Loading...
PC 2000 03 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchofl] Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl~ Senior Planner; Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO EXCAVATE APPROXIMATELY 6000 SQUARE FEET OF WETLAND AND FILLING APPROXIMATELY 600 SQUARE FEET WETLAND TO ACCESS LAKESHORE, 7310 KURVERS POINT ROAD, MARILYN AND DANIEL BOECKERMANN. Phillip Elkin presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Okay, questions of staff anybody? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I have a question. In our packet there's a drawing, let's see if there's a number. There's no number on it. This drawing Phil. Elkin: Got it. Kind: And it shows an opening underneath the bridge. Will that opening go out into the water? Elkin: Right. That would be the, it would just act as a culvert or, that would be the low point so as the water rose in the wetland it would overflow into the lake. Kind: That's the outlet so to speak and it would be kept at a certain level so sediment can settle down and then go out that way. Elkin: Right, right. So it is above the ordinary high of the lake. So you'll have the water reaching the level and then out over into the lake, which is at a lower elevation. Kind: And then the bridge will go up even higher over that? Elkin: Yeah, over the water. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Kind: Is that considered shoreland alteration because it's along the? Elkin: Well it's a wetland in the shoreland impact zone because this was in so many hundred feet of the lakeshore. The DNR is not involved because it's above the ordinary high water mark and all the excavation so it's right in that area. Where the City, it is in an area which could be, or you know is in a natural environment area so we want to be cautious in what we recommend and what we do in that area. Kind: My concern is that a future homeowner might say ooh, this is a neat protected harbor. IfI excavate it more and make that channel bigger, I can get a boat underneath it there. Elkin: That wouldn't be a weekend project. That would be a lot of excavation because like I said, it is, if you look, OHW of the lake is 896 and I believe, let me look at the grading plan. They are going down 8 feet from the existing elevation and they're still not reaching the OHW so to get a boat in there would be quite difficult. And someone would notice what was going on. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Mr. Chair. One question about the notation on that same map. What is, we were talking before the meeting about mitigation areas and what is the notation PBC and MBC. What is that? Elkin: Okay. Within the shoreland impact zone you are the diminimus for filling in a wetland. To build this berm out to the lake they need to fill in the wetland. Now the diminimus or the minimum amount of fill you can fill in this area without replacement is 400 square feet. So I believe it's 650 cubic feet of fill. That will be made up in the mitigation area. Now there are two, to make things more complicated, there are new wetland credits and public value credits. New wetland credits replace, physically replace the wetlands you took out. And public value credits make up the second, in the 2 for 1 replace, make up the second area of replacement. So they do have to do mitigation on site. Sidney: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a few questions. Phil, on this wetland replacement plan application, page 5 of 7. If you go down to number 9 it says is the project consistent with local plans. And then it says no and it says yes. I'm assuming it's a typo. I'm assuming it is consistent but I just want to clarify that. Elkin: Okay, I'm sorry. Which page was that? Blackowiak: Page 5 of 7. Right at the very bottom. Number 9. 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Elkin: Okay. Blackowiak: So, is it consistent or isn't it consistent? Elkin: This is not, I think what they mean there is this in a local water management plan. This is not part of any plan that the city has right now because we don't own the property and wouldn't, this would be, it is consistent. Using the conditions that we have put down, it would be consistent in our policies and the wetland conservation act as far as restoration. But this is specifically asking you if it's consistent with our local water management plan which is not a part of our local water management plan. Blackowiak: Okay. A couple more questions. In the background, second paragraph they talk about the fact that there was to be a wetland alteration permit at the time of platting and it wasn't done. So what happens then? Elkin: I think at the time it was platted the City Council recognized that these lots would need a wetland alteration permit to gain access and they were trying to expedite it rather than come back for the same issue. Now if this would have been done at that time, it would already be determined which type of access the lake and we wouldn't be going through this right now. But what has happened is each of the lots affected have had to come back in for a wetland alteration permit at the time they proposed to build a house there. Blackowiak: Okay, so the other two lots in question then both have wetland alteration permits and something in place? Elkin: Right. Blackowiak: Okay. And finally, condition number 4 talks about restoration or conversion of the area. Often we have some type of a stipulation in terms of a one year guarantee or something on trees. Is there any type of a time frame associated with this? Elkin: Before they would put together a letter of credit, at the time the work was done and after the work has been established. After the seeding has been, has come up and it's done to satisfaction, then that letter would be released so I can. Blackowiak: Any kind of a guarantee after that or once it's established you're comfortable that? Elkin: Right. I mean this area, you know you may want to go in and replant some things but it's just to be left alone. That's the biggest recommendation is to get it reseeded. Get stuff growing and then see what happens. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my final question has to do with precedence setting. Is there any reason we would worry about somebody else coming and saying, well such and such a lot was able to do this. We want to do it too. Are there other situations that this might apply to or is this just the unique? Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Elkin: Well I think it's unique that a lot of, you know there's not that many lots on the lakes anymore that cross a wetland to get to but it, yeah. That's why I've been, that's why I have the conditions as I do. Just to make it clear that yes, we are allowing you to alter a wetland in this area but we feel it's (a), it's for the benefit of the lake and water quality and (b), you did it under the guidelines that have been set up. It's not a beautification. It's not a landscaping project but it's a conversion. An improvement on a natural wetland area. Aanenson: Can I just add a comment to that too? I think Phil already pointed that out but when this plat was recorded, we recognized that these lots more than likely would need a wetland alteration permit so that was addressed and I think if you look at what the standards that we're applying today are more stringent and would have been applied when the plat was originally done. But that's a good question but I think we recognized when the plat was done that they would need an alteration permit. Blackowiak: Right, and maybe I'm looking more towards just trying to add a condition or something just to say that we understand that this is a unique situation and that it was anticipated when the lots were platted. Something to that affect so that that's very clear that it was a special situation that was anticipated and not just something that we would do because it's convenient or for whatever reason. So that's kind of where I'm going with that I guess. Peterson: Other questions or comments for staff'? Sidney: Maybe one quick question Mr. Chair. I guess we talked about this a little bit. I'm wondering if you could address the type of equipment that might be used to dig out this wetland. I guess I'm concerned that bringing a backhoe down or some other large piece of equipment would impact the site unnecessarily. Elkin: Yeah. I would imagine that at least a small backhoe and a truck are going to have to gain access to the site. We can mark an area. They also have to build a house in this area and build an access path to the site so we could probably add that the access route be just for one access route be established and used throughout construction. I think that would be reasonable. Peterson: Thank you Phil. Conrad: Can I Mr. Chairman? Peterson: Sure. Conrad: Proposed to dig out 8 to 10 feet deep? Elkin: Yeah it would be 8 feet at the deepest point, right. Conrad: And why so deep? 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Elkin: Well I think to, you know 8 feet is above the OHW. I don't know that it has to be 8 feet deep. We can certainly they want to, some areas to be, vegetation will grow in probably up to like 4 feet deep so allow some areas for open water. It doesn't, there's not reason it has to be that deep, no. Conrad: The benefit Phil is what? Elkin: Well I think that the benefit is right now the only, it is dominated by reed canary grass. The aerial I showed from 1987 showed that it was farmed as late as 1987. So it's very monotypic wetland right now in that you have one species of plant dominating, an evasive species. By introducing open water and reseeding it with native plants, you have marsh emergents coming up. You have lilies coming up. You also are creating an additional area. As I mentioned earlier this is the outlet for the storm water ponds in this area so it creates another cell that the water goes through. Detains it for longer, up and over before it goes into the lake. So it's not, and it's not, I want to be clear that's not for aesthetic reasons that I'm recommending it. It's that we could really improve both the quantity and the value, public value of this wetland by doing it that way. Conrad: I'm trusting you on this one. That deep, I'm trusting that there's not a problem going that deep and really having, as you dredge down you have other problems and that bothers me a little bit. Especially when I see 8 to 10 feet. When the lake out in front at the max right there might be 20 feet so you're, I don't know. That one, the article you attached said never do this unless there are no other options. So that's why, you know you attach an article that says this is not good, but if you have to do this, and I think I recognize we do have to let them have access to the lake and that, I think we understood that when Kurvers Points was developed. We knew that would happen so now we're trusting you as a scientist or as somebody that knows more than we do that this is the right thing to do given they need access. But the article you attached gives me some concern. I sound like that guy on Ally McBeal. But it gives me, I worry that we're doing something rather significant when I hear about 8 to 10 feet of dredging coming out of that site. Elkin: As I mentioned before, if the city owned this property, this is the type of project I think that we would encourage or undertake. The depth is going to be determined out, you know by the slopes and how well the soils stay together out there and that's going to be determined in the field when they start excavating. Conrad: Okay. And the floating boardwalk, there's just so much sledge there that you really couldn't put any kind of permanent that was. Elkin: If you're going to make a floating boardwalk, then you have to excavate the entire area at the lake level because it's at a higher elevation so if those water is going to stand. It's going to be just muck out there like it is right now. So if you're going to, you're going to have hydrology for the floating, it will require more excavation for a floating boardwalk. Conrad: But let me just summarize. It is a, in your mind it is a benefit. The way it's been designed it is going to be a benefit to the lake. It's going to be a benefit. It's not a negative. It's a benefit and we have some control on how it's going to be monitored or implemented. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Elkin: Given the conditions I have put on, it is a benefit. It is still a wetland. It's still, once they're done constructing, walking back and forth is the only activity allowed back there. Conrad: Okay. I'd sure like to have staff report back, after this is implemented, I'd sure like to have a review of this. And it might be a year Phillip but I'd really like to revisit this one. Just to know. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Robert Merila: Hi. I think what was discussed here pretty well covers. Peterson: Name and address please. Robert Merila: Okay, I'm sorry. My name is Robert Merila and my address is, I'm representing the applicant for this particular project and my address is 2116 Marquee Road in Golden Valley, Minnesota. I'm with Aquatic Ecosolutions. An ecological consulting finn that deals with wetland related types of things such as this. And basically the things that were being discussed here were things that we had kind of talked about. I had talked about with the applicant and we had kind of worked up this particular application such that we would be able to accomplish the desired result and the goal would be to be able to access the lake. The upland portion of the lakeshore that's along the lakeshore without having to go off the property and things like that. And also to provide an additional benefit to the, to Lotus Lake and the surrounding area by providing a diversity in habitat rather than having the monoculture, you know monotypic reed canary grass and cattails and such that was there to open things up to, to allow there to be more of a something where ducks and amphibians and things like that would be able to live as well as providing further treatment for water as it's coming down through the system. So that's basically where those things came in and I'm sure if there are concerns with the depth and things like that that are conveyed to city stafl} that we would definitely make those modifications and incorporating those things. One other thing that was mentioned as a concern was, is there any kind of a monitoring plan that goes through the process and since this project does have on site mitigation, the wetland conservation act requires a 5 year monitoring plan with annual reports so that is incorporated with that and if need be, you know a monitoring plan could be included, could be provided that would not only have the mitigation portions but that could have all of them. The whole excavated area. So just in case for the concern that was raised with that, there is already a mechanism in place to address those things. I really can't think of anything else to bring up. Everything was covered very thoroughly. I would be able to respond to questions that would be raised. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. As you go down 8 to 10 feet, what are the potential risks? Robert Merila: Potential risks. One of the things that's referred to in the Department of Natural Resources, you know when they talk about ecological ponds is they talk about having a shelf 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 along the edges so that, to respond to your question I'm going to answer it in kind of round about way and get to it. One of the risks of leaving it as it is, you know just a monoculture, reed canary grass and/or common cattail. Wetlands that stay in that type of a habitat type have very little, offer very little in the way of wildlife habitat. I've been involved with wetland inventories and have inventoried more than 1,400 wetlands across, you know throughout the Twin Cities area here and the wetland that have observed the least amount of wildlife have been the reed canary grass, common cattail monocultures. So that's the type of wetland that's there currently. If it goes deeper, you know when there's open water associated with a wetland, and this is, I can't back this up scientifically but just more just by being around this many wetlands, I've noticed that wetlands that have open water in them tend to have frogs and other amphibians and they also tend to have dragon flies around them. And those are two things that eat mosquitoes. And I've noticed that, and I can't document this you know quantitatively but I have noticed that there's few mosquitoes around wetlands that have open water in them. And I would, I correlate that to the fact that there's frogs and dragon flies in that type of, you know dragon flies, damsel flies in that type of a habitat. And when there's this type of a habitat improvement done, that would open, that would provide a habitat for more things such as, things I just mentioned and then also turtles and things like that. Whereas the type of habitat that it is now does not have those types of things. And so at any rate, that's kind of a round about way to answer the question but to answer it directly I don't, I can't think of any strong reasons why it would be a strong detriment because with the slopes that come down, it's not like it's a storm water pond with slopes that have, where children can be walking. And if you've got a settling pond you have to keep certain slopes so that if someone falls in let's say, that they're able to crawl out. You know we don't have those kind of issues because there's going to be vegetation around it that will be growing tall and there won't be kids crawling into there. And if there's a shelf where vegetation can grow and then it drops down into the open water in the middle, I guess I don't really see a lot of detrimental harm with that. The thing that happens on some open water ponds is if there's not the depth in the middle, what happens is it just grows back with cattails and they get so thick that nothing can, that you can't have ducks and things like that don't have open water. And that's something that would be a detriment. Conrad: The biggest issue would be water quality versus habitat. You're talking about habitat but water quality again in your perspective there's no detriment here in terms of water quality? Robert Merila: Right. And with water quality, from that aspect, I'm not a water quality engineer but I do know the concept behind the NURP ponds and that is they have certain depths so that the water, if you have it too shallow and the water flows in and flows out quicker, you know too fast for things for suspended particulates to settle out. And if it's deeper, it allows it to hold there longer and allows more time for things to settle out. Conrad: Breaking the seal of a lake, is there any risk in that? Robert Merila: I really wouldn't think that that would be the case because it's not like in some wetlands you've got, you have a case which is called or a situation which is called a birched condition where you're up higher in the landscape and the wetland is there because there's a seal, a clay seal. And if you go too deep, if you're higher up and do too deep you might be able to 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 puncture that and let these drain down. But where the lake is, that's pretty much where the ground water is. You know if the ground water goes down, then the lake level will go down and things like that. So the only thing that I could foresee happening is if there.., are springs and things like that on lakes. I'm not sure about Lotus Lake. I haven't examined it really closely but typically there are places where springs come into the lake and if this is higher than where the lake is, I wouldn't really see a harm in that situation. Peterson: Thank you. Robert Merila: You're welcome. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Brenda Vatland: Hi, my name is Brenda Vatland and I live at 7290 Kurvers Point Road. We'd be the property just to the north of the Boeckmann's that has a wetland that drains through our back yard and I'm just here tonight to find out a little more about the project and how it might impact our property. My first question would be, how would this change affect our lot and the adjoining parkland for the homeowners association? I'm trying to understand the water flow and where does all this water come from that's going into the pond. Would it create more of a creek or dry up some of the existing wetland? If someone could address just the flow of the water. Peterson: Phil, can you handle that one? Elkin: Sure. The water from this development first, there's two different types of watersheds. First it hits this pond right here which is connected to this pond. So this pond takes most of the runofl] a percentage of the runofl~ The overflow from this pond goes through this area.., same type of wetland. It's going down. Brenda Vatland: So that's our lot that it's going through. Elkin: It's going through right here. It will continue to go through this area and then exit in the lake right now. Building a berm right here. The exit point is right here. Now they're going to excavate, you're going to have the same hydrology going through here. It will stop at this point but as more water comes in, so you'll have established, you'll have like a bowl right here and it's attracting water. The water's going to collect. As more water comes into this area the overflow will go up and out. So you won't see any change in the water here. It will just be another stop along the way for a quantity of water. The height of this water will be determined by the elevation on the down side. So it's all running down hill. As more water comes in, water will escape in this way. 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Brenda Vatland: Okay, but it's going to be escaping more through a creek like under the bridge where now it filters out through and now this whole area is marsh, cattails that it trickles through. By putting this walkway in you're going make a lip or mouth that it's flowing through. And there's also a little bridge through that neighborhood park. What I'm wondering is if this area is becoming a pond, is that going to take the water level down all around here. You know the width of this marsh. Elkin: It's still the same hydrology. The same water. All the water that's going to get to this point will first go through here and then in through here. Now in extreme events, you put in a small pipe. Lay a 12 inch pipe. This is going to be an opening with a bridge across it so we have a wide mouth. But you restricted the flow from here. It would be a possibility of it backing up here but you still have, this is the low point here so it's still going to overflow at the point of elevation. The lowest point of elevation. Brenda Vatland: I'd be real concerned if there was a back-up of water. Elkin: Well it's. Brenda Vatland: By reducing this amount now that can filter out through a wide area into one area then it would rush through or. Elkin: Well again, you're going to, if it backs up to this point, it's still going to go over here first or it's going to go over here before it's going to back up in here. It's a wide area. Everything is flowing down to this point right here right now. This is going to be at least a 4 foot channel. You're not going to be restricting, you're not...back in the water. It's too big of a, this is all low area. For any reason you can go over through this area, through this area. There's other options. It would be an extreme event for it to overflow on those banks. I don't see that as being a problem at all. It's not going to affect the hydrology up here at all. Brenda Vatland: Okay. I'm just trying to understand the flow. I also have a comment about the desirable plants. I think it's great that they want to replace some of it but what I've seen from the 8 years that we've lived there is that purple loosestrife is going to choke out whatever you put in there. It's really taken over everything in our lot in just a couple of years and even if they replace what's there it's going to move right back in and that will be very hard to get rid of. And then another question would be the ongoing maintenance of the pond. We've had the city out to dredge the two storm water ponds this past fall and they had really filled in quite a bit with dirt and sediment during the construction phase of the project. So they would never function as they were designed to until last October when they were dredged so the question is once you put a house in front, how would you ever access it if the pond gets sediment and fill in it that you could maintain it or keep it so it's working as it's designed to? Elkin: This is a wetland. This is not a storm water pond. We don't anticipate ever, you know there'd be no reason to go back with another wetland alteration permit to excavate. This is a wetland project. Not a storm water pond. 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Peterson: Okay, thank you for your questions. Anybody else? Dan Vatland: Dan Vatland, 7290 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen. I just wanted to know on the elevation that was being maintained through this, you talk about some berms being built up. Are there any other areas that are actually going to be built up higher than those points? At the berms. So when you dredge are you building up anything throughout that whole wetland beyond just berms? Above it's current level today. Elkin: No. The applicants only proposing to build the berm. Everything else is excavation. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Conrad: Can I ask staffa question? Peterson: Sure. Conrad: And the dredge, the material is put into the, what we take out of the pond is put into the berm? Elkin: It's either put into the berm or taken off site. Milzi Vanthoumout: Hi. Milzi Vanthoumout. I live on the properly on the other side of the proposed site, 7320 Kurvers Point Road. And my question is regarding the canal that you're going to build under the bridge to the lake which as it looks like on this it will be going through our properly. And how that's going to be maintained and you jus said it's a 12 inch pipe that's going to be there. Elkin: No, no, no. Everything they're building is going to be on their properly. Everything, it will just be, think of two berms with a bridge across it so there won't be, my reference to a 12 inch pipe is, if were putting in a 12 inch pipe that would restrict flow. It's going to be an open, it will be an opening between two berms with a bridge across it. MiNi Vanthoumout: Will that need to be re-dredged through time or you're saying that once this is done it's never going to need to be, once it grows in it grows in and? Elkin: Where you have sediment collecting is off the sand from the streets and that will collect in this first pond right here. You're not going to have. Peterson: Phil, why don't you go up and do it on the camera again. Elkin: This is the function of these ponds. This is why they built is sand off the road is collected right here. It's going to, this is where it settles out. The water separates, the sand separates from the water and the water overflows into this area. The sand is long gone before it reaches this area. There will be erosion control when they disturb this site but there shouldn't be any undisturbed soil or any silting in this area at all. Enough to clog... 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 MiNi Vanthoumout: But this where you're seeing.., and that's my properly there. I mean it would be down here. Elkin: Well it'd be over here. It would be on the properly line. MiNi Vanthoumout: But I mean the channel going to the lake. From the pond to the lake. Elkin: Okay. It's rightthere. Yeah, okay. Just as it doesnow. MiNi Vanthoumout: Okay, well I was just under the understanding from some paperwork that I had that we would have to okay this and it would be going through our properly from their properly to this point. And I understand that that's not right. Elkin: This is where it's going right now. It overflows into this area. It doesn't collect in this area. That's just seasonally flooded but all the drainage mn ofl~ this site right now. Aanenson: Well maybe the answer to the question is the alteration is occurring on the applicant's properly. The water will continue to go across the properly as it does today. That's not changing. Does that answer your question? MiNi Vanthoumout: Yeah. That was my concern when he said... 12 inch pipe... Aanenson: The water will still continue to flow as it does today. Milzi Vanthoumout: That was my main question, thanks. Peterson: Phil, never mention 12 inch pipe again. Anyone else? Fred Oelschlager: Fred Oelschlager, 7410 Chanhassen Road. I've been a lifetime resident of Chanhassen on Lotus Lake. I used to mn around in that wetland when I was a kid. Up to my knees and so forth. I've got no objection with anyone using the lake itself and running, running from their properly out to the water, but I really do not understand why we have to put a wetland, or build another pond in there and destroy what's there already. They can take and put a, in fact the DNR recommended years back to put a walking platform across that area. They don't want to do that, you can take like Houlihan's up here or make a nice walking bridge over that whole section. Driving pilings like this into the ground, even though it's muck. Keep it out far enough to find stable ground, and they could work those so they can use the lake and leave everything natural. I just don't see any really sense in putting an extra pond there. Everybody's complained about the goose control and the geese that are using the lake. It's going to draw more wildlife, which is great. Wildlife is great but people are getting really fed up with geese. I hunt them and that's not a problem but people that have landowners and walk around their yards, it's going to increase it even more. I mean that's just my personal viewpoint. I do not think we need another holding pond there. Thank you. 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners, any respective thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question of staff before we get started. The floating dock, the thing that I think it came up with Ladd as well. Why does it have to float? Could be, it could just be stuck there when it's not floating and it's still is a way to get down there. Elkin: Sure. Or you could put in, as he said, put in pilings and have a dock access across that area. Kind: Or it could be floating but not floating all the time. Like the one in front of Houlihan's is a floating dock, but right now it's not floating. Elkin: Sure. I mean there's a number of ways you can access, yeah. Certainly. Other structures, yeah. Kind: Okay. Peterson: So your opinion, environmentally to your point this is the most prudent way? Elkin: Well this, again this is not a holding pond. This is a wetland restoration. This area has been heavily impacted. It's an opportunity I think in combining what they want and getting better water quality. An open water marsh, wetland is of higher both water quality and has a higher wildlife value. So that's why, you know with the conditions. The plantings. That's why, that's a way I would recommend this project. It certainly can be accessed other ways. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. Any thoughts on this? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I already alluded to the fact that I guess I was a little concerned about the impact to the site in general. Getting equipment down to excavate the area that they're talking about so whoever makes the motion I guess I'd like to see a condition where we would have the applicant only use one access route to the area of excavation. And then also if we could consider too, putting another condition in where the applicant would work with the city to develop a tree preservation plan that would impact the site to the least amount. Those are my comments. Peterson: Okay. Any others? I'll entertain a motion. Conrad: I'd like to make a motion. Freddy, we'll try to project the lake but. Fred Oelschlager: No, I just... I'm really concerned about the depth of that pond.., bothers me. 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Conrad: Yeah, that one. I'll precede my motion. We do have a Water Resource Coordinator. We're one of the few cities that has one. In fact we spend more money to protect our environment. I think that's one of the things that we're pretty good at doing, and Phillip is making a recommendation. I think it does make sense. I think the concern is breaking a seal and there's huge impact on breaking that seal but I think on the other hand we have an opportunity here. I have to trust our resource coordinator here rather than saying don't do anything. I think Phillip is saying this is something that has a chance to improve the quality of the water. That's what I heard. And therefore I'm going to make this motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-1 because staff believes it will be an improvement to the habitat and to the water quality of the lake. Subject to the following conditions 1 through 4 in the staff report. 5 would be that the excavation, and some of these may be done anyway but just to make sure that the excavation process and the access to the site be reviewed or at least communicated to staff and approved. That number 6, that there's a tree preservation plan given to staff2 And number 7, that staff will report back to the Planning Commission within one year from project completion as to the impact of this project. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind: Do you want to say anything about the pond depth? Conrad: I don't know enough about it. Thanks for bringing it up Deb but when you go down that far, at least in the report, when you go down 8 to 10 feet, man. I don't know. I don't know how we manage that but I guess there are bad stories about breaking the seal. I guess Phillip should really take and make sure, he's our protection on this. He's the expert. We can't take, it's not, I think it's real easy to put a floating boardwalk across here. It's real easy. It doesn't have to float. That's what we envisioned. And based on staff saying we have an opportunity to improve the quality, I'm going along with that. But there's a lot of trust in that one and that's why we have staff to tell us some of this stuff2 But that 8 to 10 feet is a real concern and some, you know I guess, I don't know what we do about that. I'd certainly accept a suggestion in terms of having some review of that. Kind: Under condition number 7 that the applicant and staff2 Is it 7? Or is it 8? I'm adding another one. Aanenson: 8. Kind: 8, thank you. That the applicant and staff review the depth of the pond. Conrad: I'd certainly accept that as a friendly amendment. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded with an amendment. 13 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-1 because staff believes it will be an improvement to the habitat and to the water quality of the lake, subject to the following conditions: The area shall be mitigated to make up for the 250 square feet of wetlands above and beyond the diminimus requirement. The wetland be constructed in such a fashion that it will allow native plants to grow and follow the DNR guidelines for wetland conversion (see attached). The applicant shall not be permitted to put in a fountain or any chemicals to control the environment in this area. The applicant shall use a native wetland seed mix to complete the restoration or conversation of this area to a more natural setting. The excavation process and the access to the site be reviewed or at least communicated to staff and approved. 6. A tree preservation plan be reviewed by staff. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission within one year from project completion as to the impact of this project. 8. Staff and the applicant will meet to review the depth of the pond. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13,117 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO A 9,161 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE INDUSTRIAL LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION; 8360 COMMERCE DRIVE, HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: And I would be happy to open up the floor to anybody that has a question for Bob. Questions of staff'? Kind: I have a question Mr. Chairman. I went and took a look at the site today and noticed that there's some outside storage of, I can't even describe it. They're like semi trucks that are empty without the wheels on them. Stored outside on the northwest side of the structure right now. Is 14 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 the reason for the expansion to get more storage and get that stuffinside? Or should I be asking the applicant this? Generous: The applicant, the primary expansion is for warehouse space. Kind: As I'm asking this I'm thinking this is not the right person to ask. Never mind. Generous: My assumption would be yes. Peterson: Okay, other questions of Bob? Kind: I do have one more for Bob. Did you get an answer, I called you today about that 2 to 1 diameter condition. Generous: No, I didn't get an answer but I read it through and I understand it. You replace that 2 caliper inches for every caliper inch that's removed so. Kind: And that's what that condition says? Generous: That's what the condition says. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? David Obee: I can address the question about the containers. What's stored in there is hose and it's hose that contains propane and stinky stuff2 We close the loop on the hose by connecting the two ends together and we store in that facility rather than inside because it is a little bit of a smell, if you've ever smelled propane. It's not harmful as a by product or any kind of a flammable waste. It just stinks. That's why it's stored in those outside containers. But I got that idea from Prince's Paisley Palace who, he had a lot of those containers there. Well if he's doing it, it must be all right because he had about 13 or 14 of them and I think I ran it by the city when I was thinking about it. Those will be gone with the addition of the new building. So with, I don't know whether you noticed but there's some tubers, exhaust tubers.., in there and that will be probably more addressed on the mechanical drawings than what you saw initially. It's under the mezzanine. The back, north side of the building so it's, there's a mezzanine that runs along the north side of that additional wall and that's where that hose will be going. So I hope that answer the question. Kind: Yes. Martin Woody: My name's Martin Woody. I'm President of Martin Woody Architects. I'm the architect on the project. I had just a couple issues here with the 6 recommendations. The City is asking us to plant some additional evergreens at the western comer of the proposed addition. The landscape plan that we submitted shows there's 3 conifers and 2 deciduous trees at the northwest 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 comer of the properly. That are existing and they're actually not as far back as they're shown there. It's that L-1 drawing. They're actually right at the comer of the addition. David Obee: Those were part of the future concept that I had discussed with Bob 4 or 5 years ago. Martin Woody: They're shown more towards the northern properly line but they're actually right on the comer. David Obee: .... we talked about it 4 or 5 years ago. They actually cover this comer here. To add.., my name's Dave Obee. I'm the owner of the building. Proposing the addition. Peterson: We need to have you talk into the microphone one at a time so that people at home can hear. David Obee: Along that east perimeter properly line, at the time that we did the landscaping along that.., and the inspections department that we would extend the maples and the conifers that continued all the way to the back of the lot. So I knew this expansion was probably going to be happening here so if you see where the new bituminous parking lot is, and then there's A, B, A, B, A, B, A. Those trees are already in there. And we did that with the future in mind as long as I had the guy that was putting the trees in, I just decided to continue that all out so. There's a lot that's already in place for this building with the initial building going on. The sprinkler system has been sized for it. The electrical has been sized for it. Natural gas. Everything's been sized for it. It's just a matter of waiting for it to get to this point so, and I think Bob's aware of that. Peterson: What are you asking here? Martin Woody: Not to add any more trees. In the landscape report that Bob put together, the findings per the ordinance we have enough trees on the site. I think the concern was because obscure or soften the view on the northwest comer of the building where those trees are already in place. Peterson: Bob, does that statement change your opinion of the staff report at all? Generous: I'd like to review that... Peterson: So noted. Burton: I guess I have a question. I was a little bit confused because I've seen there's trees along the west side of the existing building but with the addition there aren't any trees. I thought that's what you were talking about. Aanenson: That was the point to soften the building. Burton: Yeah. 16 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 David Obee: These are up here now. These will be here, here and here. Kind: If you could keep it flat, then we can see it. David Obee: These 5 trees slide up to this comer right here. So to proportionate anything in here or here, I don't think.., these are all maples. To put in a couple more maples to add to that line, these are actually ashes. B, B and B are three ashes. And then these two A's are coniferous. Peterson: I think we can just work with staff between now and council and we can address that specific one. Martin Woody: I guess let's see on number 2, as far as the recommendations go. There's actually a reinforced concrete pipe, if you can look at the C-1 drawing. The civil drawing. That was installed outside the 20 foot utility easement. What we're trying to create on the north side of the building is, at the northeast comer we have a small curb and then we're thinking about putting some Class V along the north edge of the building for a fire access. So we're grading it out there a little ways, 30 feet or what not and adding some fill on top of that existing site. And the recommendation states, actually the reinforced concrete pipe is actually right here. It's about 5 feet to the south of the 20 foot utility easement. So I don't know when the city installed that pipe they missed.., so we're not going to, we're planning on not putting some extra load on that pipe but 4 feet of fill or whatever, but maybe 1 or 2 feet. Just enough so we can provide fire access along that northern side... Peterson: Dave, can you comment to that? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I guess I'm not aware of the storm sewer being outside the easement. I will certainly check on that because if it is then we're, we'll come back to the developer or applicant here and rectify the situation. The pipe that's in there is a concrete pipe but it is a lower grade concrete pipe that has a certain capacity to it. If you exceed that, you jeopardize the entirety of the pipe so. Another issue is maintenance. Should the pipe ever break, very seldom would that ever happen with a concrete pipe. There's always a chance but by placing more fill and also creating a fill slope condition over there and make it difficult for maintenance crews to access that area. Also heard the applicant mention just now about using the area as a gravel area. Is that, I thought that was going to be grass. David Obee: Somebody recommended that. Before you guys recommended it, consultants have used this as a fire lane...he's probably going to go ahead with the building the building. Most cities are asking for access to the back of the building so he just wants you to have it graded out rather than having change the print on the plan...just make it so that it's accessible for fire... Sounds like one step cut ofl~ It's more of a fire lane than anything else. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I guess I would like to comment, or like the Fire Marshal to address that a little bit because if you have a gravel surface there, that's going to be more impervious surface and more erosion potential with a gravel surface, maintenance upkeep. 17 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 If you want to do a driveway back there, I recommend that you have, require it be paved instead of gravel type surface. David Obee: We'd, Dave, like to comment on that. I think Martin had mentioned that putting Class V down and then over that putting a couple inches of finish black dirt and then seeding over that. Might solve that situation. I don't know. That's up to Mark or. Hempel: That's a possible solution to it, sure. David Obee: Whatever works. Asphalt, it doesn't matter to me. Hempel: I'm just concerned the pipe situation on the site. The trunk storm sewer. David Obee: With the asphalt Dave, if we did asphalt all the way back there, would that throw the storm sewer situation into a different twist? Hempel: No, I believe it would not. I'd still recommend no additional fill be placed over that pipe. Martin Woody: I think that we can achieve what we'd like to see there without adding any additional fill over that pipe. I guess my concern would be how did the pipe get outside the easement. Peterson: We can look at that with staff after the meeting. Other comments? Okay, thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Kind: Just to clarify what I heard. Those storage bin trailer things are out of there? David Obee: They're gone. Aanenson: That would be the stafl~s recommendation. Kind: Because that's really important to me that those go away. They're on the side where residents can see them. David Obee: I had them painted the same color as the building. Kind: I noticed tha. David Obee: So that was a consideration... Aanenson: They are illegal. I don't know who gave you permission but that's not a permitted use. They are illegal. I don't know who gave you permission but they're not permitted by city code. It wasn't anybody from... 18 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Peterson: We heard that they're going so it's not an issue. Thank you. Public hearing I guess. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thoughts commissioners. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have a quick question to clarify this. We're okay on the impervious surface right now, correct? Nor correct? Where are we with that? Generous: They're yes, under the impervious surface. Blackowiak: What is the requirement? Generous: I believe it's 35%. And they're at 32.6%. Blackowiak: Right. If we do any type of Class V or whatever, wouldn't that add to the impervious surface coverage? I mean Class V is basically asphalt. I mean it's crushed up but I mean it is impervious more or less. Peterson: But now if you put it with dirt and seeding on top. Blackowiak: You put dirt on? I've never heard of that in my life. Aanenson: This is one of those things I guess it would have been helpful if we had known ahead of time. We could have addressed all these issues. Generally we like the applicants to call or something. We maybe could have addressed some of the questions. Burton: We can tailor our conditions to have this looked at before it goes to Council. Blackowiak: Yeah, okay. But I'm just worrying that if you start doing, adding more impervious surface you might be over your limits so, okay. That was my question. Peterson: Any others? I'll entertain a motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman I'll give it a whack here. I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #95-11 (File 2) as shown on the plans prepared by Martin Woody Architects dated January 26, 2000 and subject to conditions that are shown on the report, 1 through 6. And I'll change 1 to be that the applicant and staff shall review landscaping plans prior to this matter being presented to the City Council. And replacing number 2 with the applicant and staff shall review the issues of the location of the utility easement and the actual location of the pipe prior to this matter going to City Council. I'd add number 7, that if there's going to be a hard surface drive to the back, that the Fire Marshall comments be obtained before presentation to City 19 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Council. And that in any event that that lane to the back be reviewed with staff prior to presentation to Council. Next condition would be that the present storage bins or trailers that are there be removed upon completion of the addition and they may not be used again on the premises without prior city approval. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95-11 (File 2) as shown on the plans prepared by Martin Woody Architects dated January 26, 2000, subject to the following conditions: The applicant and staff shah review landscaping plans prior to this matter being presented to the City Council. 2 The applicant and staff shah review the issues of the location of the utility easement and the actual location of the pipe prior to this matter going to City Council. 3. Wall mounted lights shall be shielded from direct off site view. 4. The addition is required to be protected with an automatic fire extinguishing system. 5. Two accessible parking spaces are required and the access aisle must be 8 feet wide. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. o If there's going to be a hard surface drive to the back, that the Fire Marshal comments be obtained before presentation to City Council. And that in any event that that lane to the back be reviewed with staff prior to presentation to Council. go The present storage bins or trailers that are there be removed upon completion of the addition and they may not be used again on the premises without prior city approval. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO RETAIL BUILDINGS~ BUILDING A HAVING 23~607 SQ. FT. AND BUILDING B~ 7~800 SQ. FT. TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 3RD ADDITION ON 20 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 PROPERTY ZONED BG~ GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78T}~ STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD INTERSECTION~ T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob. Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if we could comment about discussions with the applicant about moving the, well relocating Building B more towards the south. Where do we stand tonight? Generous: Their position is that they don't want to move the building further to the south. Sidney: Okay. Kind: And I'm interested in discussions on that south elevation. It looks light years better than it does in the blueprint plan. This color plan looks a lot better having that additional articulation and that spandrow of windows. I'm assuming spandrow means big windows? Generous: Yes. Kind: Okay. And were there any discussions about having those be functional windows or maybe even perhaps display windows so you could see some light? Generous: That was specifically in our original response to the applicant. That we believe that display windows could add some light to that area would be an improvement on the elevation and they went back and talked with their client and this is what they came back with. Kind: Okay. That's all for now. Peterson: Other questions of Bob? Burton: Yes Mr. Chairman. This might be kind of an ignorant question but the first condition talks, that the applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement, and I don't remember seeing that condition before. Is that because there usually is one already or does that always come after this process? Generous: It's required of all site plans. We've just been adding it into the conditions so that everyone's aware up front. Aanenson: What that is, they're agreeing to the terms and then if there's escrow for landscaping, that would be paid at that time. Generous: Or boulevard restoration, whatever. 