PC 1993 02 17H/~NH~SSEN PL/~NIN6 CO~MISSION-
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRU/~RY 17, 1993
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy 'Mancino
and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
~TAFF ~SENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner
and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUELIC HEARING:
TH~ ROTTLUND COMP~NY (MIKE KLINGEL~TZ) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE ~T ~DE
OF ~/~PIN BOULEVARD. /~>PROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY ~, WINDMILL
RUN:
A. REZONE 17.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED R~2. /~T=RIC~~~ ESTATE TO
R~SIOENTIAL SINGLE F~MILY;
B. SUBDIVIDE 17.2 RCRES OF PROPERTY INTO 35 SINGLE F/~MIL'Y LOTS,
Public Present:
N~e ~k~ress
David Stockdale
Tom & Dar Turcotte
Mark (Red) White
Wayne Tauer
7210 Galpin Blvd.
7240 Galpin Blvd.
Representing Prince Nelson
Pioneer Engineering
Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Acting Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order.
-,
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Dave, does the developer have
the option of constructing ponds and maintaining the pre-development
runoff rate, I mean as opposed to going'ahead and makin8 the payments to
the City for oversizing the storm sewer? Is that his option that we'll
give him or is that...
Hempel: In this particular development, we're looking at actually
probably both scenarios where the. pond that's being proposed in the
southwest corner of the site is achieving the City's requirements for
water quality and quantity but yet, that will only cover western one-third
of the development. The remaining two-thirds of the development is left
untreated or unretained.
Ledvina: Would it be possible for him to construct a equalization pond
for that other two-thirds of the property?
Hempel: It would be but when we look down the road here at our overall
comprehensive storm water plan, this could be an island if you will, that
still is the old where we have maintenance ponds on site instead of being
a part of the overall network. Storm sewer network which drains to the
regional holding pond south. From our perspective, I guess we'd like to
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 2
see it be a part of this overall storm sewer network that we want to
incorporate with the comprehensive plan.
Ledvina: What do you think is most cost effective at this point in
time? For the developer. Obviously if you build ponds he's going to lose
lots and things like that. You haven't set the rates for this surcharge
or whatever. I'm Just, getting a feel for that at all?
Hempel: That's a very good question. I don't think I have a real good
answer for you. We felt, Just looking at it at this stage that by leaving
the lots as temporary holding ponds until they're dealt with in the
future, it gives the applicant some opportunity to come back and still
build and utilize those lots. Maybe the applicant tonight maybe will want
to respond to that a little bit further. What his-desires would be.
· .
Scott: Is there anymore comments from staff?
Hempel: Not from engineering.
Scott: Would the applicant or applicant's representative wish to make
some comments? And please state your name and your address, and spelling
of your name if it's not intuitive.
Wayne Tauer: Thank you. My name is-Wayne Tauer. That's T-a-u-e-r. Not
T-o-w-e-r naturally. I'm from Pioneer Engineering and I represent the
Rottlund Company tonight. Couple of things just to expand a little bit on
what Dave has talked about. The pond that we're presenting building in
that southwest corner was basically dictated to us by Mr. Ismael Martinez,
and as I understand it, this part of the master plan has been completed.
Therefore that's why that pond is where it is and that's why it's the size
it is. It's part of the master plan, obviously and unfortunately most of
the water that goes into that particular pond is only approximately a
third our's and two-thirds somebody else's. Therefore, we're building a
holding ponds and NURP treatment for other people. I guess our only
concern is the fact that if and when the master plan does get implemented
and all the pipes and drainageways are in place, that it be noted and
credited to our account so to speak. That we have been already assessed
so to speak. We built enough ponding and NURP treatment to handle
approximately I would say nearly 20 acres. Our site is 17.2 so Just so we
are on record that we won't be assessed again. And I guess also to
address some of the concerns of the Commission here tonight is, we will be
willing to temporarily take one, two or whatever it requires lots out of
the subdivision. Well, wrong term. Out of building the homes on those
particular lots. We'd like to have the lots approved with the condition
that when everything is settled and ail the drainage is worked out, that
we can go back and then of course build on those particular lots. And
with an easement over them I think we'll have to vacate that easement
ultimately when building plans and permits are issued. I guess that's
really most, oh. There's a couple other minor things. -Should I run
through what our concerns are or do you want to Just throw some things at
me?
Scott: Sure.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 3
Wayne Tauer: There were just a couple things. There was, I guess item
number 1 where they asked us to lower the street on the south end of
Windmill Drive. Certainly willing to do that. That's not a problem. I
guess what we really need to do is get a little more topography and
project a vertical curve. We've often run in our development's experience
into roads that are poked out into space so to speak. And after that, you
don't know where they're going. I guess just a little more topography
would really make more sense than just to say, raise it a foot and a half
or 2 feet or whatever it is. Okay? Leave it at that. Okay, good. Some
of the other things that we're a little bit worried about. I know a new
condition showed up here tonight is about berming along the county road.
One of the things we're worried about there is whether the county road
will remain as a rural section and will it have a ditch. If that's so,
then the berming is not a problem for us. If it does not remain a rural
section kind of design, berming in there may clog up or what we call are
positive overflow. As you see there.is water coming from the property
from the north. If we don't have a positive, we are extending some storm
sewer up there to pick up normal rainfalls you know. 2 to-$ year storms.
Anything beyond that, those storm pipes will not handle that volume.
Therefore it has to be able to flow overland without flooding somebody,
specifically those two northwesterly lots. If berming is going to cause a
problem and block up our positive overflow, I guess we have a problem with
that. If it doesn't and the rural section then we can maintain a natural
swale that will reach that pond ultimately, then we'll definitely go along
with that and we can work that out I think between the engineering
department and ourselves.
Ledvina: 3ust a point on the berming. What would the, so the purpose of
the berming is to screen, to provide screening for the residents
from the traffic on CR 1177
Nayne Tauer: Agreed, right.
Ledvina: What would the height of the berm that would be required? I
guess I don't have a feeling for what we're talking about.
Olsen: We were talking like around 4 foot because of the width that even
would require is 24 feet. Ne were figuring at a 3:1 slope. So I don't
know that we could go with, with what's there, I don't think we could go
much higher than that.
Wayne Tauer: Well the real problem is also they want a 20 foot easement
for a bike trail. Now are we taking 20 feet off our land and then another
24? And are we now losing 44 feet or whatever it's going to be off of
those lots? I don't know if we can really afford all of that and still
build it.
