Loading...
PC 2007 05 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 15,2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS WOODS: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOX HILL DRIVE. EAST OF CARVER BEACH ROAD. NORTH OF BIG WOODS. AND WEST OF LOTUS LAKE. APPLICANT. PAUL EIDSNESS. PLANNING CASE 07-09. Public Present: Name Address Craig Benz Michael Kohane Randy & Bobbie Schlueter Paul Otto, Otto Associates Bob Amick Connie Carvilla Greg Fletcher Alan Fox Jon Lang L.Z. & Jeff Kleiner Phil Hanson Mark Nelson Mark Keffin Paul Huber 620 Fox Hill Drive 6820 Yuma Drive 580 Fox Hill Drive 9 W. Division Street, Buffalo 581 Fox Hill Drive 650 Carver Beach Road 7616 South Shore Drive 7300 Laredo Drive 640 Carver Beach Road 655 Carver Beach Road 621 Carver Beach Road 6890 Navajo Drive 516 Big Woods Boulevard 6663 Horseshoe Curve McDonald: Staff before you begin I would like to make an announcement concerning my relationship with Mr. Eidsness. I do know him as another attorney in town. I have had some dealings with him. I have nothing to do with his application before us but I just thought in the Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 spirit of full disclosure I will tell everybody that I do know him. With that, staff would you please give your report. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Keefe, would you like to start with questions? Keefe: Yeah, probably my biggest issue with this subdivision is you know, it's a terrific stand of woods there now and you know it looks like they're going to take out a tremendous number of trees and they're replacing them with you know 2 inch trees. I mean they're not really custom grading this are they? They're really, it's more of a clear cut scenario for, and then most of the preservation is in the outlot. Is that kind of sort of what it looks like? And I guess you know, maybe you can just speak to how they went about you know planning it in terms of preservation of what really seems to be pretty high quality stand of trees. AI-Jaff: As I mentioned earlier, one of the main reasons why the park commission wanted to take land in lieu of park fees was to preserve a corner as you first enter into this area. One of the issues that we were dealing with as we were looking at this site is the grades. The existing grades. We are limited by the grade of streets. They cannot exceed 7%. We're also limited by the grades of driveways which is 10%. Typically what we do, if we want to preserve a wooded area we push the homes closer to the front property line and we preserve the trees in the rear of the property. We have required in the past a setback of, our city code requires a 30 foot rear yard setback and a 30 foot front yard, and what we've done in the past is we've said we'll give you a 20 foot front yard setback but in return you need a 40 foot rear yard setback. This is not an option with this development and the only reason I say that is, as I mentioned earlier, is the grades specifically dealing with the driveways that would allow you to get into the homes. Keefe: Right, so if you grade you know, and I appreciate that that trade-off. You know in regards to saving additional trees, I mean does it require then to grade the entire site? Cut down trees and grade the entire site or is there an option to do some custom grading where you might be able to save some of the higher quality? AI-Jaff: It's definitely an option. It's also one of the reasons why the applicant has given us two grading plans. The first one is only for the road and the pond. They know beyond a shadow of the doubt that this is, this grading will take place because you have to have those too. We always ask for worst case scenario. What is going to happen to this site? If they are able to custom grade certain parcels and save more trees, that would be great and we want to see that. We will work with them in the field if there is an opportunity to save any trees, we will definitely do that. Keefe: Right. I mean just being you know, we've seen other ones where they've come along where maybe the quality of the trees isn't so great and maybe it's better to get a fresh start. In this case it does seem like there's a fairly high quality. AI-Jaff: Correct. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Keefe: So it'd be nice to see as many saved, particularly these mature you know so, okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Mark. No? Undestad: Nothing to add. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: No. Dillon: So what is going to go into the Outlot A from the parks and rec point of view? Is that going to be a playground or just a preserved area or what? AI-Jaff: Preserved as is. It won't be touched. Dillon: Okay. And who will maintain that? AI-Jaff: It will be left in it's natural state. The trees will remain. If there was a diseased tree for instance, the city will go in and take care of that but the intent is to leave it in it's natural state. Dillon: Okay. So then it looks like some of the lots are kind of narrow. You know will the houses be able to be on there with, and be okay with the setbacks and all that stuff? The sideways sight lines? AI-Jaff: Yes. What we did was, we asked the applicant to provide us with house plans and I believe they are on Sheet 2. They gave us 3 different types of homes, A, Band C. Different dimensions. Different square footage but all of those have a 3 car garage. And we then asked them to provide us with the type of home to be located on each parcel. In looking at this overall plan, and while we were doing our review of this application, there were some parcels that we did not feel comfortable with. We requested that they provide us with hard surface calculations and with the hard surface I mean the driveway, the house pad, the garage as well as a patio. All of the parcels were able to make or meet the minimum requirement. There were a couple of parcels that, and it's a condition in the staff report. Lot 5 and 6 currently they're showing them as home type A and staff is recommending that it be changed to a house type B. The footprint is smaller which will reduce the hard surface coverage on those parcels. There isn't a problem with side yard setbacks. The only issue that we noticed was hard surface coverage. Dillon: So then you would not anticipate any other variance requests coming through like on an individual lot type basis after this? AI-Jaff: I hope not. I mean whenever we have an application that comes in with a brand new home on it, what we always say is you need to design a house that fits on the parcel. We go through this quite often. We have homes that come in and the hard surface coverage is 26%. We send it back to the architect or their designers and say, you need to refigure so that the overall design meets ordinance requirements. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Dillon: Okay. That's the only questions I have. Papke: Did we look at the traffic patterns at all in this area? One thing about this particular development, we have this new street that's going right through the middle and you know you look at it, you go oh, that looks like a good short cut. Any concerns in that area that we looked at at all from a traffic flow or safety issue? Fauske: We looked at safety standpoints from a traffic sight distance perspective. As far as cut through traffic, you know within the Carver Beach area, the reason we have the proposed street going north/south, the proposed street within the project, is to limiting a long, dead end street. We can keep it as a private cul-de-sac. We want to provide people an opportunity for an alternate route in case there's a downed tree or some such thing, but to be honest Commissioner Papke, we didn't look at anything as cut through traffic simply for the fact that the Carver Beach Road does not continue to the south at this location. It's a dead end so we didn't anticipate it as an Issue. McDonald: Okay? Keefe: Jerry, I had one. I just wanted to, the 50 foot street and the right-of-way. Apparently it says it was agreed to when the property was split. AI-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: And then you know, I'm just really looking for the hardship associated with that vanance. AI-Jaff: This is a subdivision variance which is different than a zoning variance. And in this case it was pre-determined with another subdivision. In addition to Big Woods subdivision, there was a metes and bounds subdivision. That one went to City Council only and it was, this parcel right here used to be one continuous lot. Through a metes and bounds process the applicant subdivided this property because they needed to sell off the house and keep ownership of this portion of it. At that time they dedicated the 50 foot right-of-way. So we are basically moving from a 50 foot right-of-way to another 50 foot strip, and ultimately it will connect to what today, a 40 foot right-of-way but with this subdivision they're dedicating additional right- of-way and it will be expanded. Keefe: Okay, so the 50 foot variance is really, the hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings. Is that sort of what we look to in terms of the hardship that causes the variance? That justifies the variance. AI-Jaff: It is intended to allow it to blend in with surrounding neighborhood characteristics. Papke: Kind of a related question. Is there any rationale here that with the proximity to Lotus Lake, by reducing the width of the street, are we having any impact on runoff here? Are we 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 reducing the amount of hard surface in the area and the amount of runoff that we're going to get into the lake as a result? AI-Jaff: It's the right-of-way that's being reduced rather than the actual pavement of the road. Papke: Okay, that's a good point. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions or discuss anything further? Dillon: What, maybe the applicant will explain this but there's several people here and what's the business relationship between the parties here? Who owns what and what is? AI-Jaff: There are, well once upon a time it was 4 neighbors. Now there are 3 neighbors and Paul Eidsness owns this house. He sold the house but maintained this portion. The second piece is owned by Jon Lang and it continues all the way out. All of those parcels stretch from Lotus Lake to Carver Beach Road. The third parcel is Constance Carvilla, and again continues all the way out here. And the front piece is owned by Bob Amick. So basically what they did was, rather than each piece coming in individually, they all put the pieces together and then they are going through the subdivision process. That was your question, right? Dillon: That was a good answer, yes. Or clear answer. McDonald: Any other questions of staff or any other issues to explore? Okay. Is the applicant present? Why don't you come on up and address the council and tell us anything you feel is pertinent that would help us in making a decision. Paul Otto: Certainly, thank you. Members of the commission, I'm Paul Otto with Otto Associates. I've been hired by the applicants. I'm a land surveyor and a civil engineer. For the most part I guess, the first thing I want to say is that I want to thank staff, and this is a very difficult piece of property just for a number of reasons that they went through. They've been very patient with us and helped us to understand the issues and I think we've come to a plan that both the City and my clients can deal with. For the most part the things that are conditions of the approval are things that we're comfortable that we can meet. That we will meet moving forward through this, and so there's not a whole lot for me to say. The one thing that I would like to address is the grading. We are actually proposing custom grading on this project. I'm going to turn it to the grading plan. You have two grading plans in your packet. One is a primary grading plan, and what we're doing on this is, basically as part of the contract that my clients will be hiring a contractor to develop is going to be, this little corridor. . . and the outlet to that pond. That's what will be constructed with what I would call primary construction. Roads, utilities, streets, ponding. The next sheet in your plan, that would be Sheet 7, that is, as Sharmeen said, it best, our worst case scenario for the site. So somebody comes in and says you know what, I want to put in the standard 8 foot basement house on here. I don't want to play with floor elevations. I don't want to mess around with grading. I want to put in the standard on this lot because I like the lot. In order to do that they will have to take out the trees that we've shown on the secondary grading plan. Now we hope that somebody would buy this with the love of the trees but I don't think it's fair, either to my clients or the city to assume that and try to work 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 around and say that you know we can save this tree and we can save that tree, so what we've done instead is well, we're giving the city a plan that says that this is the worst case scenario. This is something that the city can stand behind and say, these are the trees that were proposed to be taken out. This is what was approved under these guidelines. If you don't meet that, there's penalties to be paid if you take out more. If you do meet that, maybe you don't have to plant quite as many trees on your lot. We do on, through the plans we've got a tree replacement plan. If you review that, there are some trees, some of these lots have trees in say the back yard. That would be Sheet 12 of your plans. We got kind of trees shown inbetween some of the buildings and actually this tree plan that is shown here is, is short 22 trees. But I have a plan in my office that we can make it work so, I'm comfortable with that part of it but we've added actually some more trees even to this but a lot of the trees are in the back yards in some of those areas where we're disturbing. As part of our road construction project we're going to put in the trees along the boulevard, as many as we can. But some of the trees will have to be handled with the individual permits as they come through so it will make staffs job slightly more difficult to look at these permits as they come in, but hopefully that encourages people to work with the trees and to work around them rather than picking a house plan and picking a lot as I would say and forcing the two together so. Other than that, my clients are here and I'm available for questions. McDonald: Okay. Kurt, you want to start? Okay. Dillon: So are there, is there going to be like one builder for all of this or will you be, buy your lot and get your own builder and build your own home or are there you know, do you anticipate like certain you know a standard, kind of look and feel for the homes that are going to be put here? Paul Otto: At this point I don't believe there's going to be one builder per se on the whole thing, and maybe Bob or Connie can address that better. We've been working so hard on getting to here that I haven't been a part of those conversations so maybe if Bob wants to address that. Bob Amick: Members of the commission, my name is Bob Amick. I am one of the property owners and we haven't actually put anything in stone as far as how the buildings will be done. It's our intention from our preliminary discussions to have 1 or 2 reputable builders that can work with this type of lot. And we're kind of hoping to avoid some of the hodge podge looking development that's happened in other areas where they just kind of threw the development open to all comers. So yeah, could you ask me specifically anything more? I mean does that answer the question? We haven't got anything down but we do intend to have like an architectural review and have similar styles of houses. And presumably it will fit in well with that sort of area. Dillon: Well I think you answered my question adequately I guess. I've been a citizen or a resident of not too often far from there, I think it'd be great to avoid the hodge podge type of thing too but I don't know how we, that's, how we best do that or if that's a condition of approval or if we should even consider that sort of thing. But I mean, so that's, I'm just asking the question. So then the other thing is, you know when all is said and down, what is the target square footage for the home and kind of like, what would you anticipate be the average selling price of the home and lot? The whole package. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Bob Amick: Okay well, the numbers we talked about yesterday. Okay, it's our anticipation that you know given the market, that the lots would sell in the $250,000 to $300,000 range. And it's my understanding that the lot price determines a lot about the home value that goes on it. And I'm not a real estate professional so I can't speak with any certainty on that but I expect that houses will be similar to what's being built in the Carver Beach area now. If that, I mean. Dillon: There's quite a variety of homes in the Carver Beach area. Bob Amick: Right, but what's being constructed now, within the last couple years. So I suspect that the home price will be you know some multiple of the lot price. I wish I could, I'm kind of out of my depth there. McDonald: Okay. We appreciate the answer you gave. Kathleen? Thomas: I'm good, thank you. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: Nothing. McDonald: Mark? Keefe: One question on the grading you know. You indicated that it would be the buyer's choice as to what floorplan they decided to go to. Are you anticipating that you would grade the entire, all of the sites and remove trees in advance of buyers purchasing the lot or, is that kind of how it goes? So I'm trying to you know, follow that through in terms of them deciding which trees they would want to save. Paul Otto: Certainly, very fair question. No, we are actually not planning to remove any of the trees or do any of the grading within the lots. And actually what we would hope is that they maybe come up with a little bit more unique plans even than what we have shown on here. It isn't the intention to lock them into these plans. The intention of what we've shown on here is that a reasonable sized home would get, we would meet the setbacks. We would meet the square footage and those types of things. There's a lot of things that people can do with a home and we would hope that they would do some of those things. They would be responsible to grade their own lots. They would be responsible to remove the trees on their own and also to work with the city to get the approval through the approval process. Keefe: Thank you. McDonald: Okay. I have no questions of the applicant. Any further questions or any issues? Then at this point we would open this up to the public meeting and what I would ask is that anyone that has wishes to make comment or to question, to come up to the podium and to address the council. Please state your name and address for the record. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Greg Fletcher: Good evening. I'm Greg Fletcher, 7616 South Shore Drive and I've been asked to come as a representative of the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization which is an organization of lake associations, recreational uses, local residences. We're dedicated to protecting the quality of Lotus Lake. We have over 125 members in our group. They've asked me to come and talk. First I'd just like to commend staff on the super job that you did on laying out the subdivision, and we believe that the smaller roadway will help on the, reducing the amount of impervious surface in the development, and we appreciate that and support that portion of the variance. But there is a net increase in the impervious surface due to the development and as staff noted before, the small pond and the damage to the existing wetland to the southwest is a bit stressed and in the staff report it noted that it was unknown whether they could handle that extra runoff or not. So we have a couple of recommendations. One is that the city hold off on the development until the storm water system is capable of handling that additional runoff. Why stress a system that is already stressed? Two, if possible we'd like to see that rain gardens be incorporated into the lots. And I don't know if they're quite large enough but that would be a nice thing to do. The City of Bloomington has been extremely successful in implementing those and if you're familiar with Barr Engineering, I don't know if you can see that on this. There's a development in Bloomington where they established rain gardens in front of homes and here's a study of how effective they were. Here's a rainfall of almost an inch and a half that covered 9 hours. The blue line, the real high marks are the amount of runoff in cubic feet per second of that rain water on a comparable street without rain gardens. And the red line that's just right here in the middle is the amount of runoff with the rain gardens. So it substantially reduced the amount of runoff and filtering all that before it goes into the lakes and the watersheds and so forth. And here are just a couple photos of how that can be incorporated, and I realize that it might be too late in this development plan to incorporate that but we would strongly recommend that the city consider asking developers to incorporate those sorts of things in future developments. The third thing that we'd like to ask is if we can recommend permeable driveways for the driveway construction itself, and that can either be permeable asphalt or they have permeable pavers now that can infiltrate rather than just blast the runoff out into the streets. That's all I have. Any questions? McDonald: Well I have a question for staff. If! could have two questions. I guess the first thing is, is the city familiar with the rain garden concept? Is that something that's come up with us? AI-Jaff: Yes it has. What we, whenever you have rain gardens, specifically in residential neighborhoods, the issue that we are also concerned with is the long term maintenance of it. At the present time Lori Haak who is our Water Resources Coordinator started a program, and actually right now she is in the process of putting together two rain gardens in Lake Ann. They haven't completed all of the planting. So we are definitely working on it. And I'm assuming the second question. McDonald: Well the next question I have was, I remember this coming up over a year ago about permeable driveways and we kind of kicked things around at that point. AI-Jaff: Absolutely. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: I know you all had some concerns about those and what's, what progress has been made with that? AI-Jaff: Currently, again Lori Haak our Water Resources Coordinator is putting together data. See how other communities have handled this situation. She is in the process of putting together, as I mentioned, the issue paper and presenting it to the City Council and if the direction was to move forward with it, then it will come before you as an ordinance amendment. But for now it is considered hard surface and it counts towards the 25% hard surface coverage. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wishes to come up for comment or to? Michael Kohane: I would like to. My name is Michael Kohane. I live at 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen which is one of the outlets to the area. I've got 5 specific points and then a philosophical point. It won't take more than a minute or two. With trips generated, with the incoming traffic you're suggesting down there, you must include service trips as well. It's not just vehicles going in and out. There's a number of vehicles going in and out for servicing those properties, and we've noticed since we've been living there with Big Woods that there's a significant amount of traffic increasing through the area. We also want to note that with the development upward towards Nez Perce, that there are a number of! would say young families who have moved in and we're dealing with now, adjusting those families to the traffic flow from that area so I wish to raise that point as a genuine issue of traffic flow. Young families who can't necessarily afford lake frontage, are moving in as a turn over we've noticed, we've been here 10 years, and a lot of younger children are out and about on roads and this is a real issue, okay. Number two, all water ends up in Lotus Lake, no matter where you are in that area. Whether it's my back yard. I'm on Yuma Drive, or whether it's near or whatever, everything's going to end up in Lotus Lake and we see overflows at different points when I walk the dog at the various runoffs down Yuma Drive to the pond. The ponds that run down to Big Woods so whatever you do there, whether it be fertilizer on the new lawns, whatever, it's all going to end up in Lotus Lake. I have one question about the setbacks. Does that put the houses closer to the wetlands, and I assume that that's okay, but I noticed on your diagram that everything was jammed around the wetlands and driveways were to the front, and that was only something that I noticed on the drawing. And then when I read the material on the, isn't it the Planning Commission has stated that the outlot was saved as the park, but also as a landmark for the people that were living there, and I think that that's a reasonable idea but the genuine idea should be preservation of the trees, and I think that that should have been more forthright in the notes. I had one very confusing point about the metes and boundaries where the original applicant was driving this on the lake frontage. He sold one property and kept the balance. As I understand it, the 50 foot variance or whatever it was, was attached to that deal and not subsequent to that. I might be entirely wrong, but I need to think that through, but as I was listening to that, that parcel of land was separated. The balance was sold off and something was done to the 50 foot variance but I'm sure that everything is kosher on that, with respect to that. Yeah, but it didn't make sense when I was listening to it, okay. Just on a philosophical note I'll finish on, the remark you made about the trees. I'd like to make a point about natural beauty and aesthetics. I've been told in previous cases they're not important but most people would agree that they're critically important for man's success and happiness and most would argue that the area to be developed is one of 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 significant natural beauty and also habitat for the local wildlife. I'd like to state directly that once the development commence there, that that development and that natural beauty will be gone for good. There's no way of ever putting it back. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. On the issue of traffic safety staff. I was going to address some of your points. Is there anything within the city staff that someone is looking at this as part of traffic within the area. Allyson. Fauske: I would actually like to ask the resident for clarification on that. When I was taking notes, is the concern with, is the concern, your question, was your question that does the traffic counts include delivery and service vehicles or. Michael Kohane: Yes. Fauske: Or was your concern with children walking down the street? Michael Kohane: It's both. Fauske: It's both, okay. Michael Kohane: ... publicly, we've noticed since Big Woods and whatever you have a lot more service vehicles coming down. Rather than just cars coming in and out, and I think that that should be factored into a vehicle count. And then we've noticed in our area particularly a turn over in the families there and there's a lot of much younger children hanging about on the street, if you wish for a better term for it, but they're out on their bikes. They're playing around. They don't wear helmets. I come from Australia where you had to wear your helmet... and we feel that there's a randomness attached to the place now that wasn't there before. Okay? It's not as beautiful. Thank you. We've been thinking about stop signs and speed bumps and things like that but there's issues with snow and the rest but that's a separate. McDonald: Okay, those would be separate issues from our issue tonight but is that something that again the city is looking into that it goes hand in hand with this? Fauske: Right. Certainly there's a, the traffic counts include trips generated to and from a household so that includes you know garbage service. You know with the popularity of having in home businesses, certainly there's more UPS delivery trucks than were seen perhaps 20 years ago. We can take a look at the traffic count through the area. I'm not aware of any issues that have come up within the area from existing residents prior to this development coming in so we can certainly take a look at it and see if there's an abnormal amount of traffic being generated in the area. And see if there's something we can do to mitigate it. Nothing comes to mind off the top of my head but it is a local street. It's a dead end road so it's not carrying any through traffic of anything to speak. And as far as pedestrian traffic, Carver Beach area, I know the parks department has talked about having pedestrian access through the neighborhood and if they had their druthers they would certainly have sidewalks and trail connections throughout the area, but it's one of those things where when an opportunity presents itself, they'll put something in but it's a very, it's an existing neighborhood where there wasn't anything put in place at the time that it 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 was developed and we can certainly reiterate those concerns to the park commission when considering capital improvement projects. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much for that answer. On the setbacks staff, I know that we covered this and I just want to again reiterate that they meet the setback requirements for the ordinance. AI-Jaff: That's correct. They meet the required setbacks. There is a compliance table and when building permits for each individual parcel comes in, they will enforce those setbacks. They will be required to meet them. McDonald: Okay. And as far as the outlot becoming a park and for tree preservation, that is I believe what I heard you say the park board wants to do, and that's why they're taking that particular corner. AI-J aff: That's correct and they also requested that we use some form of monument signs if you will, stating that this is a city park, just in case someone decides to go in and remove a tree here or a tree there. McDonald: Now the issue about the 50 foot variance. I don't expect you to be able to answer that because that probably goes into a lot of other things but if the gentleman wishes to follow up on that, could he contact you and you'd be able to explain what the in's and out's of all of that have been and what the deals were. AI-Jaff: Absolutely. Michael Kohane: Thank you. McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Larson: Jerry, comment on the streets? McDonald: Could you want til the end when we bring it back? Would that be okay? Larson: Yeah, yeah. McDonald: Okay, thanks. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment on this project? Matt Keffin: City Council. I'm Matt Keffin. I'm currently constructing a home at 516 Big Woods Boulevard. I just have a couple quick questions and one comment. First thing I wanted to ask about the, you go with the size and shape of theoretical type homes, if I could ask about a little more detail about those. Maybe the size of the footprint and the floorplans, the elevations. You know what sorts of, could you give me a little bit more description about what those homes are going to look like. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: I guess before the applicant comes up, staff is this a question that would be better suited to come down and talk to you and go through the plans because I understand you have put together an A, B, C as far as houses and everything and at that point would that be better at that point? AI-Jaff: And these, all of those plans are available online. Basically they will have the type of home, the lowest floor elevation. That's what we are looking for. These are the things that the city will regulate. McDonald: Okay. AI-Jaff: I won't have the inside layout of the house, which is how many bedrooms, as far as the kitchen, correct. Matt Keffin: Only sizes of the footprint noted on the detailed plans? AI-Jaff: On the detailed plans, yes. Matt Keffin: Okay great. And one other question. There's, when the Big Woods development went in they constructed a giant boulder wall that holds up the north side of the, if I can point to where it is. It's right, it's roughly here I think. And it appears now that there will be some driveways that are attaching to Big Woods Boulevard. I mean that boulder wall, I'm assuming that's put there for a reason to hold up the land and maintain the general shape of the land, is that, how's that going to be handled? AI-Jaff: I would rather the Assistant City Engineer answer the question. McDonald: Alyson, we're going to put you on the spot again. Fauske: I'd actually prefer to have Paul answer that question. I think it's to tie in the grades with Big Woods Boulevard when it's constructed so that they wouldn't be encroaching onto the property, the adjacent property but now that a development's going through, they're doing some grading in conjunction with the pond. They're able to eliminate that retaining wall. McDonald: Okay. So the wall will go away. Matt Keffin: That will disappear, right? And maybe this is a suggestion but it goes along the lines of the hodge podge comment that went earlier. The Big Woods development has an architectural review committee process and it might make sense to you know, if we wanted to maintain the character of that type of neighborhood, maybe it would make sense to bring those two developments and those guidelines together in some way. Something worth considering about. If the development of Big Woods is going to consider... Just a suggestion. McDonald: Okay. Matt Keffin: Okay, thanks. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: I guess what I would do is you know leave that to staffs discretion as to what the city can and cannot do but it's a good suggestion. Ifwe can sway them to do it, we will do so but again it would be, I would leave that to staff as to what they're empowered to do. AI-Jaff: We can enforce height of buildings, setbacks, hard surface coverage but not home styles or private covenants. McDonald: So that would be up to the individual developers as far as the look that they want. Matt Keffin: For consideration. Okay that's it, thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comments? Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Kevin, you asked a question about is there adequate space on the lots for the home... said adequate setback and I believe in our ordinance requires the 60 by 60 building pad, and I think that might answer part of the question. If we put on the plat to assure it does meet ordinance because some of those lots might be a little tight based upon what the wetlands are. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Staff, as I look at your chart, that seems to already be there. As far as the setbacks. I mean you've got a box within the area and that's what you build within. AI-Jaff: Correct, and we used to have a requirement that said you have to show the 60 by 60 house pad. That is correct, but now what we have done is that is required each applicant to provide us with a house pad as to the types of homes that they would be putting in. Because we rarely see 60 by 60 houses getting built in Chanhassen. McDonald: Right, okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up for comment? Roberta Schlueter: Good evening. I'm Roberta Schlueter. I live at 580 Fox Hill Drive. I just have a couple of concerns. Although we would welcome new neighbors, the development will bring obviously some changes to the neighborhood and I would like to ask the developer to, excuse me, the developers to be respectful and considerate of the existing residents in the area. Some of the points that I have, probably issues that is the new road and the driveways that will enter Fox Hill Drive, Carver Beach Road and also Big Woods. If you look at this elevation. This is Big Woods and this is Fox Hill Drive on the other side. Our house is probably going to be directly in the light of those, in line with those high beams there. Our house is elevated and it would be nice if the development would consider slightly changing the road. We're not exactly sure where that's going to come out at this point but you can see where the existing houses on Fox Hill Drive are, and the road coming directly into our house the way that it is proposed. We have come up with a slight variation in the road to one direction. I understand that you have to maintain square footage of each lot but if it could be changed slightly so it's uphill more than downhill, it would be better for all the houses across the street because there's also going to be a driveway coming off of this lot onto Fox Hill Drive too and I'm sure that our neighbors would 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 not like to have headlights coming at night right into their homes either so I would just respectfully request that this is taken into consideration. Another issue that I might have is construction traffic. Fox Hill Drive is a narrow pavement and I can't imagine a lot of heavy equipment coming and going on that street without damaging and damage to the road. The other thing that I had an issue with is the trees. Loss of trees and that has been discussed so I won't go into that. Nothing has been mentioned yet about street lights and Fox Hill Drive does not have a single street light and I'm hoping that it isn't lit up like downtown Chanhassen because we certainly would like to maintain the rural part of it, if possible so I thank you for your time. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Staff, as far as roads and driveways, is that something that you do work with the developer on to look at these types of issues? Fauske: Chair McDonald, a very good point that Mrs. Schlueter brought up or Ms. Schlueter brought up. Unfortunately when looking at the grading plan, to have a grade going down towards Fox Hill Drive would require bringing in an enormous amount offill, construction of retaining walls through that area. The developer's engineer has to basically meet with that existing grade on Fox Hill Drive and given the drop of grade towards Lotus Lake, and the existing steep street grades on the street, bringing in some additional fill to make it a down grade toward that intersection does not appear feasible. McDonald: Okay. I'll ask you, because I'm sure that you deal with this, but the street lights. Is that an issue that's separate from this development that the city would look at and if there's a requirement, they would do so or. Fauske: Yeah, typically what we do is we have intersections lit. I can talk to the City Engineer about that and see what the current, it certainly wouldn't be lit similar to in downtown Chanhassen. That's a different standard of street lighting procedures but typically the intersections are lit. They're down cast. They're not intended to give off any light pollution but I can certainly bring it up with the City Engineer and see what his recommendations would be. McDonald: Okay. And staff as far as construction traffic, isn't there a bond required of anybody that goes down through there so if they do damage city streets, there is money to repair it. Fauske: We do not collect a bond. The streets are constructed to a certain tonnage and so it's the city's responsibility to make sure. Certainly we do take a look at the condition and there have been instances where for example in a curb and gutter street section where there's been some damage and we do work closely with the contractor's out there and they're pretty up front about damage that they do. McDonald: Okay. So I guess the main issue that you had brought up about street lights, I would suggest going to the City Engineer and you can talk to them as far as, that's probably a neighborhood request anyway. Okay, does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Randy Schlueter: Yeah, as to what Bobbie said, I'm Randy Schlueter. I live at 585 Fox Hill Drive. If you zoom in on this plan. The main issue isn't the street light. It's really the traffic and 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 the amount of traffic that's going to be coming down this road. With that existing road, the lights will be going right into our house. As you can see right here the lights just will shoot right in there and the grade doesn't have to change, which you brought up. What does we feel have to change is if that road, I don't mind if the lot, the lights go between these two houses. That, you know we're maintaining the size of this lot to meet the minimum requirement of 15,000 square feet. So right now that's our main issue. With that road. And we're respectfully requesting it moved up the hill 20 feet. To avoid that problem. McDonald: Okay, well the issue of the road has been discussed and I'm certain that staff understands the issues. We'll do what we can. We will look at it and if it's possible, we will talk to the developer but I understand that there are certain constraints and that's what staff will base their decisions upon. Randy Schlueter: Thank you. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Mark Nelson: My name is Mark Nelson. I live on 6890 Navajo Drive, which is just on the other side of Fox Hill there. Lived there for 20 years. I have 3 new homes on that street with one that still hasn't sold in the past 2 years because of it's size and the small lot that it sits on. I apologize, I wish I was here when Big Woods would have came in. I didn't realize it was such a total disaster. There have been long term damage I believe to the Carver Beach Road due to all the construction work that's been done back there in the last 5 years. Myself included. I've also remodeled my home. It is a rustic area. We prefer it to be a rustic area. This is a. . . field and I have been talking to others. I haven't heard. Most of them are resigned to accept whatever's put forward. I don't feel that way. I feel that this is a poorly designed plan. I feel that the lot sizes that Chanhassen is still considering for new home development, too small. They should be expanded, if not doubled. If there was a way to change the ordinance, I would raise the signatures or whatever is required to do that. The, I would ask if there's an impact study been done on this piece environmentally. Such as there was not one done on Lotus Trail a few years ago. And once the lots are sold they will be out of the developer's hands as well as the owners and whatever's done to the lots, as long as they're within their 25%, will probably be exactly like Big Woods. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess the only comments to staff, I did hear you discuss the Environmental Impact Study and why this area would be exempt from that, is that correct? Sharmeen AI-Jaffs comment were not heard on tape. McDonald: And is that by our ordinance or by state law? Generous: Environmental Quality Board. McDonald: Thank you. On your other issue sir, as far as the lot size, that's beyond the scope of this panel and I would suggest you need to come down to City Hall, talk to someone down there. They can start it at that point but there is nothing we can do about that. These ordinances 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 occasionally do come before this Board for review. That is posted on a web site. If something comes up that changes that, then by all means come back and those are open for public meeting to discuss any changes to the ordinances. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Jeff Kleiner: Good evening. My name's Jeff Kleiner. I live right here, 655 Carver Beach Road. I've been there for 28 1/2 years. In case anyone had forgotten about Big Woods, this development here looked identical to Big Woods. You could go out there, hold your hand out like this and you couldn't see it. You had to be careful of trees walking and everything like that. They clear cut Big Woods and they should have renamed it No Woods. I had tons on meetings about that. They had no, I don't know what the word should be. About the sewer, because there's a lift station there. I brought this up. Mentioned it, that the lift station didn't have capacity for it. About a year and a half1ater, pipe blew. Dumped 100,000 gallons of raw sewage into the lake. They had to close the lake off. Is this development going to hold the sewage that's there now? And extra coming in. Are we you know, is there enough pipeage for that, because it blocks up down at the end right now and this lot right here where it comes in. McDonald: Well I guess the question you're asking is kind of beyond the scope of this development. However, staff if he would like to pursue those questions, come down to City Hall and you would be glad to pull out the plans and explain to him what, or the area of the plans are and what the capabilities are? Fauske: Certainly Mr. Chair. If! may speak to the sanitary sewer issue. The lift station, at the cul-de-sac of Big Woods Boulevard received what we call inflow and infiltration through the sanitary sewer system. It's where water enters the sewer system, either through the manhole or through ground water, and through the pipe joints and the city is doing a very aggressive job right now of identifying areas of inflow and infiltration and coming up with a maintenance program to repair the issues. Jeff Kleiner: Second comment was I saw on TV this show and there was something about Bluff Creek that they came in and the developer's clear cut the woods without having any plans or anything like that. That was on last night. They're up to the third section of the development without any authorizations. Just so something like this doesn't go through too. McDonald: What TV show are you talking about? Jeff Kleiner: The council meeting on here. McDonald: Okay. Well that is an issue for City Council to deal with and I'm sure they dealt with it. Does anyone else wish to come forward and comment? Craig Benz: Good evening. I'm Craig Benz. I live at 620 Fox Hill Drive. Thank you for your time and I'll make this brief as many of my neighbors have brought up many of the same comments I would as well. I'm a new resident. Less than a year in an old home on Fox Hill, as the four homes are. I knew it was going to happen eventually, that homes were going to go into this area but from what I've heard this evening unfortunately I've heard a lot of, from the developer here of hopes and dreams. He hopes that the families don't come in and put in 8 foot 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 ceilings in their basements and you can only plan for so much. However I don't know if there's been the consideration of the different types of buildings that are available these days without clear cutting because the most efficient is to come in and cut down the trees so that you can build, so you can get your equipment in and the supplies in as quick and fast as possible. The traffic is increasing. I'm going to add to that because I'm in traffic, the traffic business myself. Somewhat of an expert and I worry about it. I have a little girl who walks, doesn't walk in the road alone obviously, as do many children. However I do want to just express my opinion about the area. I know it's going to change. I know homes are going to go in and to the gentleman who brought up the architecture review board on the Big Woods side, I'd also like to offer that Fox Hill residents would also be willing to be a part of an architectural review committee. It'd be a little bit different granted. Big Woods is beautiful homes. We hope that beautiful homes go into this area besides everyone seems to think that bigger is better these days. I just hope the Planning Commission can do it's job and as you, this evening and listen to concerns and comments and try to sink teeth into what you're doing here so that it doesn't come a mistake down the road. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. And I think the issues that you raised we have addressed earlier. However, the city has been put on notice about the traffic, which again as I state, is beyond the scope of this development. However I understand the impact within the area. That is not the developer's responsibility for traffic. It is the city's, and the city now knows. The city's been told many times about these areas. There are a number which around the Chanhassen area and the city is trying to get to those quickly as possible so, I think this does get added to the list tonight and as far as the architectural review board, which again is another issue that has been brought up. I think we've addressed that and that is up to the developer. I do not believe that there's anything this city can enforce as far as forcing an architectural review board. All we can do is make sure that they do meet the subdivision rules and regulations and we've laid those out tonight and it is available for the public record as to how those homes will go on the lot and what the requirements are. Does anyone else wish to come up? I believe there was a gentleman back here. Paul Huber: Good evening. Paul Huber, 6663 Horseshoe Curve. I came in a bit late so maybe I missed this but I'm wondering what the dockage rights will be, lake rights for this development. McDonald: Staff, would you like to address that. AI-Jaff: There are 3 existing homes and I believe they do have existing docks. Nothing new is proposed. Paul Huber: So there won't be like an association dock development? AI-Jaff: No. Paul Huber: Okay. That's good. Just wondering. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Okay, well we will hear one more time from the applicant. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Paul Otto: I would just like to comment on a couple things and hopefully clarify a few things. One is, I don't know where the sketch of the driveway went, and this is definitely something that we will look at. The one thing that I do want to point out is that, if you look at this plan right here, shifting that road over would mean shifting this lot line. Randy Schlueter: No, not necessarily because it would... McDonald: Well, wait a minute. Before you all get into a big debate, which is always my hesitation about having an applicant come up after the public meeting because it does spur things. My suggestion is that you need to talk to the residents or you need to talk to city staff and we can address the issues there. We do not debate things at this meeting. We bring up issues. We assign task. This is not a debate so, unless you have something else to add for our consideration, I would suggest you continue at your own peril. Paul Otto: I understand. Thank you Mr. Chair. I understand. My point was not that we aren't willing to work there. My point is we are willing to work there. However it may impact our park and so I would like to have a clear understanding of what the Planning Commission wants to see with the park. If they want to follow the park's recommendation, we will work around those guys. We would like to keep as many residents happy as possible. McDonald: That will be an issue for staff to look at and they will make recommendations out of this meeting and if it goes to City Council with that recommendation, that's the way it will go forward. Paul Otto: Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to make comment? In that case I close the public meeting and I bring it back before the council for a discussion and Kurt, we will start with you. Papke: I support this proposal. I think the developer has done a very credible job of a very challenging topography and drainage issues. I think the variance is well justified. There certainly isn't an issue of hardship here but I think in order to blend into the surrounding area and the aesthetics and just dove tailing in with the existing design of the neighborhood, I think it's well justified. I think it's admirable that we have some parkland dedicated here in perpetuity. I think we all hate to see the quality maple trees go here but unfortunately those maple trees are owned by the landowners, and I'm just happy to see that we were able to preserve that one corner in the outlot so, all and all I think this one's pretty well dialed in. McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Kevin. Dillon: I do not support this project because I don't know what I would be supporting. I can look on a map and see all the lines drawn and all that but I think for something that's in kind of this dense of an area, which seems to be generating a fair amount of emotion among the other neighbors, ought to be a little bit better defined in terms of type of homes and you know where they're going to be. How big they're going to be. What are they going to cost? What are they 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 going to look like? It would be my expectation that that be a little bit better baked so that we could be, I could make a better informed decision as to whether I like it or not. And would support it or not. And you know that, plus the fact that it's so close to the lake, and the woods and the trees and all the other stuff that are being impacted, I would just think that we just couldn't, wouldn't come up and say well we're not sure what they're going to cost or this, that and the other thing, I think it'd be very buttoned up at this point. McDonald: Kathleen? Thomas: I do support the applicant with the request to subdivide the lots, and I do slightly struggle with is just the sizing of buildings that are going to be put on the lots but I do understand with ordinances and the zoning, the coverages that they do fall within our requirements. Of course I'd probably like to see them a little smaller but if it falls within the ordinances and it falls within what they want to do, I understand that so I'd like to see the dedication and I think they've done a good job with the, showing me what I want to see so thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Debbie? Larson: Okay, I've got a couple things. I think the residents and the neighbors brought up some really excellent points. Some of them, I don't know if they really are anything that we can do anything about as Planning Commissioners but you know one thing I want to address, the lot sales price of $250,000 that they mentioned. Obviously these homes are going to be large or beautiful or nice, and I like that because I think it does nice things for Chanhassen as a city. The fact that they're not going to necessarily have any new boats other than if they were to bring their boats over to the public dock, I think that's a great thing too, so we're not going to have any new docks. Street lights, and all the things pertaining to the road, I mean it's such an area that the topography is so steep and narrow and everything, I can't imagine that you know the additional car, everybody has to drive slow back there anyway just because of how the land is and so I'm hoping that perhaps any new neighbors are going to realize that and they're not taking, I don't think they can go fast back there. I'm very familiar with it back there and it's just something that hopefully everybody will be cautious of. Regarding, let's see, I believe that's really it. Everybody else covered the rest of it so personally I'm in support of this. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Mark. Undestad: I don't have a lot to add. Just I guess I want to make the point that the process in this project has probably taken quite a long time and staffs probably worked hard on this but I also want to make it noted here that along with everything increasing, the hard surface, the traffic, everything else, that the residential low density is 1.2 to 4 units per acre and the developer on the very low end of that so I think, it could have been a lot higher. A lot worst. McDonald: Thank you. Dan. Keefe: I'm in support of this project. I would like the developer to really pay attention to you know the tree removal. To try and save as many trees as possible and would definitely want to see the city follow-up in terms of enforcement of the ordinance so I'm in support of it. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. I guess my only comments are, Kevin you had expressed a concern about that this is not fully I guess shaken out. That's not my understanding from staff and I guess I'm a little confused as to what the, what your hesitation is on this when you say it's not fully staff done. I mean we have houses that, footprints that will not exceed a certain amount. Placement within the lot. The only thing that we haven't done is to design the house, which we cannot do. It would appear that under the ordinance and the statutes, everything is met. So I guess I would like to give you an opportunity, what is still missing? Dillon: Well we've had you know discussions like this and developer's present plans in front of this commission on many occasions and they show us drawings. They show us you know side elevations. Front elevations. Back elevations. You know basically the house what it's built like, and I don't have anything like that in front of me now, nor does anyone else so while they are going to be expensive lots, and I guess I would, you know you could deduce that they're going to be you know expensive houses on that, I don't have any evidence to show me what they're going to look like at all. McDonald: Staff, if I could ask you, as I understand this, what we are doing is, we are giving a blank check within certain bounds. It's up to them to design a home. This is not like a normal subdivision, is that correct? AI-Jaff: Well in the past whenever we've presented homes before you, they were four-plexes or higher. That, or if it's a planned unit development. That's when you do review the site plan. You do look at every elevation. We bring before you the materials that will be used on each unit. Yes, we will provide you with all that information. In single family subdivisions, detached straight subdivision, you might purchase a lot and build a design that suits you, which might be different than what Commissioner Thomas might purchase, and the design that you would choose for the lot next door to you, so we don't regulate the designs of homes on single family detached subdivision. We can regulate the height of a home. We can require a minimum of two car garage. We require certain types of elevations based upon the overall topography of the site, and all of those are within ordinance requirements and the applicant has provided us with all of that information. . . McDonald: Okay, thank you. I hope that helps. I have no further comments on this project. I think everything has been pretty much said by the commissioners and by people who have participated in this tonight. Hopefully we have addressed most of the concerns and questions. I understand that we probably did not give you at all times the answer you were looking for, but hopefully we have given you an answer, or an explanation and maybe that will lead to something else but based upon that, I guess I would be willing to accept a motion from the commission. Undestad: I'll go with this one. I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-09 for Lotus Woods Subdivision, 11 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on the plans dated and received May 4, 2007, prepared by Otto Associates, subject to conditions 1 through 35. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: Do I have a second? Larson: I'll second it. U ndestad moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-09 for Lotus Woods Subdivision for 11 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to allow a 50-foot right-of-way as shown on the plans dated received May 4, 2007, prepared by Otto Associates, subject to the following conditions: 1. A wetland buffer 25 feet in width shall be maintained around all Manage 1 wetlands. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas shall be protected by silt fence during grading. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Principal structures shall maintain a setback of at least 30 feet from the wetland buffer edge; accessory structures shall maintain a setback of at least 15 feet from the wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. 2. The SWPPP shall be revised to address all items that are unchecked in the Carver SWCD "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist" attached to the April 11, 2007 letter to the City from the Carver SWCD. 3. Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail shall be provided. 4. All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end section installation. 5. The ditch section west of Carver Beach Road that receives stormwater from the stormwater pond shall be stable prior to receiving discharge from the site. 6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 7. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road-accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. 8. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be installed around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. 10. A temporary sediment basin shall be constructed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet structure (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; a detail shall be provided. 11. Inlet controls are needed for all inlets throughout the project and shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation prior to casting. Filter fabric held down by steel plates with 12 inches of %-inch rock over each cover may be used. Once casting of inlets takes place, inlet controls shall be installed within 24 hours. Inlet protection shall be maintained on a regular basis. For all inlet protection devices, details shall be provided in the plan and in the SWPPP. 12. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $31,996.00. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 72 trees as replacement plantings. All trees shall be native species. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. 16. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved on plans dated revised on 5/1/2007 must be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches if removed. 17. No grading shall be allowed on Outlot A. 18. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be planted in the front yards of Lots 1-8, Block 1 19. All structures within the proposed right-of-way or within the required setback of Block 2 must be removed. 20. Building Official Conditions: 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot. e. Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 21. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. c. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. e. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. f. Proposed street name is acceptable. g. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 21. Outlot A shall be deeded to the City in lieu of payment of park dedication fees. 22. Revise Sheet 2 of 12 to show "House Type B" on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. 23. The two accessory structures along Lotus Woods Drive must be removed before grading commences. A plan is needed to allow all the existing homeowners access to their properties until the completion of construction. The existing driveways west of Lotus Woods Drive will need to be removed upon completion of Lotus Woods Drive. 24. Rational method calculations and delineation are needed for the sizing of the storm sewer. Also, add the ordinary high water level of the wetland to the plans. 25. The outlet pipe to the on-site pond must be directionally drilled under Big Woods Boulevard and discharge into the ditch in Triple Crown Estates. 26. A revised grading plan will be needed to address the following issues: 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 a. The lowest openings of houses must be three feet above the ordinary high water level or one foot above the emergency overflow. b. Lots 2 and 4, Block 1 elevations need to be revised if they are indeed walkouts. c. The slopes of the driveways on Lots 6 and 8, Block 1 appear to be more than the 10% maximum and need to be revised. d. Spot elevations must be shown at each proposed intersection to ensure the curb line has a .5% minimum slope. e. Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. All emergency overflows must be shown on the plan. More contour labels are needed. Also, please turn off the tree layer so it is easier to read the grading plan. 27. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. A temporary construction easement will be needed for the installation of the manhole on Lot 1 of Big Woods on Lotus Lake. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 28. The existing retaining wall in the southwest corner of the site must be removed before or during construction of the pond. A building permit is required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 29. The watermain extension from Fox Hill Drive must be wet tapped. Due to the alignment of the watermain in Fox Hill Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under traffic. The watermain connection on Big Woods Boulevard shall connect to the provided stub and take place under traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Big Woods Boulevard connecting to an existing stub shall be completed under traffic. 30. Actual elevations of existing utilities must be verified for accuracy. Proposed service connections along with connection details must be added to the plans. 31. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2007 trunk hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 32. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County, and the Watershed District. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 33. The sanitary sewer easement will need to be changed from 20 feet to 30 feet to ensure proper access for maintenance of this line. The actual location of the watermain and the easement must be shown to determine if the easement is sufficient. 34. The site distance for turning onto Fox Hill Drive must be verified. Upon project completion, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a professional civil engineer." All voted in favor, except Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION/MAMAC SYSTEMS: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FORA 51.800 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND WEST 82ND STREET. APPLICANTS. CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS. LLP AND S. ASIM GUL. PLANNING CASE 2007-10. Public Present: Name Address Joe Smith Todd Mohagen 16521 Elm Circle, Minnetonka 18715 25th Avenue No., Plymouth Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan, why don't we start with you. Keefe: You know in regard, you know one of the variances show windows and I'm really not having a problem with that one. The other variance is to put the drive aisle down on the, is that the south side but it's also a conditional use permit is related to that as well? Generous: Well the conditional use permit is for any development within the Bluff Creek corridor so every project that comes in we first, that's one of the approvals they have to go through. Keefe: Okay. So it isn't really that driveway that's driving the use? Generous: It's the subdivision. Keefe: Yeah, subdivision right. Okay, but then the variance piece is for that driveway. My question is in regards to sort of building configuration and site plan. Was there alternative site plans looked at in terms of building, placement locations looked at on this site that would not require to do variances? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: There were numerous alternatives that, and I should probably have the applicant present that but you know what they're trying to make the north side of the building work for the truck access and so you have those maneuverings that you have to do and then the rest of the site, it's only that southeast corner which comes at an angle that creates a problem and we want them to segregate if you will their vehicular, their car traffic from their truck traffic and to do that we have to provide access to the east. Keefe: And I presume there's an entrance to the building on the east side of the building for. Generous: Yes. Keefe: Okay. So, and then, and so the parking that's on the east side is not just to fulfill the parking requirements. It's also convenience to people working in the building? Generous: That would be my assumption. While it does meet the, help meet the standard that they'll actually use it, because they do have an access door in that location. Keefe: Right. And where I'm going with that is just, you know are we doing a variance to accommodate our parking requirements only without having the parking really to service the building. Generous: No. I believe that the parking is necessary for the building. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Fair enough. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: No. McDonald: Kathleen? Thomas: No. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: I don't have any questions at this time. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: On the fa<;ade transparency issue, if! recall correctly a couple of months ago we had a building addition in very close proximity where we had a similar relaxation of this requirement. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: Right across the street. Papke: So my concern is, although we look at these one at a time, sometimes we have to look at the cumulative impact and so on. So I guess my question, I don't know if it's philosophical or not. You know do we have an issue here where we're setting up standards that we're having to you know have variances on at every turn in this area here. Or conversely are we lowering our standards too much if we have a number of buildings in the area here where we're having to grant variances? Generous: Yeah. In this instance I don't believe that's the case. It's really due to the constraints on the site that we're even looking at the variance. Papke: It's the grade in this area. Generous: Yeah. If we could get a window that goes down lower, I believe we would have been able to meet the standard. But they have to keep it up so high to maintain their architectural vision. Otherwise we could have different size. And also, if we had an entrance on this side, we would get more fenestration. But since it's again the topography shifts up to the south side there. Papke: My concern though is the last one, well they're driving forklifts around so we can't have all the windows. This one, oh we've got a grading problem. You know I just, I don't want to see a pattern develop you know, so I just have a concern that we have an issue here so I just want to make sure I understood you know where we were going with this and looking at the larger context of similar situations in the area. Generous: Later we will be looking at some proposed revisions to that section of the ordinance. So as part of that we can... Papke: Okay. Generous: In this one I think it's really site driven. Papke: Okay. McDonald: I just want to reflect on what Commissioner Papke just went through because I do remember having this same conversation with the building across the street and I guess we were given certain assurances and while we're across the street and we're being asked for the same thing. Yes, I would ask you to look at that and I'm glad to hear that you are re-addressing the issue and you'll be bringing something before us because I just, you know how I feel about variances. That they should be unique and for a good reason and it should not just be a blanket thing which is what this is becoming it appears. I'm having a problem with the driveway and on the east and the west side, and you had made some comments about it looks like on the east side, if they reduce that down to what is normal, and I think you said 26 feet. That that would be standard within a driveway and that somehow if they do that a variance goes away or, I'm not sure I followed what you were talking about. Why we're doing that. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: Mr. Chairman, the variance doesn't go away because the problem isn't on the west, or the east side of the building. It's just the southeast line. As this driveway comes down, and this is 26 feet wide which is our standard, for two way operation. The Bluff Creek corridor is less than 40 feet away from that driveway. So unfortunate, the only other time that this has happened is again in an industrial development adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor where we had a drive aisle that had to go within the setback. McDonald: Okay. So the only reason you're wanting to squeeze down this driveway is that it will create some more green space, but there's not a good reason why it should be that wide? Generous: Correct. I didn't see that there's a reason that they needed an 82 foot wide parking lot area because trucks aren't supposed to be using that area anyways. McDonald: Okay. Generous: So as part of the quid pro quo if you will for granting the variance that we reduce the amount of coverage that they have on the site and that. Also additionally that one of the conditions is that they provide some revegetation in that area to make it more natural looking. McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to understand your comments about why that needs to be reduced and. I have no more questions at this point. I guess now it's time for the applicant to come forward and if there's you know anything additional you think that we should know about this that would help us in our decision making, please make us aware of that. Todd Mohagen: Thank you so much. I'm Todd Mohagen. I'm the architect for the project and the developer of the total parcel of land is also here for questions. Just to answer your quick question about, that is for employee parking. They do quite a bit of manufacturing. Light manufacturing in this so they separate the office use and the manufacturing. There is a door that will have a break room in that area so that's why the parking lot. Keefe: Well and one of the, I was looking at it. Could the building be moved more towards the back and you have double stacked parking on the west side? But what you're saying is that the building from a functional standpoint really needs parking on both sides? Todd Mohagen: Correct. Like they want the parking separated, and plus with the circulation for the trucks and cars. Keefe: Okay. Todd Mohagen: Other than that we agree with all the comments that the city has made and we're looking forward to move on. Thank you. McDonald: Do you have any further follow-up questions? Keefe: Not right now. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Debbie? Kathleen? Kevin? Dillon: None. McDonald: Okay, I have no questions either. At this point then I would open up the meeting to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and make comment, please do so. All I ask is that you state your name and address and address the commissioners. Okay. Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public meeting and I will bring it back up before the commissioners for discussion. Kurt, we'll start down with you. Papke: No issues. McDonald: Okay. Kevin? Dillon: No issues. McDonald: Kathleen? Thomas: I'm okay. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: It looks fine. McDonald: Mark? Dan? Keefe: I support this. McDonald: Okay. I think all of our questions have been answered so I have no further comments either. At this point I'd be willing to accept a motion from the commission. Dillon: I'd make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the subdivision. Do you want to read through them or how do you want to do this? McDonald: Just do A, Band C and the number of conditions with each letter. We'll do them all at once. Dillon: Okay, I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following three motions and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendations A which is the City Council approve the subdivision for two lots and one outlot at Arboretum Business Park ih Addition, 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 along with conditions 1 through 23. And B. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions 1 and 2. And then C. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan for 51,800 square foot office building with the variance to permit only 32% building transparency on the western building elevation with a 20 foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for develo~ment within the Bluff Creek corridor on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Arboretum Business Park i Addition. With plans prepared by the Clark Engineering Corporation and Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group dated April 13th subject to conditions 1 through 25. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Subdivision for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition), plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated April 16, 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit 1:200 scale plan of proposed lots (required for addressing purposes). 2. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. 3. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 4. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the "wetland trail." Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to Steiner Development upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 5. Trail easements within Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park ih Addition (formerly Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park) shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate the "wetland trail". 6. The developer shall pay trail fees in the amount of $10, 190.00 prior to the recording of the final plat. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 7. The developer must prepare plans depicting an agreed-upon trail alignment and details for a required bridge crossing and typical construction cross section for a 10-foot wide trail prior to recording the final plat. 8. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. 9. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone. The first 20 feet of the setback from the primary zone cannot be disturbed. The plans shall be revised to show the primary zone boundary, the 40-foot setback from the primary zone and the 20- foot buffer area adjacent to the primary zone. If alteration is proposed within the 20-foot buffer area adjacent to the primary zone, a variance will be required. 10. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District should be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 11. The general notes on erosion and sediment controls are incomplete. A new SWPPP shall be developed by the engineer for the site. The SWPPP shall be in place prior to applying for the NPDES permit. Additional information regarding SWPPP requirements can be obtained through the MPCA Storm Water Web Site. The SWPPP shall include all details, sequencing of the project and seeding and mulching specifications. 12. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be included in the plans. Temporary erosion control may consist of type 1 mulch, as well as temporary and permanent seed mixes. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13. Inlet controls are needed for all inlets throughout the project and shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation prior to casting. Filter fabric held down by steel plates with 12" of %-inch rock over each cover may be used. Once casting of inlets takes place, inlet controls shall be installed within 24 hours. Inlet protection shall be maintained on a regular basis. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 The plans and SWPPP shall be revised to include standard details for all inlet protection devices. 14. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road-accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. 15. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be installed around all wetlands and stormwater ponds; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. All areas of silt fence shown on the plan that are not parallel to the proposed contours of the property shall to have J-Hooks installed every 50 feet. 16. The existing stormwater pond and areas downstream of the pond shall be protected from sediment produced by the construction site. For example, if turbid water is found in the stormwater pond, a plug could be placed in the flared-end section (FES) of the outlet structure so sediment does not go off-site. Once settling of the sediment occurs, the water could be slowly released. 17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Provisions for street cleaning shall be included in the SWPPP. 18. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm water infrastructure. 19. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $102,838. 20. The developer may dedicate Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park ih Addition to the City. 21. The developer's engineer must submit hydrology calculations that verify that the site design is consistent with the preliminary plat assumptions, and that the pond meets NPDES requirements for this site. 22. When a site plan for Lot 2 is submitted for approval, the applicant must submit calculations verifying that the proposed design meets the pond design assumptions and meets other agency requirements (e.g. NPDES Phase 2 permit). 23. Upon approval of the site plan for Lot 2, the applicant must post an escrow for the street repair required for the utility service extension." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to o. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the primary zone. The first 20 feet of the setback from the primary zone cannot be disturbed. The plans shall be revised to show the primary zone boundary, the 40-foot setback from the primary zone and the 20-foot buffer 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 area adjacent to the primary zone. If alteration is proposed within the 20-foot buffer area adjacent to the primary zone, a variance will be required. 2. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District should be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Site Plan for a 51,800 square-foot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with a variance to permit only 32 percent building transparency on the western building elevation and with a 20-foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, plans prepared by Clark Engineering Corporation and Mohagan Hansen Architectural Group, dated April 13, 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The future building expansion shall continue the same architectural detailing and window treatment as the initial 35,000 square-foot building. 3. The developer shall extend a sidewalk from the building to the trail on Century Boulevard and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. The monument sign shall be relocated to the north side of the driveway access; and a sidewalk installed on the south side of the driveway access. 4. The developer shall incorporate a gathering space in the eastern portion of the site including benches and/or tables overlooking the natural areas to the east. 5. The developer shall submit a plan for the restoration of areas adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor with species consistent with the City's Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. 6. The parking lot drive aisles on the eastern and southeastern side of the building shall be reduced to 26 feet. 7. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 8. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 9. Four (4) accessible parking spaces must be provided. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. Increase plantings for parking lot trees and buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. 12. The applicant shall extend the sod line only 15 feet from the edge of the parking lot on the east and south sides. The remaining area shall be seeded with a native seed mix approved by the City. If necessary, erosion control materials will be required on the seeded areas. 13. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire hydrants to be installed. 14. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. 15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16. The general notes on erosion and sediment controls are incomplete. A new SWPPP shall be developed by the engineer for the site. The SWPPP shall be in place prior to applying for the NPDES permit. Additional information regarding SWPPP requirements can be obtained through the MPCA Storm Water Web Site. The SWPPP shall include all details, sequencing of the project and seeding and mulching specifications. 17. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be included in the plans. Temporary erosion control may consist of type 1 mulch, as well as temporary and permanent seed mixes. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 18. Inlet controls are needed for all inlets throughout the project and shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation prior to casting. Filter fabric held down by steel plates with 12" of %-inch rock over each cover may be used. Once casting of inlets takes place, inlet controls shall be installed within 24 hours. Inlet protection shall be maintained on a regular basis. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 The plans and SWPPP shall be revised to include standard details for all inlet protection devices. 19. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road-accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. 20. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be installed around all wetlands and stormwater ponds; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. All areas of silt fence shown on the plan that are not parallel to the proposed contours of the property shall to have J-Hooks installed every 50 feet. 21. The existing stormwater pond and areas downstream of the pond shall be protected from sediment produced by the construction site. For example, if turbid water is found in the stormwater pond, a plug could be placed in the flared-end section (FES) of the outlet structure so sediment does not go off-site. Once settling of the sediment occurs, the water could be slowly released. 22. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Provisions for street cleaning shall be included in the SWPPP. 23. The private storm sewer should be realigned so that it will not lie within the footprint for the future expansion. 24. The site developer for Lot 1 must remove the curb and gutter at the approved access locations and construct a concrete apron per City Detail Plate 5207. 25. The site developer must replace the catch basin casting at the northern access with a surmountable casting." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: OUTSET.INC.: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 48.000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/W AREHOUSE BUILDING AND A SIGN VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 2460 GALPIN COURT. APPLICANT. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE 07-11. Public Present: Name Address Tom & JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail (Mark Undestad left the meeting for this item due to a conflict of interest.) 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and addressed issues brought up in a letter from Tom and JoEllen Radermacher. McDonald: Thank you staff. Kurt, would you like to start us out? Papke: With the sign that the variance is concerned with, is that a lit sign in any way? Is it back lit? Front lit? Generous: No. Papke: No lighting at all? Generous: No lighting. Papke: That's all. McDonald: Okay. Kevin? Dillon: I do not have any questions right now. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: Neither do I. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Pretty straight forward. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I've got a couple questions. McDonald: Alright. Keefe: ... berming on the north side of this thing you know when we originally did the PUD with this. Two questions along those lines. One is, is it working from the residents perspective? I mean what sort of feedback have you gotten in regards to? Generous: On Waytek? Keefe: Well yeah, is it big enough you know, and I think we also talked about it's sort of sight line in terms of the height that we wanted it to be and the width and you know. Really the question is, what sort of feedback is the city getting on the berming? Is it working or not? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: Well Waytek the only, all we've received so far is positive response. Plus they were able, a lot of landscaping goes on this. The developer's been working with the neighbors where they actually give them stakes and they can help layout. Keefe: Okay. So generally you know, what you're saying is generally what we tended to happen seems to be happening. Yeah right. And is it your opinion then, based upon, that the berming that will go on in this particular building will be sort of consistent with what is going on in the other building? Generous: Yes. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Where are the hours of operation? Are we limited in terms of the hours of operation in this? Generous: There weren't any standards established as a part of that. We felt then you're telling someone how to run their business. Keefe: Right, yeah. Generous: City Council was very opposed to that idea. Keefe: Right. Generous: And if you get a business that has two shifts, do you want to say you can't be in Chanhassen? Keefe: Right. Do we anticipate a lot of trucks going into this particular building? I mean large semi trailer type. Generous: They redistribute things as I understand so they get things and they package. Keefe: So we will get some of that, yeah. Okay. The lights on the northeast side, the height of the building is what, 24 feet, is that right? The berm is what, 10-12 feet with trees. What is the height of those lights and what's the intended purpose of those lights? Is it to light the, there's a couple parking spaces along there, is that right? Generous: Not along the, along the east. The lighting would be just above the overhead doors and so it'd be like, it'd be more like security lighting. It would light the area just underneath. Keefe: Okay. So you're not talking putting them up at 24 feet so they, it's more just above the doors? Generous: Correct. Keefe: So maybe at 10 feet, right? Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: And then as you go farther down then you have the standard light poles, shoe box fixture with a 90 degree cut off. Keefe: Yeah, I was really more concerned about those ones that did kind of go towards the north a little bit. Those are a bit lower. Okay, great. Thank you. McDonald: The only question I had is, I suppose I should wait but I wanted to know what Outset does and I believe you kind of alluded, you don't really know so I'll save that for the applicant. I have no further questions. With that, if the applicant would like to come forward and you know again address any issues or clarify any issues which have come up that will help us on our deliberations, we'd appreciate it. Brian Houwman: I'm Brian Houwman. I'm the architect. Outset is a company that takes barbeque elements, flippers, pieces for barbeques. Re-package those pieces and ship them back out. Perhaps there's someone in the back here who's daughter works there that can explain it even past that. I've been in their front showroom and see all of the different pieces they have but they don't manufacture it. They buy it somewhere. Bring it in. Package it. Ship it out. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anything further? Brian Houwman: No. McDonald: Okay. At this point then, well first of all does anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicant? No? Okay. We'll now open it up for a public meeting and I would invite anyone to come up. Make comment at the podium. All I ask is that you state your name and address and address the commission. Tom Radermacher: My name's Tom Radermacher. My wife JoEllen and I live directly to the north of the property at 2479 Bridle Creek Trail. First I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak and I want to thank the staff and this developer. They did a good job with the outlot and the berm and stuff and communicating with the neighbors. But the only thought I can add, Bob's already answered most of our questions there. The only thing I might add would be additional plantings on the berm due to the size of the, the increased size of the building. If that is something that can be considered. Other than that I guess you answered my questions. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: Didn't they over size that? I mean I was looking at the plantings on it. They wanted, they exceeded the requirements, did they not? Generous: Right. They, if you look at the landscaping plan there's additional plantings above the required. Their intention is to put down along that north edge and into the outlot. Keefe: You know maybe it's something you can get with the developer and look and see exactly how they're going to, I think they're open to that. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Tom Radermacher: Thank you. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay, now I have to anticipate that this is going to be a positive, ringing endorsement since we know of the conflict of interest. Debbie Lloyd: No positive ringing endorsement. Just a little explanation that the feature above the doorway is actually the company logo. They manufacture overseas very high end entertaining cookware, barbeque products and other show ware is a term they use. They sell it in high end retail places. You can find it here at Byerly's. You can find it at, I wanted to say Dayton's, Marshall Fields. What is it called? Larson: Macy's. Debbie Lloyd: So it's a small company. Right now I think, my daughter was the seventh employee and they might have 9 now. They're a growing firm however and they'll bring some good tax revenue and I know that's what we're looking for here. McDonald: Well we appreciate the information and the clarification about the logo. Thank you Debbie. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Seeing no one, I will close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up for a discussion amongst the commissioners. And Dan, we'll start with you. Keefe: Just a question in regards to the variance. Again does it require a hardship or, with this variance? I mean how do we kind of justify that? Generous: Well sign variances are different from... or even a subdivision variance. It's more, it's... The City Council may grant where it's shown that by reason of topography or other conditions strict compliance with the requirements of the sign ordinance would cause a hardship... What they are looking at it as a hardship and they could make a sign that would permit a... We'd prefer to let them put their logo on now and grant the variance and not have the big sign. Keefe: So if we grant the variance, can we also put a restriction in terms of1imiting the sign? Generous: I would think that would be appropriate. Keefe: Just what I'm hearing is from a city standpoint, you're saying we don't necessarily want this big sign and they're able to do that and the logo. You know we're better off just limiting the, any thoughts from you guys? Larson: Are they going to have a road sign somewhere that says what it is or? Generous: Well if you look at the elevation, it's hard to see, they have just a little Outset right above the entrance. And I believe that's more along their intent. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: Well if! understand what you're saying, what your logic is, you're saying that they're entitled to a sign 24 feet by, or no, 73 square feet and that would be too big so what you're hoping for is that by granting the picnic table, the sign that they will come up with will be smaller and I guess it will incorporate some of that area into it so that reduces the actual size itself. Generous: Right. Then they can actually get a sign bigger than 73 square feet. That's the size sign they would need to make this logo 15%. Keefe: Yeah I'm alright you know kind of, if it's kind of a substitution thing. My concern is they put this logo up and then now by the way, we want to max out on our signage too and then it kind of maybe. McDonald: Yeah and I guess I kind of agree with you. If our intent is, I'm not sure where your hook is to keep the sign smaller by granting this. Keefe: Can we just do a total square footage of signage and logo will not exceed? Generous: That would be... McDonald: Okay. So then at that point we get to count the logo as part of whatever happens with the signage and, which is I think what your intent is right? Keefe: So then their sign would have to be smaller by the total square footage. McDonald: Right. Keefe: I'll make that as an amendment to that. McDonald: Okay. And I guess the specifics of that staff can come up with as far as the numbers you want in there. You'll help us out with that. Keefe: I'll add it as an amendment. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Larson: Really it was the same concerns so we covered it. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen? Thomas: I'm good. McDonald: Okay. Kevin? Dillon: No questions. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: I didn't mean to pick on you on the first one. Please feel free to. Dillon: That is, I was, didn't feel picked on at all. McDonald: Okay, good. That's what we want. Papke: I have kind of a late question here on, there's a rain garden on the plan here and in the first case before us tonight there was a public member that got up and suggested a rain garden and we said well you know, we can't be assured that that gets maintained and so on, and now we see a rain garden in this one. I take it that this one is strictly voluntary? Doesn't help meet any requirements or anything and so the issue that was brought up in the first case tonight is not an issue here? Generous: Well, they're two separate things. This is a different watershed district. Carver County does require the use of rain gardens. And secondly we believe that with at least business, they have more ability to do the long term maintenance that is required to keep these rain gardens functioning because what they do is collect sand and get clogged up. . . Papke: Could you clarify Carver County requires rain gardens. Generous: Yeah. The watershed district for a small portion of Chanhassen. Papke: So who within that small portion ofChanhassen must put in a rain garden and of what size and nature? This is kind of a new one on me. Generous: On a who, any development... may be limited to just this site. I'm not sure. It's not very big. Or this subdivision I should say. Papke: Okay. Okay. So this subdivision. Generous: Is all within that watershed. Papke: So all the buildings have a rain garden within this industrial park? Generous: Yes. They're on the south side of this drive aisle there's one that's in that development. And one of the first buildings on the south side and eventually they drain to the storm water pond in the southwest corner of this project and then go into Chaska. McDonald: I have to admit to that. That one slid by us because I don't remember discussing the rain gardens on all the rest of them. Generous: They show up. It's in Carver County a little bit... Waytek has one on the east side where their parking is. McDonald: Okay. I really have no comments or questions at this point. I think we've kind of addressed all the concerns and sounds as though it's a good plan and again, if it brings business 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 into the city and allows us to increase our tax base, that's always a good thing and so, and it does sound as though this developer has turned out to be a good neighbor to the homeowners of both to the north and to the east and for that I'm glad. I'll accept a motion and you should probably do it so you can add your amendment. Keefe: I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the site plan for a 48,042 square foot one story office warehouse building with a variance for a 12.9 square foot logo above the main entry, plans prepared by Houwman Architects dated April 13, 2007, subject to conditions 1 through 25. And I'll add condition number 26 that says something along the lines of, as a condition of granting the variance the total signage area, including the logo area shall not exceed the total area allowed for signage under the ordinance. McDonald: And I would expect staff to massage that so that we're perfectly legal with that but. Papke: I'll second that motion. McDonald: Okay. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan for a 48,042 square-foot, one-story office warehouse building with a Variance for a 12.9 square-foot logo above the main entry, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 4/13/07, subject to the following conditions: 1. Architectural elements, such as the use of tiling, creating colored block patterns or the use of circular windows, shall be added in the wall panels on the north side of the building to provide additional articulation. 2. The developer shall connect the internal sidewalks to the public sidewalk in Galpin Court. Pedestrian ramps shall be installed at all curbs along this pathway. 3. The berm on the north side of the building shall be extended into Outlot C, Chanhassen West Business Park. 4. The Park Dedication Fee for Lot 5, Block 2 is $39,960.58 to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 19 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. Two landscape peninsulas shall be added to the west parking area. 6. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing trees in Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line. 7. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 8. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 9. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be developed by the engineer for the site. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District prior to beginning construction. The SWPPP shall be in place prior to applying for the NPDES Phase II Construction Permit. Additional information regarding SWPPP requirements can be obtained through the MPCA Storm Water Web Site. The SWPPP shall include all standard detail plates, sequencing of the project and seeding and mulching specifications. 10. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be included in the plans. Temporary erosion control may consist of Type 1 mulch, as well as temporary and permanent seed mixes. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. 12. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13. Inlet controls are needed for all inlets throughout the project and shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation prior to casting. Filter fabric held down by steel plates with 12 inches of %-inch rock over each cover may be used. Once casting of inlets takes place, inlet controls shall be installed within 24 hours. Inlet protection shall be maintained on a regular basis. The plans and SWPPP shall be revised to include standard details for all inlet protection devices. 14. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be installed around all wetlands and stormwater ponds; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. All areas of silt fence shown on the plan that are not parallel to the proposed contours of the property shall have J-Hooks installed every 50 feet. 15. Erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to any site grading. 16. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Provisions for street cleaning shall be included in the SWPPP. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Carver County Water Resource Management Area, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 18. The plan must be revised so that the grades over the existing storm sewer on the west side are not altered. 19. The plans must be modified so that the wall is a minimum of 15 feet from the storm sewer. 20. The property owner must sign an encroachment agreement for the western retaining wall. 21. The developer's engineer must submit a sketch verifying that construction of the retaining wall on the east side of the property will not compromise the tree preservation area within Outlot C. 22. The contractor must call the City to inspect the connection to the sanitary sewer manhole. 23. The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 24. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 25. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 26. As a condition of granting the variance the total sign age area, including the logo area, shall not exceed the total area allowed for signage under the ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. (Mark Undestad did not vote on this item due to a conflict of interest.) PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20. ZONING. CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Some of these are more our housekeeping measures like Section 20-5 from the ordinance specifies all the arterial and collector roads in the city. We just added Bluff Creek Boulevard and we're recommending that it be included in the list. The second amendment is to Section 20-258. Under the licensing section of the ordinance we permit golf courses to have liquor licenses but under the CUP standards we didn't permit it for golf courses, only driving ranges and so we wanted to have it all consistent and in the same language so we're recommending that that be added to Section 20-258, subsection 7. The third issue is in all our commercial industrial districts we discovered that when we cite the landscaping ordinance we, through re-codification of the ordinance we missed the citations changed and so 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 the numbers weren't there. They were.. . now and so rather than cite a specific number we're going to try to cite the entire Article and Division that deals with landscaping and tree preservation and specifically the landscaping standards with setbacks adjacent to parking lots and required standards for plantings... So that affects the neighborhood business district, the highway and business services district, the general business district, the fringe business district, the office and institutional district and the industrial office park districts, so we'd make the same change to all of those. Under Accessory structures, Section 20-904. Currently we limit the size of accessory structures for properties that are single family residential to 1,000 square feet. What we've been running into is a lot of people that have A-2 property that is no longer farmed are coming in and building 2,000, 3,000 square foot accessory structures for their home and then they start to run businesses out of them which is prohibited under our ordinance. We believe that if we limit the size of the accessory structure we would hopefully contain some of that. Existing farmsteads, if they want to continue in the community, other existing accessory structures will be grandfathered in so they can keep them. Maintain them. Replace them if they burn down to anything. And they would have to come through the variance. Long term we don't anticipate that Chanhassen will remain an agricultural community. So we're requiring that, we added the A2, which is the Agricultural Estate, the RR which is Rural Residential and the Residential Low and Medium Density Districts to this standard. Papke: Now is this for an individual accessory structure? What if! build 2 or 3 of them? Generous: They're cumulative so you wouldn't be able to go over. Papke: Is that clear from the way this is written here? Because this reads the accessory structures shall not exceed. I could ostensibly read that to say that, well each of the individual structure. Generous: I should say it's been interpreted that it's a cumulative. We'll now we can be specific that. Papke: I think that would be good. Keefe: I agree. Generous: ... total accessory structure shall not be more than. McDonald: Or you could just say the cumulative square feet shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Generous: Or cumulative square feet shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Larson: 1,000 or 2,000? Generous: 1,000. So we wouldn't change the, that's the way we've been interpreting this. And the other stuff is just. .. Section 20-1024 . We permit barbed wire in agricultural districts and not the electric fences for keeping their cattle on the property so we wanted to put that in. We have some in the community. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Papke: But would this include like equestrian lots? Rural residential, RR type lots. Would this prohibit? Generous: If they're in the RR district, not it's only in the A2. Agricultural. RR is considered residential. Papke: Yeah, it's rural residential so I'm just clarifying. So just to make sure I understand so that the equestrian places down along Pioneer Trail or 98th, down there, any of those, I think there's a couple of those that have electric fences. Would they be grandfathered in? Generous: The existing ones would be grandfathered. Keefe: Well didn't this come up on the Arboretum property on the north side. They have a fence on the north side to separate them from Westwood and. Generous: Yes, it's existing. Keefe: Is this part of where this came out of or? Generous: It was for, we were looking at existing farmsteads that once had cattle. Our ordinance actually doesn't address... Papke: You don't need to answer it now. If you can just follow up on it later, I just wanted to make sure I understood what the spirit was. Generous: The next item, the fa<;ade transparency issue that came out of the Heartland building when we were talking about should we not require. . . so this is what we drafted up for it. I put a lot of information in there. Papke: Yeah, it's pretty tough to pass through that. I mean what are we really saying here? Generous: What we're saying then is if you have a building that was approved and built prior to September 24,2001 that you have some relief from this standard, as long as you at a minimum maintain the architectural detailing that was approved as a part of that. So if you have... windows and signage and things like that, as long as you keep that, you could reduce the 50% requirement. We would always encourage people to provide as many windows as they could... Additionally the second part, so that's where existing. McDonald: Before you go on. Does that get to the issue that we raised earlier about the variances we've been issuing on these buildings about the 50%? Generous: It wouldn't do it for the new, for that one that just came in because that was... because they were showing... it was due to site constraints in that case. Papke: But it would have addressed the Heartland? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: It would address the Heartland because they did, they matched... That's partially what the second paragraph deals with. It's due to the function of the building or the interior of the building that it's possible, or it's not really. . . that windows would be appropriate, then we'd reduce it. Papke: Bob, the way this is written, it almost seems to infer that all this applies only to buildings you know put in before September 24, 2001. Do you only intend that the first paragraph applies to that and then paragraphs 2 and 3 apply to new construction? Generous: Right. Papke: You might want to make that more explicit because as I was reading this, that didn't pop out at all in my brain. I thought the whole thing was just for grandfathering. Generous: No, the intent was to make it separate. This part would apply to the existing buildings and again we tried to point out, whether the real windows work, while a freezer in a convenience store, you wouldn't want to put a glass window in... so those are architectural things that we would require them to do on a regular window. Right now those are technically prohibited. Would need a variance. So we can get all the architectural detailing that we want and that's, the third paragraph that's all that deals with architectural features that you can incorporate in a building to help make up for the lack of actual windows and doors. So when a freezer is.. . Kwik Trip, that's all they have is a freezer and a window. Plus they didn't have the same standards at the time that you know it could happen again. Mechanical room. . . McDonald: To follow up on what Commissioner Papke brought up. I am also confused in reading that because we're talking about for buildings that were built prior to September 24, 200 1. We have these standards but they're already built so I'm confused, why are we doing that? There's nothing that says at a date going forward this is the new stuff. And I think your intent is yeah, we're trying to address issues that have come up in the past and going forward we're trying to give people a little bit more leeway or freedom or you know, ways to design things, if I'm hearing you. I'm not sure this is what that says. Generous: If they can yes. And if they can't meet the standard because of the actual function of the building. McDonald: Okay. Generous: And that's what I was trying to get at through this. McDonald: I again look at it, I mean Mark is a developer. What would you think about this kind of wording? Is this confusing as far as going forward? You know do we need to go into a little bit more detail? Undestad: I mean I kind of understand it. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 McDonald: I mean I'm not a developer and I'm not you know someone but just reading this, I would agree on, I'm not sure that going forward, what's the purpose of putting in 2001? That's where I get confused and I see nothing that says going forward you know from April, 2007 these new standards would apply to any new buildings? Generous: Would it be clear if that paragraph went up as part of the first paragraph? 50% transparency. Where we said this is the standard. But where you can't do it because of these circumstances. Papke: I think he just stated you know, get somebody else to take a look at these and you know, when it's not 10:00 at night. McDonald: Yeah, I agree. You need to look at it because we're confused and I guess our concern is would someone else be confused about this and yeah, we would like some clarity. We understand what you want but we're not sure we're reading that. We agree with your intent, it's just. Generous: Yeah, we can even hold that back and... I think I've got the gist, you want... and like I said, the last paragraph just provides some direction I think for architectural detailing. It would be acceptable alternatives and ordinance. Then Section 20-1265. This is one that came up. We had some interior windows, signage open. Signs that were flashing and we got people to turn them off and we just wanted to put language in our ordinance that was very specific that you couldn't do that... Keefe: Excessively bright is kind of non-specific. Generous: And I was going back and forth on that. That's from existing language on the nuisance section and I don't know how you do the standard. Definitely if the flashing and blinking, everyone can agree on that. Excessively bright, that's more subjective and we did it with the mattress building because technically there's no standard but we said that's really a nuisance. It's too bright and we were able to get them to turn down the voltage on the signage and reduce the glow in the night to that. Larson: Does this only apply to commercial? Generous: Window size. Larson: Well lights in general. I have a neighbor that's got like, down the stairs and down this way, it looks like an airport. Is that? Generous: Yeah, then you get into the nuisance. There's a specific ordinance... Larson: Oh I would never say anything but it's just sort of1ike... Generous: The intent was to address commercial. The next amendment is Section 20-1452. This is pointed out by, when we amended our ordinance we deleted the heading that those were 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 implied and so this clarifies that and this is where it applies. And then Section 20-1513 came out of the tower discussion. What happens if you're close to a residential neighborhood and we tried to come up with numbers. How close would you want to be if their equipment to be in a building as opposed to on a platform and so we came up with this standard there. If you're within 150 feet of an actual building, then it would have to be in a building. And that's it. And the attachment is actually the ordinance... We recommend that that be adopted and if you want me to just, we can delete that one section that deals with fa<;ade transparency, we can handle that separately or table the whole thing... McDonald: Are you in favor of tabling it and having him bring it back when we can have a better opportunity to go through it, yeah. Papke: Yeah. That way we can just. Generous: People might add extra things but... then they say oh, by the way. Larson: Don't tell anyone. McDonald: Well I take it that the commissioners, as we went through, we kind of questioned. No one has any additional questions on this. This is a public meeting so at that point I would open this up to the public and anyone that wanted to come forward and make comment on any of this, please do so and again step to the podium. State your name and address to commissioners. Debbie Lloyd: Was this a public hearing on this? McDonald: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: You're kidding? McDonald: No. Debbie Lloyd: There was not an adequate notice on this because these, Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I contend there was not adequate notice on these changes because I got forward Bluff Creek Boulevard. Was this in your packet for tonight? McDonald: Yes. Generous: It was noticed in the paper too. It didn't specify the sections. It just noticed that amendments to Chapter 20. Debbie Lloyd: And this deal about the setback from the Highway 5. Generous: Oh yes. Debbie Lloyd: When did all this happen? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Generous: Well we were, initially we were going to do it last time but I didn't get the notice to the paper in time to have the 10 day notice prior to the hearing. Dillon: So what's the issue? Debbie Lloyd: Bob knows that I've been harping on a couple of these things so I'm really surprised to see it here tonight because I haven't you know. Dillon: Well do we know what you're harping about? Debbie Lloyd: Bob does. The City does. Keefe: Well if there's adequate notice I mean which is what you were questioning right? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah. McDonald: If the issue is notice. Debbie Lloyd: I guess I do want to do a little research on the history of one of these and that's what I want to do. McDonald: Then at that point you have opportunity at the City Council. Debbie Lloyd: I'm sorry. McDonald: At that point then you would have an opportunity at the City Council. Debbie Lloyd: Correct. I know the procedure, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come up to make comment? Seeing no one else step forward, we'll close the public meeting. I'll bring it back for the commissioners for any discussion and debate. Dan? Mark? Debbie? Kathleen? Kevin? Dillon: No comments. McDonald: Kurt? Then I would be willing to accept a motion from the commissioners. I guess the motion is to accept. Papke: Go ahead. Keefe: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code with I guess an amendment to table the proposed change for Section 20-1068. I believe that was the one right? McDonald: Do we have a second? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2007 Larson: Second. McDonald: Okay. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, and table Section 20-1068. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 17 , 2007. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 51