21 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Peterson: Bob, in looking at the north elevation I'm assuming that the significant berm or hill back there is of no issue for the residents above. I mean we aren't concerned at all about the north elevations from that perspective because of that? Generous: Well that was part of it. We are concerned about that elevation but there is some articulation in the wall. It does drop halfway and one of the conditions that they looked at additional articulation on that north wall and additional landscaping. One of the reasons the landscaping is up at the top of the hill and closer to the properly line is to help the buffering for the... Aanenson; You're right though, you're going to see the roof of the building. But I guess our concern is too we want to see a perspective as you're coming down, heading south on Powers. You're going to see part of that building. That's what we address the landscaping issue. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Charlie James: Good evening. My name is Charlie James with T.F. James Company. Our office has been in Eden Prairie but most recently we just moved it up here on Highway 7 and Christmas Lake Road. Those two new buildings that are on the comer there are something that we just recently completed. We're in the brown building there. I guess I'd just like to, I see so many new faces here tonight so I guess I'd just, if you don't mind I'd like to maybe just take a little bit of time here and tell you about us and what we do and the history of the company and what we've done in your community in the past here. Basically we're a mostly held family business. We've been in business for over... I think one of the defining characteristics of our firm is that we're long term owners of the properly. We're not general contractors. That's not a profit scenario for us. We're not syndicators. We're not people that sell these things off to institutions. We build these projects for our own portfolio and we're in it for the long mn. We have many times situations where as this one where we have a 20 year lease with the prime tenant and we have many situations where we're into the first 5 or second 5 or third 5 year renewal of these same leases so we have very much of a vested interest and the building is high quality a project as we can. When we did the Byerly's project, I feel that there was a lot of input from everybody here at the city. All the staff members. I think we got a real nice project out of that. I was very pleased that although I'm not a member of either of these groups, that when the project was completed we received an award from, there was a banquet by the National Association of Business, Minnesota Shopping Center Association and the National Association of Office and Industrial Park. Basically commercial properly people. And there was a competition involving a large number of projects and we were given the award for the best community shopping center. So we're proud of that. We feel that this project is sort of the continuation of that. We would like to use the same brick that's on that project. And incorporate many of the same design features. This is not a prototypical Office Max. The prototypical Office Max is a tan block building with a lightweight steel skin canopy on the front of it and what you, the work product that you're seeing here before you this evening is really the tip of an iceberg. We've been at this for what, at least 18 months now and it's been a constant process of these people. The floor plan is atypical. The building 22 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 size is atypical. The brick all the way around is atypical. It's taken a long time to get to this point and there's been a lot of consideration that's been given to building placements. We have a lot of constraints to work with here. We have an existing grade here where there's a driveway at Twin City Federal and we have a slope graded back here. We have the grades of Powers at the low dip and the street here so everything has to kind of fit on this and one of the problems with relocating this building is that given the size of the floor area, it's very difficult for instance to take that building and put it here because you have to hold the elevation all the way across the side of that floor. You can't have a sloping floor in it and as a result for this driveway would enter into it, you'd be faced with just a huge drop off or a retaining wall situation so there's nothing really arbitrary or capricious about the placement of these buildings. There's a considerable amount of study that went into this. Tonight I have with me Jack Amdahl. Jack is a principle in an architectural finn KKE. I'd like Jack to have an opportunity to maybe explain the project characteristics in greater detail. I also have with me Tony Oxboro. Tony Oxboro is an associate at our finn and Tony will be the project manager and basically the point man on this project. While there are some things that I would like an opportunity to comment on later in the staff report, I will skip that for now save to correct one thing. With regard to the windows on the south elevation. Two of the windows down here are spandable glass and what that means is that it has every appearance of being regular glass. As a matter of fact there's spandable glass in the front of the Byerly's in those arches in many places. It reads as if it's vision glass but there's something behind that so that the light doesn't penetrate it but only two of these windows on this elevation are spandal and the other one is vision glass and that will be, you'll be able to see into the copy center. And one of the constraints that we had there was, in this type of store they stack the merchandise all the way to the ceiling and they have wall shelving all along these walls and there was only one place where we really had an opportunity to vision glass and staff had the idea that they thought a copy center where people are coming in and having things stapled, that is activity and people would see that sort of thing happening through the window so that will a vision window there. I guess at this point I can answer some questions or else I can just introduce Jack and let him maybe tell you a little bit about the building. Peterson: Any questions? Jack Amdahl: Jack Amdahl with KKE Architects. We are the architects for Building B and are working closely with the Hirshman finn in Ohio which are the architects of record for the Office Max building and we work concurrently in this proposal and along with Tony. Can you pick this up on the mic ifI reach over a little bit? I'm sure you're all familiar with this site .... north being up here. Just a pedestrian walkways along 78th Street here and up along Powers do exist to date here and we are connecting to those pedestrian walkways right up here which would connect across here and across the front of the proposed Office Max building, which would also provide for a link across here and across the front of Building B. There is a connection across from the Target here and up along the east property line that exists now and has a connection into the bank parcel here. We would continue that here so in essence we'd have a loop through the project here off 78th all through the project across the front of both buildings .... building does allow for our truck movements to be back behind the building here and screened from the public. The loading dock for this building, and then that grade loading pad area here for Building B which are tucked on the back of this site. Not visible from the west or the southeast, or southwest excuse me from 23 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 the intersection. And sort of tucked into the hill. It does require a small retaining wall here because it is a depressed loading dock, but that's all screened behind the building. At this time we're not asking for approval but in the southwest comer here it was noted in the plan that we are looking at a ground mounted monument sign and we feel that sort of anchors the comer of the site. Our buildings do parallel 78th Street and Powers. We feel sort of reinforces the comer of the site there. We're not some building that's skewed to the city streets. We're sort of following the grid and so forth, and carrying that over to the main field here. We have setback requirements for the parking and to get the most efficient use of the parking we've marched that up the hill here to Building B so we can make use of the grade that's there. And as was noted in the staff report, this siting and setting of the buildings here fit into this site. We haven't plowed a huge pad into the site and required retaining walls or forced it to the front of the site where we would have to actually take the buildings and have them up off78th Street so we'd have a level pad or have a lot of steps that would require ramps and something that wouldn't seem so natural in the site. In fact take a look at Building B here, this would be the south elevation. As you can see it mirrors a lot of the detail that's on Phase I of the project with the towers, the arched windows and so forth. We have lightened up the fagade of the building with the sign band which would be an EFIS material which is exterior insulation finish system. Synthetic stucco. And that would be across the front here. We are book ending on either side here with the tower features which do stick out from the building. This red band here is a metal awning that would be hung off the building and it tucks into both of the towers at either side so from the end of the building you can't see it but it's book ended between the two towers here. The materials we're looking at the identical brick to Phase I here. As you know it's a field of brick. It's not one color. There's three or four colors of brick in there. We're looking at the accent brick here which is typically at the top of the building and some banding through the arches of the building. This EFIS material here we're looking at two shades. The general sign band would be this shade and this would be sort of a cornice at the top. Kind of artificial shading and shadow with different color. The pre-finished metal would be complimentary to the brick which is at the top of the building and also this color. We are looking at a different store front system. We're looking at clear anodized which is basically looks like brushed aluminum for the store front system from the previous project feeling that's a little lighter. Little more inviting to the building. And then of course the red color here and that carries over from the Office Max building. We go to the Office Max building. We go to the Office Max building. This would be the easterly elevation facing the parking lot field and Charlie described the change of this from a prototype building but we are looking at the same brick here on Phase I of Building B with the accents at the top. Similar color EFIS material for their sign band. There is a projecting metal canopy at their front entrance here and have some accents at the top of that in red and also on either side with these projecting pylasters off of the building. So it's a very strong entrance to the building. Similar on the south side that feature is carried to the south side. The upper portion of it with the sign band, the pylasters on either side, and then the spandrow windows that were discussed on the westerly edge. Westerly end of the south elevation and then the vision window here at the copy center. If there's any other questions I'll be able to answer later on. Peterson: One of the questions that was noted in the conditions was adding the entrance or potentially an entrance in the employee lounge area. Could you speak to that at all? Or have you guys thought about it further? 24 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Tony Oxsboro: My name is Tony Oxsboro. As Charlie said I'm with the T.F. James Company and that's something that was brought up by the staff and we would certainly be happy to explore that and try to work with staff to accommodate a vision glass on that side of the lounge area and I think he also indicated an interest in exploring an outside patio type area and that's something that we would certainly be willing to look into. I think I'd have to gather some input from the occupant of the building and I haven't done that yet. I thought we'd see how the meeting went here tonight but I think we'd be open to exploring that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Did you consider using a lighter color brick and not keep it the same as the Byerly's complex? Tony Oxsboro: No, we never did. We thought we were, as Charlie said and I attest to that, pretty proud of, we like what we did on the first phase and we wanted to continue the look all the way through the West Village Center Phase II so it appeared to be one entire master plan development. And so that came up. Kind: I think Byerly's center is one of the nicest shopping centers we have in town. The nicest one. I think it's lovely. I'm a little concerned that more of that same brick is going to be a little monotonous and I guess I would like to encourage you to consider maybe using, treating these two buildings as kind of a separate thing and consider a lighter color brick or different or whatever. Just an idea. And then I'm going to get back to my fake windows thing. I'm really concerned for you guys that it's going to look like the store's closed with those windows being dark. So I'm trying to figure out a way to get some light in there. It's possible, I'm thinking that you could access them from the outside. You know have them be locked and have them be display windows only where you don't need to, you can still stack this stuff inside up to the ceiling but on the outside you could access these display windows. I'd like you to think about that. Jack Amdahl: Certainly. I'm not sure how we could work that out, and I think we did have some discussions about having that possibility with some lighting inside those things perhaps and then it gets into an entirely different design because you have to accommodate maintenance and access issues and so you have to have hinges and a whole different window system. So I'm not sure what the answer is. Kind: Thank you. Jack Amdahl: You're welcome. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: I do have a couple more questions actually. Peterson: Of staff or? 25 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Kind: Stafl~ Peterson: Go ahead. Kind: Go ahead? Bob, I noticed on the site plan that there's some bolts for banners being integrated into the building. Is that common that we have that and are banners allowed? Aanenson: Yes. We do allow it. Generous: ... banners are permitted. Kind: Okay. Generous: It's probably good on their part that they accommodate then now than trying to gerry rig it later. Kind: This will be the most pleasing way to have a banner. Aanenson: Byerly's has them. They have the wine sale up there. Target does when they're looking employees. Our ordinance accommodates that. Kind: And do you need a permit to have the banner up? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: It's a nominal fee but we do. Just to make sure we regulate how many days they're up. Kind: And oh, the applicant, how do you feel about the proof of parking, green space area? Nobody spoke to that. Charlie James: I've been around here long enough that I remember when other monuments or decorative features went into the other end of Chanhassen. As a matter of fact I believe we were assessed just for those as part of the overall downtown improvements that went in. We have some ideas, as we got that staff report we had some ideas of some things that could be done. One of them was that with this sign area here, one thing that could be done with that would be to maybe add some wrought iron fences at either end of it and then bring that down to maybe some sort of brick pillar with some, I don't know the architectural do dad on top. Do dad's but you know you could dress that thing up and put, I don't know if you've seen these things before but where the wrought fence is kind of an anchor either side of that and they're kind of come down and then be tied into other elements. Something like that's a possibility that we could go back and add something like this to the sign. The other thing that I'd be willing to work with staff on is if the city wants an easement and they want to build another one of these Chanhassen towers like you've got at the other end of the village, you know if there's an area here that could accommodate that, 26 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 we'd be willing to grant an easement or whatever to the city if they'd like to do that. The problem that we get into with reducing the parking as we've got a lease with Office Max that says 5 cars per 1,000. And so in trying to hold the lot coverage down, let me back up here a little bit. When we did the first phase with Byerly's I think it was unique at that time because correct me if I'm wrong Bob and Kate, but I think it was the first time a commercial project had done in the City of Chanhassen that came in under straight zoning and we didn't come in with a PUD and say well we don't want to meet the setback or we don't want to have this many parking and so we just looked at the ordinance and says what do we have to do and we built to it. And I think the only variance that was required there is to have one, two buildings on one lot. And so there was a request there to detach the Kinko's from the strip and put it out as a free standing building and that required a variance and then that request came from staff and the idea was to kind of, not just have a long strip but to have more things happening this way as you went along the street. And so similarly on this project here, again where this is not a PUD request. What we're trying to do is come in. Look at your zoning ordinance and meet the letter of the law to a T. And the lot coverage ratio is I believe 70%. We're only proposing to cover 65% of that to have more green area. So we're right at where we need to be on the parking so any, for instance Office Max has in their lease, they have a specific criteria that says, what is it? 100 cars within how many feet of the front door? Jack Amdahl: 200 feet. Charlie James: That is very specific criteria and then they have criteria that say we need 5 cars per 1,000 and basically if there's ever any kind of condemnation or diminishment of that parking they have a right to terminate their lease. So it would be disastrous for us at this point to come in and propose to eliminate some of this parking. We'd be jeopardizing our lease with these folks right now, but to the extent that there's land down here available, you know we could work with the city and create an easement or we could certainly buff up that sign and do some increased plantings around that and put some kind of wrought iron fences there or something, we'd be willing to look at that. As long as I'm up here there were a couple other things I wanted to mention in passing here. It was noted in the staff report here that apparently there's some discrepancy in the required proposed landscaping. And as a matter of fact when we went through it we came up with a different count than staff came up with but in any event I guess we'd stipulate to the fact that you know, whatever you want or you know we want this to look nice too. So we'll take care of that. Peterson: Is that whatever you want relate back to the Kinko building too? Charlie James: Well, every time I come in this office you know, I always have to look over my shoulder because Bob and Kate are usually waiting to button hole me going when are you going to put some trees and shrubs behind that, so we're going to do that as a part of this because they'll never leave me alone if we don't. Kind: Way to go guys. 27 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Charlie James: And the other thing is that they were talking in the report here, it mentions Marshal Ash and one of the real challenges in that project over there is, Chanhassen I think was unique at the time in saying that they wanted overstory trees in a parking lot. And I think that came from Dick Wing and he was, I remember him talking about, he's an airline pilot and he used to fly over Los Angeles and he's say, I'd look down and I'd see all these trees and they can have them there, why can't we have them here. The problem is, is that blacktop gets hotter than heck and overstory trees have huge root systems and at some point as they grow, the heat kills them and they don't get enough nutrients and water and everything because, so this was really an experiment down there. We talked to people at the Arboretum, at the University of Minnesota and we came up with this, those weird pipes. I don't like it but that's what you have to do to aerate the thing to keep it from getting too hot and all those things. If we were just putting crab apples in there or something, it wouldn't be an issue but in any event, and this, I don't know if this came from our engineers but they talked about Marshals Ash and what we'd like to do is put Locust in there because that's what was recommended to us as having the best chance of survival and that's what we did over there. So on page 7 1 believe it is of the report, it's in the landscaping section there's a reference to that Marshal Ash. We'd have that to be Locust and then as far as any discrepancy between what's required or proposed, we'll just get together with Bob and Kate and get that figured out. One of the things is is that we're proposing to pull all this landscaping up the hill because that's where it will do the most good. The wall of this building back here, even though, I mean we're going to cost $7.00 a square foot just to hang brick on the outside of this building. The block is $7.00 a square foot. Then it costs another 7 to hang brick on that and we're putting brick along here but even though this wall might be about what is it Jack, about 20 feet tall or something? I mean this whole is such that these people won't really see that much of the back wall itself and so what we're proposing to do here is to pull all the trees up the slope because no one will see them back there at the base of this thing anyway. And that way it will be more of an effective screen and more beneficial to be at the top of the hill than at the toe of the hill. So that was the rationale there. I guess the other thing, ifI could, I'd just like to address a couple of things in the recommendation. We'll start with item number 6 on the recommendations. In working with people at Office Max, this curved line under here is no accident. Typically what they have is a rectangular background here and then they have what they call a smoosh. It's kind of like the Nike thing, and so that was very important to them to have that curved element. And when it was discovered that we could have another sign on this side of the building, one of the things that we did was to work with them. Their standard sign or lease specifications call for 6 foot letters here. We negotiated that down to 5 foot letters but they were very insistent on this type of background for their sign and so basically that left us with the option or just putting some, you know just hanging these letters on the side of the building and so we wanted to do something and I guess I, this was not intended here as a fake entrance and our concern was that if this windows for instance would have been in this area, even in the span of, well first of all they all have to be spandrow but this might get confusing to people when they pull in there and they might thing well this is the entrance when in fact the entrance is on this side with the metal canopy over it. But we felt that this, having this feature and then we insisted that this sign panel which, in their prototype sent sticks up like the old Western... We wanted that anchored with this kind of power element that's a direct reference to the clock tower, to Byerly's entrance on the other building there and so I think what we ended up with here was a nice balance with the windows down here and the window without making this really read as another entrance. So it wasn't intended to be a 28 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 fake entrance. What we were trying to do is make the best of their demand for signage on this side of the building. And then for this curved element here. So we have a lot of things kind of... on this building. On the front, and on this side we have a lot of things kind of going in and out but if you look between Powers Boulevard and is it Kerber? That's on this. Okay. If you look between Powers and Kerber, really there's a lot of things going on with those buildings and as you pull into Byerly's, you look down the driveway and you see the Twin City Federal tower and so these buildings are pushed back and pulled forward and so it's not just a monotonous band of buildings all along your main street there. And that was a very deliberate thing. I do have some concern about your request for windows and things on this side of the building. As far as the north elevation goes, I mean we've got a lot of detailing going in here. We're putting the same materials on the back of the building that no one's ever going to see that we have in front. But we have very subtle design going on here with soldier courses and these contrasting colored bricks and some stone accents and this sort of thing and we have these shadow lines that are built in here. I guess I would argue that on this west side of the building you're coming down the hill from Powers Boulevard and I'm a little hesitant to do a lot of things that call a lot of attention to this side of the building. I think by doing some really nice landscaping there, the affect as you're coming down this hill and as you turn the comer, you're entering the town. And then you're seeing this south elevation but I'm a little concerned about the request for some further what I'll call decoration or something on that side. I think this is a very subtle and very tailored look on this side. The drawings I don't think do as good a job as they could of showing