Mancino: You are going to lose a little bit of that 40. In the ordinance
in our city code landscape ordinance, in Section 18-61, number S it says
landscape buffer around the exterior of the subdivision.shall be required
by the City when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets
as defined by the comprehensive plan? Required buffering shall consist of
berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs.
that's where the berming came from.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 4
Wayne Tauer: Okay, thank you.
Olsen: And we'll have to be wor ktng with that because we have to massage
everything. There's the 20 foot trail easement but within that trail
easement is the 8 foot bituminous trail. $o we have room for berming.
Room for landscaping within that 20 foot easement, to a certain extent.
Plus there's also the possibility that trail can actually be located in
County right-ol=-way, il= they permit it so it can go in and out where
there's room or lack of room. $o it's one ot= those things we're really
going to have to work on and we can't be specific right now.
Wayne Tauer: Most people assume that berms have to be 3:1 period. You
know, if it's 4 foot, it's 12 feet horizontally, 4 foot vertical. So on
and so forth. That isn't necessarily so. Depending on how you treat the
berm and how you plant it. There are a number o1= ways to make berms
higher without sticking with that 3:1. If you totally plant them with
ground covers and fairly densely populated plant materials, you can
certainly maintain a steeper slope, assuming that no one has to mow them
everyday. And I also assume that those berms will be on private property.
Therefore, it'd be the responsibility o1= the maintenance o1= them to the
property owner who owns them. Therefore I assume they're going to take
care of them and not try to mow them obviously if they're mowable. So it
just depends on how we design that berm and how we plant it will also
determine the width of that particular berm, so. And there were.lots of
ways. There's even fencing I suppose. Opaque fencing of some sort. I
don't know if that's allowable in your city or not.
Olsen: We don't prefer it.
Wayne Tauer: Not preferred, okay. But like you say, there's options and
again, maybe we can work it out with the staff to make it fly.
Scott: But as far as the issues relative to bermtng and right-of-way and
storm sewer and so forth along CR 117, staff does not see any issues that
cannot be resolved? I just want to make sure that this issue is not
something that's going to cause them to, or this project to be non-viable
for some reason. But I get the reason that you don't see that as an
issue. Okay.
Hempel: I don't think it will be an issue. The berming or landscaping
can be used also in the trail easement corridor. It also I'm sure will
extend out into the properties though somewhat to a point.
Wayne Tauer: Oh yeah, agreed. Yeah, no problem there.
Hempel: We're told because the.landscaping will e1=fect large trees, the
root systems and so forth on any kind of trail base that we put in there,
plus hazards of limbs and tree trimming and so forth. So we're going to
be careful o1= what plantings and where they're located in relation to the
trail.
Wayne Tauer: We Just don't want to restrict those two abutting lots to
the point where they're no longer viable lots. Although we do have fairly
large setbacks there already. So I mean we made those lots obviously
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 5
larger than the standard lots. It's just a matter of making sure that we
have at least a $0 or 60 foot building pad to put a nice house on.
Farmakes: What's the City's experience with maintaining private berm
areas? Or does the private individual maintaining the berm area? Has it
been good?
Olsen: The ones I'm thinking Of are the ones on Kerber. I don't know
that it's, I think on their side, on the interior side they do maintain
it. On the exterior side, I don't know that. I think that we do. We end
up maintaining that.
Scott: It looks like they're mowed up about as far as someone can safely
go so there's usually a section of about 10 to 12 feet that doesn't work.
And then I think, weren't there a tremendous amount Of pine trees at one
time? That ended up dying an untimely death.
Farmakes: I think they're still there.
Olsen: Some of them, yeah. ·
Farmakes: Where does the City define it's responsibility on that berm
then? Property line?
Olsen: Typically yeah. The end of the right-of-way or beyond. Anything
beyond the trail easement we would not maintain.
Mancino: So if the landscaping and the'trail easement...
Olsen: Well I think we would make an accommodation that we wouldn't be
responsible for that.
Farmakes: But if we defined what the landscaping' is, we should be
cognizant of maybe that part of it may not be taken care of so much.
Olsen: Right, and the landowner wouldn't understand that that's their's.
Farmakes: Well not only that but physically it might be difficult for
them to maintain it. Particularly if you went to increase the grade of
it.
Wayne Tauer: Well if we increase the grade, there won't be much
maintenance involved is the whole idea behind it. Is to put plant
materials in there that will not require a lot of maintenance. Especially
mowing, which is a weekly.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying.
Wayne Tauer: Right, which is a weekly problem.
Scott: Wayne, do you have any other comments that you'd like to make as a
part of the public hearing?
Wayne Tauer: No, I guess that's pretty much it. I'll take your questions.
Planning Commission Nesting
February 17, 1993 - Page 6
Scott: Okay. Any questions from anyone that you'd like to address to
Wayne?
Ledvina: Does Rottlund, is it acceptable for them to pay the cost for the
oversized pipes that will be placed at a later date? As I understand the,
is that something that we're willing to do?
wayne Tauer: I think so, as long as it's a common denominator for
everybody. As ! understand it, it's an ordinance not in place presently.
It's wishful thinking kinds of things and I know that Dave is looking for
that process and many other cities have that and why should Chanhassen be
different right? You know, really. I mean it does make some sense. If
you can have regional ponding as opposed to these little potholes all over
creation, I mean that really is a pain to most developers and if the city
can go in and actually develop regional ponding areas where they make
sense, I think most developers will be in agreeance with that. Assuming
the assessment is reasonable and the City isn't making necessarily a major
profit on the project. That it covers the cost and makes the system work,
no. I think Rottlund would be absolutely agreeable with that.
Farmakes: Do you have an idea of the square footage that they're looking
at building per lot? Square footage of the building.
Wayne Tauer: The square footage of the building?
Farmakes: Are you looking at a range for the development? Just curious.
Wayne Tauer: You're talking to the wrong man unfortunately. I don't know
what they have in mind here. I'm sure it's $120's to $175's. You know
I'm just thinking. I shouldn't even probably say that. I don't know.
Farmakes: You're talking price range. .I'm talking square footage.
Wayne Tauer: Square footage. Well, I mean they're kind of related I
guess. No I don't. I really don't. We could certainly get that number
to you. What they think will be coming in here but I don't know.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Is there anyone else as a part of the
public hearing that would like to comment on this project? Okay, seeing
none, then can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Hancino seconded to close the public heaving. All voted in
favor and the motion caTv/ed. The publlc heating ~ae clo~ed.
Scott: Now we'll, Diane if you'd like to start with your comments. We
started down here last week. Two weeks ago. Do you have any comments or
questions?
