Loading...
PC 1998 09 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING SEPTEMBEIl 2, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Allyson Brooks, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, and Alison Blackowiak MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: IlEQUEST FOIl PIIELIMINAIIY PLAT TO IlEPLAT OUTLOT A OF CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTEIl 2ND ADDITION INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTEIl 4TM ADDITION (3.36 ACIlES); SITE PLAN IIEVIEW OF AN OFFICE WAIIEHOUSE BUILDING (31,144 SQ. FT.) ON PIIOPEIITY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY $, NOIITH OF LAKE DIIlVE EAST AND EAST OF ABIlA, CSM COIIPOIIATION, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTEIl PHASE III. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Sidney: One quick question about drainage, and maybe Dave would be the one to answer that. I guess I didn't quite understand what changes you're proposing in the drainage to the site. Hempel: The applicant is proposing to construct an additional pond on site. Staff did some further analysis. It appears there may be sufficient storage in the existing pond behind the car wash to facilitate this development and we'd just like to work with the applicant to minimize the ponding areas to consolidate them to one. Sidney: So it's by Abra, is that correct? Hempel: Correct. Sidney: Okay. Peterson: Sharmin, my only question is, at the current time are they not requesting, is the applicant not requesting signage on the northern side of the building towards TH 5? A1-Jafl2 The applicant is requesting signage along Highway 5 as well as along the east portion of the building. There is a band that would, correct and we've developed a criteria for them. Very similar to the first four buildings. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant of their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mark Kuenerick: My name is Mark Kuenerick. I'm a senior project architect for CSM Corporation in St. Paul, Minnesota. We're bringing forward to you the last piece of the Chanhassen East Business Center to complete the entire project. It is a 31,000 square foot office/warehouse building with smaller depth within the building to create smaller, more like the office/warehouse type users. With me tonight is the project's designer, Becky Sonmore with CSM and Steve Harvey with RLK who can answer any questions as far as civil or landscaping issues. With that I'll turn it over to Becky to go through the building and the materials and the signage and answer any questions on it for you. Thank you. Becky Sonmore: Becky Sonmore with CSM, project designer. I guess the rendering isn't up there but the top portion of the building, there it is. Little bit of it. The top portion of the building is a rock face, two tones of gray. The main color being the lighter gray, the natural gray and then three bands of the darker gothic gray through that at the top, middle and the bottom. The lower portion of the building is a rich mountain red around the windows and above the windows and above the entrances. In that there's a glazed block kind of accenting and also tying in the black anodized window frames that are, the windows in our tinted gray window within that. For accent lighting it will be at the entries on either side of the door. It will be the only place for signage. It will be the same package as the previous phases. I guess that's probably. Peterson: Perhaps tip up the materials and then physically point out... Becky Sonmore: The top portion, the main is this natural gray. The accents of the gothic gray... Peterson: And all the windows would match the upper area there? Questions of the applicant? Brooks: Can you just lift up that picture of the building. I can't really, it's hard for me to see very well. That's perfect, thank you. Peterson: And you're predicting signage to go primarily on running to the north and on the east side... Other questions? This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it and a second please. Burton moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the planning 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. Burton moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I really couldn't find anything that I was concerned about. I guess now I understand where the drainage pond is going to be moved. That's the only question I really had. Architecture looks fine. I like the change in colors from the previous buildings. Appreciate that. I like the setbacks on the front elevation. That's very nice so we don't have just a straight front of buildings as we drive along TH 5. I think it will be a very attractive addition to Highway 5. Peterson: Matt. Burton: I agree with LuAnn. I really don't have anything to add. I think it's nice and it meets all the requirements they had to meet so it looks fine to me. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I think it's a pretty straight forward project and I don't have any further comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Two quick comments. First of all I would like to see a condition addressing the interior sidewalk issue because that's not been addressed a condition and I think that the other buildings have had those and I think we should continue that through on this phase. My second comment has to do with the parking. We're over parking at about 20%. Is there any reason we're at 121 versus 96? A1-Jafl2 With the previous phases they did something similar to that. They don't have, they can estimate the breakdown of office versus warehouse. Sometimes they have more office space which requires additional parking. Blackowiak: Okay. Then I guess I'm fine with the parking but I would like to see a condition addressing the interior sidewalks added when we make a motion. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Impervious surface is okay? A1-Jafl5 Yes. Conrad: Why are we looking at the site plan first and then the subdivision? Subdivision first and then the site plan. Aanenson: You can make your motion, that's fine. Conrad: The subdivision, it doesn't matter does it? Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Aanenson: You'd have to approve the subdivision. If you only approve the site plan, it wouldn't go forward. Conrad: ... Is there a logic to one going before the other? Aanenson: You can't have one without the other so. Peterson: My thoughts are the same. It's a good, straight forward plan. I think it finishes off that area nicely. Staff has obviously worked well with the applicant to integrate a little bit more uniqueness and I'm pleased with it. Let's move ahead. May I have a motion? Blackowiak: I'll make the motion. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan review #95-18 for CSM Phase IV, as shown on the site plan received July 31, 1998, subject to conditions 1 through 15 and then condition 16 reading that the applicant will be responsible for providing interior sidewalks within the project. And that can be I guess worked out in the future but I would like to see sidewalks. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Where are those sidewalks going? Blackowiak: I think the staff should work with them. I mean I just would like to see some. Conrad: You really see a void. They're not going out to like Lake Drive East or. Blackowiak: They'll be going out to the current, there's a sidewalk on the north side. Conrad: Yeah right. Blackowiak: So I'd like to see them go from the sidewalk and just make sure that people can get from their businesses or from their offices out to the sidewalk on the north side of Lake Drive. Are you comfortable with that? Okay. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded and discussion. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approve of Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase IV, as shown on the site plan received July 31, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage criteria: 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 The building shall share one monument sign. 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 at the driveways at the exit points. 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. b) Post indicator valves will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 d) Comply with the 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. e) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come into the building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995. g) Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the extreme southwest comer of the building, and the second at the extreme southeast comer. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location and resubmit utility plans for review and approval. h) IfPIV valve is subject to vehicle traffic and damage, protective bollards must be installed. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Meet with the Building Official to discuss building plans. 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 applicant and/or contractor shall conduct an inspection of the existing utilities, sidewalk and curbs on the site prior to commencing. If any improvements are damaged they shall notify the City Engineer of such in writing. 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 and 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. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 10. 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. Final plans shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration. 11. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be executed over the plat to permit utility extension from Chanhassen East Business Center 3rd Addition. 12. The developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for construction of the parking lot and landscape improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. 13. The applicant shall work with staff in revising the drainage plans to utilize the existing pond in Chanhassen Plaza 2nd Addition and deleting the proposed dry pond. 14. The boulevard along Lake Drive East shall be sodded. 15. The applicant shall verify that the radiuses on the driveway access points on Lake Drive East are sufficient to accommodate truck turning movements. The drive aisle width at Lake Drive East access points shall be increased to 28 feet minimum." 16. The applicant will be responsible for providing interior sidewalks within the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Motion carries. Wish they were all that easy .... let's go onto the subdivision side of that last one. It wasn't as easy as I thought it was. May I have a motion and a second on the subdivision? Blackowiak: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition as shown on the plat received July 31, 1998, with conditions 1 through 4. Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition as shown on the plat received July 31, 1998, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee compliance with the permit and conditions of approval. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with an engineering estimate for site improvements which involve the relocation or adjustment of public improvements, i.e. sanitary manhole, gate valve adjustment, curb and sidewalk removal. 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 signage 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 assessment, including but not limited to, hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 5.54 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SIGNAL FAMILY AND LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 41, NORTH AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, GESTACH AND PAULSON, BRENDEN POND 3RD ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address David Gestach Leland Paulson Kim Goers Darin Vogel Erin Raden Stephen & Laurie Kerkvliet Larry & Sue Marry Sam Mancino Timothy Goshert Cari Piatkowski Jane Quilling Jean Moore 200 Chestnut Street, Chaska 8880 Wildwood Avenue, St. Boni 6673 Brenden Court 6693 Brenden Court 2237 Lake Lucy Road 2201 Lake Lucy Road 2117 Lake Lucy Road 6600 Galpin Boulevard 6850 Manchester Drive 6833 Manchester Drive 6838 Manchester Drive 6826 Manchester Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 (on page 10, condition number 21. We need to add a tree preservation easement shall be dedicated over the rear portion of Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 over the wooded areas. ) Peterson: Questions for staff'? Conrad: I'm trying to understand the deletion in condition 2. Al-Jarl) Staff met with the applicant. We determined through a panel where the edge of the wetland is. Therefore the beginning three lines... Peterson: Other questions for staff'? Seeing none at the present time, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Please come forward. Dave Gestach: I'm Dave Gestach with Gestach Paulson Construction. We reviewed the staff report and we're in complete agreement with it. We've been working on this project, we started about 4 or 5 years ago and this project actually was suppose to come before you guys last February but there was a problem with the wetlands and that was why that item was deleted. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to open it to the same. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission at this time, please come forward and state your name and address please. Stephen Kerkvliet: Stephen Kerkvliet, 2201 Lake Lucy Road. I'm a homeowner in that area adjacent to Brenden Pond and there have been many rumors throughout our neighborhood on what's taking place in that area. We've heard everything from a natural spring being re-routed, drying up the spring that's behind our homes on Lake Lucy to trees being cut down to add an additional home. Or actually back fill of 10 feet of dirt up against the trunks to build additional homes and that would kill the trees. So I'm here, as well as some of the other neighbors that may or may not speak, to find out what is truth. What's being done? Are we going to lose some of the wooded area that is next to our homes? Peterson: Sharmin, maybe you could spend a few minutes to try to walk through... Al-Jarl) These two parcels will be graded to provide for home sites. Some of the wooded area on this, on those two parcels will be lost in the process. As far as re-routing springs. There is, there are no such plans. Peterson: One of the other renderings may give them a better view up there of the lots itself. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Hempel: Let me just expand on what Sharmin is referring to. Back up a little bit. The City is going to be installing Lake Lucy Road this fall.., completion date of November 15th. With the construction of Lake Lucy Road... will result in the necessity to grade part of these lots now and lose some trees as a result of it as well. Currently the stream that runs through the parcel from the north has been funneled through a culvert with the development of Woodridge Heights and simply outlets downstream. That stream meanders back and forth depending on flow, kind of sheet drain some of this area. Directly south of Woodridge Heights is a wetland mitigation area that was constructed as a part of Woodridge Heights. Some of that water reaches at, or most of it through a culvert underneath Lake Lucy Road bypasses that. The City intends to construct storm water management pond down in this location here, along the home to facilitate further upstream stormwater management as development occurs there. It's an opportune time to do the pond now while we have the construction forces there. Limit disruption to one time only. We don't... 5-10 years from now and build it. Storm water from Lake Lucy Road, part of it will be routed through the storm sewer system into the storm water pond for, prior to discharging into the wetlands. There are trees along the property line here. Ash trees where the water's been running through over the years. That area is proposed to be filled with house construction and trees removed as a result of storm sewer construction. Eventually extending the storm water pipe that is located at this point, down along the property line, into the storm water pond that's proposed in this area here. That will remove all the trees that are in that area which would be lost as a part of the home building process as well. The grades on this plan show grading encroachment into the adjacent property up to 50 feet. Previous conversations with the new homeowner in that lot a few months ago, they expressed some concerns about that and at that point we felt that we would end the construction limits or the filling over the storm sewer to within 10 feet of the property line. The City has a drainage utility easement along this lot line that is 10 feet wide. Grading will be limited to that area there. Part of the Lake Lucy Road improvement project, the city is also planting boulevard trees along Lake Lucy Road and.., planted along the storm sewer in this area... Essentially we'll be removing the dirt that's on the hill up here and depositing it on this site to expand the road bed to facilitate the street. A 8 foot wide bituminous trail will be constructed along the north side of Lake Lucy Road connecting to the existing trail... Stephen Kerkvliet: ... wetlands designation begin. Hempel: The edge of the wetland is this dark line here. There's a wetland buff'er strip that's required by the city. 25 feet wide in some areas. It meanders down to 15 and then 20 feet. Stephen Kerkvliet: Either I missed something, which is possible, or I find it inaccurate. This area here where they're talking about re-routing the water, as well as that natural spring. It was stated that there's a spot over here for street water runofl~ That's one portion of it. There's also a natural pond back there and all the wildlife of which there are 19 to 22 deer drink out of that natural water. They do not go over to the big pond. I bought the land right across or right next to that because of the wildlife. They don't drink out of the street water. If they re-route that, move that water over here, I've just lost my wildlife. I'm not going to see them. Hempel: Let me just clarify. This area down here, as the homeowner mentioned, is a wetland mitigation area that was created by Woodridge Heights and that water will not be disturbed in any 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 fashion with this construction. That will remain intact. The storm water pond that Woodridge Heights built is further to the east. This is wetland mitigation area that was required for some filling of wetlands with the project