Loading...
PC 1997 05 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING MAY 7, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubi¢ and Ladd Conrad STAFF PIlESENT: Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: CONDITIONAL USE PEIIMIT FOIl A SIGN WITH A TIME AND TEMPEIlATUIlE DISPLAY AND A HEIGHT VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 900 WEST 78TM STREET, TCF NATIONAL BANK. Public Present: Name Address Judy McDonald Dave Shannon, Color Sign Service 51 McAndrews Road, #119 2230 So. Plymouth Road, Minnetonka Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Thank you. Any questions of staff from fellow commissioners? The applicant is here, would they like to address the Planning Commission? If so, come forward and state your name and address please. Dave Shannon: Hi. Dave Shannon from Color Sign Service, 2230 South Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Really we're trying to accommodate the City, and I know this is a small request. The problem is that we're trying to use the existing brick foundation that the sign for Century Bank is in. So we're trying to compress everything we have to say and still keep the general tone and feel for all of the TCF signs throughout the metropolitan area so that this is sign is similar to all the others because TCF has spent a lot of money developing an on-site ID program that will work and has proven to work fairly well. The problem is that I just don't have enough height to work with here and get a trim cap in that is like all the other signs. So I had to, I even squished what I, if you can see from that design, the trim cap up on top is about 1 foot 4 inches high. Normally it's about 2 foot 4 inches high but I condensed it down even a little bit more so that we'd be closer to the maximum 8 feet height. And the problem is that we're just trying to design around somebody else's foundation and get everything we want to say inside. And I know it might not be a big point but to TCF, the trim cap and the time and temp are an integral part of the design and we tried to come as close as we could to make it happen. Does anybody have any questions regarding the design at all, I'd be happy to answer them. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Peterson: Any questions for the applicant? Skubic: I have one. Should this be rejected, what would your alternative plan be? Dave Shannon: Well we could take the, extend the planter, or that brick base. See we're asking for 42 square feet and we're allowed I think it's 64, isn't it Cindy? 64 square feet. So we could take the brick planter down, or the base I should say and redesign it and then put in 64 square feet of signage. But we're, you know it's not just a financial matter. It's the base is here. How close can we get to what the City wants and what my customer needs so chances are we would, we might do that. I can't say for sure that TCF would because it's an additional expense and there's a time frame involved because the bank has to be open under the new name by a certain date and we have a lot of other factors too. Joyce: You're saying that you'd leave the 42 square feet right now and if the alternative would make, be a larger sign obviously. Dave Shannon: Larger, yeah. Longer but not over the 8 foot height. So we feel it's kind of a, it's a nice compromise. Skubic: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Some quick questions. Can we look back at the sign? Would that be possible? Does Express have to be over Teller or can it be to the left of Teller and I mean kind of squish everything down? Dave Shannon: Well the, yeah. That's the problem. It's a logo and it's advertised. Every Express Teller sign has to be the same and so Express Teller, Express does have to be over Teller and with those color combinations, yeah. Blackowiak: It does, okay. Dave Shannon: I'm afraid so. It's sort of like the, we do signs with, I think it's the Fast Bank for First Bank is always the same and Instant Cash for Norwest Bank. Blackowiak: Yeah, I just didn't know if it was required to be on top. Dave Shannon: I'm afraid so. Blackowiak: Okay, that's it. Peterson: Any other questions? Conrad: Yeah, sorry. I was a few seconds late. The brick base, or the sign facia is that over the brick base? Or is it cut into the brick base? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Dave Shannon: It's really, if you take the sign there and take it out, you'd just have the brick base left. Conrad: So where I see the bricks on the end, there's solid brick behind that? Dave Shannon: Right. Conrad: So this is an overlay. This is on the front side of the. Dave Shannon: Yeah. What we're doing is we're placing the sign inside the, we're going to take the existing Century Bank sign out. Build a new sign and put it in it's place. Conrad: And why can't it drop down 8 inches? Dave Shannon: Well, I think you could. You could rebuild that. I think you get to a point where the snow builds up. I don't know. Conrad: How high off the ground is the? Dave Shannon: 2 foot 4 and that's really kind of stretching it for snow. Conrad: Is that up on a hill? Dave Shannon: Yeah, it's on a hill but it builds up on the west side I think a little bit. At least I noticed it this winter as snow build up. I think on the east side you wouldn't have a problem but we kind of actually, 2 foot 4's kind of stretching it. We like to keep at least 3 1/2-4 feet above grade on any sign we do but there are occasions where we change it. Conrad: And it's really not a visibility issue is it? It is up. It is, but it's really a matter of being above maybe snowfall, right? Dave Shannon: Yeah. Conrad: Not a visibility. Dave Shannon: No, it's not a visibility issue because the sign itself is up on a hill. It has good height. Peterson: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. IfI could get a motion and a second to open it for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you have anything to add to the comments made earlier, please come forward and state your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Bob. Skubic: I don't have any problem with the conditional use permit for the time and temperature. That's fine, and that's what staff has recommended that that be approved. Regarding the sign, I really would like to, you know we have ordinances here to level the playing field and keep everything on the level. I would like to see the applicant try to condense it a little bit more. It's 8 inches over about a 5 foot area elevation there. Or make it wider or lower it or do something to fit it within that constraint. I like the topping on there. I think that adds a nice touch to it so I hope that can remain. I would like to see, I'll agree with staff's recommendation. Peterson: Thanks. Kevin. Joyce: I usually take variances kind of seriously. To override the standards we have in place, they have to be a serious situation.., compelling reason here and I see that what we're talking about really is ornamentation. I don't think that that's compelling a reason. The only question I have though is if they're forced to push it down, would it become a larger sign, in which case I don't want that to happen either. I think I'm just going to agree with Bob though that I'd like to see them try to squeeze it down. Keep within the framework of our standards here. As far as the other proposal, I'm fine with it. The motion. I'd echo what Bob said and keep the variance the way it is, or keep the standards the way it is. No variance. Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I believe, no I have no problem with time and temperature display as discussed by the applicant. I do have a problem with granting a variance. We have ordinances in place for the purpose of not, for maintaining certain standards within the community and at this point I don't believe that I would recommend a variance in this case. I would like to see a redesign to bring the sign into the 8 foot height requirement. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Question for staff2 The applicant could build up the ground, couldn't they? Generous: Sure. Conrad: Absolutely. Just put 8 inches of fill and the sign meets our specs. I think this is small potatoes. 8 inches is not a big deal. I'd really like to ask the applicant to try to make this work. I don't even want to talk about an 8 inch deal here. This is you know, I'd really like the applicant to make it work, and maybe if it's got down to a couple inches it might go away and the grass will grow bigger and we won't notice, you know. I want the cap on the sign. I want the cap there. I'd be real disappointed if the sign grows. I'd be real disappointed if it didn't have a cap. I'd really like the applicant to try to get it down a little bit but there are ways he can put something in here that's legal, that's a lot worse than what he's asking for so again, I'm going to go with denying the variance but not because it doesn't make some sense. I just wish, you know the applicant could try to make it a little bit closer to be real honest because the design is fine. I don't 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 want a bigger sign. It's not, the cap is what makes it look somewhat decent so I don't want to lose that, very honestly. And 8 inches, on this sign is nothing so the precedence setting and the standards is absolutely right. There's not a good reason from a code standpoint to grant a variance but again I think there's so many ways we can get a worse product here and keep our standards intact that you know, I just hope staff can figure something out here and I don't want to see this again. Get it out of here. Peterson: Thank you, Allyson. Brooks: Well I see no compelling reason for permitting the variance. I think you can work with the sign to get it. To get it to meet requirements. And I think that we should go ahead and approve the conditional use permit for the time and temperature display. I don't think that's a problem. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said and I certainly agree with what Ladd said and couldn't say it any better so. Peterson: Well my thoughts are the same. I have no further comments to add so with that I would enjoy hearing a motion and a second please. Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission deny the request for an 8 inch variance and the construction of an 8 foot 6 inch monument sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report, items 1 and 2. And that the Planning Commission approve a request for a conditional use permit for a time and temperature display within the existing monument ground low profile sign. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends to deny the request for an 8 inch variance for the construction of an 8'6" monmnent sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to reuse the existing ground low profile sign. And also the Planning Commission reconunends to approve the request for a conditional use permit for the th-ne and temperature display within the existing monmnent ground low proffie sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN 30+ ACRES OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-4~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 44 BUNGALOW HOMES AND 168 VILLA TOWNHOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 249 LOTS~ 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5~ WALNUT GROVE~ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ INC. Public Present: Name Address David Jensen Rick Manning John Hennessy Joan Joyce Mark S. Peyereisen Rick Sathre Todd Stulz Rick Murray Julie Wojtanowski Carol Oberaigner 2173 Brinker Street 7460 Windmill Drive 7305 Galpin 2043 Brinker Street 7501 Windmill Drive 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata 2601 Long Lake Road, Roseville 15 Choctaw Circle 2145 Brinker Street 2075 Brinker Street Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Thank you Bob. Any questions of staff'? Joyce: Bob, I have a question. Actually two details. Number one, on this density on the front page. Is that supposed to be net density of 5.747 Generous: Yes. Joyce: Okay. Generous: That was a carry over from the original report and I never. Joyce: On page 2 of that. On the bottom I start getting kind of confused and I realized if you look it says 104 villas. That should be 128, right? Generous: That's right. Joyce: All right. Clean that up. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Generous: I had the applicant pointed that out to me also. Joyce: The question I had, actually kind of dove tails with the setbacks. Are those setbacks for the PUD ordinance then? Is that why you had these setbacks set up? Is that? Generous: It would be established for this specific PUD, yes. Joyce: Okay. Is there, I have a question. Is there buff'er yards standards for PUD's that we set up or has that changed? Generous: No. That's basically for land uses and it would be a buff'er yard be between low density and medium density. Joyce: Okay. I'm just, I'm looking at the plan itself and some of the landscaping and on the northern part of this plan there doesn't look like there's a lot of landscaping as far as what would be buffered from that low to medium density. Is that something that the staff looked at? Generous: Yes, and that's one of the condition.., we believe that the 10 evergreens located there... Joyce: Is that where the 10 evergreens are planning on going, is in that comer? Does that adequately satisfy that buff'er for going from low to medium density like that? Generous: The only thing they would be missing is the shrubbery. Joyce: Okay. I guess I'm just laying some ground work and I'm sure that Rick, you can come up and we can discuss that I'm sure. Thank you. That's all I had. Peterson: Other questions of stafl~ Sidney: I have a question for Dave. Am I understanding looking at this, there's no entrance onto TH 5? It merely goes out to Galpin? Hempel: That's correct. There will eventually be two access points. The one on the north frontage road, Arboretum Boulevard is constructed in the year 2000 with the upgrading of Highway 5. That would be extended parallel to the north side of Highway 5 out to Galpin. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I have a question for Bob. I guess I was a bit concerned about the number of off street parking stalls in the villa homes area. How many parking spaces are we talking about and how does that compare to the number of single car garages? Generous: I've never counted them but. Peterson: Maybe the applicant can address that too Bob. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Sidney: Is there maybe a rule of thumb or any ordinance that talks about, addresses that? Generous: There is an ordinance. It's 2 1/2 stalls, or 2 stalls per dwelling. However if you have a 2 car garage and driveway, that's more than, it meets the minimum standards. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? I have a general question that I had. If you look at the background for the original when it went to Council and went with 44 conditions. I assume that, I'm taking, I didn't compare all 44 of them but I assume that all of them have been adequate addressed to stafl~s. Generous: Or they remain conditions of approval. Peterson: They are still there, okay. So at this point there are none that are of contention per se. Okay. Any other questions for staff'? Brooks: I have a quick one. I noticed under the Park and Recreation it says Commissioners Lash and Berg voted against the conditions because there was no childrens' playground component. Was that ever worked out? There's still no playground? Generous: The intention is to allow the association to determine exactly what playground use should go there because if you get a lot of empty nesters, there might not be a need for a children's playground. They might want to have a picnic area or a gazebo or something. What we'd like to... Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Rick Murray: Thank you very much. My name is Rick Murray. I'm from 15 Choctaw Circle here in Chanhassen. I think first of all I'd like to introduce the gentlemen with me this evening. Mr. Todd Stu~z from Rottlund Homes. They will be doing both the cottage home product and the townhouse product. And my consulting engineer, Rick Sathre sitting right behind Todd will, after a short presentation, will be happy to answer any questions generated and respond to some of the questions that have already been posed. Your previous packet, explained that this is an existing preliminary plat and when I acquired the property I had some ideas of how possibly to make that better. When I was in front of you in January, on January 11th, we were sent onto the City Council to see if this kind of conceptual program was even worth pursuing. And after 3 or 3 1/2 months, many meetings with my neighbors, especially the ones to the north and Mr. Hennessy to the east, two different Council meetings, what you have before you is an evolution of those gatherings, with the input and the modifications and this is the concept, the conceptual plan that was generated. And I have a bit of an ego that says that this was my idea but quite frankly there's a lot of input here that came from both the neighbors and the City Council, which we responded to. The concept that was approved actually had one more unit in it than does this plan this evening. One unit from the southern tier of single family lots through here has been dropped. That was a concern from the neighborhood to the north at the approval, on the approval evening on March l0th. Because we wanted to ensure, first of all that there was a little more width in those lots and from our perspective we wanted to ensure that all lots would accommodate a 3 car garage because so many single family homes and purchasers of single family homes are requiring 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 that in the marketplace. So that has been accommodated and we lost the one unit in that area. The conceptual plan that was approved envisioned a comprehensive plan modification, to a certain extent to modify the detached, or to allow these detached townhomes in the low density plan district. There isn't a provision for that style of housing. If they were attached as twin homes, that would be allowed in that, in your low density district. This plan is consistent with the approval that we did receive conceptually. I got a little ahead of myself, I apologize. One of our goals, we had some goals when we started out with this project of Walnut Ridge, or actually when we started out with this project it was called the Highlands. We ended up into a bit of a name dispute with one of our friendly competitors and acquiesced to change the name. There's another project in this community named The Highlands at Lake St. Joe, and although the names would be different on the plats, they're close enough to create confusion in the marketplace so we've come up with another name. We wanted to transition this site from the north to the south because we saw a single family neighborhood there and from that intensity of use to a very high intensity of use, i.e. the Highway 5 corridor and the higher zoning district that was down there, we wanted to transition through our own property into those uses. In doing so we knew that we had to be careful with Mr. Hennessy's property to our east and try to insulate or buff'er that..and preserve that portion of our southwest comer that the creek accommodates, and I think this concept addresses all of those issues. They've been discussed back and forth and we're hopeful that it meets the City's needs and our neighbors needs. Our staff report has been very thorough. There are two of the issues which I'd like to bring up. One of them will be in response to one of the questions asked about the Park Commission. On page 23 in the middle of the page, and actually combines two of the issues. It's recommendation number 3 and recommendation number 4. Number 3 deals with our commons area in the subdivision and number 4 deals with a recommendation to move the public trail to the north. This afternoon I had a discussion with Mr. Hoffman questioning if the need was to move the trail either north or south would be permissible, and I think he might have responded to Bob. Did he get a hold of you? While you were in another meeting at the time. What he indicated to me, as long as on the south side, and I'll go to the board for a second. There would be a drainage swale that would be behind this townhouse unit. As long as we didn't put the trail in the swale, Todd said it could go to the south. It could go to the south. What he wants is a larger open space in our central open space for.., purposes. We would rather have it to the south just because the value of these basic units. The more valuable units on the bungalows, these will all have walkouts and would be in the $185 to $200,000.00 range. The ones to the south would be slab on grade townhomes and would probably be the $130 to $150 range. They would be more accessible to the marketplace... Todd had.., the Park Commission didn't seem to have a problem with that as long as we didn't put it in an area that would get flooded. Or be subject to that and I think we can accommodate that very well. The other issue with respect to that meeting we had at the Park and Rec Board, and it was a split vote. There were two dissenting members and they wanted an area for active participation or active play. What we presented that evening was... Our intention going into the meeting was to provide a gathering spot, i.e. a gazebo or something of that nature. Maybe it's a gazebo with some tables. But the scene that we presented was the neighbors, the owners of this association, the owners of this open space would actually be determining and making their improvements subject to city approval as time went by. As this plan has evolved, what's become more apparent to us as developers and the Rottlund Companies as the builders would be possibly the need for benches along the public trail. And when this came up in a discussion recently it was suggested that we accommodate the need for places for people to sit through that open space corridor or that public trail corridor and provide that at 2 or 3 locations which might have some shrubbery or some 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 plantings around them. That's in response to the gathering sense, or the sense of gathering that the staff is suggesting in number, recommendation number 4. And the other recommendation that I'll address for a moment before I introduce Mr. Sathre to kind of go through the whole plan is at the top of page 24 and that's number 11. Number 11 asks for a prairie grass space to be established and if I've got these right Bob, the spaces would be this, behind this buff'er yard area and somewhere in... Well, we agree on one out of two. The two spaces I would suggest and because the way I see probably the properly being used, children on this site are probably going to live in the single family area and the establishment of a prairie grass area and the maintenance of a prairie grass area is pretty well defined. It doesn't lend real well to activity areas. I was going to suggest the open space being our bungalow units and the townhouse units because mostly, predominantly these will be empty nesters type of homeowners. Number one, they would appreciate the wild flowers and the prairie grass and understand what it's there for and why it's there. I'm afraid children being children.., more active uses... The other area I would suggest maybe would be along the slope, which is more of a view area. It would have good exposure from Highway 5 up the valley as another area that we could possibly do this in, as an alternative. With that let me introduce Mr. Sathre because we've been through six renditions of this plan. I told him not to go through all six but to concentrate on this plan and maybe just show some of the highlights of where the changes have occurred and hopefully give you folks a better understanding of this process. I know one of you, Mr. Joyce is intimately familiar with the entire process but maybe for the rest of you it might be good. Rick Sathre: Good evening. I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Berquist from Wayzata. We're the planners, engineers and surveyors for this project. And I would like to give you a little background of the project because although we've worked very hard with, as Rick said with the neighborhood and the Council and the stafl} the Planning Commission hasn't seen this for a long time and I think it would be, if you would like to see how we've come to where we are, I think it would be a good thing. Very quickly, this plan is the original, I don't know if you want to zoom in but this plan was the original submission that the Planning Commission saw in January. We were over, well over the allowable net density which we learned to our chagrin and just before the Planning Commission reviewed that plan. The second plan was created which, I think I'll put these side by side for a second... Here's our first significant change. The plan on the right, we dropped down to 268 units, which was still, as it tums out, more than the allowable density on the site. But there's a very significant change in the road patterns between the two. The 293 plan provided good circulation within the PUD but also provided a little too much opportunity for short circuiting of traffic into the neighborhood to the north, so in the 268 plan on the right we moved what we now call Village Boulevard, then Highlands Boulevard. We moved the northerly terminus of that road well west so that the, we really were able to avoid the short circuiting of neighborhoods of our traffic and totally foreign traffic from the single family neighborhood to the north. Well, after the Planning Commission saw this 268 unit plan and the 293 plan, we went to some lengths to try to determine exactly what the allowable density was because it had been a matter of much discussion. What we actually found was that 254 units were, or 253 or 254 units could be permitted under the guide plan. Under the comprehensive plan. So in March we presented a plan to the Council and received a conceptual approval for this 248 unit plan and the significant changes on this are we, between the original submission and this point we have pulled away from the creek farther. Pulled totally out of the woods in the southwest part of the state. We've provided two clustering areas for the private open space in the center of the project and we've taken into account the park commissions guidance which was sidewalks along two of the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 proposed public streets and a trail corridor connection that will eventually go to Lake Ann, which heads to the east from Village Boulevard. The Council had some concerns when they reviewed this plan. A lot of them centered around what, the center product in the plan which is called a cottage home which Rottlund has been building of late in several locations around the Twin Cities. This particular housing style has the garage projected to the front of the unit and the living space is behind the garage. And so as you drive down the street, there's a very strong feeling that it's a garage forward unit that the architecture was found to be, by both the neighbors and the Council to be perhaps not to their liking. The neighbors were a little afraid of what that might look like, especially when it wasn't fully landscaped. So the next significant change was made, which gets us up to date, which is the substitution in the center area of what Rottlund is now calling the bungalows, which is a new product type which Todd would I'm sure like to show you in greater detail. Which takes the garage and pushes it back in the unit and introduces a porch that actually projects farthest towards the street for a softer look. So the major changes, besides dropping density to meet the guide plan, the comp plan. The open spaces evolved significantly through time. Our ponding plan now has evolved into a two tiered pond in the south. The diversity of housing type has changed greatly. Just briefly we've got 12 unit villa buildings that have two car garages on the end units and single car garages on the interior units, similar to what is it, Mission Hills. There are 8 unit buildings in this plan as well, which all have 2 car garages now which is a brand new design for Rottlund. You haven't seen those before. The vista townhomes, the split villa buildings that are on this plan which we can accommodate walkout conditions with. There are 6 unit buildings and 4 unit buildings in the plan now that allow us to take grade up better and there's a mix of 4 and 6 unit buildings there. Again in the sixes the end units have two car garages. The internal units are single garage but all of the four unit buildings are double garages. So there's a real lot of diversity even in that villa style building product. All of the bungalow units have two car garage. The question came up about parking. I counted 94 off street, extra parking spaces on the plan as we presented it. Rottlund's goal was to have one-half extra parking space per unit, which would have suggested that we have 60 some, 64. There's actually 94 on the plan. Each of the single car garages has of course the one garage space internally to the building and a space in front of the garage as well. So in the worse case condition the units have two defined spaces for them plus the half plus space that's shared. I counted, well Todd was doing some quick math while I was sitting there. We have about 3.6 parking spaces per unit overall in the villa area so we're significantly greater than the city would require but this is what we feel we need and want. The last quick issue I wanted to address before Todd comes up was the staff report suggests that a few of the driveways be in the bungalow area, that we side load some garages. The plan shows some units being side loaded. Significantly there are two buildings which staff has asked us to add a side load garage on and if we can zoom in a little bit to this building right here. I don't know if that will work but the building that the pen is pointed at, the staff has asked that we side load that garage. We could do it, we're happy to do that either by side loading it on the south side or flipping the building and doing it on the north side. I'm not sure which way would work better for us at this point but we're happy to do that. The other building that we're asked to make a change on, the staff report actually refers to this building...north of the east/west driveway. Common driveway. I think side loading that garage would be difficult but I would suggest that we could side load the building directly south of that. Not to the south to that private road but actually to the north so we could come out from... We could side load it to come out this way as opposed to straight out the front which would give that home a nicer look from the Village Boulevard. That's Lot 15. Instead of 14 in the staff report. With that, if there are no questions for me I'd like to turn it over to Todd. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Todd StuN: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Todd StuN, President of Rottlund Homes. The Rottlund Company is very excited to be part of this development. We'll be developing two neighborhoods within the Walnut Grove development. The villa neighborhood, with approximately 168 total homes and the bungalow neighborhood with 44 homes. What I'd like to do is share with you this evening some of the architectural changes which has occurred since the last time you had an opportunity to review this development. These changes come in direct response to some of the comments we heard from the neighborhood and then also from the Mayor and City Council in the conceptual plan stage and hopefully we've addressed those to your liking. The first thing I'd like to address is the bungalow neighborhood which is a total of 44 homes. Within this neighborhood, of the total four different plans, with a minimum of two elevations per plan. The square footage of the homes which will be constructed in this area, we have 1,350 to approximately 1,600 square feet in size with a price range of approximately $140 to $200,000.00. The target market for this particular product is empty nesters and retirees, given the fact that the homes are single level and then also the expansion space in the lower level. It's anticipated that the plan as reflected, as shown here hopefully will sell equally well so that there will be diversity and will be able the ability to have alternating plans so that the overall development will have a variety of looks to it. One of the struggles that we always have as a builder is really to try to suppress the appearance of the garage. So often I think you see both in attached and also single family neighborhoods, is where the garage presents very much of a challenge and really is it's most distinctive feature that you see as you drive down the street. What we've done with this particular plan is we've widened the total exterior front elevation by 4 feet from what you originally saw so it's 36 feet in width with a double garage leaving approximately 16 feet on the front elevation which can be treated in a variety of ways. The garage itself will not be, will be suppressed in terms of it's depth in the fact that you'll have porch elements, portico elements extending past and out front of the garage so as you drive down the street, what you'll see is porch features and roof features and stoop areas and portico areas. We think that overall that certainly should present a very nice feeling neighborhood and will encourage people to spend time out on the front porch areas and the front yards versus in their back yards so we're very excited certainly about this product. We've not built this product before. I don't have any pictures to show you. It's something that was developed specifically for this development and hopefully you'll be pleased with this particular product and neighborhood ultimately. This neighborhood will be governed by a homeowners association, like the villa neighborhood will be. All the exterior maintenance, including the exteriors of the homes, as well as the landscape will be provided by the homeowners association and also be subject to a set of covenants which will regulate architectural control as well as outside storage, etc. In addition, through the conceptual process of reviewing the development, there's also comments with regard to the villa neighborhood. There's a total of 168 homes within the villa neighborhood. 40 villa townhomes or row type townhomes and then 128 villas or back to back type units that will be constructed in 8 to 12 unit building configurations. That's what's reflected by this drawing which would be an 8 unit building. What we've tried to do in this particular instance is to improve the end elevations as well as the front elevations given the fact that the majority of what you'll see as you drive down Highway 5, also along Village Boulevard, is you basically see the end element of the homes. The homes will now have, versus previously what you saw, will have entrances on the ends of the homes where the two units on the end and also does incorporate some of the features you see in the bungalows in terms of field stone exteriors and those types of things which I think integrate both neighborhoods better, between both of them so you have a common architectural 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 style. The target market for this particular product is singles and young couples. Square footage will range between 1,200 to 1,400 square feet in size. Price range will be approximately $90 to $140,000.00 in price. Again this is the 8 unit building configuration which was mentioned, has all 2 car garages now versus what you saw previously. Again was a more prominence on the end of the unit in terms of architectural detailing. This would be the 12 unit building. Again with more attention paid to the end of the home with side entrances on the ends. Also incorporating again the features that you saw in the 8 unit building, again tying back into the bungalow neighborhood so there's some continuity of architectural style between both neighborhoods. This is the villa townhome product. Some of the changes that have been made to this is the addition of some of, again the common architectural themes with the fieldstone. Some of the column areas that we're trying to accomplish in terms of improving the appearance of the homes from what you previously saw. Also in terms of what you'll see for the most part will be the rear elevations of these homes, especially in the open common area that's between the bungalow area and the villa townhome area and what we'll be doing in these areas and some of the porch areas in the back incorporating the use of picket fences and also columns in the deck areas again to again encourage people to use that area, but also to provide some privacy but also additional detailing of that area so that again it ties into the overall feel that we're trying to accomplish. You didn't bring with by any chance, the rear elevations for either the 8 or the 12 units by chance did you? As in the case of the 8, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the 12 unit buildings, what you'll see is an exact mirror image on the other side. So it is a back to back unit, correct. Because of the topography of the site, especially along the wooded area on the southern portion of the site, it's necessary to have some walkout configurations and this is referred to as being a vista townhome, which is included in the total of 40 row townhomes. In this case you'll have a walkout ability on the back side with porch projections again on the back side of the home. So that's what that will look like. Again, common architectural themes with the fieldstone, the cedar shake areas, the shudders which again tie back the bungalow area also. One of the issues that staff brought up was relative to the affordability. Metropolitan Council defines an affordable for sale home as that selling for less than $120,000.00. 