Loading...
PC 1997 06 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubi¢ and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. PROPOSED GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND NORTH OF WEST 82ND STREET. THE MIX OF OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE USES ON APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. (There were some audio problems atthe beginning of the meeting. Taping of the discussion began at this point.) Brooks: There's not a lot there. It doesn't look like it's a fairly major site but because it wasn't fully evaluated it probably should be preserved and it, I was just saying to Kate, small sites like this too are really nice to keep because if you want the school system to go out and do small summer digs or excavations, it's not like a big site that's so significant that we want to keep it in perpetuity, yet it makes a really nice school project for kids to get out and dig. And if it's going to be preserved anyway on a part that's not going to be developed, let the children get something out of it. It's a way to teach Chanhassen great history. The only thing about history, I mean we don't really teach a lot of pre-history so that's what I'd like to see the site used for eventually. Peterson: Okay, good. Other questions of staff'? Skubic: Yes. The parcel in the southeast section of 13 acres, the City is purchasing those. How's that proceeding? What's the likelihood that the City will purchase those? Is that dependent upon the referendum by any chance? Generous: No. It looks like it's moving forward.., preliminary development plan. Skubic: You feel that's likely that will happen? Aanenson: There seems to be concurrence on the terms. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Brooks: Did the traffic study, was the traffic study altered at all by SRF? I believe when we were first talking about the traffic study they were talking about six lanes and we had discussed the fact that six lanes wasn't happening on TH 5 and we talked about having them change that in the traffic study. Was that done or did they keep that in? Generous: Well it hasn't been modified because that was, it was just a recommended improvement. It's actually the mitigation plan, and that's a lot beyond our control. We have done one of the mitigations... Brooks: I guess I am concerned, and I've discussed this before about the impact of, what is it, 3113, how many trips? 31,000 trips a day and you know we talk about having them possibly or probably when the traffic at non-peak hours but I'll tell you, last Friday I tried to get off of Audubon Road onto TH 5 in the middle of the afternoon and I was having a hard time doing that so I presume all the traffic was going to try to make it 494 to get out to the United States somewhere. I don't know if you have any response to what kind of impacts or how you're thinking of managing that. Generous: We're promoting and encouraging that, providing alternate routes. MnDOT and Carver County, Chaska and... Aanenson: And we're still hoping to work with TH 41 being upgraded too. Partnership. Brooks: You mean by adding lanes or just. Aanenson: Widening it. Brooks: Widening it, yeah. Aanenson: The ultimate design. Having it lowered and widened. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman, real briefly. Tell me...the site at... Generous: You'll come off82nd Street will be the first access. Conrad: And is that, okay. And nothing off of TH 5? Generous: Nothing off of TH 5. The access to TH 5 would be... once TH 5 is upgraded. Then it becomes a question of. Conrad: And there won't be a right turn, right out of? Generous: No, it will be a full median opening. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Aanenson: At TH 5. Generous: At TH 5. Conrad: A median. Aanenson: With a signal. Conrad: ... As soon as there's a project on this site we have the 82nd Street access. And we don't have anything off of TH 5 or we do? Nothing. Generous: Not in the first. Conrad: Okay. Generous: And the question is... Then the final access would be the right-in/right-out on TH 41 itself. On that west local street. Conrad: Will it be a full intersection? Generous: It will never be a full intersection. Conrad: What is the Council's considering for Coulter extension? Cost? Aanenson: Yeah. And what it does to the park. Transportation. Last night with Carver County talking about transportation needs and whether or not TH 5, and if212 never gets built, do we have enough east/west, north/south connectors and what do we need to do. Conrad: And what's our involvement in the decision making to extend that? Aanenson: Well right now we're saying at a minimum we need to take the right-of-way. The decision whether or not to build the road's a separate issue, right. But at minimum take the right- of-way. We still have to extend the sewer and water through that property so we'll take the right- of-way and we can look at a future date looking at the transportation needs. I mean SRF said 6 lanes. Maybe you need that other alternative to take some pressure of 12 We want to have that as an option. Not eliminate it. Generous: I believe Council wants it brought back so they can see the parks and open space view point on it. Planning... engineering and traffic. Conrad: Okay. And that's in their court? Aanenson: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Howard Dahlgren: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name's Howard Dahlgren. I'm one of the