Loading...
PC 2016 09 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 Vice Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Madsen, Maryam Yusuf, and Andrew Aller STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob & Linda Kline 2175 Lake Harrison Road Joanne Willmert 6955 Lake Harrison Circle Jim Sheedy 6955 Lake Harrison Circle Todd Allard 7168 Fawn Hill Road Neil Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail Erin Adler Star Tribune Jag Reddy 6925 Lake Harrison Circle Maurielle Storms 1910 Whitetail Ridge Court Anne Ryan 6835 Lake Harrison Circle Shelly Christy Moccasin Trail David Erickson 7095 Northwood Court Scott Wosje 7125 Northwood Court Breck Spinner 6800 Rudy Lane Steven Mueller 6895 Lake Harrison Circle Mark & Karen Wagner 6945 Lake Harrison Circle Paul & Marsha Theis 6520 White Dove Circle Melinda Andreus Chanhassen PUBLIC HEARING: WEST WATER TREATMENT PLANT – REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, AND OUTLOT A OF LAKE HARRISON TO CONSTRUCT THE WEST WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LOCATED AT 2070 LAKE HARRISON ROAD. APPLICANT: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC., OWNER: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Weick: Mr. Generous if you would like to begin. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Generous: Thank you Vice Chairman Weick, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-21 is a west water treatment plant. It’s for subdivision review and site plan review on this property. Again the Planning Commission meeting tonight is the public hearing and this is forwarded to City th Council on September 26. The responsibility of the Planning Commission is to review projects for compliance with the subdivision ordinance and site plan requirements within the zoning and subdivision sections of city code. We are aware that a lot of information has gone around about the operation of this facility or these types of facilities. However that’s beyond the purview of our review tonight. We’re looking for compliance with city code. Ultimately it will be up to City Council to determine whether this utility project would go forward and what the operating guidelines would be for that. The location of the property is 2070 Lake Harrison Road. It’s at the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Lake Harrison Road. The property is zoned single family residential which permits utility services as a permitted use. The property is guided for parks and open space in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This site was purchased by the City in 2005 as part of the Lake Harrison development. That development, we specifically bought Lot 1, Block 4 for the water treatment site and then the surrounding properties was donated to the City for public purposes including parks and open space. Again utility services are permitted use in the RSF district. The first part of the City’s request is to replat the property. As part of our review we determined that the siting of the water treatment facility would not fit on the lot that we had previously purchased. Initially we were just going to do a lot line adjustment which could have been done administratively but then some of the building went onto that. We thought it’d only be for setback purposes and you can’t issue a building permit to an outlot so as part of the replatting the City will be creating one lot for the park, or the water treatment facility, the future park area to the north and the cul-de-sac bubble for Manchester which is, to the north is a temporary cul-de-sac. As part of the subdivision review this property exceeds the minimum standards in the RSF district and I noticed I missed on the staff report it has frontage of 719 feet for the lot. The minimum required is 90 feet and it almost doubles the minimum depth requirement so it complies with all requirements for the RSF district regulations and staff is recommending approval of the plat. The only condition is we will need to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements that are around Lot 1, Block 4 within parts of Outlot A. This property was included as part of our 2030 Comprehensive Plan water distribution plan to show that this site was actually designated for a future west water treatment plant. As part of the Lake Harrison development we actually had the developer extend the raw watermain to this location so that in the future with the water treatment plant it could be connected into the system. The site plan is for a 16,950 square foot facility. While it may look tall it’s built into the hill and it’s really a one story structure. There’s only one floor level in there. Access would be off of Lake Harrison Road and then there’s parking within the development. The site plan complies with all RSF district setback requirements and site coverage where they’re actually providing a berm in the southwest corner of the parking area right here which is 10 feet which will help to screen the asphalt area in front of the project as people come off of Galpin Boulevard and down Lake Harrison Road. Additionally there will be landscaping on the west and south side of the project. We are preserving some trees adjacent to a wetland that’s located east of this site in one of the future outlots. This would be a rendering or view of the facility from the west. As you can see it’s stepped into the hill. The building materials, the primary building material is a brick veneer. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 They have columns around each corner and at different change points within the building that are cultured stone that I’ll go from, provide a vertical element. There is an upper level window system. However the majority of these windows are spanrow so you can’t see through them. There’s just very few that are clear glass window. The roof material is a gray metal. And it has a prairie style roof so it’s a shallow angle and it extends out beyond the eave that then normally would be seen in a single family home. Or even in a commercial development for that matter. The main entrance to the facility is on the south side. Again here’s a rendering showing how that berm would screen that asphalt area in the front of the facility. However this building is not generally available for public entry and it will have additional security requirements as required under any licensing requirements we have. Again the site plan requires only 2 parking spaces based on the type of use. However they are providing 6 spaces within the development and a back up space on site for any trucks that come into the property. This is a black and white elevation. These clear windows, there’s 2 out of the 8 that are in this level and it shows there’s some on the south elevation, the west elevation, the east and the north. Again this cross section shows how the building structure is built back into the hill and very little of the actual building will be seen. This is the north elevation that would be visible from the Manchester Road area to the northwest and so you can see the very shallow building. Has a stone cultures and brick veneer and then only one actual window up there so there are a few security lights on the side but they’ll be down cast and they’re covered and they comply with city code requirements. And finally, and this is part of the information that I handed out tonight since it didn’t make it to the packet is the landscaping plan. The applicant has exceeded the minimum requirements. However what they’ve done is provide more understory trees in the form or evergreens instead of using shrubs and the Natural Resource Specialist is recommending that we accept these as a substitute because they’ll provide year round screening of the building so. With that I’d like to turn it over to Paul Oehme, the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mr. Generous, Planning Commission members. Just wanted to briefly discuss with you why we’re here tonight talking about this improvement project. The City’s been planning this project for many years as Mr. Generous had indicated. We put this facility into the 2030 comp plan. Over the years the City has been updating a few things along the way but we’ve been focused on building this facility for a number of years. The primary purpose is to remove iron and manganese from the west well field. That’s a naturally occurring material that’s in the wells in the Minnesota area and metro area specifically. It’s design is basically similar to what the east filtration plant is, is again to remove that iron and manganese. The east filtration plant treats the east well field which is just east of city hall here. The filtration plant that’s being proposed, there’s a well field out on Galpin and 41 area and all those wells will be treated at this proposed future water treatment facility. The City annually receives about 20 to 30 complaints for rusty water call. That’s the iron and manganese in the water and what the City’s practice is to flush the hydrants to flush the lines out to try to get that particulates out of the line. Annually we estimate about 2.5 million gallons of water we flush to try to clean out those lines when we do have those complaints. And again plant overview is basically remove that iron and manganese. It’s not a softening plant so most communities in the metropolitan area do not have a city wide softening plant. Property owners still can soften their water to their 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 aesthetic pleasing but with this plant you might see a decrease in the amount of hardness that’s in your water so you probably will be able to decrease the level that your softener’s set at. The capacity of the plant is designed for 8.64 million gallons per day. It’s about 6,000 gallons per minute. The process again is really similar to the east water treatment plant. However this plant will have an underground detention tank to better treat the water more efficiently. The water will be pumped to basically the low zone and the high zone. There’s the different pressure elevations within the community so this plant will be able to put water anywhere in the community basically. It’s designed for the full buildout of the city, the 2040 comp plan. The ultimate buildout of the city so. The traffic for the facility, as Mr. Generous has indicated, is fairly low. We