Harberts: Thank you Mr. Chair. I told you it was a long day. Maybe this
is somewhere between a question and a comment with regard to the temporary
turn around easement. This is going to be an actual asphalt that's laid
down. Are those two lots, Lot 1 of Block 3 and Lot 5 of Block 1, are they
going to be available to be built on right, away with that turn around
there?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 7
O'lsen: They could still be accommodated. Well Lot l's going to have the
pond on it. We've had that before where the lots, buildings can still be
located there and then, as Dave can explain, it's just no curb. It:s just
asphalt that's easily removed.
Hempel: The original permanent street is actually put in and what they do
is pave what I'll call a tab outside to complete the radius for vehicles
to turn around so they're not turning around in somebody's driveway ali
the time. It will be a little less grass for the homeowner to mow until
the street gets extended. When the street does get extended, the
homeowner will receive a sodded yard back where that pavement is. It will
be torn out by the next developer and resodded. Building setbacks would
be still from the property line, not the easement line so the setbacks
would remain the same.
Harberts: I feel a little bit that this is one of those situations where
this is plopped down and I guess his meridian that he used, what's going
to happen around the other, you know surrounding it? Are we going to see
some plans for that? I mean we have this road. Me have this group of
homes and we're talking about sewer.
Hempel: I can expand on further west of this subdivision-. As you may or
may not be aware, Lundgren Bros have .been before us with a preliminary
plat for quite a large subdivision but it's further to the west, closer to
Trunk Highway 41. There's also some talk of another property owner, the
Song's and also possibly Carlson's getting together with Lundgren Bros
also and do a development on the west side of Salpin, slightly north of
this development. The applicant may want to expand on the potential, the
parcel north of this immediate development. There was some talk trying to
combine.
Harberts: Yeah, there's a single family home just.
Wayne Tauer: Yes, there is one. The property owner himself lives up in-
that northwest corner of that particular property but we have also looked
at that property and have actually had a sketch plan type design on it and
Rottlund is negotiating with the Davidson's at this time to try to
purchase it. So it'd be very nice if we could, I mean nothing guaranteed
at this point in time but.
Harberts: How many acres is it?
Wayne Tauer: It's approximately the same size as this one. About 17
acres. Minus whatever that little corner is. That's probably an acre out
of there. Maybe it's around ~5-16 acres. There is a wetland in the
northeast corner which you will have to obviously avoid but yeah, we're
trying to expand this particular plat if we can.
Harberts: I think that's it. Thank you.
Ledvina: Let's see here. A couple of things. In the staff report on
page 3, talking about grading and drainage. You say, I think this is
probably your piece Dave in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Grades throughout the plat should not exceed 3:~ slopes for maintenance
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page $
purposes. And when you say maintenance, do you mean the homeowner's
maintenance?
Hempel: That's correct. I referred to this for like backyard, areas and
so forth. There was one particular area that appeared the slopes may have
been a little bit steeper than a 3:1. It was on the east side of the
development, Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 where it appears the backyards were
fairly steep grades and it's difficult to maintain vegetation also in some
of those slopes when you increase the grades beyond 3:i.
Ledvina: Okay, so for the homeowners benefit you're suggesting that?
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvtna: And then the pond. You suggest that the volume be increased by
1.2 acre feet. Is that easily done with the area that they have to work
with?
Hempel: That number came.
Ledvina: It just means deepening the pond correct?
Hempel: Essentially, yes.
Ledvina: Okay. And then there was a suggestion that related to the
placement of draintile behind t.he curbs to prevent or to ~rovide some
drainage for sump pump water and things like that. Would these draintiles
be connected to the catch basins and such? Is that how that would work?
Hempel: That's correct. We'd like to network it with the storm sewer
system. Soil borings that were taken throughout the development here,
there was one particular area that showed kind of a high ground water, or
water table elevation where similar areas of the city have experienced,.
the homeowners have experienced sump pumps that run pretty continuous
throughout the day and during the winter months.they also continue to run.
And to discharge outside creates a big ice build-up and with the
homeowners, well in the summertime it creates a very wet and spongy yard
and homeowners usually extend the draintile then out to the city street.
And during the wintertime and ice build-ups and it becomes a real hazard .
for both traffic and pedestrians. Lately the city crews have been
actually going out and repairing a number of these isolated areas around
the city and we're trying to implement now with the construction of these
new developments where we know up front where we can anticipate water
problems to try to correct them in advance. We have a similar development
where they actually stubbed out individual services to run to the house
for the draintile. Some basket to connect into because of the high water
table. It's worked fairly well. Most of the time homeowners, if they
can't discharge it outside, or if it gets the yard wet.and so forth, a lot
of times they'll just discharge it down into the se~er system within'the
house which is illegal and it's bad for the city from an infiltration
standpoint. The City pays an annual ~ee based on how much sewage goes to
the NWCC and by having all these sump pumps hooked up to it., it just makes
our utility rates increase annually which is in turn passed onto the
homeowners through rate increases.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 9
Ledvina: Okay, so the City is actually, in certain problem areas, the
City is actually constructing these drains behind the curb as a remedial
technique to avoid these problems?
Hempel: In some of the areas we have, we've worked with the homeowners
and/or the builders/developers to go back and pay us to do that work. So
it's much easier to do it now as a part of the initial road construction
than having to go back and tear up the boulevards and restore yards and
driveways. So it's a better situation this way.
Ledvina: Is there a maintenance concern to keep these drains free flowing
over the long term? Are there clean-outs and that type of thing?
Hempel: There are clean-outs. Spaced approximately 'at about hundred
feet, hundred foot intervaIs.
Ledvina: So that's flush with the surface?
Hempel: That's correct, yeah. So far we've had draintile systems put in
for a little over 2 years now and we've had no problems with freezin~ or
clogging or crushing of the pipe.
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Okay, I think that's all I have for my
comments at this time.
Scott: Great. Jeff.
Farmakes: I think I'll make a couple of statements. One, I think that
the applicant can come forward with the solution if that's agreeable to
the engineering firm to solve the temporary problems alon~ the highway.
I'm not I guess going to hand out any awards here for the lot development.
It meets all the requirements of the city and I think that it serves a
need to have a range of prices. Square footage of homes and so on. It
worries me a little bit that when we place developments out in the middle
of nowhere, we're not quite sure what's going to go in there later on. We
have a general idea I guess if we turn to our master plan but that part is
really handled by private enterprise and development. That particular
part is handled by the property owners with some guidance from the city
but we're not defining how big the houses are. We're just defining what
the minimums are. We're not definin~ how big the yards are going to be.
Just how little they're going to be. It seems to me kind of an odd mix
from some of the surrounding properties that I hear are being developed
out there, but maybe that's good. Maybe that's good that we have a range
of development. To each his own.
Olsen: This is also little pieces that there is, you can't really do too
many fun things with it.