of Woodridge. Stephen Kerkvliet: Can you define for me, talk about the water area.., getting confusion between you say you're not disturbing it. One is street runofl~ One is natural. The natural is formed by that spring and if you talk about changing that culvert, that dries up that pond. Hempel: This wetland mitigation area is actually fed from the stormwater pond to the east. It overflows into that. During high flows through the ravine, or underneath Lake Lucy Road, that stream I would imagine would also overflow into the wetland area. Stephen Kerkvliet: There is a culvert between those two? Hempel: Between the storm pond and Woodridge Heights and the wetland mitigation area, there is an overflow, yes. Stephen Kerkvliet: Yes there is but even during a high flow of rain that we saw this summer, we were still within 2 or 3 feet.., flowing over. Because I watched that to see if the water level would come up and it never even came close. Hempel: The wetland mitigation areas are not necessarily all wet all the time. There's some upland wetlands that they recreate also. There's a variety of types of wetlands. I'm not sure what the purpose of the type of wetlands that this one is but we can certainly... Phil Elkin, the water resource coordinator is our wetlands expert but the intention is just to route the storm water, or the ravine water that comes from up above, underneath along the property line into the storm water pond. The city has a comprehensive storm water management plan that has designated this area for storm water ponds at some future point and it just seems prudent to do it at this time with the road construction and with the home construction also taking place. Stephen Kerkvliet: Has there been any study or investigation done on the wildlife... Hempel: No, I don't believe there has been. This is an entire wetland complex back here. To the south of this development. Peterson: Dave, reflecting on what you're saying is that it sounds as though the two ponds currently there won't be disturbed by adding this new irrigation area. Hempel: That's correct. Peterson: So the issue that you're raising isn't an issue as I understand it. Stephen Kerkvliet: If that were the case, I would agree. Unfortunately, water runoff from the one pond will not... 14 inches of rain in about a, it's not going to happen. The one will dry up completely. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Hempel: I can certainly take a look and see what the intent was for this wetland mitigation area. If it was a wet wetland or if it was an upland type wetland. Erin Raden: I'm Erin Raden. I live at 2237 Lake Lucy Road. If you just want to put up the development again, I'll show you. I am the homeowner who lives right here adjacent to the proposed development. And just a couple issues I'd like to bring up. First of all when we were looking at the home site we called the City Hall to see what the development plans were for the Brenden Ponds adjacent to the lot we were looking at and we were told by the city that it was going to be one or two lots adjacent to us, but probably just one because it was a designated wetland area. So that was one of the basis, you know basis for our decision on purchasing that lot is because it was designated wetland. They could probably only build one lot so this was the lot we were looking at that would be the only one built there because this is a higher elevation as opposed to this one. There's a significant incline right here so all these trees along here, it's heavily treed. A lot of foliage along here and there's a lot of wildlife, as Steve mentioned, that live in the area. Yesterday we saw six wild turkeys back there and so it doesn't look like we're going to be able to stop you know the entire development from going through, and I don't think that's our intent but some of the concerns we have are definitely the wildlife, the water, drainage, etc., etc. But I haven't heard any guarantees about what we're going to do to replace habitat. You know we're concerned about the wildlife. We want to reduce the traffic on Lake Lucy Road. We're building a lot more homes. We're increasing the traffic by building that many more homes but we're also putting pressure on the wildlife that is there so I don't know how much the intent is for the city of Chanhassen to preserve wildlife in the area so if we do this development, I'd like to see additional requirements for trees and greenage and foliage. Right now we look at trees across the road in this outlot. We look at trees behind us. Down here in this area, but there's a significant number of trees you know that you can't see on a plan like this that will be lost with this development so if there's nothing we can do to stop it, at least we can try to bring it back to what it looks like now. You know put the drainage in that's necessary for the city requirements but certainly, I mean I have a selfish concern because I'm the adjacent homeowner and we tend to lose a lot with this but the whole neighborhood is going to lose out on this wildlife that has less area to go to. A latter concern is, how can you change a designated wetland to be a non-wetland just to build on that and I'm concerned and I'd like to find out how that process takes place. I understand that a panel met and decided something was a wetland that's now a reduced wetland or reduced buff'er zone so ifI can just get some clarification on how that process takes place and you know, do we have the best interest of the wetland in mind. So those are my concerns. Thank you. Peterson: Kate, do you want to address the tree issue? It is a condition but also along with that... Aanenson: I'll address the wetland question. As the applicant stated, this was an issue that we did advise them, there could be one or two homes as was stated. When this originally came in, there was two previous delineations. We were concerned about that. Whether or not now with the second, being able to get the second home. Whether or not they're meeting the wetland ordinance. Our opinion was that it probably didn't. We had a TEP panel which is made up of state, county and private sector professionals who went out and evaluated it and based on this, and 