estimate there’s going to be about 24 delivery trucks per year on the site. There’s going to be between 2 and 4 trips per day and that’s mainly for staff members to operate the plant. The plant will be operated during normal business hours and then at night it’s run automatously and also on weekends as well. There’ll be some maintenance activities involved periodically but most of the trips will be generated by one operator. Just as a reference the IT traffic generation manual estimates that a single family residential property generates about 10 trips per day so this is actually, the treatment plant will generate less trips than a normal single family household. The plants is, it does not generate much noise. There will be a standby generator on site if power is interrupted for whatever reason for Xcel has some peak shaving requests that basically we’ll run the plant off this generator. There will be a significant muffler system built into the plant. This is actually the generator that’s at the east water treatment plant. This is the muffler that we’re looking at for the west side of town too. The specs on that muffler that generates about 75 decibels which is equivalent to about a vacuum cleaner type decibel level at about 10 feet away or toilet flushing, those type of things. The plant does not generate any odors or smells. Mr. Generous had touched on the lighting for the facility. We are not looking at much lighting at all. There’s not going to be any parking lot or light standards for the plant. There’ll be some wall pack lighting around the doors and maybe some of the windows. Here’s an example of what the light might look like. It’s going to be an LED down lit wall pack light. Very minimal lighting and that’s basically just to, for the security cameras to work properly. Utilities. Like Mr. Generous had indicated a lot of infrastructure’s already been stubbed to the west water treatment plant here. However there will be additional piping that will be necessary to bring in some of the wells that are on Galpin and farther east of here into the plant so that would be part of the construction project. Most of this utility work will be directional bored underground to reduce the amount of disruption to the neighbors and to the traffic so we would anticipate the utilities going in soon after the project would be let. The stormwater system that for water quality, water quantity that we’re required to meet. We’ve been working with the watershed district on the design for the plant to meet the NURP standards. What we have, since the site has some tight soils, clay soils there’s very little opportunity to infiltrate the water. What we’re looking at is a water re-use system so basically all the impervious surface coming from the plant which is located here in the parking lot and then also the cul-de-sac up on top will be directed to the existing stormwater pond at this location. The pond will be oversized a little bit more than it’s shown here but not much to help for the water quality. We’re looking at using the water that’s directed into the pond for re-use for irrigation so all the area that’s shown in kind of yellow here, 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 green line area that’s we’re looking at having an irrigation system that would use that water re- use for the boulevards and then for areas within the site as well. Generous: Okay with that staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and the site plan for the 16,950 square foot water treatment facility subject to the conditions in the staff report. I should point out we’re requiring the City to meet all the standards that any private development would have to do when they come in here including meeting the surface water requirements in the Bluff Creek watershed district so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Paul Oehme: And I’d like to introduce Greg Johnson with WSB, the engineering firm helping the City design the project. Weick: Thank you. Greg Johnson: Thank you. Weick: Any questions for Mr. Oehme? Tietz: Mr. Chair? I do. Weick: Oh yeah, please. Tietz: I do have a question. Paul just, and Bob too. Prior to 2005 and the comp plan, you know projected comp plan, what were the site selection criteria for this treatment facility? Paul Oehme: Well so back in, I’ll go back to maybe 2003 when the City started working on the water treatment feasibility options so back in that time the City hired a consultant and they looked at several locations, both in the east side of town and the west side of town for future water treatment. After that study was completed the east water treatment plant site was selected. It was started being constructed in 2006. In 2005 we updated that 2003 study and we looked at 5 or 6 different sites along Galpin and close to the water treatment or west well field site mainly along Galpin and what the criteria that we used is those sites should be close in proximity to the well sites and where the water needs to be distributed. We just as you get farther and farther away from where the water, treated water needs to be the cost get exponential so we wanted to th stay pretty close to the Galpin corridor. We did look at several sites along 78 Street and Galpin and north of there. This site was selected just based upon it’s availability. You know the buffer that it offers from some of the residential properties, especially west, east and south of the site. The park department also identified this site as a residential small park area as well so there is some good synergy there with what the park and the treatment plant had to offer so based upon the availability of sites, cost obviously and then just kind of you know looking at some other criteria this site was chosen back in 2005 as Mr. Generous had indicated and was purchased through the Lake Harrison development process. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Tietz: That pipe that extends, the western wells or northwestern wells are those in conjunction with the tower then up at the middle school? Where were those other lines that were put in place with this development that would run to the water treatment facility. There’s reference to wells on the west side. Is that off of 41? Paul Oehme: Yeah well there’s one well off of 41 and there’s one well off of Lake Lucy Road so those are the two wells that already have the raw water line extended to this site. Tietz: To this site, okay. Thank you. Is there any purging and flushing of that system required? Periodically and if so where does that water go? Paul Oehme: To, I’m not sure. Tietz: I don’t, I’m not familiar with the process of the water filtration but I’m wondering if it’s all self contained or if there’s purging and flushing of that system that’s required on a routine basis and if so where does that water go. Paul Oehme: Yep so there’s, there are filter cells inside the plant that will eventually contain all the iron and manganese that’s removed from the water so periodically on a day basis or on an every other day basis depending on how much water is being treated at that time, those filter cells have to be back washed basically so we run water through those, it’s basically like a sand filter type material so that basically brings that iron and manganese back in solution and that goes into a back wash tank that’s underground and I’ll show you. Tietz: Is that north? Paul Oehme: Yep so that back wash tank is right here so most of this tank will be underground. So here’s the filter cells. These 3 cells right here, or 6 cells. Those are the filter cells and the back wash water would eventually end up in this bigger, larger tank here and what we do with that back wash water is, there’s a fairly significant volume of water and we don’t want to just throw it down or waste it and put it down the sanitary sewer. We let it settle out basically so about 95 percent of the water that’s in the back wash tank we throw, we re-use that and put it back into the filter cells but the last remaining sludge material, that iron and manganese, that material, that goes into the sanitary sewer system that’s out here. So the sanitary sewer system that is used by the community and eventually gets into the Met Council line, they treat it at the Blue Lake. Tietz: Blue Lake. Paul Oehme: Blue Lake down in Shakopee so it’s, it’s basically the same process that we use for the east plant. It’s the same thing. We just have a meter within the plant that Met Council 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 monitors how much sludge is basically going into their system. Same design that we’ll be taking out here. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Paul Oehme: Yep. Weick: Other questions? Tietz: No, not right now. Weick: I have just a couple. Would this site, does it compliment the east facility? Eventually replace the east facility or treat completely different wells I guess, one of those three. Paul Oehme: Yep. That’s a good question. So the east, it treats completely different wells so we have an east well field. There’s 5 wells on the east side of town and there’s another 5 on the west side of town so we just, it’s just cost prohibitive to bring all the wells over to the east plant. Plus that plant was not designed for big enough capacity so the City back in 2003 basically designed to have 2 plants. You know one for the east well field and one for the west well field and that’s why we’re looking at the west well field at this time. Weick: Okay. If there’s no other questions at this time we will open the public hearing portion this evening. If you would like to speak, again opinion either for or against this please come forward. State your name, address and your thoughts. Steven Miller: Steven Miller, 6895 Lake Harrison Circle, and let me know if I don’t follow a protocol because I’m not quite used to this. So first of all thanks for the opportunity to speak. Appreciate the time and appreciate the opportunity to just kind of provide a point of view. I represent a consortium of homeowners that are in the neighborhood surrounding the particular location and I think just a little background and context. That group of neighborhoods came together after seeing some of the revised design and plan that looked considerably different from the original design and plan that was out on the City websites and up actually posted at the