Farmakes: Right. It's a small, and I think once we start developing
more, our flat farmland, we're going to find more and more of that. I
think in the last year or so we've been seeing odd topography type
developments where they're been doing a lot of contouring and around trees
and trying to save certain areas and I hope we continue some of that
creative development. And I know that we don't have ordinances requiring
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 10
that but this is a small development and I think it meets the requirements
that we have on the books. I'll leave it at that.
Mancino: I agree with that. Thanks 3elf for bringing that up .... rolling
terrain right there and I live on Galpin and this is the first development
that's going to be let's say... Just one little question. Jo Ann, we
have a problem. Now I know that it's still nebulous about how the trail
and how the Derming and everything is going to work. If the harming is on
private property, can we still guide the plantings for landscaping?
Olsen: Well, sure because that's still, they're still responsible for
providing that along Salpin. It always is on the private property with
the landscaping.
Mancino: So...wanting more massive plantings than Just the rows...and
guided that way?
Olsen: Right, and that's something that in your condition, if you want to
add 20, that instead of just row you can...
Mancino: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Scott: Okay. The questions that I had have been addressed by the other '
members of the Planning Commission. So do I haw a motion?
Ledvina: I have one more question. 30 Ann, you suggested adding, or did
you suggest adding an additional condition as it related to the utilities
being available to this site?
Olsen: Well that's in there. But the one I did suggest was that, there's
nothing in there about being provided easements for the temporary ponding
on Lots 1 and Lots 3 and 4. That does need to be added.
Ledvi na: 0 kay.
Olsen: I don't know if you have a good 'way of wording that, or can it be
added to one of the other conditions perhaps.
Scott: Or is that something that we'd be more comfortable putting
together a motion after some of these issues have been developed in
writing with staff doing that and then revisit it? Or is this something
that we're comfortable with acting on right now?
Ledvina: I think if it's an easement issue and the developer is willing
to grant those easements, I think that can be worked out with staff.
Scott: Okay, so that's somethin~ we could act on today.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think so.
Harberts: Mr. Chair. Also, with the point that was brought up with
landscaping with harming. Is that something then that staff will address
and bring back your recommendation if that sh~uld be included or not? As
part of the landscping.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 11
Olsen= Well the way I, what we were suggesting-is that you would just add
that they shall provide a landscaping plan which provides landscaping
species and berming recommended by staff.
Scott: Okay, so we just an amendment to item 20?
Olsen: Right. And so that it would not come back to you.
Wayne Tauer: Would we be locked into that city list of plant materials?
Olsen: That's what this recommendation is. What we're saying is that
half of them be from there.
Wayne Tauer: Half of them? Oh, okay. We have some options.
Mancino: Then I'll go ahead and move that we approve the Rezoning #93-1
to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential
Single Family with the following conditions, 1 and 2 as stated in the
report.
Ledv ina: Seco nd.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that'the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #93-1 to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural
Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family with the following conditton~:
The rezoning will not be final until the final plat has been approved
and recorded and utilities service the site.
2. All conditions of preliminary and final plat must be met.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ledvina: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve Subdivision #93-4 for the Windmill Run subdivision
subject to the staff conditions with the following amendments and
additions. The first condition shall read as per the staff report with
the additional statement to read, additional contour data shall be
obtained to optimize the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive. And
amendment of condition 20. An addition to read, a landscaped soil berm
shall also be included subject to the staff review. And adding a 22nd
condition to read, drainage easements must be granted for the pond located
in the southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
Scott: Is there a second to the clarification of items number 1, 20 and
the addition of items 22?
Hat bet ts: Seco nd.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recommend
approval of Subdivision #93-4 for the Nindmill Run subdivision with the
following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 12
1. Elevation of the southerly cul-de-sac should be adjusted .to provide
better grade continuity for the.future extension of Windmill Drive to
the south, and additional contou~ data shall be obtained to optimize
the vertical alignment of Wlnchnlll D~tve.
·
The water quality/retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of
the development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2
ache/feet. In addition, an outlet ~estrictinG flo~$ shall be limited
to 4.5 cfr at the high water level.
·
The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for
storm runoff on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and $, Block 3 to maintain
the pre-developed runoff conditions· In addition, the applicant
shall pay into the City's Surface Water Management Program for future
downstream water quality improvements. The specific amount will be
determined by the City's storm water consultant.
·
The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm, water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to
contribute towards the future extension of storm sewer downstream.
·
All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's 1993 edition-of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates· Street construction shall also include a drain
tile system behind the curb to accon~ate household sump pump
discharge.
.
The applicant shall submit storm drainage' and ponding calculations
verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Retention
ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the
surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at predeveloped
runoff conditions for a 100 year., 24 hour storm event. Drainage
plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best
Management Practice Handbook·
·
The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from
the regulatory agencies such as the HPC~, Health Department,
Watershed District, DNR and Caret County Highway Department.
·
Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter
into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee construction of the public
improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. The
development contract will be subject to City Council approval·
The applicant shall provide at a minimum a right turn lane along
County Road 117 and any other improvements required by the Carver
County HiGhway Department·
10·
Both temporary cul-de-sacs that are proposed for future extension"
shall be provided with a turnaround that meets City. standards with a
barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and
this road will be extended in the future.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1~ - Page 13
11.
The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council
ordering the public improvement project No. 92-5 for the trunk
sanitary sewer and water improvements through the development.
12.
The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility
easement for the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible
storm sewer over Lot l, Block 1.
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3:1 slopes.
14.
The applicant shall dedicate temporary street easements for those
areas of the temporary cul-de-sacs outside the dedicated
right-of-way.
15. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each
house pad on the grading plan.
16.
Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits
of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division.
A general soils report for the development should also be submitted
to the Inspections Division.
17.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.'e.
street lamps, trees, shrubs, NSP and Northwestern Bell, cable boxes,
pursuant to city ordinance.
18.
No housing construction beyond Lots 12, 13, 16, 17 may start until
fire apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads shall
be designed to the City of Chanhassen Engineering standards, and meet
the approval of the Chanhassen Fire Department pursuant to Uniform
Fire Code 1988 Edition, Section 10.20(f).
19.
The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable and must be
renamed. The reason being that the city already has a 76th Street
and 76 does not line up with the city's grid map system.
20.
The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides
landscape species recommended by staff. R landscaped soil berm shall
also be included subject to the staff review.
