The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2008 01 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2008 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Terry Jeffrey, Water Resources Coordinator COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. Public Present: Name Address William Thibault 11712 Wayzata Boulevard Aanenson: …and the narrowness of that for residential and to get driveways in there. As you heard from Mr. Gowen, he’s interested in the medium density but he’s not sure what his time frame is. So what we’re stating there is that the challenge on this is to get something that makes a good transition then office building, and that would be through design standards. How we look at the buffering. Noise attenuation. Those sort of things to make that a good use, so we are still recommending that that remain office. We just want to respond to the comments that were raised by the neighbors there. Any questions on that one? Then we’ll move to the next one. This piece, we recommended the office zoning on this piece. Maybe you could slip Bob, right to the next one too. The applicants proposed, and this entire packet and our response, there’s a lot more dialogue in the staff report. They presented a proposal that showed retail commercial and wanted to consider retail at this intersection. They felt that that was desirable. We had some concerns on that north side. We talked about doing it, giving the office zoning on that south side. Again as that transitional use. With the premise that the green space be preserved on that north side, increasing the ponding. We had some concerns about traffic generation. Access and those sort of things so we are still recommending that that stay office again and the applicant would like to see that mixed use or dual guiding on that piece, but we’re recommending that, we are up zoning it because it is currently zoned residential, so our recommendation does up zone it but not to the level and extent that the developer, and again the entire, in your Chapter 2 attachments, the entire response. The entire proposal from the applicant and staff’s responses in there. Commercial pieces, Parcel 33, 34, and 36. The piece that we’ve identified as the Fox, Fox Family and the Dorsey parcels. We had recommended a dual guiding on that property. This is a piece of property that we had potentially considered the regional mall, and we’ve also dual guided that as pure office. Again the rationale for that is if for some reason the regional mall, or Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 whatever, however we define that mall, was to come about, that we have the dual guiding. There was a lot of discussion. You heard, we handed out last time, Maxfield Research had said the concern about the downtown. We also had the Chamber supported the commercial itself. We did attach emails from residents that, a significant amount that were in favor of that, and some that were still, had some, the concerns about that. Again the staff’s position on that is that is a zoning district we will be creating if that’s the direction the City Council wants to go, and you will see that zoning district and how that operates. Again the goal of that is to provide the bulk height. How that’s going to look. Articulation and then some of the other things that we desire. We talked about lead construction. Energy efficient. Those sort of things that we would talk about for the mall itself, but again we’re satisfied that if it doesn’t become that use, that a pure office zoning would work for that. Any questions on that one? Then the next one, there should be an area map there somewhere. This is the Erhart piece. This piece is currently zoned residential. The staff did recommend a pure office zoning of 12 acres, right at adjacent to Powers Boulevard and the City does have a lift station going there. We did hire a consultant to look at a land use, but so did the applicant, and I’ll just briefly touch on those just to make sure that that’s back in the record. They presented, I know it’s a little hard to see that last time. We had some problems getting the disk into the computer system so this is the applicant’s proposal to consider actually having dual guiding so it’d be residential and/or the pure office zoning on that so it’d be significant, you see where the residential is. One of the other issues that was raised, and I had, I believe that’s up there. The tax comparison. I’ll try to zoom in that real quick too. This was an issue that was raised at the meeting. So that we looked at, we actually had the city’s financial consultants, Ehlers and Associates review the difference. So this would be, if it was office retail, a comparison. If it was to be office retail, you can look at the comparisons. So what would the City’s, there’s 3 options there. If you looked at Option #1, if you can follow on the top box. Option #1 would be 45 acres of office. With surface parking. Option #2 would be with a ramp. Then #3 would be retail. Retail with a ramp. And then 40 acre business park and 40 acres commercial. So if you followed down the next box generates what the local tax would be, so clearly if it was high end office with a ramp parking it’s going to generate the highest percentage of property tax. Now we also did a comparison showing the different potentials for, if it was residential. Go ahead and flip that. And again this was in your packet. So we looked at the 4 options there. One being 80 units of single family again, with the different market value, depending on the price points. 80 units of single family, 240 townhouses, and 640 of apartments, so again you can see the following under the second box, property tax estimates. You could see the potential tax revenue there. So if you look back at the high end office with the parking ramp, clearly that generates the greatest percentage, or portion of local taxes. Again the point that we’re raising in here, we certainly accept that as an option and that’s one of the factors of looking at land uses. If you go back to our original chart, we did recommend that we’re increasing 200 acres of office zoning. We’re creating that. What we don’t know here is the potential for the what’s going to happen on the other side of the street. That could be more office, if the mall didn’t go through. This is the proposal, let me back out. This is the proposal that the staff had done looking at this site itself, and using that 12 acres. This is Powers Boulevard. The interchange. We do have a city owns property in that area, and the city park that’s identified there. It says park and the preserved land would be working through that, making that connection with trails. So again the applicant would like to see the option of having that dual guided, which would allow for residential or the pure office zoning. 2 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 At this point in time the staff again is recommending the original proposal which would be just the 12 acres adjacent to the Powers Boulevard. Any questions on that one? McDonald: Anybody have any questions? I've got a couple questions for you in this particular area. The first one is, for one of the first times we're beginning to kind of look at what's the impact of taxes on development. Is there a way, a mechanism to put this into use as we go forward with making decisions and everything about property and it's use? Aanenson: Yeah, and we have done that. We did it on Liberty on Bluff Creek. We looked at the tax consequences there. I think we have to always step back and say, if we're going to say we're always going to go with that, we wouldn't do maybe something, some affordable housing project. We have to put that in context in the entire mix and we’re confident the mix that we’re recommending is the responsible way to go by way of increasing that amount of commercial and the amount of, and I’m talking about the entire land use in the city into the future and increasing the pure office. So if you notice the one that we did reduce was office industrial and Bob’s got that chart. So if you look at what, where we are trying to increase is more in that pure office zone, which we do have a lot of is the office showroom. And so we’re trying to attract that higher end office. McDonald: Okay. And then one of the other questions I’ve got on your recommendation here, what the applicant was actually looking for is the dual zoning that we’ve done for across the street because we’re just not sure what’s going to happen. We’re trying to keep all our options open. Why wouldn’t we want to extend the same thing to the east because of the proximity of that landing because a lot of what happens across the street is probably going to determine what happens to the east? Aanenson: Sure. That was based on the input that we had from the neighborhood meetings. There really wasn’t full disclosure on this because this came up later. As we had all the open houses and received comments, we did have another neighborhood meeting. We really didn’t have a, in staff’s opinion, an opportunity to gather input. When you have existing stub streets into this area, the development pattern here is different than the, across on Powers Boulevard. Those people were apprised in that neighborhood that we were considering changing that. We have existing prevailing development patterns that are different. So that would be the rationale for that. And this has been guided with existing homes around it for a long time for residential. McDonald: Okay. Because of it’s proximity to the large lots, which are already… Aanenson: Exactly. McDonald: In that particular area. Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly. McDonald: Okay. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Aanenson: Alright. And then we’ll move on to, just maybe you just want to put up Bob the big map with the colors. The 60 numbered lots. Thank you. And I just wanted to mention a couple other ones that came up. This wasn’t identified but we had somebody, if you just want to point to that site on the Klein piece. The Brighton Corporation’s just a little bit further north of that. That one, that was Mike Wardle. Brighton Corporation out of Boise, Idaho spoke at the meeting and did want to get on the record that they would like to see commercial zoning. That wasn’t one that we had identified to rezone and wanted to get on the record stating, and you will be seeing that probably within a month. We haven’t received the application but we anticipate that one coming in. We’re not sure when it comes in if it will be complete but that one should be submitted here shortly. But they did want to get on the record again, the staff did not support that rezoning. And then we also received an email from Mr. Halla. Want to point to that site? That 46. Mr. Halla did request that he would like to see some strip mall, some convenient commercial, high rise on that property. Staff does not support that and we’ve got commercial which we think, we talked about a potential convenience commercial but not in this area. We kind of looked at that when we did that larger commercial study and if we incorporated that into 41, again we want to embed that in, similar to what we did over on Highway 41. It wouldn’t be a free standing commercial center, but embedded into an office park where you’re supporting those pieces there. So it’s not so loud and bright in that area but we would not support it on the Halla site, and that would be our recommendation on that. Any other questions on land use? McDonald: Could I ask you a question? Is this, I wasn’t quite sure where this is. Corner of Pioneer Trail and 101. That’s currently where his golf course is. Aanenson: That’s correct. McDonald: So what he’s talking about is a redevelopment of the golf course area. Aanenson: Correct. Well, from the way the letter reads, it’s in your packet, he thought he could still do some of that and operate the golf course. McDonald: Okay. Thank you, I just wanted clarification where it was at. Aanenson: Alright. Moving along then. On Chapter 3, which is the historic preservation. I’m going to turn this off because now I don’t have the maps with that one. McDonald: If I could interrupt you for just a second. Okay, since we just finished Chapter 2. I’d like to give any of the commissioners an opportunity, if in general over land use, if there was anything you feel wasn’t covered or any comments you want to make about Chapter 2. Papke: I guess I have just one observation or comment on the Parcel number 14. The one on th 78 there. Compared to the small strip that we have at Century Boulevard, which seems to be struggling a bit, this corner seems to be quite successful. The Kwik Mart is