partners in the development. I also have with me Fred Richter who is from Steiner Development, who will be the developers of the land. Just a few brief words about some of the things you had mentioned tonight with which you are concerned. One, on the Coulter issue. We are dedicating the right-of-way for Coulter as right-of-way. If you don't ever build it, then you've got 2 extra acres of park. But I'd suggest that you build Coulter in the sense that I believe it's an important part of the transportation system in the sense that having a system of parallel local thoroughfares to a highway like Trunk Highway 5 is very good policy. It allows the local traffic to stay off of Highway 5. Operate more safely getting from one place to the other with access at crucial points along Highway 5. That's how a highway like TH 5 will work the best. But from a traffic standpoint, it would be good to have Coulter built. And that's why one of the reasons it's on your major thoroughfare plan as an east/west thoroughfare, parallel to Highway 5. And going over to our north/south road where it then can disperse either to the south or to the north. But from a traffic standpoint, that's a good idea. The way we left it, we've dedicated the right-of-way and it will be at the City's option whether they want to build it at some time in the future. So either way we don't have to have it but I think in general it will make traffic circulation better in this part of the city of Chanhassen. As far as the overall numbers, this number 31,000 trips is a big number. That's trips in and out so it's half that number of round trips. 31,000 is counted as a trip going in and another trip then when you go out you see. But I can say there's two things about that. Number one is that that was based on the maximum development at the maximum numbers so that it's very likely that there won't be that 31,000. It will be something less. But the real solution to the overall traffic problem as far as TH 5 is concerned, as Kate has mentioned many times and Bob, is that someday when 212 is built, and it will get built someday. Then there will be considerable relief on this heavy traffic on Highway 5. That will reduce the amount of traffic on TH 5. Now your traffic report makes that point but it doesn't put a number on it. But it's true, that will happen. As far as timing, we, our plan is to build the north/south road and connect it to Highway 5 at the time it's improved so they'll open it up together. We think it's a waste of money to try to go up there and build something before that on a temporary basis. The time to do it is to have them work well. Build them together and open them up and then they should function very well for many years. It's also true that the traffic report suggests that our development might be finished by the year 2003. That might well not be the case. It might well take longer than that. We want to do this development carefully and well. We're not in a fire sale situation where we have to sell land quickly. That's not our objective. We want to sell it well so that it's developed well with good uses. It will be good for us and it will be good for you so that's our overall objective. In terms of the report that Bob did, it was a very well done report by the way. I, as a planning consultant in the metropolitan area for the last 40 years, I've written hundreds of reports like that and I can say this was a very good one. He did a very, both your people did a very thorough job on this whole process and we commend them for that. I spoke to Bob earlier, there's one little thing we'd like to, we'd suggest that you might want to keep a little flexible. The report suggests that we might want to move the roadway, the north/south roadway 50 to 75 feet to the west to avoid a little finger of wetlands. We'd like to suggest, and rather than make that decision now, to just suggest that that be kept flexible for two 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 reasons. One is it's a very small piece of wetlands but if you move the highway west, then the amount of taxable land goes down and the park gets bigger. The park is already almost 50 acres now with what the City hopes to acquire, has agreed to acquire and what we're dedicating. So it's a very large park. So one of the objectives would be to keep the developable land as large as possible. And this road goes, as you know, goes straight down. Maybe we can get that drawing just to remind ourselves quickly. I'll just hold it up here if that's all right with you folks. The moving it like 75 feet this way. There's a little tiny, a little finger of wetlands right here. Another factor is that we have re-analyzed, we're re-analyzing, re-examining and now surveying the entire wetlands that's affected by this development. Orr Schelen, not Orr Schelen but Schoell and Madson have been doing that work this spring. It's nearing completion. I just spoke to Ken Adolftoday from Schoell and Madson. He says it looks like the actual amount of wetlands is going to be decreasing and not increasing so the problems with mitigation are going to get less rather than greater. If that's the case, then we should be able to mitigate this more successfully than putting in a little retaining wall, which is one of the things that Bob was concerned about. So it looks like that can be successfully solved without moving the roadway further to the west. So that's the only comment we have on the report is if you would consider maybe recommending that look at this moving of the road be examined in the future, after the wetlands are finally determined and keep that flexible as to whether we move it or don't move it or how much we move it. That we would appreciate. I think that's in all of our interest to approach it that way. Other than that I think we don't have any problems with the recommendation and the report that the staff has prepared. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them if we can. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Howard Dahlgren: Again, we appreciate all the time you folks have put on this project. It's been a long time. You've looked at it many times I know and I want you to know we appreciate all the time that you've put into it. And for the staff too. It's been, they've been very, very helpful. Fred, did you want to add anything? Okay. Thank you very much. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and a second please? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Before I get into the comments from the commissioners, Kate. Addressing the issue of the wetland, is that, how can we articulate that into the recommendation? Is that? Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Aanenson: I think that's fine if we put something in there on the final wetland delineation we can evaluate it. I think Dave's big concern was the.., and what that would do the integrity of the road. So we'd be willing to study that. We could have some more flexible language in there that with the wetlands have the final delineation.., look at that issue. Peterson: We'll let Bob draft it and we'll get back to him. Aanenson: Okay. We'll put something in there. So again, it's the retaining wall that's really the issue and that's being created by the mitigation. Generous: Part of... was having... Skubic: And the mitigation would take place on the Arboretum property across TH 417 Generous: The... we're getting 1.8 acres of... on the Arboretum property and 1... expanding and consolidating... Peterson: All right, thanks. Kevin, your respective thoughts. Joyce: No, I'm in favor of... City Council, I thought they did have some reservations about putting Coulter Boulevard through.., discussed at the last City Council meeting. And my feeling.., who cares about the traffic. I personally think Coulter Boulevard should go through. I think it should be considered strongly for this development to make it... but that's just my opinion. That' s what I'm... Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I'm in agreement. I support what staff has prepared here. What the conditions that have been brought up this evening. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I have nothing new to add. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree with staff2 I do disagree with Kevin though about Coulter Boulevard. I've got to get my bit in. I'm sorry but I just question the need for Coulter Boulevard. I understand that it is potentially a neighborhood street or could take local traffic through to that area but by the same token I question how much local traffic will be directed to that industrial office park. I think it's, that the services, the support services there will primarily serve the people that work there, and I could be wrong but that's just my gut feeling so I question the need to put Coulter Boulevard through at this point in time but I do agree with the wisdom of acquiring the right-of- way. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Peterson: Okay. Allyson. Brooks: I don't really have any other comments except, I think I think I talked about the archeological site. That's my big thing obviously so, but other than that I thought this study looked good if we can preserve the archeological site, that's great and the recommendations made by staff look fine. Peterson: Okay. I have no further comments either. I think it was a good and thorough report. With that, may I hear a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion. That the planning staff recommends AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff report. The revised AUAR be adopted by the City and also to include in the report that the developer and site user will promote traffic and land management strategy and also to add that after final delineation of the wetlands, we revisit the noah/south street. Peterson: Second? Skubic: Second. Conrad: Discussion? Peterson: Discussion. Good point. Conrad: Why is Coulter Boulevard in the City Council's court? We have said we wanted it, haven't we? Aanenson: They're the legislative body. They ultimately make the final decision. Traffic, engineering strongly supports it. Planning supports it. It's the same reason we have the north side of Highway 5, that east/west connector. I think out of deference to the Park and Rec's Commission's findings, that they wanted to... Conrad: So basically they've got our input saying we want it. Aanenson: Park and Rec, that's. Conrad: Park and Rec saying no. Aanenson: Correct. They just want to study it a little bit more, that issue. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Any other discussion? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff report and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. Also to include that the developer and site user will promote traffic and land management strategy and that after final delineation of the wetlands, the Planning Commission revisit the north/south street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VILLAGES ON THE PONDS - REVIEW OF PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION ANDSTREETSCAPE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Vemelle Clayton: Thank you. My name is Vemelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Circle here in Chanhassen. Oh, that's scary. I've not been here since we have that. We have a couple other folks here with us. Tim O'Brien, who works with Mika Milo, our architect and Kathy Ryan who is with BRW. Dean Olson whom you have all, most all met is the person in charge of this project but he had to be out of town tonight. We also have Willy Anderson from the Americlnn or... and John Siebert is planning to be here, assuming he gets out of the Denver airport in time. He deplanes here around a little while ago right. I wanted to just briefly go over what we said our goals were with respect to the landscaping and that was that we would be selecting species and placing them in such a way that we would reflect and enhance the overall architectural style of the neotraditional development. We're giving special attention to the materials that were prevalent at the time of the dominance of this thriving small town in Minnesota's first half century .... example that we like to use would be spirea, lilac, hydrangea and so forth. All of which are still used in modem planting schemes but when placed appropriately will reflect yesteryears tone. Smaller planting materials will include day lilies, geraniums, tulips, hollyhocks, and other hardy species from gramma's garden. Larger plant species will focus on materials naturally occurring in Chanhassen's soils and terrain as well as appropriate decorative material. Special attention will be given to the edges of parking lots, selecting hedging material that is both aesthetically pleasing and easily maintained as a screen at an appropriate height. And as with the architecture that we've chosen, the project will seize upon the benefits of technological advances in the hybridization and breeding of plant materials with their use and placement within the landscape of the site will be reminiscent of their earlier youth. I hope that that's what will be visible once everything is planted and I hope you'll see that it's reflected in what we're going to be showing you. The ponds are going to be used both as decorative features and as functioning NURP ponds. Adjacent to each wetland area is a NURP pond. We wanted to dress them up and use them to our advantage. It's also intended that the plant material be designed so that we have a limited amount of maintenance. We will be selecting someone who's specializes in wetland restoration to do both the planting and to provide a maintenance program for the project. There are some retained trees in and about the ponding area and those, as we mentioned before, will be cleaned up and groomed so that those that are there can thrive. As you can see now they're kind of angling in different directions and some kind of spindly. We want to clean them up and make it so people can walk among them and it will be an added feature. With that I want to show, go through just a few plans here and you can stop me at any point. Just so you know the scenario that I plan to use is just to show you 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 how we plan to phase the project. Show you some color sections. Talk about the Americinn comer. Point out two or three changes on the landscaping plan that we would like to see from that which was submitted to you. Talk next about the bus shelter and wanning house and last about the signs. I usually save the response to the staff report to last and talk about all the ways we want it changed but we don't have any problem with this one. In fact we would like to add a couple, and I can distribute this so you.., reference. I don't recall if it was referenced in Bob's comments but I know it was referenced in Dean's cover letter. The parking lot lighting we'd like to add this. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. The reason for that is that it will minimize the amount of light shining into the rest of the two stories residents that will be living above these buildings. Landscaping, we'd like to add, all site plans shall include the locations of utility boxes together with the landscaping plan providing screening from primary views. Landscaping materials used for such screens shall be species which can be pruned to maintain appropriate height. In other words we don't want all these surprises. All these ugly boxes that keep popping up. This is the phasing plan and you have one in your packet. We thought it would be a little more clear if we color coded one. The blue is what we intend to do first. The project won't be all built at once, as you know. This site, the hotel site and the church site are the first two sites immediately at both ends of the project and we have to do something all the way through. We therefore have, in working with staff have agreed that we'll put a trail all the way through. So the blue is what we'll do first. Now I need to just say that when we get to the ponds we'll talk a little bit about what we're doing there. Not all of the planting will be done right away on the ponds because we have to first kill all the stuff that nobody wants to stay there and it has to have a little period of time to totally die. But it will be undertaken as part of the first phase. The streetscaping that we're doing is 6 