Loading...
PC Minutes 5-4-04 - - (j'-; I ~ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MA Y 4, 2004 Acting Chair Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, and Bethany Tjornhom MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Dri ve PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REPLA T OUTLOT B, BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER INTO 26 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE THREE UNIT TWO FIVE UNIT OFFICE BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-IOP WITH AN AREA OF 13.43 ACRES, STONE CREEK TOWN OFFICES, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-15. Public Present: Name Address Mark Undestad Jim Sulerud Ben Merriman Jim Pensyl 8800 Sunset Trail Family of Christ Lutheran Church 8156 Mallory Court 1972 Andrews Court Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification on the sizing of the storm sewer and wording of the conditions. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to clarify the view of the parking lot from Highway 5, the layout of the buildings on the site, and light from the parking lot spilling out onto Highway 5.. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for further clarification on the parking setback from Highway 5, screening of the HV AC equipment, trash enclosure location, and what qualities of the proposal consider it for a POO. Commissioner Keefe asked about signage on the building. Chair Slagle asked for clarification on the proposed sidewalk circulation. Mark Undestad with Eden Trace spoke on behalf of the applicant and addressed questions from the commission regarding wall signage, town office versus - - Planning Commission ~L..nmary - May 4,2004 traditional office buildings. Chair Slagle opened the public hearing. Jim Pensyl, 1972 Andrew Court had a question regarding access. He suggested an alternative extending McGlynn Road out westbound and making that the access point or access from Highway 5. Jim Sulerud, 730 Vogelsberg Trail spoke on behalf of the Family of Christ Lutheran Church stating their support for the project. Chair Slagle closed the public hearing. After discussion, the following motions were made. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $64,268. 2. A park fee of $94,010 shall be paid for the 13.43 acres at the time of the replat. 3. Submit a private cross-access and cross-parking easement against all lots at time of final plat recording. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against all lots. 4. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1004,1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2103, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5302. 5. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 6. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 7. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm pond and creek. 8. Any off site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 9. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 10. The site has previously been assessed for utility and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $103,521.12. This assessment may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis or paid at the time of final platting. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will also be applicable for the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain. The hookup charges are based 2 - - Planning Commission ~Ltlnmary - May 4, 2004 on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 11. All of the public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the public utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is 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. The applicant must be aware that public utility improvements will require a pre- construction meeting before building permit issuance. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and the Watershed District. 12. On the utility plan: a. Show the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Add a storm sewer schedule. c. Revise the Sewer Note No. 1 to be, "All sanitary services shall be 6"PVC SDR26. d. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled." e. Remove the existing 24 inch storm stub to the north and bulkhead the invert at the manhole. f. Delete the sanitary sewer connection at the southwest corner of the site and utilize the existing sanitary stub in the cul-de-sac. g. Revise the proposed storm sewer within the cul-de-sac from a 12 inch to a 15 inch pipe. 13. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Revise the side slope to 3: 1 maximum along the northeast side of the parking lot and at the southeasterly corner of Lot 25. 14. The 8 inch water and sewer mains will be considered public utility lines since they serve multiple lots. As such, minimum 30 foot wide public easements will be required over the portion of the public utility lines that are outside of the right- of-way. 3 - - Planning Commission ~Limmary - May 4, 2004 15. The Stone Creek Drive cul-de-sac must be built with a 48 foot radius and B-618 concrete curb and gutter. 16. The private street must be built to a 9 ton design, paved to a 26 foot width, and contained within a 40 foot private easement. The developer will be required to submit certification reports from a soil testing company which show that the private street was built to these standards. 17. Lot 26 may be used for parking purposes only. 18. The applicant shall execute a cross parking agreement with the Family of Christ Lutheran Church which shall encompass the 60 parking spaces shown in Attachment 7. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in buffer yards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. b. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 overstory trees in the parking lot to meet minimum requirements. c. Norway maple shall be replaced by a more suitable tree selection. 2. Building Official conditions: a. Buildings (units) over 2,000 square feet in gross floor area are required to be protected with automatic fire sprinklers. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. An accessible route must be provided from the accessible parking spaces to the entrances of all units. The maximum slope of the accessible route is 1/20. d. Separate water, sewer and fire protection services must be provided for each piece of property. e. Exterior walls less than ten (10) feet from property lines must be of fire resistive rated construction in accordance with IBC Chapter 6 and terminate in accordance with IBC Chapter 7. f. Separate male and female restrooms must be provided in each unit with an occupant load greater than 15, as determined by IBC Table 1003.2.2.2. g. Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 4 - - Planning Commission ~ummary - May 4,2004 h. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to begin the preliminary plan review process to discuss permit procedures. 3. On the site plan: a. Revise the scale from 1 "=20' to 1 "=40'. b. Show the existing and proposed trail/sidewalk adjacent to the site. c. Show all dimensions for the improvements, i.e. drive aisle width, cul-de-sac radius, curb return radii, stall lengths and widths shall be 9 feet by 18 feet. 4. No direct access to Highway 5 is allowed. 5. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Remain open when the area is not actively being worked. ) Steeper than 3: 1 1O:lt03:1 Flatter than 10: 1 7 days 14 days 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch, or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. 9. The applicant shall provide a second trash enclosure area south of Lot 5. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer 5 - - Planning Commission ~ummary - May 4, 2004 boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Three additional fire hydrants will be required. Install one southwest of Lot 11 in the parking island. Install one southeast of Lot 6 in the parking island. Install one in the island between Lots 20 and 21 on the south side of the building. If necessary, please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location. Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. 11. Extend the sidewalks and relocate accessible parking access aisle as shown in Attachment 1. 12. The applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and over to the cul-de-sac, then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail system. 13. Relocate the trash enclosure and add another one as indicated by staff. 14. Add bike racks on the plan. 15. If entrances are granted on both sides of the southern buildings, there should be a walk on the north side of the building 16. The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berming along Highway 5. 17. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-59 TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A MOTHER-IN-LA W SUITE, 8634 V ALLEY VIEW COURT, PAUL & LAURA GRA VES, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16. Public Present: Name Address Kent Ludford Paul & Laura Graves 8615 Valley View Court 8634 Valley View Court Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification on the number of entrances into the home. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to walk through the sequence of events with this application. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for further clarification on the exterior and interior entrances and asked if the 6 ....... - oLf IC:.; CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MA Y 4, 2004 Acting Chair Slagle called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, and Bethany Tjornhom MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REPLA T OUTLOT B, BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER INTO 26 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE THREE UNIT TWO FIVE UNIT OFFICE BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-IOP WITH AN AREA OF 13.43 ACRES, STONE CREEK TOWN OFFICES, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-15. Public Present: Name Address Mark Undestad Jim Sulerud Ben Merriman Jim Pensyl 8800 Sunset Trail Family of Christ Lutheran Church 8156 Mallory Court 1972 Andrews Court Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Let's start, any questions for staff? Bethany? Tjornhom: Alright, I'll go first I guess. And mine are silly questions anyway I guess. When you were designing for the storm sewer, are you supposed to go with data that's 10 years or 100 years? Am I crazy thinking I had heard 100 year? Is it 10 years? Saam: No, you're not crazy. The storm sewer pipe, the size of that is sized based on a 10 year storm but ponds are. - - Planning Commission lh-:eting - May 4, 2004 Tjornhom: That's the 100 years? Saam: Yes. Yes, we want those to hold 100 year storms so. Tjornhom: Okay. That was just a question that I thought kind of, and another question I have, and this is an easy one too is. In the report it says staff notes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and generally consistent with the zoning ordinance. Generally means, I mean is there something that isn't consistent or is that just something that was put in there you know, am I being picky? I don't know. AI-Jaff: Figure of speech. Tjornhom: Figure of speech, okay. Al-Jaff: That's how I used it. Tjornhom: Okay, okay. AI-Jaff: They aren't consistent with the conditions in the staff report. Tjornhom: Oh. Then I guess that's all I have. Slagle: Down this way. Keefe: Alright, I'll go next. I'm curious about the parking and what this is going to look like from Highway 5 and how close it is to Highway 5. Is it bermed out front or is there a berming requirement or how close does the parking go to Highway 5? Al-Jaff: There are a couple of things that we have been working on. One of them is the ordinance allows 50 percent of the parking to face the highway. If you look at this portion, as well as this portion, it would come up, or would add up to half the length facing Highway 5. That's part of our design standard ordinance. As far as berming, there is additional landscaping that is required along Highway 5 to screen some of the parking lot. Keefe: I mean I like the design of the building. I mean I think it looks nice but one of my concerns is just visually when you look at it, you're going to see a lot of cars sitting there. It's in a very visible, there isn't a lot of elevation change from Highway 5 to this particular site. AI-Jaff: That's correct. One of the things that we talked about at the time, mainly dealing with the design of this site, we didn't want to hide the buildings, but at the same time we did talk about screening of the parking lot. Under the landscape requirements on page 5 of your staff report, third column. Highway 5, north property line buffer yard. There are 17 canopy trees, 28 understory trees, 45 shrubs. All these are landscape materials that will be required within this area. 2 - - Planning Commission hü.::eting - May 4, 2004 Keefe: And I was confused, I was kind of leading to that. I mean the landscape along