very successful. At least antidotal evidence says every time I go by there, there’s a lot of business going on there and the ones on Century are struggling and I guess conceptually I’m struggling a little bit with this. You know I understand the rationale for saying you know no retail on there at all but it almost seems like, because there’s kind of critical mass at that corner already. If they want to do a little 4 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 bit more across the street, is that really so bad? I guess I’m struggling with the down side of allowing a small amount of retail since we already have a very successful corner there. Aanenson: That’s right. That’s a great question. The staff’s position on that is we may have been premature on that, across on Century. Now Lifetime is open, we’ve got 400 employees out there who are using that end of the. What we’ve talked about with the office, if they came in, if they did some support within the office, we talked about that but we think, one of the goals that we’ve really tried hard to do is not have strip commercial up and down Highway 5. We think we’ve been successful. We think if there’s other offices to support that, we would look at that. So what was our position on that. I know they’re interested in doing a bank and we, you know would do something creative on that but we didn’t want to give the pure office and have that be larger and kind of those businesses that made an investment on the other piece. Because now that we’ve got the rest of that industrial park up and running, and potentially the other building at Lifetime, we think that creates a lot more energy down there for the gas station too. McDonald: Let me do a follow-up on that because in the beginning when I started on the commission one of the things we had, or the way land was zoned as far as industrial use, is developers came in. The market drove us towards residential. We changed our approach on a number of areas because that’s who wanted to do something. What mechanisms do we have in place? Are we locking ourselves in by zoning it office only and development comes in and again the market drives us towards something else. Aanenson: The difference is really, if you go through the comprehensive plan, we rezone the property. If they come through separately, anybody can ask for rezoning at any time. That’s their right. They process the application, so it doesn’t preclude them. And I think the challenge here is, you know it’s easier to go this way instead of to get a land use rezoning takes a majority of the council. So it takes 4/5ths. It’s a little bit more complicated because it should be more thoughtful. So to come through this process and get it done, that’s done for you, then you just come through and you’re consistent with it. So what we’re saying is we want to make sure that, same with Mr. Erhart, so there’s more thoughtful consideration and then we give more due diligence to those issues that we didn’t spend that much time studying. And if you read through, we had a lot of issues with the retail and that was the dialogue going back and forth that’s been going on a for a number of years that we didn’t support that much retail at that intersection. It’s a significant amount looking at what we have, for some of those neighborhood cores, and that was our concern, is the amount of. So could he get either or? Yes. Can you say no? It’s, if it’s one or the other? Yes, you can but I think again it takes a little bit more review, input to change it. McDonald: Okay, I guess what it comes down to, it’s the same process we went through before where again we looked at it. We made evaluations based upon what was being presented to us. We made a decision. Aanenson: Correct. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 McDonald: So no one is actually foreclosed from doing anything. If they’ve got a good plan that’s thoughtful and again if the market’s what it is, we do want to see land developed and we will consider things. Aanenson: Yeah, you’re correct Mr. Chair and again I think the other reason for some of the people like Mr. Wardle to get on from the Brighton Corporation, to get on the record saying, so you can come back and say well why didn’t you come before. They’re raising this as an issue to say, we believe that the staff’s recommendation is flawed, so they’re on the record stating that so when they come back through, we still have that same dialogue. McDonald: Okay. I maybe apologize a little bit for holding this up but this I think is probably the key chapter in the whole comprehensive plan and I do want to make sure that we’ve given the public enough, I think opportunity to think about this and come forward and they’ve given us some good ideas. I just want to make sure that in going through this, that we do as a commission, make some comments to this and give you some more feedback, so I appreciate you… Aanenson: Yeah, and I think this is very appropriate to have this dialogue, and again similar to what we did on that other site, the one I just mentioned on 101 and Lyman, this was never noticed in the public hearings as potential retail site, so when we had our open houses, there wasn’t that same neighborhood review of that so I just want to make sure that we’ve done our due diligence. Let the neighbors to give them a fair shake at, well I didn’t know. You did have some neighbors show up at the last meeting, but I’m not sure that they’ve had the same review. McDonald: Okay. You want to go onto Chapter 3? I believe we’ve done with Chapter 2. Chapter 3 then. Aanenson: Chapter 2 was, excuse me, Chapter 3. Historic Preservation. This was one that the Planning Commission had some concerns about. Are we doing enough in this chapter? Again our goal is to partner with the County, and being the lead in that. They are doing the data collection for historic and cultural resources so we want to partner with them. We will be, again we’ve got the goal in the comprehensive plan and our city ordinances where we’ll be putting some of that mechanism to make that happen and that’s where your concern is. We didn’t see that. How do we know that’s going to happen, and that’s when I say to you, our next project after this will be coming back with a more specific implementation of those. So your question of what’s the City’s role, I think we need to put more teeth in that. That will be through the ordinance itself. And we had a meeting with the County on this issue. We have scheduled this for a work session to tour some buildings to talk about that in more detail, so we certainly understand your level of concern that we’re doing what we can do to preserve those properties, and we have a good relationship with the County on doing that so again, we will be putting that into ordinance. So we just want to put out there, because we’ve never had this in our comprehensive plan before. This level of goal to preserve and that will be reflected in the ordinances itself. Any questions on that? McDonald: Any questions on Chapter 3? 6 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Aanenson: Okay. And then Chapter 4, Housing. We gave you a lot of numbers on that chapter, and that was really talking about what our price points are. Whether our value is in housing, keeps, or $402,000 is our current average value for housing in the community, and we’ve got a wide range of housing price points and so the question that was raised is why do we belong to Livable Communities Act? What’s the benefit of that? So again we, when we apply for other grants through the Metropolitan Council, that’s one of the things that they look at. We have leveraged that money when we’ve done projects. For example the Gateway project that we just opened up was also rental, affordable project that we did leverage Met Council money on that one. So we do support belonging to the Livable Communities Act. That’s one of the things that we’re still falling short on is affordable rental. The rest of it, the market takes place. Fills that gap for affordable owner/occupied. The rental’s a little bit more difficult to capture, but we feel good about what we’ve provided in meeting the goals and so, we don’t see that as big issue with the Met Council. Any other questions on that? McDonald: Any questions on Chapter 4? Aanenson: Okay. I’ll let Bob… Generous: Well you may think that the land use is the most important. All these systems are important as part of the… And the first one we’ll deal with a natural resource element and something new that we’re bringing out as part of this, the 2030 comprehensive plan is the desire to develop a natural resource management plan. Really a stewardship plan for the natural resources in the community. We have some ordinances in place to build on. We have the Bluff Creek primary zone. The Bluff Creek protection ordinance. The bluff protection ordinance. A wetland protection ordinance and shoreland protection ordinance. Now we’re looking at the systems that are, the natural systems that we have and we’ll be developing a management plan for that. How to enhance that and maintain the environment that will benefit the community overall. So, and some of the questions are, how do they do this? Well in the back we have goals to protect trees and provide some policies that we can develop. Look at all the systems like that. There’s water and vegetation so, but that will be a big, over the next or two to come in and actually work with property owners and businesses to create this management plan. Look at how we’re going to maintain the property that we’re getting as part of dedication through subdivisions or through acquisitions if any referendums take place. So that’s what the natural resources element is dealing with, and it looks at vegetation and water and other natural systems and habitats. I don’t know if there’s a whole lot more. If you go into a lot of details. I think we’ve gone through that in a previous meeting. Any more questions? And again one of the questions came up was the surface water. How does the city treat our surface water? And we already have the ordinances in place. We have a wetland protection ordinance. We have a surface water management plan. A second generation one so we’re looking at that. Later tonight we’ll have the public hearing on the, the MSP-4 Permit. So the City’s doing a lot to improve our water quality and with every development we look at that and we’re only going to look at additional measures to help improve that water quality. We think we’re addressing some of the concern that we brought up along the way. McDonald: I think the biggest thing from you know the residents that I heard, and I just want to make sure it’s in here, is everybody’s concerned about the quality of the water, especially the 7 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 lakes and what we do to it. The impact of development. Part of what we’ve looked through here is to try to establish rules. You mentioned the Bluff Creek Overlay. We’ve got some rather stringent requirements there as to how close you can go. What you can do. You know runoff and all of those things. Going forward as part of the comprehensive plan, if someone comes in and wants to do development, are we going to have enough of a blue print to show, you begin to look at impact upon the lakes and the waters of this area that we’re going to be able to point to and say, this is the goals you’ve got to meet and everything. Generous: In the comp plan it provides you the general. As part of our zoning and subdivision ordinance we have the specific regulatory requirements that people will have to address. McDonald: Right, which are the sewers and the grades and all those kinds of things. Aanenson: Right. McDonald: I guess what I’m just trying to get at is, you know I’m reading through the emails and everybody’s very concerned about this section going in there. What is going in there? Are we putting something in there that says this is what we want to meet as far as the water quality and this is how you, as someone who’s developing or doing some of these is going to help us to meet that? Aanenson: Let me just back out of that. Natural Resource plan is really an umbrella, because we have the storm water management plan which is a separate document, which we did last year, and that plan also gives a list of projects that we’re going to go forward, and I think when we go into the next item, I’ve asked Terry to kind of weave all that together because we have all these little pieces. But really the natural resource plan is broader than just how we manage water because we have, as Bob indicated, we’ve got the requirements that you have to do for a project. For permitting, and the review. But also when we talk about natural resources, we talk about why do people move here? Certainly it’s for the lakes and water quality is for the wetlands. It’s for the trees. The slopes. So it’s that broader thing. And the goal that we’re saying in here, while we’ve addressed storm water specifically with the storm water management plan, we also want to step back and say, we want to look at the natural resources as a whole. Now we’ve acquired all this property through extraction, using the Bluff Creek Overlay Zone for example. …invasive species in some of those. How are we going to manage the properties that we’ve acquired? So that’s kind of what that natural resource plan. It will include some of the storm water, but that’s kind of always be tracking on it’s own separate. McDonald: Right. Storm water’s always separate because of the impact and the way we treat it. Again, what my issue came down to is natural resources. Lakes, waters, those things because that’s the comments that we have these lake groups that come up and talk about. You talk about water clarity and you know the runoff that goes into these lakes and everything and the Seminary Fen. How we, those are natural resources and all I’m trying to get at is that, it’s in here as far as the comprehensive plan goes that if someone comes in to this community and wants to do something, they can read through this and understand. If they have an impact on these areas, we have certain goals and conditions that we want to meet. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Aanenson: Correct. And those are all the good buffers that we just applied. We went back and revisited. Moved, re-categorized our types of wetlands and changed the buffer setbacks and those sort of things so that’s already in place, but there’s a whole other level and we’ll get to that when we get to the next one. McDonald: Okay. Aanenson: Understood. McDonald: Does anyone else have anything on natural resources before Bob moves on? Generous: Now the parks and open space element…and it looks at the future of the community and what it additional facilities that we will need. This map basically represents what the city’s long term vision is for it’s parks and open space facilities. There’s a lot, there has been more emphasis on preserving natural open spaces. Not making the athletic fields, but they also have those requirements and so it looks at all the standards that we use in determining how much land we need for population for our community parks, our neighborhood parks and we look at service areas and all that. All the things that go into that. It also inventories some of the private and public, other public agencies that some of these that we have in our community that also are available to our residents. Basically this is a guide plan for looking at development in the future. At one time a lot of the parks and open space were shown as our land use plan. However that was really a misnomer because it gave people the impression that we had control of the property and we were going away from that land use and saying, if the city is, will attempt to purchase parkland in the future, it’s in the parks and open space element that’s more appropriate and it provides more detail than we would be able to do under the land use element. We believe this will be a good guide for the community. The city’s been known for our trail system and our extensive system of parks, and we will continue to build them. Again that’s a quality of life issue. Goes with natural resources. It’s things that people that come and live and work in the community like to have and so we’re trying to develop a framework for providing that. And so at the end of this there’s actually the capital improvement program to show the phasing of acquisition and development of the park system. That’s the, basically the parks and open space element. It looks at trails, parks, primitive open space that the community will strive to provide as it continues to develop. Aanenson: Did you want to talk about the comments we got from Carver County? In that email just briefly. Generous: Basically Carver County found that our plan was consistent with what they were doing. They wanted to, they talk about not providing connections into the regional park from the Camp Tanadoona area which we show on our future land use map. However our concern is if the Campfire ever goes away, we would still, and that area develops, it’s guided for residential development on top of the park use so we would want to provide residents with an opportunity to get into the park. So that was one of the issues that they came up with. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Aanenson: Can I just add something else too? We just found out too last week, on the 41 crossing, that we did get funded. I forgot where that one is for the, it’s on the trail map there. Right on the. Generous: Being recommended, yes. It’s this connection here but it’s highly ranked as part of the parks, pedestrian trail system as part of, for State funding, and so the group that is proposing that, if their recommendation is approved, then Carver County’s actually leading the process on that and if it’s approved, we will get a pedestrian underpass to connect our trail system within the Highover development to the Minnewashta Regional Park system. Aanenson: And that will also give an opportunity to the school, who does use that, to go underneath 41 to provide access over to the regional park. Generous: Create separation which is you know part of the entire, if you look at the Bluff Creek corridor, we have an underpass at Highway 5. With the Lyman Boulevard upgrade we’ll have another underpass as part of Bluff Creek Boulevard we have a pedestrian underpass, so we’ll have this extensive system where parents and children can go down and have a separated grade crossing at our roadways. Aanenson: All the way from the regional park down. Generous: So that will take them down to Pioneer and then things will break up there because they can’t, we can’t continue…it’s too steep to go down but we’re looking at, if that area develops, that we’ll have a trail system along the tops of the bluffs so people can look down into the gorge area and actually enjoy that environment without negatively impacting them. It also talks about the southwest light rail system and the city continues to use that and maintain that as a pedestrian corridor and bike system. I brought up the Campfire site. The Seminary Fen is an area that the city would like to preserve, and that’s actually part of another mechanism to look at that. We have a wetland protection ordinance. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about the Seminary Fen, just to kind of clarify. You say the city would like to preserve that. Why couldn’t we preserve it? Is it all in private property at this point? Generous: It’s all privately owned, yes. Aanenson: That was when we looked at the wetland ordinance we did create a new category to increase the setbacks. We have the control of a greater setback to reduce the impact on that, but it’s still in private ownership. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Generous: We’re always looking at the Herman Field connection to the regional park. That’s from the north side down into the project. Again a lot of residents like to use this as an access into the regional park. It’s a public facility. You know people are walking in. There’s word of mouth that hey, this is a nice experience and they can share that with other people and then they 10 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 can come…so we’d like to keep those connections, informal connections that we have and provide for that in the future so we don’t believe that there should be anything that separates our local systems from the regional system. And again you can drive a car in there. This is something you would walk in… That was it from the County. Otherwise they seem to agree with our park and trail plan and work in conjunction with us to help facility that. 7. And this is where, before the meeting I provided you with a revised pages 8 through 11. The first two paragraphs were added due to comments that we received from Eden Prairie and those were. The transportation element deals with existing facilities and deficiencies in our facilities and what we have to do to that. However there were, like I said, a couple changes that we were talking about specific projects within this element and it talks about improvements to the roadway system and then we developed a capital improvement at the end. Chapter 10 deals with trying to combine the capital improvements. We’ll get to that later but one other question there was how do you recall these projects, and people can see what’s all involved in that and we tried to address that… The MUSA phasing was, staging helps to determine priorities for when projects should be, or roadway improvements will be done. For instance on Highway 101, the improvement from Lyman to Pioneer needs to take place around the 2010 MUSA development phase so that we have adequate infrastructure to serve the development in that area. As we continue to move south to the 2015 area, we’ll deal with 101 from Pioneer down to the existing Flying Cloud Boulevard or existing 212 corridor which will become County Road 61 with the turn back and everything that goes forward with that. Again the capital improvements are on 10. We tried to clarify that. The idea of, the question came up about bridges and the city does, or the bridges in the community are inspected on a timely manner based on the National Bridge Inspection Standards, which happen, and those inspections happen every 1 to 2 years. We can add that right into the plan. That’s not a problem to approve. 101, again we’re investigating funding sources for this. We didn’t make any of the cut off’s in this round of funding. Of course there’s a lot of transportation improvements that need to be done in the state and so they have to prioritize that and come up with adequate funding sources. And then beginning of page 8 is where Eden Prairie provided us with comments on the map and they have to do, first with their own well which is on the eastern entrance to the community. We currently designate the south lane from Highway 5 to the border as a collector road. They want us to upgrade that to a minor arterial. A main minor arterial, and that’s consistent with the Met Council guidelines that it carries sufficient traffic volumes and has a design speed that would accommodate a minor connector arterial. And with the opening of 312 and additional traffic will be going down there. And then on the north side we currently have Dell as a local street. They would like us to show it as a minor collector. As a collector roadway and so we’re recommending that that change be done. And then in the narrative we show Lyman Boulevard from 101 east. We show it on the map as a collector but we don’t have it in the narrative and so we’re recommending that that be included in the narrative so our maps and our text correspond with each other. And so that’s all the revisions that came, the sheet that I handed out tonight so. Basically the transportation system looks at what type of facilities you’ll need to handle the future development of the community. We did a traffic analysis showing data to look at where trips generated and where they’re going to grow and then we used, piggy backed on Carver County for their projections for 2030 traffic volumes to look at which roadway systems have to be under which classifications. And so basically that map is the outcome of all that study and analysis. McDonald: Anyone have any questions on Chapter 7? Thank you. Chapter 8. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Generous: Chapter 8 is the water. Again this looks at existing and future systems needed within the community to provide sewer service to our residents. Looks at, and this map gets very detailed. It looks at all the sizing that’s appropriate to serve an area and it actually uses a MUSA phasing plan to look at when we do the improvements. And that was one of the big questions that came up is why did they change from the 2020 plan. Previously the 2010 MUSA was that area bounded by Pioneer, 101 and 312. Well in looking at that, there’s a significant investment that the City would make in putting in a lift station and forcemain system to service that area. And to pay for that improvement we had to have a sufficiently large area that would connect to it and pay the connection fees to help fund that project. And also we looked in the 2010 MUSA area, there wasn’t a lot of developable land. There’s a big wetland complex. The City had purchased a 30 acre park as part of it, and so we didn’t have, there would be not enough land to accommodate our growth over that 5 year period and so we’ve expanded the 2010 MUSA to include areas down to the golf course and over to Highway 101. Aanenson: Just want to reiterate. That was one of the questions when we presented this to you that you wanted to make sure our residents understood the implication of that. We did have that additional meeting. We sent out 250-300 notices. We had a really good turnout for that. We actually had engineering staff, planning staff, and park and rec there. What we found out is the traffic patterns are changing on 101. We have some homes, people that find it difficult to live in that situation would like to be able to subdivide their property. Develop, so they are anticipating sewer. One of the things that the engineering staff looked at in modeling that future area is we did provide for those large lot subdivisions if in the future they couldn’t get sewer. That’s a potential. It’s not our goal to provide those large lot subdivisions with sewer. That’s a lifestyle that they’ve chosen, but if in the future we have failed systems and we’re trying to protect ground water, sometimes we have that as option. We model that. We understand that cost, but certainly development, this came up last time. I just want to reiterate it. Development, as we move south, depends also on adequate infrastructure which includes 101. As Bob indicated, we didn’t get the funding so those are kind of all tied together. The City doesn’t have, isn’t acting as a developer. We respond to development, so for things to happen, someone comes forward with a proposal to make development happen so, when we look at the Erhart property, which we looked at before, that’s the biggest one that would be going forward in the next MUSA which is scheduled 2010. It’s a possibility that that could be advanced sooner than that, and we’re contemplating that. But the rest of that area, someone would have to come forward with a project and that would include the golf course or Mr. Halla’s property or some of those so the City’s not seeking them to go out and develop. That just provides that opportunity for that development to develop. Generous: And then again as part of the phasing plan we looked at, and as part of the 2020 plan we actually looked at serving the Minnesota River Valley by going down Bluff Creek Boulevard. The 2030 plan actually reverses that and looks at serving the river valley going down 101 so we picked up the easterly area there first. The large lot development, the Hesse Farm area on Bluff Creek Drive, we don’t believe that unless the systems start failing significantly, will actually be served by sewer and water because we’d have to, they’d have to put gravity sewer down to the river valley and then over to a lift station and bring it back up, so that would be the last area and we don’t know that there’s enough properties that would make a 2020 MUSA area sufficient. So 12 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 we think that we could put in two additional phases rather than a 2010, 2015, and a 2020 MUSA. So again that’s the other big change then instead of having those 3, or 2004, 2010, 2015 and 2020, we have a 2010 and a 2015 phasing area. McDonald: Okay, and out of all that, if what I hear is correct, the thing that kind of slows it down is infrastructure. Roads and those types of things. If something were to happen and 101 were to suddenly get accelerated and get fixed, are we going to be able to accommodate that? Generous: The system and plans are in place. We have the ideas in place that we can accommodate it. Again that’s development driven. McDonald: But I’m saying if something happens, right now 101 isn’t probably going to stop anything just because of the road the way it is. Generous: Right. McDonald: But if something happens, and say we didn’t get funding, I know a bridge was included in that across the river and which path it’s going to take, if that suddenly became a big priority and got changed, that could probably change the total landscape down there. Are we going to be okay to respond to that? Generous: We should be, yes. And then MUSA phasing is something that the City controls in conjunction with the Met Council. The big thing is capacity. We have a system that can handle that growth and they’re trying to do this in an efficient and effective manner. We’re sizing everything to accommodate that future development. Also we think that down in the river valley that some of the land use amendments that we’re making, that there’ll be sufficiently high investment potential to make people want to do the, to bring the sewer down there so they can put in their offices and support commercial center, instead of the driving range and the nursery that’s down there now. So that’s the sewer. Any other questions? And then a water system works in conjunction with the City’s sewer plan. Basically it looks like the existing facilities and your future facilities, based on land use projections of ultimate build-out of the community and what systems we will need to have in place. And additional ones, we know that we need another water town down to serve the southern part of the city, however we’re looking at several areas on Powers Boulevard there. There’s some areas that we’re, down on Lyman Boulevard. In the high pressure zone, which is the northeast, northwestern part of the city we need to increase the capacity of the water storage tank up there. We need to add about, what is it? 550,000 gallons of storage to meet the future demands of that area within the system. Additionally we have a westerly water treatment plant that we’re looking at so we get complete treatment of the city’s water supply. They just approved the contract for Wells 12 and 13. City Council did last night so that will bring back on line the wells that we lost last summer. Keep our ability to meet the demands of existing and future development in line. One of the big issues in this was the development of a, or expansion of a conservation plan, and the City has been working with the DNR to create a management plan or conservation management plan for our water supply. It’s still being commented on by the DNR, and it’s actually one of the attachments. I don’t know all the details. I’m not sure if Alyson does but we want to encourage people to conserve water. Right now we, per person we use too much water in our community. We’ve already adopted 13 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 some ordinances to hopefully reduce demand. We have a tiered water system in place. They added a third tier for water usage over a certain level. They have the non-watering hours for landscaping, and they’re going to monitor that and see if that works and then we’ll have to continue from there. Aanenson: I’ll let Terry talk about the grant. Jeffery: Mr. Chair, commissioners. Currently we’re working with the EPA right now on a grant proposal. Jill Sinclair is actually setting it up and what this will do is it will allow us funding to implement a number of different educational programs throughout the city, as well as grants. We haven’t worked out all the details yet but we’re thinking a rebate program for rain sensors for irrigation systems that went in before 2002 where they might not have those. It might be something as simple as leak detection kits in toilets but currently Jill’s working on that grant. That deadline I believe is in the middle of March so we should have, we’re supposed to have something in place, vehicle in place the middle of May if we are awarded this grant so. Aanenson: And the Environmental Commission has actually taken that under their, for their program this year. Work on the educational component so that was an issue that was certainly a big concern that we need to be addressing and we want to show you that we’ve included in the packet the application that engineering’s working on to resolve that issue, and what we’re doing in-house to educate our residents about water usage. Generous: So that’s water. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions or comments? Concerns? Chapter 10. Capital improvements. Generous: That’s the final, and this is a document that actually ties together the various chapters of the comprehensive plan. It shows you to the magnitude and sort of a timing improvements that are necessary for the community. Again, like I stated before, one of the questions is how do you show people what’s involved in a project, and so we started to, we tried to amend this table to show that as a part of this specific project we would also look at, like a street project or a surface water management project or utility extension so that’s one of the things we have. Annually the city adopts a 5 year capital improvement program. That’s the detailed document that we’ll get into the specifics on any individual project, and we don’t believe that as part of the comprehensive plan that’s the place to put that type of information. Again this just provides you with a general magnitude of the cost of an improvement and the approximate timing of it. But the only time that we know for sure that something’s funded is in the 2008 CIP which the projects are scheduled for 2008. But we wanted to show you how the comprehensive plan capital improvement program sort of relates to the annual CIP. And so with that we’re proposing, and I tried to show the revisions based on both the adoption of the 2012 CIP and additions that were inclined as part of that. So that’s…help you find what has changed since the first document that you saw. As well as I put in the column for the associated progress. With that I would go to jurisdictional review. The City has received comments, or a sign of a waiver from Eden Prairie, School District 276, the City of Minnetonka, and the City of Shakopee, and I believe this morning the lone watershed district also provided a sign off. Again we, jurisdictions 14 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 st adjacent to the community have until January, or April 1 to submit any comments that they have and so we’ll wait to hear that. So far no other discussions. We think we have a pretty good plan in place and it’s pretty thorough. And then with that we go to the recommendation. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the revised motion which would have approve the, recommend that City Council approve the 2030 comprehensive plan as modified with revisions to Chapter 7, which is the transportation element, to include the Dell Road improvements as well as the write up on the Lyman Boulevard. To Chapter 8, the sanitary sewer to incorporate the language regarding reasons for the changes to the MUSA phasing plan, and those were basically those 3 paragraphs in the staff report. The Chapter 9, the water element to record the, incorporate additional language on water conservation. …and ideas that the community has, and the revisions to Chapter 10, incorporating that the revised CIP as I outlined tonight. And authorize the submittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. McDonald: Want to ask any questions? I’ve got a question for you. On Chapter 10, you talk about the CIP and you say it’s a 5 year plan and you really don’t think that it’s appropriate within the comprehensive plan. I’m a little confused. What is in there and why is it in the comprehensive plan if it’s dealt with as part of the 5 year plan. That means it will change a couple of times before it ever gets to 2015. Generous: Right and, the 2030 comprehensive plan has a 10 year timeframe that we’re looking at because in 10 years again we’ll have to update our comprehensive plan so it provides a general guideline that these, these are the projects that we envision taking place within this timeframe, but the actual funding of those will happen within the City’s 5 year capital improvement program which they will adopt annually. And it may change over time. Priorities change, like you said. Development may come in and it will require that we make these street improvements over here earlier than we had originally envisioned. McDonald: Let me just add to that. In your draft plan that you have in front of you, we have a requirement that meets the Metropolitan Council’s requirement of the comprehensive plan. What we included for you tonight is the detailed City 5 year plan grouping those things together that are in within the 5 years. We have it in there, in the comprehensive plan. It’s not to the detail that we do when we do our comprehensive plan. And what we want to show you is what projects are linked together. When we do a road project, there’s often storm water improvements put with it so we try to show those linkages. How those go together. That’s what’s not in your draft so what we gave tonight is more detail on that, but we only took that to the 5 year. We didn’t take it to the level of detail that’s in the comprehensive plan because at a staff level, we don’t have that much information yet. But we’ve met the level of the law in the draft itself. We just want to give you more detail for the next 5 or 10 years. Larson: I’ve got a quick question. I hate to go back to the water chapter but these drift aquifers that they’re referring to that went dry with weather changes and if we get more rain, I mean are those able to be refilled and used again at some point in the future or? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Fauske: We have a consultant, the City’s hiring a consultant to give us good direction on where we should be putting new wells. Recovery of the aquifers…and at this point there’s just no water that goes out so that’s why we’re looking to develop the two new wells. Larson: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Do we want to discuss this as a commission or are we ready to jump right into a motion for the recommendation? I mean to me it’s a lot of stuff and I’m glad we spread it out over a number of months and everything but there really is a lot to try to get your arms around. A lot of detail and we’ve heard a lot of comments and all those have been very helpful. I think that this has accomplished what the public has given us as far as feedback. You’ve reflected some of that as you’ve brought it before us. You’ve at least addressed the issues and comments, so I hope that from that point everyone feels that we are transparent in putting this plan together. It is a community effort. I think has done a marvelous job doing it for us, but yeah. It’s a big thing to try to figure out and I guess just kind of understand what’s going on. I don’t have any problems with any of it. I’m not trying to say that, but I don’t know if overwhelmed is the right word or not either, but there is definitely a lot here and it kind of gives you pause to think of what goes on as far as development. I don’t know if I’m a little slow to want to get into this, just to kind of comprehend it but are we at a point where everyone feels comfortable with putting together a motion and we’ll go from there? Or does anyone wish to discuss any further elements? Do you feel that everything we’ve asked as far as questions over the past couple of months have been addressed? Papke: I guess I don’t have any question. Just kind of a gut reaction to the, you know looking at this whole thing you kind of, it makes you kind of step back and at least attempt to see the big picture and just going back to land use again for a second I’m, I kind of, reading it over I feel a little conflicted. On one hand we’re getting some pressure to get away from residential construction and move more towards commercial, etc. On the other hand we’re looking to develop the golf course into residential areas and then in the paper this morning, very topical. You know here’s Chanhassen on top of the pile in the whole metropolitan area in terms of you know the least amount of degradation of our housing market here in the last couple years. So any comments on that? You know just from a land use perspective, I’m trying to reconcile, it seems sometimes like the people who are trying to develop their property, there’s always the tendency to quickly react to market conditions but we’re trying to look out, 10, 15, 30 years here and make decisions for the long term. Aanenson: That’s a great comment. Yes, it’s timely. We’ll also be featured in the Star Tribune too about the city of Chanhassen. It’s, you know we’re in the right place at the right time. We’re close to, I think the paper said it. We’re close to jobs and creation. We’re creating a lot of jobs here. The biggest change if you look at what we’re looking at with the comprehensive plan. We looked at the commercial. You know our guiding principle, what attracts, what we believe attracts people here is the balance of the environment. The lakes. The trees. The wetland, which you know we, Tree City, USA. Those things that we care about. Our parks. Our trails. Top notch. We’ve got a concentrated downtown and we spent a lot of time as a group reflecting on if we were to add more commercial, what does that do to the downtown? We’ve never had strip commercial up and down Highway 5. We don’t want to have strip 16 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 commercial out. The biggest bubble you see in the addition of commercial is if we do a regional mall, and that is a big paradigm shift and we spent a lot of time. This is over a year process since we did the McCombs study to really evaluate what that does to the downtown. So in looking at that, we counter balance that. We didn’t talk about that tonight but to add some of that other, additional commercial adjacent to downtown is why we didn’t want that strip to go on this other piece, if we look at that in a vacuum. We’re saying there’s an opportunity, some vacant buildings there to do industrial, but as a whole, we’re still going to always be predominantly low density residential. That’s our predominant land use. Residential and low density. But that’s going to be, but now we’re looking at is we’re maturing, just a little infill, and we’re being really careful and I think we spend a lot of time saying where’s the appropriate place to put those to maintain that quality of life where we have walkability, transportation. That we’re not plugging up those streets as we talk about as we move further south, so we’ve really tried to look at that carefully and really if you step back, it has been a whole year process, and the biggest part of it is that commercial and that office piece, and again looking at where we have a lot of office industrial, we want to move…higher value. Pure office which we’re going to see a lot more of those interchanges where we have the transportation to accommodate that and give us that higher tax value, as Mr. Erhart’s looking at his parcels, so I think, you know I’ve been here 15 years. I want to continue to make those good decisions where we end up on the, you know as seen as a good plan. When I say plan, that doesn’t just mean planning. That includes engineering, parks and rec, as a well thought out city and we want to continue to do that in the future and build on the success that we have had. So I’m hopeful that this plan reflects that. McDonald: Well the one thing, if we’re looking at this that, you know hats off to you for coming up with this dual zoning approach. I think that that really helps. It solves a lot of problems. It does kind of put out there what we’re looking for as to how we’re going to develop, and I guess based upon that, I think it’s such a good idea, I’d like to see it used a little bit more. Not carte blanche for across the board but there are certain areas within the city that I think might lend itself, and most of that’s along the corridor of 212 just because of the way the land that’s adjacent to it, and I guess that’s a little bit of a hesitancy on my part that maybe we should have included more property along that corridor to do a little bit more dual zoning. I don’t have a good feel for that but that’s my inclination that maybe that needs more looking at. This probably isn’t the time to do it at this point but. Aanenson: Sure. Let me just add to that on that because I don’t know if you remember, we did spend a lot of time on looking at that and we said if we could create a regional mall, it’s a lot of synergy that happens in that. Just like the synergy that goes with downtown and you create traffic so, what are we going to do? Just like the same position we’ve taken on Highway 5. We don’t want strip commercial up and down Highway 5. If we’re going to put a regional mall there, what are we going to do to control it to make sure that we don’t have creeping things that want to capitalize on that captured market, so we said we don’t want to create that commercial core. We want to have office that supports that. People who go there and do those sort of things so when we went through that commercial study, that was what we spent a lot of time on, and I think that’s one of the successes that we’ve had to try to concentrate that into the core. Kind of right now our commercial center’s powers. We did move some out because we said there is some neighborhood support. We call that neighborhood support commercial as opposed to the central business district which to date has been more convenience commercial. This is where I 17 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 do my groceries. I run to the post office. Do the library visit. Kind of that sort of thing as opposed to in your neighborhood where you may get gas, pick-up bread, milk on the way home. Now when we look at the regional mall, and that’s a larger trade area. Drawing residents well beyond our limits to the city. No longer necessarily convenience but more comparison shopping. We said we want to create that energy downtown but we don’t want it to be all the way up and down Powers. All the way up and down 101. We want to control it so it fits and works into our neighborhoods, which we really historically have had that strong planning perspective so we were really careful in looking at where we wanted to do that with the dual guiding for commercial. So that’s where that came from. When we looked at that triangle piece that’s, the Laurent property. That’s the pure office piece there and we said, you know we talked about where else would we get gas on that southern end of the city. You said there’s anywhere we want to just provide some convenience for those neighbors to say, before I get on 212 or on my way out to work I want to stop and get gas. We looked at, we didn’t say we’re definitely going to give it but there was somewhere to give it, we’d put it there so we did consider those sort of things so, in my opinion you know it’s been a while back when we had those discussions. Back when we started with the consultant. We had SRF go through those exercises with the City Council and we gave those recommendations but, I think we were careful to not kind of move away from our historical commercial values and neighborhood values. What makes a nice neighborhood. McDonald: I guess you know my point is, I’m not trying to be a planner. You know as part of being on the Planning Commission I think what we look at, we don’t have the broad knowledge and experience that staff has. What we try to look at is okay, we have these ordinances and zoning requirements and then we try to apply things against those and give recommendations. It’s all we’re giving is recommendations. And I guess one of the things I’m looking at is, as a planning group, you know is it beneficial for us to have options as far as, and maybe it’s not so much for us but it’s options as far as development so that when things come in, do we have enough flexibility to do things? To move with the market or something. That’s my only hesitancy in all this is, I mean I’m going to vote for this. I have no problem whatsoever. We’re in the process of just discussing. That’s one of my concerns I guess I would want to pass forward to City Council is that, I would not want to see a document that is so locked in just because of my prior experience to know that markets drive all of this. That’s my concern and that’s the thing that when I say yeah, the dual zoning seems to open that up a little bit more for us. Aanenson: And I think you know the, there’s a pro and con with that. The beauty of that is it does give the property owner options. It gives the city options. It also lets the neighbors know it could go either way so if you do change it because of market changes, you’re not on that uphill swing to try to make that change. McDonald: We’ve had enough of those meetings. Aanenson: There’s been enough of those, so if that’s your preference, as you indicated, and I think that’s very appropriate for you to say to the City Council that there may be some parcels that you would like them to consider some dual guiding on and certainly they’re going to spend 18 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 some time going through everything that you just went through in this kind of a summary format too. McDonald: I didn’t mean to steal any of your thunder. Anything else? Then I guess we’re ready for someone to present a motion. Larson: No, no, no, no, no. McDonald: No, no? Okay. Larson: I’m just, since everybody’s bringing up their concerns. I’m looking back at our land use. We really are losing a lot of our residential. Is the tax base, which you’re saying is so important, is that so important that it offsets the need for the residential that we had originally proposed years ago? Aanenson: A lot of the residential was to clean up. When we’ve actually, if you look at properties that we’ve extracted out. They’re non-developable, that we put in preserve. For example you know Liberty at Bluff Creek. We took a lot of property and we took, no longer buildable, so we took that out of the mix. So really a lot of what we did there is tightening what’s buildable and what’s not buildable. If you look at that equation. I think the only other piece that we looked at, we did have some dual guiding down in that 2005 office industrial. We said we’d move that so that switched that around to the, the Fox, Fox Family and the Dorsey property. We moved the office out there and we also gave that the retail. And we did look at some additional, well we took off on Mr. Degler’s property for example, that had potential for either park and open space, so some of that’s clean up from before we had some dual guiding that we no longer want dual guiding. We have better information. We show that as potential park. We’re not going to probably use as a park. That goes back to what Bob Generous stated earlier so a log of that is clean up. I don’t want to say we took out a lot of residential. That may be… Larson: Okay. Generous: And if I may Mr. Chair, as part of our analysis of the ultimate build out of the community…our number still come out pretty close to what we were projecting as part of our 2020 comprehensive plan. Aanenson: Correct. That would be households and population, so that…comes back. Generous: So we’re still on track. It’s just we’ve added a, like she said, we cleaned up a lot of areas. Larson: Okay, that makes sense. Aanenson: I don’t want to think we just said, well we’re not going to do residential. Larson: As I say, and it is very overwhelming and I just wanted to clarify that so. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 McDonald: Okay. Anyone else with anything to clarify or questions, comments? Then someone wants to present a motion, we’ll go with that. Vote on it. Undestad: Alright. I’ll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as modified with revisions to Chapter 7, Transportation, to designate Dell Road from Highway 5 north to the city limit as a major collector and Dell Road from Highway 5 south to the city limit as a B Minor Arterial, and the minor collector narrative shall include Lyman Boulevard east of Highway 101 to the east city limits; Sanitary sewer Chapter 8, to incorporate language regarding the reason for the changes to the MUSA phasing plan; Chapter 9, Water, to incorporate additional language on water conservation; and Capital Improvements, Chapter 10, incorporating the revised CIP Table and authorize submittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. McDonald: Do I have a second? Larson: Second. Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as modified with revisions to Chapter 7, Transportation, to designate Dell Road from Highway 5 north to the city limit as a major collector and Dell Road from Highway 5 south to the city limit as a B Minor Arterial, and the minor collector narrative shall include Lyman Boulevard east of Highway 101 to the east city limits; Sanitary sewer Chapter 8, to incorporate language regarding the reason for the changes to the MUSA phasing plan; Chapter 9, Water, to incorporate additional language on water conservation; and Capital Improvements, Chapter 10, incorporating the revised CIP Table and authorize submittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald: And again my hats is off to staff. I think you all have done a marvelous job from my perspective on the commission here of putting this together and I know you put a lot of time into it and for that I want to say thank you. And I’m sure the residents of the community would also second that. PUBLIC HEARING: MS4 PERMIT, NONDEGRADATION REPORT AND REVISIONS TO THE CITY’S STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM. Public Present: Name Address Mary Borns 7199 Frontier Trail Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail Diane Spencer Wenek Associates 20 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Terry Jeffery introduced himself to the commission as the new Water Resources Coordinator before presenting the staff report on this item, along with Diane Spencer from Wenek Associates who reviewed the specifics of the report. McDonald: Well, thank you. That was interesting. Papke: Question. What enforcement authority does the MPCA have here? I mean if they don’t like what we have, do they come throw Terry in jail or what? Diane Spencer: The enforcement authority is that, this is part of your NPDES permit and the City is required by law to have an approved NPDES permit. So presumably until such time as they approve this, your NPDES permit would not necessarily be out of compliance but it would be conditional. And the other kind of sticks that are out there would be for example your comprehensive plan is that the MPCA may comment on your comprehensive plan proposal that well, you haven’t completed your. Papke: So they hold us hostage? Diane Spencer: Yeah, your nondegradation assessment satisfactorily yet. Larson: Hostage to what? I mean, what’s the punishment? You know. I mean if we don’t comply, what do they throw Terry in jail? Diane Spencer: …civil side and that is that, I’m not aware of, well let me back up and say that the whole reason for the nondegradation assessments is that this an outcome of a citizen lawsuit with the MPCA where the NCEA successfully litigated a case against the MPCA that the MPCA was not adequately enforcing that nondegradation language within statutes and the Court ordered the MPCA to establish this nondegradation requirement and force the Dirty 30 to go through this assessment. McDonald: Well I guess the thing is, you put together a report, what seems to be missing is well we’ve had developers come in here and make a number of suggestions to us about things to do which I think addresses some of your issues about the first half inch and the first inch. What’s the impact to us? I mean you know are we going to start coming up with the plans or is there studies afoot to do things about this? I mean we already put in a, every development we figured out a land use or a land mass and we say you’ve got to have a retaining pond. It’s got to be so deep. It’s got to meet all these qualifications. We do all that. We go around. We make sure that these ponds don’t fill up to a point where at a big rain event they’re swamped out sooner than what they are. I mean it’s nice to put a plan together and you’re right, it will keep you employed and I’m sure your family is very happy for that but I don’t understand, what are we doing? I mean we’re already doing it. Why do we need this plan? And maybe it’s the lawsuit. Jeffery: Mr. Chair, we’re actually seeing these issues in other things. It isn’t that these are unique to just these areas. I mean the reason we have issues down at Bluff Creek is because we’re flashing a large volume of water down there that it cannot take, and if that water were to be kept on site, it would not be going down the Bluff Creek and we would not have the level 21 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 of…speak to it, we’re seeing all those levels in areas lakes that are attributed to the volume that, so these aren’t just isolated to this area. I mean they affect downstream issues that the city has obtained for in the long run anyway. I mean if you look at the bar proposal that was put together to address all of Bluff Creek’s issues, I mean you’re talking, what was that? $4.8 million project. There’s a cost and that cost has got to be absorbed somewhere. McDonald: Well I agree with all of that and what you say is true but what I’m having a problem with, and what do we have here is, what’s the impact? I mean what do we have to do that’s different than what we’re not already doing? Papke: Maybe one specific example, okay. We’re supposed to plant more trees. So how are we going to make that happen? Are you going to, Kate, you know every proposal that comes in, are you going to add 10% more trees to what people are supposed to… Jeffery: Currently right now we’re trying to look away from, Mr. Chair excuse me. To look away from regulatory mechanisms in those cases. I mean, like I mentioned earlier, we already have that reforestation plan in place and we already have the coupon at Arbor Day. Perhaps we’re not reaching as many people as we can with that, or perhaps we can come up with some other type of incentive to doing those things. I mean right now if you look through page 38 on this, a lot of what we’re looking at for regulatory type programs are, the City will evaluate what options are out there. It might be something like coming back to developers with a suite of options that you could put in place and some cities have done what they call curb number reduction where they will look at the overall, curb numbers would be how much water runs off so you might have 100% curb number which would be completely impervious. All the water runs off the site, and we’re done so it may be something where if you put in these features, you can reduce the curb down here or reduce the amount of treatment you need to do on site. So the motivation is that this can be done in ways that might not necessarily be regulatory but right now all we’re really proposing is our slip modifications be that the city looks at these issues and comes up with a way that is palatable and consistent with what we currently have in place and with Best Management Practices that are accepted out there and come forward with that. McDonald: Okay, I don’t mean to keep beating this to death because I know we probably don’t have much choice in the whole matter, but the thing is, you’re looking at an area that is already developed. I mean you talk about taking us back to 1988. That’s ridiculous. In 1988 I lived here. Most of this was farmland. Of course it’s changed. We’ve developed. We have more runoff. We’ve addressed the issues. We have problems in certain areas with runoff and we’ve tried to do everything with the storm water ponding and everything. How are you going to go back and retrofit anything to there? That’s where the majority of the damage is being done in all of this. Yes, with new development I would agree. You can put some new things in. I’m sure there’ll be some new ordinances and everything but the net effect of this is the damage is already done. It’s out there. You’re not going to go out to some of these other developments and put in swales. It’s too late. That’s part of the initial development. Maybe there are other things but we’re trying everything we possibly can to address issues of water runoff because that is the number one thing that a consumer or a homeowner has come up here and complained about is the fact that water ran off my neighbor’s property and flooded my basement, and they’re very concerned about that. What more can we do? I mean this is nice, but this is where I get into the 22 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 thing of you know, we’re wasting taxpayers money. I mean you know, yes. There’s a problem. We’re trying to address it. Show me something new here. I guess that’s what I’m asking for is some me something new. Yeah, a new development but as we just went through the comp plan tonight, there’s not going to be that much more new development in this city. Jeffery: Yeah, you know your point is taken. I mean in these areas how do we go back and address, and especially as we talked earlier. I mean surface water management plans is intended to address water quantity and water quality issues. You know I can’t speak to the MPCA’s or the EPA is actually where this all came from them…but it is a vehicle for us to look at those areas that are developed and we can’t, you’re right. We can’t go in there and say you know what, your house…but we do at the same time need to look at these areas and when something occurs in that area we’ll see if it’s possible to take it back. McDonald: Let me give you an example of something that’s very immediate that I would love to see you know given some options for City Council to deal with. There’s a new development that Lundgren did, was that, it’s not Vasserman Ridge is it? Yeah, people are coming in here now and they’re wanting to do things as far as terracing. Well, we have a problem there because of the lot sizes and all this was well discussed before these developments were ever laid out. But