96 of the total 168 units will fall below the $120,000.00 price range and we're committed to doing that within this development. That's basically the architecture that we're trying to accomplish on this site. I know that our staff has spent a lot of time trying to address some of the needs and requirements the City has had and I think overall the development has benefited by that process and I think everyone will be very pleased when the development is finally completed. Thank you. Peterson: A few questions, if you would please. Take a little bit of time to walk us through where the villas would be. Where the walkouts would be. Just kind of point and just give a general feel for that intense grouping and where the respective ones would end up. Todd StuN: The area that you'll see the walkout condition and the row townhomes, which we refer to as our vista townhomes, occurs along the creek in the southern portion of the site which would be these homes up here. The walkout conditions. The rest of them will be on grade, slab on grade product as far as the row townhomes are concerned, and those row townhomes again occur in a variety of locations. Here, here, these two locations here and also here. This area again being the area that we'll be paying very close attention to in terms of providing some confinements but also some privacy for those units in that open space and some additional detailing on those backs of those homes with picket fences and such will be done to accomplish that. The rest of the homes will be in the back to back type configuration with the 12 unit 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 buildings and 8 unit buildings again with end entrances on the end units and those occur throughout the site. I'll just point out the 8 unit buildings to begin with. 8 unit buildings are located here and here, here and here. And developing 12 unit buildings here, here, here, here and in this location here, and those are reflected by the drawings that you've been provided. Joyce: Can I ask a question, a quick question here? On the side elevation for the 8 unit building, you have some windows, it looks like french doors. Windows without any shutters on them. What exactly are those? The side elevation. Todd StuN: Right. The side elevation. Joyce: Yeah. Are those french doors that open out or? Todd StuN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Joyce. They are not french, in this location basically in this location here is a two story space. So these would actually function a transom windows because the two story space in that location. Joyce: I'm talking about the inside. Todd Stulz: Yeah. Here and the.., it would be patio doors which comes off the dining room area. Joyce: Okay. Peterson: You mentioned that the bungalow is a new style for you but the current villas, I assume you have around the area in some places. Did you by chance bring any pictures of those at all? Todd Stulz: I did not. You do have a villa development within your community called Mission Hills, although I will say that this in terms of product developed using the floor plans internally as well as the exteriors will be very much different than that. That was one of the concerns. Those are all front loaded whereas in this case the end units enter from the side. You have a hip roof configuration and also the level of detailing with the fieldstone that's been added, the cedar shakes have been added, creates a much richer feel than what you would see in Mission Hills, although Mission Hills was certainly a very successful development. I know that was a real concern in terms of highway, the Highway 5 corridor and what the appearance would be along Highway 5. I know there's some variety occurring and really with four different product types that we have within the villa neighborhood itself, I think you'll see a real variety versus maybe more of a monotony that perhaps was a concern more perhaps with Mission Hills or other villa developments. Peterson: Other questions? Skubic: Just a suggestion. The bungalows, the rear elevations. They have quite a bit of exposure to the north from Windmill Run, especially the bungalows that are on the top crest of the hill there. I think it would be a good idea to have rear elevations of the bungalows also since that is I think a prominent view from the north. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Todd Stulz: Yeah. We've not yet developed the rear elevations, understanding that this is very preliminary in nature in terms of the plans. It was intended to at least reflect what the streetscape would be, which was one of the concerns expressed at some of the meetings that we had with the neighbors and some of City Council. I don't have those with me this evening, although I will indicate that the backs of the homes with the combination of having four season porches and then also a lot of transom windows and two story type windows, because of the amount of light we're trying to get into the backs of these homes, I think will be as equally appealing as certainly the front is. Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Skubic is it? Skubic: Correct. Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again. When we were with the neighbors on several occasions and with the Council as well, we shared some cross sections which we don't have here tonight. But I have a board that shows what we did share view wise. I don't think this will work on the camera but the section AA, this big yellow one through the site. We developed a cross sectional view that showed the relationships of the Windmill Run houses to our single family lots in the northerly portion of the site to the, what was then the cottage homes on that knoll that you speak about, and then down through the villas down to Highway 5. Those bungalow units now that replace the cottage homes in the middle are the highest units on the site but they're not that much higher. In fact the street that comes out of Windmill Run, if we go back to the board on the table. This street coming south, around this curve, actually is for a little ways, is actually higher than that central knoll and the point being that the street in the single family area isn't that much lower than the crest of that knoll. In fact the single family home that fronts this street will provide a visual break or a visual buff'er if you will to the bungalow area. Our greater concern internally actually has been how would this, the look of these bungalow units be perceived by these single family homeowners. So we recognize as neighbors concern about whether we're going to be good or bad neighbors but we're also worried internally and so Rick Murray has spent a lot of time with Todd and with Arteka working on the landscape package for the internal transition too. So we're very sensitive to what the whole site will look like and can look like. Joyce: That was leading up to one of my questions. Is that private road going to be right on top of that term then? Rick Sathre: Yes. Joyce: So you're going to have the bungalows on either side of that private road, is that correct? Rick Sathre: Yes sir and they're walkout units on both sides. The northerly ones walk out to the pond and the southerly ones back up and walk out to that open space. Joyce: What kind of grade are you going to have going up there? I'm just curious. Is that going to be. Rick Sathre: Well we can zoom in again on the grading plan and, if you zoom into this area. We can get real specific if you wish. How about much farther in? Even closer would be good. Oh, 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 that's it. Okay. Well, that's pretty good. Lift it up. Each of these lines on the street are 2 foot elevations or they're 2 foot contours. In fact all of the lines that you see the curvilinear lines that are behind the units are 2 foot contour lines so you can see behind those bungalow units toward the pond there's about 12 or 13 feet of fall from the bungalow units back yards to the pond. And through the unit itself, rising up to the road, there's the typical 8 foot or so elevation difference between the garage and the basement level. The walkout level. So what we're doing, the top of the knoll as it existed right now.., is right here. The road is skirting the edge of the very peak of that little knoll. Joyce: Thanks for explaining that. I didn't know what those arrows were and that makes sense, thanks. Rick Sathre: Sure. Peterson: While you're on elevations, if you could go down to the villas that are closest to Highway 5. What's the height and prominence of the berm between TH 5 and the villas? Rick Sathre: Well now we're right down here. You'll remember that Highway 5 is actually just south of the, bottom of the drawing. This is the future Arboretum Boulevard which is the future frontage road. That will be similar in elevation to Highway 5. The top of this berm rises up to 982. The elevation of the frontage road will be in the 960's somewhere. We don't have, I don't have the plan with me. We're anticipating an intersection elevation down here oh about 958. Arboretum Boulevard will continue to rise I think as it goes over the hill. The existing hill. The elevations of the villa buildings themselves are in the mid 970's. So this berm as we've shown it would actually provide 5 or 6 foot high.., from the villa unit sides. But from the highway side, the highway is very depressed compared to that so there will be a greater slope south of the berm than there is north. Peterson: Thank you. Rick Sathre: There's still an issue to work out too with staff having to do with that bus pull out area. We're not sure where that might be. It could be in that location as well so, as we proceed we would be working on that issue. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Actually that was one of my questions was the bus pull out area. But my second question also has to do with parking. You've talked about the number of spaces on the street. But as I read the information from the fire chief, they're talking about no parking on private roads. I see everything but Windmill Curve and Highlands Boulevard as being marked private roads. Am I correct in assuming then there will be no on-street parking anywhere else but those two major roads? Rick Sathre: We are proposing, I'm sorry for the confusion. We are proposing to have all off street parking, even in the private street system. Each homeowner would have their inside garage spaces. They also would have the space in front of their garage plus those shared off street parking spaces. The little head-in parking spaces that are shown on the plan. If we can go back 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 to the grading plan drawing I can point out some of those. Right here. There's 5 spaces for instance in front of this little open space area that would be shared visitor parking. So we wouldn't intend to have people parking willy nilly on any street. Blackowiak: Oh as I read it, they couldn't park on the street. That's what I was making sure of. And then when, I don't know if this is a staff question. When Arboretum Boulevard comes out, will that access onto Galpin or onto TH 5 or what will happen? Bob, help me. Generous: Arboretum will access onto Galpin Boulevard. Blackowiak: Onto Galpin. So at this point in time we've got the entire, this entire neighborhood dumping out onto Galpin from basically Windmill Curve, just one road. Has there been a traffic study? And the results? Generous: The results were that the level of service would be acceptable. Brooks: You don't foresee any major traffic problems trying to get onto Highway 5 with 247 households trying to get onto TH 5 at one point? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that one a little bit. This development is very similar to the Mission Hills development that you see down on TH 101 and we've not had any problems that I'm aware of with that development and that has approximately 208 units in that development... Again, the traffic study was prepared. They did not anticipate a problem with the level of service at that one intersection. They anticipate a growth period here of a few years in order to develop the site totally. By the time that that is fully built.., closer to probably the year 2000 in which time Arboretum Boulevard will be in place... Brooks: When's the four lanes to Highway 41 going to be in? Hempel: It's proposed to commence construction in 1999... year process. Build the frontage road and widen Trunk Highway 5 concurrently. Peterson: Other questions for Rick? Rick Murray: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Mr. Joyce. I skipped Commissioner Joyce's question earlier about the landscaping. Joyce: No, I would have caught you. Rick Murray: It just dawned on me. Bob, in the staffrecommendation it spoke to moving those evergreens along the creek area to the north. Well I instructed the landscape architect this afternoon to move them all the way to the north so you will find them on that plan in the back yards of the single, of my single families to provide additional buff'er to the people to the north. Those will all be 8 foot evergreens. I didn't realize that you meant to have them go into the buff'er area between my product and the Rottlund's product. So I moved them all the way north. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Joyce: So you're saying that the evergreens are between Windmill Run and, okay. Could there be any other additional shrubbery or whatever that would act as a buff'er there because I'm just looking at what we have here as part of our ordinance here as far as buff'er yards and I'm just, I don't even know how that is decided Bob as far as a buff'er yard. Is there shrubbery that should be added onto there? Rick Murray: Their calculation Bob is right under your left hand. It's, but to answer your question specifically Commissioner Joyce. The buff'er yard between two single family, there is not a buff'er yard between two single family areas, although we are quasi kind of creating one with some landscaping. Joyce: There's no buff'er yard between two single family but there is a buff'er yard between intensifies and this is a lower, low density and then you have a medium density. Rick Murray: Land use wise I think my single family densities are pretty equivalent to what... Joyce: I think we're asking for a, you're asking for a LUP that would, with a 30.14 acres, you're asking for that to be changed from, land use change from a A2 to medium density. That's what we're here for isn't it? Bob? So there's a difference in densities there. Peterson: Per your feeling of the ordinance for buffering Bob, would you consider that there is a defined need for a buffering zone between the two? Generous: By ordinance, yes. Rick Murray: Let me ask the question a little differently Bob. Does my single family have to be a medium density zone? Generous: Yes. Rick Murray: Okay. Joyce: I think you've come a long way. I'm just asking you know. Rick Murray: I didn't understand. I mean I didn't understand that. Joyce: And I'm not really even forcing the issue here but I know he said that he was bringing up the 10 trees, which aren't evident on this, and you said rightfully so. But I'm just saying you know, if we're going to be consistent, I'm just, I'm throwing that out. Rick Murray: As you can see from the buffering, we anticipated our buff'er zone to be between our single family and our bungalow homes. That's where on our landscape plan, even the landscape plan that you folks have, that's where it's demonstrated on that plan. That's a perception and not an ordinance definition between single family and the bungalows. To redo, to do the guiding that Mr. Joyce, Commissioner Joyce raises a very good issue. Should I move that buff'er zone up to the top, and I'd suggest that that wouldn't fairly treat the single family neighbors 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 that were moving, that I was providing to be a buff'er to the Windmill Run neighborhood. That that wouldn't sufficiently treat their needs against the bungalow homes. Joyce: When you present this to City Council, will you be showing those 10 evergreens that you were... Rick Murray: They're actually I brought the plan this evening. It just wasn't ready. Joyce: Can you show it right now? Rick Murray: You're not going to. Joyce: Not going to be able to see it. Rick Murray: You're not going to like this. I even took the time to color some of dots look pretty small. The darker green ones in there are evergreens and I think there's 10 or 12 of the black dots. You put some of the, 3 or 4 of them right here on the comer as a distinction between neighborhoods and then the dark dots that are scattered through here, they came out right through this area. Joyce: All right. Rick Murray: That answers the question. I didn't recognize there was more question there. Joyce: You didn't bring anything else about density though. I do have another question for you Rick actually. Can you break down the time table of construction phasing for us? Rick Murray: Yeah. David, can I? We would like to be grading in the month of June. That would give us the longest portion and the driest part of the year to enable our grading project to finish. Would like to have utilities installed from somewhere about the first of July to the 15th of August and we're hopeful that it could be a little quicker than that but that gives us 45 days to accomplish that task. Our sewer and water mains both have to come from Highway 5, with the exception of what we can pick up off of the Windmill Run trunk line. There's a little piece there that covers about 18 units to our north. We'd like to have the roads in by September. First part of September so that if we got into a bind and the season got real wet and we couldn't be on that schedule, I looked at a couple of scenarios of get all four products to a marketplace that would be available in the spring. What roads wouldn't we finish with blacktop or curb or whatever. That's really not a pleasant thought for me to think about. When I've seen, and other builders. I'm sure Rottlund's much better than some other builders that have built on sites but when they come in and 5 or 6 trainloads full of sheetrock show up on your site and the immense, the amount of material that, it's going to make it hard to come in a little bit later and finish the street because there's so many things in the way. So our desire is to get everything finished this year. We have kind of a fallback scenario if we couldn't where we would condense those streets. Joyce: But then you will phase in Phase 1. Are you say all the phases would go at once? Rick Murray: All the improvements would be done this year. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Joyce: Right. But then how would the phasing of the actual, will the single family homes go in at one time? Rick Murray: The single family homes will all be available for construction. There are three builders that will be doing them. Joyce: There are three builders? Okay. Rick Murray: And that's 10 lots a piece. That's generally about a season and a half for most of them. For construction. There would be three models up for this parade season is what they're anticipating. In the single family. Peterson: Other questions from commissioners? Thank you. This is open for a public hearing and I would like to hear a motion to do so and a second please. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you would like to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. John Hennessy: Good evening commissioners. John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. I own the properly right in this area. This section right in here.., right now is looking at rezoning. My understanding is... area that comes down here, is that correct Rick? Rick Murray: Actually... John Hennessy: Or whatever your recommendation is, should you recommend this, and I think Mr. Murray has come an awful long way and I salute him. This is a very nice project. I'd just ask that you also note in your recommendation that my properly also be zoned for that same medium density since it's surrounded on all sides by that type of zoning. So I'd just ask for a similar zoning to what's going on around me then. Thank you. Peterson: Bob, I assume we can't do that as it's not presented formally before us tonight. So what we'll have to do John is to formally present that to City staff and we'll have to deal, that would have to open itself up for it's own public hearing. Staff could help you with that. John Hennessy: It seems to me that in the past though the City has arbitrarily changed the zoning.., without any notification to myself. At one point I was zoned in the agricultural area. ...my lower 2 acre parcel here was zoned for medium density. Then all of a sudden it's, this comer here is to medium density and the rest is zoned for whatever.., usage was designated so I've seen all kinds of zoning. It happens without any notification to me. It's my properly and I don't see any need for that. That I should really have to undertake a huge process to go and have it redone again when it's been arbitrarily zoned and rezoned at will. Is that standard? Peterson: It's not standard not to be notified, no. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 John Hennessy: Four times. Peterson: No, again we apologize on behalf of the city but I'm sure the intent was to notify and placed in a public hearing because that is a requirement. John Hennessy: And one time this lower 2 acres, which are.., was zoned for medium density. Why that would disappear without my notification is far beyond me. Peterson: I'm sure staff will endeavor to make it as simple and as easy as possible for you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street and I just have a number of requests to make. We spent a lot of time with Rick Murray trying to work through this development and come up with what we feel is a good compromise and I do have just a couple of concerns I'd like to point out. For one thing the villas along the southern part of the development. I have a concern over the elevation. I just have, my thought here along this picture right here is what that's going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. I see nothing but garage doors there and I'd like to make a request that the applicant consider putting up some sort of a gable over the entry so there's a little more focus on the entry for the villas. And that specifically would be appropriate I think for these, for this area right here. The other request I'd like to make is the idea of the side entry for the garage on the bungalows. The bungalows look a lot better than the cottages, I will say that as far as the architecture goes but it would be nice if there was a consideration for these two right here. To have this side entrance garage for those two bungalows. And then another concern I have is with regard to the single family homes. I haven't heard much about the builders selected for those or if any of them are going to be walkouts. I'm also concerned about the length of time. Would this, you know since there are three builders, is this something that might drag on for 5 years or is there a time limit to how long this could go on? And then last but not least, and I feel most importantly is the request over the landscaping. My understanding is with the PUD, usually it is an enhanced development and I'm still waiting to see some form of enhancement in this plan with regard to a feature primarily I would expect would be seen through landscaping and I don't see that. I'd still like to find out if this is minimum landscaping here or where the extras are and again, the way I read the PUD ordinance is that there is a change in density and therefore there needs to be more of a buff'er and landscaping between those densities and that would specifically be addressed to this area. As the plan is stated right now, it's hard for me to really get a full view of what this would look like but I don't see that it's necessarily an enhanced landscape plan. That's all. If you have any questions. Or you want to add to that. Do you want to respond to the landscape? Rick Murray: ... calculation on the site, previously on the side of the bottom.., gives the formulas for the reforestation calculations. It also gives the formula for buff'er yard and transition area. The required plantings that the City requires for those two requirements is 513 trees. This project has 628 trees. The requirements for those reforestation buff'er yards are 113 shrubs. The project has 3,251 shrubs in it. So we're 3,200 shrubs more and 115 trees more. In addition to that we have 177 evergreens on this site. The City average for evergreens is 6 foot plantings. 75% of our evergreens on this site will be 8 feet or larger. We have, well there's only 75 or 177 that will be 6 feet. There's 83 of them that are 8 feet. There's 11 of them that will be 10 feet. There's 12 of them that will be... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Joan Joyce: So are these bigger than the minimum standards then? The sizes that you're referring to again? Rick Murray: Minimum standard is 6 feet. Joan Joyce: Okay. Then my request would be to have some of these trees relocated to some of the other areas because I don't feel that, and I heard your last change that you're moving 10 trees to the north and that's a step in the right direction but 10 trees spread out on 13 lots is not really effective, in my opinion, so my request is that you would consider maybe doing a little bit more... Peterson: We don't really need agreement here tonight. We just want to plant some seeds for. Joan Joyce: Right, right. And again, I'm not looking at the trees that align the street on the south side of those houses. I'm looking at what is on the north side of those houses because that is the edge of the PUD development. That is where the buff'er would, suppose to be according to this city code. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? David Jensen: David Jensen, 2173 Brinker Street. I just have a couple of questions. Number one is the road, Windmill Drive. It's been proposed before that we would like to have that blocked off during construction. I'm not sure exactly where we're sitting on that. Again the neighborhood would like that blocked off so we do not have construction traffic coming through our neighborhood. That is something that we would ask for as a neighborhood. Number two is I'm also not sure exactly what building code is for when construction can occur. I don't know if Saturdays and Sundays are open for construction. We would like, we would prefer not to see construction on the weekends. If that's not possible, definitely we would like to have a later start time on the weekends. Again I'm not aware of what the city code is for this so if you could enlighten me, I would appreciate that. Peterson: Dave, could you speak to both those items. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The developer will be entering into a PUD/development contract with the City which.., the construction hours of the development. Is more geared for the actual on site development. The site grading, the utility work, street work. Those hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. On Saturdays it's 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. No work on Sundays or legal holidays. What regulates or governs the home builders however is city ordinance which currently I believe is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. Now there has been some discussions I believe at the City Council level instructing staff to look into those hours to try to reduce some of the evening hours and weekend activity. However, the home builders, they have a fight schedule. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of... that end of it. Everyday home builder, homeowners out there that want to do the home construction.., hours and sometimes on the weekends, so people have to build a fence and construct their shed or something like that so there's lots to take into account when we... Peterson: Have you talked to Rick about the Windmill Run being closed off at all or not? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Hempel: No we have not but if you look at the grading plan, it states right on there maintain existing barricade until street is installed. I think Mr. Jensen's concern as well as possibly some of the new home construction where you get cement trucks, your sheetrock trucks, lumber trucks, could potentially find their way back through there. Looking at the street layout, it's only the shortest, quickest route into the development is through the new street except for when you start building the homes furthest.., and then there's the opportunity to go... It's really difficult to try to regulate construction traffic there. Some home builders will install signs saying no construction access points here but by that time it's sometimes too late... Difficult to regulate. We can certainly request that though. Peterson: Thanks. Anyone else? Mark Peyereisen: Just one last comment. My name is Mark Peyereisen and I live at 7501 Windmill Drive and I think Ms. Brooks brings up a great point in regards to the traffic on Galpin. Currently you're telling us that the 200 units that are going in there, that Galpin would be able to handle that traffic, but I think there's some thought that should be gone into that. The Lundgren development is not yet completed down the road from there and also the Centex development is also enroute as well. And if you currently take a drive down Galpin Boulevard with the trucks that are hauling there, the utility trucks and the sewer trucks that are coming in, the grading that's going on down there, Galpin is not a safe street at this point in time to be on bike riding, running, walking, whatever the case may be so I think there is some thought that needs to go into that in regards to the Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is an inferior street, especially for a 50 mph speed zone on there and if that were to be the case, then we should look at lowering that speed limit or just addressing the traffic study again in regards to Galpin Boulevard. That's it. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. It's been a long and winding road in more ways than one. Alison, would you care to comment first please. Blackowiak: Okay. Get on the right page here. I'm just going to kind of run down the conditions that staff suggested and comment where I feel necessary. Numbers 3 and 4, we're talking about the commons in the plat and also the trail location. I agree that the commons is very important and would like to see the trail moved either north or south. It doesn't matter which one but just give us a larger open space in the middle. I agree with the dissenting members of the Park Commission regarding the need for some type of a playground or something. I'm a member of the Park Task Force and a recent survey done of city residents pointed out that neighborhood parks are number one on their priority list, and I can't believe that the potential new neighbors in this area would be any different than the people we already have in Chanhassen in terms of their desire to have a neighborhood park. So I would strongly hope that something could be worked out and I agree that the neighbors could, and then probably should have some input as to what it would be but I would like that to be a part of the plan. Moving the trail a little bit and thinking about some type ofa totlot or whatever you want to call it but something there for the families that 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 are going to have small children so that they too can enjoy these parks. The gazebo's a nice touch. I don't know if that's the answer or the benches or whatever but I like the idea of a place to meet and yes, a small playground can be a place to meet. I really haven't heard anything about the bus shelter or bus cut out. I'd like to know a little bit more about that and where that could be potentially incorporated because I am somewhat worried about the traffic and the fact that we are at this point dumping everybody out with a single access point onto Galpin, and that scares me a little bit because there will be a lot of cars. And I do realize that Arboretum Boulevard is scheduled for 1999 but we all know MnDOT and that may just not happen so I'm kind of worried about that. I like Joan Joyce's comments regarding the higher standards of the PUD. We need to look for something that's going to be interesting. That's going to be above average and just moving trees around maybe from the south side to the north side might solve a couple problems but then if you really felt they were necessary in the south side, can't we just add some instead of moving what we've got. If it is going to be a medium density PUD, then I think that in order to conform to the requirements of our PUD standards we would need some buffering then between the existing Windmill Run neighborhoods and the proposed Walnut Grove neighborhood. Let me think here. Also parking. Hennessy's property. Again I think we addressed that. That that will have to be a separate issue before the Planning Commission. It will have to be published in the paper and proper notice given. And boy, I think that's about it. We heard a lot tonight. But generally I think it's a good plan but if we address some of those issues, and probably some others that the commissioners will bring up, it will be an even better plan. Peterson: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree a lot with Alison. I do think the playground should be considered. I know we talked about empty nester and we talked about retirement but I think that a lot of single parents with children are attracted to townhomes and bungalow type homes and that you may actually get more children than you expect. It's also a nice way for families to congregate and meet each other. If you're looking at different sets of people, you know you can tailor open spaces to the different sets. You know put your gazebo or sort of non-children in one open space and have the play area in another open space. The traffic question is not directly related necessarily to this development alone. Trunk Highway 5 is going to be, just a horizontal parking lot one of these days and I don't know, I think we're all, our hands are tied no matter what. No matter what development goes in. I do worry about the idea that there's only one access out to Galpin and then onto TH 5 and the back-up that will cause. And those are really my major concerns. Other than that I guess I don't have a lot more comments. Peterson: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I don't have much to say. I think it's really come a long way. From the comments I made 3-4 months ago, and I wasn't even involved in the process. They've taken care of them. Between the neighbors and the developer. This is a good PUD. It's got variety of housing styles in here which it didn't have 3-4 months ago. These are nice designs. I compliment the Rottlund group who put them in. For the townhome type product, it's very good. I like the roadway system and yeah, traffic's always going to be an issue but there was a study done. There was a study done. We have to pay attention to the study. The study was done. Park and Rec also made motions on what they like so, I think there's some things that could be done based on what the commissioners like but overall I think, and John I think you won't have any problem getting the 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 zoning. If it doesn't go the way you want, I'd be real surprised. I can't believe it won't. But I like this. I think there have been some comments on things that changing and refacing loading. I think that's my only comment. I think there are some tweakings that can be done and as to how we load certain units here, which can add. I think there were some good comments made about maybe some simple things that could give a little bit better vision on Highway 5 for some of the housing down there, but overall boy I just don't have too many problems with the proposal. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I'm the newest commissioner and this is actually the first time I've looked at this plan and studied this and I'm very impressed with it. I really like the idea of variety of home styles. I think it's well laid out and really gives, been able to tell there's a lot of thought and work put into the plan. A couple things I did note. The other commissioners have mentioned the playground and that was a concern of mine too. That there would be a playground in this development. Also back to the parking, that I had mentioned before. I'm concerned about the amount of off street parking and I'm wondering if the applicant could work with staff to see if that could be reduced and the reason that I liked it reduced is to hopefully minimize the impact upon some of the open spaces that you've proposed in just the villa home development area. Particularly I'm looking at the very northern portion, near the villa homes where there are several spaces that are near the trail and as I walk along the trail I really don't want to come within 3 feet of a car when I'm walking along the trail. So I'd like to see those removed. Also, on the very southern most part I see more stalls closest to the proposed Arboretum Boulevard. I guess I don't really like the idea of having parking there. And then also food for thought about open space .... right in the middle of that villa townhouse development, could those slots, parking spaces be removed so that it is a green space so you don't have to have your picnic table in the midst of a bunch of cars pointing at you. I think the applicant can work to revise the parking plan. I would hope that the applicant would do that. Otherwise I guess I see that this has been a long process. A lot of work and thought has been put into this and really happy to see the developers worked with the neighbors to make some progress in this area. That's what I have. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Yeah... hats off to Rick. I think he's done a good job with what he has had to work with. We've had some issues here. The road has worked out better than we had expected originally so I certainly appreciate the help with that. I'm very happy with the bungalows. I think the bungalows was a nice idea. I think they're going to be an asset to the neighborhood. The single family homes once again is an extension of the Windmill Run. Somewhat of an extension to the Windmill Run so that helped. I would have to echo that, on some of these 12 plexes of the villas and on the 8 unit plex that to add gabling to that would help. I would have to respectfully disagree with some of the commissioners as far as the totlot. I'm not really that much in favor of the totlot there. I think they're doing a good job with that open space. I'm kind of against half hearted playgrounds versus maybe something a little more natural. A gazebo would be nice. I know that there had been considerations of some problems they thought they might encounter with the gazebo. I can certainly appreciate that. Really the only issue I have left here, through this long process, and I'm proud to say that I was part of the process because it's really evolved into something that I, you know I do look, I'm going to be looking out on this so I have a vested interest in what's going on here. And it's evolved nicely. The only thing that I could say Rick is 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 that, I'd really like you to look at a little additional landscaping up north by us. I know you're putting those 10 trees up there. I'm not asking for a complete visual screen up there. I'm just asking for some landscaping because per our ordinances we're allowed to have a little bit of landscaping up there so the trees are wonderful but please, and I'm going to suggest a condition to that. That you look at some additional screening there. And otherwise I think it will work. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: ... on the part of the developer, staff and the residents here, I think it really came along nice. A couple comments. I tend to favor a totlot too based on my experience. I have kids and what a neighborhood looks like but I think I really have to consider the developer's expertise on this. He knows what he's developing these dwellings for so I think he has a better idea of what is required here. And there will be input from the residents. The prairie grass. I live in a neighborhood where the outlots of vegetation gets a real workout from the little kids and I agree that prairie grass probably won't work to the north and I think it would work much better to the south. And regarding the buffering. Now technically there should be buffering there a potentially different from Windmill Run to the north. However that's not the intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to separate areas that have different densities, different uses. In this case the houses to the south of Windmill Run I hope have the same value. Or same type and I really don't feel, based on the intent of the ordinance that they should, all the buffering that we would require between medium density and low density developments. Peterson: Okay. Thank you Bob. My questions, my comments don't differ that much from my fellow commissioners. I think that as you presented to the Council, Rick if you can present the commons area and maybe the gazebo with a little bit more detailing as far as it's potential size and give them some sense of how big we're talking. A 5 x 5 or a 25 x 25, just to get some sense really of what impact that will have on the whole development. As it relates to the villa units, I guess if there's anything that I do have concerns about with the development yet is in that area and the really imposing size of them from the Highway 5 area south. I mean from a PUD, I think it all fits. But in a PUD as close to Highway 5 corridor and the work we put into that study, I'm even more concerned about what is within that corridor and what kind of views you really have from Highway 5 going into the PUD. So I think anything that we can do to break up those units on the villas, or that the comments were brought up tonight are germane or whether there's other things that we can do to break up those into more appealing to the eye versus just the impending size of the structure, does concern me. And I'm almost hesitant to vote in favor of the rezoning because of that but the PUD is so strong in and of itself I think that that won't be the case tonight. That I will vote for it but my rationale would be that because it being so close to Highway 5, it was an issue in my mind. So anything we can do would be beneficial. But I think in many ways what we're doing is sacrificing that to some degree to get more affordable housing and I respect that position to some degree. I'd be somewhat concerned about moving the evergreens from that natural area to the northern area. Again moving around vegetation and when you move those trees you're opening up those villas to more views from Highway 5 too so you're definitely taking something away from that area. As it relates to the side entries on the bungalows, and any of the units that we're talking about tonight, which I think you did a fine job in creating those unique structures. I think we should put the maximum number of side entries available into the project to again, to further break it up. And lastly, the comments that I also disagree with one of my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Sidney where you talked about the off street parking in those 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 areas. I, from a safety perspective I'd be concerned about removing those. On a Saturday night if one of those or two of those people have parties, we're talking about a lot of potential people parking on the street which is I'm sure Public Safety would have a concern with that so there's a delicate balance there but I'd be careful about removing any. I'm generally a proponent of, in those high densities, is to be sure we have enough so I'd just be cautious if talk of removing is going on and what the impact of that would be. So with that, any other questions or comments before we take a motion? Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'd make the motion. I think it's two motions. We need two motions here. I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use map amendment, amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density to permit the proposed development known as Walnut Grove. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Map Amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from Residential-Low Density to Residential-Medium Density to permit the proposed development known as Walnut Grove. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Second motion please. Conrad: You don't want to do it Kevin? Joyce: No. Conrad: Well you're involved. I'll make the motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50 acres from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development, Residential PUD-R with the... Joyce: I'll second that motion. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50 acres from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanhnously. Peterson: Third motion please. Joyce: I'll throw this out. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for Walnut Grove subject to conditions, did you add a condition Bob? Generous: 41. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Joyce: So we're at 42 right now? Okay. With condition number 10, the applicant shall work with staff to relocate 10 evergreens scheduled to be planted along the boulevard near pond and Bluff Creek. I'd like to add to the northern properly line between Windmill Run and Walnut Grove. And I'd like to add a condition. Number 43. The applicant present additional screening to buff'er the low density Windmill Run neighborhood and the medium density Walnut Grove neighborhood. Conrad: And all the other conditions stand? Joyce: I'm sorry. Yes they do. Conrad: Would you take some friendly amendments? Joyce: Sure. Conrad: On condition number 1. For the applicant to work with staff to, Bob I'm going to let you word this but I'd really like to, we heard some recommendations both from the applicant and maybe, I don't know who else but anyway, I'd like to have the staff review those, the modifications that the applicant made and make a recommendation to the City Council. On condition number 4. I'd like to make sure it's clear that the trail can be moved southward or northward, but for sure out of the drainage area. Condition number 11. I'd want to make sure, I do believe the applicant has a valid point about where the prairie areas should be and so I would like as a sentence there to have staff review with the applicant the appropriate areas for the treating of the prairie grass. Condition number 43. I'd like to have the applicant propose to the City Council some revision to the villa units on Highway 5. Joyce: That would be 44. Conrad: Is that 44? Okay .... to the architecture on the villa units facing Highway 5. Generous: Actually that should be the site plan. Conrad: Site plan? Generous: On page 23. Blackowiak: We're actually looking at four motions, not three. Conrad: Ah, I'm sorry. Sorry, yeah. Joyce: Can we revisit that? Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, let me do that later on. I'm sorry. I will work those in. So the only comment that I made that is valid is the one on the first one on the site plan where the staff is reviewing with the applicant the appropriate bungalow homes where the side entries work based 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 on the applicant's recommendation. Does that make sense Bob? That's the only, sorry Kevin. That's the only amendment to your motion. Joyce: Condition 4, you're going to move the trail southward. And so we have 43 conditions then. Okay. Peterson: Do you have that Bob? Generous: I have 43 conditions, yeah. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for Walnut Grove subject to the following conditions: The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from Highlands Boulevard east to the properly limit. Construction of an 8 fl. asphalt trail within this easement. The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in constructing the trail from the city's trail fund. 2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 3. The development of a "commons" within the plat. The developer sliall relocate the trail northward or southward within the open area, staying out of the drainage swale area, to expand the gathering space/public space and make a more useable play area The applicant sliall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component within the development potentially provid'mg land and/or fund'mg assistance for a bus slielter/bus cut-out. 6. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species list in Bluff Creek Management Plan. 7. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to commencing grading activities. 8. The applicant must submit revised landscape species list with corresponding plan. 9. Vegetation restoration plan for the slope leading down from road to wetland in southwest comer must be developed. 10. The applicant shall work with staff to relocate 10 evergreen scheduled to be planted along Boulevard near pond and Bluff Creek to the northern property line between Windmill Run and Walnut Grove. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 11. Incorporate prairie areas in open space south of the traditional single family homes and also to the north of the four unit villa blocks on the west side of Village Boulevard. The prairie areas shall have a detailed planting and management plan submitted with the overall landscaping plan for the development prior to final plat approval. The management plan will identify responsibility for the areas and outline maintenance practices to be followed during the establishment period and beyond. 12. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 13. Submit streets names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. Submit proposed street names for private streets 200 feet or more in length. All private roads and a number of smaller driveway accesses will be required to have street names. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for which streets will need to be assigned street names. Street names must be submitted to both Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. No parking fire lane signs will be required to be installed on private roads and roads leading to driveway accesses. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 06-1991. 14. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over the private streets within the development. 15. 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 in conjunction with final plat submittal. 16. 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. 17. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles". 18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 19. 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. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 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 basin, 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. 20. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 21. The applicant 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. 22. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 23. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall 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.. 24. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The berm proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 19 and 20 shall be redesigned so it is not situated over the proposed storm sewer. 25. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 26. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 27. 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. 28. The developer shall expand the conservation easement over Outlot A to include drainage and utility purposes. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot. 29. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the construction cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 30. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard. 31. The southerly stormwater pond on Outlot A shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runofl~ SWMP credits will be given for oversizing this pond. 32. Final grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard will be subject to review and approval of MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5/Arboretum Boulevard. 33. The developer shall work with City staff in reducing the encroachment of the retaining wall into the right-of-way along Walnut Curve (Lot 1, Block 1). If there are no feasible alternatives the developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 34. The cul-de-sac proposed to serve Lots 37 through 40, Block 2 shall be redesigned to accommodate fire truck turning movements. 35. Provide a 1" 200' scale plan of the subdivision to the Inspections Division showing all streets, driveways, property lines and building outlines. 36. A 10' 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. 37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 38. An additional 1 to 2 fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrant(s). 39. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. (Copy enclosed). Additional number ranges will be required on the building ends adjacent to main arterial roads. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and size of letters. 40. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. 