21. Meet conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission.
22. Drainage easements must be granted for the pond located in the
southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Heeting
February 17, 1993 - Page
PUBLIC HE~RIN~:
SiTE PLAN REV[EH FOR A 16.420 S(~J~J~E FOOT OFF[CE/14~REHOUSE FRCZEZTY ON
PROPERTY ZONED tOP. iNDUSTRiAL OFF[CE PARK ~D LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE iNTERSECTiON OF P~RK-PL~CE ~ PARK ~. LOT 3~ BI_OCK ~.
CH/~NHASSEN L~KES BUSINESS P~J~K 5TH ~DDITION. MARK UNDEST~D/EDEN TRACE
COAl=ORATION. TECHNICS_ INDUSTRIAL SALES.
Public Present=
Mark Undestad
Richard Andresen
8800 Sunset Trail
Representing PMT Corp
Sharmin Al-$aff presented the staff report on this item. Acting Chairman
Scott called the public hearing to order.
Richard Andresen: I'm Richard Andresen. My last name is ~ndresen. I'm a
resident of Savage, Minnesota. I'm Plant Manager for PMT Corporation and
like she pointed out, I would like to see them also add their own
landscaping, and not just utilize our current landscape. He's right next
to it right now the way he shows it and I'd like to see some more of his
own landscaping being put in there. That's what I'd like to state.
Scott: Okay, and then so you basically agree with the condition that are
there?
Richard Andresen: Yes. Yes, definitely.
Farmakes: Which side are you connected?
Scott: You're the existing building correct?
Richard Andresen= Yeah. I'm the existing landscape that they're showing
now. PHT Corporation.
Scott: Good. Any other comments as part of the public hearing? Yes,
Councilman Wing.
Richard Wing: Richard Wing, Chart City Council. Z just wanted to again
hit the landscaping because so many times '-on the last buildings that have
come in on the last issues that we've dealt with at City Council, they've
come through staff, through Planning Commission and they've sort of been
good but then we get them and we wondered why they're not a little better.
And then suddenly I say, we want more trees and then everybody says, oh
no. It winds up going back.so I'd like the applicant to take this
landscaping issue very seriously so that when it gets to Council, I don't
have to say it's inadequate. I'd like them to come in as a good corporate
citizen. Understand what landscaping means to the city. Recognize the
fact that we are working on a new landscape ordinance that's going to be
extensively higher I hope than we have now. Demand much more. trees. Much
more landscaping. And we have to start now so being there's TIF money
involved, I think staff supports getting this thing going. I'd like
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 15
Planning Commission to be aware of that and just a personal comment to the
applicant again, repeating myself, that we want some trees and we .~ant
some overstory. We want this to get into kind of an urban forest setting
and I agree, it's inadequate and I think Sharmtn and the staff are pushing
it. ! think we want to push even a little harder and so if this is to run
smoothly when it gets to me at Council, it would behoove the applicant to
really seriously look at the landscape plan and come in with a really good
one. I'd appreciate if he'd put that effort into it.
Scott: Good, thank you. Is the applicant here or a representative of the
applicant that would like to address the Planning Commission?
Mark Undestad: My name is Mark Undestad with Eden Trace, the builder.
Reviewing everything here you know that we will indeed do.quite a bit more
landscaping on that site. This was kind of a fast pace plan put together
here. The question that I have is, on the rooftop screening, you say a
parapet wall. Is that around the entire building or parapet something
around the individual rooftop units?
AI-Jaff: Around the entire building so that if you were from any of the
adjoining streets, or the streets within the area, you won't be able to
see the rooftop equipment or if you are at one of the neighboring
buildings.
Mark Undestad: So the rooftop screens themselves, I mean there's f~om an
economic standpoint there's a big difference'to put a parapet wall around
the entire building versus screening in the rooftop uni.ts themselves on
there. I think what we're looking at was like a parapet, or like a screen
just screening the units themselves in there.
Al-Jarl: Ne could do that. You haven't shown us any type of rooftop-
equipment so.
Mark Undestad: Okay. I thought you said that you wanted something to,
parapet Just to phrase exactly that. You put a parapet wall around the
entire unit. Am I missing somethins?
Al-Jarl: That is our preference. However, we could work with other
solutions. Other alternatives.
Mark Undestad: Okay. We'll get this together for you on there? The
parking stalls, the one on the upper right hand corner there. Yeah, that
might be a little tight backing in and out of there. However, the one on
the other corner, that one yeah. On the left side, that area back there
is not set up for tractor trailer traffic. It's strictly a van door, drop
door so that we wouldn't have any large trucks going back in there and
trying to maneuver around back in that corner. $o I don't think that
really we would have to eliminate that rear stall back there. The loadin~
docks are in the, or a loading dock is in the front side for the tractor
trailer traffic.
Hempel: I believe when we did look at it though, we're still going to
have some conflict. When you pull in, there's not much room for you to be
able to back up to that parking or to that loading dock with a utility
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 16
type van. We had some concerns there. I guess if you can demonstrate
turning radius or' whatever, that you can accommodate your turning
vehicles, that might be a solution too. But ~e're looking at also a
future use I guess. Will it always be a utility type function or maybe it
will be expanded to a larger type. Small tractor type trailer operation
that may utilize that stall. Then at that time there would be no parking
there and then you would be deficient of a parking stall, accordin~ to the
ordinance.
Mark Undestad: Okay. Well we can run that through engineering and let
them see how that would work out in there. Really everything else that
we've looked at on here is fine. We'll take care of it.
Harberts= I'd like to ask a couple questions of the applicant. How many
people do you look to employ at this facility?
Hark Undestad: Right non they employ lO on site. The majority of their
space is warehouse, shipping and receiving. What they plan to increase by
increasing their size here, I don't know. Technical Industrial Sales
wasn't available to show up tonight. They're out of town here but like
I say, right now they employ 10 people at their current facility. They
have several sales associates out in tbs 5 state area but part of this
process is an increase in space and I'm sure they'll be looking to bring
on a couple more bodies anyway.
Scott: Any other comments from the public regarding this item? I'd like
to have a motion to close the public heartn~ please.
Hancino moved, Ledvina seconded'to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed.
Mancino: I have just a clarification for Sharmin. Would you put the,
light up the overhead again. On that north~est corner, you show losing
one stall but we're actually going to lose two. Or there are-going to be
two eliminated on that northwest corner correct? That's what you had
down in your, so there's going to be a total of 3 parking spaces...
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Mancino: I just wanted to make sure. So thay will need to redo a whole
parking lot schematic, or whatever you call it to show you how...
At-Jarl: Correct.