Highway 5, it says proposed here, the one column and I'm not sure what the difference is between proposed and the required. AI-Jaff: The required is what the ordinance requires the applicant to provide. If we look at the landscape plan and what the applicant is proposing, as you can see, for instance under canopy trees the ordinance requires 17 trees. The applicant is showing 9 trees, so they are deficient and they would need to increase the number of trees on the site. Keefe: And then the buildings themselves in terms of the layout of the buildings, you have parking on the Highway 5 side. Are those two, are the offices, are they sort of double loaded offices? AI-Jaff: Yes they are. Keefe: They are? On that one that's there, and then the ones on the east and west ends are single? AI-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Okay, because they look like they're approximately the same size. AI-Jaff: Access to them, access to the units can be provided from both sides. Keefe: Right. And the question I had was really in relation to was it considered moving the buildings more towards 5 if there's room to do that? I don't know whether the setback would allow that or not, and putting more of the parking on the inside. Especially in light of that you've got the agreement with the church that would allow you to meet, potentially meet the ordinance. I didn't know whether you went down that, and I'm really just thinking, I don't know exactly what it's going to look like from 5. Just my thought was that it's going to look kind of like a sea of cars along there, assuming that everything's leased up and particularly if we go down the road of you know we want to at least have enough landscaping in there to. Al-Jaff: I do believe that we will be able to provide, with the landscaping we will be able to provide some screening. I don't want to say 100 percent because that will not be the case, but we will be able to provide some screening of the parking. Lillehaug: Could I add to your discussion here? The ordinance reqUIres a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way for parking. Correct? Generous: Not in this POO. Lillehaug: And that would be my question. On page 3, you do indicate where a POO was amended for a 10 foot parking setback but it doesn't look like any portion of what 3 - - Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 that was approved for ever happened. I mean it says the applicant never replatted the outlot and does that 10 foot parking setback really apply to this? AI-Jaff: That portion of the ordinance did get amended. The Trunk Highway 5 setback for the parking lot should read 10 feet. Lillehaug: I guess blindly, I mean I'm just blindly saying, taken that it's 10 feet, I don't see a reason why it would be 10 feet here and what benefit really that, if it's ordinance, it's ordinance. I mean if it's in the poo but I guess does staff know why it's 10 feet rather than 50 feet? Generous: I do. Commissioner Lillehaug, as part of the, when they were actually doing the poo' the roadway acquisition was 40 feet out from where it was actually finally taken. They took additional right-of-way after this project first went through the process. When we established the 50 foot setback and they discovered that it just didn't work on that north side so they amended the PUD design standards or the ordinance for this development to give it a 10 foot setback. Keefe: Well and I think in relation to that, I mean when I go to the lighting plan and I look at the lighting plan, I mean if we're at a 10 foot setback and you get those, some of these lights sitting right at the back of the parking lot and it looks like you're going to end up with some light from the parking lot cast out on the Highway 5 if the parking lot is that close. If I'm looking at this correctly. Does that cause any concern or not? Slagle: Matt, is that a question for your group? Saam: We don't, engineering doesn't typically look at the lighting plan. Slagle: Okay. I tried Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: Thank you. In looking at the photometrics that have been submitted to the city. That would be on Sheet A-1.3. The ordinance we passed a foot candle at the property line. Looking at that along Highway 5, there is nothing that, there is one point right here. Nann, can you zoom in please? Thank you. One point right here that is .7. Keefe: Right around that particular... AI-Jaff: ... nothing that exceeds the half foot candle. Keefe: Okay, and then just one last question in relation to the parking. Is in regards to that 10 foot setback, we don't really have a concern of the parking being that close to the Highway 5 in regards to traffic, headlights and conflict of interest for driving on the Highway 5 that close without any berming or protection. 10 feet meets what we need to do? 4 - - Planning Commission h~.;eting - May 4, 2004 Saam: Commissioner Keefe, I'll just mention Highway 5, if you look at the grading plan is approximately 6 to 8 feet higher in elevation than this parking lot's going to be, so with that in mind, I wouldn't foresee any headlights from this site shining into the highway. Or onto the highway. Keefe: Okay, thanks. That's all I have. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: A lot of my questions have been answered so that's good. Parking staff. What is the dimension just required by the city of parking stalls? AI-Jaff: 8 Y2. Lillehaug: Let's get this out in the open right now huh. Saam: By 18 I believe. AI-Jaff: 8 Y2 by 18. Generous: It will be revised to 9 by 18. Lillehaug: So as part of this we can require 9 by 18, correct? It's a POO, we can add to this right? Correct? Matt. Okay. Let's see here. Easy one first here. HV AC equipment, or roof equipment. Does staff know is that fully screened or is there even roof equipment? I can ask that to the applicant. Why don't I hold off on that one. Trash enclosure. Do we require a roof on the trash enclosure? AI-Jaff: The representative from the church and the applicant had a meeting. One of the concerns was the location of the trash enclosure. One of the decisions that both the applicant and the church representative came to was relocating it, as well as adding a second trash enclosure. The first location will be immediately past Building 5. And then the second one will be located south of Building 18. Will it have roof? None proposed at this time and. Lillehaug: Do we require that? AI-Jaff: We don't typically require it. Lillehaug: Okay. I'll hold off on my screening question. Okay, this is my tough question for the night. Page 3, under general site plan architecture. It says a POO is required to be developed to higher quality than other projects. I guess what is this proposal showing that would be considered a higher quality one compared to other projects? 