's a parapet wall up here that's elevated a little bit above that Apple Valley facility. Once again to get the building up and to get more building mass in there. So we picked up that same clock tower, if you will, feature from the Apple Valley facility and it coincides very nicely with the number of the other building features that you see in the community like the Abra Auto Body. Market Square has that same sort of feature. They pick up again and again with the Chanhassen downtown area. The issues, other issues that 18 1 1 � L Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 we wanted to resolve at that point were the building locations and we recognized that we had to deal with the easement across the back of the property and yet we wanted to bring the showroom around in front so that's the front door to the face to 79th Street. Allowing to minimize the number of overhead doors in compliance with the request of the staff. Goodyear for example has direct access into the parking, into their service stalls. It was thought that on this location that it wasn't the desired goal and both as an appearance concern and a means to control noise, there are two overhead doors instead of seven overhead doors were the direction that we went with. As we've gone through the developing of this process with the HRA and Todd Gerhardt's office and have started working from a zoning approval standpoint, site plan approval standpoint, three other primary issues have come up. One is open space. The 35% open space requirement. That we worked very diligently with the assistance of staff to balance the appearance concern and the operation of the building concern with the need to get as close as we can to that 35% open space. Also recognizing that the limits of that property have essentially been set by the subdivision plat that the HRA has put together. And with Bob's help we have gotten very close to that and appreciate his efforts in that regard. And it is a balancing act between the open space and providing adequate parking. We would like to hold to the 18 stalls that are shown with this revised site plan. 16 is what's required by city code. We had a concern that that may not be enough based on ... experience in other communities with similar facilities. That 18 really fits that facility much better. As I have acted as staff to planning commissions, as I've advised planning commissions on preparation of zoning ordinances in evaluating the proposals from the other side of the fence than I'm speaking to you this evening, one of the things I continually encourage planning commissions to do is look at the reasons for the regulations. Regulations are fine but you also need to look at the reasons behind those and the parking requirements are frequently set as a minimum standard. You want to make sure that there is adequate parking first and foremost. Beyond that, the number of stalls required in your zoning ordinance are a guideline. Well our concern with Tires Plus, adjacent to Applebee's that also, that has a much higher parking demand than the Tires Plus facility. Much higher traffic demand ... is there going to be adequate parking for both of those so that we minimize the need for parking across those property lines, even though there are cross easements in place that will provide for the legality of cross parking. For the most part I think the Tires Plus peak uses will happen at different times than Applebee's, but there is going to be some overlap at peak use times and so we would like to go to the 18 stalls and ask for your concurrence with the staff's evaluation. That that 33 1/2% open space, as it's represented with a lot of landscaping, would satisfy that goal of what you're trying to accomplish from an appearance of open space standpoint. The other item I want to address is that of the roof structure. It was our hope as we worked with staff, with the city administrator's staff early on in the project, that this building facade would be acceptable. Would meet all the requirements of the city. So what I'd like to do is maybe have some dialogue as we get farther into the discussion tonight about that roof situation. I would encourage that this 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 parapet with the clock tower sort of replicates that roof sort of feel. And as I talked with Todd about, where that roof requirement came from. Once again we get back to the reason why. Todd's reaction to that was, one of the primary reasons for starting to look at roofs and requiring those as a design element was that you were tired of looking at the HVAC systems. The air handling units that are frequently roof mounted and dot the landscape on the tops of roofs. There are no rooftop systems with the Tires Plus building...so that's that screening is not a concern because the roof wouldn't be solving that particular purpose there. But we would like to have some dialogue with you about that. We do hope that Tires Plus will be a busy facility but frankly the traffic generated from the Tires Plus is on the very low end of the spectrum as far as the number of trips generated per square foot, even with a very busy store. Our perception is that 79th Street is very adequate to handle the Tires Plus facility. I think the HRA's direction to locate those high traffic generators at the front of the property rather than driving all that heavy traffic through to the side is a very good choice and I'm_ sure 79th Street is adequate to handle that. One other point had to do with the staffs recommendation that there be a grading plan as an overall site utility plan submitted for the project. We have previously... the street and utility plans have been submitted for getting the utilities and the service street into the site: We've been authorized to prepare the overall site grading plan... (There was a short break in the taping of the discussion at this point.) Mehl: ...I guess my question was how you were going to physically do that. I assume drive a truck up the driveway and maneuver it or turn it or something and back in. Ron Fiscus: Sorry, I forgot to answer that. There are two places tires are stored. The new tires are at the back of the building. The used tires are in the ... in this location of the building. So a truck coming in to deliver new tires or pick up used tires has two options. One is to come into this parking lot that is basically vacant and they would do, they would back directly into this area. The other is, and we've looked at the truck turning movements to assure that that is doable. They can come into this location and then back into that space. The door to stock the new tires into the racks is back here and there's a walk. I think it's back into it. One of the earlier concepts showed this, showed a more ample, a larger paved area to provide better opportunity for that. A thought we've had is that in order to reduce the impervious surface, and yet to provide for that truck access back into there, might be to widen this out slightly or to use some landscaping. The