Mancino: That are needed by the City Code. Okay. Oh I know. What I
would like to take a second and just show the other commissioners a
building used of the similar rock faced concrete block that I saw in my
travels this week. I think Sharmin came up with a good idea for having a
little bit of different detail and having some glazing tile. This
particular building uses brick as it's detail running through it. ~nd
actually...little bit of brick detail over the windows also so it
architecturally has a little more ~oin~ on to it. I just would like any
discussion about some other architectural enhancements we could make to
this building.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 17
Harberts: Sharmin, why did you suggest going?
Al-Jarl: It was just a suggestion.
Harberts: I just wondered if there was a specific reason.
Al-Jarl: No. Not at all.
Farmakes: This structure is meeting the requirements the City's proposed,
correct? As it is currently being proposed. This isn't a TIF.
Al-Jarl: It's a TIF site.
Farmakes: It is.
Al-Jarl: It could benefit from some architectural.
Farmakes: The applicant mentioned that he was rushed to put this
together. Is this, I'm assuming that what we're looking at here is the
building that's being proposed. Is that what we have? I guess what I
wanted to clarify is what we're looking at here is a site plan review but
does this mean that the buildings could change later or you're changing
the roof?
Mark Undestad: This kind of shows a little bit more of how the break-ups
are to using various types of block and little different looks. Technical
Industrial Sales wanted something real simple and clean looking. On the
other hand I know most cities...so we're kind Of in the middle here. What
I did here was get something with the accent line that would break up
along here using...to get the accent line down here. And then basically
just...variations of block. It gives it a little...what the owner would
like is similar to the Oayco concrete block...These were Federal Expressed
down to him. They were supposed to be there Monday for his approval and
get back to us Tuesday. Federal Express didn't get it'there on time.
This is what we have. I did talk to him today and we did make a. change.
Above these windows we had this lighter accent color above all the
windows...tone that down a bit...
Harberts: There isn't really a whole lot you can do with warehouses.
Farmakes: Sure there is. I guess my response is, citizens or a partner,
it gives you a little more leeway to put input into it. The problem that
we have with industrial buildings is you almost feel guilty adding on
anything to it. It still ignores the fact that the building's going to be
here for 20-30 years. Dick's comments are well taken. I think that not
only will additional landscaping be more pleasant to look at but it will
help hide the building. I think that the applicant has probably come -
forward and said that they don't think it's an architectural wonder but it
serves it's purpose. I guess if we want to add something more to that, I
know it seems like the neighbors, the industrial neighbors that you have
here are somewhat concerned. I know PMT has a nice facility. Very nice
building next door. Is there a reason why the City and some of the
commercial structures that I know have bricks up the roofline. We've been
talking about doing that, at least in the entrance areas of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 18
Is there a reason why we didn't push for that here? Or we didn't feel it
was necessary.
Al-Jarl: They meet the minimum standards of.
Farmakes: And that gets back to a philosophical thing. I mean it's an
unfortunate thing that you don't want to wind up living in a community of
minimums but it still is reality of an ordinance. If you have a minimum
that you meet, and it's up to the applicant to go beyond that.
Mancino: Plus it's not on a main road. I mean it's not like it's on
Highway 5...
Farmakes: That's correct. And it's.a different relationship. ! guess if
you have a company that comes next door and decides to invest serious
money and build a nice structure. On the same hand ! guess they know
building that building that their development next door might meet the
minimum requirement. But !'m wondering what more can be done-to that
building. It wouldn't take much more to incorporate some of the stuff
that we talk about.
Ledvina: The one thing that we have to do is provide screening of the
roof equipment and talked about the parapet wall. Perhaps that can be
used to give the thing more of a broken roofline. Perhaps in the front of
the building or Park Road or something, that could be just the height of
the roof and then beyond the entranceway and the back two-thirds you could
have a parapet cut across the roof. You know, I don't know but-then
again, if the equipment is back there and that would give it a broken roof
line anyway. I mean you've got to do the-screening. Haybe you could take
advantage o~ that aspect of the modit=icatton that's required and give it a
better look.
Scott: Diane, do you have some comments?
Harberts: I pass.
Scott: Sharmin you were going to.
Al-Jarl: The west elevation of the building is also one large span of
wall. One way this could be addressed is by landscaping. Massing
landscaping where we have walls. Or by adding windows. That would be the
third elevation.
Scott: Basically where we're at is that the building as proposed meets
the minimum standards. I'm assuming there will be equipment. HVAC
equipment and so forth on, so that's a given so there will be some sort of
parapet structure. You have to make the determination, I mean obviously
you know what we'd like to see but then you also know what the minimums
are. I think what the Planning Commission is all about is expressing what
we'd like to see as a vision of a particular part of the city. But you're
well aware o~ the minimums and you also know what you are legally required
to do. But the bottom line is that you obviously have to put together a
project that is going to meet the requirements of your customer. But I
think you know what we're trying, to say. We'd like to have this look as
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 19
nice as we possibly can and we also expect that you're going to be a good
neighbor, because we obviously, the people at PMT have made a significant
investment in the city. and I think that's the end of my editorial
comment. Are there any other, Diane?
Harberts: I have a question. Where are the trash bins or waste
receptacles going to be kept?
Mark Undestad: They'll be inside...
Harberts: $o the garbage truck will come in and back up to a loading
dock? That's it.
Farmakes: I have an addition. I think in the past we've shown a little
bit more aggressiveness in asking more than the minimum when there has
been community investment within the structures. ! think that does give
us an opportunity to ask for more. This particular structure is actually
quite a bit in shape and appearance like Target, and many of the things
that me discussed and issues of Target ! think are also applicable here.
3ust because, as ! said, just because it's an industrial area does not
mean that they don't have neighbors and neighbors that are concerned about
what their structures look like. This particular case ! think we have an
applicant who, it's a warehouse. You know, that's what it is. It's a
warehouse and it doesn't need to look like anything more than a warehouse.
I think we should take advantage of the fact that it is a partnership
arrangement and that we should try to resolve some of those problems.
Aesthetic problems. I don't think throwing a few tiles'on concrete block
resolves that issue. Maybe dealing with accenting the entrance structure
or changing the so the plane of the roof is broken, perhaps you can
incorporate that with your covering. Your screening. Yeah, ! guess !
have reservations about putting wood boxes on top of buildings too so
that, to help you with this, that hasn't went very far in the last 3-4
years. Getting away with that so I think the-site plan is fine with the
reservations that you have about the parking. And I agree with Dick.
failing that, if you're not serious about that, and changing the structure
of that to try and blend in a little bit better, and certainly an
investment. When you're looking at square footage of the building, we're
on the entrance. You can certainly do something there. A portion too,
think what your expenditures are on the building, it should be a
percentagewise small. The issue of the landscaping, at least you can
hide what else you have there.