location for quite some time as people were making decisions about where to live and purchase property so as the plan, as the new plan deviated from kind of what people had an expectation around, as you can imagine there’s a little bit of excitement around what it would mean for the neighborhood. We decided to form a consortium to represent the 400 households that kind of surround the area to provide one point of view and try to keep it a very concise voice and take maybe some of the emotion out of the conversation. I think, and I’ll be very brief here and then have a couple other people speak but I think our ask, well before I get to our ask. I think this is an incredible opportunity for the City of Chanhassen to be very thoughtful and intentional about a design about one of the largest capital programs that they’re going to undertake. There’s so much that has changed in the last 10 years. I thought the gentleman here did a great job presenting the information around the design but as you heard him speak everything was, it’s a 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 commercial building but we’re trying to make the lighting work. It’s a commercial building but we’re trying to diminish the parking lot. I think we all are here and realize the building, the facility doesn’t belong in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I think we all could agree that it’s because it’s easy access to the wells and it just kind of it’s in the right location from a facility and logistic standpoint but maybe not necessary from a residential perspective. A lot’s changed over the last 10 years and specifically that corridor so the corridor kind of east of 41, south of 7, north of 5, west of Powers. A lot’s changing right now in the current situation with home, with the ownership of the property and where it might end up. It’s really I think from my perspective you know this city of Chanhassen has earned the reputation as one of the top 10 cities I think in someone’s assessment. You know that’s got to be earned every year and the expectations go up every year and so I guess my perspective is we’ve got to be really thoughtful, intentional and get this one right and make sure that we’re doing the right thing. Easy, the easy answer might not just be around what’s accessible to wells and kind of how we had thought about things 10 years ago. The best answer for the City of Chanhassen might not be the easy answer so our ask is very simple. That we, I hate to say slow down the planning process because that sounds negative like we’re trying to delay something. I think the ask from the consortium is just that we’re really thoughtful about all the concerns around this. The changes that have happened. The changes in the last 10 years that might impact how we think about this and we have this huge boat anchor of we already made a decision to purchase a piece of property and we started investing in infrastructure. I wish we could put that to the side for a little bit and just say is that still the best location. I know we ran some analysis with Paul and saw some figures come th out that said you know you move it down the road to West 78 and Galpin and it’s $2.1 million dollars more. My brain thinks about that as 10 percent increase in the overall program cost to put it in a more commercial location where light things are with like things. That seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a top 10 city to do when they’re trying to be really thoughtful about master community planning so I would just say maybe there’s opportunity to kind of look at that in a different way than it’s maybe been looked at in the past so I don’t want to say slow down in a negative way but just maybe reassess some of the what may be we all think of as decisions that have already been made in the past and then reassess the plan and make sure that it addresses all the safety, environmental, economic and really I wanted to highlight homeland security issues. Homeland security is changing every single year. I don’t even think we understand the magnitude of the homeland security requirements that are going to hit in the future around facilities like this. The game is constantly changing and homeland security is constantly revising those requirements to make sure that they keep everybody safe. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that that facility would need significant security features like walls, fences, gating so forth and again just thinking about will that site accommodate that. Will it still fit in and look appropriate in the middle of a residential neighborhood so I’m going to turn it over to Robert Klein to speak on behalf of the consortium of the top 5 concerns and then Jag Reddy who is, has some expertise around water filtration to talk specifically about safety concerns. Weick: Okay, thank you. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Robert Klein: Thank you Steven. As he mentioned my name is Robert Klein. I live at 2175 Lake Harrison Road. Weick: Welcome. Robert Klein: And I just want to say good evening to the commissioners and thank you for this opportunity to present comments from the public regarding this proposed water facility. I’ve lived in Chanhassen for almost 10 years but I’ve been involved in various ways in this community for close to 30 years. Speaking tonight as a very vested resident, an architect, a president of a homeowners association and a member of a 400 household consortium. I would like to share with the Planning Commission a number of issues, concerns and questions that many residents have regarding this water treatment facility and the site. We firmly believe that further due diligence and study are required to determine if this proposed project should move forward at this time. As Steven had mentioned I’m going to elaborate a little bit on the 5 main issues so bear with me a little bit here as I kind of go through those one by one. First issue that the consortium identified were planning and zoning issues. Given the full opportunity to put this proposed facility in the most appropriate location for the overall good of the city master plan, is this proposed site the right site? From a planning standpoint it would be more appropriate to have this proposed facility located in proximity of other similar zoning. Not in the middle of a 100 percent residential area. For example, potential alternative sites. I can think of several located along Highway 5 between Powers Boulevard and 41 that would not only be more appropriate but would be very similar to the already placed east water facility. In addition given the recent developments involving the land parcels of Prince and Gorra, should the City consider what impact and opportunities that this will have on the future master plan. When the proposed site was picked over 10 years ago it was based in part on facts and information at that time. Today many factors have changed including the opportunities that should be taken into consideration as these parcels of land are developed. Great planning decisions are made not only on past information and experience but on future opportunities and thoughtful vision. Secondly regarding safety and security issues. Has the City done the proper due diligence and have they exercised to do the proper studies of what the true impact might be by this proposed facility which operates with chlorine gas by the way and what will those impacts be on the surrounding area? Many residents have legitimate safety concerns that if a chlorine accident occurs the impact on humans, wildlife, wetlands and the environment could be devastating. Many are left wondering why would the City place this type of facility in the middle of a residential area without fully understanding the potential negative impact. In addition as Steve had mentioned, the Department of Homeland Security has guidelines for security measures that if followed or are mandated would cause this facility to take on the characteristics of a high security prison. Again why would the City place this type of facility in the middle of a 100 percent residential area without fully understanding the potential negative impact on the community? Thirdly, members from the consortium took into consideration economic and tax implications. Has the City studied the potential negative impact on these potential future developments that are going to occur along the Galpin corridor? And what will the impact of putting this facility on that site be on those developments? Also has the City studied the real impact on property values and tax 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 base for the surrounding 400 plus residents by locating this type of facility in a residential area as opposed to an alternative site with commercial zoning? And lastly, what is that negative impact on property values if the Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines are implemented into this facility? I can tell you many residents are very concerned about these real economic issues and are asking our city officials to study and understand the real economic impact that this proposed facility will have if it’s placed on this site. Fourthly, taking a closer look at environmental and wetland concerns. The City has informed us that an Environmental Impact Study is not required for this site. Sitting in the middle of wetlands it’s not required. Well I guess this must be factually true but there will be some amount of negative impact on the surrounding wetlands and the wildlife by placing this facility on that proposed site. Should the City consider how much impact is truly acceptable versus no impact or minimal impact with an alternative site? Again what is the real impact on the surrounding residential area and environment if a chlorine gas accident occurs on this proposed site? Residents are very concerned that this issue has not been adequately studied for either the proposed facility or for the proposed location. And lastly regarding some alternative site costs. As Steven has mentioned the City has informed us that an alternative site is going to be more expensive and that seems somewhat logical. However estimates from the City are around 10 percent added cost and I just stop and pause for a second. I think okay 10 percent. For a proposed $20 million dollar project. If 10 percent are the real added costs, isn’t