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 the information that was provided, that TEP panel wasn't clear on whether the delineation, there was no consensus. So based on the following factors, the city made the determination of the wetland, or was in concurrence with the applicant's third wetland and that was that there was a well located on the property which may be impacting the hydrology. Previous delineation reports didn't detail the presence of the hydrology. You'd have to meet so many criteria. The street criteria to meet the wetland and it never met the hydrology criteria. The other one is prior to 1996, as I said, only the hydric soils and vegetation need to be considered. Again, the hydrology is no longer meets the definition of a wetland. And the city's unable to provide records or evidence of ground water levels in the area so we didn't feel we had enough information there. And the applicant did provide us normal participation records so we looked at that to see if there was any bounce in that. Based on that, Phil's recommendation was that he could accept their delineation and so that's where it went, and that was a several month process. It was very heavily considered with a lot of expert opinion. It wasn't something that was taken lightly so that's how the decision was made. Now Sharmin can comment on the tree issue. A1-Jafl5 Based upon city ordinances, the applicant would have to replace canopy loss due to grading and in this case they will be required to add 21 trees to the subdivision. We would also like to point out that as part of the Lake Lucy Road plans there is landscaping associated with that project as well so the additional trees that come with the Lake Lucy project are going to be above and beyond what the applicant is providing. Peterson: Approximately how many more trees there? Do you have any idea? A1-Jafl5 I believe they average about three additional trees per lot facing Lake Lucy Road. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Larry Marry: Larry Marry, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. Also sharing in the concerns with the development. Couple of questions and thoughts that I have. First of all I guess we had also heard that there were 2 to 3 lots that were going to be developed on that side. Now, and as the commission sheet was published, it was 7 lots and now it's already been raised up to 8. So I really am expressing concern I think for that small of an area that this many home sites are being raised. I'm also curious about the landscaping. Also whether any of the lots that are put into that area, whether they will have shared driveways as the rest of Lake Lucy has been designated with. So I wish somebody would address that as well. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to address that. City's policy along collector roads, which Lake Lucy Road is, to minimize driveway curb cuts wherever feasible. It was required in Woodridge Heights and we are also requiring it here in Brenden Ponds to limit curb cuts and driveway access points on the south side would be one. Shared one for the two proposed lots and also on the north side, one access for two lots there. The other lots will access off of Brenden Court. Peterson: No... single driveways? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Hempel: Single driveways off of Brenden Court, correct. Peterson: Other questions? Comments? Darin Vogel: What's the width of that lot? Aanenson: 90 feet. Darin Vogel: My name is Darin Vogel and I'm a homeowner, 6693. Just on the north side of the new proposed development. In 1995 my wife and I, we were the first people to build in this development. When we chose our lot, which is one of the original phase, Block 2, Lot 1, we took into account what was on either given side of the lot. We knew there was an easement on the north side and then we knew on the south side there was a lot that was 139 feet width that was a part of the original plat drawing that was given to us when we were choosing a lot. Now we're learning that they want to rework that lot and go from 139 to 90 feet width and in my opinion, I mean it's 35% of the lot is going to be lost. So I mean I think it's less appealing now to us to have a much smaller lot and actually it's not the narrowest lot in the development when before it was the widest lot next to us. So I guess the main thing is, as this goes through, I feel like you know this was already passed as Phase I and now they're reworking it. So I just feel it like it was maybe a little deceiving as to what they're now doing with that. And then also I guess, my question is why was this lot ever plotted out to begin with if there was even an idea that it might be resized in order to accommodate the balance of that land south down to Lake Lucy Road. So that's my main concern. Peterson: Part of the answer to that question is, it is a preliminary lot drawing that as the process and the phases go through, they change. That's what we're talking about are those changes that can put forth in front of us tonight, which are pretty normal and customary as the development progresses. Darin Vogel: Wasn't Phase I... Peterson: They do have that ability to present and do. The city has minimum lot sizes and anything within that parameter they can pretty much ask for and frankly within the codes of the city. Darin Vogel: So they can rework an existing phase... Peterson: Correct. That's why they have to resubmit it and come back across the board. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Lee Paulson: I was going to, my name's Lee Paulson... I just wanted to say that Lake Lucy, when that was developed, we didn't know if it was, where we were going to put it because of Centex's project. We didn't know if they were going to go high or low. At that time that lot was in design the engineers put basically an arbitrary line through there until now that we know where 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Lake Lucy Road is going. We ended up moving that line to accommodate Lake Lucy Road. That's basically what happened. And we've explained that... Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Erin Raden: I just have one additional suggestion or comment to make. If we are going to eight lots in this development, we would really like to see a speed limit reduction and additional stop signs on Lake Lucy Road. Otherwise it's going to become a main thoroughfare. You know he already referred to the fact that it is a collector road so if this is going to add so much pressure to the traffic there, we're very concerned about the children in the neighborhood. The speed of the traffic going through there so if this is passed, I would hope that that would be a consideration that a very reduced speed limit and additional stop signs would go in there. Thank you. Peterson: Dave, have we gotten that far yet as far as determining where the stop signs might go and if they will on the speed limit? Hempel: At this point there are no stop signs proposed. Stop signs installed in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. There are certain warrants that have to be met in order to place stop signs. Whether it's a two way stop sign or four way stop sign. At this point none of those intersections meet the warrants for it. Speed limits. We hear that request all the time. Unfortunately that's out of our control. Speed limits are designated by the State of Minnesota. Cities do have the right to petition MnDOT transportation to perform a speed study on the street to look at reducing the speed limits, but to be perfectly honest unless there's geometric or sight line problems met, they most likely would remain in the area of 35 mph. Peterson: Other questions or comments? Stephen Kerkvliet: My final comment and I know it's for the purpose of the group here to make logical decisions, but when I purchased my plot of land, we built a home on it, I was doing it because of the water. And if that stream does change and quit feeding that natural area, I feel like I bought a lake, or a lot on a lake and now they're going to move the lake. Dave Gestach: I guess I'd just like to clarify some. You know everybody's like well, we're the guys that are trying to destroy this wetland or whatever. If it was up to us, the pond wouldn't be on our properly. It'd be on both Centex's and our properly so we're trying to solve a city long term problem I guess so I just want to clarify that with everybody. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd, do you want to take a stab at the viewing, can you respond to this one. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Conrad: Sure. I think we want to make sure that the drainage issue for Mr. Kerkvliet is resolved. I think that is, I think what Dave is talking about is that I think we should make sure that the condition in the report addresses that. The delineation of wetlands in the staff report. The concern that staff raised was we need to delineate it because otherwise it just doesn't, the properly owner does not respect that wetland. Now you drew attention to that in this report. Is there something on this site that is extraordinary versus other projects where we try to delineate it or you're just bringing up the typical, we'd better delineate it and make sure? Aanenson: Well it had changed from when it first came in. There was lwo different delineations and so we wanted to clarify why was there a change. And there was some disagreement about the change so we asked for another expert outside opinion. Independent decision. And this took a period of several months and we said our conclusion in the staff report. The reasons why we accepted the change. Conrad: The fact that there's such a grade change next to the wetland, does that impact any decisions that we have made here? You know the 20 foot buff'er strip with a fairly significant grade change. Is that, how do we react to that? You know that's not typical. Aanenson: Well we looked at silt fencing and the types of homes and the grading. We looked at the grading control limits. Certainly that's an issue that we wanted to ensure that we didn't have excessive. But as Dave indicated, the road project. Conrad: But I need you to assure me that we put the right regulations in place. I'm not looking for the developer to do that. You're telling me that they're in place, right? Aanenson: Right, because the road project will be ahead of the development project, correct. Conrad: It doesn't appear like eight homes on this road is a major traffic issue. It is to you. I respect that. We deal with, Dave Hempel deals with these traffic issues. You bringing it up I think is good for him to hear. I think we'll pay attention to it but eight on that road doesn't, it's something that I'd ask Dave to make sure. The tree ordinance really manages how we cut down trees and replace them. We've anticipated this. That's just the way it is. We know it's going to happen. We know development's come in. Some folks in here have said that we can't allow clear cutting and then if there are significant tree loss, they have to be replaced. This way we're lucky we have an ordinance that guides that and it's guiding it here. And it sounds to me that we've taken care of it to a degree in terms of how, or where those trees are. It will never be the same. Probably will never be the same but I can't lay as an issue right now that says I should change it. It looks within ordinance. It looks within code. It looks rationale. Other than that, I think there meeting, you know the staff report is good. It's got some conditions in it that I think will protect the neighbors as much as our ordinances allow us to protect you. And I don't see a case where I can supersede the ordinance right now. Peterson: Thank you. Alison. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 Blackowiak: I agree with pretty much everything Ladd said. I would have a question regarding this technical evaluation panel. It appears to me from reading the report that there was no consensus reached on the TEP boundaries. When they were talking about the boundaries and my question would be, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the developer to prove that the boundaries there are correct. And if you have a decision that's a split decision and you're not coming to consensus, wouldn't that almost be a no answer? Aanenson: Your logic is right and that's what we did. We went off our rationale basis were and based on the fact that what they did showed that our original was wrong. The TEP said that the consensus that they had, they could see both sides but we're saying they made compelling arguments so we didn't feel like we had good standing. In speaking with the City Attorney, we did not have good standing to say that the original was right. They did make compelling arguments... Blackowiak: So regardless of the outcome of the TEP panel, you felt that. Aanenson: Their compelling reasons and legally that yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Well as long as you're comfortable with that because I didn't come away after reading this feeling that there was a strong argument for their delineation. Aanenson: Again, this discussion took over a period of several months. A lot of study so. Blackowiak: All right. Well as long as you're comfortable with that, I guess I can be persuaded. Just a couple issues on conditions regarding trees. Condition 20 talks about the Colorado Blue Spruce. It's worded as being may be changed to a different variety. I'm wondering if that should say should be changed because I got the feeling that it was not the type of tree you wanted in this area. Condition 21, this was the updated condition. It talks about a tree preservation easement and does not give any size. Are there specific boundaries that you have in mind? A1-Jafl2 To cover the wooded area. It's 25 feet and then it narrows down to 15 feet. We will work with the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay, so that would be delineated and put into the easement so that everybody understands where you're talking about specifically? Okay. Those were really my main concerns. Again, overall I did feel it meets the criteria for a development of this type. And I hope that everybody can work together to get a quality development in this area. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I don't have any concerns really above and beyond what Ladd and Alison have shared. Having development put in next to you is messy and it's uncomfortable and it's not fun and as for the wildlife, the minute the dozers and the graders and the scrapers come in, the deer are going to clear out for months anyway. It's not right but it's going to happen. However, I do think we do need a condition that will check that. The ponds that are the concern of the residents are not going 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 to be affected. We can just have our water resource coordinator go out and check one more time. We're not going to know, I mean hopefully the ponds will stay. We're not going to know any answers until the development's over because.., noise is just so horrendous and they disappear for a couple months anyway probably. And as for traffic. I share your concerns with traffic but it's growing everywhere in the Twin Cities area so it's just coming the way of everybody. And that's about it. I think it's an okay development. It's sad to lose the trees but we're going to replace, it sounds like as best we can. That's about all I have. Peterson: Matt. Burton: Well I agree basically with everything everyone has said already. This project does meet zoning ordinances so it's hard for us to shoot it down. But there, without a compelling reason. So I'm trying to think is there a compelling reason here and one of the things that concerns me is the number of the homes in the area and I just was kind of looking here. I mean when the project was originally proposed in 1994 that it was for 19 single family lots and I'm going an unscientific method here. Looking at a drawing, it looks to me like there may be at least 15 that were already there so if there are 8 more, that would put it at least 23. So there may be, with more study a reason not to approve it based on the number of lots. That's just my opinion. I don't know if anybody else would share that or how the council would view it but.., something that the neighbors could look into perhaps if, and maybe develop a case for a compelling reason with the city council. But at this point, I feel that since it meets the requirements and I don't have enough information as to the history, that I would approve it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I echo many of the comments of the commissioners. It is difficult to see development next door to your homes and it's always hard to see trees lost but since this development does meet ordinance requirements, we really can't do too much to stop it except we put a lot of conditions on it. And be assured the city has worked with the applicant and it looks like this is quite an extensive list of conditions that have been put on the developer to protect trees, stake boundaries, insure that everything is taken care of that way. I would encourage you to contact Phil Elkins, Water what? Resources Coordinator. And he might be able to help you further understand about the water management conditions in that area. But at this point I guess I would vote to send this on to council. Peterson: My thoughts are not dissimilar. I think we're within the guidelines set forth by the city. I... look at the pond situation and do whatever we can to proactively and creatively sustain all those areas if at all possible and certainly would like to add that as a condition. As Ladd said earlier so, with those closing comments, may I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'd make a motion Mr. Chairman the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Ponds Third Addition for 8 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 17, 1998, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the modifications on condition number 2 and Sharmin, was it number 217 And 21. For the staff to review condition 20 and to interpret or to really maybe change the verbiage in terms of may or 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 will or some other word that may be more explicit. And that we add condition 24. That the staff will review the wetland mitigation area to the east of the property in question to insure that there is no wetlands or water impact from the current drainage being proposed. And as a note, not a condition but as a note that the city staff review