Mancino: Jeff, what about the windows? Putting some on that west side or
else making the windows longer. More vertical. It has more of a
proportion.
Farmakes: Well most buildings of this structure usually have the larger
windows by the entrance of the office sections of the building. They
don't have large picture windows in the warehouse area. You can sort of
see where that begins and ends. The security concerns there are certainly
valid and the warehousing. It does however add additional' cost to add
windows also. So I think that's part of the concern here as well. This
building costs and that's reflected on the plan.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 20
Mancino: It's also the minimum allowed.
Farmakes: Yes. It's just a question of what's reasonable to request from
the client. What do you maximize out-? If they firm up the edge there
and fill it up with trees, you may not be seeing those windows. It's a
question of what they come back with I guess.
Scott: 30 Ann, or Sharmin, what's the value of this structure? From the
TIF standpoint. How much TIF money's involved here?
Al-Jarl: I don't know.
Scott: Okay. That's.
Olsen: Todd Gerhardt.
Scott: A Gerhardt question. Okay. Do we have any other comments?
Al-Jarl: One more thing. Another way of accenting the building is over
the windows, just like Commissioner Mancino mentioned earlier...that
should be a condition of approval.
Mark Undestad: ...was too busy and he wanted us to...
Farmakes: One of the things that contrasting material, we very rarely
ever see materials in here. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this
architect finished, he brought in material to sell this plan. That's the
way architects operate. They come in, they show you materials. They have
material samples and theY're explaining it as part of the process
explaining what the butlding's going to look like. We never see that
stuff here and it often, in this case with industrial buildings, you will
have different facia pre-cast or block but when you look at it from
feet, you can't tell the difference. You just can't see the difference
and basically if you find out what that block costs per block, there is no
difference. They're the same priced block. They're Just slightly
different facia on it. So the question is sometimes when you're requiring
different materials, is it a different color? Is it running vertically
and the rest horizontal? Just because it's a different material doesn't
necessarily make it a detail.
Olsen: I think that you were saying that you had proposed this color
above the windows...
Mark Undestad: Right, and...already and that did give it a totally
different look. Like I say, the owner's reQuesting...too busy.
Mancino: It would be helpful in the future to see actual samples every
time somebody presented.
Farmakes: The way to make it least busy would be to paint the entire
building black and have a smooth surface on it. But you know, not to be
facetious but it's obvious that we're not making a Sisttne Chapel out of
the warehouse. I don't think we should require it but it should require
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 21
an effort to come to a reaso, nable attractiveness in relationship to your
neighbors.
Scott: Jeff, are you suggesting another condition to the ones already
proposed by staff relative to seeing exterior plans?
Farmakes: Should we be more specific and ask what your feeling there as
to what, how you can incorporate that with the screening?
Al-Jaff: We could. But if you would like to add a condition that would
improve the architecture.
Farmakes: Well we could list detailing an area particularly around the
entrance to the building. And the issues of landscaping, I'm not sure
how, you know Dick often gets in there and wrestles with, if you're
proposing 12 trees, he wants 24. I'm not sure how, since we don't have a
detailed plan here, how do you want to approach that? We have a very
minimal landscape plan here as a part of this proposal.
Scott: Is it our consensus that we need more information before we can
approve this subject to conditions? Is that what we're saying here? Do
Ne have enough information to say yes or no?
Farmakes: I would like to work out those things prior to it going' to City
Council. Or at least that's the idea I got in the recommendation. It may
be to the applicant's benefit for us to work this stuff out rather than
you get hung up on that end.
Scott: Are you working, is there a short fuse here? t4hat's the deal
here? When does this have to be done? What's on your back?
Mark Undestad: We're looking to make, what the deal is where they're at.
The State has bought their facility in Eden Prairie...break ground here,
we're looking for the Council March Sth and then break ground any time
after that.
Scott: So when do they have to be out of their building in Eden Prairie?
Mark Undestad: They have June lSth right now. They have to be out of
there.
Scott: Okay. So basically what has to happen is this baby's got to be
done before June 15th? Now that's significant information.
Harberts: When did the State buy them out? Was it for the 2127
Mark Undestad: No, this is part of the school, elementary school.
Harberts: Do you know when they bought them out?
Mark Undestad: The whole deal was just finalized maybe a month and a half
ago. Two months.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 22
Harberts: Do you know how long they were involved in negotiations? I was
at a meeting this morning and MnDot was there and to me it sounded like it
was an extensive negotiation process and I'm. just, I guess I raise the
question, did they wait until the last minute to start this ball rolling?
Mark Undestad: They did in Chanhassen. They had a project that they were
doing in Eden Prairie and...one of the realtors in the area here
approached him and put this deal together out in Chanhassen...
Scott: So you're going to build this thing in 90 days?
Mark Undestad: Yep.
Farmakes: I take that back, it may be 12 years.
Scott: Pardon me?
Farmakes: It may be a life expectancy of 12 years.
Scott: Alright. So your plan is you're going to break ground on Hatch
8th?
Mark Undestad: Or there about's, yeah.
Scott: 0 kay.
Olsen: There is a possibility of bringing it back on the 3rd. March 3rd
and still having it on the 8th. We've done that with exceptions where you
pay Nann to do the Minutes fast. The next day. So we can still get it
out to the Council.
Mark Undestad: The stuff, the recommendations that you're making here for
this to be approved here.
Al-Jarl: With the addition of what the Planning Commission is requesting
which is breaking the entryway.
Olsen: I think the Planning Commission is saying they want to see it
again rather than just passing it on.
Scott: Yeah. I think we're going to get backwards on next meeting versus
the Council meeting aren't we?
Olsen: It's March 3rd.
Scott: Our next meeting is the 3rd and the Council meeting.
Olsen: Is the 8th.
Scott: Is the 8th, okay. I think we need to see this again. What do you
guys think? Yes?
Ledvina: Unfortunately yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 23
Scott: Is that why they call it architorture? Is that how that works?
Can I have a motion then? I'm sorry, did you have a comment? This is
like an auction.
Farmakes: I'm wondering, do you have an idea on the landscaping what
you're proposing or are you looking .for the number of trees or are you
looking to re-attack this problem?
Mark Undestad: ...enough trees in the landscaping... %he landscaping was
put on there...took in, wherever they get their information from the city
and it is the minimum. I disagree with you that this is the minimums. Any
building I put up, the landscaping...we'll do that on the plan to show you
that the landscaping... We'll screen up this west wall a great deal.
We'll do...fence around the front or rock...and I apologize it's not on
this plan...we will show what the landscaping will be.
Farmakes: How flat ts the topography.on that one stde?
Hark Undestad: Real flat.
Farmakes: Pancake flat huh?