5 - - Planning Commission h~-:eting - May 4, 2004 AI-Jaff: I believe the materials that are used on the exterior of this building are extremely attractive as well as durable. The simulated stone. The fact that each elevation has given a level of detail. There aren't any loading docks. It's a quality. Lillehaug: Boy, that's a loaded question isn't it? AI-Jaff: In my opinion it's a quality development. Lillehaug: That's fair. AI-Jaff: I think they've done a wonderful job. Lillehaug: So the buildings are very aesthetically pleasing. You know in generally, I know sight has indicated that they would like to see a lot more plantings per code. Is there anything other than plantings, you know other amenities? You know in other areas I know we required benches, bicycle areas and maybe that's addressed... AI-Jaff: That is definitely something that we can require. Lillehaug: Is there anything, you know as part of the POO that we're missing that we're not really requiring? I guess when I see this I'm not seeing something really that a poo is even, you know would really bring this to a higher level. AI-Jaff: Bike racks are required by the PUD and I haven't added that as a condition. I really should. Lillehaug: Okay. Slagle: Anything else Steve? Lillehaug: One more. Page 5. This is a quick one. I almost missed it. In your chart there, it says 10, right in the middle there's a big block. It says 10 foot widths and less required by ordinance that a structure be installed. I don't, I guess I don't understand what that is. When we're talking trees. Did you follow me where I went there? AI-Jaff: That means a median. Lillehaug: Okay, and are we requiring that there be medians in areas and they're not showing any? AI-Jaff: They meet all requirements. Matt, I don't know, do you see a need for a median anywhere other than? Saam: If this is for the land, the islands? The parking lot islands, there are a couple there that I'm scaling off that appear to be less than 10 feet. I think what the meaning of the ordinance is is that we found things like sod are tough to keep alive in these little 2 and 3 6 - - Planning Commission h~-:eting - May 4, 2004 foot wide strips so we say if you're going to be under 10 feet, just pave or rock the entire thing so. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I had, thank you. Slagle: Go ahead. Keefe: One more in relation to signage. I think somewhere in the plan when I was looking at it there they could potentially put signage on the fronts of the buildings and I think the fronts are facing Highway 5. What type of signage are we talking about there? What are we limited to? Are there limits to that? AI-Jaff: Yes. There is a criteria for signage. And those are the wall signs. Keefe: They're not, I guess the question really is, is it like lighted signing or are we talking. AI-Jaff: Under the ordinance you can have lit signs. There is a band that the applicant is showing above the entrance into each building. Keefe: Right, and I couldn't tell what that was. Maybe I can ask that question of what he's intending but I'mjust curious to know. AI-Jaff: Again under the ordinance it is permitted to have back lit signage. Keefe: Good, thanks. Slagle: Okay, go ahead Bethany. Tjornhom: Regarding the signs. There's going to be 25 town offices, correct? AI-Jaff: Correct. Tjornhom: And so you could potentially have 25 different signs? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Tjornhom: And so they'll have to come to you to get a permit? That means you'll have to approve everyone to make sure they meet all the standards and. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Tjornhom: Okay. That was my only comment and question. Slagle: And I just have a couple if I may. In looking at the addendum if you will that we received on our desks here. I am showing sidewalks, or sidewalk if you will behind the 7 - - Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 eastern most row of offices adjacent to that creek, and yet when I look at the color rendition I don't see those and I just want to make sure as we talk to the applicant about extending, expanding the sidewalk or what I'll call trail system within this development, that indeed they are thinking of and intending to run the sidewalks on the eastern edge to the south, and I guess my question, there is a question in here. Is the sidewalk, if that is indeed going to be there, staff what do you think of running that to the southern end of the development as it heads southwest? Part of the property to the east. Go back to the east. There you go. Now right along there in front of all those parking spots on the southern side and you would take that and you connect down to the trail. You have any thoughts on that? Al-Jaff: We did talk about that and actually Bob and I discussed it. Slagle: Okay so we being, not you and the applicant but. AI-Jaff: No, just Bob and myself. And what we concluded was if we moved this acceptable parking aisle, access aisle. Slagle: Nann, can we get closer in? My eye sight's going. There you go, okay. AI-Jaff: If we relocated this accessible parking access aisle to the north, you would be able to basically continue to the west and then straight down connection to the trail. Slagle: And I'm okay with that but then let me ask you this. Those spots to the south, the southern most spots. I'm going to guess a dozen or so. Right along there. AI-Jaff: You're talking about these? Slagle: Yeah. I guess my question is, why wouldn't you want a sidewalk to the south of there so they have to only cross and the folks on the east would only have to cross once and that would be the cul-de-sac. AI-Jaff: That's doable. Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to see if that was something you guys were open to. The last question I have regarding the canopy and the proposed required getting back to Dan's question. The applicant is proposing 20 trees, is that correct? And we are saying that they would need 36. AI-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: I'm just curious, I mean what is our plan? As I look in the conditions and I don't think I saw a condition that they fulfill that? I might have overlooked it. I hope I did. Lillehaug: It's in condition l(a). Site plan. 8 - .- Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 Slagle: Is that under the site plan? AI-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Shall increase landscape plantings. AI-Jaff: It's condition number 1 on page 12 of your site plan, A, Band C. Slagle: And that will then come under their final, okay. AI-Jaff: No, it didn't go under the subdivision and just remain with the site plan. Slagle: Okay. Alright, well I think with that the applicant here and if you could come up to the microphone. State your name and address, we'd like to hear from you. Mark Undestad: My name is Mark Undestad. I'm with Eden Trace and live at 8800 Sunset Trail here in Chanhassen. Really don't have a lot to add to the staff report on here. Slagle: If you could actually move that mic, there you go. I hate to do that to you but. Mark Undestad: Alright. Well again I didn't really have a lot to add to the staff report. I think we've spent a lot of time up here trying to get this as kind of a nicer development than what's been looked at there in the past but everything that we've gotten in the staff report, again I think we're, we think it will be a real nice development when we're done with it. Hopefully we're putting something in there that the city and the residents around here are going to enjoy so. Keefe: I've got a question in relation to the signage. What are you thinking in regards to the signage? Mark Undestad: We don't really have, we're going to have a sign company come up with some design on there. Part of the reason why we're kind of keeping all the design of the building in more the earth tones and so we don't want anything too loud, too obnoxious out there and obviously we're not going to do that with the signs either. We'll have our sign company come up with some design, bring that to the city and then have them look at it. We hadn't really even talked about anything lit up or anything lie that so more just a recognition there's a sign above the entry way in each unit. And there's only 8 that face Highway 5 up there and the rest of them are just going to be identity signage. Keefe: Pretty much consistent in terms of. Mark Undestad: Yeah, we're going to have them all kind of the same so you don't get a lot of different colors and this and that. I mean people have logos for their companies and they want to get a logo in there but as long as it's within our set areas I think we'll probably, we should be able to make it look nice. 9 ....... Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 - Slagle: Anything Bethany? Tjornhom: My only question, because this is the first time I've seen this, was the town office. Explain to me how a town office is different from an office building. And maybe that then justifies the PUD because it's more of an upscale office type situation or you know. Mark Undestad: Well you know, I think when you, the question about you know what type of development is it and is it upscale? Is it nice enough? We've been building things around town and around other towns for many years. I mean there's quite a range of, and I think when we spent a lot of time to get this so it looks nice, we feel it looks nice in the neighborhood. The town offices are more, they've been coming around here recently and basically what it is is the individual business owner owns their own unit. They actually buy that unit, similar to a town home, so it's not so much that we're putting them all up and then renting them out. Leasing. These actually business owners can own their own little piece of real estate down there which is with interest rates and the way things have been going, it's been real appealing. They've been going up in Eden Prairie and Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth. A lot of little developments and it's not like we're trying to come out here and throw 150 of these things out. It's like each city is different and you kind of look at a nice, smaller development package like this, 25 units you know, we feel that's probably a good number for the city of Chanhassen. We've got a lot of interest in here. A lot of local business professionals already been picking out their sites so to speak on here so it's getting received well in Chanhassen. Tjornhom: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Anything more Dan? Keefe: I don't think so. Slagle: Okay, Steve. I just have a couple. Two were raised by your last comment with this approach. What would an average, if I can ask, office go for. I mean what kind of, just as far as. Mark Undestad: As far as the cost of the place? Slagle: Price, correct. Yeah. Mark Undestad: We don't, right now we have a range and until, typically we don't go into the construction documents until we go through planning committee and work with staff here and all the bugs worked out. Then we'll go into the construction documents and then we're able to fine tune and hard bid these numbers out and nail them down. Right now, based on units in Eden Prairie and Plymouth, Maple Grove, areas around here, they'll have a range anywhere, on a per square foot cost of anywhere from $135 on up. Some people pay, we've seen some they've put fireplaces in these things and really 10 .... - Planning Commission h~veting - May 4, 2004 get fancy in there so some have sold as high as $200 a foot. Really it depends on what you do inside you know. Slagle: Okay. The second question I guess, with the thought that there will be multiple owners then, in this development once it's finished. Mark Undestad: Could be up to 25 separate owners in there, sure. Slagle: What would, and more maybe to staff also but what would someone do, an adjoining neighbor if there were issues? I mean whether it be trash, noise. Mark Undestad: Like a townhome, there will be an association that handles... Slagle: Okay, sure. Mark Undestad: And if somebody has issues and they can't resolve them separately then they go to the association. Slagle: Okay. Question on the sidewalks, and the trash enclosure. Sidewalks, are you okay with what you've heard so far and open to that? Mark Undestad: Sure. Slagle: Connecting to that. Was it your intent or is it your intent to run this out to the eastern side of that eastern most row of offices? I assume the walkouts. Mark Undestad: Again you're talking about... Slagle: Yep. Mark Undestad: We would certainly be agreeable to doing that. I would just want to make sure we have enough room between the parking, the property owners and things to get a sidewalk in there and again, you don't want to have those things right next to the, backing up to the curb on the back side like having the cars park on that or pushing beyond the sidewalks so. I would just want to make sure that we can get room back in there. Slagle: Okay, and was the trash enclosure as a condition? Okay. AI-Jaff: Relocate it. Slagle: Yeah. Mark Undestad: And the picnic tables came up too. I think there's a couple of areas in these, around the units that people already talking about doing a little extra gardening out 11 - - Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 there and putting their little picnic tables and things out there so I think that's just going to happen with the type of development that's out there. Keefe: I'm just interested in how you market these. I mean do you put a for sale sign on each unit or is it, how does it work? Mark Undestad: That's the question we kind of asked before we started this whole thing way back when, and it's amazing that it's mainly word of mouth. People just kind of heard about it and. Keefe: So you might have a road sign that says for sale but in terms of them turning over or whatever, each unit, each individual unit is then responsible, if they're going to resale it. Mark Undestad: If they're going to resale it, sure. I mean they would put it up for sale and their agent or themselves or whatever they want to do. Keefe: Okay. Slagle: Okay, I don't have anything else. Sharmeen, are you going to say anything? AI-Jaff: I will add a condition requiring the applicant to relocate the trash enclosure. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Al-Jaff: As well as bike racks. Slagle: Okay. So whoever makes the motion remember that we have two additional. Okay, and since this is a public hearing, thank you. I'm going to open this up for any folks here that would like to speak on the subject so please come up to the microphone. State your name and address and we'd like to hear from you. Jim Pensyl: Hi, I'm Jim Pensyl. I live at 1972 Andrew Court, in the townhomes directly south of Coulter, right across from the proposed development. First I have a question. My understanding is that access is from, access to this development is on Coulter. Mark Undestad: That is correct. Jim Pensyl: Where I'd like to suggest, have a major concern about the traffic out there already. The traffic and noise and people's failure generally to obey the speed limit. Leading to a lot of traffic noise and hazardous conditions to all the people that now walk around there. And I'd like to suggest an alternative extending McGlynn Road out westbound and make that the access point or going off Highway 5. The interesting thing about this whole area here on Coulter is that most people there are operating on a schedule. They're going to General Mills or the church or Chan Rec Center and that leads to hazardous conditions because they're usually running behind and therefore the 12 - - Planning Commission lh..;eting - May 4, 2004 gas peddle goes down a little bit further. So I'd like to offer that as an alternative. And then I'm curious about the development itself. How it'd be converned Section 515(b) Minnesota Statute or 317(a) or both. Mark Undestad: What's that? Jim Pensyl: The appropriate sections that have been converned. The office town home development. Is that Section 515(b) or 317(a)? Slagle: I'm looking at staff now. Any idea? Mark Undestad: Is that the legal side of, like the CIC plat kind of thing? Jim Pensyl: Right, exactly. Mark Undestad: The attorneys, they put all the CIC... Jim Pensyl: I might be an interested buyer, that's why I ask that question. But anyway, that's my concern. Or at least have a traffic study done. Look at maybe adding a couple more 30 miles an hour signs there. Maybe some speed bumps or something, but the traffic is horrendous out there now and I can personally attest that there are no traffic officers present that I clocked Pillsbury, or General Mills employee going 75 miles an hour there after getting off the 10:00 p.m. shift so. I would say the average speed is about 40, okay. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Any other folks want to add some comments? Lillehaug: Could we ask staff to address access to this site across Bluff Creek and also off of Trunk Highway 5 to address the gentleman's questions? Saam: Sure. Access, just to clarify, will come off Coulter but Stone Creek Drive is to the north of Coulter. That's going to be extended off of Coulter so direct access will come from Stone Creek Drive. First I think the resident mentioned coming from the east from McGlynn Road. Well to do that, as Commissioner Lillehaugjust mentioned, you'd have to cross at least a branch of Bluff Creek so now we're talking about a bridge and extension of a public street. I really don't think that's realistic for this site. And access off of Highway 5, the state has contacted us to, they failed to get us written comments in time for this meeting but they have contacted us and requested that access, direct access onto Highway 5 not be granted and so we've added that condition. I don't think the applicant was looking to come off of Highway 5 anyway so I will mention Coulter Boulevard is a collector. An MSA road in our town. It's meant to carry more traffic than a residential street. It's wider than a residential street. I don't doubt that the resident, I believe he's correct and that, I'm sure people do go faster on there. Like I said, it's wider. It's easier to put your foot down if you go out there. That's all I have. Slagle: If I can add Matt. Because if you think about where that's located, the hill from basically where General Mills is, that heads westward down to basically the ballfields. I 13 - - Planning Commission h~..;eting - May 4, 2004 can see where cars can pick up a lot of speed. Can we just ask a favor, if the staff can maybe look at where the signage is located and. Saam: Sure. Sure, we can definitely look at signage spacing. I can also look at our latest traffic study out there to see what we have clocked for speed and that sort of thing. I'm guessing that we haven't seen a lot of traffic out there quite frankly. There isn't a lot of businesses out there yet. With this one coming in maybe something in the future along the east side of Stone Creek. There's an office building going in now at Coulter and Stone Creek. We might see a little more traffic but I myself have not seen a lot of traffic up Coulter as compared with some other collectors in town. Slagle: Okay. Okay. Alright. Any other folks? Ladies and gentlemen. State your name and address please. Jim Sulerud: Hi, I'm Jim Sulerud. 730 Vogelsberg Trail, Chanhassen but I'm here representing the church that's adjoining and we're pleased with the development. We're pleased with our relationship with the developer and we expect everything to move forward smoothly and it's an improvement from the previous proposals that had us looking on the back side of warehouse kind of, office warehouse kinds of projects so we're pleased. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments. Anybody want to start? Lillehaug: Can I ask a couple of questions before comments of staff? Slagle: You may. Lillehaug: Good. When we get to conditions, staff talked about increasing the radiuses for, better accommodating the fire trucks. Does this preclude the discussion requiring sprinkling of buildings then? Saam: No. The Fire Marshal said they were all going to be sprinkled anyways so that took care of his issue with the area lift truck and that sort of thing but he still wants to make sure he can get his pumper, which is the smaller truck but still a bigger sized vehicle in there. Lillehaug: I see. Okay. I start out with comments I guess then. Slagle: Yes, you may. Lillehaug: Alright. Well the tougher one I'm going to start with and that'd be screening on Trunk Highway 5. Simply because there's only a 10 foot easement there, I don't think that really precludes the full screening from Highway 5. I think there's plenty of distance in there to provide some form of berm. I realize that the site is much lower but somehow I think the applicant needs to address better screening from 5. I agree, I think the 14 - - Planning Commission h~veting - May 4, 2004 intentions of the comp plan and our codes are to lessen the view of the parking lot and I think we'll be able to really see that parking lot. So I would propose to work with staff and work with MnDot to actually provide a berm and better screening along 5 and I realize that providing the additional landscaping and overstory trees will help accommodate that, but I think it should be taken to an extent a little further. Working on it as if there was a 50 foot setback because there is room there. So that is one comment. I would like to add a condition to dimension of parking stalls to a 9 foot by 18 foot. Other than that, I think that is it. Yep. Slagle: Okay. Dan. Keefe: The comment that I would have, I would second Steve's request from trying to upgrade the berming or whatever we need to do along Highway 5. And then I think you already addressed that we do have requirements for the additional landscaping so that's taken care of. In regards to that, in terms of the location of those. I mean if we were to upgrade along 5 and then how do we sort of allocate those? Is there a. AI-Jaff: We will work very closely with the City Forester who will look at the health of the tree at maturity and the species and the way they are clustered. Keefe: Okay, good. That's it. Slagle: Okay. I don't have any comments. So, anybody want to make a motion? Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 17. And I think 3 and 7 are possibly the same. They certainly have the same intentions. Does staff think we can combine them or are they different? Slagle: Steve was your, point of clarification. Your conditions, you said 17 so you're deleting 18, 19 and 20? That we're. Lillehaug: Let's go up to 20. Where you getting 20 from? Slagle: Well 19 was, or excuse me. Cross parking's already. Well cross parking. Lillehaug: Let's go 1 through 19 and then I'll add more. Can we delete or combine them, 3 and 7? Or are they different? AI-Jaff: 3 and 17? Lillehaug: 3 and number 7. They both deal with cross access agreements. AI-Jaff: We can combine them. 15 - - Planning Commission lh..;eting - May 4, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. And then number 20. I'd like the applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and then to go over to the cul-de- sac and then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail system. So that is number 20. Number 22. Relocate the trash enclosure as directed by staff and also add another one as indicated by staff. Number 22. Slagle: I think that was 21, right? Because you went from 20 to 22. Lillehaug: Okay. 19 was added by staff. 20 was, I don't even remember now. Slagle: Okay. AI-Jaff: May I? Slagle: Help him out there Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: Can we add those conditions to the site plan? Approval. Slagle: Actually good point. AI-Jaff: I'd rather keep the subdivision and the site plan separate. Slagle: Good point. Lillehaug: Okay. I guess I'm done then with that motion. Slagle: But we will combine 3 and 7, correct? AI-Jaff: We will combine 3 and 7. Lillehaug: So is it just 1 through 19? Is that what you guys are telling me? AI-Jaff: 1 through 19. Well 18 now because we combined. Lillehaug: 1 through 19 combining 3 and 7. AI-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Done. Slagle: Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Slagle: Any discussion? 16 - - Planning Commission k~eting - May 4, 2004 Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $64,268. 2. A park fee of $94,010 shall be paid for the 13.43 acres at the time of the replat. 3. Submit a private cross-access and cross-parking easement against all lots at time of final plat recording. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against all lots. 4. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1004,1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2103, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5302. 5. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 6. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 7. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm pond and creek. 8. Any off site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 9. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 10. The site has previously been assessed for utility and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $103,521.12. This assessment may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis or paid at the time of final platting. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will also be applicable for the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain. The hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 11. All of the public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the public utilities will be 17 - .