the traffic issue to insure that there is not something that has been overlooked as we add eight homes to this neighborhood. Peterson: Is there a second please? Brooks: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond Third Addition for 8 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 17, 1998, subject to the following conditions: The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity connection fee of $8,553 and a water quality fee of $3,456 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. If there are any modifications to the acreage or easement acquisition, the fees will be modified prior to final plat approval. All lots must conform to the City's wetland ordinance. Lot 1, Block 2 needs to be removed/relocated to meet the City's buff'er strip requirements. The developer may appeal this determination through the use of a Technical Evaluation Panel. The natural wetland buff'er area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer will install wetland buff'er edge signs under the supervision of city staff before construction begins and pay the City $20 per wetland sign. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year water level. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain files found during construction. Drain tile should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. The developer shall enter into a development contract for Brenden Pond 3rd Addition with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. The developer shall revise the grading plan to include Type III erosion control adjacent to all wetlands and provide Type I silt fence along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Court. Erosion control blanket shall be utilized on all slopes exceeding 3:1 as soon as grading is completed. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be designated custom-graded lots. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The first floor elevation of the homes may be up to three feet below the curb height on Lake Lucy Road. The developer shall revise the plans to include a drain file, storm sewer and catch basin to convey storm water from the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. Detailed storm drainage calculations and area drainage map for a 10 and 100-year, 24- hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final plat. The developer shall resolve with the City the responsibility for extending sanitary sewer and water service to Lot 1, Block 2. On-street parking shall be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MCES, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary drainage, utility and street easements to encompass the proposed street, drainage and utility improvements as shown on the construction plans for Lake Lucy Road dated June 8, 1998 prepared by RCM. Lake Lucy Road right-of-way shall be 80 feet wide. The developer agrees to waive any and all procedural objections to the special assessments resulting from Project No. 98-1 Lake Lucy Road Improvements including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and the assessments as outlined in the feasibility report dated March 1998 prepared by RCM. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 20. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing 21 trees. Colorado blue spruce may be changed to a different variety or species of evergreen. 21. Tree protection fencing will be required along all wooded areas at the edge of grading limits. 22. Revised landscaping plans shall also show that all proposed plantings will be located outside of the street right-of-way. Evergreens shall be located at least 15 feet from the trail. 23. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction." 24. The staff will review the wetland mitigation area to the east of the property in question to insure that there is no wetlands or water impact from the current drainage being proposed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Peterson: New business Kate. Aanenson: Sure. I just want to tell you what the schedule would be for the comp plan and then the next work session. The comprehensive plan will be scheduled for the September 14th meeting. We will be making the changes in a cover letter with the fiscal impact analysis that we've been working on and we'll share that with you on a work session that we have scheduled for the 16th. If there's anything you would like to field trip, we're planning on looking at a couple of sites and then coming back and doing a discussion on some issues. So if there's anything that you particularly want to look at, let me know and we'll program that in but we're able to work the agenda that we can meet on the 16th so I think hopefully have a little bit more daylight during that time. Because the comp plan was one last time, we did not have any other issues go forward to the City Council and then again their next meeting would be the 14th and that would be the comp plan. Peterson: The day... Aanenson: September 14th. And I'm assuming it will take a couple meetings to get through. The first meeting what we'd like to do is just go through all the issues. Do an overview again with them and then bring forward some of the issues that you had outstanding such as the timing, the library, amphitheater, some of those sort of broader issues. And then I'm assuming that they may take a meeting or two to go through some of the issues that they have and discuss those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Sidney moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 19, 1998 as presented. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 1998 The regular portion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. so that the Planning Commission could meet under open discussion with the Westwood Church. Public Present for Westwood Church: Name Address Bob Lippert Jill Johnson Todd McNabb Bill Naegele Phil Larsen Dan Dye Cari Piatkowski Jane Quilling Jean Moore 5622 West 98 i/2 Street, Bloomington 1806 Valley Ridge Trail North 6367 Oxbow Bend 2365 Longacres Drive 6493 Nez Perce Drive 18630 Magenta Bay, Eden Prairie 6833 Manchester Drive 6838 Manchester Drive 6826 Manchester Drive Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22