this an appropriate amount that the City should consider to get this right? Given the many issues of concern and potential cost risks that could be associated with this site residents are convinced the City of Chanhassen should study this more in depth before approving this location. In closing I just want to let you know that the many residents of Chanhassen would like to thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to share our issues, concerns and questions regarding the proposed facility and site. The residents would also like to remind every one involved in the approval of this, the potential approval of this project that this type of facility is designed to improve the aesthetic qualities of the water only. The drinkability of the water is not what this type of facility will address. In fact the water is currently safe to drink and use and will remain so even if this facility were to not be built. We would ask that you please keep that in mind as well as the other issues that we have shared here tonight as you thoughtfully consider whether this project should move forward at this time. And again thank you all for your time and service on the Planning Commission. Weick: Thank you. Jag Reddy: Good evening. My name is Jag Reddy. I’m a resident of 6925 Lake Harrison Circle. Weick: Welcome tonight. Jag Reddy: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity for me to present my concerns to the Planning Commission. I think I have written a letter to some of you and then that’s being presented here. I appreciate again the opportunity to raise my concerns about this project. Not only am I a resident of Chanhassen who happened to be really right next to this proposed facility. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Sitting in my back yard I’ll be looking at this building every single day if it is built there but more importantly I’m also a water technology professional so when I come here in front of you as Planning Commissioners right, I’m also bringing my technical expertise in water treatment and water technologies. I work for a global water technology company headquartered in Minnesota that is also a sustainable water partner for the Twins stadium and also the Vikings stadium and we, as an engineering firm, we build and produce and offer products and solutions across the globe for many municipalities in every country in every continent here. So when I bring this concern to you I’m also speaking to you as a professional but also a parent of an 11 year old who will be playing around in the nearby you know a chlorine facility right so my concerns are really two fold. One is safety and another one is security of this facility. As both Bob and Steven mentioned the safety of this type of treatment process is of utmost concern to me. As many of you know there are 2,724 registered chlorine plants in the U.S. and I have provided to the commission a list of plans by the state right and there are, let me look at this. There are 69 plants in Minnesota. Out of them 49 are registered and there are 3 accidents that happened in Minnesota with 5 injuries. Across the country over the last 15 years 22 percent of the accidents resulted basically in 12 percent incident rate in accident in chlorine facilities. There were 779 injuries and there were 22,000 approximately evacuations of human beings from these neighborhoods. Also there were $127 million dollars worth of property damage over the last 15 years right. That’s my primary concern. I also want to kind of, when I spoke to the engineering firm last week at the library two things came up. One I asked why are you only considering a chlorine type process? Well they were given a mandate from the city officials that that was the only process to be considered. To me as a water professional right, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would we not consider a different type of technology for this processing plant right, number one. Number two, I was told that this was because of cost right. I moved to Chanhassen 3 years ago. We purchased our home 3 years ago in Chanhassen primarily based on the ranking that Chanhassen has in terms of the best places to live right. If I were to know that they were going to put up a chlorine plant right next to my home, I can tell you today I would not have purchased my home right. That’s a number one concern for me is the City is looking at pennies on the dollar and driving away potentially home buyers for the future. Number two is that when I asked engineering firm you know if they knew about the incident rates, if they knew about the accident rates of these type of chlorine plants they had no idea right. Why am I as a resident providing this information to the City and the consulting firm when they don’t know you know their own homework that they were supposed to do. Number two is that, sorry number three is that why aren’t other technologies being considered? There are multiple technologies for oxidation of manganese and iron such as ozone. Such as other, just using plain oxygen so that you don’t have to truck in tanks of chlorine so this is for everybody’s, I’ll pass this onto you guys. This is the type of trucks, 18 wheelers that will go through our neighborhoods to bring in chlorine tanks. And when I ask when will the, what is the frequency of the 18 wheelers going through, no information has been provided to any of us. So do we really want 18 wheelers with chlorine trucks going through neighborhoods? Right, that’s why I ask the Planning Commission to step back and take a look at you know what do we have to do here right to make sure that we secure approximately 1,200 residents in 400 homes in and around this facility. Also do we really want a playground right next to this type of industrial facility? I appreciate the concern of the 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 City to provide further access to kids for playground facilities. I appreciate that but at the same time do we really want kids playing around near chlorine tanks and facilities that are potentially dangerous? We don’t live in, I didn’t move to Minnesota to live next to a chlorine plant as I mentioned but also I want to remind everybody that we don’t live in Louisiana. We do not live in Texas where this type of facilities are reasonably common in residential neighborhoods right. We don’t want to do this in Minnesota. A second concern I raised is really on safety and security. You know as a, again as a water technology professional I submitted to you recommended guidelines for water treatment facilities and waste water treatment facilities just to show you, I’ll pass this on to everybody else here as well. This is examples of water facilities around the country that need to be secure based on DHS requirements. And the pictures we were shown looked like a house I would potentially buy. Looks very nice right. I appreciate the architects. I appreciate their concern about making it look like it belonged in the neighborhood but the real concern is after 9/11 with the terror devices, with the threat of a potential terrorism and potential safety off our water supplies, if we do not protect that facility properly we’re doing disservice to the city of Chanhassen residents because if we don’t protect it right, we’re opening it, the facility up for vandalism. For terrorist incidents or any other concerns. So to properly secure it, as Bob mentioned, it will turn into a prison. So those are the two concerns I have and I’m happy to you know offline I’m happy to provide my services pro bono. I am also happy to bring in experts from my firm to help the City of Chanhassen to look at this project in a different manner. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns and also thank you for your service on the Planning Commission. Weick: Thank you very much. Paul Theis: Good evening, I’m Paul Theis. I live at 6520 White Dove Circle as does my wife Marsha. Weick: Good evening. Marsha Theis: And I’m Marsha Theis. Weick: Welcome tonight. Marsha Theis: Thank you. Thanks for having us. First I would like to say we are very glad that the City is moving forward with this project. There was a comment made earlier that this is an aesthetic thing that we’re doing to water. That it’s not going to affect the taste or the safety of the water. This is a picture that Paul Oehme has seen a lot. This is not trick photography. I took it with my iPhone. I have the pictures on my iPhone. This is about 3 inches of water in my wash basin in the, oh sorry. So much technology here. In my bathroom. That’s what my water looks like. So this might not be Flint, Michigan but would you want this? Paul Theis: We’ve only lived here 24 years and we’re aware of the project was planned. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Marsha Theis: 2005. Paul Theis: Genesis maybe in 2003. The site acquisition, selection was a considered process. It was finally acquired in 2005. I think there was some engineering that was done in contemplation of that. It got slowed down because of the recession and thankfully it’s back on the table now. So we’re looking forward to seeing this get accomplished and we support the application put forward by the staff tonight. We just wanted to come up and voice our support for the project and we had seen an earlier version of the proposed plant that was some 30 feet or so. Marsha Theis: 45 feet longer. That used, in one of my previous professional lives I was a chemist at the University of Minnesota in the Department of Pharmacology so I’m not a water specialist but I am a chemist. Or was a chemist. Am a chemist. And when I spoke with the engineers at the first meeting there was very little chlorine and as a chemist I will say I never think it’s a good idea to produce and use chemicals capriciously. We need to be very careful about what we produce and what we use. I want to be clear about that and by making the building 44 feet longer much, much, much, much less chlorine was going to be used because oxygen was going to become the driving force in the reaction process. It was my understanding that the building was shorten and the whole use of chlorine gas was put forward because the residents of the Lake Harrison development wanted that. They wanted a building that was smaller and in order to get smaller you had to use more chlorine. That’s the technology of it so now