Olsen: One of the things we could maybe suggest for the landscaping is
similar to what we did ~ith Rottlund where ~e had those primary species.
That they take the majority of the plantings of the. trees, take that
list...and make sure you just don't get Lindens and Ash.
Farmakes: Well and the other thing. Something with some substance that's
going to be solid throughout the year. Either some, to break up that mass
there and even with the primary species, you're still, you're not going to
get a lot of coverage there.
Olsen: Well we have that recommended...
Mancino: Are there any evergreens on this plan?
Scott: Oh yeah. There's all' sorts of, I'm not an arborists or anything
but. Fir, spruce and pine.
Mancino: ...way over on, I want to say the east side of the property.
The existing pines and the existing firs I'm sorry are really on PMT's
property.
Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission continue Site
Plan Review #93-1 until the March 3, 1993 meeting.
Farmakes: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we revisit this item at the next
meeting.
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to table Site Plan Revie~ #93-1 on an
office/warehouse facility for Technical Inc~strtal Sales until the next
Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 24
NI~W I~JSlNESS:
Mancino: I have a question from staff or Commissioners. As Richard Wing,
Councilman Wing told you, the Tree 8card is just getting going. It's up '
and running. We've had two meetings and we will be starting in March to
look at the landscaping ordinance. Taking it apart and rewriting it. And
also the landscaping and subdivision city code. So that if you could by
our next meeting, give me, write down, call me, anyplace within the
ordinance that you would like to see changed. You can be very general.
You can be very specific. Or if there are areas that are not in the
ordinance that should be that you would like addressed, maybe parking
lots, just write it down. Give me a little note and then we can after the
beginning of re-writing of ordinances...
Farmakes: Are you going to the parking lot conference?
Scott: Any other new business?
N>PROVAL OF MINUTES:
Scott: Everybody's read the Minu{es of the last meeting so I'll ask for a
motion to approve the Minutes of the last Planning Commission.
Farmakes moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated February 3, 1993-as presented. All vo~ in.
favor and the motion oarried.
Scott: I don't see any other items. Any items for open discussion?
Ledvina: 3ust one other thing. Eh3 you have anything from Paul here that
you wanted to talk about? Report from the Director? Okay. And the
moratorium is dead?
Scott: Yes, it is.
Ledvina: Okay.
Farmakes: I have a question about the folks at Goodyear. I assume in
short succession we should see one from Abra. Very shortly after that,
probably one from Crown Auto.
Scott: You mean Goodyear?
Farmakes: No, I think Crown Auto probably will follow shortly after Abra.
I think that's what they're shooting for as far as getting that third
building in there. At least that was the general discussion at one time.
You were involved with that, did you think that that was resolved
admirably or is that?
A1-3aff: As far as the third site?
Farmakes: No, not the third site. I was talking about that particular
development and that particular area in general. There were three
buildings, one of which the City Council gave approval to.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 25
Al-Jarl: Which was Goodyear.
Farmakes: Correct. Some of the many things that we talked about on that
building, do you think that those issues were resolved or they solve it by
Just saying, build it in brick?
Al-$aff: Nell, they did resolve most of the issues such as additional
landscaping. Additional dormers. They did require that the building be
brick. So all the issues were resolved. Everything that you pointed out
at the Planning Commission has been addressed by the City Council and
resolved.
Farmakes: But essentially the last revision that we looked at is
essentially just being in brick, correct?
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Farmakes: I mean they're not adding dormers anywhere and they're not
c ha ng ing?
Al-Jarl: Yes they did.
Farmakes: Oh they did add that?
Al-Jarl: Yes, they did add.
Farmakes: The site plan review though is coming back. Is that the
signage for that particular building or all three or 'just the pylon?
Al-Jarl: It would be a package for the three sites...and as it looks,
it's a lot better than what the first initial design was. Definitely a
lot better. It's got a combination of a mansard and a pitched roof. It's
a block, concrete block building. It has, the garage doors are recessed
underneath the pitched elements so that is kind of different and
interesting ! thought than what we had before. The east elevation is one
big bland wall. There's nothing on it and 'we are requesting additional
architectural elements be incorporated to that.
Farmakes: Is there a reason why that's not coming to the Planning
Commission or is that not part?
A1-Jaff: Because of your recommendation of approval, you requested
additional dormers. Improve the.design and then send it.
Farmakes: For Goodyear?
Al-Jarl: No, for Abra.
Farmakes:
For Abra, okay.
And send it to the City Council and that's why.
Farmakes: I thought they had pulled that and we're going to start all
over again.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 26
Al-$aff: No.
Farmakes: But that's who I understood Paul's communication.
al-Jaff: Your recommendation was that they improve the design before it
appears in front of Ctty Council. The design went backwards and that's
why we pulled it off the City Council agenda.
Scott: Okay, any other open dtscumsion?
There was some discussion between Nancy Mancino and 30 ~nn Olsen regarding
a public hearing for the Highway 5 access boulevards which was not picked
up on the tape.
Farmakes: Is Paul satisfied with the response on, his criticism of how
that was being staged on the Highway 5 Planning Commission. They were
going to sort of back up and start over with dealing with our goals and
our intent?
Olsen: Is he satisfied?
Farmakes: I don't know. I sat through the meeting and listened to words
like Main Street. I was thinking, well what is that. ~re we going to put
that in the intent statement? What does Main Street mean?
Olsen: I know that he and Kate are working on all that right now. That's
exactly why they are a step back. That meeting was so disorganized.
Farmakes: I think the views obviously, they're going to be disorganized
because we have many people from, we have both property owners. We have
people who are interested in civic affairs. We have planners and we have
a lot of different viewpoints there. So it will be interesting to see we
take that and make that into a paragraph.
Harberts: Can you clarify what those access boulevards are? are these
accesses onto Highway 5?
Farmakes: She's referring to the roads that we were looking at. ~, B, C,
O on TH 5. You were at the meeting. She was-at, you were at the Highway
5 meeting weren't you?
Harberts: No.
Farmakes: Oh. There's someone there that looks just like you. I've been
saying hi to her.
Mancino: In fact I know who that is. No, there's going to be a road that
runs parallel to Highway 5 and it's goin~ to be north of Highway 5.
Olsen: It will just be an access road to ~alpin.
Farmakes: It's what they were referrin~ to originally as frontage roads.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 27
Harberts: Oh, they have different names for those now. ~ccess
boulevards. Okay, got you. Frontage roads. Okay, we don't have frontage
roads in Chanhassen. Ne have access boulevards. Got you...
Scott: ~ny other open discussion? Then I close this meeting of the
Planning Commission. Thank you all for coming.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim