The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1995 08 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ron Nutting, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, and Craig Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II, John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS. REOUEST FOR A SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN 8 Fl'. HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HUNTER DRIVE AND HWY. 41 AND LONGACRES DRIVE. John Rask presented the st'iff tepot~ on this item. Mancino: Do any of the commissioners have questions of staff?. Peterson: Is the actual, having looked at it, is the actual, what is over 8 feet? Everything? I mean you look at the lights. Rask: That's pretty much measured from the back side of that sign up. Peterson: So from the curb. Rask: Yeah. So if you took it from the top of that planter box, you're probably about 7 feet. Peterson: So the actual lights, the lighting and the sides are actually much higher than that? Rask: Yeah. Yes, they are. The stone columns there? Peterson: Yeah. Rask: Yeah. Mancino: John, how long have we had that sign ordinance? Because I know Lundgren Bros have been building in Chanhassen for a while. How long have we had the sign ordinance that gives the height? Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Rask: Actually that part of it, when we updated the sign ordinance earlier this year, back in January, that was one of the areas that remained unchanged. Those requirements, we did clean it up a bit. A little bit, the language of it but those requirements have been in place ever since we've had the sign ordinance here. Mancino: Oh, okay so throughout the years through Willow Ridge, through most of their developments in Chanhassen, that's been the ordinance? Rask: Correct. Yeah, the 5 feet has been in place. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff?. Thank you very much for the staff report. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come up. State your name. Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm a Vice President of Lundgren Bros. I'm here tonight with one of my associates, David Hinners. I was the project manager for the Meadows at Longacres. The 1 st Addition and...to express my contriteness in failing to obtain a sign permit. To clarify, I have been around for a while. I have obtained sign permits for other signs and basically, in the context of the development problems that occurred with that particular project, we felt because of numerous reviews that had been already undertaken with the city, that we were doing something that was going to be acceptable but I flat out forgot to get a sign permit for that particular sign. And just as a point of clarification, we've got a copy of the city ordinance in our office. The whole thing, and it's necessary because ordinances change, to have the pages sent out from time to time from the Planning Department and other departments. I know for a fact that the version of the sign ordinance that we have in our book, which is dated, does not say anything about 5 foot high signs. It says that public institutional signs may be no higher than 5 feet or residential area identification signs. All it says is the maximum sign area is 24 square feet. Now that is not an excuse. I'm not going to try to make an excuse but that's to correct the statement that I heard. The fault still is our's knowing that permits are required. Should have taken the proper steps to assure that the submission would be made and if the submission had been made, that would have been discovered. But it wasn't and we've got to try to carry on in some fashion. Dave is going to present more information on the site, and the reasoning behind why the sign that's in place, is what it is. I think there's a substantial hardship on the Highway 41 side. I think that sign can be justified and Dave will make that point I'm sure. Beyond that, one of the reasons I'm not working on the Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition, or Woods is that I'm getting old and I forget things. With that having been said, I've temporarily stepped back and would like Dave to kind of take you through our reasoning. Mancino: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 David Hinners: I'm David Hinners. I'm with Lundgren Bros. I want to first of all, before I go any further, explain the sunglasses. I just recently had eye surgery and my left eye is sort of out of sorts so out of courtesy to you all, I'll keep it covered up. I had my choice between the sunglasses or a pirate's patch and I felt the sunglasses were a little bit less, I'm more comfortable with sunglasses. I hope that's okay. Longacres is a project that's approximately 225 lots in size and is approximately 200 acres in size. It's composed of basically two components. We have the Meadows at Longacres, which is the western side of the project, and then we have the Woods at Longacres, which is the eastern side. This is Galpin Boulevard right here. This is Highway 41 here. Our project has three entrances internally to the project. One is off Highway 41 at Longacres Drive. This is Longacres Drive. And it exits or enters off of Galpin Road and Longacres Drive. That's entrance number two. And our third entrance will be down here off of Hunter Drive, which is in our 1st Addition to the Woods. At the present time we are building houses in the Meadows at Longacres 1st Addition. We are currently under construction, under development, streets and utilities at the Longacres 2nd Addition. Additionally we are under development with street and utilities and a Parade house in the 1st Addition of the Woods at Longacres. Because of the three entrances that we have, and the size of the project, we wanted to make a strong statement as one enters into the project. We feel that the Longacres Project, because it's a beautiful site. Very wooded. A lot of wetlands. That we wanted to use a material that is made of, in design, and sort of rural in context and for that reason we selected a fieldstone type of monument coupled with fieldstone columns and incorporated a split rail fence and the appropriate landscaping to match those. The entrances all come off of main roads, highways if you will. Posted speed on TH 41 is 55 mph and I believe it's 45 mph over on Galpin so the highway speeds are quite significant. The other thing that one notices as you drive down Highway 41 is the fact that there's a lot of woods and vegetation that come right up to the right-of-way. There's virtually a curtain of trees and vegetation as one goes down the road and as one travels either north or south on Longacres, if you're turning from the north going south, you actually start to decline in elevation as you enter into the area of the entrance to Longacres. As shown from the south going north, it's just the opposite obviously. But the point I'm making is that as you're driving down the road, that you see a curtain of trees and occasionally an opening where there is either a driveway or something. We have that same constraint here on TH 41 in that there, and I'll show you on a slide here in a moment when I'm taking about. But I'm going to use terms like a window, or sense of arrival and entry. Those are key. A lot of money and time and effort was put into the design of our entrance features. We put a lot of effort into that. It's almost like the nameplate on a house. It's something that's a statement. It's something that we want our customers and we want obviously the city and our customer's guests to feel that when they arrive at the project, that they have this feeling of passage and arrival as they enter into the project. And we feel also that the entrances should all be identical in design and that they should all be of the same shape and scale and proportion and the reason for that is that Longacres is the project, even Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 though there may be the Woods at Longacres and the Meadows at Longacres. It's still Longacres and we want people to arrive either at this entrance or those entrances to know that they're in the same project. The scale is important in design to create the feeling of arrival and passage. As one enters a development, we feel that the subdivision name needs to be prominent. We feel that one needs to know when one enters and when one is leaving so that entrance is extremely important. And we feel that to reduce the height of the monument to 5 feet would seriously jeopardize, not only the design characteristics of our entrance, but would also be a hinderance to what we're attempting to achieve with this sense of arrival and presence. I'd like to do the slides here if I could. Now I can't focus in on anything so, can you see that? Mancino: That's fine. David Hinners: When we, is it possible to dim the lights a little bit? This is the entrance sign on Longacres Drive at Highway 41. The picture is taken standing right in front of the flower bed, looking in an eastward direction at the sign base and what's applicable about this photograph is I wanted to show the fieldstone, the copy, the logo. How the arch is in relation to the width and how everything is proportioned. We feel that this proportion is extremely relevant. Mike Pflaum: Before you change the slide Dave. The topic and matter at hand is strictly this element of the entrance. There was some comment earlier about the columns. The columns are not part of the entrance monument. The columns are not in question here. The big question is the fieldstone wall that bears the name. David Hinners: Right. The 8 foot dimension goes to here. As John pointed out earlier, it was an issue that the back of the sign I believe up to the top of this. The 5 foot level is approximately to here, so in order to bring, in order for this sign to be in compliance, this arch would need to be down here, which would force this copy down into this range here, which makes it very difficult, I think, to be able to read at a significant distance that one's going to be viewing the sign from. I included a couple of slides here to show how the entrance feature, the center island entrance feature is in relation to the other elements in the entrance design. As Mike pointed out, we're basically containing ourselves with the center island median. However, I think it's important to point out that that has been designed as an integral element in the overall design. The top of the arch is the same level as the top of the two side columns. The pre-cast concrete columns that are here. There's another one right here. Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mike Pflaum: Dave, you might point out the trees that are actually behind the monument on the median. It's tough if somebody hasn't seen that on site. It looks like those trees might be along the boulevard. They're actually the backdrop for the entrance monument. David Hinners: You can sort of see them there. There's several large poplar trees that sort of frame the entrance monument. This is another view of it. I'm standing now right at the edge of the curb on TH 41 looking in and as you can see, the center island median monument is in relation to the proportion of scale to the columns and the columns in turn are proportion in scale to the fence, which is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. Another view of the monument. As I was pointing out earlier, as you go down TH 41. This is the view from the north, looking south. You can see how the elevation is declining in there, but the curve in the trees is what I wanted to point out in this. As you're driving down TH 41 at the posted speeds, you just don't see that entrance until you're right on top of it. And second of all, if you can notice in the break of the trees on the left, you can see a couple of the columns over there. You can see that it's a lesser elevation than the road. That decline in elevation further hinders the readability of that sign if the sign is reduced. Mike Pflaum: Before you switch that. The center line of Highway 41 is over 100 feet from the sign, which is a long, long ways. This is by way of saying that a sign that is slightly larger than 5 feet might be perfectly appropriate at a location that far from the public street. David Hinners: This is a view from the south, viewing north and our entrance is off to the right. Again, the idea is to show the narrow window in which one has to view, and not taking the entrance. And then I'm standing directly across the street and that is basically what I term the window and it appears for only a moment as you drive by on the road. As you can see, even from this distance, the size of the sign. If we were to bring that down, as I indicated earlier, the copy would be just above the tops of the flowers and in winter if there was any sort of a snowfall, this sign, you wouldn't be able to see the sign at all. This is a picture of a vehicle that is traveling south that is in the window and the idea is to give you the location where someone is driving on the road may not be absolutely sure where Longacres Drive is. There is a left hand turn lane there, that if any of you have had the occasion to drive down there, I think you'd see what I mean. It comes upon you very fast. Mike Pflaum: Before you switch the slide there's two things I would say. One thing is, if the commissioners have driven TH 41 past the project, or maybe even driven into the project from TH 41, and are aware that Longacres Drive is going down hill off of TH 41 and by going down hill off TH 41, it again recommends a slightly higher sign to be seen by passing vehicles. The other thing that I want to point out. Dave has mentioned that it's hard to see the entrance. One of our sales people who sales out at that site, was in a very serious automobile accident out in front as she was stopped with her turn signal on waiting to turn Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 into the site and was plowed into from behind by a guy towing a trailer. People don't even see this intersection coming down TH 41. That's a different issue from the sign but it is certainly evidence that her car was totaled. I mean she was lucky she wasn't killed. But that is basically a blind sort of intersection because of the fact that Longacres Drive is falling away from TH 41 on down. No matter what kind of monument you've got there... David Hinners: In that regard, I think the sign needs to be as large as it is so that when one is looking, one isn't spending time searching for the words. One can see it as they turn right in. I was going to mention that any of you who have ever gone out, especially in the evening to try to find a house and all you have is a number and the house numbers are so small you can't read them. Or the signs, the street signs are so small that they're illegible. So it makes it very difficult and very frustrating. I've had to even stop my car, get out my flashlight and walk up and look at it just to see it. Identification signs should be simply that. They should identify and be large enough to be legible. We feel that a 5 foot height in our instances, not only on the TH 41 entrance for the two Galpin Road entrances, that they should be of a larger size to be legible and also be readable. Again, to recant what Mike had said earlier. We regret that we have to come to you at this time to discuss this topic but here we are and in all honesty, we did think that we had the approval to proceed when we did. We would respectfully request that the City of Chanhassen approve the request for Lundgren Bros to have a sign height variance to allow the 3 entry monuments at the intersection of TH 41 and Longacres Drive, Galpin and Hunter Drive and Galpin and Longacres Drive, to remain at the size that is designed and is represented by...Thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Mike Pflaum: Could I ask a question of staff?. Mancino: Yes. If you could ask that of me and then I'll direct it. Thank you. Mike Pflaum: Madam Commissioner. The question is this. How many signs could we have within this project? It's two PUD's and I know what the old sign ordinance that I've still got in the book but I think that there is benefit to the city, obviously. There are many benefits to the city in having large planned unit developments. One of the benefits that I can see here is if in fact we would, me or other developers, plural, would have the opportunity to put up many signs within this project. It would seem to me that the city would probably benefit by having fewer signs. Maybe larger signs. Rather than having many signs and smaller. It just so happens that we've acquired a large piece of property and are developing it as a unified whole. Actually it was two separate PUD's, as I'm sure the commission knows. Two separate PUD's were assembled and they have become Longacres and Longacres with some Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 stub neighborhoods. So that's a benefit. It seems to me that there probably could be 10 different neighborhoods. 