41. The following setbacks shall be established within the Walnut Grove development: Lots 1 - 14, Block 1, front 30 fl, rear 30 fl., side 10 fl. Lots 1 - 3, Block 2, front 30 fl., rear 30 fl., side 10 fl. Lots 4 - 17, Block 2, front 30 fl., rear 25 fl., side 10 fl. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Lots 1 - 4, Block 3, front 30 fl., rear 30 feet, side 10 fl. Setback from Galpin Boulevard: 50 fl. Setback from Village Boulevard: 30 fl. 42. Water Quality and Quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the proscribed land use zoning. 43. The applicant shall provide additional screen between the proposed development and the existing development to the north." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion please. Joyce: We're going back to site plan? Peterson: For the townhouses. Joyce: I'll present that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-14 for 168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/497 subject to conditions 1 through 4. Number 4 being minor adjustments to the villa homes fronting Highway 5, breaking up the longation of those homes with possibly gables.., etc. Does that work? Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96-14 for 168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/4/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall incorporate side entry garages for the bungalow homes on Lots 19, 21, 25, 31, 43, and 44, Block 2, and Lot 14, Block 3. 2. The applicant shall incorporate three exterior siding selections for the villa townhomes and four exterior siding selections for the bungalow homes, stamped received April 23, 1997. 3. No two adjacent bungalow homes may have the same elevations and exterior siding selections. 4. The applicant shall make minor adjustment to Villa homes adjacent to Highway 5 to increase architectural detail." 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL USES~ SUPPORT COMMERCIAL USES~ AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE; REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE~ A2 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ PUD~ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 12 LOTS~ 20UTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND MITIGATE WETLANDS; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 101~600 SQ. FT. OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON PROPOSED LOT 1~ BLOCK 3; INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE GRADING; ALTERNATE URBAN AREA REVIEW (AUAR) REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR GATEWAY ADDITION. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41~ GATEWAY PARTNERS~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Buxton Brainerd, Minnesota Rich Wrase 405 Cimarron Circle Mark Wenlzell A.K. Architects Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff'? Skubic: What do we have in here that would prohibit say a Cub Foods or a Best Buy retail store? Generous: Under the intent section. Commercial use, retail uses are prohibited except for those uses specifically... Skubic: So they're not permitted uses you're saying. Generous: Yes. They're strictly prohibited. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, the institutional square footage minimum. You were advised, or the applicants said 250,000 is too great. Why did you set it at the 250? Was there a rationale for 250 versus 100 versus anything? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Generous: No, because basically that was... Lot 9, Block 4. That threshold. And if you get something that large you'd probably get a university, college type.., potentially research institute. And we did, this is one of the concerns we want to have a high quality development on that comer.., this, the design criteria... Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: Bob, have we thrown out any idea of housing in here then? Is that what we're saying? Generous: That's correct. Joyce: So when we talk about support, commercial support here, we're really limited now because you're only dealing with the people that are there going for their office work and that kind of stufl~ Generous: Unless a convention center with... Joyce: Okay. I'm just curious, and I'm not quite understanding this. You said in the report it says that there's going to be, I'm looking at traffic signals on the north and south road and Highway 5. Generous: Yes. Joyce: So there will be signals there for the traffic going east and west on Highway 5? Generous: Right. It will be north and south... Joyce: Wow. That's pretty close to Highway 41, isn't it? Hempel: A quarter mile away. Joyce: It is a quarter, I guess all right. Okay. I just, it would seem like a lot of backing up to me but if we have a big traffic report so evidently they know what they're talking about. I was just curious about that though. Okay. Thank you. Peterson: Bob, why don't you kind of just give us a general update on the Wrase property and where we're at with those discussions and the access, etc., etc., that was the issue last time. Generous: The access would be required under...the developer would provide a...driveway access into their property. My understanding from the City Attorney was... Peterson: I assume we're not close within, before going to Council etc., etc. We're weeks or months away. Generous: I don't know exactly... Peterson: Okay. Other questions of stafl~ 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Blackowiak: I may have missed this but Bob, what happened? What is the progress of the park negotiations? I know that the Park Commission had talked about acquiring some more of the land and since Lot 1 of Block 2 is no longer multi-family, what's happening for that southeast quadrant? Generous: They're still negotiating that. It won't be resolved probably until the... There's a compromise position that we're... Staff's preference is to preserve.., developer has to have a developable piece of properly... We're getting closer I believe. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And if so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Fred Richter: Good evening. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. With me tonight is Howard Dahlgren, part of our planning group and John Uban. John Uban will be making the majority of the presentation regarding the overall PUD issues. And Mark Wenlzell, an architect with Ankeny Kell Architects will talk about the Phase I building and kind of run through the exterior concept of that and the site plan on that. Just I guess one thing just to lead off and reiterate what Bob has stated. We've had several work sessions with Council and I think it's fair to say we've got a line pretty well figured out as to the boundaries in that southeast quadrant. Approximately someplace in this area which will be an industrial site and.., park issue with the Council with the final resolution of the dedication or purchasing the land. That was a big issue.., pretty well focused now. I think with that, John can kind of run you through our development and then we'll mm it over to Mark Wenlzell who will talk about the architecture. John Uban: Well the last time we were before you we did have a residential component that we talked about quite a bit and as pointed out, in looking at an enlarged park, now about one-third of the site is being considered for park, which includes basically the whole easterly one-third of the properly. This in a way changes the character of what we're proposing. It means we are condensed into a smaller parcel. So what we have left is a set of lots. This is really a plat. It's a set of lots that we have configured on this properly with the north/south street primarily serving lots, and in exchange an east/west at some future phase, out to Highway 41. So we'll have, when we end up maybe 90 acres of developable land. 100. In that neighborhood that can be developed. In addition, the Wrase properly has already been discussed.., going to be included in with the development by virtue of an easement or driveway access that would get into.., site so they don't have to have direct access to Highway 41. And that will be integrated in with the site plan through Lot 1. So that that is all tied together. A condition we anticipate a water tower site there. On the perimeter, we're talking about enhanced setbacks that are part of the Highway 5 corridor treatment. We talked about a lot of landscaping. Almost a wall of landscaping, and I will show you that plan. And the interior is then different. The interior is treated differently to accommodate these buildings and each one of the sites is graded to it's own separate plateau and between the sites we have these terraces that create a backdrop for each of the buildings, and that's what I'll focus on before we get into the architecture. This drawing, once again, here's nd Highway 5. Here's Highway 41. 82 Street comes across to about here and then turns to the south. Everything colored in here is the proposed park area. North/south road up to Highway 5 where there will be a full intersection. The traffic study has indicated that this is absolutely necessary. In order to have an industrial park here, we have to have this intersection signalized so 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 that it works. Otherwise it's not an industrial site. Coulter Boulevard is still being considered by the City, whether or not it should go in or shouldn't go in. The traffic study said that this will operate equally well with or without this road in place so that is still a future decision. Obviously it allows for more parkland to be usable if that road isn't built. The road over to Highway 41 is one of our last phases of development and in that we would anticipate that Highway 41 will be improved. Lowered to minimize the grading.., tie into that. The grading on the site anticipates these changes that will take place when Highway 41 and Highway 5 are developed. And we will, after our first phase, create a second phase grading plan that precisely shows the cuts and fills and quantities which are hard to do at this point. We have talked about some of the things with staff that Bob brought up and we will continue to work with staff to kind of fine tune some of these elements, like the land use where we would like to have a bank or financial institution. That's an important part of a good service base for business and the same with servicing automobiles, restaurants, these sorts of things. There is a significant industrial base to the south in Chaska that they, themselves do not have good services. So we find this to be an appropriate place to accommodate services that are... We are not anticipating a large institutional use, at least initially. It would probably be unusual, a 1 in 10 sort of chance that something of a huge magnitude would come along but we think a smaller number would work and would work well within the park without really over burdening the tax base scenario for the development. I think the important thing really to consider then is our landscape plan and our signage and what we're proposing to do. We have illustrated here, and you can see it in different colors, a naturalized, re-establishment of the terraced slopes throughout the development. These basic areas create the grade changes between each individual lot and are fully naturalized. That means an extensive planting of trees, native turf, flowers, everything so we kind of return some of the natural terrain that is now under cultivation back to it's original form. And then all along the perimeter with a gateway landscape feature at the comer of Highway 41 and 5, this is all planted in as well with both evergreen and overstory trees. With the landscaping we're trying to blend into the road system the landscape. Not just put up sort of a wall of trees, but let's spread it out a little bit and make it look more natural, which two things have to be done and we need the flexibility to do it. One is to be able to plant in right-of-ways so that the trees or shrubs can blend closer to the street surface. And the other is to have a variety of sizes of plant material. Instead of everything being 6 foot or 8 foot tall, or something, that we have a variety so it really looks like a naturalized planting. So these are the details we'll present as we bring each individual development to you. So by planting in the right-of-way it tends to give a visual narrowing of the streets, which calms traffic and really I believe makes a much more attractive development. We have over 400 trees, just trees alone. Lots of shrubs, just in this perimeter planting and the terracing. Each site will have it's own landscape in addition so there's quite a bit to be planted for the site. We have coordinated lighting. The signage, we're asking for signage larger than what has been talked about with city stafl~ But primarily at the entrances of the three main entrances in which we really need a gateway monument that expresses that this is an important site. And understanding that the perimeter is going to be heavily landscaped, there won't be these immediate views into the site itself. So what we have is a presence that needs to be expressed at the entrances. Tastefully done. And we have right here as an example of the type of signage that we're proposing. Some nice stone, boulder, masonry work with a logo and the name of the park placed on there. That's important. That's an important part of developing a high quality park that has that type of signage. And we're just asking for subtle increases. A few feet in height. The ability to have finials or caps come off the monuments that might be higher yet. An exact design will be before you when we're ready to build it. These types of flexibilities where we hope you understand and 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 present to you this evening. In addition, tying into the overall site will be a pond. All the water quality issues are being addressed in the engineering. Traffic has been studied. An indirect source permit is being processed. We have over 2,000 potential parking stalls here. We don't know for sure but since the potential is there, we're processing an indirect source permit and because we have over 500,000 square feet of potential building on the site, we are also doing an alternative urban area review, which is an alternate way of doing the environmental review when you have an excellent comprehensive plan and when you have excellent ordinances that control many of the things that are of a concern in an environmental review. You already have much of that in place so that process merely meets the criteria and the law and expresses all of those concerns in that document. That is presently being published and being distributed to all the agencies for review .... show you the type of building. This is an interior building. Not a building seen from the perimeter, so it's inside the park building. Industrial building and will show the architecture and treatment of that structure. Fred Richter: Mark is going to be showing you.., you'll see more green space which is indicative of the 70% maximum coverage. From our.., standpoint, we're open up the development, Phase 1 in '97 and '98 of 82nd Street. So this would be Phase 1 and possibly the comer of Lot 2. And then we go over here. '99 to 2000 is the potential for this lot here and possibly these. Then when a full intersection opens up, and we've talked with stafl} the comer lot, the larger lot. The one that actually is anticipated to be a little different than what Mark will be showing in that we're guiding this one to a kind of corporate user. A high tech manufacturing. One that's going to be a multi- story building and more green space. Another just clarification. In the commercial, guided commercial and this is also so what Mark will be showing you probably will be indicative of this area here, which is the primarily industrial, multi-tenant or end user building with these being guided a little bit differently. Mark. Mark Wenlzell: Thank you Fred. This is the site plan for that first building that Fred just mentioned. 