that. We have different bed brick or some brick that's like 3 inches deep and some that's 4 inches, standard 4 inches so we're creating shadow lines there and some other things. I think those could be pulled out a little bit more. I don't think the brick people on the first phase maybe did as good a job as pulling those out as far as they could be pulled out from the wall to get an even stronger shadow but I guess in my opinion I think that if we, particularly if there's some sort of monument or we did something with the sign with wrought iron or something, I think this might look a lot nicer here. If we just used this wall with this very sort of subtle and tailored motif on the back. There's kind of a back drop. Some really nice landscaping and you come down the hill and turn and then you're in town and everything's kind of oriented towards the street here. So that was a concern of mine. The comments in item 5 and I guess I addressed item 6. And as far as item 7 goes, about the proof of parking, I think we've explained the constraint that we have there with the lease and also trying to maximize the green area on the space and again we can either buff up the existing sign there and really make a feature or we could work with the city to do another one of your entrance monuments. One other thing, item 14. They say the proposed water main connection between the lots shall be deleted and again that was intentional and the whole idea of that is, there's two water lines that come in to serve the buildings and the idea is that you try to loop things because whenever you loop two systems you get a higher pressure than if you're just trying to push water. And similarly if one of the valves should fail or freeze or something, then you've got water that can travel an alternate route so that's not a big point but I really didn't understand why someone was objecting to looping when in fact when we built Phase I we were required to loop all the way around the whole project. And item 18 they talk about a traffic control plan and I'm wondering if that, I guess that's a question for Bob and Kate. What we're talking about there is that like we had to do in the first phase where we come in and show where stop signs are going to go and where the fire lanes and cross, okay. Alright, I understand that then. And item 19, I've been told that our engineers are reworking some of these retaining walls to keep them all at about, 29 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 what was it 3 to 4 feet? 3 to 4 feet. And I guess that's the extent of my comments. I guess we're happy to continue to work with staff on these things and I just wanted you to know that there are some very real reasons for why things are the way they are. And sometimes it's not as easy as you might think. If you'd have any other questions I'd be happy to respond. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Motion to close public hearing. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anyone have any additional comments that they care to make? Kind: Mr. Chair I'd like Dave to address the water main question and also the Carver County Engineer letter about stacking. At that comer. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. To address the water main connection. Mr. James is right. Most the time we do like to see a looped water system from fire flow protection and water quality standpoint. However I'm told through our Buildings Division that due to the two separate lots, separate buildings, plumbing codes require they have individual water services, not interconnected. There may be something where we could put a valve on each end of it to isolate it so they're not connected and should one of the lines break at one time or something for emergency or fire sprinkler purposes, they can open that valve so I will research that one further with our building department. Kind: And then the stacking traffic. Hempel: The staff and the applicant did have an initial conversations regarding that because the existing access that's out there today will actually be removed and moved westerly approximately 60 feet to accommodate the site drive aisles and alignments of the building and so forth so we did have some discussion and some concern and it's mainly going to be affected during the peak rash hour, during the afternoon. That seems when there's the most traffic westbound on West 78th Street to go southbound on Powers to get onto Highway 5. One thing that may help the situation in the future is with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 we will extend that West 78th Street or north frontage road west of Powers that will carry more thru traffic instead of having to get back out onto Highway 5. It gives the people an option.., so that may reduce some of the stacking problems that currently occur out there. What it's going to do is require the customer to evaluate whether they want to go out that access or go further to the east back through TCF and come out at Target Lane where the traffic signal is. Kind: I agree. It's going to be... 30 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Conrad: Just a comment Mr. Chair. Stafl] on condition 5 in your report. You talked, the second sentence you talked about the north and west elevations. And I'm kind off I'm not sure what you want to do on the north. It's pretty much a buried side. If we have our druthers it's the west that's of concern. Aanenson: Right. I think that the applicant has pointed out the concern that we have is what you see driving when you come down future extension of West 78th this is going to be your perspective of the downtown. So what we talked to the applicant, we met again on Friday and Bob had indicated the employee lounge which Tony said they haven't spoken to Kinko's but what we're trying to do is make this comer, where we talked about kind of, to encourage the pedestrian, the kind of street furniture or something so we've asked them to look at that. And Charlie has indicated too of looking at a further defined sign or something like that but we would see something, in front of Byerly's you can sit outside. We're trying to encourage something, in front of Richfield Bank's the fountain. While this might not be the appropriate place for a fountain but something else. If you're waiting for someone to pick you up. Something besides a bus shelter but something else that you've arrived and that's what we're kind of talking about. It doesn't have to be formalized as a bench. It could be some other landscaping but what we're thinking too is, Bob had talked about the employee lounge came out that side and something else to warm it up so it's not just a cold wall. Conrad: Where is the? I thought the employee lounge was on the southwest comer. Okay. Aanenson: Approximately here where you can have people sitting out on tables. Generous: Just north of that drawing. Conrad: Okay. But the north side is not a problem, is it? That's what I'm trying to. Aanenson: Probably not. You're not going to see it from above and by the time you come down the hill, you're going to be past most of it. You're right. I think this elevation is probably the stronger one when you're coming into downtown, correct. Conrad: Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that. I listened to Charlie, and Charlie it's fun to hear you talk. You're mellowing in the years and I'm the only one that knows that. Charlie James: We're getting old. Conrad: Yeah I know.., this is your last project here. I like to hear your rationale. It's fun. I know it's real stuff2 Yet on the other hand, seriously the, that comer is real important. It's like an entrance and you've got your back to the entrance. In any development you don't like to do that. In anything that I'm aware of you're welcoming so I think I really want you to pay attention to that. I heard what you said and there's some logic to it but on the other hand, a window there might be friendly. Even a fake window, which I hate, but something that warms up that comer. And staff and I'm not sure I'm making a motion here. Somebody else can do that but I think Charlie brought up a real significant feature. We have the clock tower at the other end of the city. 31 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 I think this is an opportunity that you don't pass by. If we care you know. The City can do something there. Maybe there aren't monies right now but I think we should take a real serious look at what we can do to be welcoming. It doesn't necessarily have to be the applicant that does the welcoming. He's got a business function to do but I think it's real clear we should have something there that says you know, Welcome to Chanhassen comparable to the other end of the city. That's an opportunity we shouldn't lose and if we have to pay for it, that's fine. We should and just so we get the property or we get the easement right now. I think that's real important. Peterson: Okay. Other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Ladd. I think this is a really good opportunity to protect that comer and the only thing I would really add to what Ladd said is, if we have to look at getting creative to keep, find them some additional parking or make room so that we can do that, then I think that we should. And get creative here to make this work. Otherwise I think that with the staff recommendations it's a nice project and I like it. Peterson: Yeah and I agree too. I could not recommend it going on to Council without doing something to that west elevation. That something has yet to be determined but I'm not at all comfortable letting it go as it is. It's not dissimilar to the Kinko building. It's certainly not as much traffic as close but, and Charlie I told you this before too. The last time you were here, every time I drive by that Kinko building I just, I cringe. And I don't want to cringe every time I drive by this one so I'm pretty passionate about that. Motion? I haven't had breakfast yet. Conrad: Okay, I'll make the motion. Unless somebody really wants to. Kind: No, go for it. I might have some amendments. Conrad: That's okay. I'd make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-6, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Incorporated dated 1/28/00, subject to the conditions of the staff report. All 31 of them with the following changes. On condition 5, I want to take the word north out of the sentence. Just so everybody knows. I'll sacrifice the north side if we get the west side taken care of. Peterson: I agree. Conrad: Okay. Condition 14. Staff reviews that issue before it gets to the City Council. In one of these conditions there a landscaping plan recommendation that is talking about trees. Wherever it is. Kind: Number 9. Conrad: Thank you very much. And that's probably a good motion but I'd like staff to review the specific trees that are planted in the parking lot with the applicant and consider his request for a change. Condition 32. Staff determines the way the City can build a monument or welcoming clock tower on the southwest comer of the site and make sure that the applicant has this 32 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 diagramed in the site plan that is presented to the City Council. Those are the only things I have right now. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: I'll second the motion. Peterson: Any discussion? Burton: Mr. Chairman I'm just wondering if we want to take a look at number 6 based on the applicant's comments. About the fake entrance. Or if we should just leave it the way it is and let that get hashed out. Conrad: I didn't know how to handle that one. Peterson: Any previous suggestions Kate? Aanenson: Well obviously they don't want to send the mixed signal where the front door is. Our preference would be to have the door facing the other way. We've heard from them that that's not acceptable from them. I guess what we would like them to do is go back one more time based on the conversation tonight with Office Max to make sure that some of these suggestions can be accommodated. If not, then we review that at the time of the City Council meeting. I guess our concern was that enough to make it look like you're not looking at a side or just the signage. Does it need something else to make it look, spandrow windows on one side and the open window I think helps a lot. It's moved a long way from when we first saw it. Conrad: See I didn't know if your report really reflected. Aanenson: It does. It's the canopy issue still. If you look at. Peterson: Because I haven't got a problem with the way it is now. Aanenson: Well I guess that's the issue. I guess if this is enough on that side. Conrad: It looked okay to me. Peterson: Yeah, I didn't see an issue. Aanenson: You might want to modify 6. You may just want to delete that entire condition. Conrad: Okay, I think I would do that. Again I really want the focus on the west side. I tell you, you've got to do something there. Our ordinance, well. You've got to do something there. You just can't put a back to the traffic coming in and that's what you've got right now so if taking 6 ofl] I would make that motion. Part of my motion that 6 be deleted from the staff report. 