feet in from curb and the rest will be as you've seen the area shown where there will be planters and so forth so the individual site plans will show plans for that. We plan to plant the trees up and down main street on both sides initially because we want them all to be the same size as they grow. But we want to avoid putting in as much as we can along here and that means we'd like to keep one full side open because there will be so much disruption when these buildings are put in because they have underground garages and you can't just dig straight down. You have to have a little slope. So much of this will be to serve, and we're hoping that we can accomplish it by only coming in a little bit into this that's already done. Partly for that reason we're having pavers all along here because pavers can be picked up, set aside and you can dig down and you can put them back and it doesn't look like something was done after, as it might if you had to dig up half a sidewalk. There'd be a little bit different color. So this is all the plan that we have and why for the phasing. Does anybody have any questions or was I clear as mud on that? Then we have some inserts that show coloring and planting on some of the plans that you have received. Again it shows that we'll be using the pavers in all of these mid sections. This is the pond area. This is the town square area and this is the area down by the church. Sometimes called church plaza. It's the one that will have the fountain. This area, or all of these are pavers in basically repeating patterns but not always the same pattern. The area, some of the area that you see that's light here is the concrete and then around the edges is a little bit darker and that would be a little bit of a... type. Dark pavers. This is a sample of what we'll use for the rest of it so it's a little bit of a variation in color and placing them sometimes herringbone. Sometimes staggered and I guess I don't have to repeat that. That's all shown on your plan. We have some little bit larger blow ups of a couple 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 areas. This is the fountain. We'll have, it will be lit and it will be sodded and this geometrical design here of some flowers on four quadrants. We need to have trees that are somewhat overstory but not too bulky. For safety sake you need to be able to see the cars driving around. This is an example of the planting area. I don't think I really need to explain all that. It's down on this comer we show it kind of at hedge height. We want to have the look of hedges, as many projects as possible and particularly along the edges of the parking lot. This is the, if you'll bear with me we'll take the, the western edge and then the eastern edge and then we'll talk again. We'll come back to this comer. The only thing I just want to point out to you on this is... is out on the overall map... This whole plan has been through here. Through this over the water pond. The fountain here... Somehow or another a couple trees have been... The area along the east side. This has been a subject of a great deal of discussion. A lot of work. A lot of engineering. And a fair amount of communication with the neighbors. It's very dense, as you can see. It's going to be the, these are the various levels of the retaining wall. It was decided long ago that we didn't want to have one big blank retaining wall, although that question resurfaced a little while ago. And in-between, because of the height and the difficulty to get in here to mow it, it will be naturalized plantings such as grasses and so forth. Low maintenance plantings. This is the first house that you come to as you go up Grandview, and this is the second one, just to give you some idea of how this works. Peterson: That... in the upper left hand comer, is that the comer of the building too? Vemelle Clayton: This is, yeah. This is... The only thing that is different here, I'll just point out to you. It doesn't really matter for the.., and so forth but to solve an engineering problem that we had, which meant if we couldn't move it, we moved it forward just a little bit. This whole thing is moved forward just a little bit towards the parking lot in order to avoid taking any trees out of this 17 foot.., and that's the decision that was just made this past week. So what you see here is going to be moved just a little bit forward. Down in this area. I'd like to talk just a little bit about the other.., maybe it won't be able to do anything.., drop off dramatically right there... So the difference then on these plans is that... You want to be able to see the project.., but this seems to point out that from where... As people drive down Highway 5 to get to that point... That was never the intent that... So with that, I guess I'd like to know if anybody has any questions on... Joyce: The patio doesn't go in, what's the chance that patio will not go in? Vemelle Clayton: I don't think... Joyce: NSP's giving them a hard time about that? Vemelle Clayton: No. They're not giving them a hard time about that if they use paper. They just don't want them permanent. Joyce: Oh I see, okay. Vemelle Clayton: ... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Brooks: Would you go over the chain link fence. What's the chain link fence for? Vemelle Clayton: First of all every time you have.., that when you have retaining walls.., but not everyone likes to have it solid. They like to be able to see something. In this case, where the Anderson's are... To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know for sure where the fence is but I think it's right in here. It's at the highest elevation... Brooks: So the Anderson's would get a chain link fence? Vemelle Clayton: The Anderson's will be looking at a more dense wooden fence. If they were to come to us and say gee, we really would prefer that you put... Blackowiak: And a chain link fence meets codes? It does, okay. Aanenson: It's a safety issue... Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, and with the plantings here, from this side you really won't see it. Blackowiak: Okay. Can you talk about the emergency road? This is the first I've heard of it. Can you point out where that is. Well I came in right at the very last meeting so I caught a meeting but that's about it. Vemelle Clayton: Grandview, you've all driven out there so... Little gravel road that goes up here and it kind of winds around back.., to get the public improvements here, the public improvements in there... A couple of things will happen. They'll then be able to subdivide their properties and... 17 foot area which will enable them to upgrade the road. They'll have.., it will then be at their option, they will put a road back in here... Blackowiak: So it's coming from behind the church, up the hill, is that correct? Vemelle Clayton: Correct. Blackowiak: So it would be a road that the residents up on Grandview will be able to use on a regular basis? It's supposed to be gated? Aanenson: It's emergency access. Blackowiak: So how do the emergency vehicles get in? They'll have special keys or something? Aanenson: We have a couple other places in the city where we have that. Vemelle Clayton: If you don't have any other questions. Joyce: No, I do have one. Maybe I could wait for... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Vemelle Clayton: ..a question I can't answer, she's here. Joyce: Okay, well I'll present it. We talked a lot about that comer and it looks like you've got a lot of deciduous trees but not a lot of coniferous. I'm sorry, by the American Inn. The American Inn comer and we're talking about the view sheds from Highway 5. You see the American Inn and not see the parking lot. Okay. Vemelle Clayton: There are no deciduous trees that are short enough that would. I don't mean deciduous... Joyce: I'm talking about evergreens. There are no evergreens there, right? Vemelle Clayton: Right. Joyce: So what's that going to look like in the winter time? Vemelle Clayton: It will be looking. Joyce: We were talking, I agree with you as far as not seeing the cars. I mean you want to see the buildings but not the cars, but what's going to happen in the winter time I guess is my question. Vemelle Clayton: The berming... Joyce: Okay. Did we talk about any particular trees? Aanenson: Jill looked at it. That was a point of discussion... Friday. I'm not sure that there's a lot of concurrence on the screening... Joyce: I'm just saying in the winter time. I mean you're going to have a lot of, I'm not as concerned about the screening as do we want vegetation there or something to look at in the winter time rather than. Aanenson: There's going to be a lot of snow there. Joyce: There's probably going to be a lot of snow there, right. That's what Bob said. Aanenson: Right, but it is nice to see a little bit of variety though. Vemelle Clayton: Yes, and I think in reality we're... There are some things that are just too small.., but we can't have it any bigger because of the wetlands... Joyce: Yeah you can't see, I don't think you are going to be able to see any cars. I mean it's hard to look in there right now. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Vemelle Clayton: ... If we don't have anything else on the landscaping, although if you think of something I'll be happy to come back to it. Peterson: Just one last thing on landscaping. We talked early on about the trees you're putting on the side of the road. I mean the thoroughfare with. I guess I asked stafl} and you, I'm concerned about putting trees in there now because of the building that's going on on both sides. It's like, they're almost going to look out of place without buildings in there and the chances of them surviving are, personal opinion obviously but I think their chance of surviving is about 100 to 1. I don't know if that's a request that we're making of them. Generous: That is a request...just where we have the underground parking... Putting this stuff in place. Peterson: I guess I voice that as a concern. I look at what Eden Prairie has done around Eden Prairie Center Drive and planted all those trees, every winter 3¼ of them are dead. Generous: Are they irrigated? Peterson: No. Generous: These will be...not having the buildings in place. Peterson: How large are we talking about for those? Generous: ... Aanenson: I understand your concern. Again, what we looked at is trying to create an environment that having the landscaping there, this is kind of what we do with the.., say all these things make it worth.., and also a place where residents... Show the commitment level in the project and this is what.., show the commitment. Peterson: What about the aspect of, as a developer or builder having to work around those things being a negative? Is that. Vemelle Clayton: ... they need to be overstory... The grant that we have from the... Peterson: Thanks. Vemelle Clayton: ... The bus shelter. Part of the project.., bus shelter and they are to be located.., coordination with Southwest Metro .... Brooks: Will you be able to pass that around? Vemelle Clayton: Sure. You want the board passed around or the colors? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Brooks: The colors. Thank you very much. Peterson: Within a comment, it just seems a little bit simple. I don't know how much money is allocated to that. It's almost contemporary in design versus the neotraditional feel. Vemelle Clayton: ... Southwest Metro for safety... The wanning house.., black on white and I think, didn't we say we probably would have to have... We assumed it probably was a requirement that street signs be green. We didn't know. This shows blue but I think that's probably emergency. Are they blue? I thought they were emergency, blue was emergency. Well, then we'll work that out so that we're not violating any code or anything... Joyce: Where's that going to be located? Vemelle Clayton: This one here... Joyce: So that's going to be right in front. Brooks: Is the neon clear, I mean or is it colored? The white, it's just white neon? Vemelle Clayton: Yes. The only other thing that I mentioned with respect to signs is that St. Hubert's has asked for.., and we said gee, what a neat idea but we haven't had time to apply for it so right in the center of town sort of right there. Peterson: Kind of like Time Square? Vemelle Clayton: Yeah... I'll just check but I don't think that I have anything else. Are there any other questions? Peterson: Any feedback from fellow commissioners? I'm sure you've got things going through your mind. Joyce: Just a general, and you actually covered it Vemelle but as far as the lighting goes. You showed some lights. Vemelle Clayton: ... something around the... Joyce: Well actually the question I had as far as, and you actually put that condition in because I was concerned about parking lot lighting. Is that going to be site by site where we see, obviously we see this? Aanenson: That's what would be the master condition. Again to make it more friendly to the residential component. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Joyce: No, I mean you come down Highway 5 and you see all the other parking lots and we obviously don't, I thought the lighting was well done on what you proposed. I think that's real important though I guess. It'd be something I would definitely look at. Generous: ... Joyce: I'm sorry. Generous: For the height limit. Joyce: Oh good. What's our ordinance as far as candle wattage and all that? Are we going to run into problems or talk about that or? Aanenson: Just at the properly line.., but we're taking a different approach about the interim... Joyce: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do you have a public safely issue but it's just another, all these little details that make it work. But that was a great condition that you put in. Peterson: When did you plan the sign, when is the sign planning on going in this year? Brooks: I noticed on the.., sign is behind the pond. So you can see it from TH 5 or you can't? Vemelle Clayton: Hopefully you can. That was the idea... Brooks: Yeah, I realize I'm coming in late to this project. Peterson: Speaking of the sign, I guess if you're looking for general opinions. I love the logo. I think it's a nice job on the logo. Personally it doesn't seem to fit with the blue arch. It just. Vemelle Clayton: Well this blue is not right. Peterson: Well it's not so much the blue as maybe is the, it just looks so simple in front of what will be a very grand, you know grand main street of sorts. Do fellow commissioners have any feelings on this sign at all? Brooks: Well, and I know I'm coming into this project late because I haven't been on this commission very long but what you're trying to do, my understanding is sort of a traditional urban area. Okay, neotraditional. Right, new urbanism type thing. The sign gives me a Disney World type flavor. I don't feel like it expresses maybe what you're trying to do and maybe I'm just not interpreting what I see right but I just. Joyce: Are you against the shape of the sign or? Brooks: Maybe it's the neon. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Joyce: I think the shape is the right shape, don't you? Brooks: The arch doesn't bother me. I think the, maybe it's the way the neon. The way I'm looking at it on the plan, I just get this Disney World feel from seeing all that neon and it's not the arch. It's not the village. Vemelle Clayton: ... the reason for.., neon is... Brooks: So I'm not helping matters. Is it possible to, I suppose you can't like back light it at night or? Something a little more classy. I just, the neon over the arch, and again I don't know if anybody else feels this way, it's still kind of camivally to me or fairish or. Peterson: Yeah, up-lighting would give it a more. Vemelle Clayton: ... because we want this to be a fun place. We want it to be exciting. We want a lot of people.., fun place. We're adding... Brooks: You can fun and classy. I like your idea of up-lighting. Just consider it because I think up-lighting would give it, it would still illuminate the sign but it would be just a little more classy than stripes of neon. I don't know. It's just a thought. Just a thought. Vemelle Clayton: ... very talented. Peterson: From a maintenance standpoint, I'd be surprised if that neon in cold weather has a tendency to change. Vemelle Clayton: ... Brooks: If it's possible I'd like to see the sign again with just sort of a different attempt at lighting. The neon just, the neon striping is just. Peterson: And we aren't necessarily approving the sign tonight anyway, are we? Aanenson: Well I think we're giving them general direction that.., explore further. Vemelle Clayton: ... probably have it looked at again. Peterson: Okay. Other comments, questions? Anything else Vemelle? Good job. It doesn't require a public hearing but we would like to hear a motion from my fellow commissioners. Brooks: To open this up, I'm sorry? I move to. Peterson: I guess I have to, I'm not talking about discussion tonight, am I? I want to get out of here. Allyson, your comments. Anything over and above what you've shared? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 Brooks: I think I've shared enough. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree about the neon. I don't see neo-traditional and neon but otherwise it looks good. On the northwest comer by the Americlnn, I understand the problem with large trees but could we do hedges or shrubs or something like that that's already got a presence within the entire project. I mean that might be a way to continue it and still get some color on that comer. Other than that I have no further comments. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I can't vote on this so no comments. The only, no comments. Peterson: Kevin. Bob. I have none further than what I've already shared also so may I hear a motion please. Skubic: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Village on the Ponds hardscape, landscape, buff'er yard, and wetland enhancement/mitigation plan prepared by BRW, Inc. dated May 9, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 5 as presented by staff with the two additions Vemelle outlined regarding the lighting and 7 regarding the site plan. Peterson: Is there a second please. Brooks: I'll second it. Peterson: Any discussion? Peterson moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Village on the Pond Hardscape, Landscape, Buffer Yard, and Wetland Enhancement/ Mitigation Plan prepared by BRW, Inc., dated May 9, 1997, subject to the following conditions: The overstory tree proposed at the driveway entrance across Lake Drive from Grandview Road shall be relocated adjacent to Grandview Road. The plan should note that there is a 50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern properly line adjacent to the residential properties. The most southerly three flowering crabs west of Americlnn shall be replaced with Scotch Pine. 4. The flowering crabs west of Americlnn shall be staggered rather than being paired. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 The City and developer shall acknowledge in promotional materials, press releases, reports and publications relating to the project that this project is funded in part with a grant from the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. All site plans shall include the locations of utility boxes together with the landscaping plan providing screening from primary views. Landscaping materials used for such screens shall be species which can be pruned to maintain appropriate height. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Skubic noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 1997 as presented. OPEN DISCUSSION: Aanenson: We will have a meeting on the 18th. We have a subdivision that was going to be on tonight on TH 41 from Carlson Properties. I'm concerned about some of the grading that will be lost and I think we've.., better plan. You also have.., comprehensive plan. We had a big kick off meeting and Allyson Brooks... last night, we met Carver County...just to talk about transportation. How that affects our updating of a comprehensive plan and trying to work together to affect some changes. So that was a pretty enlightening meeting as far as we're trying to work together so that's certainly one of the bigger components we have in our comprehensive plan. How do we manage growth when we have a system that's at a very poor service level, as was pointed out last night. If this was sewer we would not extend any more service. We'd stopped. Because it's roads, people can still get past us. How do we manage that so that's going to be a key component when we look at our... Brooks: It was a good meeting. It was MnDOT and Met Council were very direct about not having funding and very straight forward and there was not sort of dancing around the issue of the fact that there's no money to build new roads. And I think Roger Gustafson was very well spoken when he said we may end up with a plan that says level of service F is acceptable to Carver County and that's it. That's all we can do. So it's going to be a very interesting issue for the County comprehensive plan, not just Chanhassen's, as to how you balance the densities that the Met Council is asking for versus the fact that there is no money for the infrastructure to necessarily support those entities. Aanenson: And then just so you know, for planning your calendars, the first meting in July, that Wednesday tentatively we haven't got anything. Just block that meeting out. It's generally hard 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997 to get a quorum.., but we will have some items on for the second meeting in July. So the week of the 4th there will not be a meeting. Peterson: Anything else? Do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting, and a second? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19