those lots impact the water, the surface water within that entire community. Come back with something there to show how are we going to mitigate that. That’s what City Council needs is, and this report’s nice and we can go through the numbers and everything but, what are we going to do about these problems? I mean I guess, if you’re looking at us to recommend something, that this is a vehicle to get up to council, that’s what we need and that area’s a prime example because of what people want to do. They can’t do it because we’ve told them it will impact surface water runoff, and it creates a big problem and that’s where one of these developers came through and you know gave us a bunch of ideas, it probably isn’t going to work because of soil conditions and things like that but that’s the kind of stuff I think we need. That’s what I would like to see come out of this. That’s what’s got to go forward as far as council so that they can make ordinances based upon some of that. Aanenson: Correct, and that’s what, where we’re going, just to make sure that this, what we’re saying here is that we’re going to come back with that program. Just kind of like with the comp plan so what we’re saying, these are our visions. This is where we’re going. We’re going to come back with that. Create that menu. Whether it’s, when we do a street project we put curbs in as a way to control the water. So that’s what this plan is stating that we’re going to come back with those specific tactics to implement those. McDonald: And I guess what I’m expressing is the frustration of a lot of homeowners that say, another plan. Where’s the meat? That’s what we need to start getting at is, where’s the meat to protect people’s property? And another plan such as this, it’s nice. You did a great job. You know all that but okay, if the real intent is to have some kind of change and effect something, where’s the plan? And we have prime examples right here that are crying out for a solution. The next big rainfall for that area, we’re going to have a big problem because the last event, those homes weren’t there. Now they’re there. 23 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Diane Spencer: Mr. Chair if I could, if you recall the purpose of the nondegradation assessment, it’s a very limited and it’s a very prescribed type of study. It’s only purpose is to identify what the changes in nutrient loading, the storm water volume have been and can be expected to be. And determine what kind of impact your existing BMP’s have, and what this has done has demonstrated that what you’re doing already for pollutant loading is, on a macro level, is adequate. It’s doing what it should be doing by not increasing that pollutant loadings since 1988. It identifies that storm water ponding is an issue and you need to do something to address storm water volume for a number of reasons. Again that the vehicle for doing that is through amending your storm water pollution prevention program is identifying the process for saying how do we now go through on a more minute level, put together that tool box that developers can use that we can then say to developers, here’s what you do. So all this is doing is saying, do we have a problem or not? Yes, in some areas. No, in other areas. McDonald: Well what I’m saying is, my recommendation, government has a very good track record of establishing numbers. There’s 1988. Suddenly we don’t mention that. We’re talking about, eh, so what? What are they going to do? Put up dams around the city and all the water stays in here. We’re going to have to drink it or something. That’s not going to happen. The permits. I don’t understand the whole mechanism of that about having to get that. If that impacts our water treatment or something, but the thing is, okay. What are we going to do? What’s the plans? You know what’s the details? We’ve got to get to the details because we’ve been talking about this for as long as I’ve been on the Planning Commission, which is a couple of years now and again, that’s what we need are the details of how we’re going to address these issues. You know and I think that’s the bottom line of the what the State really wants is just, I don’t think they know how to ask for it. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, this is a public hearing so you may want to… McDonald: Okay, if we’re all done asking questions then. Larson: No, I have one more. I’m so sorry. You were talking about the reforestation. I’ve lived here since 1985, and when I first moved out here, none of this was here. It was all farmland and grazing land and everything else, and just between City Hall and where I live, which is a mile and a half up the road, the forestation has 10 fold from what it was when I first moved out here because it was all graded before. When you’re talking about reforestation, I take that as a forest that was knocked down and now we’re putting it back. No? Then what is the reforestation mean? Jeffery: Well reforestation means. Larson: Well, I’m not quite finished. When you’re adding trees, I mean Chanhassen has a lot more trees than I remember back in those days and so, I guess I’m thinking that you know like Diane said, it’s been beneficial that we’ve had development, but now we’re talking you know a regional mall. We’re talking big box and things like that. I mean how’s all that going to affect what you’re talking about. I mean it’s not just the citizens problem. It’s all this other stuff too and I don’t want that to get lost in the shuffle here you know. We’re trying to make it and point 24 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 to the citizens that want to live here but it’s more than that. It’s on quite a grander scale than that. Jeffery: Mr. Chair, to your point. One of the things I tried to point out in the hearing, and perhaps…say it. This city has done a great job. There are a number of things that are already in place but I think…so reforestation, I mean we can go back and say, okay…and in 1896 it was big woods forest so I mean it’s just a term that’s used. Reforestation, planting of trees in an area that was native to big woods back then. Larson: So was this native to big woods? I don’t know. Jeffery: Yeah. Larson: Okay. Jeffery: This whole area, prior to being settled, would have been a big woods area. Larson: So we can blame our grandparents. Jeffery: Yeah, I mean it’s just… Larson: Darn farmers. Jeffery: To the other point, as we look at big box areas, what…and I guess that’s kind of what I wanted to speak to. We have two choices. We can be reactionary. We have issues in…and try and solve those problems, or in other cases we might have the opportunity to be proactive by knowing what we have. Many of your, what you’re talking about, we will address through the SWMP plan and I’ve been, Todd Gerhardt, myself have been talking about putting together those projects again and getting before the council about what is it that we’re doing. What’s on our plate right now and where do we go from there, so that’s the vehicle that we’ll look at through those projects. This is just, and I know. I understand your frustration. Great, we’ve got another study. But at the same time it is another tool that we have to understand which watersheds… McDonald: Okay. Well I want to welcome you to the city staff and you know, I think we’ve been very nice to you compared to what will happen at the next water event but just kind of keep that in mind that we do love you and you know, we really don’t mean any harm but, yeah this is a very touchy issue. Jeffery: Well it is your city. I mean. McDonald: Well it’s your city now too. Okay. At this point if there’s no other comments, questions, concerns, then we’ll throw it open to the public for comment from anyone wishing to come forward and address the commission. And I thank you for your patience in waiting. I know that. Steve Donen: It’s been a long night. 25 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 McDonald: It’s been a long night but I think well worth it. Steve Donen: My name is Steve Donen. I live at 7341 Frontier Trail and I happen to be a member on the citizen advisory committee… Your question is a good one. Very appropriate. What do you do? We’ve got some good ordinances. We’ve got some good rules that are listed…basin here, basin there, and a basin here…solutions are a whole different world than where we’ve been. They’re around half inch, one inch infiltrated into the ground. Can’t happen everywhere. Can happen a whole bunch of places. Okay. So the answer to your question Jerry is we’ve got to, we’ve got to work on infiltration. And there’s fancy words in your thing. Extraction and all those fancy words and the thing to talk about that really is getting the ground water back into the ground where it used to go before we built all the impervious surface, okay. That’s where it’s got to go. Back in the ground. Okay. How do we do that? There are some challenges, okay. Big challenges in doing it. Now for this plan, 1988 works really good for places that aren’t developed. We can put in infiltration rules and we can put in more ponds and we can control those and I would hope through ordinances and other regulations that we would implement, that we can get those done so that these lakes that are currently undeveloped, don’t become…in the future. Okay. What happens on Lotus Lake? Lotus Lake gets 5 inches of rain. It goes up 17 inches. Docks are rolling around. Becomes unsafe. Shorelines are getting destroyed. All kinds of bad things are happening. Well beyond, well beyond the issue of the phosphorous. Now Lotus Lake has too much phosphorous too, okay because in 1988 it already had too much phosphorous. Okay, so we have to do more, okay. I wanted to read just quickly a little comment. This is actually in the, if you remember, this is actually in your web site for this whole amount…I wanted to point this out, this line for you guys and that is, is that the line that says, down, bring it down to right about here. You want to zoom it in? Anyways, it gives a little…why we’re here and it says, data collected from this assessment is, can be used to identify changes and revisions to the BMP’s within the existing storm water management plan to ring true to 1988 or better conditions for each parameter. We don’t have to stay at 1988, okay. We have the opportunity to ask our city staff, let’s do better. Okay. What does it take to do better, which was a great question. What does it take? It really takes infiltration. It’s a big deal. Now the question becomes, your immediate question is, how do I get there? How do I do infiltration in developed areas, right? Because undeveloped areas you put ordinances in and you can control the development. We can make sure that it infiltrates the first inch to half inch of rain, right? Pretty easy to do. Not easy but everybody will scream and yell, it’s going to cost you more money but I can guarantee you in the long run infiltration techniques are a whole lot easier and cheaper in the long run than cleaning out basements every 10 years. Spending thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousand of dollars on cleaning all these basements that we put in that fill up with all this stuff, okay. You put in 3 basements or 100 little infiltration things. The infiltration items don’t require a lot of work, okay. There’s nice little garden, you saw some pictures of some of them right? So infiltration is the trick and you’re going to hear, hopefully by the end of the day you’ll be sick of hearing it. With all that, so we really do, I mean me personally, I think the plan is well done. I thank you for the presentation. It was excellent. It is well done. They pointed out what the issues are, and they are what they are. As I pointed out in my letters today, you guys saw a few of them today, for us on Lotus Lake and some of the developed lakes are, it’s not enough. Okay? Now I do come here as part of this advisory committee for the watershed and I ask you guys a couple things tonight. One is, I would think that putting in 26 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 regulations to help put this stuff on the future development is a good deal. Redevelopment’s the right thing to do. Charge your staff. Go tell them what I need to do to help make this happen in the future to get better. Charge them with it, which you just did tonight, which I thought was excellent. Okay. Along with all that though, I also come to you with a proposal. How can we make an example, how do we come up with a plan or an example of how we really do improve thing in a developed area. How do we do it? Okay. Our watershed district has chosen, for various reasons, Lotus Lake to prove that we can actually improve and reduce and improve the quality of the watershed in a developed area. How they going to do it? They’re going to use, they’re going to come into our watershed and they’re going to use some very, very advance modeling techniques. Very, very advanced ideas and thoughts. Maybe even some out of the box thoughts. Say how are we going to go affect the watershed of Lotus Lake? Okay. And you’re going to see this. They have approximately $10 million set aside in their 10 year plan to fix Lotus Lake, which will answer your question, how do we do it? …how have they been thinking about doing it? 5,000 rain gardens maybe. Okay. Street modifications. Ways of infiltrating the ground. So I ask you tonight, one of my things I hear, I agree with the plan. I think it points out whatever you want it to do. I think we have an opportunity with an organization to work with the watershed on Lotus Lake and prove to the rest of the world who doubts it can be done, that we can do it so I’m asking you all when you hear about this thing over the next year or two, as they’re finalizing their 10 year plan. You say you know what, we support that because we want to learn how to do this and we’re going to work with the watershed to learn how to do it and do it well. So I’m giving you an opportunity, the watershed has the funds. They want to spend the resources to do it and we need you guys as a city to help us make it happen. Okay. That’s what I have for tonight, and Mary Borns is here. I can give her speech too. She said here, read this. Mary Borns is here to present some other things. She said let’s do it right the first time. We’ll spend a lot more money fixing Lotus Lake than we would have had we know, been smarter about it you know 50 years ago… Just a comment Mary would make. Okay. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Steve Donen: Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and address the commissioners? Well in that case I close the public hearing on this issue and I bring it back up before the commissioners for any final thoughts and comments before we move forward with anything. Kurt, let’s start with you. Papke: No comment. Thomas: No, I think I made mine, thanks. Larson: Yeah, no comment. McDonald: Okay. I think the commission said everything about this. Again it’s a very good report, and I do appreciate you bringing this up for us and you’re right, it does address things that we should be aware of. Having said all of that, I’m not ready for anyone wishing to make a motion going forward. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the distribution of the Nondegradation Assessment to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit as revised June 1, 2006. McDonald: Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the distribution of the Nondegradation Assessment to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit as revised June 1, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP SNAP FITNESS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 2411 GALPIN COURT (LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK). APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORP, PLANNING CASE 07-27. (Mark Undestad excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest.) Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions of staff? Larson: Yes. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Why do you want them to redirect the walkway to Galpin Boulevard and not through the trees? Wouldn’t that make a prettier walk? Or are they too tight? Generous: Jill’s answer to that was by going into that you impact the tree system and you have a tendency, because they have to take Bobcats and stuff in that, you destroy what you’re trying to preserve. Aanenson: You have to grade it level. Larson: To put a walk back there? Generous: Yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, put a sidewalk. Yeah, to meet ADA. 28 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Larson: Gotch ya. Okay. McDonald: Alright. Any other questions? Papke: Yeah. This is going to be a very highly visible. From Lyman this is going to be kind of the corner stone of that area. The drawings, it was hard to tell from the drawings. It’s easy to tell what the building is going to look like, but it was hard to tell what the site is going to look like after the landscaping and trees and everything go in. Any idea of how much of the building, the trees are going to. Aanenson: Perspective from highway. Papke: Yeah, from Galpin and from Lyman. Generous: Not the trees per se. It should be fairly visible, if you look at the landscaping plan. Papke: Yeah, it didn’t look like there was going to be a tremendous amount of landscaping that’s going to be added in the front of the building. Generous: It’s mostly on the Galpin side that they’ll have the screening because of the existing concentration of preserved trees that they’re going to have to need to do. Papke: How about berming? Is there? Generous: No, they’re not berming. The site actually goes down and so the… Well it’s 958 in this corner and it’s finished floor elevation of 961 so it’s 3 feet up from this, the southeast. However you’re down at, 65, 66. About 968 at the Galpin…intersection so you’re down 7 feet to the finished grade so you’re looking, from the north you’re looking down into the site. From the south you’re looking up. On the south side, the corner, like I said, will be mostly open on the landscaping plan. They have incorporated the rain gardens too as part of their surface water system. Papke: Where are the existing trees on that? Generous: They’re grouped right in this area so they go in and out, and so they’ll, all, most of the new plantings…heavy concentration there. This will be more open on the south side. Papke: Yeah, it looks like the parking lot comes pretty close to the right-of-way on the south side. Generous: Yeah, it meets, it’s at the 20 foot when you get over to the west end. Papke: Okay. Well I guess the good news is, it’s a good looking building but it is, it does seem like it’s going to be extremely visible. 29 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 Aanenson: We did make modifications from when it first came in. We did ask for some additional articulation. Some window treatments. That concern. It is a highly visible building. Generous: Yeah, all these upper level windows were something that we added…base around the windows and then the expansion of these stone material. Aanenson: Those are all the changes from the first. Generous: And plus you know, they incorporated these arches over the, the bigger windows to add the emphasis that provides the interest to the building. McDonald: Is there actually a second story up there with those windows? Generous: No. McDonald: Or is that just a really high ceiling? Generous: Yes. It’s a high roof. Aanenson: And again we wanted to give it that look, a more office on two stories as opposed to a larger warehouse. Larson: So would they just be real windows or are they just façade treatments? McDonald: Okay, no further questions. This is a public meeting so I would ask if there’s anyone out there that wishes to make comment, please come up to the podium and address the commissioners with your comments. Applicant: I’m just here for questions. McDonald: Oh, okay. Well in that case, seeing no one come up. I will close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back up for the commissioners for any final thoughts or comments. Kathleen? Thomas: I don’t really have any comments. It is visible but I think like that’s, they’ve done a good job at kind of making it acceptable for being on the corner so, and being so visible so I’m okay with it. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: Nothing. McDonald: Kurt? Papke: I have no concerns. I think it’s a very attractively designed building and it will finish off that development quite nicely. It would have been nice to have a few more trees there on the corner but for what they’re trying to cram in there, I can see why they’re doing what they’re 30 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 doing. They’re certainly following all the city codes and so on. They’re not breaking any rules so I can’t fault them for what they’re doing there so I’m fine with it. McDonald: Okay. Then in that case, does anyone wish to make a motion for recommendation. Thomas: Sure, I’d like to make a motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case #07-27, approving a site plan for a 50,000 square foot, one story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated November 6, 2007, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 31 with the removal of condition 32. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Larson: I’ll second that. Thomas moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves Planning Case #07-27 approving a site plan for a 50,000 square-foot, one- story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated November 06, 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.The plan must be revised to meet the 50-foot setback from the property line (on Galpin Boulevard) to the parking lot. 4.Site lighting shall be revised to incorporate high-pressure sodium vapor lamps. 5.Architectural lighting shall be down cast only. 6.Two upper level windows shall be added on the west end of the south building elevation. 7.A column shall be added in the middle of the north building elevation. 8.The developer shall provide a pedestrian connection from the site to Lyman Boulevard. 9.The proposed sidewalk shall not be located within the existing group of protected trees. The sidewalk shall be located either north or south of this area with City approval. 10.Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all curbs for trail and sidewalk connections. 11.All plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located so as to not damage existing trees. No trees or shrubs shall be planted within the protected area of trees without City approval. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 12.All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 09/16/07 shall be protected by tree protection fencing before any construction activities begin. Any trees killed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 13.Shrub quantities shall be increased to meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. 14.Wood chip mulch shall be used around trees in all landscape peninsulas in place of sod or rocks. 15.Applicant must comply with the following Fire Prevention policies: a.40-1995 Fire Sprinkler requirements. b.07-1991 Pre-fire plan drawings. c.29-1991 Premises identification. d.34-1993 Water service installation. e.36-1994 Combination Fire/Domestic water service line. Combustible Storage and High Pile Combustible Storage 16.Applicant must fill out the form. 17.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and scrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 18.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 19.The park fees payable with the building permit shall be $42,416.00. 20.Sheet C1 shall be amended to show inlet protections on all existing storm sewer inlets. 21.Sheet C1 shall be amended to extend the erosion control blanket in the northeast corner of the lot to cover all soil until the proposed grading matches the existing grade. 22.Sheet C4 item #2 shall be amended to insert the construction of rain gardens as item #11 in the sequencing of construction activities and “inspect site” shall be amended so that it is #12 in the sequence. 23.Sheet C4 item #5.1 shall have language added to the effect that the SWPPP, all amendments and the NPDES permit shall be kept on site in a readily accessible location known to all relevant individuals. 24.Sheet L1 the rain gardens shall be designed so that water runoff from the parking area will travel through some form of filter BMP. 32 Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008 25.The rain gardens shall be designed to drain within 48 hours and not be inundated to a depth greater than one foot during a 10-year storm event. Calculations need to be provided supporting this. 26.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 27.The complete existing contours must be shown on the east side of the property. 28.The proposed contours must tie into the existing contours shown on the plan. 29.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 30.Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 31.A cross-access agreement must be dedicated and a copy provided to the City before the building permit is issued.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2007 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 33