Loading...
PC 1998 04 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING APIIlL 1, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Kevin Joyce, and Matt Burton MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PIlESENT: Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; and Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: CSM COIIPOIIATION IlEQUEST FOIl PIIELIMINAIIY PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTEIl SECOND ADDITION (3.45 ACIlES) INTO 2 LOTS; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO BUILDINGS (15,005 SQ. FT. AND 12,727 SQ. FT.) AND VACATION OF AN EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HWY 5, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER PHASE III. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions for staff'? Brooks: Are you absolutely comfortable then with their landscaping plan? Sharmin A1-Jaflk Yes. Jill, our City Forester did review the changes and she, there are minor changes that yet need to take place but they are very simple and. Brooks: But they will shield the view of the parking from the view? Sharmin A1-Jaflk Not immediately. As the trees mature, yes they will be adequate. Now with the berm, they've increased the height of the berm an additional two feet. We feel that will provide the screening of the parking lot. Brooks: How tall are the trees they're going to put in there? Sharmin A1-Jaflk By ordinance the evergreens have to be a minimum of 6 feet. And the overstory 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum. Burton: In the report you discuss the trash enclosure between the two sites and that there are shrubs just on the south side. Has there been any modification of that or was that? Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Sharmin Al-Jarl5 That remains as is and the last page of your staff report shows the trash enclosure. It's materials that are identical to the building and it will be located right between the two buildings so it's accessible by both. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Joyce: Just a couple quick ones. What is, in condition 13, the first part of that. The first motion it says, meet with Building Official to discuss building plans. That's kind of vague. Sharmin Al-Jarl5 Steve Kirchman, the Building Official always requests that the applicant meet with him to discuss industrial building plans. That's all. Joyce: I think you duplicated two conditions in the second part. Condition 5 and 11 look like they're the same. Sharmin A1-Jafl5 You're right. Joyce: You're comfortable with the trash enclosure, where it's at? Sharmin A1-Jafl5 Yes. If they do add the landscaping along the side. Joyce: I'm just wondering why we have it so close to the street. Why did we put the trash enclosure in the middle of that, like that? What was the reason behind that? Sharmin A1-Jafl5 To have it in one area, they need an outdoor trash enclosure. Rather than having two separate trash enclosures, we prefer to see one. Joyce: Okay, that makes sense. I can understand that. Okay. The last thing, maybe I should wait for the applicant but I can't see the board with the rendering there. Were they going to do something with the entryway? Sharmin A1-Jafl5 Yes. Their original plan showed a canopy basically identical to what you see out there today. They changed this so that there is a canopy above each entryway and it's not, it kind of narrows down as you get to the end of, from one side of the entryway to the other. It's not your typical everyday. Joyce: I couldn't see that when it was laying down. Now I see what you're saying. I guess it's I guess a teal color they were talking about or something like that, green? Sharmin Al-Jarl5 Right. Which is similar to what you see out there today. As far as the material, this is the other building and to give you a comparison between the two. They plan on doing is the south portion. Lighter color on one and darker on the other. Then the bottom portion is the... Joyce: Okay. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Sharmin Al-Jarl2 One of the concerns that we had, it's not addressed in the staff report. Is there enough of a difference in the colors to actually be able to tell that. Those are two different buildings. We had that experience with Mission Hills. We thought that we had different colors but they really, you have to look very closely to distinguish between. Joyce: This is lighter on the top and darker on the bottom where the other one's kind of all dark, if I remember correctly. Sharmin Al-Jarl2 And they're using some tile as accent. Joyce: Okay, thanks Sharmin. Peterson: While you're there Sharmin. One of my concerns was somewhat addressed already by having the pitched roof.., that's more dissimilar now than the rest of the buildings surrounding it. Not being able to compare now the buildings that are in the first two phases, how from your perspective, how do you compare those buildings? Is that building going to be unique or is it still going to look substantially the same in color and texture as the buildings that are already there? Joyce: The existing buildings have a darker brick and then there's a row of windows on the bottom.., on the top. If you look at these, you see the glass wall extends all the way to the top in some areas. Then this second building is slightly different by creating an L shaped out of the glass so they are similar yet there are some differences. Peterson: Yeah it does. Seeing it from that distance and looking at the plans that were presented to us, I'm a little bit concerned that there still isn't enough differentiation from the other buildings that are there. I don't want to have a congregation of buildings that are so similar, and particularly in the entrance to the city. I'm very concerned that they aren't differentiating enough and I guess I'm going to look to the commissioners to really address that issue if it's adequately enough. Sharmin A1-Jafl2 The dark brick has been eliminated altogether. As far as the color of the brick, we are comfortable. The question becomes is there enough difference between the two colors. Peterson: And then architecturally I think, seemingly you're convinced that architecturally the buildings are unique enough so that getting rid of the pitched roof effectively removes that similarity enough to create that change. Any questions of staff'? Hearing none, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward and address please. Mark Kusnierek: My name is Mark Kusnierek. I'm the Senior Project Architect for CSM Corporation. We're located at 2575 University Avenue in St. Paul. The reason for us coming in for this change in site plan has been from the demographics that we have studied, of the history that we have been over saturating the area with office warehouse. We found that there's a high number of users that want smaller office square footage from 3,000 to 5,000 square foot increments. So we've come to you tonight to present these two projects. Keeping smaller buildings that were previously out there to break up large buildings down to a smaller unit. The Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 similarities between them, ifI can address, is that the only thing that is similar in what we see is the block color itself. That is the same block color that we used in the previous one. The brick that is out at the other one is at the comer units and goes all the way up, just at the comers themselves. And then projects as little arches over some of the other areas. The window patterns themselves are much different and much larger in these office buildings than they were in the previous ones. Also, the elimination of the truck docks. We've got them architecturally designed all the way around the entire building to help that out. With the suggestion from staff to eliminate the pyramid, we've come forward with the post modem canopy to help out as well. We feel that this is a very good and clean design that could enhance the gateway to Chanhassen. The berm itself, to help out with that. Highway 5 is below the level of the parking at that elevation so you're going to be looking up at a 4 foot high berm with the parking behind it so we feel that you're not going to see the cars immediately adjacent to it. If you see anything, it would be from further beyond. With the landscaping, then that can help as well. I guess if there's any questions I can address them now for you. Any concerns that you might have. We also have with us tonight Tim Erklof from Westwood Engineering who is the civil engineers and landscapers on the project if you have any questions for him. He's be welcome to answer them for you. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Sidney: I had a couple questions. I guess I was wondering, I think part of what we do on the Planning Commission is think about the best use for office industrial areas and wondering if there's any possibility that these buildings actually could be two story, since you're describing a need for office space. Two story buildings are good and it would give the area more of a you know differentiation in height of buildings and possibly some other architectural interest in that area. Has that ever been discussed? Mark Kusnierek: We looked at the possibility of a two stoW building there. The cost effectiveness was not there to help it out, as well as you would end up with one large parking lot. Because of the office square footage, the codes require a higher amount of parking required than per se the office warehouse. So you would end up, either we'd build a parking ramp to go with it to help accommodate the larger square foot. You want to get a fair size footprint with the building when you get into the two story buildings. And it just was not cost effective for that site. Sidney: For that site, okay. And then I guess I was wondering about the diversity in textures and the materials and also color and I'm wondering if we're getting too much teal here translated from the previous buildings to these buildings. I'm wondering if you'd considered other colors in the scheme. Mark Kusnierek: We did look at some other colors but we wanted some small connection back to the original three buildings. The teal is only used in the pyramids in the first three buildings. In this one we, 16 inch squares at each of the column locations or at the entrances it would be, the teal color on the metal of the lights. The accent lights at those entrances. So it's a smaller amount with the teal canopies and so we didn't feel it was that large an amount. If you feel that it's necessary to change the color, we're willing to work with the staff to accommodate that so. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Sidney: Okay. I'd like to see some different options. You know a different, not that, I don't know what the terms is in coloration but maybe a lighter teal or something that might be a little bit different. Mark Kusnierek: If you change in colors, it's almost a change to a different color because the industry with the pre-finished panels themselves come in only a series of colors. Otherwise you get into custom colors and there again they get more expensive. It gets tough. Sidney: And then one more question before I let other people speak here. About the texture of the brick. How different is this, what you're showing than what the previous buildings have for textures and that's one of my concerns that we're getting too much of the same kind of texture being repeated in these buildings. Mark Kusnierek: The previous brick had a smoother finish to it and almost has a sheen. At some of the bricks. They're not all uniform obviously. These are more of a natural finish to the brick. And with the difference in the colors, we feel it can help a great deal. Also, above each of the windows the brick is corbel so it steps back in a little bit and then we're changing with some soldier courses and header courses as well. Sidney: So there would be some depth. Mark Kusnierek: There's going to be a little bit of depth and then the texture with the mortar joints by changing the coursing. So we're adding a different texture feel to the brick itself. Sidney: I guess my concern when I saw the original plans that you presented, you know that it was getting to be too cookie cutter so the more we can do to differentiate these buildings, the better I think. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? A couple myself. One of the conditions, number 8, we talk about concurrent with the building permit a detailed lighting plan. What is the plans for the parking lot lighting and/or exterior lighting? Is it exactly the same as the other phases or is it going to be unique or not? Mark Kusnierek: The parking lot lights will be the same as the others one which are a box fixture that is amiable down on a 20 foot high pole. The lights on the building are different. They're not the round fixtures that you see out there. We have submitted the lights, a cut sheet of the lights to the staff at their request. They're more square. They're a halo light behind it with some other squares that light forward so it's more design into it as well. Peterson: Secondly the rooftop equipment, will that be screened in the same manner as the other phases also? Mark Kusnierek: The rooftop units will be screened. We have it at, I think we got a 3 foot parapet sitting up there. We've got the parapets or the masonry's at 20 foot 6. The joist bearing's at 17 feet. So we've got 3 feet of parapet sitting there. With the smaller office square footage, Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 we're not going to have real large units up there. And we do move them off the first grid so they get more in the center of the building so you won't see them. Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open this to a public hearing and a second please? Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your respective thoughts. Kevin, can we start with you? Joyce: Sure. I don't have any problem with the development. I wasn't a real big fan of it. Two buildings that we started off with initially there, particularly as it being kind of the gateway to our fair city but I just thought they were very large, not really very interesting to look at so, I assume there's going to be a third large building so I guess when I saw two smaller buildings, that was a little more appreciative of that fact. So I guess I'm in favor of it. Sidney: I made most of my comments. I guess I feel more comfortable now after the applicant described the materials and the design. I still would like to see some possible alternative colors. If staff could investigate that. If it would work out. I just have a feeling like there's a little bit too much teal going on with the buildings. Just for interest sake. Peterson: Matt. Burton: I agree with the comments. Most the things that concerned me seemed to be addressed by the staff and the conditions so I feel pretty comfortable with it. Blackowiak: I have nothing new to add. Brooks: I think this building looks a lot nicer than the other two buildings. I don't think the berm in front of the other two buildings is nearly high enough and I'm hoping that, I'm trusting that this is a good, you are comfortable with the fact that this berm will protect the view and the landscaping will protect the view because really it didn't work on the other two buildings very well. But architecturally it's a much better building than the other two so I'm in favor of the project. I don't worry about the teal. Peterson: My thoughts are, I'm concerned that the plan has really changed from an architectural standpoint from the plan that I reviewed in our packet so I'm a little bit hesitant to approve it because I was.., was and am concerned that I really want a distinctive building as it is, as it relates 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 to the other phases and I think that I guess I would just ask that, and it's brought to Council that my recommendation would be to, as they get their packets, to have.., with those changes and that they review that under the assumption, at least my preference would be to insure that the building is distinctive and unique as it relates to the others. It's on the surface from 10 feet away.., it seems as it is, but I would have preferred to really see the opportunity, have the opportunity to see it more in detail. Understanding that that wasn't available tonight. Other than that, if my assumptions are correct, I think.., nice building and I like the idea of two versus one. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: Okay I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen Business Center, Chanhassen East Business Center, Third Addition as shown on the plat received March 2, 1998 with the following conditions, 1 through 10. Strike number 11, which appears to be a duplicate of the previous number 5. Renumber the remaining three conditions which are listed as 8, 9 and 10 and renumber them as 11, 12 and 13. Peterson: Can I have a second please? Burton: Second. Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Third Addition as shown on the plat received March 2, 1998, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The name of the subdivision shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center Third Addition and lots shall be described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities. The applicant shall dedicate a cross access/parking easements over the two lots. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the permit. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. The appropriate front, rear and side yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 11. The final construction plans and specifications for the site utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. 12. A cross access and maintenance agreement shall be executed over the easterly lot to permit utility extension and street access to the westerly lot. 13. All driveway access points along Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Can I have a motion and a second on the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, on page 11. Joyce: I'll make a motion for the site plan review that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase III as shown on the site plan received March 2, 1998 subject to conditions 1 through 13. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase III, as shown on the site plan received March 2, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Planting schedule shall be revised to reflect use of some of the Lake Drive boulevard tree species used in the landscape plan for previous CSM phases. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include shrubs in buff'er yard plantings along Highway 5. Parking lot islands shall be a minimum of 10' in width. If the applicant does not increase the width, aeration tubes shall be installed. Landscape materials used along the south of the trash enclosure shall be repeated along the north portion of the structure. 5. Signage criteria: Each building shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. c. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. k. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Fire Marshal conditions: a. "No parking fire lane" signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. The proposed fire hydrant between Building A and Building B must be relocated to the south. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Post Indicator Valves will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. (Copy Enclosed.) Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. (Copy Enclosed.) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding pre- fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07- 1991. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen Policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. (Copy Enclosed.) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36- 1994. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #47-1998. (Copy Enclosed.) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come in to the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40-1995. 8. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 9. Revise plans to introduce a different pitched element on the buildings. 10. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 11. Enter into a cross parking/access agreements. 12. The applicant shall officially withdraw the site plan for CSM Phase II Building 2. 13. Meet with the Building Official to discuss building plans." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND GROUP~ INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD~ PRELIMINARY PUD AND PLAT APPROVAL FOR 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND FOR AN OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WHICH WOULD PERMIT A CHURCH/INSTITUTIONAL USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE ON 27.3 ACRES~ BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Sidney: Could you put that conceptual plan back up there? I don't think we saw that. I just wanted to see... And where is Highway 5? Generous: Highway 5 is on the north. Highway 5. They had one entrance into this project with the parking lot area in the middle with views from highway parking lot. The church building.., to the west. Additional parking wasn't very convenient to the site... Joyce: That was a private street before then? Generous: That's what they were proposing. Staff had recommended that at least to the, where the property line... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: Bob, I was noticing on the Stone Creek Drive now, do they only have sidewalks on the east side of the street? Generous: That's the current proposal, yes. Joyce: Okay, so there's no sidewalks on the west portion. Peterson: ... talk about preserving the desirable site characteristics and in the findings section I looked at the applicant has shown some interest in protecting the natural features of the site. Kind of a nondescript statement. I'm wondering whether we...maintain the environment. Generous: And actually if you look at the design parameters, you will be preserving the natural area which is on the east.., church facility, we are preserving some topography. The building's set down as we move from Highway 5 so we do have... And they have committed to doing the natural plantings. Using natural materials so. Peterson: In summary ofrezoning to PUD... reduced impervious surface. I assume that that is regarding just the PUD because it was previously zoned A2. We certainly wouldn't be reducing the impervious surface by... Generous: That's correct and the savings are in the reduced parking spaces that the individual office and industrial office users would normally provide on that. Peterson: Assuming that we will rezone it... Generous: Right. As part of the development. Peterson: One other question.., ask the question, look at the.., is there for the church. I'm assuming that would require a substantial amount of additional parking if the expansion were to occur.., spread that out to multiple commercial sites. Office sites. I didn't see where that was really written in there. On street parking would be a permitted or not be... Generous: I don't believe we were looking at that. We were looking at the cross access and parking arrangements because of expansion. Peterson: ... natural expansion would be to the northern... Generous: Well it's mostly worked, it's immediately to the east there.., circulation system that we're looking at... it's almost like an intersection on... Peterson: Last question.., seemingly have three monument signs of some sort for the church. What is the, I didn't think three was the number for this type of development but... Generous: Well it's based on street frontage and.., providing Outlot B would be dedicated to the City. However, they would be... 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Peterson: ... five signs for a relatively small development. Other questions? Burton: When I looked at the proposal summary and.., requesting that the City permit banks and restaurants and I did go back and read the City Council Minutes and it appeared to me that they were opposed to that. My question is, if we approve this as recommended by the stafl} does that include then that their request for the restaurant be approved? Generous: No. You would have to amend the design standards on page 11 and 12 where you go permitted uses.., specifically include that .... ancillary use if they wanted to... It'd be fine if it's only a percentage of a building... Burton: I discussed this with you briefly ahead of time but can you discuss how this development complies with the Bluff Creek overlay and what that... Generous: ... wildlife corridor. Blackowiak: Excuse me Bob, could you mm that upside down so that north is on the top for us? That's the way I'm looking at it, thanks. Generous: Drawn in here are the line that we were looking at for the setback or for the corridor line.., was prohibiting future... They can still get the design... So the idea is to get wildlife... Burton: Okay, and then I guess, am I right there's about 100 yards setback. Generous: Feet. Burton: I'm sorry, 100 feet setback with that buff'er zone off of it... Generous: This... area would be about 150 feet. 100 feet from the edge of the wetland. Burton: And if we strictly enforced the Bluff Creek overlay, where would that run? Generous: It runs a little bit farther to the east on the southern portion. It drops down and then basically follows what we've proposed. The primary corridor... Burton: I have one other question... 200,000 square feet of commercial industrial there and I just looked at the buildings and did my own math and I came up with 183. Is that right? Generous: Yes. However what they're looking at is they've increased the value of the use by going from office warehouse to more office space. So that's where they've, the revenue analysis came in that the numbers wash out. Burton: That's all I have. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Blackowiak: I just want to clarify something that I talked to you a little bit earlier about Bob, was that the primary corridor. I mean it talked a little bit in here about the intent of the Bluff Creek study and as I read it the intent was to keep development back out of the primary corridor totally. As the plan stands right now, the church and future addition and future parking are in the primary corridor. Generous: Well as they propose it but we're saying the setback is such. We're establishing the setback at that. We're creating a significant corridor. It might not jive exactly as a plan as the map was drawn but we think we have created adequate space... I really left that up to Phil Elkin, the Water Resource Coordinator. Are we trading a significant space. Blackowiak: Right. I'm not only concerned about that but I'm also concerned about the 300 foot setback. I mean we decided, or it was decided at the time the study was completed that 300 feet was the setback that we should use and we're 100 feet at some places and I understand that you would not allow the future addition on the west or the future.., because it wouldn't be within the setback or buff'er that it's proposed, but as I said before, when they first came before us this is the first test case for Bluff Creek. Do we cave in right away? Or do we say, yes. We have an overlay district. We have a study. We are going to stand behind it and we are going to enforce the intent of the study which was 300 foot setback. Generous: Well however if you look at what the primary corridor is shown on in the Bluff Creek study, it's not 300 feet. It meanders. Some places are more critical than others. Blackowiak: No, I understand that but then why did the study say 300 feet? That's what I'm curious about. Generous: I don't know. That was just a number that came out. Blackowiak: That was the number. Okay. Generous: I know that Kate wasn't for going with that specific standard because there are some areas that 300 feet might not be enough in some areas and then in others it might be too much. We can create what we want to create within Bluff Creek in that area. And in this instance we believe we're creating a viable natural area, or the developer will when they.., vegetation. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: Bob, and I don't mean to keep on harping on this Bluff Creek but is this presented anywhere in the conditions? I know that you presented it in the proposal but I don't see it as a part of the conditions because this obviously would have to as part of the, or a suggestion from the city that it be part of a condition of this proposal, right? Generous: Right. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: Is it in any of these conditions? I just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything here. Generous: Well it isn't that, you're requiring them to comply with the design standards which will become an appendix to the development contract and that has a specific condition. The first part is primary landscaping in that area and revegetation and that's the first and second condition. Or the second condition that those revisions would make the, incorporate the Bluff Creek. Joyce: I guess I'm trying to give them direction. Obviously that's what they're looking for, right? Generous: Right. Joyce: Okay. My last question is, we looked at the west side. Now what's going on with the east side? Is that also primary bluff corridor? Generous: No. It wasn't identified as such in the study. It is part of the Bluff Creek overlay district. Joyce: I guess what I'm asking, are you holding that up to the same standard as the west side where you want 100 foot setback? Are you suggesting? Generous: Well we've incorporated the 100 feet from the east branch with the 50 foot buff'er area. Joyce: I'm looking on this plan and the northeast comer of this is all 80 foot, right? Generous: Well we did agree that because of the way the creek curved in that, that we would let them drop down there. Joyce: So you're comfortable with the 80 foot setback there? Generous: Our real concern is we want them to continue the vegetation to the south where the natural vegetation ends. We'd like to see that planting area expand. Joyce: I'll listen for a while. I'm just a little confused. Well I guess my understanding is we're okay on the east side but on the west side you're saying that this whole future addition of the church is really not going to. Generous: It's not going to be where they located it. It will be moved. Joyce: Right, and that's where you're going to concentrate all the reforestation down by the church? Generous: No. That will have minimal forestation. This will be more prairie plantings in here due to the... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: Okay, but then once again you're going away from this 100 foot to the 80 foot. Generous: ...usable space on the west... Joyce: I guess where I'm confused is I didn't, I'm looking at the 80 foot setback and I didn't see anywhere on the proposal where it was addressed and that's where my confusion lies. So Phil has looked at this and your staff has looked at this. Generous: Yes. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yeah... Bob, that office building. Are we holding the applicant... Generous: Well it's not specifically as part of the design. The preliminary site plan. That's what they're showing us. We allow up to four story .... should exceed the numbers that they show, the users that they get. Sidney: By square footage... Generous: Yeah, based on the square footages and the breakdown between the office warehouse and the office user... Sidney: So as they're showing it now we have a certain level of comfort and they actually could increase it... Generous: Correct. Peterson: Other questions? This is a public hearing, can I have a motion and a second to open the same please. Joyce: Does the applicant... Peterson: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. Liv Homeland: My name is Liv Homeland from Land Group Inc. and we're the ones that are proposing the development on this site. Kind of, I can see there was some confusion as to what we have done or not done and the landscape plan that you see, the colored one that each one of you has a copy of is the, is a revised landscape plan after we got all the comments from staff2 In other words, we submitted the preliminary landscape plan with our submission with this whole packet and they came back with a number of recommendations and comments so we immediately turned around and revised that plan. So this is the much upgraded version if you will, and we have larger scaled plans here too for any of you that wish to have them. Bob has a whole bunch 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 of them there as well so we have gone the extra mile, if you will, to do what staffhas directed us to do and to get that landscaping up there. We are providing along the drive in the center considerably more trees than are required and we have some concern about overstory trees because of the fact that there's a power line running along that area. But certainly along the creek area there's a much expanded prairie grass planting. There's, we've responded to concerns about linear plantings and we've put groupings of trees. We've expanded the area of all that so we've done a lot since the previous plan, even as of about a week or two ago. We have also, as you can see, revised the plan from the last significantly from the time that you saw the plan. And we appreciate being able to be here again and show you what we've done. We are pleased with the progress that we've made and in working with the staff and working through this process. The plan, the progress in the plans and the changes reflect the comments that we've heard from you as Planning Commission members, from the Council and from staff so we've taken all of these comments and addressed them individually and addressed in group and tried to come to the point that we felt that we accomplished what needed to be done. We still do have a couple of minor issues. We were talking about the conditions just a minute ago and since you guys were on that, of the 26 conditions that are mentioned there, most of them are virtually, we're just fine the way they are. There's a couple of minor tweaking items that I'm going to mention to you that we have some concerns with but certainly in the first, in number 1 it's just a minor tweaking. We're actually showing 153 parking stalls rather than 160 but they're using the approximate number anyway. We do have in the landscape plan, we do have an issue with the creek area and we need to address that. We'll address that further. And we also had to be sure that you know that on these overstory trees, there is that power line and we couldn't get in some cases, you simply can't put that large a tree in that location. Number 7... issue and that is a major issue for the church that is locating on the site. We had worked very hard, we've already pulled from the plan that you saw the last time we were here, the church significantly pulled it's buildings back out of that creek area so the plan that you see now already shows a large change from that. That previous plan and we are also, as you move the church, if you move it to the east, you're also then having to move the road to the east to accommodate the church moving that direction. If you do that, that defeats the purpose of having moved the road to the west in the first place because Council specifically wanted to see the road moved to the west to provide more parking on the office and office warehouse side of the street. Well by moving that to the west we've reduced the size of the church site if you look at, in your staff report there is a plan that shows that we've reduced it by over an acre in size so the size of that church site has dropped significantly. And the amount of parking that we can provide on the other side of the street has increased. And it also then is able to, by doing so, you're able to do larger buildings on the site and the Council obviously, their purpose in doing this was to increase the number of square footage that's on there and thereby the tax base that is possible to get on there so that's the issue we've been dealing with. I do have with the creek area one other issue. The setback that we're showing, that we're talking about now is from the center of, the way that it shows the City has it is from the ponding area that has been created... Our property line runs through here.., so that's where our property line is. We originally had asked, were asked to, you know to have the sewer and water, the sewer lines run down the creek area. Redid the creek area and around the sewer line up to that area, and in the process of doing so took away all the natural vegetation that was there. Completely changed that portion of the creek. What was there of the creek before is not there now. And the, our site also was agricultural which means that it was fanned. There was none of the creek there and then 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 from there it's where the topography drops down to the creek. But the pond that is on the site was created by the city. We did not create that pond nor did we know it was going to be there. It's kind of like after the fact it's there. I've gone through our information and I can't find anywhere that we were ever notified the pond was going to be on our property. And the pond takes about 2/3 of an acre of our site so we've already lost 2/3 of an acre and now we are told that our setback is going to be from the edge of that pond, rather than from our property line. And we have an issue with that because we feel it should be 100 feet from the property line, not from the pond area that was created on our site. And there's no reason for it either. I mean that's the other issue. We see the creek area as an asset and we have gone to quite a length in providing the type of plantings that were required and revising our plans and going through the process to do that. We