10 different entrance monuments. So I don't know what, is this true? Mancino: Well I think the question isn't how many. It's really the height variance at this point. Mike Pflaum: I know, but I'm not talking. I understand. The matter before you is the height variance. I'm talking about benefit to the city. Mancino: Appreciate it, thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing. Nutting moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. The public heming was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this issue, please come up and state your name and address and any views that you may have on this. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, F,'umakes seconded to close the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heming was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioners comments, and please remember that the public hearing is closed so that no one from the audience is to speak after the public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners. Jeff, you worked on the sign ordinance forever and a day and know it probably backwards and forwards. Could I ask you to give some comments on what's before us tonight. Farmakes: I do not have total recall of every ordinance, as I'm sure. Mancino: Every line of the ordinance? Farmakes: Every line of the ordinance but I think what's before us is a variance, and we have an established criteria of what that is. In this case I think clearly the criteria isn't being met, and I think that the staff has pointed that out pretty clear. The argument is that, as I understand it, is that there are other reasons of benefit that are being explained to us. However, when we look at these things as a matter of procedure, every sign could be built as the client would like it and then can come back and say, well this serves our needs better. It serves the city better. It's a safer sign. The way to correct that, if there is a problem, is to go back into the ordinance and then look at what is established. There's no such thing as a Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 perfect ordinance. That's why we're constantly changing things. They were changed a while ago. The ordinance was passed a while ago. The issue of more signs and so on isn't really relevant to what's before us. Although the amount of signage in both size and quantity could curtail to get the job done but be low impact. Height is an issue of signage, just like it's an issue in building. There's building codes that governs the buildings that Lundgren builds, and those are established over years and procedure with either safety or fitting in with rules that govern congregations of people. It makes for stable property values and it makes for a way to resolve issues of conflict. As a matter of consistency, by making variances of this nature once something is built, and it doesn't conform to what the rules are, it seems like a trifle matter. But in fact we deal with this every day when we're here in establishing what a community believes is in it's best interest and then asking people who build here to follow that. I think this, as it was explained, this is a mistake and it's a mistake however that seems to fit better with the logo and it's an attractive sign but the issue I think goes beyond that here. It's not, it really now is not the aesthetics of the sign. The issue is one of, if a variance is made for this sign, then what about the next sign or what about the other 15 signs that were made by other developers. We ask one developer to follow the criteria and the other, through an error, doesn't have to. But I think that I will fall back on what we've relied upon is a set of criteria. We've asked staff for this and what is the criteria for granting variances of this sort and I think clearly it's not meeting that criteria and I believe in any one case, if it doesn't meet it, we should not grant variances to remain legally consistent. That's it. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with Jeff and I see, sort of see an element where styling is taking precedence over function here. It's certainly a larger logo. The name is easily accountable. That doesn't mean...easier to see over a distance...point was brought up that the sign was 100 feet back from the center line to a highway. If that's one of the issues, I don't know what the minimum setback for that would be. If that's another parameter that I think could be used to satisfy that issue of visibility. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I also agree. I think it's more of an aesthetics issue than it is probably an issue of trying to find where you're going. I generally don't look for logo signs when I'm looking for a house. I drove by there tonight. I wasn't looking for the sign. I was looking for the street sign to bring me into the project so I see it really is, even though a mistake was made, I see the two additional signs as being more of an aesthetic issue as you come into the property than I do anything else, and I don't see a need for a variance for aesthetics. Mancino: Ron. Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: This is a tough one for me. I understand the criteria necessary for a variance. I understand staff's recommendation. You can't excuse not getting the permit. Mistakes happen. I don't have a problem with the sign. I think, having driven by it myself, aesthetics can be part of why a variance is granted. It's not, invariably everything is aesthetics to a certain extent. Staff, in their report, say that it doesn't meet the criteria but that they're making appropriate use of scale and materials. If this were before me originally for a variance, I think I probably would vote for it. So I'm going to buck the trend. Mancino: Okay. You're welcome to. Mike. Meyer: It just sounds like they made a mistake and are actually asking us to compound it by doing it two more times. The sign isn't in compliance and I guess from our point of view, we should be looking at enforcing the rules in place. I too think the sign is a good looking sign but I don't think that's the issue. That's all I have. Mancino: Thank you. I think the staff report was well written. Thank you John for the findings of fact and I also feel that, like everyone here, that the sign that is up on TH 41 is an attractive, well designed sign. However, it doesn't meet our existing sign ordinance and I think the findings of fact here show that we really don't have grounds to grant a variance. So with that, may I have a motion. Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the variance request for an 8 foot high entry monument sign on the staff report dated August 2, '95 for the following reasons, 1 thru 3. Mancino: Is there a second for the motion? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Fmmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission lecommend that the City Council deny the vmiance iequest roi' a eight (8) foot high entry monument sign fol' the following leasons: The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. . Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 . The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self-created, because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area. All voted in favor; except Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion cmaied with a vote of 5 to 1. Mancino: And could you please state your reasons. Nutting: I think as I indicated in my comments, I think I would vote for a variance. I think that's the issue. The criteria are one thing. What makes sense in terms of the scale of the project is just the way I feel. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Does not pass. When does this go to City Council? Rask: Actually it's going first City Council this month on the 12th. So it'd be at the very next one. Mancino: Okay, thank you. So please go ahead to City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE HAS SUBMITI'ED AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE FILLING AND STABILIZATION OF AN EXISTING RAVINE ON BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE RAVINE, THIS PROJECT WILL BE ONGOING AS CLEAN FILL BECOMES AVAILABLE. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT WILL BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY. Public P~esent: Name Add~ess Jim Sabinske Gary Anderson Dale Gunderson Gloria & Spencer Boynton Claire & Anne Vogel LaVi & Mike Lynch 775 Creekwood 725 Creekwood 845 Creekwood 777 Creekwood 815 Creekwood Dave Hempel p~esented the staff ~epo~( on this item. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Does the applicant wish to come up and make their presentation? Norm Berglund: I'll make just a few comments. I'm Norm Berglund, General Parmer in Bluff Creek Golf Course. As explained by Mr. Hempel, we have this very large ravine. What it says here is the golf course is on your left looking towards Shakopee. It's been there obviously for thousands of years and last fall we cleaned up a lot of cars and miscellaneous junk that had been dumped in there. Now this will be clearly...and what we'd like to do. What's happening, the soil conditions are such that about 20 to 30 feet below the surface, you have about a foot and a half to 2 feet of sandy soil. Basically it's clay before that. So you have the sandy soil and you get the ground water percolating up through which saturates that sandy soil and that runs horizontally out, which results in a lack of support. You get chunks that break off that are 10-15 feet back into the mountain, or hill. So...what we'd like to do is bring in clean fill on an ongoing basis and stabilize things and save some very, very nice trees. These are...I think it would be a great advantage and a way to improve...so many yards required and our thought is that the amount of activity going on...in the Chanhassen area, that to get fill...so we'd like to set the stage for this could go on for a number of years. It will result in the stabilization of the bluff and general enhancement of the beauty of the area, because it really is beautiful. So we appreciate your consideration of this opportunity. Any questions? Mancino: Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to open the public heming. Ail voted in favor and the motion c,-mied. The public heming was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and speak on this issue? Dale Gunderson: My name's Dale Gunderson. I'm from 845 Creekwood, which is right next door to the Winton property which is right next door to the ravine they're talking about. I know Norm and...real nice. I think this plan is a good plan. There are some things that I'm concerned about is the yardage of this thing and the tonnage that is being brought into this neighborhood. I'm very close to the road there and..big project that's been going on out there. My question to you Norm is when are they going to put bituminous down or is it going to remain gravel? Norm Berglund: Well we're going to, on the parking lot done early this fall. The driveway, because they've been doing this for a month and it rains about every third day...so we're going 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 to let the base materials settle over the winter and stabilize and put bituminous in in the spring. On the driveway. Dale Gunderson: Okay. And then they will start, if they give you your interim permit for filling. Norm Berglund: Oh it starts as soon as we can. Dale Gunderson: And I'm just really concerned because of the project, what has happened in just the creation of bringing in the new road. I'm 50 feet off of this thing and I'm really close to it. When they have the equipment coming through, our whole house is rattling and I'm on a point that's built there and I have a ravine between me and Lynch's and I have a ravine between me and the house on the east. Just from the equipment that's come in to do the road, my whole house is shaking and I'm worried about the erosion and problems that I could have by having continuous truck traffic on gravel roads. Norm Berglund: You'll never get a situation where you have continuous truck traffic. We brought in a lot of rock earlier but we were hauling in, normally when you get...let's say free fill, it's a load now and again. It's not steady. But I can't guarantee that. Mancino: Dave, can you give us any thoughts on that and the continual shaking of Mr. Gunderson's home? Hempel: I'm not sure of the foundation that Mr. Gunderson's home on but it's not that uncommon for construction traffic to rattle the china in the cabinets as heavy equipment goes by. That's certainly not that uncommon. A remedy to that? I'm not sure other than maybe trying to slow traffic down adjacent to homesites to minimize the disruption and the vibrations. Mancino: And maybe there's a plan that can be worked out to figure out how to take care of this. Dale Gunderson: Well my problem is just the gravel that's in there, when they're running on that, I mean that is like unbelievable and if there's bituminous in there and they're coming in occasionally, at least they're getting a smooth ride in. And I'm deadly serious about this erosion problem. That valley out there has several spots like what you're talking about in this plan and it's not an unusual thing for erosion to happen. Several of the ravines have been filled 2 or 3 times in the 10 years that I've lived there. And I'm just really concerned that I don't end up being a victim down on the ravine because of a construction project that's ongoing for years and years and years. I want to voice my concerns on that and make it part 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 of the record. The key issue is the pavement of the road and when it happens. The maintenance of the road. I've read through the plans here. I had a question about November 15th. I saw in the findings here that that's when the permit will expire. Am I correct when I'm talking that here? Mancino: Yes, you are. Dale Gunderson: When that expires, are you shutting down for the winter? Hempel: We will file a permit extension. Dale Gunderson: Then it will be an ongoing situation and even through the winter they'll be bringing fill in? Mancino: Yes, and I have some questions about that too, which the commission will address a little later. So that will come up. As far as how much hauling there will be during the winter, etc. Do you have any comments on item, there's a recommendation about the hours of operation should be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday and 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. Dale Gunderson: Well my comments to that situation, I know they've got a big job to do that's going to take many, many years but I would just as soon not listen to the equipment after I work all day and come home and have to listen to that. Saturdays are a situation that's, you know I'm open. But it's still a situation where it's evoking on free time that I might be enjoying without having semi's going by. The 7:00 to 7:00 I think is too long. And who will be checking the clean fill that's coming in this thing? And how do