Loading...
5 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Steven Lillehaug, LuAnn Sidney, and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR RE/MAX ACTION WEST LOCATED AT 7811 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?. Claybaugh: Can you tell us then a little about the history of the city sign there? City's monument. Just how it came to be there or. Aanenson: It's been there quite a while. The previous property owner that Remax bought this from was compensated for that sign so, it does limit his sight line is why we thought there was a reasonable request for the variance because it is compromised with that. Claybaugh: Thank you. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Okay: Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record? Derril Burger: I'm Derril Burger, the owner of the Remax Action West and building at 7811 Great Plains Boulevard. It simply seems like a good place to put a sign. It's not bothering anyone and not in the sight line of housing or anything like that. If I put a 24 square foot monument sign, which is what this calls for, it would be well out of sight because as you know I'm behind the city parking lot and the shrubbery so, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: I have one quick question. Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: Is there a reason why this variance wasn't requested with your original site plan, because it is a relatively new building. Derril Burger: Well because I really hadn't, I thought I was going to put a monument sign and quite frankly I misunderstood the ordinance as I read it. That's undoubtedly my fault but if the Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 maximum height is 5 feet by the ordinance, and 5 feet was going to hide behind the bushes of the city parking lot so I thought let's raise it up a little bit. Lillehaug: Okay. And one other quick question. The lighting on the south side, will this be identical to what's proposed on the north side? The lighting of the sign. Derril Burger: No, they're different types of signs. The south side is a neon type sign. This one is an individually lit. It's less obtrusive if you will. Lillehaug: Okay. Derril Burger: But they're individual letters against the building and not neon type. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Derril Burger: Any other questions? Blackowiak: No, I don't think so. Derril Burger: I'm really happy with the building. The way it turned out. Blackowiak: Good. It looks good. Okay, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this item, please come to the microphone. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any further comments? Feik: I don't have any. Seems straight forward. Sacchet: Seems like a reasonable situation. Sidney: Very reasonable. Blackowiak: No? The only thing I'd like to add is that I think we should sort of stress in the findings two things. Number one, the wall mounted sign is in lieu of the monument sign, which I think is fairly well stated in the conditions. But number two, that the city's monument sign currently in existence is the reason that we're granting a variance for a different sign, so that in the future let's just kind of keep, there's a reason we're doing this so there's the existing sign and that's what we're taking into consideration when we're allowing this variance. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I could. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: One thing, on point one of the conditions. Should that say the north facing wall sign is in lieu of a monument sign? Blackowiak: Oooh, good catch. Thank you very much Rich. Slagle: Yep. Blackowiak: Alright, could I have a motion please? Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance /t02-5 for a 15 square foot wall mounted sign to be located on the north elevation of the Remax Action West building as shown on the plan dated May 2, 2002 with the following conditions 1 through 2 with changing condition 1 that it reads wall sign not monument sign. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance g02-5 for a 15 square foot wall mounted sign to be located on the north elevation of the REMAX ACTION WEST building, as shown on the plans dated May 2, 2002, with the fo, flowing conditions: 1. The north facing wall sign is in lieu of a monument sign. 2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE THREE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 26.9 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND 41, STEINER DEVELOPMENT, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TM ADDITION. Kate Aanenson and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay thanks Kate. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Slagle: I just have a couple. First to Matt. This cul-de-sac that will go in, which will then be extended, assuming something happens in that corporate comer, this landmark site that we talk about as an entry way to the city. Would there be another entrance in and out of that corporate site or would it be this street? Saam: I don't believe there'd be another entrance. Maybe the applicant can add his feelings but from my discussions with him and from what we've planned as a staff all along, I think this Outlot B, it's actually going to be a public street. This will be the entrance for the site. Slagle: Which is Outlot A, correct? Kate, to the west? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So then my question is, is if we've got this street going to Outlot A, which will still be again hopefully the big corporate entry way, hospital, what have you, would a right-in/right-out work for the anticipated traffic flow of a big corporate site? Aanenson: No. Actually lots, these lots here also have the flexibility of how we're going to look at that. Ultimately this street will be connected to 41 when that's re-graded and re-built. Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Slagle: So you're thinking Outlot, what I'll call the corner. Whatever it is up there in the upper left, that will possibly exit in and out of 41? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Aanenson: No, not this cul-de-sac. No I'm saying this street could come out and those two lots. Right, it hasn't been decided. You may want to split those lots and make them separately but it could, but that would be a point. Sacchet: Point of clarification please, because I think we have a confusion. That cul-de-sac is going to be right and left turn. What we're saying will be restricted to a right-in/rigl~t-out only is the driveway further north of that cul-de-sac, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Saam: Correct... Slagle: So the cul-de-sac's going to be a left/right. Saam: Oh, the cul-de-sac will be a open public street. Slagle: Okay, great. Aanenson: Yeah, and I was answering the question whether the cul-de-sac... These lots could be split off and it may not go through but this would not be restricted. The concern is up through in here there's a partial. If you look at this, this is that street going in. It's this area right here. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Which will be also serving the Kindercare, and that will also have a movement back down, back out to this. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: And then if you look at the entire piece, which is some of their concern, over here, which is on this piece. This was also given a possible retail type use. It could be a restaurant, hotel which was identified in the PUD. So ultimately that, generally we like to line up the driveways. The concern that they also had was accessing that. Whether that makes a T and a full turn moves they were anticipating on that side also. So in looking at that was some of the rationale to go back and say let's look at a traffic study. Whether that curb cut needs to be a full curb cut or how does the traffic move, because we don't want, when this piece develops, that backing up onto 5. Slagle: Exactly. Aanenson: So that's the issue that we're going to look at. Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Slagle: Okay, and then the follow-up question would be just do you think if a corporate you know company goes into that Outlot A, or the lot A what I'll call it, will that cul-de-sac and it's traffic you know lights be enough to handle what goes in there? Aanenson: Well that's why there was the possibility of bringing a road down back onto this road. They may not want to do that but we'll have to look at that. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Thanks Rich. Steve, questions at all? Nothing? Okay, go ahead. Sidney: I've got a question about sidewalks and trails. Are we impacting the origin,al plans at all? Or is that, I guess that maybe is more of a discussion for the site plan. Saam: I can add. Just in regards to the public street, and I believe they show it. Yeah, they show a sidewalk. That's typical for what we require. Now interior, you're right. I think that will be adjust, Kate correct me, with each site plan. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, two quick questions. On this plat there's this thing called pond. And with the idea that this would be filled up? Saam: Yeah. There's some history here that wasn't all explained in the staff report but about a year ago that pond was there. I don't know if they filled it all the way in. Now they got a grading permit last summer/fall. Around that time. It went before you guys. So with that they received approval to fill that and prepare it for these building sites. Sacchet: So there is no pond? Saam: I don't believe it's left anymore. Again, we can ask the applicant. Sacchet: Yeah, and then the second question, with them doing a traffic study for that right- in/right-out, is the assumption that the traffic study could possibly show that it's acceptable to have it a full access? I guess that's why they're pursuing it, right? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Saam: I did tell them in the meeting today though that there's no guarantees that, you know if it comes back favorable to them, well they've got it. We'll take that under advisement. Of course that will help them if it comes back showing that traffic, the turning movements aren't going to be an issue. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Okay, that's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Bruce. Feik: A couple. I would like to follow up on that same access way, the fight-in/right-out. If it stays a right-in/right-out, will that median then be extended to the south? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Saam: No, and I should have pointed that out. What we were planning on was installing a pork chop type, if you've seen those. It's basically a triangle with a raised curb. So people can, they can only turn right-in and they can only go right-out. There will be an actual concrete barrier, you know not allowing the wheels to go straight. Feik: And access to Lot 3, which would be the daycare, would also be accessible from that same right-ia/right-out? Or would that be coming from the cul-de-sac? Saam: It could be I think. Yeah, it could be. All along the, oh go on. Feik: My concern is we've had a number of residents approach us on some other issues regarding access. U-turn issues. The one down at Dell and some others and with the daycare/[here, I guess I would like to see some special deference to the daycare and insure that we're not creating a hazard that doesn't need to be there otherwise. Blackowiak: Okay. Claybaugh: ...additional questions. Blackowiak: Okay, sure. Claybaugh: Could you expand on the scope of the study? The traffic study that's being done. Obviously it's pertaining to the right-ia/right-out but is it also going to encompass the main cul- de-sac to that future corporate lot? Is that part of the traffic study at this time or is it just limited to the bank entrance? Saam: I think that would be a better question for the applicant. I would suspect that whichever firm they entail would look at turning movements here, and then just for the simple fact that it's close by, turning movements right at 5 and into this cul-de-sac. I mean it would be easy to model those also. But again you might want to address that to the applicant to see what exactly they were going to be looking at. Claybaugh: Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve no other questions? Lillehaug: I do have a question. There's a site plan approval to come later on but this site plan approval refers to 3 pages in this preliminary plat. By us approving this preliminary plat, does it limit any additional information that we'd require on the site plan approval? Maybe that's not clear. Aanenson: Yeah, I understand your question. If you want to call out a specific sheet, if you feel more comfortable with that. The one that just says preliminary plat, that would be appropriate because the rest of it does refer to the site plan. If you want to call it just Sheet 1 of 2 for the preliminary plat, that'd be fine. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, and Kate I had this for the next item but maybe if you could comment right now in the relationship between items 2 and 3. What do we have to, what happens, should we Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 approve number 2, how does that affect 3? I mean are they independent? Can you just sort of walk us through that. Aanenson: Sure. You have to create the lot in order for a subdivision. Right now it's in outlot status. In order for it to be a buildable lot, you have to create the subdivision to allow it to be built. So the first step allows a buildable lot, and the second step would be the use to go on that lot. Blackowiak: Right, so then if we for example approve number 2, then we can go ahead and say that, assuming that City Council follows through and does approve number 2, that we recommend approval of number 3 or however that would go. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Okay, at this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Kate, we're just talking about the plat right now. Aanenson: Correct, the subdivision. Fred Richter: Subdivision. Aanenson: Yes, not the site plan. Fred Richter: In addressing the subdivision, I'll just make a few overviews just to allow you to understand the issues. There were, let's start with this one. We have always been following the PUD which goes back to '97. At that time it went through a AUAR. We had a traffic study-and so on and basically set up the framework and uses and so on. We have created 3 lots here where originally we didn't know if there was going to be 2 lots, whatever. And that was in response basically to the market and what people wanted to be in this location. So that's why we're here tonight with US Bank on approval of a 1 acre site, Kindercare on about a 1 ½ acre site, and then a third site which we'll call the residual site which will have, finer parameters on it for later development. The cul-de-sac and things were all implemented last fall when we went through our grading, so we' ve kind of pushed forward for the utilities and everything in place to move ahead with this. There was a question about a pond. That pond never really existed. It was created when we rough graded Century and it was kind of a temporary thing, and has all been mitigated and rough graded to facility this plan. On the traffic counts, originally we had traffic counts of about 1.2 lineal square feet in the total count which will probably build out somewhat less. Maybe 20 percent less. We're about half built out now in that development. Traffic is generated by a number of vehicles. We're estimating probably about 3,000 vehicles will be parked in here and then when the traffic study, they' 11 get into peak times and things like that. We're of the opinion that we have 3 outgoing lanes, 2 coming in. Quick turning movements onto 5. That's all designed in. The State has already put in those traffic lights so the real issue becomes stacking from Highway 5, and that's what we want to get input from a traffic study. And we're looking for just good, easy movement. We're after good movement as much as the city so we aren't at odds here. We're just trying to get the facts. We also feel, when we look at the bank and the Kindercare, that moving the biggest generator of traffic in the site plan is the drive-thru bank. We really don't want them driving back into the Kindercare and then out. We Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 think it really is much more efficient to get them in and out and back onto Century. We think there's enough stacking space and the thing will flow so that we'lt get into when we get it back... As far as Block, the development here. We don't know for sure the market. The city and everything will come together hopefully in a short period of time we'll have a corporate campus looks like, or might have a medical orientation, but it will probably be in the neighborhood of 200 to 250,000 square feet of multiple buildings generating probably 500 to 1,000 cars and we think we're well served if we can oversize the road coming in. It's 2 lanes and 2 lanes out. We have ease of movement so you really minimize congestion. And the cul-de-sac which we think will be...will come off of Century and the majority of people will go up to 5. But...understand traffic will also move, when we did the PUD Coulter was a debate so we have that ability to move east all the way past Galpin, whatever. Eventually, you know get back into downtown Chanhassen. And then we exit down on 82nd and eventually we'll have a right-in/right-out when [hey re-grade Highway 41, but there's really no assurances on that so I'm just kind of giving you the context from the planning. I'll take any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah, one question. It's an interesting comment you just made about, so you're actually weighing the hazardness of some of that bank traffic going through the child care lot versus the traffic going right-in/right-out, and left-ia/left-out. Fred Richter: Yeah. When you look at the bank detail plan you kind of see that. And the, I mean traffic's important for everybody and we just want to do what we think is the most efficient and best. We just think, we aren't generating that much traffic counts that this will ever have any real stacking problem, which is the reason we do right-ia/right-our's. When you have big shopping centers going onto collector streets, and you've all been there. You know you're pulling out of a big box retail and you stack up... Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn, question? No? Anyone else questions? Claybaugh: No, they addressed my question. Blackowiak: Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I just have, Fred just one or two. I mentioned to staff, and then also to fellow commissioner that I had some concern about the actual corporate landmark, the corner that's desired for this you know, whatever you want to call it. The entry way to Chanhassen. And by creating these 3 lots if you will we've now reduced the size of the potential of that large, and I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just. Fred Richter: It's reality. Slagle: Okay, reality and we are now looking at that. My question is this. And it does dovetail with the traffic. If we do get something on that 26 acres or whatever. Fred Richter: 22.19. Slagle: 22.19. That's left, if you have them going eastbound out of that corporate way, or whatever it's going to be called, and then they hang a left to get to 5, you're suggesting if you Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 don't approve the right-in/right-out, if you don't, if that doesn't happen, that there will be another intersection or will it just be people taking a chance to take a left or right on their own off the stop sign? Fred Richter: Oh, this won't generate, I don't think there's anything in here that will generate another traffic light. S lagle: Well what I'm thinking though is if the other lot, the 22.19 or whatever it was, if that becomes a development with hundreds of cars that will be going in and out at certain times and most of them I think probably taking a left to get up to 5, my question is, why wouldn't you have, you mentioned the Kindercare. Why wouldn't you have those people come in and out of that corporate way? Fred Richter: Kindercare will. Slagle: No, the US Bank. Why wouldn't you want people going in and out there and then following the traffic pattern like this potential site will. Fred Richter: We just think the bank wants to, would operate as more of a self contained, more oriented to, it's more of a retail function. More spontaneous access to Highway 5 1 think is their concerned where the rest of it is more internal. And I think we're getting, I wish I had all my numbers here but this development, I mean you can go look at the big corporation developments and there are a lot of them in the metro area and you don't even know they exist, whether it's General Mills, Cargill, there's no traffic lights. I mean there's traffic counts by shopping center standards are very, much smaller. This is not, in my opinion, a huge traffic issue. But again, I mean I...more detailed traffic study. Slagle: Sure. But I guess I'm interested in your opinion as well. As a US Bank customer, you know if I pulled in there, and I want to take a left to get back to my home up in Longacres, I mean what's the chances of sitting there for a while trying to take a left? As cars are coming out of this and coming up Century, I mean I'm just. Fred Richter: I think the worst condition would be, and I don't know exactly how this would fall out but if you had...there would be a chance at that time, for a short period of time during this stream of traffic, it could be onerous to pulling out. But I think that would be very short and pretty painless compared to the concept. I mean if you go over there now and I've had, and this is just observations, but I've sat here waiting for people to talk about this land. I mean there is virtually no traffic and we already have this thing half filled out. Slagle: Sure. Well I'm also, ifI can throw out, I'm also thinking of the Pulte homes. You know coming south and going and doing whatever they're doing and coming back that way. Maybe it's a short cut to the school, to the rec center. Fred Richter: I don't know, Century is only going to be a mile long. It T's into 82nd. It's never been designed as what you would call a collector street to move traffic. Coulter is much more of a collector street. Aanenson: It is designed as a minor collector though. Let's be clear. Slagle: That's what I'm saying, they would go down Century and then make a left on Coulter. Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Fred Richter: But they wouldn't because, they could. I mean anything, but they could go north because you've got 2 parallel roads along 5 to move traffic. I think the city's done a very good job. This was an issue, was it 6 years ago Kate? The two parallel, what do you call them? Sidney: Frontage. Aanenson: No, no, no, no. We don't use the word frontage. Access boulevard. Fred Richter: I drove up there today and all the traffic on 5 moves very well on the north access. I mean so. Aanenson: Rich, maybe I can just answer this question, and Matt you can correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the turning movements, part of the background data as you've indicated, they' re going to have to look at what those turn movements are coming out of that intersection. It has to be looked at to say, because that's some of Matt's concern is if you're coming out of the bank and there's a stream of traffic coming out of that cul-de-sac, corporate, is that what you're going to call it? They're going to have to look at that. How long is the wait and if it's going to be a long wait, you're going to take the path of least resistance why you're going to come back down so that will be part of the background data. Looking at those turn movements so that information will go into the equation, because it is a valid point. Slagle: And I didn't preface my comments by saying Fred that too, that as this commission knows I've had some interest and some skepticism about traffic studies, to be quite honest with you so. Fred Richter: It's not my specialty so, but I just have a strong gut feel that we're over reacting to a traffic problem that isn't there. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Fred Richter: And I think, hopefully we're back here within a year or so talking about something on that large site and it can meet city expectation. I don't want to, you know we talk about corporate headquarters and all that and I don't want to, get the expectations up because right now it could be many things and the history on it, there's only...we had a medical campus which physically would have met all the expectations but there were some other issues. Slagle: Sure. Fred Richter: And maybe it'd be a hybrid of that or something. Hopefully, because we've got a good solution but right now it's there as a large piece of land... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak before the commission on this item, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and Uli, I will let you make comments first since I know you have to leave in 5 minutes. Sacchet: I don't have any issues with the subdivision, however I do feel a little uneasy about this traffic thing. I would want, I want to express that for the record. That certainly if the traffic study shows that there is no issue, then there is no issue but I'm a little bit concerned about the safety of that place but I'm willing to pass it through as proposed. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Feik: I have concerns as well regarding the right-in/right-out. Converting that to a full access intersection, particularly in light. There's currently no access from Century to 5. It is hard to determine really how much of an impact that intersection and a newer access for all of the corporate residents we have to the south of that. My other concern regarding that is daycare. The prime time of pick-up and drop off of daycare is at the beginning and the end of the day. The same time that people are trying to get to and from work, which is also the worst time to be potentially, and not having the traffic study, crossing Century at that intersection when people are dashing home and/or trying to get back to work so I have some reservations regarding that access. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I have no problem with the subdivision since it is consistent with the PUD. I guess one comment, and this is more of an opinion about the traffic at this site. At these sites. I guess I agree with Fred in that I think we're making a possibly a bigger deal out of it than it is. I walk Coulter every day practically and I've seen traffic fluctuate but it's very sparse actually during the day. And then this is even with people trying to bypass 5 and get out of the construction so I feel fairly confident that the traffic study will come back positive. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Comments. Claybaugh: Yeah. I personally feel that there's some areas in Chanhassen that are testament to the fact that there hasn't been enough focus put on traffic. I'm a little uncomfortable. The development as a whole looks fine. And again, like my fellow commissioners I have some concerns about not having a traffic study in front of us, specifically not knowing what assumptions will be made based with that. As Fred stated, they're anticipating a single large corporate user potentially but there could be diced up a number of different ways so, like my fellow commissioners I think it's a good development. I like what's in front of us. I'd just like to state that I'm a little uneasy without having that information in front of us. Lillehaug: I also have comments regarding the same right-in/right-out access. I do hear your internal traffic concerns, that you don't, that you would rather not have that traffic go back in front of the Kindercare, and that is legitimate. But looking at the current left turn. North, dual left turn lanes going onto Trunk Highway 5. They are dual left turn lanes, and by allowing a left turning car to sit on Century Boulevard and wait for southbound traffic, it does create a safety issue. To allow that left turning movement to the US Bank. And I do feel that this is a safety issue. Regardless of what the traffic counts say, it only takes one car to be sitting there, and then it becomes a safety issue. So I do have concerns with this and...any more comments. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, any comments? Slagle: Same concerns. Comment. I suspect that the traffic study would come back somewhat favorable. I don't think I've seen a traffic study that's come back that's not favorable, and please Fred, don't take that wrong but I've yet to see one that comes back not favorable to an applicant. Here's a question. Would this commission be open, and I took this from Craig's comment. Would this commission be open to tabling this until we have a traffic study? Is there a problem with that? Aanenson: I want to just make two points of clarification. One, we did have a traffic study that came back and that was on the VanDeVeire piece that wanted the curb cut on West 78th, and the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 same issue we had was that we wanted that curb cut further away from the intersection of Galpin and so that came back in favor of keeping the curb cut further down. Further to the east. They wanted it closer to the intersection so one did come back in concurrence with our recommendation. Just so you're clear, we took the narrowest interpretation here. What we're doing is leaving the window open for them in good faith to look at that. And I think as Matt has indicated, even though they may come back, the city doesn't have to agree with