paver panels that you can plug grass into that provides a useable surface but no more often than truck traffic comes in there to pick up and deliver. The grass would be allowed to grow in that kind of a surface... opportunity to solve the problem. hill Planning Commission Meeting - October 4; 1995 Mehl: Would you expect truck traffic in there daily or weekly or what would be the frequency? Ron Fiscus: Mike Diamond with Cardinal Development knows a little bit more about the frequency of operations. Mike. Mike Diamond: We are the developers for Tires Plus. I'll have to ask you to forgive my voice tonight... Operationally, typically they bring in a truck once a week. In very busy stores in the Twin Cities it's twice a week deliveries. For incoming. ...recycling is a similar cycle. The used tires that you're speaking of, there is a typical trash that any retail establishment has but the used tires are picked up and Tires Plus is very proud of their environmental programs. They're used as fuel for a paper mill in ... Wisconsin and so they're picked up on a regular basis and taken to that... Mehl: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Any other questions at this point for the applicant? ' Skubic: I guess I have one. The discussion about the air compressors. Where will the air compressors likely be located and air conditioning equipment also? Will it might just be roof mounted? ' Mike Diamond: The air compressors are internally located and are actually back in the same areas of the tire storage at the rear of the store. With it, they have mufflers for the air ' compressors and this sort of thing and they're designed and used with the air conditioning equipment, I'll let Ron address. Ron Fiscus: The facility, customarily the standard Tires Plus facility has overhead doors for each of the stalls and in the service area, the usual means of handling air is to open the door and let the cool air blow into and circulate within the building. In this case, because we have done the internal circulation and we have limited doors, the building is designed frankly to operate more with the doors closed than the doors open and there is beefed up air handling within the service area. The air conditioning unit for the showroom area is located within the building also. So there are no compressors or air handling equipment that would create noise... t Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Thank you very much for your presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. 1 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Commd seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Don. Don, your thoughts. Mehl: Yeah, I'm just putting them together here. Is there a, I wonder is there a physical divider between the two parking lots? They could, can they easily come over and use the restaurants? Mancino: Bob, is there a divider between Applebee's or what's ever will be there? Generous: The line will be approximately on the north side of Applebee's parking lot. There's no berm or median or anything separating the properties. Mancino: So someone could come in and just, if there wasn't anybody in the parking lots, just make a beeline diagonally over to Tires Plus if they wanted to? Generous: Well, sure. Once you made the turn into the aisle. Mancino: Thank you. Mehl: And the other thing I had a question about I guess or a concern about is the entrance into their 18 stall parking lot. Is that wide enough for two cars to pass or is it a single car width? Mancino: Dave, could you address that? When you are in the parking lot on the west side of Tires Plus, can you be coming in and coming out at the same time? Hempel: This would be the drive aisle between the parking stalls and the island should be 24 feet wide which would be adequate for two cars to pass. Mancino: We hope so because that's what we just approved for the last subdivision. 24 feet. Okay. Mehl: That's all I have. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Let me remind commissioners that I think that the applicant would also like to hear some of our positions and comments on the roof. Whether it follows staffs recommendation. Or the applicant would like to keep it as it is. A flat roof. Staff is recommending something else and also on whether they are to comply with the zoning ordinance which would mean that they would have to decrease the parking spaces by 2 to meet the maximum site coverage of 65 %, which is our existing zoning. And they're only off by 428 feet so I just, but if you could also speak to, I think those two. The Highway 5 ordinance. It is an ordinance now. The architectural designs has in it that within this district that there be a pitched roof element on each building and that that is one of the conditions that staff has recommended. So we can come back to you Don as you think about that. Mike? Mancino: Come back to you too. Fine. Bob? Meyer: Why don't you come back to me too. Skubic: Sure. First off on the false front there, I agree with the applicant. That frontal geometry is the same as we see on Market Square but the front on Market Square is also much deeper than that and I think that gives you a much different appearance from the side elevation. I don't know, I personally don't know if a pitched roof along the periphery is something that I would desire but I certainly think something needs to be done with that front portion there in some manner. Make it deeper or make it a little more robust. I appreciate what staff has done to make some provisions for some trees or shrubs in the back side of the building and I certainly hope something can fit in that 4 foot section area to block that off a little bit. The Frontier development immediately to the north I believe is being redeveloped and I think for appearances sake it would be nice to have some trees along the back side of the building there. And the 428 square foot condition here. Man, that's about 1/4 of this room. 20 feet by 20 feet. That isn't a large area. However it does preclude putting shrubs in that area. So there's that trade -off there. But I think that by moving the building forward that 4 feet, that there certainly could be enough landscaping in that area. I don't think that 420 square feet is significant. Those are my opinions. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Two issues. Site plan. Or it's a subdivision and a site plan. Overall it looks nice. I like it. I'm uncomfortable that we weren't given enough for the subdivision. It's like how can I approve something that really wasn't given to me? It's bad. Site plan looks good. I can slip the standards for impervious surface. I need a reason from staff because as you know in this business, if we grant a variance or slip a standard, then the next developer says well you did it there so I need a reason. And we probably can find one because probably 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 overall I'm guessing we can do that. Staff could say landscaping exceed the requirements. I'm comfortable. But a couple things that the applicant didn't do. ...this is not a ranting and raving deal. Really, we do have standards in our Highway 5 deal so that's sort of an absolute. We're doing it. That's, we're doing it. Everybody that comes into Chanhassen does it so. We received these, I see these were dated May 30th. That's a couple months ago so obviously staff has told the applicant about them and they have chose not to give us anything because they probably wanted to do this which is sort of in their corporate direction, which I understand but like Bob, I think those are our rules and I'd like to see what we can do within those rules. We've had some successes and failures. I'd sure like to see that. So again I have a hard time passing this on. I haven't seen a good subdivision plan and the documents that we normally require from anybody building in Chanhassen. And I haven't seen elevations that sort of meet what we're looking for. Signage on this elevation, we don't really allow advertising on the outside of the buildings so, and we've got some things that are wrong, which are easy, real easy to correct so it's not a big deal but it's really not what I'm looking for. But I'll end it. Overall this looks real good. I like the subdivision. It makes, I just like how it works but you haven't given me anything. You haven't given me anything like other people give us when we review this. And I think you're looking for feedback from us in terms of changing your corporate direction and I guess my signal is, yeah. We can probably slip our impervious surface but that sort of bothers me because we've got a huge site here and usually you can, in a bigger site you can usually manage that so, and we'll figure that out so that's not an issue. Signage is an issue so that's got to be worked and roof line's got to be worked but I think Tires Plus is a reputable, real good company. I'd welcome them to Chanhassen even though my comments don't seem like they're very welcoming but I just want some stuff that we really, I just need some other paperwork before I. Mancino: So you'd like to see this back? Conrad: I think so. Again, it's really tough to, it's tough to pass it on when you know I'm sort of looking at the overall subdivision and it's real flimsy here so. I'm not comfortable that we can do it. Mancino: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I think not having been here for the first portion, I'll abstain for my comments. Mancino: Okay. Don, did you want to add? Mehl: I agree with Ladd. I think we have to maintain consistency and follow and work with some of ,the things that have been established along the Highway 5 corridor. So I agree with Ladd's comments. 24 ` r-- LJ u 0 0 I� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Okay, Mike. Meyer: I'm in agreement with Ladd also. There's really nothing additional. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant like to respond please? Ron Fiscus: The two issues that are before you tonight are the subdivision plat and the site plan. The subdivision plat has essentially been out of our control. It's something that the HRA has been working through and we've been asked to provide some more information after receiving the staff report and those things that are within our control, we certainly are rushing to get into place... staff has encouraged. And Todd may want to speak a little bit more to that subdivision issue as he represents the HRA. And the same point with the roof. Although the plans that were submitted are dated back in May, we have been really waiting on getting the staff review until the HRA took action in approving the development agreement. It seemed inappropriate for the staff to spend a lot of time with all the other things that are going on, reviewing the plans until we knew we had an agreement with HRA. So that reaction to those plans has come fairly shortly and so we've been trying to wrestle with the initial reaction to the building that we got from the administrative part of the staff said gee, this looks great. And then wrestling with the different direction we're getting from "planning staff saying, gee it needs some roof. One solution that we'd like to suggest to you that would be in keeping with some of the other roofs that have been acceptable, would be to pick up this line behind the parapet and bring the roof straight back. There would be a standing seam steel roof that would be like Market Square. It could come back to the end of this parapet so it would have a little more, a bit more mass. Or frankly if you'd like, some of the other facilities in the community that have used that have pulled that line clear back through to the back of the building so we would offer either of those two suggestions today that would be very acceptable to Tires Plus as a solution to that roof issue. The signage, we understand the brand signs that are usually placed on the Tires Plus facility in the front would be deleted from this project in order to comply with the city's requirements. We have been scrambling to get through the development agreement with the HRA and to get to the point of being able to get before you in anticipation that we might be able to get under construction yet this fall. The land transfer is scheduled to occur, the first piece of it, sometime after October 23rd. Tires Plus is in the position to move as quickly as you will allow them to, to get under construction this fall so what we would like to do, if at all possible was to address the issues that are outstanding issues tonight in hopes that we might be able to get a recommendation from you so we can be in front of the City Council on the 23rd. As with the roof issue, with the signage issue, with the landscaping issue, we hope that maybe we've addressed those adequately at this point so that you can feel comfortable making a recommendation to the Council. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Thank you very much for responding to that. Now response of how we feel comfortable, what we want to do with this. Do I have a motion? Conrad: A motion for what? Mancino: For what we would like to do. Would we like to table it and see it back again with a new roof line? What do we feel comfortable with at this point as far as the applicant's response? Conrad: Madam Chairman, could I ask. Todd, representing HRA, could I ask you a quick question? Normally when we have a subdivision of a major plat we have traffic. We kind of lay it out. We've got aisles. We've got different elements. We tie them all together. We see where the traffic's going. How they feed the different things. You know if it's a one site plan, then the applicant has total control. I'm getting the feeling the applicant doesn't have total control here. Where do I see the site? The overall site development where we have islands in the roads and where, who's doing that? Is that HRA? Are we asking Tires Plus to do that? I guess I'm a little bit confused Todd. - Mancino: When we'll actually see one and who's going to bring it to us. Gerhardt: Bob, can you put up the overall development? To get this development, if you look at it closely, it can be done in two phases. Where you have Applebee's and Tires Plus here and here, you physically can do that phase first without building the parking lots and landscaping on the second half. We come in with a common driveway along the property line on both sides and when the HRA comes to fruition with two other users, then the overall development would be continued. Staffs taken a look at this and feels comfortable that it can be done in two phases. Am I answering your question? Conrad: No. Well I kind of get it. I know where we're going. I'm just missing, who put this together that we're looking at right there? Is that what you drew? City did that? Gerhardt: City staff is working. Conrad: The city owns all the land Todd, right? Gerhardt: Right. The parking and we sat down and knew that we had a restaurant and that we had Tires Plus and potentially a second restaurant that was interested in coming into Chanhassen. And with that we sat down with planning staff and Barton - Aschman to come up with some concept plans and with those concept plans the planning staff came back with that concept to Planning Commission I think this past summer and showed me this concept and 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 asked for your feedback. Is this something that you can support as a development in Chanhassen? Not looking at details of roofs. Not looking at details of green area but as an overall development. What do you think of this as a vision for this area? And from what I was told, this had a positive feedback from Planning Commission. We accomplished the Highway 5 standards of getting the green area and buildings between the parking lots and Highway 5. Using the buildings to screen the mass parking that would go along with those. Taking the restaurant element with the front lawn theme around the buildings, along West 79th Street and giving you that residential feel. As it goes to the pitched roof elements and the green area and the plat, you know we'll work with the planning staff and Planning Commission on their recommendations if you want to alter property lines to accomplish that. Conrad: Let me interrupt you Todd. My question, and I'm still confused. We got an ' applicant in here that really has a site but we have an overall subdivision. Under the recommendation by the planning staff it said, the applicant should submit a master plan showing entire site plan. Now maybe I've just got some works mixed up here. 11 C Aanenson: Can I answer that question very simply? There's two co- applicants here. If you look on the top. City HRA and Tires Plus. So it should have been made more clear that the HRA is obligated to do that portion. We have contracted with them, as long as they're going first, they're carrying the ball, that they are going to accomplish some of that. The city's doing the wetland portion of that. But yes, they are doing a portion of the plat. It was the city's obligation to provide you a subdivision. What happened is Tires Plus came in in May. they've been waiting for the negotiations. Todd has spent months trying to get the HRA purchase agreements on this property so they've been waiting all this time so they're ready to go. We're behind them. They're ahead of us as far as their time frame. They want to get going. We feel, as Dave indicated, that we feel that, and Bob, that it's a flat piece of property. We can accomplish that. It's just about there. You're right, it's not. We don't have a subdivision in front of you but as Todd indicated too, we did bring that forward to show you the direction. Conrad: Well that's real general, yeah. And we're saying, hey generally we like this. So that's a whole different deal. We're not getting specific and... Aanenson: Right, but the city is the co- applicant so when we say applicant, that's onerous on the city to be providing that information. Yes, we are amiss on not having all that information in front of you. Gerhardt: You do have the plat in front of you. The subdivision is. Conrad: Well yeah, there's some lines here. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: That's how the cities do it. Conrad: Seriously Todd, it's just not up to any standard. Mancino: There's nothing to do with pedestrian friendliness. There's nothing. Gerhardt: You're talking the grading plan and... Conrad: Sure. Maybe a sidewalk in the front. We don't know anything. Mancino: I mean if you wanted to walk back there and couldn't get there. Gerhardt: There's sidewalks shown on this site plan and it has. Mancino: Where? Conrad: Well Todd it's not. Gerhardt: Can I point it out? Conrad: No, no. I take back some of the things that were said directed at Tires Plus. You're running faster than we are so I understand the problem. I don't know how to solve it. Gerhardt: Well I would suggest if you feel uncomfortable looking at this, I would table it until you have a full submission of grading plans and you know, it's not a substantial document but as Ron has mentioned, he could have it completed by next week. I would say table this for 2 weeks if you feel uncomfortable looking at this. Aanenson: Just for their edification. This is scheduled for the City Council on the 23rd. We hate to do this. We're doing this tonight with Pillsbury. We're fast tracking these but if there's just a few issues that we're looking at next time, if we could turn this around, we can maybe keep them still on track for the 23rd Council meeting, and that's an opportunity too if we table it. Conrad: You can do that? Aanenson: We'll try. You know we can't make a promise but we can sure try to do that. It just depends on the level of dialogue that needs to take place at the next meeting. That will keep them on track at least for the 23rd meeting. 28 G Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: If we can do that. If you can do that. Aanenson: Well it's onerous on them and onerous on the city to accomplish that, sure. Mancino: Okay. I mean we like to see drawings on the new roof line and then a complete subdivision. Pedestrian, traffic circulation. Conrad: Yeah, we've got to. It's just a standard you know, and I appreciate the workings of the HRA and government but we just have to apply the same rules to a government body as we do to private businesses and that sometimes can come back and affect a private business but dog gone it, we just have to apply those standards to us. Conrad: I make a motion to table planning case #95 -13 Subdivision and #95 -10 Site Plan. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion? Mancino: Second? Mehl: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Subdivision 995 -13 and Site Plan 995 -10 for Tires Plus and HRA. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, does the applicant wish to ' address the Planning Commission? Ric Moore: Good evening. My name is Ric Moore. I'm with Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service and we've been out at this Chanhassen site since 1992. Over that 3 year period we've been very successful. The business volume has grown about 35% and with that growth is causing problems in our ability for loading and unloading products and so that's why we're ' here tonight. We've worked with staff previously... take your recommendation to Council. Again, this will help us solve our problem and also help get our trucks off Audubon Road ' too. ...got our engineering firm here with us. We've got a lot of drawings and can answer any questions you have. Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Conrad: Yeah I have just one. You've pushed the site to the maximum right now. What happens next? Ric Moore: This is it. What we have done in the past is we've been adding more lines inside the building. The building is now max'd out. There's nothing more to put in the building and this addresses the growth in shipping the product in and out of the facility. SO we are at our maximum size that we'd like to be right now. Conrad: How do we keep you here in Chanhassen? Ric Moore: Pardon me? Conrad: How do we keep you here in Chanhassen? Ric Moore: Oh we're happy... Mancino: Well there's more land also to acquire. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Peteison seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this site plan, please do so. Carrie Christensen: My name is Carrie Christensen. This is my husband Tom. We live at 8681 Alisa Lane. We are new residents of Chanhassen as well as new business owners in Chanhassen so it's nice to finally get up here and get a chance to see how... We have some concerns as we've read the proposal from Pillsbury. We are pleased with how this building looks. Their actions, what they do, what they contribute to Chanhassen the city. As a resident my concern is trucking. As a resident driving back and forth and having a business right off of Highway 5 on Park Drive, we drive that every day. We see the traffic. Friday especially, and Saturday especially. I have had, I can note at least 5 incidents where I've had truck drivers open the door to their cab, jump out of the truck and just... I have seen truck drivers urinating on the side of the road. I read your plan and I see a lot of should eliminate the parking on Audubon. May eliminate the parking on Audubon. I realize you have ... and adding that extra loading parking. My concern is, yes you've got parking but also expanded your shipping. You've expanded your freezer. I counted this last Friday night, I think it was 30 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 9:00 -9:30 at night, I counted 19 trucks parked on Audubon. Only on one side of the road. On other days, later in the evening, earlier in the evening, I have seen trucks lining both sides of Audubon Road as well as Park Road. Not either or but all of them. I've seen more than 32 trucks there at a time... What happens as you expand, now you have more dock space. ' You have more freezer space. What happens now when you expand and you have more than 32 trucks coming? I mean where are those trucks going to be? Tom Christensen: I guess the big thing we want to address is the concerns of the people in our neighborhoods and along that road is, I, myself, I can say that I've almost been hit I don't know how many times and we've only lived in the neighborhood since April and I can say I've almost been hit by other cars and trucks pulling out that lot 7 times. Now I don't want to endanger my life or the life of anybody else because of some trucks that we can't even see when we're trying to pull off of Park Road there. I mean we can't even see when they're sitting here. Carrie Christensen: When the trucks park on either side of Audubon and each side of Park Road, you can't see at that intersection. Employees coming out of that parking lot onto Audubon can't see around trucks. And so I was concerned, it's not to have maybe some of ' the trucks off or most of the trucks off, but to have all of the trucks off Audubon. I have seen countless piles of broken glass at that intersection. I know there's accidents. I have friends in the Carver County Sheriffs department. I know there's accidents there. Somebody's going to get hurt bad. Those trucks need to get off Audubon. ...parking on Coulter, if you don't have enough on site parking on your lot. You know a station that manages and somebody with a walkie talkie saying okay, it's your turn now. Go. Some ' system... traffic. Tom Christensen: I guess the big thing, another thing is concerning, it's coming wintertime right now and as you get all those trucks parked in there, the roads are going to be narrow and what's going to happen is we have a problem right now where there's times when we drive down the road and we have to stop to let a car go by. We can't even drive through ' there because the trucks are so wide and the guys are out of the truck. They're polishing their trucks or doing whatever. They've got the doors wide open. We can run them over. And the big thing is, it's a big safety concern of all of us that live in the area. And I was just talking to Dave this morning and like I told him, there's no reason why we can't park off on Coulter over there instead of parking on Audubon. I realize that this is going to take some ' construction time. So instead of letting them park on Audubon, let them park on Coulter and back in their parking lot and route them through. I mean there shouldn't be a problem with . something like that, for dust temporary. I mean you've got to get the cars off of, or the trucks off of Audubon because it's dangerous. And what's it going to take? Somebody getting killed on the thing to open somebody's eyes up. I mean that's what it's going to come to. 31 �_ I Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Carrie Christensen: Another concern is, expanding is wonderful. At this point you say the parking lot, expanding the employee parking should take care of that. My concern is, where are those trucks going to be while you're doing construction? Are they going to be in the parking lot...? After the construction you may have ... for a while. Until you go great, we can get more in here because we're bigger. Then where do you go from there? If you've used up all your allowable space for parking and have no more room to expand on the site, as you pointed out... You've got to find some way to keep up with what they can put out. It's wonderful you're doing that kind of business. I'm happy. It's great for Chanhassen, but as a neighborhood concern, and as a person who walks to work occasionally. Walks home from work occasionally. In the dark occasionally. I don't want to get hit. And yes I stick to the sidewalks but if somebody swerves to miss a truck or to miss another car, I'm not going to be safer on the sidewalk than I am on the street. And those are our big concerns. We want that issue addressed. Mancino: Thank you. We hear those and we will talk about those and I know the City Council is very concerned with those concerns too. Carrie Christensen: Thank you very much. Generous: Madam Chair. There was a letter that was faxed to me from one of the neighbors that could not make it tonight. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come up to the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peteison moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: I guess Bob, can you, those were good questions to ask and I think we all, whether we live in that area, have gone down Audubon and seen the trucks sitting there for hours upon hours upon hours. On Audubon on each side. Actually I've seen it mostly on the west side. Is this going to alleviate, to stop it? Ric Moore: May I respond? Mancino: Sure. Mr. Moore, if you could come up please. Ric Moore: ...and she covered, they both covered a lot of ground there so I'd like to cover all of them. On Friday night we did, that was the end of our fiscal year so that's the busiest the plant is at any point in the year. But they're absolutely right, the thing that's driving this project forward, and especially on the fast track, is because that's a problem for me too having 32 1 Planning Commission Meetin g - October 4 1995 trucks on Audubon because it means they're waiting too long to load. So I have customers ' that are upset that they're waiting. I have truck lines that are upset that their truck drivers are there waiting. I have talked to the Mayor, a Councilwoman, some citizens, Kate, Scott Harr, Sheriffs about trucks on Audubon so we're well aware of it and that's the reason why I've been able to get the capital approved from the Pillsbury Company and also get the engineering firm on board to get this problem solved. So that is what's driving this. As far as after we expand will we you know, will we need more truck space? Well we're not expanding our production capacity. We're only expanding our ability to ship. So that's why we're adding more shipping docks and expanding the station so we can get the product out of the plant. We're not expanding the lines in the plant. We're just making it easier so we can get the product out of the plant. Mancino: So will you explain to us step by step, how that's going to work. I mean where the trucks are going to go. Ric Moore: Right now as part of the plan, as Bob pointed out, we're going to expand the parking lot here to allow us. We have a couple different options we're working on with the engineering firm now of getting the trucks off of Audubon and into our parking lot for staging. In addition to that, we're expanding the docks from 7 to 12 or 13. I can't remember what the number is. And that will take, and again so there are 19 trucks on the road, you can take 6 immediately right onto the property against the dock. Also have a staging area either in this area here, as Bob pointed out, or there's another idea... perimeter of the property but all the trucks, we expect to get all the trucks off of Audubon and onto our property. Mancino: And when will that take place? . Ric Moore: The parking lot can be, if the Council approves this on Monday night, we expect by December 1st to have this done and that allows us to move the trucks onto the property. So that's the fast track part of the, this part of the construction won't be done until the summer of '96 but we feel we can get the trucks off and onto the property by December 1 st. ' That's why we want to get approval in a hurry so we can beat the winter. But we're also aware of the problems with truck drivers and we've done our best to handle that. But until ' we get them onto our property, that's why this project is here now. And again, we've been talking for about a year with Kate on this. I've gotten the approval from headquarters to go ahead and do that and that's why we're here. We do agree it's a problem now and we want to ' solve that problem. Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Moore from the commissioners at this point? Meyer: Is the intent to get all the trucks off of Audubon? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 1 Ric Moore: Yes. Mancino: Yes, all of them. By December 1st. ' Ric Moore: And there's some other things too we've done that really just recently that... , before we can build this expansion, we're going to try to go to appointments for trucks, which we don't do now. Try to smooth out the load of trucks coming into the facility. We've got a staging area, we have an area where they can drop trailers so they don't have to wait. We just started doing that so we've got some things that we're working on in conjunction with this project. It's a problem for us and we know it's a problem for the community and that's why we're here. Aanenson: Just if I can add to it. As he indicated by December 1st. We've been working on this. We recognize it's been a problem. We've been in deliberations ... but we certainly 1 believe, as he's indicated, there are things they can do now to maybe not completely eliminate but to reduce it. Mancino: So between now and December 1st we should see a reduction of traffic on Audubon? r Aanenson: Yes ... We don't believe we have to wait until the summer to see diminished trucks on there. We believe that that should be accomplished as they are implementing a lot of ' those right now. Whether that's unloading trailers or staging some of that now or using better traffic controls of routing people around, we believe a lot of that can be accomplished between now and December 1st while we're waiting for this other area to be completed. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. I see a question. The public hearing is closed. But you may come up and if you have another question. Carrie Christensen: Thank you. Just one question. Is there a problem with routing those trucks onto Coulter and off of Audubon as a temporary situation? Aanenson: That's what I'm suggesting. There's ways they can accomplish some of that now. Mancino: So that certainly will be an option. Carrie Christensen: So that is one of the options. Thank you. 34 1 I� Planning Commission Meetin g - October 4; 1995 Mancino: So that is one of the options. Hope we answered that. Commissioners. Don. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Moore has attempted to answer questions and so if we could get your comments. Mehl: I think really with all those trucks are backed up on Audubon and creating a traffic problem and a safety problem and we've got to get them off of there some way. I guess I'd kind of like to see, we've talked about a lot of vehicles on that road and I'd like to see where they're going to be put. Like this lot will hold so many and this, the docks will hold so many and so I'd like to know if we can in fact get them off of there. Mancino: Okay. Any other comments concerning the additions that are going to be made to the building? r Mehl: No. I don't have any comments about that. Mancino: Okay. Mike. Meyer: I guess maybe before it goes to City Council we should see some sort of plan that ' they can look at too to make sure that it does take care of the problem. That's all I have. Aanenson: That is condition number 2, as Bob had put in the staff report. Again, they're ' trying to move on a fast track. It's a concern of our's that we're trying to ... to City Council and just for tonight. They still haven't resolved that completely. Exactly how they're going to accomplish that. It sounds like they're still going in a couple different directions. But that was our condition on there. We wanted to see any, be comfortable letting the neighbors know that there is a way to solve this. Again, as Mr. Moore indicated, there is short term things that we can do between now and then but I agree with the issue that you raised Mike. That is something that we had thought too. We need to see exactly how it's going to be accomplished so we can hold them to something. Generous: If I may, you could change should to shall. L 0 Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: I concur with Don and Mike. I have nothing to add. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Plan looks fine. It's solving a problem. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I think the plan in and of itself looks fine. My only concern is, I hear the word intend to take care of the parking problem a couple different times. And it would seem to me that the number of trucks would be able to be collated enough to easily determine whether or not the condition to the parking lot would or would not fully accommodate the trucks that are currently on Audubon. So that was my only concern is that are we confident that this will take care of the problem. I didn't hear the word, words that it will. I heard the word that it should and I guess I would like to hear the word will. It's not, is there room I guess I'm asking staff. Is there room to expand the parking lot further in the event that trucking is not fully accomplished by that expansion? Or are we, are they at the maximum? Generous: They can reduce the number of stalls technically because they're right at the, close to impervious surface area but they exceed what's required under Code for parking so. Peterson: Other than those comments, I have no more. Mancino: My only question for staff is, as we go out to the west, we're pretty high up here. I mean you can see this site from TH 41 and TH 5 and way south. And I see that we're ' doing a lot of buffering and screening around it. Are we also staying the same elevation and having some berming around the enlarged parking area? Right now the parking area is about 10 to 12 feet lower than the topography. Is that staying the same as we keep increasing? It's a wonderful view for a picnic. Down onto Bluff Creek. Hempel: At the very northwesterly corner of the parking lot we're actually at the existing grade that's out there and that continues to go southeasterly or easterly. It does decline and there's approximately, they're about 4 feet lower than the existing train to the west of this parking lot. The very west it actually curves north... will be approximately the same elevation. Mancino: Thank you. I don't think I have any other concerns on it. I agree with staff maybe changing some of the conditions so that they are shall conditions. That would certainly be a good idea. Do I hear a motion on this proposal? Meyer: I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the City Council approve site plan #95 -17, Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service expansion as shown on the plans dated September 15, 1995 subject to the following conditions 1 through 8. And revise number 2. Delete should and insert shall. Mancino: Do I hear a second? 36 1 t Planning Commission Meetin g - October 4, 1995 Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Friendly amendment. I would make it to substitute for City Council to the Planning Commission. Meyer: Yes that would be a good amendment. Y g t Mancino: Is that okay with you? Meyer: That would work just fine, yes. Mancino: Any other discussion? ' Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95 -17, Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service expansion as shown on the plans dated �1 September 15, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Sheet C -1 to show 12 handicap parking spaces complying with MSBC 1340. 2. Parking on Audubon Road shall be eliminated and alternative truck stacking or parking areas shall be accommodated in the parking lot on site. The applicant shall incorporate on -site semi - trailer truck parking and staging area and shall revise the site plan accordingly. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 4. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per Fire Prevention Policy 406 -1991. Copy enclosed. 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991 Pre Fire Plan. Copy enclosed. 6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 "Notes on Site Plans ". Copy enclosed. 7. All disturbed areas as a result of the site grading with the exception of the building addition area should be reseeded and mulched within two weeks after site grading is completed. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 8. Install additional Type I erosion control fence along the north curbline of the southerly access drive off of Audubon Road. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: On the City Council meeting at September 25th they approved the second reading for the temporary sales ordinance. They tabled action on the Golden Glow subdivision. That was Mr. Ravis' parcel on Powers Boulevard. They approved the two car washes and they approved the final plat and the site plan in the Chan Business Center for the Control Products, Eden Trace. Included in your packet, as part of the Director's Report, the Sensible Land Use Coalition had a session on density and I included that for your edification. Just looking at different types of density allocations and hope you have an opportunity to look at that and what, it was pretty interesting discussion. Mark Senn was part of the panelist, although I'm not sure, I think the people that were giving the presentations actually took a lot more time. There wasn't an awful lot of time left over for dialogue but it was a 3 hour session and I hope some of you have an opportunity to attend some of those. That's all I had. Mancino: Okay. Ongoing items? ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know what's on the next Planning Commission. Obviously we tabled one item tonight and then the other one is we'll be looking at the Ward which was tabled for tonight and we had I think we're fine tuning this as each iteration so hopefully we're getting to where we feel comfortable as a staff at trying to articulate. It's a big project with a mix of uses so we'll have that on for the next one. Mancino: Is that for conceptual review? Aanenson: Right. Just conceptual. Again, it's going to be mostly in a narrative form but we want to make sure it's articulated enough that you could understand the vision and we feel comfortable with the direction they're going as far as natural features, grading, the mix of uses 38 I Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 and that whole process. It's complex and we want to make sure that we've identified a lot of the issues. Conrad: So that's the Ward property? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Is Fred, did you bring Fred Hoisington? Mancino: And would he be coming too? Aanenson: Yes, Fred's working on it, yes. Right. Aanenson: Yes. He was in the meeting this morning. Unfortunately, he's still—lot of work. We're kind of working in tandem. He will be out of town all next week but he will be at the meeting on the 18th. Mancino: Anything else for next meeting? Aanenson: Just the item here that we table here, which I think is good because I think the Ward property deserves pretty much most of our attention at that meeting. Mancino: Okay. Ongoing issues. What ever happened to the buffer yard ordinance? Aanenson: Bob's given me the redraft. It's' sitting there and I need to get working on it. I'm trying to get the Livable Communities and the Comp Plan amendment done and a couple other things but Bob's made all the changes and I need to get back on it. Mancino: Now that will come back for a public hearing? Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think the Planning, the Council just gave direction as far as some modifications. We'll certainly share that with you as they're looking at the final draft. We'll include that in your packet so you can see what direction they're doing. Actually what they did is they just kind of, they took away the single family from single family buffer and we kind of slid the percentages down. Mancino: ...need to go through the public process? Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think if we changed direction significantly. I don't think that we've changed directions. I think you even concurred that you may not want buffering the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 1 single family and single family. I think we're just looking at the actual numbers. I think they did with the intent similar, you had the same concerns. When there's already natural topography or wetlands or ponds, do we need to encumber it further with additional landscaping? I think a lot of those same comments were embraced by the Council so, I think if it was significantly different or went a different direction we'd certainly at that point think that it should come back but I think a lot of your same issues were addressed by the Council and we'll share that with you. Mancino: Okay. Just things for the commission. I did, I was able to go for a half a day, night session at the State Conference for Planning and listen to, was it Kurt Johnson who's head of the Metropolitan Council talk about how he sees the rest of the metro area expanding somewhat differently than it has in the last 20 years. That he doesn't feel that we have the money to keep going out and out and out further. To develop infrastructure. So that we, in the last 20 years the way we've developed is just keep expanding, expanding, expanding and ' investors went and bought land and just build a road to get there and that's how we developed but he doesn't see that happening in the 20 years at all because we can't afford to pay for it. George Lattimer was there and talked a little bit about HUD. He's working for ... in Washington and some of his special action committee things that he's doing. I also went and heard Kit Hadley from, who was appointed by Governor Carlson on affordable housing and other types of housing in different areas and I'll talk about that. Actually I'll write something ' out because I got some really good information on what's being done in Plymouth, Eden Prairie. An actual general partner... developer talked and how she and her company are going out and developing affordable housing. Actually the lower income housing which is mostly the townhome product, which meets the 60% of median income ... so that's what the places would rent at. Most of this is rental because as we know in low income housing, most of the people do not have the downstroke to put down to buy a home so much of it is rental. And the partnership that they have with Fannie Mae. A general partner has equity investments in Fannie Mae and how this is all accomplished. I have some information which I will send to ' you that I got on this. It's extremely interesting and the planning director of Minneapolis talked. It was just very inspirational to go in and listen to people who are in the business of planning and they're really looking out for our future so. Other ongoing items. Slope ordinance. Where are we and what date can we put on that? Aanenson: Well the slope ordinance we came back with really was an affront for a PUD. , Because what we did is we said you take that density off the slope and basically everything on the slope was unbuildable so it kind of came back to the PUD, which really brings me back to the PUD ordinance. Looking at that. If you recall, there really wasn't a lot of other models to follow so the way, the approach that was taken is it's pretty much restrictive and it really just required you to stay off of that and take that density and put it somewhere else. 40 1 ' Planning ommission Meeting - October 4 1995 g g , We couldn't really find any other models to follow. So I think if that's the approach we want to take, try to do cluster development and that's really the best way to try to preserve it. Mancino: And you're talking about writing that into our existing PUD ordinance? Aanenson: That was one of our tasks is to look at the PUD. As Ladd points out, I did have a rule in there and really we should have no rules which I agree with and I've had that problem with other PUD ordinances. Anyway it should be a process. Not an ordinance and that's something we had kind of put that in the glitch thing. We said we need to separate that and look at that just by itself and I agree. Mancino: So do we need to have some work sessions on the PUD ordinance as it is? Aanenson: Yes. 1 Mancino: And to update it. Aanenson: Yes. And that's on our goals Mancino: Okay. ' Aanenson: As we talked about at the work session we had two weeks ago, I think we'll program into the next regular calendar, two meetings that we'll just block out for no items and we'll program that ahead of time so instead of trying to clear an agenda, we'll already have it where we won't program anything except strictly a work session. One in the spring and one in the fall and program it where we can also actually drive and look at some of the projects too. Kind of what we did last time. ' Mancino: Okay. Any other ongoing discussions? g g The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at this point and the Planning Commission then had an open discussion of the Gateway West property located at Highways 5 and 41 and discussion of the Mattson property located on the east side of Lyman at approximately 8800 Lyman Boulevard. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9 :15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41