they’re saying well we don’t want all this chlorine gas. Well I don’t either but I thought that’s what you all wanted so I’m somewhat confused by their argument now. Also I find their scare tactics about the homeland security thing a bit over the top. You know yes we have to, I don’t know what we’d have to do to every water tower or whatever but I find that somewhat offensive. Paul Theis: We’re not here on behalf of a consortium of 400 people but our neighbors that we’ve talked to, and we don’t live in the immediate vicinity of this. We live near the new well that’s just been drilled here within the last year but those neighbors all voice support for this and we’ve talked to many of them that have water issues similar to us. Again it’s not Flint, Michigan folks but you know would you want to wash your white shirts and laundry and stuff in this? So again we think that the test has been met in terms of this body acting on the application. It meets all the requirements. You know to the extent that some of the people are going to be having an opposition and step forward and be in opposition I think before a decision is made, I think the engineering staff, city staff, the consulting engineer need to be heard to address some of these concerns. I have every faith and confidence in them. I think the east plant is well run. It’s, for better or worst a chlorine I understand based and I understand, I might be wrong but I haven’t read in the newspaper that there’s been any chlorine leaks or injuries as a result of that. You know anything can happen. I’m not saying it can’t but I think the City has been careful in it’s operation on the east side and hopefully they’ll be careful here if in fact they don’t revisit the plan to drop the aeration to make a smaller building but I think visually you know, yes there’s a couple people north that are going to have some visual issues but the rest of them there’s enough curves and hills and so forth I think. You know driving 25-30 miles an hour from the stop sign 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 on Galpin and Harrison boulevard I think it takes you about 30 seconds, a half a minute to get up to the windmill let alone to round the final curve until you actually see some of the Harrison Lake residential structures. In any event we’ve probably taken enough time but we would like to see the project move forward. Marsha Theis: And the discussion about negative impact on property value, you know I disagree with that. I think any time water quality is improved there’s a positive impact on property value. Water is a hot topic right now. I mean it’s in the news a lot and I think that any time you can improve water quality that’s a plus for the residents. Paul Theis: Thank you. Marsha Theis: Thanks. Weick: Thank you. Steven Miller: Can I just close out? Weick: Please. Steven Miller: And certainly not to squelch, certainly not to squelch any other conversation but just to kind of close out the consortium views. Weick: Give your name one more time. Steve Miller: Steven Miller. Weick: Thank you. Steven Miller: 6895 Lake Harrison Circle. So just to kind of close. I think a lot’s changed in the last 10 years since the original plat of land was purchased. Since the original design was kind of thought through. I think we have time to make this decision. I think the original plan was 2022 and it feels like we’re kind of in a hurry up offense to get this done which makes me, and I think a lot of residents scratch their head as to why. Why are we hurrying through this process? Why is it so accelerated over the time span of 6 years that now we’re into 2016 wanting to move forward? It really strikes me tonight that we should reassess the need here. If there’s 20 complaints a year, $20 million dollar plant. That’s a million dollars a complaint annually. Over 10 years $100,000 per complaint and I would tell you I’ve learned, I have an aqua pure whole home filtration system in my house for $300 and the cartridges cost $25 every 6 months to replace. I don’t have any discoloration in my sinks or in my laundry or anywhere else. So there’s a lot of ways to kind of deal with this. I just hope we’re not spending $20 million dollars because we’ve got a subset of people that are unhappy with the aesthetics. I there again I’m not opposed to having a water filtration plant to clean up the water. I agree with the 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 statements that again that keeps us in that category of a top 10 place to live. Just to close I just would really ask that the Planning Commission take forward to the City Council that maybe we slow down a little bit. It doesn’t have to be a long slow down process but just, maybe it’s not all the way to 2022 but maybe it’s not in 2016 that we’re pulling the trigger and locking into something that we’ll never be able to change. And the last point, I was a reserve police officer with the City of Eden Prairie for 15 years. I’ve since retired from that position. I would tell you homeland security, it’s not a scare tactic. We did well checks. We did tower checks. We did those checks religiously every single night and that was, I retired 5 years ago. It has, I’ve talked to the police officers in Eden Prairie. It’s grown and it’s getting bigger. It’s something we have to start taking more seriously and if we don’t take more seriously the requirements are going to be more serious for this community so just again I would ask that we’re really thoughtful about what those requirements might be and that we’re not painting ourselves into a corner long term on not being able to satisfy them in the current location. Thanks. Weick: Thank you. Any other comments or statements? I see movement. Please. Bhuvana Nandakumar: Good evening everybody. My name is Bhuvana Nandakumar and I live on 6965 Lake Harrison Circle. Weick: Welcome tonight. Bhuvana Nandakumar: Thank you. I speak today not on behalf of myself but on behalf of my 10 year old who could not attend today because it is a school night. He, before I introduce him I would like to say that I truly appreciate the City for having made the effort to obtain input from all the residents on this big project and so many people have spoken about it. I was a little concerned myself about how little research seemed to have been done on the mix use of buildings. When planning this development. I spoke a lot about it with my family and my 10 year old decided he wanted to know more about it and ended up coming for the second meeting that was at the library. The presentation that was at the library. Following that he was moved to write about this and I would like to share that with you. My name is Arjau and I’m a resident of Lake Harrison Circle. I’m 10 years old and I have lived in Chanhassen for more than 6 years. I am writing to you about the water treatment plant that you plan to build in my neighborhood. First of all the water treatment plant is going to use chlorine. I apologize, this is a 10 year old and I’m trying to channel my child in here. This is going to be dangerous for us. Less than 2 months ago an accident happened in Arizona. Here’s the link that you can view and it’s a letter so he has a link out there and if you Google I’m sure you can find it because that’s why 10 year olds use these days for their information. As I learned in chemistry some pure elements on the periodic table can be lethal and chlorine is one of them. A more dangerous situation could arise in Chanhassen but it can definitely be avoided by using a different way to treat the water. We all know that chlorine gas is bad for people. If you’re going to put a chlorine gas plant then everyone is going to leave. You are going to do this in a neighborhood where almost every single house has at least one kid. How can you then call Chanhassen the best place to live in Minnesota when there’s a water treatment plant using chlorine gas in a residential area? One of 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 the reasons I like the neighborhood is that there’s nothing that looks industrial. I like biking in the neighborhoods in the summer and playing with my friends outside both in the summer and winter but if you put a water treatment plant you will change a mostly natural place to half industrial, half natural. That doesn’t quite link up. I couldn’t even understand what I had to have him explain that. Why don’t you put the plant in a place that is already an industrial area? There are definitely such areas in Chanhassen further away from neighborhoods. Finally please put a moment and, take a moment and put yourself in our place. Would you want an industrial plant in your neighborhood? No one would so why do it. Why don’t you put it in an industrial location? That is where it is meant to be. In conclusion please consider putting the water treatment plant in a different area. If you cannot find another place then you must definitely look for safer methods of treating the water. For the sake of our health and those of our families in our neighborhoods. If you are going to spend money to put something that people are protesting about then please don’t do it. Please do something about this otherwise Chanhassen will no longer be the best place to live in Minnesota. Sincerely yours, Arjau. Thank you. Weick: Thank you for sharing. Please. Dave Erickson: Hi, my name’s Dave Erickson. I live at 7095 Northwood Court. I am one of the neighborhoods represented by the consortium. I have been following their work and support it largely. One additional point I wanted to bring up tonight is something that I had thought about since reading about it. That corner today is a bus stop and it is, as I brought my daughter home from her first day of middle school today I saw it just crowded with, you know with school aged kids and everything up and down there so when I think of this project I think of the pros. I do have a sink just like your’s that was shown that gets flushed. You know I call the City and they flush the water mains and it goes away and I call again. I’m assuming by the way on that point that there’s some ROI that’s been calculated that says the cost of doing that every year over takes the $20 million and ongoing maintenance costs and whatever at a certain point that that should be an easy formula to communicate. But I guess for the, if you look at the things of the day in the life effects of the aesthetics, the zoning, you know the traffic, I appreciate the City’s communication about the noise, the odor, the lights being mitigated on the plan and everything. Those were some big concerns but I think about that perilous walkway on Galpin between Lake Harrison and Longacres and there’s very little, a very narrow berm between the sidewalk and the street and it’s full of school kids and I just want to think about, I’m not big into you know worst case scenarios but I think about a truck carrying hazmat going down that bus stop road during the winter and I think that that is a factor that has to be considered upon the placement of this plant as you consider alternate locations and consider where you have otherwise trucks of the same nature going elsewhere in the city. That bus stop factors scares me in addition to the points that were brought up. So I want to bring that up. I do want to thank the City again for soliciting this much outreach. As a guy who’s civic involvement rarely goes beyond the voting booth this was a great solicitation of input and the other night so I do thank you. Weick: Well thank you for coming tonight. Welcome. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Scott Wosje: Good evening. Scott Wosje, Northwood Court. 7125. For the record I am as it stands against the plan as it is presented. Back in ’99 when I moved in and saw the sign go up in ’05 or whenever it was, that was then. This is now and I would like to see what a 5 year, 10 year, 15 year plan looks like for a water treatment plant in the United States. Part of what was mentioned early on is the purview is not the process and it’s more does it meet code. Does it not meet code. If I’m you and I would challenge you and question you, how can you approve something that you don’t really know whether we need or not. I’ve heard something about what is the process. Does it flush water? Is there ground water? I’ve heard do we need something. Does this replace a facility? Does this add to the facility? My perspective as an outsider coming into this is there’s not clarity on what is needed and what is really needed. Is this chlorine gas really needed or as Level 4 water treatment plants around the United States have started to switch away from chlorine gas. How can you approve something that you’re not 100 percent sure of? That’s my outsiders perspective. And the other question is, is the second facility really needed? I have not had an issue with the water. I’m pretty simple. As the day is long, I drive my tractor and drink beer and mow the lawn. I’m a pretty simple person so if the water is bad it doesn’t really bother me. Is it really needed? I would question that and is it really needed in a residential area? Everybody drives by the east treatment plant and I think we’re all happy with it because it’s right on the Highway 5 and it fits into that commercial space. Is there anything we can do to look at that and as others have echoed here, I don’t know that anybody’s necessarily against adding another plant if we need one and again I would emphasize if we really need one because as a taxpayer I’m not convinced that we necessarily do. Thanks for your time. Weick: Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, I will close the public hearing portion this evening and open for commissioner comment. Undestad: I will start out here I guess. First of all it’s nice to see so many people come out and you represent so many more people. The council, I mean with the public meetings and things the council see and hear everything you guys have brought forth tonight and deal with that. I think one of the things that we are looking at as the commission here is what we’re dealing with and it’s more of, and I don’t want to say we’re not concerned about what’s the end use in there but what we’re looking at is does it meet the criteria. Does it meet the zoning? Can we do the platting? It really goes to the council with your comments on the end use and the water treatment facility on there but we are somewhat limited as to what we are looking at here and the project in front of us is the replatting and the site plan approval on here so I think I just have to keep the focus on that even though I’m not saying that your concerns are not concerns. Aanenson: If I may Chairman. Weick: Yes. Aanenson: I just want to kind of reiterate that. I think just for your information, maybe Paul you can talk about how many meetings you’ve had with the public. Neighborhood meetings. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Oehme: So Ms. Aanenson, commission members. So we had 2 neighborhood meetings and we solicited input from all the surrounding communities or the surrounding neighborhoods and we’ve also visited on site with some of the HOA consortium representatives a couple times and we’ve also visited with them on, in a separate meeting as well at the library so and many, many emails going back and forth between residents and staff members so you know we’ve tried to keep this process as open as we can and try to solicit input as much as we can to make this a good project that the neighbors can support. Aanenson: So to that point I also want to state that the City Council also has had some work sessions on this. I know some of the neighbors have been there for that so I just want to, because you, this is your first time seeing it. I just want to, everybody in the audience here, everybody watching at home to understand that so this is your first time seeing all this so a lot of how the design is worked or been driven, some of the decisions that were made, were made by the council which is their purview. Your purview as Commissioner Undestad just stated is to look at the site plan. Does the site plan meet the standards? Certainly all the concerns and the verbatim Minutes, all the attachments will be public. They’re already in the folder. Those will still also go forward but some of the issues that were raised, whether or not this is a good time or bad time, that’s really outside of your purview right now. The question again, speaking with the City Attorney today is really does the site plan and the subdivision meet the warrants to move forward and if you want to as a part of that modify you know or do an addendum with some concerns you might want the council to look at you’re certainly within your purview to do that but some of these decisions really that’s not part of what we’re here tonight for so all of this will be compiled to go to the City Council if that makes sense. Weick: It does, thank you. Aanenson: Okay. Weick: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I agree, Kate I think framed the issue on what we are responsible to do but I think some of the points that have been made are worth taking into consideration. Certainly the technology, technology’s changing a lot. Treatment processes for all kinds of things have been changing very rapidly over the last 10 to 12 years I’m sure. Pentair has been very much in the middle of it. I’d welcome the free services from Pentair to work with our engineers and joint a public/private partnership and come up with an alternative that’s economically appropriate and physically works within the confines of either that site or maybe another site in the community but I think with the number of years that have gone on with the study of this, you know we’re all well aware of when that site has been on the comp plan for many, many years. Maybe the issue of chlorine is something that people are just learning about but the site is not new. But I understand that we do have to take into consideration all of your concerns which is very important but I think technology certainly needs to be considered. If the cost of new technology is more, maybe the long term benefits are greater and you know the cost per unit, 10 years or 15 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 years from now might be significantly less to do. If it is an aesthetic issue that’s one thing. If it’s a health issue it’s certainly another one. I don’t want to be one to recommend that every homeowner has to go out and buy a pure air filter and change their cartridge every 6 months because the City isn’t doing what a city should do to provide good service and high quality water but that’s what I have to say. I think we need to add something to the motion that goes to council for further, for some further consideration of, and I know that you all have done a great job thus far but maybe if you have been handcuffed in any way with looking at systems that fit today’s standard, maybe we need to explore and then take an assessment of the cost of a change in direction. That’s all. Weick: Thank you. Please. Randall: I just want to say thank you to everyone that came tonight. Your presentations were outstanding. I read through a lot of the documents, emails that were sent. I agree with my colleagues here. There are those concerns that need to be addressed with the City Council and I know we have limited scope here tonight on what we’re covering. I understand the importance of it to you. I live in that area too. I drive by that. I know the area. I have, I haven’t put a water filtration in yet but it’s on my list. But I just want to say thanks for coming in and bringing those concerns tonight. It’s really important to us. Weick: Thank you. I will obviously echo what everyone has said. This is the most important thing the Planning Commission does are hearings like this and the reason is this is how your concerns and ideas get into the record and in front of the City Council. This is the platform to be able to do that and that is why this is so critically important and we all have echoed that because it doesn’t get in front of the City Council any other way and so again thank you. Your so eloquently spoken this evening. All of your ideas. Both for and against and it’s refreshing to hear and again all of that is entered into the record and will be considered by the City Council when we move forward. However as has been mentioned this public hearing for purposes of this hearing we are guided to judge whether the land use is appropriate within the existing city Comprehensive Plan. Whether it’s the preliminary plat or the site plan and whether that meets the guidelines. I mean that is ultimately how our, that’s what we can make a decision on this evening. So with that if there are no other comments I would entertain a motion. Tietz: Can we make an amendment though to the recommendations? Weick: Please. Tietz: To address and I’m not sure how to word it but I think to address the, how can we word that? Undestad: Something about technology? Tietz: Well the, yeah. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Randall: One point that I thought that was really relevant, what Mr. Miller said about the easy versus best. I think that should be tied into the amendment. Have the City Council look at that and I think that ties into a lot of these, that kind of summarizes a lot of these things that were brought up tonight regarding, if that’s too brief I don’t know we can add something to it also. Weick: For purposes in a motion if I could ask for clarification, how would we, if we wanted to add an addendum to some point saying consideration of other processing systems or methods, is that something we would add to the actual motion? Aanenson: Typically in the past what you’ve done is said we’d like this following information, the following concerns to be addressed at the City Council but you would leave your motion as it is because you’re sticking to legalistic requirements of your purview. Tietz: Purview. Aanenson: Yep and then you could add whatever other information you would like the City Council to potentially consider as a part of that. Weick: And we would just add that to the record one time. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, typically you’ve done your motion first and then just make it part of the record moving forward, sure. Weick: Motion first. Okay. Is that fair? Tietz: Yeah. Weick: We’ll make a list of… Randall: You’re going to make a motion to. Tietz: Well here’s the, you know Mark I can read. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat for Lake st Harrison 1 Addition and site plan for the 16,950 square foot. You should have square foot water treatment facility subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a second. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Tietz moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat creating one lot and two outlots and site plan for a 16,950 square foot water treatment facility subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of facts and recommendation: SUBDIVISION Existing drainage and utility easements on these properties must be vacated prior to recording the final plat. SITE PLAN Building 1.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Environmental Resources Specialist 1.All existing trees to be preserved shall have tree protection fencing installed at the driplines or a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk, prior to any grading. 2.Proposed landscaping will be field located. Engineering 1.The existing drainage and utility easements must be vacated prior to recording the final plat. 2.Curb and gutter are required around the parking area. 3.An ADA-compliant curb ramp must be installed from the parking area at the Manchester Drive cul-de-sac to the 8-foot wide trail. 4.The following comments must be incorporated into the final grading plan: a)The bottom of wall elevation of the northerly retaining wall is mislabeled (shown as 914.0’, appears to be 1014.0’), and b)The 984’ contour southwest of the parking area is mislabeled (shown as 884’). 5.The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Access Charge (Metro SAC) must be paid with the building permit. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 6.The West Water Treatment Plant is not subject to the City Sewer Access Charge and Water Access Charge (City SAC and WAC). 7.The applicant shall prepare a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit to the city for approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 8.A stormwater management plan, including a hydraulic and hydrologic model, volume reduction methods, a water quality model (either P8 or MIDS Calculator), and Walker calculations demonstrating adequate capacity within the existing and proposed conveyance system shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any permits. 9.The applicant shall submit and receive all applicable permits from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District prior to commencement of any work on the site. 10.The applicant shall submit and receive all applicable permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to commencement of any work on the site. 11.The plans shall be modified to clearly demarcate the wetland boundary and the edge of buffer. 12.A vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13.The plan shall indicate placement of wetland buffer signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aanenson: Now whatever addendums or criteria you’d like the council to consider, if you want to just itemize those and that will be part of the record. Weick: Okay. You had one Commissioner Randall. Randall: Yeah. Mr. Miller’s point regarding the speed of the process I guess. Just easy versus best I think, I’m assuming that he’ll be bringing that up at the City Council but I just, addendum to see if this is the best or the easiest alternative. Weick: Okay. Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah something that we could do about review alternative design approaches anticipating, how do we do this? Taking into account alternatives in today’s market that may be, this is getting way too wordy and may be more costly but yet more beneficial to the community long term. Kate help me. You’re good at wording. Aanenson: I’m assuming you’re really talking about technology. Tietz: More the technology of the process. Aanenson: Correct so it might change the shape of the building or something. Tietz: Could change the shape of the building. It could change the cost of the structure. It could change the timeframe for delivery. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Aanenson: Correct. Just so the technology, yeah got it. Tietz: Technology. Weick: I would say any of my concerns have been captured already in the record as part of the public hearing both about size of the building, water quality, things like that so I would not add anything to that. Commissioner Undestad? Undestad: No, I agree. I’m good. Weick: Okay, thank you for allowing us to do that Kate. And again thank everybody for coming this evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 16, 2016 as presented. Weick: I think we’ll give the room a second to clear out and then we’ll do commissioner presentations and city presentations. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Okay I think we’re ready. Weick: Yep we can continue. Aanenson: So we noted the Minutes correct? Weick: Yes we did. Aanenson: Okay, alright. So now we’re on. Weick: That’s my favorite part of the meeting. Aanenson: Yeah me too. So now we’re onto council update so I’ll give you that. They approved the final development contract for Anthem on the Park. Some of the outstanding issues there was getting the development contract approved and it looks like there’s a pre-con meeting set for this Friday. Yep so Mr. Generous met with the developer and engineering to go through all the finals. I think the Forester’s ready to walk the property. I think I mentioned at the last meeting the Water Resources Coordinator and the City Forester did walk our other project, Fox Woods so those have all, are ready to be mobilized so they’re working to get those plats 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 underway. Also the City Council approved the ordinance regulating drop homes so while we approved it, it also meant that we’re denying how they’re being approved so again Foxwood as I just mentioned, that wetland was approved so that one is underway for grading. They have their letter of credit. They did close and so like I said we walked that site. I did want to point out then th for upcoming items, we do have an item on for the September 20 one and that’s the Paisley Park museum. That is a rezoning. The issue there is that we’ve had a lot of interest of you know how is this being treated differently than Chick-fil-A and the like but this is an existing building so what’s changing on this building is it’s going from a recording studio to a museum so really the biggest drivers there are how we manage the assembly which is really architectural controls of access, ingress and then the other one is the parking study. So we’re putting together an ordinance and it will probably be somewhat phased. In looking at kind of what their, if you read their business plan with this is online of kind of what they’re looking at so that public hearing is we’re doing a PUD and the reason we’re doing a PUD is a museum is currently not permitted in the IOP District but the PUD allows us to put in there some standards to regulate so the residents have kind of an understanding of how that business will be used and the frequency and how the trips will be generated and how they’ll be managed so you’ll be seeing that then again on the th 20. Tietz: Kate is this anticipated to be a short term solution or long term solution? Aanenson: Well it will be a short term solution until we can resolve some of the long term issues. I think for circulation we need to get some watershed district approvals and the like so we’ll see that so I think right now if you read their business plan, which is online if anybody wants to look at that, there are some things that they probably won’t start. They still want to do some venues so many times a year so those are all the things we’ll put in the ordinance but those wouldn’t take place until 2017 and by then we’d want to see some additional parking and that sort of thing so right now. Tietz: By short term will they park across Audubon? Aanenson: Short term they’ll likely be bused in. Tietz: Bused in. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: Would long term maybe the Prince property west of Audubon be used? Aanenson: It could be. That’s a possibility. Tietz: But that’s not part of their plan. Aanenson: That’s not being rezoned at this time correct. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Tietz: So they’ll bus in, excuse me for not having read that plan but where would they bus in from? Aanenson: They’re working on that now. There’s a couple different alternatives. I mean it could as far as Mall of America. It could be a couple different places. Tietz: Oh wow. Aanenson: Yeah so they’ve got to figure that out. Tietz: Kind of like the Ryder Cup where I live 2 blocks away and I’m a volunteer and I have to park at Valley Fair. Aanenson: Right, right. You can hitchhike in right so. Tietz: I’ll get the drill figured out about the second day. Aanenson: Yeah so that’s really the issue there is I think so we’re not changing the color of the building. The framework of the architecture of the building is not changing. I think one of the things that we also want to work on is the perimeter because we have a lot of people walking there now and so we’ll be addressing that and you’ll see how that’s going to be addressed so we don’t have that conflict of people walking from the city park and people driving in because there’ll be more trips so. Tietz: So excuse me again. Aanenson: Yeah, absolutely. Tietz: Is the building sprinkled? Aanenson: Paisley yeah, it is yep. Yep. Tietz: Is it? Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: So it was built at a time that it was required by fire code? Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: Okay because that would be a safety concern if you’ve got a whole bunch of people. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Aanenson: Absolutely. And so I think for the staff kind of the building code issues is a little bit lower hurdle. I think we can address all those. I think just the management of how this works in working out the kinks. Yeah so that’s, most of us will, we’ll get a handle on it so we’ll share that with you so. I know Mark won’t be at that meeting. Mark Undestad so yep. Randall: I was just going to ask you. What’s the change in the zoning exactly? Aanenson: We’re just doing a PUD so it will still be office industrial park but we’re going to under the PUD add museum as a permitted use. Randall: Oh okay. Aanenson: If we went to OI it’s more restrictive and they still want to do some varied uses in there that would accommodate that really in that current zoning district so it just, it just regulates that because we want to have full disclosure and have the residents understand how it’s being used. Randall: Gotch ya. Aanenson: So everybody feels comfortable. Randall: That makes sense. Aanenson: Because right now we’ve had temporary parties, special events out there which tend to be at night which maybe aren’t as bothersome to the neighbors because they’re maybe later at night and earlier in the morning but now we have a frequency of traffic that’s also working in with the existing traffic patterns there so we just want to make sure we’re managing that. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE PARK LAND AROUND LAKE ANN. Aanenson: The other thing I want to share with you, moving on is a letter from Todd Hoffman because obviously the Prince properties are all up for sale. A majority of them are working through the process. This one probably won’t be on the market for quite a while. At least maybe til 2017 but I just want to share with you on the Comprehensive Plan that’s in place right now and there is the guiding around that is a trail around the lakes there so that would be just on the other side of Lake Ann Park. So that loop, a complete trail would come around Lake Ann Park. Lake Ann and Lake Lucy so we’d have trails around those so it’d be continuous trails which would be a really nice benefit so that’s in place right now. I just want to share this with you because we have had so many emails from people thinking that you know, but we do have good planning in process and we’ve thought about how we would get additional parkland. Doing some of what we’ve done before. Doing some of those density transfers and so some pretty creative stuff. I know there’s a lot of people looking at this property, trying to develop it so we’ll 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 see what happens but we’re in good shape. I know Commissioner Tietz is on, there’s a study committee right now for the park commission looking at park so this will be one of the properties that they’re looking at but we do have a good park plan in place on this piece of property so I just wanted to reassure you how that works and you can see the note from Todd Hoffman so regarding the number of calls that we’re getting so we think we’re in good shape there and we can manage that. A lot of interest in that property so we’ll see when that happens. And then you’ve got additional property potentially some day down the road immediately to the west of that because that could develop too so some of that’s going to kind of change the character if you look on Galpin because we’ll probably have more trips on Galpin as it is now today. You can imagine there’ll be over 225 houses. Once you get over 225 it would require an EAW so that would look at some of the trip generation. What improvements would need to be made on those streets so we’ll be looking at all that as we’re kind of working our way through the comp plan but rest assured we’re in good shape there if something was to happen today but we don’t anticipate that for at least 6 months to a year so I just wanted to share that with you. Other than that, so we do have something for sure on and then just also let you know Avienda, the lifestyle st center, also regional significance got moved back to November 1. Again that will be the concept PUD so I hope a lot of, everybody for that meeting too. So if somebody knows they’re going to be gone ahead of time, the longer shout you give me out it’s more helpful for me to try to gauge who’s coming and so I don’t have to bother you at the last minute panics because the last 2 meetings I was really worried about quorums so if you know you’re going to be gone and it happens sometimes at the last minute but at least I can kind of gauge where we are in numbers so I don’t have to keep bothering you I’d appreciate that. I know the commitment it takes. st Undestad: November 1 meeting? Aanenson: Yeah, Avienda. You think you’ll be gone? Undestad: No, no, no. I’m just, I’ll be here. Aanenson: That’s what they’re saying right now and again that’s going to be the concept. They have to update that. You know we’ve been waiting to get going on updating all the environmental documents on that too but yeah, I think that’s a big project. I mean that’s economic impact. Tietz: And the issue we had tonight it talked about the, I call it County Road 117 I guess is Galpin. The transfer from county to city, where’s the discussion of that and would that, if that did occur would then we reduce the speed limit? Be able to reduce the speed limit. Aanenson: You know that’s probably a good question for the City Engineer. Tietz: Well if there isn’t an answer now that’s fine. Aanenson: No, no, no. I was going to say Bob. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Generous: Well we know some preliminary stuff. The City would take it back if Carver County would upgrade it. We know eventually it needs to be 4 lanes. Aanenson: Right so, and the reason I turned to Bob is he’s working on all the traffic analysis zones for the comp plan so part of what we’ll put in the comp plan is any deficiencies in the infrastructure of our streets so we know that road’s going to be upgraded. It will when all that development. Tietz: Well unfortunately it just totally deteriorates when it gets to Shorewood so. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: I mean we can upgrade to Lake Lucy Road and then beyond that it just goes to. Aanenson: Yep, exactly. Tietz: So you’ll never have a good or we will never have a good connection to Highway 7 on Galpin. Aanenson: Right and I think there’s frustration too for people that want to use the pedestrian way. That want to bike in that direction. There’s lack of trails there too right. So I think that’s something that you know that we should certainly look at the comp plan and try to maybe make one of those a priority to partner more with Shorewood or try to resolve those issues because yes, a lot of, if you think about it there’s, at the end of Oppidan just got approved at the end of that road there. Senior housing. Tietz: Yeah I mean that piece is about that big. Aanenson: I know. They’re doing a senior housing but then across the street. Tietz: 40 units. Aanenson: Then across the street there’s another. Weick: Where? Tietz: Right on Chaska Road and 7, it used to be you could cross 7 and, well now you, if you want to go south just past the old Country Kitchen you can take a left. Well as soon as you go left that little sliver of land with the red brick building and 2 houses, that’s all torn down for a senior housing project and Shorewood approved it. Aanenson: Yes, Oppidan’s building it and gosh I want to say it’s like 130 so… 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Tietz: It’s over 130 units yeah. Aanenson: So we’ll show you on the screen here. So it’s really between. Tietz: It’s right here. Well I can’t point. Aanenson: I think we’re in the right spot aren’t we? Tietz: Yeah we are. Aanenson: Between Galpin and. Tietz: Go to the top with your pointer. Go a little left. No, no, no, you were fine. Just your pointer was down, down, down. Aanenson: Right in there. Tietz: Okay just go left. Right. Left. Weick: It’s right here. Isn’t it between. Tietz: There’s Chaska Road and Highway 7. It’s that wedge. Aanenson: Right that little wedge, right. So when you think about the deficiencies right so that, and then you go across the street and there’ll be another senior housing there so I think it’s something while we’re updating the Comprehensive Plan to think about how we can partner more and then encourage Shorewood to make some improvements and maybe they will with some of these projects. Tietz: Well they do it with patches. Aanenson: Right, that doesn’t always work so anyways so some challenges so good things to think about as we, you know that’s one of the things we’ll put into the comp plan. There’s some other deficiencies in some old segments there but that’s one of the reasons we haven’t taken it back is the cost of updating it. It was the same issue with 101 so with that thank you for running the meeting tonight. Weick: Thank you. Any commissioner presentations? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 6, 2016 Undestad moved, Tietz seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30