are also making an effort and willing to rebuild it that over time you've got some of the reforestation that goes on. You know all the concerns that have been requested of us, we've addressed and we've in many cases more than met them. We have other team members here tonight that will help address and answer questions that are specific to various aspects of the project. Our architect is Ron Krank of KKE and Ron will speak in a minute. Ken Adolf and Marshal Breman of Schoell & Madson are our project engineers and the Family of Christ Church is represented by their architect, Steve Edwins of SMSQ. And at this point I'll mm the presentation over to Ron Krank of KKE. Ron Krank: Well as Liv has told you, my name is Ron Krank and I'm with KKE Architects and our firm has been involved in the planning of this project for a couple years now since Liv first met with us to start planning it. And what's interesting is at that time the only user that we knew of was Family of Christ Lutheran Church and as we, I went through the planning process with them we knew the market was fairly strong for office warehouse buildings and office showroom buildings such as CSM Corporation has been building and proposing and we planned the project accordingly. At that time we really didn't know exactly how those buildings would lay out on the site in terms of actual use because of the focus really was on the church but as we went through the process and then as we designed the initial plan which you saw, which is this plan which we haven't focused.., earlier plan. You might recall we had an office warehouse complex of 153,000 square feet and there was a fairly extensive area of parking to the west of the building. It was a plan which we believed could work. Not a lot of detail to it but it could work and as you might recall, we had lwo large loading areas and service areas to the east of both the office warehouse buildings. Concurrent with the submittal and subsequent to it we received, as you know, 34 staff comments on the layout pertaining to the building layout sizes, configuration, use, landscaping and so forth and then we also had your comments after the presentation. We responded in a letter th to the city I believe on January 7 of this year responding to those 34 conditions which subsequently we have incorporated into the new plan that you see. What's also happened is that the market has changed, as CSM has indicated to you. There's an office building market of smaller office users and we found that that's happening with our site in particular as well. So that was fortuitous in that the opportunity for that to come here to this site, allowed us to increase the size of the buildings to 183,000 square feet from 153. It allowed us to have office buildings which are proposed now at lwo story and it allows us to create more of a campus atmosphere and campus layout with smaller parking lots and smaller buildings and less massing. So just by way of ... there are a number of changes that we made to... in terms of how the site's laid out. We have the lwo office buildings. This is proposed as a 22,000 square footprint, 44,000 square feet 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 and given the topography, we're envisioning it might be one stoW at the upper level entry. A retaining wall on this side and then lwo stories on the south side so it gives us an opportunity to reduce the massing while still having a 44,000 square foot building. This building may wind up as a lwo story building.., don't work. There's going to be a separation and change in parking lot. But this configuration, as opposed to the prior one, allows us to really create a campus with buildings and smaller parking lots throughout as opposed to a larger parking lot. We've also added a trail system to this site which allows people to come.., to a trail to the site, continuing on a sidewalk south of the site. And if you look at the sidewalk throughout the plan you'll see that you can go from any building to any other building on the site and.., trail system throughout the site. So even though there may not be a sidewalk on both sides, you can get across. You can find a way through the whole campus and.., that with the lwo story office building and these changes we've made, we've got a much more attractive project. We believe the image from both Coulter Boulevard and Highway 5 will be stronger and a better scale. From Coulter Boulevard for example if someone would drive on the road, they'd see a point of the building.., in both directions, not parallel to the road. That's more pleasing. Gives a chance for more vegetation on the side of the building. And also with the taller buildings that are...the massing would be used to give better view corridor sheds into the site. We had narrowed the... Of course the opportunity to put office buildings on Highway 5 with windows that are different scale, different proportion, we think is a much more advantageous than a high office showroom, office warehouse building with many narrow bands... So really given all the comments we've had from stafl} from the Planning, Council and the market, we think that we have a greatly improved plan.., valuable addition. What I'd like to do now is turn the presentation over Schoell & Madson. Have him address the... Peterson: Before you move on. You spoke of the trail system and you can clearly see it on the west side. Walk me through your, you spoke of it interacting with the rest of the west side. I'm at a loss as to where it goes when it stops on Stone Creek Drive. Ron Krank: Let me take through the sidewalks and walkway. You can come across Coulter and walkway.., across to the sidewalk.., cross over in front of this building. Cross over so along all the buildings... Peterson: Where is staffrecommending that you put the sidewalk that you haven't already, that you're requesting? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. It was actually from engineering. Engineering is concerned about all the pedestrian crossing points proposed and we were going to take careful evaluation as the site plans come in to look at, does it make sense to put sidewalks on both sides for maybe the mid section of the development where you do have all the pedestrian traffic going and we'll be certainly working with the applicant to find safe crossings and also address the additional sidewalks. Peterson: Right now we don't necessarily need to specifically address that point? Hempel: I don't believe you do. It is covered in the conditions of approval. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Peterson: Thank you. Ken Adolf: Good evening. My name is Ken Adolfwith Schoell & Madson. We're project engineers. I'll be primarily addressing the corridor issue on the west side of the site. Referring to the drawing and this drawing has a number of difl'erent colors.., distinguish all of these. The solid blue line near the west plat boundary is the center line of the creek as it existed before this area was... The green line, the edge of the wetland that was delineated, and again, that was prior to this... The blue dashed line is, those really describe the existing conditions. The orange dashed line is the creek corridor that's defined in the Bluff Creek management. The point of all this is to indicate that based on the existing flood plain, the wetlands, the vegetation and the hydrant soils, the actual creek corridor is relatively narrow in this area... The corridor line as defined in the study actually goes over the top of the hill here with... Then as you move north the corridor is actually narrower than what the flood plain.., so we've concluded that the corridor was just something that was kind of sketched on a fairly large scale plan. It didn't necessarily relate directly to... What we proposed and it's been discussed is that we just utilize the 100 foot setback from the original creek center line.., criteria that was used for the townhomes at Creekside which was just southeast of the church properly. And that is represented by this maroon.., and what I have done here is actually dashed in where we're going around the flood plain area and of course that's where.., is proposed. What has been suggested in the staff report is to measure the creek setback from the edge of the existing pond which is kind of a compromise between these two. It does have a significant impact on the site plan for the church. Again, the blue line is the center line of the original creek. The red line is the 100 foot. The dash line is the 100 foot setback from the edge of the pond. The solid line is the 100 foot setback from the edge of the.., indicated there was 2/3 of an acre loss from... One of the items was very important to the Council, City Council and especially for the Mayor was to get building square footage as high as possible and I imagine if you get it up to... You really had to try pretty hard to get the building square footage in there that the City Council was interested in and obviously pushing.., pushing the church to the east... that is presently being used to provide parking stalls which the net result is that the building square footage has to decrease. That's really the only issue that I'll address in detail and be available for questions. Brooks: Are those 15 parking stalls, those future parking stalls absolutely necessary? Ken Adolf: I'd like.., better addressed by Steve Edwins who is the architect for the church. Steve Edwins: Hi there. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Steve Edwins from SMSQ Architects in Northfield, Minnesota. We're a small finn that has specialized in church design for almost 50 years and we've also accomplished quite a bit of work on college campuses, including St. Olaf and Carleton and Concordia College in Moorehead and other campuses. And my specially in the finn is with church design and with historic preservation work. I think the place we need to maybe start our presentation on the church's part of the site is why the church likes this site. Why we have located the building precisely in this location on the site and what it's benefits are to the community and how the site benefits the church being here. The church likes this site and we like this site because of it's visibility. Because it acts as a buff'er between the school area and the recreation area and the more commercial aspects of the PUD site. It's an ideal site for a 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 church because of it's visibility and in mm it's access. Membership to the Family of Christ comes from all over the community. This takes some transportation off of interior streets of residential neighborhoods because typically churches are located in residential zones as a permitted use. It's also a place that is accessible for the community uses the building because a church has quite a few outreach programs. Community meetings. People who use the building during the week, etc. and they now, in fact are limited because of their location, because of their parking. They have a lot of the outreach programs for the community that they really would like to be having. They're also planning a child care program as part of the church plan so that's a benefit for people generally in the community. It wouldn't be just exclusively for members. It may be a benefit for the people working on the site or using the school near the site, etc. There's also an advantage in this combined use obviously because of the time shift of parking. The church is going to be using it's facilities and the parking mostly in the evenings and on weekends and the other users of the site tend not to do that. It also has some fringe benefits that go along with that kind of style of use like the fact that there are more eyes on the site. You have people using the site. There are more eyes on the trail system. There are more eyes that can contribute to safety in the whole region because of the church being there. And in some ways I think we're trying to plan this and it relates to that lower parking area in fact that one of the members asked about. Is kind of donating the parking access so if people want to immediately get to the Bluff Creek area, as citizens can find easy parking to do that. By the location, maybe Ken can I use one of your drawings again of the. I'd like to take you on a little bit more of a tour of what the site is like and why we have designed things the way we have. I might best start with just touring once again the topological features of this really difficult part of the site. On one hand it has this little shoulder of land as a great benefit because it's lower than Highway 5. It can be seen from Highway 5 from up here by cars going in both directions, especially headed east. The cars can see across this clearing and they see the church. It's diminutive because it's lower. It's not right out in people's faces. It's also because this is a relatively small section of site, it might be the hardest to develop for other uses. It's a shoulder of land, as I said before, that really is quite narrow. Being a peninsula. And you can see by the way the contours are that we're talking about a change from even Coulter Boulevard up to the top of your 15-16 feet, which is two stories of a building. Now the intention of using this site is to keep this rolling kind of character on all sides as much intact as possible. What we're really doing is we're taking some of the fill that's in this area and shifting it to the front, and a little bit of this to the front to make the parking slope towards Coulter and to actually make the viewpoint of the creek area a little bit stronger from these angles of view from Coulter Boulevard. We're doing that, both for that reason but of course to make the parking and building work together on the site. Let me kind of center the site under the camera. Can you zoom in more closely on just the church site? Okay. Make it big. Okay. Terrific. So what happens is with the church on this part of the site, it was talked about the fact that we can have an entry on one level and we can have a walkout lower level on the back. We have to keep the building up quite high to do that because if we have a basement level, we really have to have that above the water level of the retention pond. This is at 933, at it's maximum height. Our lowest floor would then be 2 feet above that. Just 2 feet above that highest water level at 935 and then the top floor of the building would be 12 feet higher. 