33 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Peterson: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. We had some discussion. Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-6, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. dated 1/28/00, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, dark bronze anodized with square heads. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one- half foot candle. 3. Wall signs shall not exceed five percent of the total area of the east and south elevations of Building A and five percent of the south elevation of Building B. Staff has calculated the sign area for building A as follows: east elevation based on 3,735 square feet permitted sign area of 187 square feet; and south elevation based on 4,351 square feet permitted sign area 217 square feet. A separate sign permit application shall be required for all signage. The applicant shall further investigate the possibility of relocating Building B closer to West 78th Street. If this cannot be done, then the applicant shall provide the city with an analysis of why this cannot be achieved. 5. Windows shall be added at the employee lounge area in the southwest comer of the Building A, a canopy shall be incorporated over the doorway and windows, and a patio shall be provided in this area. The west elevations shall be further modified to incorporate one or more of the followings: add windows or more articulation in the walls (perhaps through the use of columns or larger recesses). 6. Deleted. The western portion of the south parking lot for Office Max shall be shown as proof of parking and instead this area shall be used to create an artistic feature including sculptures, fountains, benches, gazebo, etc. 8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from views from the public right-of-ways. The applicant shall revise proposed landscape plan to meet minimum landscape ordinance requirements. In addition, the landscaping along the western and northern sides of the building shall use larger caliper trees to help soften the long expanses of relatively blank wall areas. Staff shall review the applicant's proposed change in tree species to be placed in the parking lot. 34 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 10. The applicant shall work with staff to revise landscape island configurations in order to meet provide acceptable space for plant growth. 11. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City Engineer upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City Engineer will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 12. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the westerly property line. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored and revegetated and the City authorizes removal. 13. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Carver County Highway Department, and Chanhassen Building Department. 14. Staff shall review this issue prior to going to the City Council meeting. The proposed watermain connection between the lots shall be deleted. 15. If earthwork material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City staff the designated haul routes and traffic control signage plan for approval prior to hauling activities commencing. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. Hauling earthwork material east along West 78th Street through the downtown will not be permitted. All construction vehicles shall access the site from a designated location along West 78th Street. 16. The existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be preserved/protected from construction activities. If any city boulevard trees need to be relocated as a result of site improvements they shall be transplanted or replaced in kind in a location designated by the City Forester. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement of any boulevard tree that does not survive for up to one year after the certificate of occupancy has been issued. 17. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustments to the City's utilities systems, streets, sidewalk, street lights and boulevard impacted by the site improvements. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit for construction in right of way for work performed within West 78th Street right of way. A financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $10,000 will be required to guarantee boulevard restoration. 18. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and separate building permits obtained. 35 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 20. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both parcels. 21. The applicant shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Ordinance. 22. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic fire extinguishing system. 23. The east wall of building B must be one-hour fire-resistive construction where it is closer than 20 feet to the property line. 24. Each building must be provided with one access aisle for accessible parking that is a minimum of eight feet wide. 25. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 26. Referencing the 23,607 square foot building, the fire department sprinkler connection must be located near the main entrance to the store. Contact the Fire Marshall for exact location. 27. The P. I. V. shall be equipped with electronic tamper device. 28. Fire sprinkler design shall be submitted for review and approval. It must be designed for high piled storage. 29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department's notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. 30. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshall for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to the Fire Marshall for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy #29-1992." 32. Staff determines the way the City can build a monument or welcoming clock tower on the southwest comer of the site and make sure that the applicant has this diagramed in the site plan that is presented to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS AND MINUTES: 36 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 Aanenson: I'll kind of combine new business and minutes. Next week or the next regular meeting which will be the 15th we have several things scheduled, plus we will have Planning Commission interviews. There's a Met Council Liquor Waste Disposal Site we've been trying to land for a couple of years. So that's a Met Council proposal and the City co-applicants. We do have a one lot subdivision. Interpretation of the sign ordinance on... Bikes over on Villages on the Ponds. A small variance and code amendment for... There might be some issues on that. Blackowiak: On what? I'm sorry. Aanenson: Agricultural zone amending the zoning district to allow for a petting zoo. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I didn't quite hear. Aanenson: I'm not sure we've identified all the issues yet. We've been working on this for quite a while. It ended up being a little bit bigger than we anticipated so that, and then we'll have time for interviews. To date we have one applicant so we'll try to block off time. I may give you a call Craig and I was wondering, depending on how we do this, if you wanted to start earlier. Do the interviews first. So you're not tired. I don't know that works. Again I'll try to gauge that so I may be giving you a call. Just so a heads up. LuAnn's going to be gone that week. That meeting tOO. Peterson: As we discussed before, my preference is to have people sit through a meeting so there may be, whether it's that meeting or, it'd probably be easiest to do it that meeting. Aanenson: Yes, great. Good suggestion. And if they hang around the interview, well there you go. Peterson: Exactly. First hurdle. Aanenson: The first hurdle. Okay, and then just other ongoing issues. We did receive an environmental assessment and the complete application for Eckankar's master plan. We hadn't disclosed that yet because it wasn't a completed application but they will be on for April 6th. At this time they're just going forward with one office building which is how many square feet? Generous: 60,000. Aanenson: And a celebration center which is about 10,0007 Generous: Yes. Aanenson: 10,000 square feet but what we've asked them to do is do an ultimate build out for that entire site so we have that disclosed. It may take a long time to build the entire thing up but they do have a complete master plan so we'll see the first component of that. First and second I guess. So that again will be an environmental assessment document and then approving a PUD April 6th. So I think that will probably be a lengthy document. Pulte Homes is coming in. I'm 37 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 trying to keep those not on the same agendas. So they've kind of missed their deadline and won't be making it, so they'll be another week or two down the road but they are also finishing up their environmental. Updates on Marsh Glen. That was tabled at the City Council. Both Marsh Glen and Powers Ridge will be back on the next City Council meeting which is I believe March 13th. It looks like they resolved the temporary access for Marsh Glen. We've asked the applicant to have another meeting with the neighborhood. The cell tower issue is still ongoing. The City Council tabled that on Monday night. And they're studying it a little bit further. Looking at the fire station and now we're getting calls from neighbors close to that one so. So, there's still a lot of development. Kind of bigger, back to bigger issues. We've got the little subdivisions but we're kind of framing up some large, examples are Pulte and the Eckankar so, and I told you Phil, this is his last meeting. Phil will be gone next week. He got a great opportunity so we'll miss him. And that's all I had. Peterson: Should we do the Chair and Vice Chair? Aanenson: Yeah, I'll put that on the April meeting. On that Eckankar meeting. Generally we do that the first meeting. The way I've got this set up, if we do the interviews on the 13th, that will go to the April 3rd with the City Council and if they make a recommendation, we kind of know where everybody's at, if that makes sense. If we've got that. If it doesn't fall on that first meeting Craig, then I'd suggest the second. Peterson: Yeah, because I'm gone the 5th. Aanenson: You are? Okay. Peterson: Hopefully. Note of the previous meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kind moved, Conrad seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 16, 2000 as presented. Peterson: Meeting adjourned. Conrad: Oh, wait a sec. Can I have open discussion? Peterson: Let's vote to re-open the meeting. Kind: Are you serious? Peterson: No. Conrad: The issue tonight brings up a point. We're probably too late, and maybe we don't care but we're putting in big boxes and somehow it's always been a nice thought that we could have specialty retail, smaller things here in town. And we really get caught. I guess I'd like to have staff report back to us, is there anything we can do right now to encourage specialty, smaller units. Not chains in. You know the Dinner Theater will be retrofitted some day probably and that whole 38 Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2000 mall might be, you know. I guess I'm looking for a vision to say, I don't want to look like a chain city and Charlie brings in a good product here. That's pretty good stuff but geez. We will look like every other suburb. Aanenson: If you recall what we did on Villages on the Ponds, we capped the square footage that any single user could take. That's how we did that. Conrad: I'd sure like you to report on that. And I don't know if there's what availability there, and I don't know. It may apply to nothing but again I think that's something we should look at. Aanenson: Okay. Conrad: And probably the thing that's obviously, here we got it again. We have buildings on comers and we struggle to try to get them to do stuff for us so the second though would be, Kate could you report back. Should we do something so we've got more, we have no leverage other than you guys negotiating. I don't know how you negotiate on a site plan like this to get them to do what you want. Aanenson: Right. The one thing is we got all brick. Very nice. It's first class but then the other part is, it's got it's back to the...that's a big footprint. Kind: I forgot to ask, is this a smaller, is this a mini max? Is this smaller than their normal store? Aanenson: Compared to the one in Minnetonka, I'm not sure. We can find that out. That's a good question. Kind: I forgot to ask that question. Because it seems like it's smaller than. Peterson: They said it was but it didn't say proportionally how much smaller. Burton: It looks pretty normal. Blackowiak: Yeah, I thought it was comparable to Eden Prairie. That's kind of what. Kind: Eden Prairie is Office Depot. Blackowiak: I get them mixed up. I kept on having to look to see what the name was. Office Max. Office Depot. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39