we verify what's going on. Mancino: David, who would be? Hempel: City staff members will make periodic reviews on the site as we're summoned by the applicant that hauling operations will commence. The Watershed District has also issued a permit for this operation and they will periodically make inspections on the site as well. There will not be anybody on site on a full time basis to monitor the filling activities. Mancino: Thank you. Dale Gunderson: So if I have problems and this is approved and I have problems, who do I get in touch with? I'm sitting in a pretty different spot there. I'm right in the middle of it and that's my concern. The road has always been a concern for a million years because of the 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 dust. Obviously we're all looking forward to bituminous and that's a great benefit to look forward to...bituminous down before all this starts, it will be worse than ever with only Class V being there. It's just phenomenal the dust problem out there. Mancino: Well I'm going to take the liberty of saying if you have some problems, you can call City Hall and talk to Mr. Hempel here. Dale Gunderson: Well those are my concerns and I just wanted to get them on record. Thanks. Mancino: Terrific. Gary Anderson: You met my neighbors. Gary Anderson, 725 Creekwood and I have concerns about the whole project in general. I'm the first house on Creekwood and I look at this program as how many years will you be hauling into this site? Is this a 10 year project? Is this where I moved into a construction zone... The staff says it's going to improve my quality of the price of my home. I can't see where those trucks are going to improve the quality and price of my home. I look at the clean fill issue. We all have private wells out there. It's going to be free fill. Who's to say what can be dumped into that ravine? I don't think anybody here can tell us what's going to be dumped in that ravine. Besides that, it's going to be free. With private wells, I'm going to have the well tested prior to this activity starting. I have a real concern about what's going to be put into the ravine. It may be just but who knows. I look at 193 acre golf course. I can't see where there wouldn't be an opportunity to come across the golf course at some point instead of utilizing Creekwood and coming across the golf course and then filling in that ravine. I look at the, we paid for that, 10 years ago we paid, the neighborhood paid to have that road blacktopped out of our pocket, with Mr. Berglund and the golf course, and the ravine that was filled there, I would say about a month ago, took a toll because of the trucks on that road. Mr. Hempel was out there I believe he's going to videotape that road. If you see the destruction that those trucks have done to that road, I had to pay $500.00 out of my own pocket. It isn't a lot to you folks but it's a lot to me. The other thing is that I don't have air conditioning. I have hot water, base board heat so it's very costly to put air conditioning in so I have to, in the last 2 weeks with the trucks being rolled through there now to upgrade the road, which I think is an excellent project and I think it's...to the west of me. But the traffic, the truck traffic and the dust that's created from those trucks is unbearable. I look at the whole size of Creekwood, which is only 20 feet wide. It doesn't allow for a truck and car to drive past safely. I look at the approach from TH 101 and I think that the Planning Commission has looked at that Halla Nursery project and the off and getting on to TH 101 is a real problem. I look at the sweeping of, who's going to sweep it after they came out. I can't believe that we're going to continue to have trucks rolling in year after year. I think we need to really look at the 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 program. I talked to Dave Hempel here the other day in regards to this issue. I mentioned about who's going to be, the staff report mentioned nothing about who's going to be monitoring...A ravine is a ravine but sometimes...in order to dump that fill in there, what's going to hold that fill in that ravine? That fill to me is going to, once you dump it in there, it's going to slide right down the hill and I can't see dumping 150 yards of fill in there at one time. What's going to hold that fill? It's just going to keep it...so I think as you walk around the golf course and you see all the ravines that are out there. I know that what we're trying to do with the watershed and $5.00 that we spend, pay to the city every month...that's close to 2,500 truck loads going up and down that's gradually going to, unlike 50 yards...so I have some concerns about the road and I'd like to have the Planning Commission come out there to Creekwood and see, to actually see what we're dealing with there. We have the traffic from the golf course right now and I think that relationship and the number of cars that are going down Creekwood right now, I would say in excess of 150 to 400 cars a day and I don't know of too many residential streets in the city of Chanhassen that has that many cars. We did a study here I believe 8 or 9 years ago telling them that road really has been...I invite the Planning Commission to come out and take a look at the site before making a decision and listen to the neighbors. I think a lot of the neighbors are here and I think that yes, I think Norm is doing, I mean he's trying to do the right thing. There could be other ways. Maybe coming onto the 193 acres of the golf course with dump trucks. Establishing construction roads through the golf course and bringing the trucks in there. I don't know but I'm trying to think of some suggestions... Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Nutting moved, Fammkes seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. The public hetning was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Questions and comments that you may have. I think that Mr. Anderson brought up a lot of good questions and good discussion items. Audience: We can't hear anything. Mancino: Thank you. I'll try and be louder. Is that better? Audience: That's better. Now we can hear. Mancino: Actually I should probably stand up so it all comes out. Okay, this is fun. Bob. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Skubic: I have a question...that would be regarding the letter of credit. It states here, it says to maintain erosion control, site restoration and street cleaning. Will that amount be adequate for street repair or the complete project if they default? Is there something in addition to that? Hempel: The cost for security that I've placed in the conditions of approval is for site restoration, dust control, erosion control, fencing on the property and would not be for substantial repairs to the road. Typically when you get truck traffic hauling like that, you'll discover bad spots in the road where it will alligator or break up and have potholes. Most of the time it wouldn't be the entire roadway that would need to be replaced. It'd be certain spots in the road that would need repairs. I was just checking to see if there's a condition in here that would cover additional claims for like street repair and so forth. That certainly could be added if it's not found in the conditions. Mancino: And what could be added, not only who covers the cost but who decides when the repair should take place. At what point is the road worthy of repair? Hempel: You would see the visual damage effects from the truck traffic by potholes or alligatoring the surface with numerous cracks and so forth. Norm Berglund: Mr. Hempel, if we're going to do that, then we should have a film survey of what the road conditions are before we start... Hempel: That's one of the things that I indicated to Mr. Anderson in a telephone conversation. That the city could videotape the surface of Creekwood Drive at this time before the hauling activities commence and use that as a benchmark for any road damage resulting from the truck hauling activities. Mancino: Good idea, thank you. Go ahead Bob. Skubic: Thank you. First off I wonder about filling in...result of natural conditions over 1,200 years. Providing surrounding development is influencing it. I'm not sure if you do these sorts of things. At one time we filled the wetlands. Now we're creating them. If there's some value to these bluffs. I don't know. But I think staff did a good job outlining the planning here...we have some financial guarantees...a number of checks and balances in there to assure that this can work... Mancino: Craig. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Peterson: Dave, I guess keying on previous questions. What is the long term ramifications of not filling it? Obviously it would get more degregation but I mean, is this a never ending process? I mean every time you're going to get a major rain or a storm, will we get to a point where we're going to say, it's full and it's not going to degregate any farther. Is that the case or not? Hempel: We believe so. The city is undergoing a ravine restoration project for the last 10 years or so down there south of Mr. Halla's and this year we've done I believe a job that hopefully will take hold by extending, one of the major contributors to the erosion out there is the surface water runoff. For not properly handling that. That's gouging in there and contributing to it. Opening up this vein of sand where the water table, there's more seepage and just magnifies the problem. By covering that, restoring that bluff line and controlling the surface water so it doesn't have the capability of creating that gouge to start this erosion problem, really delays or in most cases, ends the ravine process through the property. The ravine here has gotten, in the past, very close to their driveway. Continual erosion would lose the driveway but now the golf course association has put in a new driveway which pushes the driveway further back from the ravine which will help but with nothing being done over time here, it's subject to further erosion into the golf course property. Peterson: Further to that, I assume that there are no other alternatives as far as entrance with the trucks logically or financially would be acceptable. Hempel: I'm not aware of any. I guess I did not look in depth here to it other than across one of the fairways or something out there from Pioneer Trail. Peterson: Well I mean based upon those comments, I'm comfortable approving staff's recommendation. I would like to add on that, I do believe that 7:00 p.m. is a bit late. I guess it'd be my preference also to come home and have some kind of quiet, at least during the evenings, so I'd like to see that changed to an earlier time. I throw out 6:00 p.m. as a possibility. I'm open for discussions certainly so approval with that exception. Mancino: Thankyou. Ron. Nutting: Just to echo the previous comments. I think in addition to the hours of operation, I would also throw out 6:00 p.m. unless the neighbors happen to be getting home at 5:00 routinely, I could be swayed to 5:00. I would perhaps leave that as perhaps that's appropriate that we amend in the motion, or if we permit staff to work out that time with the neighbors. I would also delete Saturdays from the hours of operation. And I guess getting to the issue of the road repair and the responsibility for the repair, should it, I guess I would be in favor of city staff taking a survey of the road prior to the fill activity commencing and being able to 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 monitor that, for those individual who have put their own money into this road. To having some remedy. I don't know that that would impact or suggest a change in the letter of credit or cash escrow but I would leave that to city staff to work out. You know, the fill is going to come in when it's available. I think we all agree that there's a lot of construction that's going to be occurring in the foreseeable future. It could be that the trucks come in twice a week or it could be they come in daily, 2 or 3 a day and I can see where that can be a strain and potential problem to the surrounding landowners. I'm not sure if there's any way to control that or if you limit the number of trucks per day or whatever. I mean if the fill's there, it's going to be there and I don't know that you can get it to stay on site where it's coming from to work... I really wouldn't want to see, I wouldn't want to be living there if I had a non-stop parade of trucks coming down the road for the next two summers with all the activity. So I'm not hearing anybody say it's not a worthwhile project. You know both the applicant and the neighbors who have spoken. It's just, how do we control the impact on them during the course of that. That's really where my concern is so I'm in favor of staff's recommendation. I would change the hours, as I indicated and put in a condition regarding a survey of the road. I would be open, if someone had a constructive way of addressing the limiting the amount of truck traffic on any given day or period of time. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: I don't really think I have anything additional to say. I really agree with just about everything that Ron just said and no use saying it again but... Mancino: A little louder. Meyer: I agree with what Ron said. That's all I really have to say. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I think it's reasonable that the citizens that live along the road have the opportunity to enjoy their home. I think maybe perhaps better than leave it open ended, because it's such a long construction project. It probably will go on for quite some time. That we limit the amount of trips that go up and down that road on any given month. ! don't think it should be open ended the way it is here. Granted fill does come up on an irregular basis but again, if it happens during business hours, I think it's reasonable that somebody should have the opportunity to enjoy their home more than 10 days a month so I think we should limit that so that they know in a given month that it's going to happen this much and no more than that. Or total trips. If the road is improved, it would be the following spring I believe I heard the possibility of the road being improved. If there's a substantial improvement to the neighbors homes, as far as the rattling and so on, perhaps you can relook 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 at that at the time of the application for renewal. I certainly agree on the Saturday issue. I would limit it to during business hours when people are at work. I don't know whether the neighbors are away from the home while they're at work. We have spouses who are at home, or children. I don't know what the particulars are but I do think it's reasonable that someone who lives in Chanhassen, we all have to put up with construction inconveniences because of the city that we're living in, but I don't think it should be interminable. I don't think it should go on forever and that they should know what the limit is, and that it's reasonable that they can enjoy their property. So that would be 4 under the recommendations, which has the timing and the days. I'm not sure what could be worked out there so I'm not, I'm a little adverse to come across and say that, make a specific recommendation. Perhaps the city engineering department could get back to us and the neighbors could have a discussion on that issue of what would be an acceptable amount and what would be in the realm of reality to getting the project done. The quality of the fill, I believe the city has an established criteria for that as to how it will be placed in the ravine. I believe the city also has established criteria for that. It is true that it is up to the applicant to follow through with the rules. The city does check. As we have all this construction going on, I think you saw in the previous applicant's situation, the rules do get, there are mistakes made and so on. The city's certainly making every effort to enforce the ordinances and rules. As I said, there are criteria established for putting in fill next to the creek or any water body and if you have any questions in that regard, please ask city staff to go over that with you. I'm not sure at this point, I think this is a viable project and I would be happy to entertain sending it forward with those proviso's or putting it on hold until we can get answers to that. Come up with something there. I'm not sure that I feel qualified to come up with something that's workable at this point, based on there's still discussion between the neighbors here in the forum with the applicant. Maybe there's some discussion yet to take place. Mancino: Yeah, Dave can you help us with that as far as trying to set some sort of a limit or more or less a defined time. Not just in hours but how many days that this can happen during a month. How many truck loads. Hempel: I can touch on that, sure Madam Chair. When you do that, when you limit it to 100 truckloads a day, who's going to be standing out there counting these trucks? Mancino: The neighbors. Hempel: The neighbors will definitely and I will hear from them, believe me. I'm just wondering if, because the construction season is basically pretty short during the summertime. Rain plays a major role in hauling activities and construction in general. I'm just wondering if maybe we narrowed up the days of operation to 3 days out of the week. 4 days out of the week. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: That might. Hempel: To still give them the chance. I mean they can plan accordingly to haul the fill material to the site. I mean they don't need to have it there that day. They can plan a week in advance. So maybe limiting it to Tuesday thru Thursday. If that would satisfy the neighborhood and one other comment. We did previously issue a permit to the golf course for the grading and paving of the driveway. It was my belief that the driveway was going to be paved yet this year. That can be another consideration. Mancino: So, prior to commencement of the operation, and that could be one of our recommendations to make sure that that is done. And we could also recommend that city staff and neighbors meet with Mr. Berglund to talk about the hours of operation or that we make a suggestion here as a recommendation. My other question is, excuse me just one second please. It says in the, Mr. Berglund's letter that we will take fill as it becomes available, which could be any time of the year, during normal working hours. So Dave, could you help me with that. So that's saying that summer, winter, spring or fall, this operation could be going on. Hempel: That's correct. I'm a little concerned too during the winter time because of freezing conditions and that. It may be difficult to try and get the compaction on the slope that you would want to have to prevent the sliding of the material in the spring once it thaws. Generally there's not much construction activity during the winter time. It shuts down for the winter time. Mancino: Then maybe we can put months around this and days of the week to have some parameters. On number 4 of your recommendation it says, all disturbed areas as a result of this construction must be restored with seed and disc mulch, sod or wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks from the completion of construction. Now what does that mean? Does that mean that when you make the dumps, that has to be done? I mean when they come let's say for 2 weeks they're going to keep coming 3 days that week and 3 days the next week. They have to put, they have to restore it within 2 weeks? Hempel: The condition here was to mean that November 1 everything had to be seeded and disc mulched. The watershed district had a condition in their permit that required as they fill 10 feet vertically, that bottom 10 foot area had to be restored with seed and mulch. And I did attach a condition that they shall comply with the Watershed District permit so it's, the minimum, every 10 feet of fill they bring in from the bottom up, they have to restore that with seed. Mancino: Within 2 weeks of when it's up there? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Hempel: Once it's in place. Once it's in place. And their condition here that says by November 1st. That's if they have not achieved that 10 foot level yet. At November 1st, they need to shape the site and seed and mulch. Mancino: Well so what happens if they don't have 10 feet, they only bring it up to 6 feet and they do that in August. Don't they have to re-seed it within 2 weeks or can they wait until November, because by that time it all could have eroded out again. Hempel: There will be erosion control measures in place downstream. Type III erosion control fence to minimize that. Mancino: Okay. And are the calculations that I think it was Mr. Anderson suggested, or as many truckloads as 2,500. I mean I don't know if you've done any calculations as to how many truckloads it will actually be. Hempel: I've done a rough estimate based on the proposed grading plan and I've estimated close to 40,000 cubic yards of material to complete the restoration of that ravine. To bring it back up to match the bluff line. And based on an average of 10 to 12 yards per tandem dump truck, that's 4,000 truck routes to do that. That's over an extended period though. Annually, I suspect to see anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 yards of material a year, which would be 500 to 1,000 truck trips on the street. Based on how construction is currently in the city. It's also possible if, I mean we have a site right next door here that has 30,000 yards sitting on it right now. West of the Byerly's site that is available. So there are places that have a large magnitude of dirt that could be moved in a short period of time to accomplish the filling that they're so seeking. Mancino: Once this, if it does go further and there are some parameters around hours of operation, how many days, months, etc. When it comes back after a year from, how do the residents, will it come back to a public hearing so that after a year and everybody's evaluating it, that all the parties who are interested can get together and have a discussion to say, you know this didn't work, this did work, etc.? Hempel: We would re-notify all the residents of the renewal process. I believe it'd be another public hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong Bob. Are you aware of the procedure? Generous: Now the way it's established in here. It would be, there would be notice through an advertisement in the paper as part of the City Council agenda. Mancino: And on the City Council agenda, would that be a public hearing? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Generous: Council doesn't hold public hearings but they do open them to the public for public input. The Planning Commission has the public hearings. Mancino: Thank you. Because I would want to make sure that on the renewal date, that those interested parties can speak to the Planning Commission or the City Council publicly. And go over it. I do, being a resident who has a lot of development happening near where I live, I understand the neighbor's concerns about hours of operation and so I do agree with the 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. and no Saturday work. And otherwise, I think with some good parameters in place for the neighbors and to keep their lifestyle and where they live, and to get the ravine filled, if we can do it and do it well, I'm in favor of it. Do I have a motion? Norm Berglund: Excuse me, Madam Chairman. May I make a statement? Mancino: Yes you may. Could you come up to the podium. Norm Berglund: Mr. Hempel commented that he thought the, Mr. Hempel commented he thought the driveway would be put in this fall. That may or may not happen because we're concerned about the compaction of the subgrade material. This last month it's been raining about every third day. Just enough to wet it so I think the driveway will not go in this fall, but in the spring so just so we clarify that. Mancino: Okay. And Dave, how do you think that will affect, if the driveway does not go in? Hempel: It will be a source for a dust problem that will require daily watering of the driveway to limit dust. It's possible the tracking of additional material onto the paved portion of Creekwood Drive as a result of being a gravel driveway. Mancino: Would it be your recommendation then to wait and to start this in the spring once the driveway is paved? Hempel: I guess there's the applicant's choice whether he'd want to maintain the dust control and the cleaning of the streets as a result of tracking material, without having to pave the street. Pave the driveway. I would think that he, that they would want to have the street paved to minimize that because it is a lot of work. It does require a water truck. It's a substantial length of driveway to water. And also to clean the city streets. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit. Audience: Can't hear. Farmakes: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit #95-1 for Bluff Creek Course as shown on plans prepared by Schoell and Madsen dated June 6, 1995, revised June 7th, 1995, received June 29th, 1995 and subject to the following conditions. I would modify 4. To read the hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday thru Thursday, and that no work be done on Saturdays or Sundays or legal holidays. I would add on 7. The fill shall be placed in accordance with city ordinances. And I'm wondering, entertain a motion on the issue of paving access. I think perhaps we should make that a requirement and send that up to the City Council. See what they want to do with that. Mancino: So you want to add that as number 167 Farmakes: Yes. Prior to any work being done, that the access road be paved. be a central issue to this. It seems to Mancino: Do I have a second? Meyer: I'll second it. Mancino: Discussion. Peterson: Dave, if we limit it to Tuesday to Thursday, your best guess, would that, could that substantially lengthen the time that this process goes on or is it? Hempel: During the period where the fill material's available, it's a large substantial amount, yes because generally they would haul it in a week or 2 week period and be done hauling. By making it Tuesday thru Thursday would drag it out obviously for 4 weeks. Peterson: I guess I'm, with that part of the motion, a little uncomfortable that if I was a resident, I may want to get it over with versus having a few days of more quiet. To get it over with during the week and have the weekends and nights free. Again, I'm speaking on behalf of the people that are in the audience that I'm comfortable doing, but if it were I, I would rather get it done Monday through Friday when it's available to get it done faster over, it may lengthen it by another year. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: I would change the motion to read, actually whatever the individuals in the room here would like it to read in issues in that regard. Mancino: I'm not sure we'll get a consensus so let's put something in and they can talk to City Council. They can come to the City Council meeting and ask for. Farmakes: We could do that or send it up as a choice in regards to what the neighbor's preferences are. Nutting: Is that just direct staff Madam Chair, or are we saying we'll put in actual, we'll either recommend Tuesday through Thursday or Monday through Friday and then let them. Mancino: Well I think that first Craig should make a friendly amendment, if he'd like to on number 4 and that Jeff can say yes and then let's hear what the friendly amendment and number 4 actually says. So do you want to please do that formally? Peterson: Yeah, to that end I guess I would like to have staff make a formal recommendation upon getting feedback from the residents as to what the appropriate number of days would be to have as hours of operation and appropriate number of days during the week for activities. Farmakes: That would be acceptable. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion or friendly amendments? Can I make a friendly amendment? I would like to make a friendly amendment and that is that, the hauling and the work, that the work being done can happen April through October. Those months and not November through March. And there is, and I don't know if you accept that friendly amendment. Farmakes: I accept that. I believe that there's some limitations with county roads that extend until May I believe. You may want to check on that or ask the city staff. Mancino: Dave, what are the correct months that you can have so much tonnage on the roads with the thaw, etc? Hempel: Road restrictions usually go into place approximately the first week of April and last through May 15th. Mancino: Okay. So then it would be May 15th through October? Thank you. And I know that there was also discussion on street repair. As far as, was it on Creekwood? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: Yeah. I think that was. I guess I would offer a friendly amendment on that point. That city staff do a formal survey of the road prior to the commencement of the project and monitor road conditions and address any necessary repairs in a timely fashion for the residents. Farmakes: That would be fine. Mancino: Good. Do we have a second to the motion? Meyer: Second. Fmmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommends approval of Interim Use Permit #95-1 for Bluff C~eek Golf Comse as shown on the plans p~epmed by Schoell and Madson dated June 6, 1995, Revised June 7, 1995, 0eceived June 29, 1995), and subject to the following conditions: . The applicant shall be required to provide the City with a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control, site restoration and street cleaning. The financial guarantee shall be released upon completion of the project. , The applicant shall fence the top of slope area for safety purposes and to discourage/prohibit unauthorized filling after hours. o The site will be subject to periodic reviews by the City and inspections to ensure compliance with the conditions appropriate to ensure health, safety and restoration. . Direct staff to make a formal lecommendafion upon getting feedback fi~m the ~esidents as to what the appropriate number of days would be to have as houls of operation and appropriate number of days during the week for activities. . Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of any filling operation. Erosion control measures shall remain throughout the project until the slopes are fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the city. , All disturbed areas, as a result of this construction, must be restored with seed and disc- mulched, sod or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than November 1, 1995. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 . All fill material to be placed in the ravine must be clean fill free of any debris. Clean fill consists of clay or granular type soils. No organic or landscaping debris, asphalt or concrete larger than one foot in diameter will be permitted. All unsuitable material discovered must be removed by the applicant as direct by the City. Fill shall be placed in accordance with city o~dinances. o The applicant shall comply with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District's permit. , The applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the applicant, it's agents or assigns. If the streets are not maintained, the city shall use the applicant's security escrow to hire outside forces to complete any necessary work. 10. This interim use permit shall be renewed on an annual basis. The permit shall expire November 15, 1995. The applicant shall contact the City to request a formal extension 45 days prior to expiration. The renewal permit shall be subject to City Council approval for renewal. 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit including engineering and attorney's fees. 12. The applicant shall hold the city and it's officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval or work done in conjunction with it. The application shall indemnify the city and it's officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses that the city may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney fees. 13. In the event of default by the applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder the city, at it's option, may perform the work and the applicant shall promptly reimburse the city for any expenses incurred by the City provided the applicant is first given notice of the work in fault not less than four days in advance. This permit is a license for the city to act and it shall not be necessary for the city to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. If the city does any such work, the city may, in addition to other remedies, assess the cost in whole or part to the property owners. 14. The applicant must notify the city engineer in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to project commencing. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 15. The site shall be graded in conformance with the approved ravine restoration plan prepared by Schoell and Madson dated June 6, 1995, revised June 7, 1995. 16. Pilot to commencement of the project, the access mad shall be paved. 17. No work shall occur fi~m the months of October through May 15th. 18. That city staff do a formal storey of the mad prior to the commencement of the project and monitor mad conditions and ad&ess any necessmy ~epaim in a timely fashion for the ~esidents. All voted in favor and the motion canied. Mancino: When does this go in front of the City Council? Hempel: It's proposed to go before the Council on August 14th. Mancino: Okay, and the motion kind of stipulates that you get together with the neighbors to discuss with the neighbors hours of operation, days of the week. Thank you very much and thank you for coming. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9,161 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A 1.57 ACRE LOT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL, LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION, HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you Bob. Any questions for staff?. Bob, have you had time to review the new architectural enhancements from the building? Generous: We've only discussed it on the phone. Basically their result is a lot like the Powers Systems building where he went with the, he was discussing using a banding. A painted band in the blue color. Mancino: And that's it? Generous: Well I don't know exactly what he's. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: So you haven't, you have not had time to review it? Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to present, to address the Planning Commission? Bernard Herman: Madam Chair and members of the commission, my name is Bernard Herman and I'm the architect for the project. I will make a brief presentation. Just to touch on a few of the key issues and some of the things we'd like to discuss. I would like to mention that David Obee is also present here and he's from Highland Development and he's here to answer any questions that you may have relative to the project. Just a few comments about the company itself, if you have any questions about it, maybe I'll answer it at the beginning... The type of business that they do, they are a manufacturer's rep for construction heating equipment. They've been in business for 15 years. They currently employ 10 to 12 people and they have about a 5 year projection of going up to about 15 people and a site which we'll talk about that allows us to also expand and we'll... At this point I think I'll put up the site board. Make some brief comments about the site development. Obviously we have a site that's rather narrow and somewhat long so that dictates a lot of what we do architecturally in setting up the building orientation on the site. You've had occasion to look at the packet of information relative to the design. I think I would just mention to you that the way the building is situated, the surrounding office area to be expanded all in front and that's part of the reason why we've got the setback that we do. To allow us to do this. Otherwise obviously the office, their own portion, could essentially be constrained from any expansion. So by moving the building back, it allows us to do this. Also you have a dash line indicating the future warehouse expansion. So you can get an idea of what this future building can be on this site. It can follow this longer, linear direction. The office entrance, or entrance to the building actually is right in this corner. We have a...line which is directly on access to the vehicle. The vehicle entrance onto the site. Our loading area, in this area, just kind of mention that loading area is somewhat interesting. We have one semi truck station and then that was at 48 inches and then we have one smaller truck station that's at 20 inches. The site has a catch basin and interior drain. All of it is...bundled down to the catch basin process. Parking is situated so we have office and visitor parking along this side and then we have warehouse employees and surplus parking along this property line. The site lighting that we're proposing are wall pack units. This site is so terrible, we really don't find an immediate need as we look at to having the pole lights. We think if we were to provide two wall pack units on that wall and one on this wall up high, we're going to get more than the required minimum foot candle for lumination of the parking area. As far as the landscaping is concerned, and I'll use the same drawing just to touch on that. We tried to introduce a variety of species and that's indicated on the table and I won't go into that but there's several, as you can see from the list you have probably 8 or 10 different species of trees and plant material, which we think will...on site. One of the focal points that we're developing is where we have a recessed area of windows which has a spread of new shrubs and then we have these 5 trees which are radiant crabs which is a more decorative tree. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 We've gone to some trouble, as you can tell, to screen the dock area on the site properly. You see quite a bit of planting. And in talking to staff in our meetings and so on, and discussions, we've gone to some extent to create enough planting beds around the dock areas to give that additional amount of landscaping. Bob talked about his recommendations for landscaping along the side and the rear corner, the northwest comer I believe. I think one of the things we'd like to do tonight is just kind of ask your consideration of maybe modifying that. We have a concern, number one as far as that triangular group of trees that Bob talked about in this area, has the potential of conflicting with our proposed addition. Right now this line is somewhat arbitrary because we don't know what the size of the addition is going to be but obviously we don't want to limit the potential expansion of that site by planting that large triangular area of trees back here, which...We're certainly not against trees. I don't want to find myself talking against trees. I was even involved once in writing an ordinance for a municipality for their landscape ordinance and I make strong appeals for trees so I find myself talking against it. I'm not against trees but I think we can't limit the purpose of this site for future expansion. Secondly, as we're talking about the row of trees along this wall. I'll just mention that there's a huge planting area where a ponding area is proposed off of that area and the hill drops down, I don't know, 20 feet. As topography drops down and that hill is fairly well planted and it's going to be enhanced with additional plantings by the developer so it seems to me that the natural configuration of the topography, the ponding area, the distance from the adjacent development, which is substantial. I'm not talking about immediate adjacency. We're talking about a very long distance. And a very definite difference in topography, probably begs to question the value of that landscaping. All I would ask is would you please talk about it. Maybe give it some consideration in your deliberations. We're taking some issue with it. We're just asking you to consider that. As far as the. Farmakes: Can I ask a question? A clarification. Bernard Herman: Yes. Farmakes: The addition that you're talking about, as you said in a 5 year plan. Do you have a quantifiable time that you're talking about? Bernard Herman: I really didn't associate the addition with the 5 year plan, and if I mentioned that. Farmakes: I'm assuming if you're going to go up to 15 employees, that you're going to expand. The expansion is. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Bernard Herman: Well it could be related but I don't know. Maybe Dave, if you could address that... David Obee: The building is, as it is designed now, is able to handle 3 more employees. I've got 11 now and will probably have 12 this fall. We're talking about an expansion of 3 employees. The building expansion is speculative at best. I can't say that it's going to be needed in the next 5 years. 10 years. I don't know. Farmakes: So if I understand you right, what you're asking for is to limit the amount of landscaping or trees in the area that you're going to plan on expanding to but that may be difficult to quantify. Bernard Herman: I think that's a fair assessment. Farmakes: Okay. Bernard Herman: The longer it takes to put the addition on, and the more mature the trees are, of course the bigger the problem is. I think there's some other critical spot where some additional planting might have value but I don't think...This is the front of the building. Bob's comment pretty accurately describes what's happening. We've been talking about architectural features and so on for this warehouse. The warehouse portion of the building doesn't.., a lot of elements to really work with. It's a pretty basic box so we've introduced as a method of putting in an architectural feature, is using a fairly wide band that would have the...ribs interrupted so it would be a smooth surface, much consistent with the recommendation of staff as a method of dealing with that. The blue color that's being used is the same as the logo company color, of this company so we're trying to incorporate that into the architecture of the building in color. It was mentioned that the front of the building is the stucco...there's two horizontal bands which are the matching blue of this band that you see on the warehouse so we're carrying that color through. Below the windows, it may be hard for you to see from here but there's a light blue panel color directly below the windows and this...is also passed around from the color scheme of the logo in the company colors, which you basically have two colors of blue. As I mentioned earlier, these windows in front are recessed back a couple feet and planted so that's one of the little architectural features of the office building that I wanted to mention. The windows and door and side light frames are all...anodized aluminum. We're attempting to develop somewhat of a high tech character for this building, which is to use the blues and the grays and the natural aluminum and that's the theory behind it and that's highly consistent with the industry of the business and the kind of image that we're trying to create. The warehouse panels are random ribbed. I think Power Systems, you've probably all seen that building. You have many random ribbed buildings in the city but that's basically what we're doing with this building and it's going to be the natural color of the concrete, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 which is consistent with the color of the stucco. Now I don't know how much of this you can pick up. Sorry for how small these samples are. Mancino: Is dry-vit the same thing as stucco? Bernard Herman: It's a form of stucco application but instead of, whereas stucco might be 7/8, 5/8, and 7/8 inch thick in pre-coat application, dry-vit is a skin coat that's put directly over insulation. But the appearance is basically the same, and maybe in some cases some people would say it's better. Mancino: So does the dry-vit, the gray of the dry-vit match the gray of the warehouse panels? Bernard Herman: Yes. Mancino: Okay. The medium. Bernard Herman: This is the basic wall. Does the camera pick this up? Can we get a close- up? This is a sample, which is a gray. Mancino: It's kind of a medium gray? Bernard Herman: Yeah, that's exactly right. It's as close as we can come. The dry-vit you're using a lot of colors, as you can see and so we just try to pick the gray that identically matches the gray of the warehouse building, because the whole idea of what we're trying to do is to carry out that color right across the whole building. And then the blue colors. The band color's down here and the panel color below the windows is right here. Would it be any better if I circulated that? Mancino: Thank you. Bernard Herman: Are you interested in looking at this? It kind of reverses itself. These are the window and then on this side is the basic wall. Mancino: Thank you. Bernard Herman: At the same time, while you're passing it, this is the, this is your metal. That's your. It's a small building and it's a pretty simple building and I think our intent is to keep the colors very high tech and very simple as well. Well that's about the extent of our comments. At this point we'd certainly welcome your questions. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: This drawing that you're showing us here. Is that something you worked out with city staff or is that what you've done in response to staff's recommendations? Bernard Herman: Well we've done that in response to staff's recommendations, which identified 3 or 4 alternatives to handle the architectural solution and one of the alternatives was to provide an architectural band on the smooth surface with interrupted ribs and we felt that was most consistent with what we were doing because we already had a banding technique going on the stucco office buildings so it gave us a chance to take that color and carry it around the warehouse. Farmakes: Okay, let me rephrase my question. Have you met with staff with this drawing that you've just shown us? Bernard Herman: No. We've only discussed it. Farmakes: Okay. Mancino: I have a question about the roof mounted equipment. How are you going to handle screening that? Now, the staff report, especially the warehouse which is what, 20 1/2 feet tall is going to fit very high and so that it will be seen from probably what, Highway 5? Generous: Well McGlynn's, yes. Mancino: Yeah. It will be seen from TH 41 and it will be seen all over. How is the, very specifically, how will the roof top heating, cooling be dealt with? Because you can't put. Bernard Herman: The only roof top unit we have now is on the office building. At this point, which is on the low building. Mancino: So are you saying there won't be any on the warehouse? Bernard Herman: At this point, if there is, we aren't aware of it. And the reason ! edge on that is we don't anticipate one at this point. The warehouse is not air conditioned. We expect it will unit heaters only, and that's all we're going to provide in the warehouse at this point. I only hedge and say because there may be something that comes up down the road where something is added but at this point, no. There's nothing on top of the warehouse roof. There's an air handling unit on top of the office only because that's the air conditioning portion of the building. Mancino: And how will that be screened? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Bernard Herman: Well, we were planning on using metal panels to match the color of the, we can get the pre-painted metal panels that would be erected on a metal frame and just set around the equipment and it will be the same color. We try to stay in the same kind of monochrome, that's our approach. Mancino: Thank you. My only other question is with your landscaping. One of the, part of the PUD requirements is to screen, what is it, the truck, the overhead doors, etc. And that is year round screening. Will that be year round screening there? Bernard Herman: Well we've added two coniferous trees. They're a little bit differently placed than where Bob's diagram showed them but we intended to provide two coniferous trees in these spaces between the others that were shown to create a more dense buffer, as far as screening in this area. The screening around here are arborvitae's and the other, I guess we want to say coniferous trees for the most part around here so the screening for the loading area will be primarily coniferous material. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Nutting: Yes. If you could just refresh my memory. When you were describing the lighting for the site, was the lighting that you described consistent with staff's recommendation number 8? Or were you saying, staff was saying a pole and you were saying building. Bernard Herman: I think maybe it was different because I remember in the staff report they talked about one of these box, shoe box types of a pole. And I guess our assessment is that we don't have a wide enough parking area that's far enough away from the building to warrant that. So our intention was to put the wall pack units, which are fairly typical for these types of buildings, to provide the parking lot lighting. Nutting: Could I ask staff what their reaction is to that? Generous: That's an acceptable method. The conditions in there that they were to use pole lighting. That they had to have the shoe box sodium. Nutting: But staff would find the applicant's alternative acceptable? Generous: Yes. Our concern would be the spillover light. We want to minimize that, which are code also. Mancino: Any other questions? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Peterson: As it relates to the exterior redesign, is staff comfortable with that? Generous: Well that's basically what I envisioned when I talked to him on the phone about it. It brings to mind Power System right away. That's exactly what they did. A little bigger building in that instance than this one but they have that other component which adds variety with the stucco and the smaller bands around the office portion, which Power Systems doesn't have. Bernard Herman: Actually just an application of that may be saying the same thing except with different words is that the two bands that we have on your office makes it a natural extension. With the same color and a larger scale in proportion to the warehouse from the same... Farmakes: Do we still paint concrete? Aanenson: It's applied... Generous: You can't paint block is what the PUD I believe says. Farmakes: It says pre-cast random ribbed painted. Generous: No, that's. If you have to look in his letter, they're going to take that out. They've decided not to paint the concrete for the tilt up. Farmakes: It will be colored. Generous: It would be the natural color. What they're going to do is coat it I believe. Bernard Herman: Yeah, we're just going to seal it. By the time we picked out the colors, they were the same colors because of the natural concrete. David Obee: That might have been a misunderstanding with Bob when I earlier had talked about painting it, the concrete and Kate, I don't remember if it was you or...said that they don't allow painting of concrete so at that point I told Bernie, I said, we're not going to paint it. I guess we can't paint it so then we got a reply back from staff, this is what Bernie had said what Power Systems had done so. Do you allow concrete being painted? Block or the tip up. Farmakes: No. I believe that was addressed in the architectural standards issue. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 David Obee: How do we get around that then? For this stripe in. Because I like it. It adds a lot to the building. Farmakes: In the past I believe we took, on the issue of detailing, there's different materials. Contrasting materials I think. It's semi described in the design. Aanenson: Correct. We put tiles in or. Farmakes: Versus painting a band. Aanenson: Yes, because if the paint chips off and then. Mancino: It starts looking a little tacky after a while when the paint chips off. Nutting: The Power Systems is different material or painted? Generous: It's painted. David Obee: Is that epoxy paint or anything? Mancino: I don't think we know that but if we don't allow painted concrete, I think that you may have to go back to the drawing board on that. Any other questions at this time? Peterson: The only other one that I have is more of an observation, an FYI. Having checked, in looking at the floorplan of the internal design, which we normally get into, and again this is prefaced by saying it is an observation. I checked with city staff today regarding, as you look at the restroom design, you have shower in the men's room and no shower in the women's room and although there is no regulation stipulating there has to be parity between two as it relates to showers, I would suggest you may have a potential problem there down the road. Again, that's only an observation but. Mancino: Thank you. Are you all done with your presentation? Bernard Herman: Yes, that would conclude our...ask any questions that you have. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to open tbe public heating. All voted in favor and the mofiou canied. The public heating was opened. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. If anyone would wish to come up and to approach the Planning Commission on this issue, please do at this time. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Fmmakes seconded to close the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. The public heeaing was closed. Mancino: Comments. Observations. Questions from the commissioners. Bob. Skubic: All I want to say is we do have to deal with the tree issue on the northwest side. It's not clear to me how effective the trees are going to be on the north side. There's a 4 foot elevation difference there... Mancino: You can ask for taller trees then. Skubic: So I think we should consider doing something like that so we do have a more effective barrier there. That's... Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I would concur. I do believe that we need some type of trees on, as staff has suggested. I'm a little confused as to the triangular, Bob you had talked about earlier. How far over that would impinge on their potential future site. I would assume that there's a balance between where that triangle, that you had talked about, and their proposed site that we could place some trees in there. Generous: Well what I was trying to describe there gave them an expansion area to the north of the structure of at least 60 feet before even that area would come in and then depending on how they design the landscaping in there, I was thinking more like a U shaped landscaping area with the conifers mixed in with some evergreens so you get a mix of landscaping. I don't know if the 60 foot expansion to the north is enough. I didn't, this looks like it's a little longer than what I had provided space for. Peterson: Well I guess that would be my only concern that I think that with that expansion, if there can be trees placed in there without being, without sticking out unnecessarily or looking inappropriate, I'd certainly like to see those in there. That would be my comments. Mancino: I would just like to add to that also, knowing that there are big tree spades that can go in there and pick things up during the construction period also. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: That's what I was going to say. I guess I would, I don't want to infringe upon their ability to expand but as long as, either staff works with them in terms of the placement, where it's something they're comfortable with or they know that they have the ability to move at a later date. It's hard to say right now. It's anybody's best guess. Expansion could be in 3 years. I mean if business goes really well. It really becomes an issue of what's the right spot for them. And if they expand, what's the right spot. If they truly expand all the way out to where they're going. So I can't say where they should be placed but I guess I would direct staff to work with the applicant on the placement of those. The right placement of those. I would also, just based on the comments that I've heard, I think the screening issue for the rooftop equipment, in answer from your questions to number 6 is, as long as they're screening is consistent with that, I'm okay. It looks to me like staff recommendation number 8 could be modified if staff is agreeable to the wall mounted versus the pole. I would be in favor of modifying number 8 to state, I'm trying to think of the right words in terms of adding it. Perhaps leaving what staff has and adding or acceptable wall mounted fixtures as discussed with staff. I think that's the extent of my comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I'm not sure, I'm probably just a little confused on the stripe that's shown on the elevation there. What that's going to be or it's not going to be or, maybe...? Mancino: That is what the applicant is suggesting at this point. Meyer: Okay. But he's talking about painting it? Mancino: Yes. Meyer: And he can't do that. That's pretty much it. So Bob is there an alternative? Are we going to be sending that up like that or what are they going to do there? Generous: They could not paint it. They could put glazed tile in it. Mancino: That's the applicant and staff need to work out and... Aanenson: Unfortunately there's some ambiguity between Bob and myself with that interpretation. I gave them one interpretation and Bob and I didn't check on, they were given a different direction so in deference to them, I would like the opportunity to work it out with them to try to meet the objective that we're trying to achieve. What we don't want to have is something that's going to be a maintenance problem and I'm sure they don't want that either 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 so if we can...we can achieve that goal, that's really the objective and generally painting, just general painting seems to be ongoing maintenance, especially when it's a tall building. Mancino: Plus, we don't want to start a precedent for other people to come in and say. Aanenson: Exactly. But as Bob indicated, that's what happened on the other one so. Mancino: I think we should stop. Aanenson: Right. So we want to look at that issue. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Not enough trees. I think the landscaping should be done on this half without the expansion consideration, unless expansion is conditioned with a finite date that would not make it reasonable to place landscaping there. Based on what the applicant said, that that may not occur or it might, I think we should approach that as the existing structure is and up until such time that they decide to move, they can scoop the trees out and move them. So I go back to the issue that staff noted down there. To treat it as it currently is on the plan. This is a PUD so it's, I think appropriate for us to do, and I don't want to micro-manage the architecture here. It's a warehouse. Primary warehouse. It would be a better looking building with the materials as he's talked about the issue of band. It's not our place to be up there and specify the type of aluminum you use for the band. You deal with that with the architect. The purpose of the ordinance is so that basically we don't have people building cracker box and somebody next door to you may be complaining that they have a nice office building and somebody came in and put in a cracker box. I don't think that we should ask staff to comment on these things. I agree Madam Chair that, now it's the first time they've seen that drawing. They should have an opportunity to review it and sit on it and come up with their recommendations are to the applicant and then the applicant deal with that with his architect. Coming up with solutions that fit the spirit of the ordinance. Mancino: Would you like to see that come back again after staff and the applicant have resolved the architectural? Farmakes: Well, I'm uncomfortable. Normally I like to send this forward but we're not looking at any of the additional landscaping in this situation so if we did that, we'd be approving it as virtually half of it is missing. The issue of the architecture, I don't see that that's something that can't be worked out with staff. It doesn't sound like there's a problem with the applicant conforming to that so give them an opportunity to work that out. I would like to see what that is, but other than those two hurdles, I don't see. So they can come up 38 Planning Commission Meeting- August 2, 1995 with a clever way of wording it. But I think under the circumstances in looking at that landscape plan, typically we don't send stuff forward in that state of open design. Mancino: Thank you. I have no new comments to make. Do I hear a motion? May I have a motion. Do we have more discussion? Farmakes: I would make a motion to table, as soon as I can find the right page here. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the, if I can find the right spot here. Site Plan Review #95-11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 until such time as the conditions of the landscaping and building exterior detailing can be worked out as per the recommendations of staff. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second it. Mancino: Any discussion. Falmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan Review #95-11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 p~epmed by Bemald He,man A~rhitects, until such time as the conditions of the landscaping and building exterior detailing call be worked out per the ~ecommendations of staff. Ail voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. Mancino: Any questions from the applicant at this time? Bernard Herman: Well yeah, I guess...question. I think a table is kind of difficult...but that's fine. We are getting late in the year. August is coming up fast and I'm not sure...we look at structural steel and pre-cast products today out in the market, and this could be killing the project for this year potentially. You're about 14 weeks for steel and none of that can in good conscience be ordered until this has been approved. Mancino: Sure. I understand. Bernard Herman: That has a very potential delay. I also think just to comment on to table it. I think it would be just as appropriate for us to recommended'approval with the understanding that we can work out those same conditions with staff which would have allowed us to work out those issues and still meet the 1995 schedule. I don't see anything that controversial about finding the landscaping for instance. We raise the issue but I don't think it's anything 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 controversial about incorporating the staff recommendations. project several months. I think this will delay the Mancino: Appreciate your comments. When will we be able to, Bob, get this back? we be able to in 2 weeks? See this. Aanenson: Mancino: Generous: Will It's up to them. It's up to the applicant, okay. Do we have time on the schedule if they meet. Well I would assume that any, the next review would be just on those two issues so it should go pretty quickly. Mancino: Okay. And our next meeting is when? Aanenson: The 16th of August. Mancino: The 16th of August and when do they need to have something in to you to review with you for the staff report? Aanenson: Our reports should probably go out Wednesday so he'd have to have something in probably Friday. First thing Monday morning. Mancino: So this Friday, first thing Monday morning, if you have the revisions in to staff, we will be able to review it. Bernard Herman: If we have a review on the 16th, that probably wouldn't cause us any delay...push into next month, that's what I was concerned about. Once you get into September and much beyond that, it could have been a problem but if you're talking about the 16th, that's no problem for us at all. Mancino: Terrific. And if you can just make sure that you schedule some time with Bob to get together and review it and make the revisions by Friday or Monday, you'll be on the schedule. David Obee: So then the next meeting is the 16th? Aanenson: Yep. Mancino: Thank you. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBDIVIDING OUTLOT B, MCGLYNN PARK ADDITION, AN 8.79 ACRE PARCEL, INTO ONE LOT OF 1.15 ACRES AND ONE OUTLOT OF 7.64 ACRES; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN 8,044 SO. Fr. BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT MCGLYNN DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD, CHILDREN'S WORLD LEARNING CENTER, INC. Public P~esent: Name Add~ess Mary Terrass Julia Wise Doug Stahl 7846 Flamingo Drive Schoell & Madson Shamfin AI-Jaff presented the staff mpot~ on this item. Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Skubic: The second access that...close to the intersection. Was that...properly? Hempel: Madam Chair, members of the commission. That was a slight concern to us but being that it's going to be a looped street back down south into the future Coulter Boulevard, the amount of traffic generated, depending on the user that comes in, shouldn't be too excessive. If we give them another opportunity to go south to get to another road out to Audubon Road as well. What we proposed in there I believe was an access point like 90 feet back from the center line of the intersection that would give enough room for turning vehicles and turning movements in and out of the site so we're fairly comfortable with the second access point at that location. Peterson: discussed. Audubon. I had a difficult time physically finding this spot, as a couple of us already On your original map, if you go back to it, with the overall, Arboretum and Where is it in relation to Pillsbury? A1-Jaff: North of Pillsbury. Peterson: On the same road that Pillsbury is on, correct? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 A1-Jaff: Approximately I want to say 300 feet north of Coulter Boulevard. Have the signs been changed from Coulter? Peterson: Pillsbury's on McGlynn as it is now. So Pillsbury would be where on that map? AI-Jaff: Pillsbury would be right here. Peterson: Okay. Got it. Mancino: On the south side of Coulter, which is now McGlynn. Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to approach the Planning Commission? Doug Stahl: Good evening, I'm Doug Stahl with Schoell & Madson. We're the engineers on the project, and also I believe Regional Director, is that correct? Mary Terrass: Yes, that's correct. Doug Stahl: From Children's World if you have any questions on the operation of the facility. I guess...if I could just go down through the recommendations. Mancino: Every single one of them? Doug Stahl: Well. Nutting: Just the ones you disagree with. Mancino: Before I say yes, how many recommendations are there? Doug Stahl: There's 11 on the site plan. The only one I guess I would like to address is probably number 3 with the trees. We certainly don't have any problem planting additional trees. The one that's probably on the landscape, if I could have the overhead turned back on. I need to point out one thing that was missing on that. Is the, along Audubon there is the 2 inch maple trees in there. Mancino: I'm glad you're bringing that up because I was going to ask. Doug Stahl: I just realized that looking at that tonight so I guess that is, even though it is not on the site, it's going to get an additional feature to it on the south and on the west side with additional trees and we wouldn't have any problem putting them in. Maybe if we could possibly do some that are along the west side, put them along the south and the west. The 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 line up I believe there is crab trees along the east side of the building. I'm kind of doubling up with the maple trees. We can certainly leave them. We can certainly add more trees. I don't see a problem with that. We had a concern, we added some berms in the front. We may potentially have a problem trying to get berms along the east side between Audubon and the building just because of the grade different has got, I believe a 25 foot setback. Parking... on a building, I think we're about 5 feet above Audubon for elevation. And that 25 feet, coming up at 5:1, we just try to get a 4 to 5 foot berm in there, there wouldn't be room to get it in there. Mancino: So that maybe instead of the berming, the additional crab apples would help with buffering. Doug Stahl: Exactly, and we would certainly leave them there for that. For that purpose. I guess unfortunately we do not have any materials with me. Our architect is in Chicago...but as stated, we're looking at a brick face on that and a darker brown roof material. I assume this was done by the architect and I think the color would be fairly close to what he's looking at. It looks like that is very similar to what you have behind you. Apart from that, the McGlynn Road utilities and street, that is still one thing that Children's World is addressing with the seller to see what the arrangements will be in getting that built because it will obviously need to get built before final plat or the agreement would have to be in the works before final plat would be entered in... If the seller is not done with their agreement in getting those in, it will probably jeopardize this project. It would be a tremendous cost to be carried strictly by the Children's World... Again, we're still working with that with the seller of the project, of the parcel. Again, we would have to...The subdivision is fairly straight forward. Dividing up a 1 acre parcel and leaving the remainder as an outlot...they would sell it for. I guess apart from that, any of the staff recommendations there as far as calculations or seeding and mulch, that's certainly all incorporated into the plan. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Stahl? I would just like to make a recommendation that we do ask for materials to be presented at Planning Commission, and that's part of your requirement to bring those so we can see them. So I strongly advise you to bring them to City Council. Doug Stahl: I certainly can. Aanenson: They won't approve it without. Mancino: Well, usually we don't approve it without either. Aanenson: They were told to bring it tonight so. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Doug Stahl: I guess we can, if you'd like to see them on the 16th, I can certainly bring that then. If you'd like to put me on. Mancino: Okay. I mean what, everyone will talk to that but a suggestion that I have is that you bring them over to City Hall in the next few days and commissioners can stop and see them and if they have any questions or any comments, they can make them to staff prior to the City Council meeting. That's just a suggestion that's out there and we'll wait to hear how the other commissioners feel. Thank you. Does anyone else want to participate in the presentation that's here from Children's World? Doug Stahl: I'm sorry, I didn't address the driveway I guess and we have no, we can certainly work out putting another access in there. To give the loop wouldn't be a problem. Mancino: Great, thank you. Can I have a motion to open this to a public hearing? Nutting moved, Petmson seconded to open the public heming. Ali voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heming was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone who would wish to come up and address the Planning Commission on this site review plan, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Petelson moved, Nutting seconded to close the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I'd like to see their signage be incorporated into the architecture of their building better rather than just a pylon. I realize the materials in the roof... Doug Stahl: Excuse me, can I address that? Farmakes: Address your comments to the Chair. Mancino: Can you wait until we all have had comments and if there are any other questions, I will certainly tell you to come up. Thank you. Farmakes: I have no problem with the rest of the signage or the size of your sign. I just think that in the past we have asked that the signage be incorporated into the architecture of the building. My expertise is not landscaping but it seems to me, except for the front face of 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 the building, the entrance, there's very little shrubbery around the building itself. From Audubon. There are large trees but they're not going to be large for quite some time. I'm just wondering, concentration of shrubbery to the north, seems to be substantial and the rest of the building seems to be pretty open. So I'll leave it to the other members who spend more time with the landscaping .... to that building looks like an appropriate building and the signage looks fine and I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: No additional comments from me. Mancino: Ron. Nutting: I don't have anything to add other than it appears to me that under the site plan review, recommendation number 3, from what I'm hearing, that should be revised given the topography of the site. That the berm not so much be the necessity but that the applicant work with staff to ensure that adequate screening is provided through additional trees along that side of the building. That can be handled quite easily in the motion. That's all. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: No comments. Mancino: Okay. I had a couple questions. I was concerned, from a planning point of view earlier and talked it over in my own head and other people actually asked about having a, I know that it is a permitted conditional use in an IOP, having a daycare and my concern was that it's on Audubon and I don't know what else is going in that outlot and so I had some concerns about, is this the right place for a daycare. I know that Early Beginnings, that buffers Highway 5 is at the end of a cul-de-sac so that it doesn't have trucks running to the north or all around the building. And my only concern, and I'm looking at staff to help me, is to make sure that as the rest of the outlot is developed, that we don't have driveways surrounding the perimeter of the daycare lot. That what abuts the daycare is, or else we get more setback or ask for more buffering because kids are going to be out playing on the south side of the daycare and on the west side and I know that there is a vinyl fence that's going to be up and 6 feet tall and knuckle to knuckle something. But anyway. So I don't know if that's part of the recommendation. I'm not sure how to handle it so I'm asking some direction from staff. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Aanenson: Dave Hempel and I had this conversation. This is a little bit different when we're looking at this parcel because we're looking at an unknown. Normally when you look at something this big, we come in with a subdivision plat. This one's kind of coming in piece by piece, which obviously is a concern to the Children's World, as they've indicated, because it's onerous on them now to put the road in. Normally you have a development that it kind of goes in and it's an assessed project or something like that, so they kind of have to carry the freight so I think until something else happens, maybe this project is, may have to wait until something else come along. If there's something else better to help carry that cost of the road. On the other issue we raised that didn't get in the staff report is the light. I mean that's a dangerous intersection right now on Audubon and certainly similar to Galpin. But it's a dangerous location and when we did the EA for the other industrial park to the south, which we just looked at a project on earlier tonight, we did require that they participate in funding towards that light. At Audubon, similar, I think we should put in a condition in here that any parcels in this development, based on their traffic generation, should also contribute towards the light at Audubon because it will be a safety issue getting in and out of this park. Not on Audubon but getting back out onto TH 5, which there will be significant traffic movement. As Dave indicated too, this movement, probably a lot of this is going to the school or users will have the opportunity to get down to Coulter, which will be a collector street, east/west when that's developed but if this goes ahead of that, it will be a short term problem getting in and out of the plat until that light's in place. So I think one thing we should do is amend the development contract to include that. But I share your concern about what the rest of this, this is something. We're not doing, and normally we see the whole subdivision with kind of an understanding of doing a PUD. Right now it's zoned industrial so we don't have to rezone. The other ones that we've done, we require rezoning so we were, we had the flexibility to say let's do a PUD and have an understanding of what's going in there. This we're kind of doing piecemeal and I share your concern with that. We want to make sure that there are compatible uses so I think we understand what the issue is, and to make sure that we don't just dump all the parking adjacent to this and that there be building or landscaping so those people using the playground have the most of their playground area, as far as amenities. Is that what your concern is? Mancino: Yeah. That's what the concern is, or you know. Aanenson: And I think maybe we can accomplish that by communicating that to the developer of the property too. Mancino: Okay, terrific. Thank you. That takes care of it. Around the perimeter of the daycare center is a sidewalk. Is that correct? Is that what I'm seeing? AI-Jaff: Correct. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: This whole thing is a sidewalk so that there are no foundation landscaping plantings around the building? Just in front? AI-Jaff: It actually runs around the building, yes. And what you see in red is the parameter of the building itself. Mancino: Okay. And you had suggested some more landscaping on that west side and on that south side. AI-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Six trees on I think the west and 5 additional on the south side to give again, a little more buffering between their play area and what develops in that outlot. A1-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Thank you. I have no other comments. May I hear a motion? Nutting: I'll make the motion that, I guess three. Well, one at a time. Mancino: Yes, you're right. Three motions. Nutting: Handle it one at a time. First motion, Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-14 as shown on the site plan received July 5, 1995 subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report with the following modifications. That under condition number 3, that the applicant work with staff in determining the, I'll say it first, the correct amount of landscaping/trees that are necessary to achieve what staff was looking to achieve with the berm effect. If the berm is in fact not possible given the existing topography. And for that motion, I believe that's all that I have. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Would you entertain an amendment? Nutting: Yes. Farmakes: Friendly amendment. Ask that the applicant be, comply with their signage with their architecture. Nutting: Yes. I'll accept that. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Nutting moved, Pete~son seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval of Site Plan Review #95-14 as shown on the site plan received July 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions: The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. , The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the mrhitectme of the building. , The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the parameters of the site. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. Five more trees shall be planted along the west portion of the site and 6 trees along the southern edge from the city's approved primary or secondary deciduous. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to filing of the plat. The applicant woik with staff in determining the conect amount of landscaping/ta~ees that me necess,-uy to achieve what staff is looking to achieve with the be~m effect, if the be~m is in fact not possible given the existing topography. . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to Attachment #2 for detailed policies): Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991 - "Notes on Site Plan", copy enclosed. bo Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #07-1991 "Pre Fire Plan Policy", copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 "Premises Identification", copy enclosed. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #36-1994 "Combination Domestic/Fire Sprinkler Supply Line:, copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy/¢40-1994 "Fire Sprinkler System", copy enclosed. Install and indicate on the plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on 6" water service. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. go Install 2 "No Parking Fire Lane" signs at entrance to parking lot. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. h. Building and attic space must be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13-1991 Edition. i. Water main may not pass under the building. o The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. . Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. Building Official's Conditions: Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. b° Dispose of existing foundation at an approved landfill. Any roof top equipment should be screened from views. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right-of-way. 10. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 11. Another curb cut for driveway access should be incorporated into the site plan to improve traffic circulation. All voted in favor ,'md the motion cea~ied. Mancino: Another motion. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: Motion number two. Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #95-14 for McGlynn Park 2nd Addition as shown on the plat received July 5, 1995 with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Without modification. Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Nutting moved, Petemon seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval of the p~elimilh'U3, plat for Subdivision #95-14 for McGlynn Pink 2nd Addition as shown on the plat ~eceived July 5, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Enter into a development contract with the city. o The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. . All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. The applicant shall construct McGlynn Road and install public utilities along McGlynn Road to the west property line of the site. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. o The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 The applicant shall provide to the city written documentation by a qualified wetland delineator stating that there are no wetlands on the site. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. . The proposed industrial development of 1.15 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $5,014. less any previous storm sewer assessment paid for the Audubon Road improvements. The water quality connection charge shall be waived. The water quantity fee is payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. All voted in favor mid the motion cm~ied. Nutting: Madam Chair, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #95-2 subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Nutting moved, Petemon seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval of Condifion,'fl Use Pemfit/495-2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. All voted in favor ed~d the motion cm~ied. Mancino: And this will be going to the City Council? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 AI-Jaff: August 28th. Mancino: August 28th. And I am very sorry Mr. Stahl. I said that you could, you had a comment that you wanted to make about the sign. Would you like to make that at this point? Doug Stahl: Yeah...we are doing the Children's World up in Woodbury and around' the bottom of the sign was the brick. You know almost like a brick planter around the sign and that's very possible can be done here. Aanenson: That's the objective is to have it match the architecture of the building. Doug Stahl: So they would, what I was going to say is that they have one up in Woodbury that may be very similar to this. Mancino: Good. That would be well advised to put that, have that revision for City Council. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The Council approved the second reading of what we call the glitch amendment, which is the overall code updates. They approved the final plat for the 45 lots at Oaks at Minnewashta. And they have had a pre-construction meeting so I believe they'll be up there grading shortly. They also approved the extension for the Olivewood Addition, which is 9 lots on Minnewashta. That one's having, they're having a little bit hard time getting good prices on that since it's a small subdivision. They also approved the Perkins site plan. They tabled action on the buffer ordinance. There was pretty good discussion. Members of the Builders Association and a number of builders were at the meeting to discuss the concerns they have. The Council directed staff to re-work some of the issues based on cost. I think they still felt strongly about the streetscape and the transition between industrial but maybe not between residential. So actually the Builders Association is going to come up with a draft of their own and we'll come up with our draft and we'll see what happens between the two. Farmakes: Any citizens showing up to round off this...? No? Aanenson: I think that's something that we can certainly incorporate. I think that issue was raised too. The citizens aren't involved in that. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: Just as a matter of point, counter point. You might let some of these, there are neighborhood associations and some of these newer neighborhoods know about this and ask for their participation. It would seem to me that it would be beneficial all the way around. Mancino: Well, from two points of view. First of all, that's a reason for the ordinance is because property owners are coming to us at the Planning Commission and being very concerned. And secondly, they're the ones who pay for it so I mean, they're the end user. They're where the market is being driven to look at this is from property owners and we certainly have 50 or 60 of them here on Trotters Ridge that have the industrial zone right next to them so. Just a plug for property owners I guess. Actually not really. It's just to have all parties involved. Who it affects here and have a voice is what I really mean to say. Farmakes: Is it typical to have businesses, or lobbying groups write ordinance legislation and then submit it to the city? Aanenson: Well I guess I look at how we did the sign ordinance. The Chamber got involved in that one and I think actually the bulk of the work got done... Farmakes: But that went through a task force situation. Aanenson: Yeah, but then the Chamber got pretty heavily involved and actually the Planning Commission ended up kind of mediating the staff had their direction and the Chamber had their's and the Planning Commission kind of was the mediator and kind of collaborated to come up with the ordinance that we have, and I kind of see that's how this will. There may be points of concurrence and there may be areas where there's significant difference and it will be up to the Council to decide. Mancino: So how are we going to bring in citizens? I mean people who aren't developers but landowners who are in these subdivisions who are coming to Planning Commission and City Council meetings and asking for more buffering. How are they going to be involved in the process? Aanenson: Well, I guess it depends on the streetscape certainly Council felt strongly about. What the Council didn't feel strongly about, but the staff was supporting, is buffering between people. And that's what they're, you know we're trying to create a sense of community and that's what they didn't want to see. Certainly the Council still supports buffering between the mix use, and that's in how much and where and those dollar figures. That's what we're still trying to bounce around. What's the appropriate dollars and what's the, is it too onerous on, and who goes in first. Those sort of issues. That's kind of where we're at. So I think there's some things, and they're looking at the natural topography. What effect does that. Those 53 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 issues weren't addressed in the ordinance, and I think are valid. There may be some large wetland with significant tree. Changing grade that may already account for some of the natural buffering. So I think that there's some room for improvement and I'm willing to look and see what maybe they have a creative solution. See what they have to say. Farmakes: It's always nice with these type of things that are usually not much fun to go to, and when we see them, they're usually neighbors that are upset for one reason or another, and they show up here but then when these things are actually resolved or these type of ordinances come up, that they may not even be aware of, that are trying to deal with some of this stuff. When it comes down to the actual discussions and so on, we always seem to have lawyers from Hoffman and we seem to have the vice president from some sort of development corporation submitting how we should be doing this and I'm just, I'm wondering how to incorporate the 90 people that we seem to get in here all the time. Aanenson: Well the Council struggled with that too and there's some interesting things that were said and...people buy, they say that those lots are discounted if you're adjacent to a street to adjacent to a different zone and those lots are discounted. Therefore, the people take that discount and build a bigger home. Well, those are the same people that are coming back now because they've got the bigger home that want even more protection because now they've made that investment in that home. So while their problem is solved because they say the person bought a smaller lot, or a discounted lot, and now has got bigger home because they were able to recapture those dollars and not put it in the lot but put it in the home, they certainly want to be protected from whatever use is there so I don't think that makes any sense from the builders but. Farmakes: But certainly at any real estate transaction, there is a winner and a loser. And as there is in the sell of the stock. There's somebody who gains and someone who loses. Aanenson: Right. And they're saying that they bought knowing that. That's why it was discounted. They bought knowing that there was something else adjacent to them but that still doesn't mean whoever is there first, is going to object no matter what it is for the next person and that's a hard hurdle. Farmakes: And there are some things that are still fluid. Aanenson: There are a lot of areas in the city that... Farmakes: It hasn't been decided what that rezoning is. Mancino: Okay. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Aanenson: That's all I had for, I had some things under ongoing issues, if you wanted to. Mancino: Sure. ONGOING ISSUES. Aanenson: I didn't think I would be going on this, to this meeting tonight on suburban development. You had a copy of that in your packet. It was an interesting meeting. The Met Council, the Council itself with a few staff people, toured Shakopee, Chaska, Prior Lake, Savage and Chanhassen. Unfortunately we were last so we had a pretty quick tour but it was pretty interesting discussion so. After the meeting then they went back to Shakopee and a lot of what the focus of the meeting was, there was probably 60 people at the meeting, including school district superintendents and State legislators, and city, county, local people talking about what the affect of growth has to do on other public facilities, and really what they're kind of focusing on schools. When development happens as rapidly, what it does to other tax dollars such as duplicating schools when other areas in the metropolitan area are maybe decreasing and losing schools so it was a pretty lively discussion and some pretty interesting things about which communities are working together well, which we're an example of working together well. What we've done with Chaska and 112 and for example Bluff Creek and the city participated and where other communities aren't working quite as well, but ! think we were held up as a pretty good example of using good resources in those circumstances so. It was an interesting meeting. Again, this goes back to the whole issue of how the legislature is going to resolve school funding. Farmakes: Was a part of this interaction, did they talk about issues of how to better utilize their tax resources in regards to purchasing required amounts of very expensive property in tier suburbs for the school systems that are required by the State? Aanenson: They didn't get that specific. The first focus of the meeting was what they're looking at as far as the different approaches to the MUSA expansion. Kind of let market... take place. One would be controlling, limiting. Deciding whether it should be freezing certain people from growth and allowing other people to move and then leaving it the way it is. Kind of you go back in and ask and justify it, so that was the first approach. And then they just let superintendents talk. Talk about issues they have with growth management based on what's happening in cities. Really in an hour and a half, there wasn't enough time to get that specific. They allowed the superintendents to talk anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes to talk about how they're handling growth and duplication of services and that sort of thing. But again, I think Chaska 112 district spoke rather highly of what they're doing with Chanhassen/ Chaska as far as making sure there's the cooperation and not duplicating. Under ongoing issues, I did update this and I'll try to do this every month to show you where we are on the 55 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Highway 5. There is a Bluff Creek meeting next, August 8th. Starting to get that thing going forward. Try to update you and show you, we have accomplished quite a bit. Actually the Highway 5 is in final draft form. It will be to the printers soon and we'll disperse that to everybody. Get that up to the Met Council. We are trying to plug along on the 1995 study area. We've got some more mapping that we're waiting for on GIS. We're tying it to, it looks like the referendum's kind of narrowing down what they're looking at as far as areas so that leaves a block. And actually we don't have that much really to look at but we'll be coming back with that hopefully by the end of the year. Some recommendations on work progress. Bluff Creek, as I indicated, August 7th meeting. Joint Park and Recreation Commission meeting. I'll try to keep this in here the beginning of each month so you can kind of see where we're at. Nancy Mancino gave the Planning Commission an update on what was happening at the Park and Recreation Referendum Task Force meetings. Falmakes moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion c,-mied. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 56