947. The road in this area is about 930 so we're up about 17 feet from here to here. That's one reason we have to really carefully climb up the hill so to speak to get to that point. In other words, just taking enough dirt away from this comer of the shoulder to accomplish that. We are also positioning the building so that it's relatively kind of 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 small in scale in it's different elements. We have a center element. We have a future, maybe bigger element at this end. A future element at this end and they're separated slightly by bridging or by pedestrian ways so that the church will not be a monolithic, huge looking complex but kind of have a smaller, residential scale to it. We think that fits the nature of the Bluff Creek corridor area. Now the reason for it growing in two directions, why we need to have growth areas in both directions is the schematic for the building is that we need to grow this way for the future worship needs. We're not building the final worship space for the church yet, because the church is growing quickly and they're not sure how big that's going to be. They can't afford to make a big place of worship right now. But that plugs on this side of the church. They'll worship for the immediate future in a large fellowship hall space and then the rest of this is offices and education on two levels and we would need to expand or have space to expand this direction to increase the educational aspect of the building. It's best for that to be at that end of the building because it needs light on both levels if you're going to have education and child care facilities. And those are the parts of the building that would enjoy the view to our advantage. Whereas the worship center doesn't really need to have a lot of good view outside. Furthermore, even though this parking in this area is planned for it's eventual size, the benefit of having the worship center at this end as part of the final scheme is that that is more centered in a wider range, wider radius of parking so that we have quite a few parking spaces within like a 400 foot walk of the front door of the church or even a little back door of the church here. Including parking in this area and this area, etc. Now one of the dilemmas in this design was that the design guidelines for the PUD were that all buildings should be closely attached to streets within 50 to 100 feet. I believe the rule was. We actually are violating that rule and staff has consented not easily, that because we need to gain parking here. Because this is the best place for the church in terms of using it's two level nature. Because the church really should have it's front door facing the south in our weather. Nobody likes front doors that are icy all winter because they're in the shadows. We need to have the front door in the south side of the building. Or maybe the east side of the building. So this lot slopes gently to the south. But even the edge of the lot is up about 10 feet above the Coulter Boulevard so it's naturally buffered from visibility along Coulter, which is one of your objectives. If you see from the planting scheme that we have evergreens, conifer trees spaced with lower lying shrubs. That's part of the buffering of this. It doesn't really need to have additional berming of any kind because of it's elevation change. On the other hand we wanted to not overdo large scale plantings in this area because we think it's important for people along Coulter to have a good view corridor of this natural area so that they don't just pop on it because it's quite narrow there and then suddenly it's over. It seems like a better way to accentuate that part of the site. So as we move further west the site is planned to have, right next to the ponding area, to have prairie grasses planted and where we can we are planning to start an overstory of trees that are from the Big Woods era of trees. The classic hardwoods of the Big Woods. Including in the parking area and near the building. We don't have all of that landscaping finalized yet because we haven't even designed the building yet, nor finalized the site plan for the church. This is really for a PUD purposes. The other issue that I might bring up is that if we need to slide the building further east, we need to have this amount of footprint on the site for the building's future expansion. Part of the development agreement is that the church needs to at least hit 40,000 square feet of possible square footage as a footprint. Some of that being on two stories. They want to be able to eventually have higher square footage possibly, and I think the consequences of that move east is, and the building was earlier further east, is that we probably would have to eliminate this parking. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Excuse me, have to eliminate this parking. Because basically if you take this whole footprint and slide it east, whatever is required by the corridor requirements, if they are changed on us, means that something has to give on this side. We've already moved the road this way west to place more parking on the commercial side of the street, which has great advantages. We're not sure what else can be given up on this side to accomplish it. The one reason for that and the linear nature of the building is the site is so cramped from north to south, from here to here.., north and south or we simply don't have anyplace to park near the front door of the building. So we've kind of reached a point where we think it's hard to do better on this site than we have proposed and planned at this point. Now to take you a little bit on a further walk of the site or as has been mentioned by Ron and others, I think the net effect of all of this is that for those enjoying the Bluff Creek area, there's quite a bit of view opportunity through the complex of buildings into this campus. As was pointed out earlier, you've got a retention pond that in a sense is what people see, not parking, before they see the church from Highway 5. For people on the trail system they can look across, up through lower vegetation and then see canopy trees on the hill. They won't be able to really see cars up here because they're really quite a ways above the blufl} unless they're way over on the other side by the school, which is quite a ways away. Similarly walking along this area in terms of enjoying nature along the ponds, there isn't buildings proposed to cut off their view except just the end of the building. And again the parking itself is going to be quite high and they'll see the road ramping up to the church that way. Now the parking we proposed on the west side was to make access easier in the future to the lower level of the education unit, which is probably the lower unit would probably be a daycare center part of the church and that's really advantageous for parents to be able to drop off their kids and zoom out again. We don't need to have it be a large lot and we wanted to have it shaped to deal with the contours in the land and be as environmentally sensitive as possible so there's room for negotiation of course on the way that actually gets designed but we think there's also the advantage, as I said before, that people who are coming down to enjoy the pond or the natural area, will naturally head to that little parking lot so they're close to the creek area. As explained before, we're really hesitant and I think we'll find it almost impossible to make this design work if this driveway has to move further east. We have this as a typical grade now of between 6 and 8, around 8%. 7 to 8% going up this hill to get from the lower Coulter Boulevard up to the front door and we don't know how to get up to that required height without this length of road or it will be a road people aren't going to use in the winter time. And the last point I might make is that the intention here is to have as much planting in this whole area as overstory in the parking area and even in the front of the building as we can afford in the short term and then add to it in the long term to really bring back the kind of canopy of trees that you're interested in on the site. The last thing I might mention is that it is important for the church's identification to have some kind of signage out identified with Highway 5 and along Coulter Boulevard. We simply would hope that people are reasonable about the height of this signage because right now it's down in a hole from the highway. We're not sure what is the proper specification for that at this point because MnDOT hasn't quite designed necessarily the elevation of Highway 5 yet and I think it would be a disadvantage to have a sign requirement that ends up with the sign being down into a sink hole. So that's kind of a variable that needs to be worked out in the long mn. Okay, questions that you may have. Brooks: Yeah, I'm still haven't been told why you need 15 parking spaces right there, especially if it's just for parents to mn their children in and out of the daycare. I mean I think, I'm sorry I 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 think you could do that with 3 spaces and signs that say you know 15 minutes. I've seen places that do that. You know they put up signs that say 15 minute parking only for the daycare and you can mn in and out. 15 is awfully, it's an awfully big area. It's excess parking and I'm not a big, I'm proponent as minimal on that stuff and. I understand this is Minnesota and we don't want kids outside for long because I have two little people too but I think you could get to your purposes with a much smaller parking space. Steve Edwins: Well we can certainly cooperate with staffand try to work that out as we design the site. I think 3 is probably too little because of the number of people who are coming and going and we also have to deal with a way to turn around the car to get back out again in that area SO. Brooks: ... 3 or 4 where they mn their children in and out. Steve Edwins: And then handicap access space in the same location. Joyce: My, well just a consideration or a question. If you move the whole thing to the east into that parking, you'd be eliminating about what, 24 parking spots right? Steve Edwins: I don't have the parking count here right in front of me but that's probably about right. Joyce: I see 36 parking stalls here on the east parking lot just east of the future worship center. Steve Edwins: Yes, that's the one I pointed out. Joyce: Right. If you move this whole building to the east, you could probably save a third of those I suppose and keep your 15 future parking stalls. I'm asking you as an architect, is that possible? Steve Edwins: Oh I think it's possible to slide the building east if we take out that north/south lane of parking. Maybe I should point to that again so that we're talking about the same element. This parking right here. Joyce: What I'm saying is, our concern here is the Bluff Creek overlay as the city has proposed it would virtually eliminate these 15 parking spots on the west side, correct? Steve Edwins: That's right. Joyce: And then 2/3 of the building as well, of the future on the west side. The future expansion on the west. Steve Edwins: That's right. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: If you moved it to the east, and I don't have the eye for it but I'm just wondering, could you save everything on the west, eliminate the parking on the east and you've lost 20 parking spots and we're all happy. Steve Edwins: We haven't studied that carefully but I would assume we could put a few parking spaces still on the west. Joyce: My fellow commissioner down there and I are in agreement. I'm not a big parking proponent. I don't see any reason why we have to accommodate automobiles as much as we do. Steve Edwins: I understand that. It'd be nice to have a few access points to that lower level, just for the convenience of dropping off kids. As we move the building further east we also, we're trying to keep that shoulder of land there. We are then carving away more of the hill. If we put parking further east at the lower level, and I think it would be less sensitive to the topology than we are being now. So we just have to watch how far we go with that or we'll get to a point where we're carving away more of the hill to provide access to the lower level than fighting the hill. Joyce: That's a good point. I just, I'm .... Steve Edwins: ...it's a good question. Brooks: But if you move it east, I mean then you have people with kids that need to get them to the building, then the front entrance, you can just mn. You could put spaces for the moms with their kids and the dads with their kids right by the front door. I know that's how it's done at the Jewish Community Center in St. Louis Park. The closest parking space is to the front door are for 15 minute drop off daycare. There's four of them and for the elderly and then everybody else parks back. And that, you know that way you still have, I mean the moms don't have to enter, and the dads, don't have to enter at the lower level. They can enter at the front level and walk down the stairs. I've done that with two kids. A lot of people can do that with two kids. Steve Edwins: ... most people are going to use the main front door. We're just trying to make it extra convenience to have some access point at the lower level and some parking to help for the lower level access. Peterson: Bob can you spend a couple minutes summarizing, we've talked a lot about where we're at but this new design and as you interpret it, how is it interfering with the current Bluff Creek setback? Talk about it again and just kind of summarize what the issues are, just so we're all on the same page. Generous: We believe it encroaches into the appropriate area approximately 50 feet. As they show their design for the westward expansion. We believe the drive aisle can be realigned and the building shifted to the east and they could still meet their requirement and we could create a significant view shed, wildlife corridor, revegetated area. Peterson: Well said. Other questions of the applicant? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Steve Edwins: Thank you. Peterson: Let's try this again. This is an item open for a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second please? Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward now and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Matt, do you want to take a stab at this one first? Burton: Sure. I'm really struggling with this. I do like the plan. The development. I think everything makes sense. I like the layout. I really have no problems with anything except for the Bluff Creek overlay and I've been up here reading and trying to figure this out. It seems to me that even if we approve this, and I could be wrong and somebody who knows please tell me, but I think even if we approve this, it's still within the Bluff Creek overlay zone and it's still going to be subject to that zone without obtaining an ordinance, excuse me, a variance. Now I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me. And ifI am wrong, and by us approving this, we're overriding the overlay zone. Then I'm not sure that I'm comfortable in doing that. I haven't been that familiar with this because I wasn't part of the Planning Commission when that went through but I've been reading a bit up here and trying to figure this out. It does seem to me that this would clearly violate that and I don't know if there's a good reason to do that. This was an important issue very recently. I think this is the first case in which that zoning ordinance is being applied, or impacted. So at this point I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do that. I think that the building could be moved. I think this could be restructured to comply with the overlay so at this point.., to try to see that that is enforced. I'm not really sure how this, how our approval of this will impact that. Peterson... Burton: Yeah, if we're approving a PUD, it seems to me that we have to address the Bluff Creek issue and I think there's a need for a variance. Maybe I'm wrong. Peterson: ... saying that you don't want the variance or you want the building to be moved 50 feet so it's... ? Burton: I would like to see the building moved 50 feet so... If it's not moved, then I don't... Peterson: ... when it comes back so I guess what they're looking for now is to get your direction as to how you... Burton: I'm struggling with it. I'm not in favor of it. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Peterson:... Blackowiak: I agree. Do you have any clarification Bob, at all about this because that's why we requested a copy of the ordinance because it specifically states, where is it here. Section 21- 1469(a). Natural habitat areas within the primary zone and within 300 feet of Bluff Creek shall be preserved as permanent open space. That's what the ordinance states. Now, if we go and try to approve a PUD that is in direct contradiction to this ordinance, are we going to be in trouble? Burton: I think it should be subject to the ordinance. Blackowiak: Right. That's what I'm thinking. Doesn't the ordinance supersede? Generous: Well it's like granting a variance. Blackowiak: Well that's, exactly. Generous: That 300, I wasn't aware that that 300 foot was in there. Blackowiak: Specifically stated. That's why we wanted the copy was to make sure. Generous: You can, in essence yes. You would be approving a variance then if you went with the proposed setback established in the design criteria. However, it would not, the design criteria would require them to move the building. And that parking lot. Joyce: ... guideline though isn't it Bob? Generous: That was my understanding in how we looked at it. Peterson: ... offer to Council that we can recommend that... Ken Adolf: Our position is that, I think what the ordinance says is that the natural habitat area and.., want to get beyond 50 feet of where the creek was or where the edge of the pond is right now, it's really... Blackowiak: And I guess that's not what I'm struggling with. I mean I understand what you're saying that that's agriculture and it might be degraded but I'm struggling with the fact that the ordinance specifically states, be preserved as permanent open space. That's where I'm coming from. Based on ordinance, what do we as a Planning Commission do? That's my question. And although it's maybe in not great shape right now in terms of it's natural state, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't improve it or strive to make it better. I mean simply because it's bad, doesn't mean we can just write it off totally because I think that it could be a very nice area. That is again my major concern is the Bluff Creek study because we went through this. This is the first time it's been applied to a development since it's been, you know I don't know when the ordinance was officially signed. December I guess but so this is actually the first case and I just worry about 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 deviating from what was recommended right off the bat. It kind of sets a bad precedent in my mind. But I understand what staff is saying regarding the edge of the pond as the edge mark for any measurements. And I could, I guess I'm waffling. I could go either way on that. But I'm just very uncomfortable with the current location of the church. The rest of the PUD looks fine. I like the idea of the two story. I like the idea of the shared parking. I think that overall it's a good plan but this specific piece is problematic. I certainly think that the building could be shifted to the east. I don't see that that is a problem. I don't think that even if the building was shifted to the east that the drive aisle would have to be moved, based on the maps that we were shown. I think that could stay as is. I do not see the need for any western expansion whatsoever encroaching, even further into that corridor area. I would certainly encourage any expansion to reach the east and if we have to lose the parking directly to the east of the proposed expansion, so be it. Again, I really don't know what to do about this ordinance. If we need to incorporate a variance or what the deal is and I'm going to kind of leave that up but those are my thoughts. Peterson: Okay, Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with the other Alison. We do have an ordinance and we did go through a lot of trouble to get that ordinance in place. And the first thing we plan to do with that ordinance is sort of go with a variance. It looks like that we can move the building to the east and give up parking and that may be architecturally some more creative things could be done, or thought through to save the amount of space. Obviously as I said before, I don't think we need those 15 extra spaces at the western end. I think we can lose that. I think a church should go on that properly. I would like to see a church on that properly. I hate to lose the whole concept. I think it's just a matter of compromise. The rest of the PUD, I have no problem with. I'm a little concerned about the amount of parking that may be seen from Trunk Highway 5 but it says in the report that there should be enough buff'er. And I think that about sums it up. Sidney: I've got a few comments. I guess in looking at this I agree with staff's recommendations. I know a number of people in the, from Phil Elkin to planning staff have looked at this, about the Bluff Creek setbacks and I see their analysis where we would want to have the building moved to the east and enhancing the Bluff Creek area is really part of the reason why we'd want a PUD. And I see this as something that provides the benefit to the city and provides a natural area, transition area between the school and the church. Overall I think the applicant has done a wonderful job in enhancing the overall plan, especially from the last plan. And the only spot where I see the concern, like the other commissioners, is in this area where the church is and I'd like to see the setback maintained like staff has recommended. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: First off I'd like to say this is a much better design than the last time. I was always in favor of the mixed usage. I thought it was a good concept and I think you've done a nice job with it. I also appreciate the applicant working with the city to add more value to the project so that the coordination of the office space would oflket some of what the church is happening with the tax situation. Looking at this Bluff Creek overlay and I think you have to bear with us. This is really the first time it's come in front of us in this form but my understanding of the Bluff Creek 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 overlay was that the 300 foot setback was a guideline and if you went and took the Bluff Creek overlay at face value, you couldn't do this project at all because you'd be cutting off most of the developable land. What I think staff has done is said listen. We are trying to preserve this small portion down in the southwest comer where the church is proposed for the reforestation. But otherwise I mean the Bluff Creek, we might as well throw out the Bluff Creek overlay. I mean you've got an 80 foot setback over here and you've got mostly a 100 foot setback over here so it's really, we're taking direction from staff and from Phil as far as how they feel comfortable with how the Bluff Creek ordinance is being applied here in this particular instance. In that regard, I do agree with stafl~ My feeling is that what we're doing here is we're trying to protect as best we possibly can a resource that we feel strongly in and I think the applicant is basically fighting over some parking spaces versus maybe arranging it differently. I know that there was some consideration with the grading and the elevations but I personally think that you could live with abiding by this 150 foot creek setback in the lower southwest comer. So my feeling is strongly that we push the church over. We allow the rest of the proposal to be at 100 foot setbacks up on top and 80 foot on the side. I go along with the staff on that. And that we eliminate some of this parking on the east side and work the church in there and maybe we could save some of those future parking stalls for the future addition over there as we explained. That's my feeling. One last thing is, I'm a big proponent, I'm an opponent of parking and proponent of sidewalks I guess and there's some talk about the campus effect here and when a campus, usually pedestrians and pedestrians need places to walk. And I see not enough sidewalks, or a limited amount of sidewalks around the place where you'd want the most pedestrian friendly atmosphere which is around the church, after discussing it. Community outreach and the daycares and stuff like that. You don't have a sidewalk connecting Coulter up along Stone Creek so I would definitely be in favor of having a sidewalk on both sides of that avenue, particularly after we did the traffic study and it showed that Stone Creek Drive could be a fairly busy thoroughfare with all these extra crossovers and things like that, I think we're going to need sidewalks on both sides of it. So if we're going to put a Stone Creek and you're going to have a right in and right out and have traffic coming back and forth, I think we need sidewalks on both sides of this Stone Creek. Particularly around the church. And that's all I have to say. Peterson: My thoughts are not that dissimilar. I concur with fellow commissioners in that overall with the plan presented tonight, it's certainly much more inviting as it relates to parking and presentation as it relates to the views from Highway 5. I'm very pleased with the PUD as it's been augmented. As it relates to the setback, I too feel that the 300 feet is more of a guideline and that should be treated as such. And in turn you know I will look to stafl's recommendation and agree with theirs that it should be moved to the east to, move approximately 50 feet to... reasonable and true to the site and I think that can be done by working with staff in some reasonable fashion. I too also, I too feel as though the sidewalks are critical to the success of the PUD. That we're striving for in all the PUDs that we've done recently and will hopefully continue to do, is to have them more pedestrian friendly and sidewalks is certainly conducive to that. So all and all I like the project a lot. It's just a matter of the Bluff Creek setback being the issue and I certainly think that can be worked out with some time with staff and better understanding or some tweaking to where the church site is. So with that, may I have a motion and a second please. I'll ask again, may I have a motion and a second please. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: Okay, I'll make a motion. I recommend, or Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #97-2, including the wetland alteration permit to fill the small wetland located in the north portion of the site, the wetland conditional use permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the conditions 1 through 27. Number 1 amended to 153 parking stalls. Approximately. And I'd like to add a condition 27 that we adhere to the staff's interpretation of the Bluff Creek overlay as presented in the proposal by the staff~ Peterson: Is there a second? (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Joyce: ... I'm trying to say and I'm open to a friendly amendment, and that we change that amendment. I'm just trying to put in the structure that the Bluff Creek overlay has to be adhered to as presented by the interpretation of the staff'.., they have to abide by that. Brooks: I'm sorry, what if the staff interprets the overlay is different from the ordinance? Joyce: The whole project.., the whole project doesn't conform to the ordinance. In their proposal here it says, keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet... Whatever the staff deems as necessary. Peterson: We are not changing what your conditions are. We're adhering, or basically reaffirming that we're going to stand behind staff recommendations. Generous: That's my interpretation. It might be even easier, must comply with the design standards established as part of the PUD which incorporate our interpretation. Peterson: The point is well made that... Brooks: Say your number 27 again please. Joyce: What'd I say Bob? That the... Brooks: ... or do you want to say ordinance? The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the city, by the planning staff~ Blackowiak: Specifically 100 foot setbacks with a 50 foot buff'er area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements. Peterson: Are you comfortable with that friendly amendment? Joyce: I'm comfortable with anything at this point. Yes. I'm comfortable with that friendly amendment. Peterson: So with that we have a motion. Do we have a second? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #97-2, including the Wetland Alteration Permit to f'fll the small wetland located in the northern portion of the site and Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the following conditions: The church facility shall commit to provide approximately 153 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. In addition, the office and industrial site shall provide parking facilities for the church. A document acceptable to the city, protecting the joint use of the parking facilities, shall be recorded. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: · The developer shall add understory trees to the landscaping along Highway 5. The developer shall add native overstory trees to the proposed plantings with the Bluff Creek corridor. Recommended species can be found in the Bluff Creek Management Plan. · All Amur maples shall be removed from the Bluff Creek planting plan and replaced with an understory species recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan. · All landscape islands shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. If islands do not meet minimum width, aeration tubes will be required. The developer shall revise the landscape plan to include overstory boulevard trees every 30' along Stone Creek Drive. If30' is not possible because of lighting or access points, the closest spacing will be accepted (i.e. 40 feet, etc.). Additional native overstory trees and shrubs selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan shall incorporated into the landscaping around the proposed pond and western parking lots between the church and the building fronting Highway 5. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. The developer shall dedicate to the City an easement for trail purposes, 20-foot wide over all existing and proposed trail segments. The proposed industrial development of 19.33 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $89,556 and a water quantity fee of $84,279. The developer will be eligible for credit to the water quality fee based on stormwater treatment designs. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. All 34 boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive right-of-way. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City 8. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4:1 overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water elevation. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the design. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. 10. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. 11. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly comer of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. 12. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the street improvements. 13. The developer shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding amendment to the existing floor plain boundary. The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the necessary documentation to have the Federal Flood Plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions. 14. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading and access to the site to be compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans. In addition, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 the developer shall coordinate the adjustment, relocation, and cost of the power lines with MnDOT. 15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat public drainage and utility easements over the existing and proposed utilities and drainageways (creeks). 16. No building shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to perform maintenance functions to the utility system. 17. Individual driveway access points as well as sidewalks/crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive shall be re-evaluated with the individual site plans. There are numerous access points onto Stone Creek Drive which staff believes can be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning movements into the site. It may also be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides of Stone Creek Drive to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive. 18. Depending on MnDOT's construction schedule and phasing of this project, the right-in/right- out access onto Trunk Highway 5 may have to be constructed by the developer. Security and/or language in the development contract will be required to guarantee construction of the right-in/right-out access and right turn lanes on Trunk Highway 5. 19. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks at the base of slopes in areas exceeding 3:1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the pond once the pond has been constructed. 20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22. Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buff'er edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the developer $20 per sign. Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buff'er edge signs and charge the developer $20 per sign. The developer shall verify the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the utilities are accepted. 23. The developer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The developer shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 24. The developer will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 25. The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer." 27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically 100 foot setbacks with a 50 foot buffer area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: So I think you sense where we're at with the Bluff Creek area... REVIEW PARK PLANS FOR BANDIMERE COMMUNITY PARK AND CITY CENTER PARK. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. (Due to the poor quality of the recording, the following conversation between the commission and staff was not able to be heard on the tape.) A motion was made and seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of site plan #98-6 for a Bandhnere Conununity Park, site plan prepared by Brauer & Associates, dated March 18, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The planting plan be revised as follows: 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 · Plant an additional 9 canopy trees in the north parking area · Construct an additional landscape island for each row of parking and plant 7 canopy trees. · Plant an additional 15 canopy trees, 30 understory trees and 46 shrubs along Hwy. 101. · Plant an additional 17 shrubs on the eastern park near Kiowa Trail. · Plant an additional 4 canopy trees and 11 shrubs in the north parking area. · Plant an additional 2 canopy trees and 5 shrubs west of the open soccer field area. · Plant an additional 5 canopy trees, 8 understory trees and 13 shrubs north the open soccer field area. · Plant an additional 4 canopy trees, 8 understory trees and 11 shrubs along the eastern portion of the open soccer field area. A separate sign permit must be submitted and approved. Existing trees shall be protected by tree fencing during construction. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 9. Sanitary sewer service should be extended from Kiowa Trail to the proposed building site. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 10. The grading plan should be revised to incorporate temporary sediment basins to control runoff during the site grading phase. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained at all construction entrances until the streets are paved. 11. The northerly parking lot shall be reconfigured per Attachment No. 2. 12. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The parking lot drive aisle shall be revised to meet City Code 20-1118. 15. The applicant shah obtain site plan approval prior to the construction of any park building. 16. Consideration shah be given to improving the quality of the trash containers. 17. The applicant shah significantly increase the amount of landscaping. 18. The lighting plan shah be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission." AH voted in favor and the motion carried. Another motion was made and seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan #98-6 for a City Center Park, site plan prepared by Brauer & Associates, dated March 18, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The planting plan be revised as follows: · Plant an additional 2 shrubs on the west/north property line · Plant an additional 1 canopy tree and 1 shrub along Saratoga Circle. · Plant an additional 5 shrubs in the area north of the Chanhassen Elementary School parking lot. 2. A separate sign permit must be submitted and approved. 3. Existing trees shall be protected by tree fencing during construction. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 8. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 9. The grading plan shall be revised to show erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook, i.e. rock construction entrance and silt fence. 10. The contractor shall be limited to one access point along Kerber Boulevard for ingress and egress to the site. 11. The fire hydrant located west of the ice rinks, north of City Hall service drive may need to be adjusted. 12. A sidewalk or trail should be extended to the existing sidewalk in City Hall's north parking lot on the west side of the building. 13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Health 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. The applicant shall obtain site plan approval prior to the construction of any park building. 16. Consideration shall be given to improving the quality of the trash containers. 17. The applicant shall significantly increase the amount of landscaping. 18. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission." All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 18, 1998 were noted as presented. OPEN DISCUSSION: "OLD TOWN" NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (Taping of discussion began again at this point.) Sharmin A1-Jafl5 ... a bridge across the railroad tracks to connect the existing pedestrian bridge that goes over Highway 5 to Old Town. There is a spot that we believe could work. I have contacted the railroad authority. Amazingly enough they said they would be more than happy to work with us. They didn't say anything about paying but they said they'd allow us to cross the tracks. When it comes to issues like this, they feel very strongly that there should be a crossing and from a safety standpoint, they would welcome it. We haven't pursued it just because we've been trying to get this complete. We're also pursuing some financial aid assistance to anyone who wishes to do some improvements on their house. The financial assistance would be through Carver County HRA and it would be based upon income. These are basically things that we have been pursuing. Oh, another issue that has come up is type of lighting. In Old Town as well as Chanhassen in general. We can't please everybody but the consensus is shielded lights. Lights that do not spill into the night sky is what everybody wants to see. There are some people that do want shoebox fixtures and there are others that please, we don't want to see any more shoebox fixtures. But overall fixtures that keep the lights on the street, function the way they are supposed to rather than just shine into the sky, which we agree with them. Based upon the comments that we heard from, not every single person but from the majority, and what we gathered from surveys, we prepared a plan that has a mission statement, guidelines, and then afterwards we go in and describe each site specifically. And our description is when it comes to the strength and weaknesses, that was taken from surveys that we analyzed from the neighbors. Well I shouldn't say just neighbors but anyone who attended the meeting. It was, these were the results of the survey that we gathered. I don't want to go through the plan step by step but I'm assuming that everybody did read it. Anybody has any comments. Any changes. Anything that you feel is 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 lacking. Anything that you feel should be addressed that I did not address would be truly appreciated. Brooks: One thing that I had a question about, or concern was with the fencing. You said no chain link fence. Al-Jarl) Yes. Brooks: My only question with that is what happens with the people with pets. Al-Jarl) That is only in the front yard. Brooks: Only in the from yard. A1-Jafl5 Fences were only dealing with front yards. Anything in the back yard, side yards, they can be chain link fence or board. Brooks: And also you say the historical character of the properly shall be retained and preserved. Maybe I missed it. Is there a definition of what is historic? A1-Jafl5 No. Brooks: Okay, you need to define when you consider that properly to be historic. In other words I'm not sure that, I mean we do really care for 1970's level historic character is preserved. Are you talking about buildings? Do you want to follow National Register criteria which is a 50 year cut off? That's a pretly good cut off2 I mean after that you get up into suburban tract housing and then split level. If you went through and looked for your historic properly, you'd probably find they were 50 years and older. But I think that needs to be, absolutely that needs to be defined. And also you talk about changes that have.., historic significance. I think you need to define historic significance. Peterson: And Sharmin... are you really looking for us tonight to give you some sense as to what direction we feel you should take? Al-Jarl) That would be extremely helpful. I need to start working with the City Attorney. He's ready to start drafting ordinances but I asked him to hold off until I got some feedback. If you feel that we don't need it, then. Peterson: I think that we as commissioners can certainly give her some of that feedback. My sense, I'll go first I guess. This is an extremely sensitive area of our city and to do nothing I think would be somewhat.., at least recommending what should and shouldn't go in there as far as quality, etc., etc. And to that end I guess the guidelines act almost as the same thing as doing nothing. I guess I would be biased towards putting in ordinances that really parallel the comments that have been generated to date, both from the residents and the stafl~ As I read through this, I think a substantial amount of work has been done. Having attended one of the meetings, I think 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 we've gotten some great input and that's, certainly that input certainly isn't going to stop here. We're really only beginning the process of public hearings, etc., etc. I would be a strong proponent of doing ordinances and taking that.., used them successfully in the past and I certainly think that we can use them successfully here to make it a better old town... Other commissioner's thoughts? Anybody? Sidney: I agree with Craig's comments and I guess I'm a little confused about this ordinance versus an overlay district and I guess I would look to staff to clarify that. Al-Jarl) To give you an example, Highway 5 has an overlay district. So basically you have that overlay that says this is the overall criteria and then you establish ordinances for it. Sidney: That's what I believed but I just wanted that clarified. So I guess I would look tonight, I understand there are a number of residents who have concerns and what I'd like to see is some mechanism for them to have a formal way of interacting with the City... I guess I'd be in favor of an overlay district with you know an architectural review committee that could comment on the specifics of some of these concerns. That item was a big one.., certainly City Council would not have directed a study of... and I think we really should protect and preserve this area. It's a very important area for the city and.., enhance the community and enhance the whole area where commercial and residential areas... Joyce: ... back on what you're saying. I think you should look at this, I'm in favor of the overlay as well. We just had a big discussion about the Bluff Creek overlay. What we're doing is protecting a resource and I think what we've identified as the old town is a resource that I think needs protection. I don't think it needs a bunch of ordinances and I think some of those residents felt that we might go overboard and pass all sorts of ordinances and that but I think it should be protected with an overlay so that we can keep the charm of the old town. And I assume that was just really the element of having this whole thing was to protect that charm, resource that we have there. I like the idea of an architectural review. I think we have, certainly enough confident and concerned residents that they would be more than willing to serve on such a review board and they can make their own decisions on it. I think it was a good process. I was at one of the meetings and I don't know how else we could do it .... I think we can all sit down and discuss things and try to hash things out. I think there's some very good points about lighting. I agree with what some of the residents have said. I'm totally in favor of that. I don't like those shielded lights. I'd like to see as little lighting as possible and if that's something the architectural review board would suggest, let's see what we can do about that. So yeah, I'm in favor of the overlay and I'd love to see an architectural review board put in place. Brooks: I would also back the idea of having ordinances. I don't think they need to be as heavy handed as people tend to fear. I mean with ordinances you can get as far carried away you know as what color you can paint your house in a historic district. Now in Taylors Falls, the Angel Hill Historic District in Taylors Falls is beautiful. Everybody paints their house white and green. But that's an extreme case. An ordinance sometimes can simply help keep a neighborhood a neighborhood and prevent K-Mart from coming in and building K-Mart which can happen. And coming from a city where I grew up in neighborhoods and I value neighborhoods and I miss 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 neighborhoods. I think it is nice to have ordinances that keep the feeling of a community and certainly I don't think anybody would put together an ordinance without public input. Particularly from the residents. It's not my ordinance. I don't live in your neighborhood. It's your ordinance. And it's to protect what you want to protect about your neighborhood. But it doesn't have to be extreme, by any means. It can be just the things about the neighborhood that people want to keep and protect. Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said and I would also like to echo Allyson's recommendations of further defining what historic is. Just make it a little more clear what we're looking for. A 50 year cutoff by residential dwelling sounds reasonable. But again maybe we need to look into that a little further but if the National Historic Society, is that? Brooks: No, the National Register of Historic Places has a 50 year rule. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think maybe we can look into that at least and otherwise I think it looks good. Burton: I generally agree with everything. I had a chance to look at Ms. Burke's letter and I do think that your points are well taken. I think it really, it seems to me it breaks into the two that you're not really happy with an overlay district and lighting concern. I think everybody up here probably agrees with your lighting concern. And the overlay district it seems that the process.., is really just getting going and I think we should allow it to go forward at this point and stay involved in the process and hopefully we'll come out with the results that everybody can be happy with. Peterson: Is that enough direction Sharmin? Al-Jarl) Yes. Peterson: Nice work. With that, may I have a motion and a second to adjourn? Sidney moved, Burton seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41