that position and we'll present, if you want to make a statement of your own when it goes, but we want to give them an opportunity that we' re willing to look at that again in good faith so ultimately you can make a recommendation with or without the traffic study or something amended with that but the council will take all that into consideration. Did that make sense? And I guess that's what we're saying to them. We want to give them an opportunity. Obviously it's important to US Bank and we're saying we'll make that another piece of evidence when it goes up to the City Council. Does that make sense? Slagle: Okay. And I guess I would say I'm okay with it with those concerns and just as long as we state those concerns pretty effectively. Blackowiak: Would you be more comfortable if we left condition number 4 as is? Just knowing that there might be further information... Slagle: Yeah, I'd be okay with that. I'd be okay with that. Blackowiak: ...before City Council. Okay. Alrighty. Yeah, and I've got the same traffic concerns I think everyone else has addressed. If indeed there's a traffic study to be done, I would hope it takes into consideration not only the right-in/right-out on the potential US Bank site, but also Century, Highway 5, the cul-de-sac, the lot to the east of Century and also the effect that Pulte is going to have on this because it's, I think it's not just the right-in/right-out we need to look at. We need to look at the whole area and how a potential right-in/right-out or a turning allowance, i don't know how you'd put it, right turn, left turn at that point would affect it. I think one major assumption that's being made here is that the bank is the tenant and I think we need to think about the fact that the bank might not be the tenant, or might not always be the tenant so the question I would ask of my commissioners, fellow commissioners is, if the bank isn't the tenant, do we still want to allow full turning, right-in/right-out and that's I guess a question I don't have an answer to tonight but I would sort of throw that out for everyone just to think about because it might be something else. It might turn into a fast food. I mean I've seen banks in the past turn into fast food restaurants. Highway 7, there's a Taco Bell that used to be a bank and now it's a Taco Bell and I look at that and I see possibilities. It's not always necessarily going to be a bank so for what that's worth. I think traffic is a concern. And I like Matt's statement that you would take it under advisement regardless of the results of the study. And Rich, if you'd be more comfortable leaving it as 4 is, why don't you go ahead and make the motion. Thank you. Slagle: Okay. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, plans prepared by, is it Schoell? Claybaugh: Schoell. Slagle: Schoell and Madson Inc dated April, 2002 subject to the following conditions 1 through 18. And my 18 on the very bottom is sort of messed up from the copying so I'm assuming that 18 is okay with folks. And I would just leave that as is unless there's some verbiage. Btackowiak: I guess with the understanding that City Council might see a traffic study, okay. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Slagle: Right. Blackowiak: Alright, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated April, 2002, subject to the following conditions: The development shall comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. 2. The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. . Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 4. Revise the easterly side, full access to a right-in/right-out access of Century Boulevard. . The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,082 per unit for water. . Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. I0. On the utility plan: · Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. · Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 12002 · Eliminate the proposed storm sewer north of Lot 1; any stormwater must be treated before discharging into a wetland or pond. · Add 6" gave valve on the watermain going to Lots 2 and 3. · Revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot property limits. 11. On the grading plan: · Add a note, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26." · Show the benchmark used for the site survey. · Revise Sheet Title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". · Remove the abandoned portion of the existing RCP 36 inch storm sewer. 12. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 13. Dedicate Outlot B to the public right-of-way including a cul-de-sac bubble and build the street according to City standards and specifications. 14. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 15. A l0 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, 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. 16. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be determined by the Fire Marshal upon a site plan review of new proposed buildings. 17. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 199'7 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 18. The total SWMP fees are $47,433.00 and are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Uli Sacchet left the meeting at this point. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 3,066 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A 1.07 ACRE SITE ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND HWY 5, ROTH DEVELOPMENT, US BANK. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Lillehaug: I have a question. You referred to the sanitary as being outside of private property line. Shouldn't that be the watermain? I see the sanitary. Saam: Yeah, it is the water. That was a typo. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: No, I didn't have any questions. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: Kate, you talk about the sidewalks and it looks like we have plenty of sidewalks on the site, for that area. How about crosswalks to other lots to the east and such things, because I can see people walking to the bank during lunch time or. Aanenson: Right, and that was our concern or the daycare. Again, there's a sidewalk on Century Boulevard. In fact they're also looking at something internal, whether it's on, whether you look at it with this site plan or the other one that comes in. One that would run east and west to get you over. Again, there will be a sidewalk down in the corporate way would require that when that gets, but through here it may be appropriate. We' ve learned that with Market Square when you're doing internal walking, it's risky at best when there's not a sidewalk. Sidney: Okay. Aanenson: Now that I've got my plan here. Again, this is the landscaping we talked about along the perimeter of the berm. Again, higher because what is outside that right-of-way is actually the MnDot right-of-way. The other, it's minor tweaking...the 24 foot driveway width. That needs to be 26. Minor tweak. Can be accomplished. Same with the berms. Again we're comfortable with that but again some of the screening. We wanted to get...where we talked about the windows on the different facias. Again those are highlight as part of the...taking of the one sign there and the two additional windows over here. With the canopy again drawing your eye across I think with those additional changes, tweaking of a couple of the minor site plan issues, and I believe that can all be accomplished. We are recommending approval. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Bruce, questions? Feik: Yes. A couple. First Kate, on the top of page 4 where you said that the plan subject to modifications contained in the staff report appears to meet or exceed the development standards. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Could you be a little more clear? It does with exceptions or it doesn't? Appears is a little soft. Wishy-washy. Aanenson: I'll just say I concur with that. It appears a little soft wordage. It should say with minor changes it would meet is what it should say. Feik: Okay. And the changes are fully incorporated in the recommendation? Aanenson: No. You need to add the one regarding EFIS needs to meet the design standards. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: That needs to be added. And I believe the driveway, has that been added? Saam: No. Aanenson: No, that also needs to be added. The 24 feet needs to be changed to 26. And again that should be no problem. The windows is a condition and they have already agreed to meet that. Feik: Okay. Another quick question. Could you, before this goes to council, would you please double check on the landscaping plan. I ran a little bit short when I counted the shrubs and trees all around. I only got 15 yews and 8 of the sugar maples so would you just double check that. I may certainly be wrong though. That's it for me. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: Just 2 questions. Kate, where do we stand then on the sidewalk and where do we stand on the connection down to what I' I1 call corporate way? Aanenson: There is a sidewalk along Century Boulevard. What I'm saying is there is not an internal sidewalk on that right-of-way.., show you the subdivision map on that. Again this is the private street. There is no sidewalk shown on that so what I'm saying is, you can look at something with this. We didn't address it. More than likely it could be addressed with the south, this piece which...to do a sidewalk as a part, kind of integrated with their site plan. Slagle: Okay. My thoughts to fellow commissioners is I would do that on that southern lot just because of the drive-in and drive-out of the US Bank parking. Not the right-in/right-out, but just the fact that cars are going in and out of US Bank. Aanenson: Just the function of the building. Slagle: I wouldn't put a sidewalk there, but my question is, where do we stand on that road going to the south? A private drive. Is that a done deal or is that still open? Aanenson: This will, this is a connection back to the street. There will be this turn movement. Slagle: Okay, so people can pull into US Bank and then if they chose to want to get back to 5, they can go down that southerly road next to the Kindercare, right there and then take a left and then take another left to go up Century? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Because the bad thing about our right-in/right-out for US Bank is that you'll have people taking, as they go into US Bank, they'll come out. Take a right. Go down probably to Century and Coulter and take a U turn to get back up to 5. So that's the down side of a right-in/right-out, but I just want to make sure that that part of that private drive is there. I didn't,,I mean it's not in the conditions so I' m assuming it' s just part of the proposal. Aanenson: Well Kindercare is coming in too and they need this access. Slagle: Okay but north/south, that's a for sure? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay, great. Okay. Aanenson: That's...of their development...cross access agreement and that will be a condition of the project. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Just make sure there's a condition. Cross access agreements. Slagle: Okay, good. Thanks. Blackowiak: Thanks. Kate just one quick question. Rich brought up a good point about the north versus south sidewalk. Does staff have a preference? Aanenson: I concur. It should probably be on the south side based on the trip movements in the bank. Blackowiak: Alright. Well I would just hope that when that south piece comes in that we don't forget that. Make a note of that. Slagle: If we could hear the applicant, when they talk, it'd be nice to hear the... Blackowiak: Okay. Well let's have the applicant or their designee come up and give us his opinion on this. State your name and address for the record please. Fred Richter: Fred Richter with Steiner Development and with me tonight is Bill Northcott from Asset Advisors, representing US Bank and he, or his company will be the actual owner of the project. He has built several of these around the country. As you probably know, US Bank became larger being acquired by Firstar and so he comes from the Cincinnati area and Louisville, their real estate is headquartered and they operate banks all the way from there to Seattle and California to... We've enjoyed having working with him and this experience of taking a prototype and adapting it and we're quite pleased when we saw the architecture of it because we feel given the small nature of the building, the kind of cube with a gables and kind of legitimate traditional feel to it... I'll keep going here and talk a little bit about the comments and building and... We met with staff, went over things today and got Bill up to speed. The 3 windows will be added. There will be 2 on the, I was impressed with how Kate shuffled this paper... Okay this 17 Planning Commission Meeting -May 21, 2002 does show, there will be 2 windows on each side and one on the north side. I think the sidewalk issue, I guess I'd ask staff, isn't the walkway on the east side of Century. Aanenson: Correct. Fred Richter: And that is it, right? There won't be one on the west side? Saam: Yeah, there's one on the west side. Fred Richter: So moving people into here from that, they'll have to cross Century. We do want to extend this down so we can grab people. I concur it probably makes the most sense on the south. And we are familiar with the city's intention of trying to take this kind of car dominated environment and make it somewhat conducive to people walking. That is part of our...this one will too as best we can. The comments on the, going back to the elevation. I just think we're all kind of getting used to some of the new ordinances. The EFIS we just picked up this evening and my only comment on that, I think we've seen the building. I think it has good proportions to it. It's not going to be easy to just do a minor tweak on that and there's some logic to the EFIS. The overhang was an integral part covering the canopy over the drive thru. And there's pneumatic tubes and other things and structure and that kind of just set that dimension, which it kind of wraps around the building. I think kind of given that, I'd like to see those proportions just stay. Other than that. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Richter. Kate, is that, if it were to stay, would that be a variance or what are we looking at with design standards? Fred Richter: ...what would be a traditional architecture. Cornices and soffits and that and it's been a pretty good job of balancing that and aligning itself with it's new constraints which are the canopy over the cars and so forth. Aanenson: Right, and we do want the break in the roof line which they've accomplished and so that's I think. Blackowiak: Yeah I just want to make clear that we as a commission are kind of following the rules and making sure that we' re. Aanenson: It would require a variance if it didn't, right. So I think we can work something out. Blackowiak: Okay. As long as you're comfortable. Craig do you have a question? Claybaugh: Kate, what is the percentage of overage? Aanenson: 15. Claybaugh: They're 15 percent over? Aanenson: No. No, they're about 5 percent over. Claybaugh: 5 percent over of the allowable 15 percent. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Excuse me, go ahead Mr. Richter. If you have anything else. 18 Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Fred Richter: I think that's it. You've got to hear Bill's accent. Blackowiak: Alright, come on up. At least get you on the record, right. Bill Northcott: My name's Bill Northcott and I'm with Asset Advisers and Roth Development and we're the outsource broker for US Bank across the United States where we,not only do some development for them, we also manage and do a maintenance program with their retail side real estate, which is the branches. And we, like Fred said, we cover quite a bit of area from, we have offices in Louisville and Cincinnati and we go to Portland. We have projects in Portland, Kansas, just you know just a multitude of places. And I do want to commend you for your thoroughness and probably the best prepared commission I' ve run into in a long time, and I do run into a few of them so I do commend you on that. Sincerely. But this is king of a new prototype because the conglomeration that's developed with mergers and acquisitions of the different banl~s...to start with integrating these different old school of thought and so forth in the different plans. This is kind of what the banks come up with, and it is, it's an attractive. We just finished one in, this new prototype in Louisville and got several of them in one stage or another, this prototype and it is very residential oriented versus retail oriented type of facility, and it would fit in I think very well with Chanhassen, the attractiveness of this community so, and I'm open to any questions... Blackowiak: Thank you, commissioners. Go ahead. Sidney: Do you feel comfortable with what we discussed here this evening and conditions? Bill Northcott: Yes. I think the traffic issue will come out to be a non-issue because some of my background was commercial shopping centers and so forth and of course of any retail required zoning, the bank use or financial institution is your least onerous or problematic with regards to traffic. Of that retail sector, and I really believe that that will be a non-issue even though you can look at any study and shoot holes into it or whatever, but I really think, you know I was kind of surprised because, and what the bank was trying to accomplish on this particular site was to have kind of it' s own identity and you know, keep us away from Kindercare. Keep us away from the office, you know we'd be a service for people with just in the ease of movement you know. The Kindercare people can encroach on the bank traffic, but you hate to see bank encroach on the Kindercare traffic, you know going that way so. And like you know, we've seen some situations where, if it's a problem you can't come back and put a, what did you call these things. Pork chop I believe is what you referred to that. And you can come back and put that in so, but I don't really think it will be an issue and I think the traffic study will show that. Sidney: Do you have actual photos of buildings like this that you could bring to council or have available for council? I think that would be useful. Bill Northcott: Yeah, we could have some. The one that's really finished, far enough along, yeah. We could. They won't have the windows, and you know and I agree with you. I think the windows would add aesthetically. I mean it would be more pleasing to, and this, there's been another situation where the window issue came up and it wasn't pushed as much and the bank didn't want to go that route and whether it's security or what, but I think real world, I mean whether it' s, they' re artificial or they' re actual functional windows, you know I agree with you. I think windows would be more pleasing. That's just me. I didn't say that. Blackowiak: We can erase that, don't worry. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Bill Northcott: But like Fred said, on that EFIS situation, the pneumatic tubes go over that whole, instead of going underneath the ground. That causes all sorts of problems. That's kind of a cavity in there where they run those tubes and then from a design standpoint, it's just a continuation of that section that they had to have on that drive thru. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, any other questions? No? Craig.. Claybaugh: I guess to expand on what you just said about the EFIS allowance on it. Kate stated they're just going to work with the applicant at this stage or what? Aanenson: Yeah, I mean. Claybaugh: It's not a concern for us as a commission? Aanenson: Well it has to meet the conditions so we're find some way to address that, and whether it's over the canopy that they can adjust, we're going to find someplace where we can make it work to get to the 15 percent. Otherwise it would require a variance. Claybaugh: That's my question. Blackowiak: Rich questions? No? Lillehaug: I do have a quick question. On your Sheet Al, it has a shifted property line, the 13 feet. And that appears to extend through and south onto Lot 2. Is this shifted property line, does this match up with what plat approval? Okay, but then it carries onto the south. Isn't there a jog? Fred Richter: There's a jog. I'll explain that to you...being prepared for Kindercare, which is going in, actually they're taking the.., so they'll have their own consultants so... What we have is Kindercare always wanted their parking adjacent to their building. So all their parking, and anybody along here will park and go into Kindercare. They really weren't concerned about anything to the east. So they really wanted us to basically have this line go straight, but when the bank finally fine tuned everything, with the drive thru and all, we didn't want to bring that traffic in here so we started to separate it and that generated, which was 13 feet, we just took what is half of 26 and moved the property line over to here. Further south the property line is down the middle but here...on either side of center of the drive aisle so this is a shared easement. And then in the future this building shares access all the way around. Lillehaug: Okay. Fred Richter: One other just clarification so we're. When we talked to Bill and staff today about the glass, because he has to fine tune that with his people. It will be glass but it couldn't be spano glass, and that's quite common. Spano glass is fake glass. Looks just like glass, but it functions on the inside as no glass. And so he has that flexibility so you can make sure... Blackowiak: And staff agrees with. Aanenson: We have spano windows in other places in town. Blackowiak: Americlnn and. 20 Planning Commission Meeting -May 21, 2002 Aanenson: There may be one location or two that we had to acquiesce and agree to spano but certainly our first choice is to get the glass that may be on the most visible side or whatever so we' re working with them on that. Blackowiak: Okay, great. Fred Richter: And we' re encouraging it because we think it works well visually... Blackowiak: Sure. Alright, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this item, please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any additional comments about this item? No? Claybaugh: I think the, I'd just like to comment, reiterate what the applicant said. I like the traditional look of the building and look forward to it going up. Blackowiak: Alright. No? I don't really have anything either. As long as the staff works with the applicant to clarify some of the issues that we brought up this evening, I think we'll be fine and with the two additional conditions that we've discussed earlier, I think we need a motion. Lillehaug: Prior to making this motion, by approving this site plan will the previous preliminary plat's conditions apply to this site plan? For example right-in/right-out, or do we have to include those conditions into the site plan? Aanenson: I would probably put it in here again. That' s probably appropriate, just to be clear. , Blackowiak: Or Kate could we say, that this site plan is contingent upon approval of the prior. Aanenson: Correct. Just tie the two. Blackowiak: Subdivision, or preliminary plat. Should we just make that a separate condition? Aanenson: Sure. Blackowiak: And encompass all it's conditions or something like that, okay. Okay, so now we have 3 additional conditions. So with that, is somebody ready to make a motion? Feik: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan 2002-4, plans prepared by Steiner Development Inc dated 4/12/02, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 19 with the following additions. Number 20. The drive on the northeast portion of the site leading to the drive thru be 26 feet. 21. The EFIS accent band shall be modified to conform with the Highway 5 Design Criteria. And number 22. That this be subject to. Blackowiak: Or maybe contingent upon. Feik: Contingent upon the approval of. Aanenson: Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. Feik: Thank you. 21 Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Saam: Could I just add a suggestion? The drive aisle condition. Feik: Yes. Saam: You may want to re-word it since there's more than one drive aisle that's less than 26 feet. Just say all drive aisles must meet minimum 26 feet wide. Feik: Works for me. Blackowiak: Okay. Claybaugh: Additionally I've got a question for Kate. She brought up that cross access... Blackowiak: Sure, I'I1 just ask. Kate, is there a cross access agreement condition in here? Claybaugh: Does that need to be referenced with this? Aanenson: I think it wouldn't hurt to put it in, just to be clear. Blackowiak: Okay. So Craig go right ahead. Claybaugh: Would that be 23? I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Include as item 23. Reference the cross access agreement between the parcels. Btackowiak: Okay, you accept that? Feik: Very good. Blackowiak: Okay, a motion. Is there a second please? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-4, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated 4/12/02, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The lot must be final platted into a Lot and Block prior to the issuance of the building permit. 3. The northern elevation requires an additional seven (7) feet of windows. The eastern elevation requires an additional fourteen (14) feet of windows. 4. Monuments must be set back a minimum of ¥2 the required building setback, 15 feet from Century Boulevard and 35 feet from Highway 5. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 5. Wall signage shall be permitted on only the north and east building elevations. 6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. . Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berms. 8. Submit utility plans for review and approval. . A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, 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. 10. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 1 I. A PIV (Post indicator valve) is required. Indicate on utility plans upon submittal. 12. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 13. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 14. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum alloWed size of domestic water on a combination/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention ?Division Policy #36-1994. 15. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. 16. Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. 17. Each newly created lot will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 18. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 19. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 20. All drive aisles must meet a minimum width of 26 feet. 21. The EFIS accent band shall be modified to conform with the Highway 5 Design Criteria. 22. Approval is contingent upon approval of Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. 23. Reference the cross access agreement between parcels. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 7, 2002 as presented. NEW/OLD BUSINESS. Blackowiak: It's not on here but Kate, any new or old business ready to discuss? Aanenson: Yes. I have hired a new planner, Jason Angell. He's working in Andover right now and he would be joining us on June 3rd will be his first day. Very excited to start. So the other thing I just want to let you know with what's on your agenda for June 4th. We do have a couple of variances. Both relating to garages. We have a subdivision and a minor subdivision and we also have a large subdivision which is called Vasserman Ridge which is the last piece of the Dolejsi property, which surrounds the existing group home. Lundgren Brothers has an option on that group home and they're coming in to plat the rest of that property so it would, it's 68 acres. Almost 69 acres, so they'll do a portion of it now. They'll have one year to deal with the group home and then plat the remaining portion of that so we haven't seen that large of a subdivision for a while. Approximately almost 80 units so a full agenda next time. Blackowiak: Alrighty. And Kate, do we have any idea on a potential joint meeting with City Council? Do we have a date for that or is that going to happen? Aanenson: Yes. It is, I meant to get you a notice on that. June l0th. That's a City Council meeting. That's June l0th is a City Council meeting. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm going to trust you on that. Aanenson: I will get a notice out to you on that. I meant to do that with this packet. And then also we'll have a work session item too talking about school locations at your next. Blackowiak: That was in the packet this evening so we should just hang onto that maybe? Aanenson: Yeah, and that will actually, we'll discuss that in more detail in our work session at your next meeting. I'm checking my calendar real quick here to make sure June 10th. It is. That is a regular City Council meeting so. Blackowiak: Okay, so we would do what? Before the council meeting? What are we looking at if we' re going to? Aanenson: That's I'm not sure yet. I'll put something in your packet on that but if you can block off the 10m, I'll let you know... 24 Planning Commission Meeting -May 21, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any feeling on before or after the council meeting? I vote for before. Anybody else? Slagle: Yeah. · Feik: No preference. Blackowiak: Okay. So if possible Kate, you know before would be better. Akighty, with that I will adjourn the meeting and then we'll kind of pull some tables down for it and we'll have an open discussion on the Truax property. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:17,p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25