82nd Street and then the proposed north/south road. It's approximately a 10 acre parcel with one building placed in the center of which.., the first tenant coming into this section and future tenants later so it becomes a modular kind of building layout. We have two entries to the site. One off of 82nd, which is a truck traffic entry and then more parking for an entrance off of the north/south road. Parking is related along the edge of the site. Along the front and forward boundary of the site where the monument sign... The building is approximately 645 feet by 160... service yard in the back with some additional employee parking... Also there's a proposed future expansion of the building shown right here.., parking and surface area here for the loading dock. This is a computer generated perspective of the building. It shows the massing and scale of the building. This is a view, this is the southeast comer of the building right here. It shows a typical entry.., that comer. They're repeated then along the building at regular intervals so they can be subdivided for tenants. The idea behind each entry, which is a significant feature of the building, is there a recessed entry rather than a projected entry. It keeps the, I think the massing of the building more consistent and here's an opportunity to create a shelter entryway around here. We have some grillwork and some changing colors.., that you'll see in the coloration I'll show you in a just a moment. So this is generally this large kind of feature right here and the building matches the scale of the structure. The multi-tenant building.., the street faces the building. Parking is right out here and then the back yard across here is where the service area is. This area through here would be... is the embankment up to the next site, the sort of terraced area. That will be covered again with the native grasses and heavily landscaped... This will explain a little more 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 about the materials and coloration of the building. Since this is a pre-cast concrete building with insulated wall panels and metal structure within. It's an efficient, long lasting building system. To give the building character we wanted to look at both scales. At the small human scale and also to scale the entrance canopies and the entry features to the scale of the building. So we have a series of entries along here. Some will be actual entries for a particular tenant. Some will be just recesses to modulate the facade ifa tenant doesn't need this additional entry space. So we're showing here five entries and three kind of just regulated appearing like entrances. Again we've painted these in sort of a shades of earth tone. We started out with the lower portion of the building with a light beige color and then above that a warm gray band. And then a little lighter, an off white kind of color and then a gray cap give dimension to the height of the building and... And then most of the features.., sort of a warm ochre brown color to identify those entries and to give them the prominence. We then recess that entry and side. The sense of shadow will help identify the entries and also protect them and then an ornamental grillwork is in there to add some detail. I have here a photograph of a similar building, if you can see that very well. But again it's somewhat.., concept with the recessed entry here and this dark area here looks somewhat brighter color and then the ornamental grillwork gives that some enthusiasm right at the entryway. This is again a painted, pre-cast building. Similar to the materials that would be used on this building. Peterson: Would you pass that around, if you would. Mark Wenlzell: The back side of the building, the loading dock side is painted in the same coloration with a single.., cap across the top and then the lower.., loading docks will be painted to match and then the back is painted with the off white color. A little bit simpler than the front, and again this is the north side that is the future expansion and this is the south elevation with this entry actually being from the southeast. And this is the major one across three sides facing the proposed north/south road. And I think that completes my explanation of it. Yes. Peterson: If you would, just a few questions. We talked about the colored material and the banding. Do you have any of that with or have you met with staff to let them review the types of materials that you're going to be using? When you say paint it scares me. Mark Wenlzell: Well it's a cementitious paint product made for painting concrete. It's not house paint but it is in any color imaginable because it is a paint product. It's not an aggregate or an actual concrete product. I think there's several reasons for that. One, you get more consistent color than you do if you're trying to use a natural concrete product. We have a greater variety of color and we have the ability to put color on the building where we want it rather than as a pre- cast panel which are made in 8 foot wide segments by the height of the building and you have to pretty much stick with the color of that panel. So it's a little more flexibility. I think if you see these photographs, the ability to get nice, warm colors. Kind of natural colors is quite... We can provide the actual paint samples of the colors. Fred Richter: One addition, in the pre-cast technology, this is a lot of reveals are put into the pre- cast panels so as you talk about a color change, there is an architectural real crisp reveal that starts to highlight, as you can see in that picture so this gives legitimacy to the color change. It's really a way to take and develop a larger building and get it... like a day like today when you get a lot of moisture, the exposed aggregate starts to modulate in color lots... Something that actually allows 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 in 10 years, whatever to update the color. To freshen up... We think this is a state of the art, something we're seeing from the pre-cast companies that have it in other industrial markets... Peterson: So as far as longevity of the paint itself. Mark Wenlzell: It's significantly different than the old days of putting let's say like a latex paint on a concrete wall. This is not that kind of system. This is, it's not going to flake or peel or blister ofl~ Peterson: It's just going to fade. Mark Wenlzell: It will fade like any paint, particularly bright colors will fade, and it will have to be repainted sometime in the future but you're getting very long lead times. At least a 10 year cycle now on these paints. I think maybe even 15. As a matter of fact a lot of these have never been repainted. And it's consistent with the buildings that you see to the south. The what, Flouroware building and. Fred Richter: All the... I'd say the majority of those are painted with... This technique, with the architectural reviews.., actually a little more sophisticated... Peterson: The ones with the dark blue is what you're talking of? Fred Richter: ... the older buildings, some of them are just standard concrete panels. Some of them are exposed aggregate. Some of them have painted stripes. Some of them have a masonry band. Mark Wenlzell: You can see in those pictures how the reveal system works where it's not just a paint line but an actual reveal where the paint colors change. That will be done here. Joyce: I have another question here. In your development standards, item 11 of the building materials and design. It says each building should contain one or more pitched roof elements. How is that incorporated? Fred Richter: We talked with stafl~ maybe Bob you want to answer how you define a pitched element. Generous: Well it varies. In this specific site plan.., entryway with the grill system and coloring.., pitched roof element. The Byerly's went with the vault system. You know it varies. ... on Dell Road and Highway 5, they did those... Something that ties it in with the rest of the community but gives it it's own... Joyce: I'm obviously thinking more of. Fred Richter: Yeah, the roof. I think when we talked to staff today, the.., might be generalized. It isn't literally a pitch but to achieve the objective of giving the building entry identity, scale, spatial modulation of the long walls. That type of thing. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Joyce: Okay. I don't know if this is the right time to ask this question but we have all the, you said there was going to be some parking back behind this building? Mark Wenlzell: Yes .... parallel parking. Joyce: Okay. What kind of tenants, is this a warehouse type of situation or what? Is this office and warehouse or? Fred Richter: The anchor tenant.., they're a 70,000 square feet facility. 12,000 offices. They're a direct mail marketing finn. So they would have not only their purchasing, front offices, catalog, publishing, that would be in the 12,000 square feet. Then the rest of it would be basically distribution... Joyce: So 10% of the building is for office and 90% is for warehouse. Fred Richter: Yeah. That is the anchor tenant... 12 over 70. Joyce: Or 12 over 70, I'm sorry. Okay, that's 15-20%. Fred Richter: The remainder of the building, roughly 30,000, we would probably estimate probably 20% for office. It varies. We've had buildings right now very similar dimensions and all that, our first tenant is 50% build-up. In other words, 50% office. And in this... The overall, a facility like this probably 20%. Joyce: The thing I'm leading up to then I guess is, I believe we have to address something in the parking with the islands, the landscape islands and things like that and I'm just, with that it seems like a lot of parking to me and I just, I hate a building surrounded by parking. So how are you going to address those situations? Fred Richter: I think the islands, Mark did you want to address that. Mark Wenlzell: We had.., that comment and I forget exactly... Our thought is that because there's.., repeated row of parking. You know aisle after aisle, that you get the parking lot heavily surrounded by greenery, just one aisle deep so that putting an island here really doesn't add a lot... If it was a double row or you know three rows deep, then the islands do a lot more for the parking lot to break up the asphalt. Fred Richter: If we can work it out with staff'.., other communities it's pretty common. What happens here is if you get more greenery in the parking, you obviously reduce your parking.., so I think there has to be a balance.., pretty close to landscape. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: This is a public hearing. I'd like to hear a motion to open up the meeting to a public hearing and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I hear a motion to close the public hearing, and a second. Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Bob, would you share your comments please. Skubic: Well I don't have a great deal to say about this. I do have a question of Dave. We typically don't allow landscaping trees in the right-of-way. What are the implications of doing so? Hempel: Typically we don't. Or we have in some residential communities where the homeowners association that maintains them. They enter into what's called an encroachment agreement which spells out maintenance responsibilities and if they fail to do it... we're not responsible for damage or maintenance in the right-of-way. This particular subdivision does have a very wide right-of-way. 80 foot wide right-of-way.., areas will be 36 feet wide.., additional turn lanes so there may be some opportunity here to utilize some of that right-of-way area for landscaping. Typically on a collector type street, Coulter Boulevard for instance, we would have a streetscape plan where we will plant boulevard trees.., with the city project .... open for ideas for landscaping. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Regarding the institutional square footage. I don't have a strong feeling on that. I guess 250,000 square feet is prohibitive, I would consider a reduction. I don't know what to what. I think I need more convincing on that and more background. Just a couple details. The building is a little bit plain, especially on the south side and it fronts 82nd Street. There's no windows on the south side. I think it needs to have some architectural features on that side. We typically get some materials in here to look at. I certainly don't expect you to bring in an 8 foot by 20 foot pre-cast slab but we like to look at materials to see what they're like. I don't have anything else to add. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: I have a couple questions and Bob, maybe you can help me out on this. What do we have, six motions here? Is that what we're looking at? Generous: Five. Joyce: Five, okay. The second motion is for the actual PUD, and I'm sorting through here. Is there, in the conditions something about signage? Generous: That would be the design standards. Once this is final. Joyce: Then we go into those conditions? Okay, that explains that for me, thank you. All right, because we just went through that signage business with the 8 inches. I didn't want to do that 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 tonight for sure. I suppose that will also incorporate the multi-story possibility on Lot 5 and that kind of thing. Is that? Generous: Yes. Joyce: Okay. All right. As far as the Heartland America, I guess I didn't ask the question about condition 7. There was a request for increased evergreen plantings. Has that been taken care of? Is that in the presentation? Did they increase those? Generous: No they haven't. Joyce: They have not? Fred Richter: We have to, once we figure out... Joyce: All right. Okay. It's a huge development and in some ways it's nice to have one developer. I think that's a plus but then it can be a minus too. I hope it's not a cookie cutter type of situation either, but since we'll be looking at each site plan it doesn't sound like it's going to be. As far as the banking facilities, or I think there was a question to whether that would be an allowable usage. I think that's a good usage. That's my feeling on that. Thank you very much for this. This is very nice and helpful. I like being able to, when it's reduced and you can look at these things. I will have to agree with Bob though, once you go to City Council, it'd probably be good to have some samples of materials and stuff like that so, I mean I think you are aware of that. Otherwise, I'm pretty satisfied with it. Peterson: Good, thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I'm pretty satisfied as well and I guess I have one comment about architectural details on the building. Personally I'm not a great fan of the metal grid or that kind of design element above the door and I guess I would like to see some other options for the design of the building if possible. That's all I had. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: This is an interesting review meeting. I think City Council did a real nice job. I attended their meeting when they talked about this project. We don't have their notes. Their Minutes. I think that would have been real helpful to have seen their Minutes because I thought they gave some direction to the developer and we don't have privy to that. So you don't know if we're meeting what their requirements are or not. Just one comment. I think Bob, we've just got to, when the Council gives real clear direction to the developer, we've got to see it. We do. They had some insightful things and I think they were very positive. I thought it was a really good interchange between the developer and Council. I guess it's such a big project, I guess we lose sight of the fact that we're looking at a PUD first and then there's some other stuff that's going to happen but we now merged the two and I think it's really overall, I think it's easy to water this down and... I don't have many comments on the PUD. I think it's moved in the right direction. I think the developer's doing a good job. I think the staff report, from what I can tell, is on the money but that's just a guess because I didn't take the notes from the City Council meeting but, 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 and I'm going to make, I want to make, I think we should approve the PUD tonight. Secondary, the other item before us, I'm the last person on this commission that gets involved in architecture but I didn't, and maybe it's our new way of presenting things. But I can't relate at all to what I saw tonight. We always have building materials here and I don't, I'm not even the one that wants it, you know. I'm pretty much the one that would let developers do their thing and staff reviews it and makes it fit. But I couldn't relate to what was presented tonight. And it may be the presentation. It may be the materials. I know I need a better front elevation so I can relate to what it is. I couldn't let that go through. It doesn't mean I'm against it. It just wasn't what we typically see. Back to the big picture, the PUD for Gateway. The only thing that I see, and I think the staff report is good. I made one note and the only note dealt with sidewalks. Are there any? We probably connect to a trail but in an industrial like this, do we have sidewalks? Generous: We will on the north/south boulevard. Conrad: Do I know that? It's in the subdivision. Generous: And under the design standards we have... Conrad: And how do I know that? Generous: On page 13. We typically say sidewalk or pedestrian access or some type of... Conrad: So we have a master thinking. What I don't want to do is piecemeal it. There's, that's okay. Well, is there a master plan for connectivity for sidewalks in an industrial park like this? John Uban: The problem is it's hard to see on your television I think but we have indicated all along here, the north/south, east/west if that takes place. It also shows a trail in here. It also shows Highway 5, Highway 41 and the same for 82nd Street. So we have a big loop this way. We're connecting into the park north/south and then the trail along the State Highway... We're also proposing that, we'd like.., between the curb and trail. Conrad: Thanks. And Bob you started the presentation with a whole series of questions and I don't know that we've really provided any direction yet. One, I can't remember what you said. And I think at the bare minimum we should get out with at least giving you some direction on that so as it goes to City Council they have, you know they have some direction. Well, as we end talking about it, I think we have to address the issues that you brought up. If they were the developer's issues or your issues. Bottom line, the site plan's fine with me. Looks good. It's where.., it looks good to me. I like it .... the building that's presented. I don't know. I'll listen to others. I haven't heard any critical comments so if somebody else makes the motion, that may fly through. I just, again it may be the new format of presentation here but I think we should have materials. We should have a pretty good front elevation rendering. And I didn't see that tonight. And I guess the bottom line is, the architectural detail, I think as LuAnn said, makes me a little bit nervous. I'm not, pre-cast is fine. We haven't ruled it out. It just wasn't up to what we had been seeing from almost every other developer that's been in here in the last year. Peterson: Allyson. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Brooks: I'm going to start with the traffic. I think I was really surprised to see that SRF could ever put any kind of an assumption in their report that Trunk Highway 5 would ever be six lanes. I think that is appalling. I can't believe that they could think that TH 41 would be four lanes. The transportation system plan has been out in draft form with the Metro Division for almost a year. They've had every access to it. There is no excuse for SRF to come in and do a traffic report saying that Highway 5 could ever be six lanes. You know we were talking before about a traffic report was done for another development you know and everything's fine. Well when I see this, I question the traffic reports. This is not fine. This is completely out of the realm of reality. And I think that you know again this development, and there's nothing that I suppose can really be done. It's really going to put a lot of pressure on Trunk Highway 5. It's not going to make it six lanes. It's just going to make a lot of traffic. I agree with the Parks and Recreation Commission of their preference that the boulevard not be extended through the park preserve. I think it would be nice to just leave it as it is. As for the Wrase properly, I think I discussed before, I believe that building is 19th Century building. Didn't we discuss that the last time it came forward? 18807 Right. I would like to see something that if that properly ever goes away as part of the development, there is some mitigation done for the historical record. You know whether we move the building or we don't move the building, take into consideration that we are removing a piece of Chanhassen's history and we do something to mitigate that damage. Finally, as for the building that Ladd was talking about. I found the building to be quite ugly. I don't like the pre- cast building. I think they have no class. They have no style and they have no individuality. They look like anywhere. There was nothing attractive or special about either of those buildings that passed in front of me, and maybe as Ladd said you know, if we saw the materials it might be different but just from the photographs, I thought they were particularly ugly and I thought even the loading dock area, I realize nobody sees it but it's still pretty poor to look at. Aesthetically, it was not a very nice building. And other than that, the development as a whole I have nothing against but those are some of the issues that I came up with but that traffic study is really alarming. I'm sorry Dave. To have SRF come in with six lanes is amazing. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that a little bit. We, staff does have concerns with a lot of the assumptions in the traffic report. We reviewed it in about a couple of hours but we have a lot of questions to go back with to SRF. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Thank you. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I too agree that overall I like the PUD. I'm personally glad the residential component is out of it because I didn't really feel that that ever fit into it so I'm glad to see that's not a part of that anymore. Regarding Coulter Boulevard, I too would prefer that that not be extended through the parkland. Not only do you have a nice, you know Outlots A and B. You've got the wetlands and the park area. You also have the O'Shaughnessy properly immediately to the east which is I think just a wonderful opportunity to leave an area untouched. We do have residential to the southeast of this and that would just be a nice chance because if we put the street in, we're just going to have lots of traffic going through this park very quickly and that's a fact. And regardless of what happens on TH 5 or TH 41, it would be nice if we didn't have to put the 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Coulter Boulevard extension through this parkland as well as through the O'Shaughnessy properly. The Heartland building, I wouldn't go quite so far as Allyson but I was rather uninspired. Like she said, it's everything else. I mean we see this building everywhere. We've talked about PUD's and how they need to show us something a little bit more. A little bit extra. We've got, we want to see a little bit more in design standards as I understand the PUD ordinance and I didn't see it there. I would like to see that again. I would like Heartland to come back and show us the materials like Ladd said. Show us something a little bit more inspiring. A little more interesting maybe than your mn of the mill industrial building that you can see on any area in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area so that's basically it. Peterson: Okay. I think we have a diverse opinions tonight. I think there's a consistent theme however on the PUD, as my thoughts parallel that. I think the idea presented tonight and the uniqueness of a terracing is going to be a tremendous asset to the community and give a generally unique feel. I agree with the other comments. I think one of the things missing, as I was talking to staff today that I had a difficult time with regarding the Heartland building itself was, is that we didn't have renderings of the building really before that were of the scale that you can get a sense. I don't remember what scale it was. It was relatively small where we really didn't get a sense of really what the building was going to look like. We had the top views and the parking lot views but as far as the side and front and rear rendering to the building, they're really small and hard to get a feel for what we're really experiencing. I think it is necessary for us to make an informed recommendation to Council that we see that again. See the building and see the styling of it more than what was presented tonight. I was squinting at the monitor tonight on the pencil drawing to kind of get a sense of really what I was looking at. I really couldn't get that from the pencil drawing. Bob made a comment earlier that I think the south side of the building clearly needs some more architectural lines. I think that to me is at a minimum and I'd like to refrain from making further comments on the front until I really get a feel for it and right now I don't. We had done some very nice things with those building materials around town and I'm not saying that this isn't there yet but again I don't know, and I can't make a recommendation up to Council until we see a little bit more of it so. That's the extent of my comments. Do I hear a motion? We have five so. Blackowiak: Well I'll start with an easy one. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the properly from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Joyce: I'll second that. Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: I'll take my turn. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #92-6 for an office industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated right-of-way subject to conditions 1 through 29. Peterson: Second? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Blackowiak: I'll second that. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends preliminary approval of PUD #92-6 for an office/industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated right-of-way subject to the following conditions: The developer will be responsible for surface water management fees pursuant to ordinance. Staff has estimated the water quality fees at $528,255 and water quantity fees of $497,127. Water quality credits will be given for the creation of on-site water quality ponds meeting NURP standards in accordance with the SWMP. Water quantity credits will also be given for payment of assessments and/or construction of trunk storm sewer lines. Final SWMP fees will be determined upon review of the final grading, drainage and construction plans with each phase of the project. Surface water management fees are only applicable to the lots being platted and not outlots. The developer shall supply the City with an overall phasing plan of the grading including the amount of earthwork involved in each phase. 3. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following items: a) Lot 1, Block 1 shall be revised to accommodate for a drive access over the easterly 40 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 to service the Wrase property. b) nd The proposed storm water pond at the northeast comer of 82 Street West and the north/south street shall be reconfigured into a more north/south configuration to minimize tree loss and preserve natural slopes adjacent to the wetlands. c) The north/south street between Coulter Boulevard and the cul-de-sac street shall be realigned 50 to 75 feet westerly to reduce wetland impacts and give slope relief along the east side of the north/south street adjacent to the we~nd/park property. d) MnDOT's review comments shall be incorporated into the final grading and development plan. e) The grading plan may need to be revised to insure predeveloped runoff rates are being maintained to Wetland C. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the City Council ordering public improvement project No. 97-1. Without the project, preliminary plat and/or final plat shall be void. The developer should be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to the Wrase parcel which lies directly north of Lot 1, Block 1 as a part of the overall site improvements with Phase I. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Depending on the amount of sanitary sewer discharge from Lot 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 may not be able to develop until Lot 3 is connected to permanent sewer facilities. The installation of a temporary traffic signal and/or auxiliary mm lanes at the intersection of 82nd Street West and Trunk Highway 41 is required with Phase I development. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on 82nd Street West. The developer shall also be responsible for future costs associated with the local share of the traffic signal to be installed at the north/south road at Trunk Highway 5. Financial security to guarantee the installation of these traffic improvements will be required from the developer in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The street right-of-way width adjacent to Lot 4, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be expanded to 100 feet wide to accommodate future turn lanes. The east/west street will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only at Trunk Highway 41. All lots shall access onto interior streets and not Trunk Highways 41 or 5. All public streets and utilities constructed by the developer shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the developer-installed public streets and utilities constructed by the developer will be required in conjunction with final platting for staff review and City Council approval. The developer shall be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee site improvements. The developer shall be responsible for the installation or costs associated with the installation of street lights. The City's standard street light along industrial/collector-type streets are 25-foot high corten steel street lights. Location of the street lights will be determined upon review of the final construction drawings. Type III erosion control fencing will be required adjacent to wetland areas. Additional erosion control fence may be necessary at the toe of steep slope areas and adjacent to storm water ponds after the grading has been completed. The storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed in the initial grading phase to minimize erosion off-site. Erosion control blankets will be required on all slopes greater than 3:1. Revegetation of the exposed slopes shall occur immediately after grading is completed. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod after completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 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 construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 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 10-year and 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, 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 applicant 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. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall 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.. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 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. Final grades adjacent to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 will be subject to review and approval of MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5. Increase landscape plantings to include 400 trees in addition to buff'er yard plantings and individual site plan landscaping. A 10' 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 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 28. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 29. Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit. Proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary PUD #92-6 approval. Peterson: Second? Skubic: Second. Sidney moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary PUD #92-6 approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion. Skubic: I'll recommend that the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan #97-6 to allow the applicant to improve the presentation and the architecture of the building. To take another look at that. Brooks: I second. Fred Richter: Just a question of stafl2 One, we're nervous about our schedule. Would it be possible if we had.., overall, the notion of pre-cast, the coating. If we come back with larger renderings, and even have some options on some of the colors.., basic industrial concept... address the details of this. Again the Planning Commission and come back... I think the comments I heard were one of not really understanding this. We apologize for that. We should have had larger elevations. Materials is kind of tough since it is a piece of pre-cast.., that we showed you in that photograph. The idea of the reveal over on the openings is just kind of the basic concept that has various elements.., several different options on that. The basic concept... 600 feet long. And Bob, I guess I'm asking you also, schedule wise. If it gets tabled, we can come back when... ? Peterson: We can take it in two weeks so it would be the following Council meeting. We're not talking major delay. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Fred Richter: I have no problem with the comments, ifI understand you right. I'm reading that it's a matter of detailing more and maybe looking at some options and carrying our concept out a little more... Peterson: Yeah, I think the sense, the general sense is this is the first building of what you're presenting and what we consider to be a fine development so we're taking maybe even extra care with the first building sets the tone quite often to the rest of the development so, and what we're saying is we haven't got a feel for what that tone is yet. Further discussion to the motion at hand. Conrad: Could I make a comment, just so. Yeah, I think part of it was presentation because we can't even tell. I don't have a problem with the 600 feet but it looked pretty boring. So when we say we couldn't tell, that's the truth. We couldn't tell because we couldn't see. But there's a feeling inside that you haven't broken up 600 feet very well and we've done that in Chanhassen almost every building. We're breaking, not, we don't want two 300's. The 600 is okay but we're looking for those design elements that can help break up that monotony of that long span of space and I didn't see it in what I saw so, there's some surface stuff and then maybe there's some depth behind it that I just want to be sure right now. Peterson: Any further discussion to Bob's motion to table? Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-6 for Heartland America. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, a point of timing. Are we talking about tabling from two weeks from now? Peterson: Work with staff on that but I think that was the plan. Is that the final motion? There's one more. Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site subject to conditions 1 through 15. Peterson: Second? Skubic: I'll second it. Brooks moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Interhn Use Permit #97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount to be determined by the City Engineer based on earthwork quantities, maintenance of erosion control measures and site restoration. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 10. 11. The applicant shall pay the city a grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour per person. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed district. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant's engineer shall supply the City with a letter certifying that the grading has been completed in compliance with the proposed plan. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed. Topsoil and disc-mulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage files encountered during site grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of all existing draintile systems. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 12. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III version. 13. This grading permit approval is conditioned upon the City authorizing public improvement project No. 97-1 to extend trunk utility service to the site. 14. The grading permit shall be conditioned on approval of the preliminary plat for the Gateway West Business Park PUD by the City Council. 15. The developer will be responsible for monitoring the effects from the construction activities and mitigating any such effects." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Generous: The car dealership's off for the 21st. Joyce: What was that? I'm sorry. Generous: The car dealership was supposed to come to you on the 21st and they requested to be withdrawn again. Oh, another new business. I'm supposed to remind you on May 19th we're having the citizen kick off meeting for the Comp Plan amendment schedule. It's open to the Planning Commission and City Council. Basically staff will run it but if you want to listen to what people have to say. Peterson: You'll be sending out a notification? Generous: We're doing it as part of the.., article in the Villager... The 19th at 7:00, between 7:00 and 9:00 at the Rec Center. What we hope to do is put things on the wall... See if we can get some input before we start the... On the 21st you have the land use section which is basically a recap of what we have.., start thinking about the comp plan issues. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 14, 1997 and April 16, 1997 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Generous: Chairman, the Paulstarr Phase II development.., industrial building in Chan Business Center off Audubon... The Gateway concept plan was approved. The reason you didn't have the Minutes is that was approved last Monday. The report was done on Wednesday. We don't normally have the Minutes... Conrad: I knew it was a time deal but it's, I tell you, in terms of process and understanding, it's a timing deal on staff's part but in terms of us looking at it, it's real helpful. It was a good meeting. They analyzed it very well and they set out some clear direction to the group and for us not to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 have it is like we're not playing with... They complain about, well enough said. It was just too bad we didn't have it. I think the staff report was appropriate for what they said but... Peterson: Anything else Bob you wanted to bring to our attention? Generous: Not from Council. Peterson: Anything else on anything? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 54