- Planning Commission kveting - May 4, 2004 turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is 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. The applicant must be aware that public utility improvements will require a pre- construction meeting before building permit issuance. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and the Watershed District. 12. On the utility plan: a. Show the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Add a storm sewer schedule. c. Revise the Sewer Note No. 1 to be, "All sanitary services shall be 6"PVC SDR26. d. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled." e. Remove the existing 24 inch storm stub to the north and bulkhead the invert at the manhole. f. Delete the sanitary sewer connection at the southwest corner of the site and utilize the existing sanitary stub in the cul-de-sac. g. Revise the proposed storm sewer within the cul-de-sac from a 12 inch to a 15 inch pipe. 13. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Revise the side slope to 3: 1 maximum along the northeast side of the parking lot and at the southeasterly corner of Lot 25. 14. The 8 inch water and sewer mains will be considered public utility lines since they serve multiple lots. As such, minimum 30 foot wide public easements will be required over the portion of the public utility lines that are outside of the right- of-way. 15. The Stone Creek Drive cul-de-sac must be built with a 48 foot radius and B-618 concrete curb and gutter. 16. The private street must be built to a 9 ton design, paved to a 26 foot width, and contained within a 40 foot private easement. The developer will be required to submit certification reports from a soil testing company which show that the private street was built to these standards. 18 - .- Planning Commission kveting - May 4,2004 17. Lot 26 may be used for parking purposes only. 18. The applicant shall execute a cross parking agreement with the Family of Christ Lutheran Church which shall encompass the 60 parking spaces shown in Attachment 7. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Slagle: Let's move onto the site plan. Do I have a motion for the site plan? Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 11. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: And I would like to revise, give me a second here. Revise number 3(c) where it says stall length and widths. I'd like that revised to stall length and width shall be 9 foot by 18 feet. And then number 12. Is this where I can add conditions? Slagle: Yep. Lillehaug: The one about the walk skirting the south end of the parking lot, around the cul-de-sac up to the existing trail. And then number 13, relocate the trash enclosure and add the trash enclosure as directed by staff. And number 14, add bike racks to the plan. And forgot to discuss this but number 15, if entrance to the buildings that are located on the south, if entrances are granted on both sides of that building, that there should be walk on the north side of the building also. Was that 15? I think I'm done there. AI-Jaff: One more? Work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berm. Lillehaug: Oh thank you. Yep. Saam: And the turning radiuses. Lillehaug: And the turning radiuses would be 17. Anything else? Slagle: Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Slagle: Okay, and there could have been amendments there. Steve, if I may offer something, and maybe it's tied in with staff's idea of the screening but you mentioned the POO, what's unique. Obviously I think the site from aesthetic standpoint, from a building standpoint looks good. I'm thinking maybe one of the things we might want to 19 - .- Planning Commission l\~vèting - May 4, 2004 consider, and I throw this out as an amendment, is maybe requmng more than the required plantings because you have, I think you have an opportunity for a site that could be, I mean first of all it's going to be beautiful but can we make it even more beautiful? The path is there. The water's there. If on the east side of the creek, those what we've seen before proposed, I mean it's sort of going to be a really natural area. So I'll throw out a friendly amendment that we require kind of, staff help me out here. I mean what could we require from a planting standpoint other than the minimum, because I can tell you that 36 trees, that's a large area for just 36. I mean they're not going to make that much of a difference. So I'm just wondering, is there any help you can give me staff? Keefe: Particularly along Highway 5. Slagle: Exactly. Lillehaug: And are you trying to stay away from, you know in lieu of berming more trees or? Slagle: Actually both. I almost use the General Mills example that we had with Coulter where we, to their credit they stood up and built a berm and added trees. I probably would have liked to have seen a few more trees, but nonetheless I think they did a great job so again, and maybe it's as simple as you guys just working with the applicant but I want to have a sense that something's going to happen. AI-Jaff: I would request that you allow us to work with the city forester and the applicant.. . Slagle: I know long time resident, I know. Al-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Then I'll withdraw that attempted friendly amendment so. Lillehaug: So I thin it's addressed in a round about way on condition l(b) of the site plan. It says applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 or overstory trees, so I guess adding to that a minimum and then work with staff a little more to maximize that. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. We have some additional amendments. Any other comments? Well let's take a vote. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: 20 - - Planning Commission l\.weting - May 4, 2004 a. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in buffer yards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. b. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 overstory trees in the parking lot to meet minimum requirements. c. Norway maple shall be replaced by a more suitable tree selection. 2. Building Official conditions: a. Buildings (units) over 2,000 square feet in gross floor area are required to be protected with automatic fire sprinklers. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. An accessible route must be provided from the accessible parking spaces to the entrances of all units. The maximum slope of the accessible route is 1/20. d. Separate water, sewer and fire protection services must be provided for each piece of property. e. Exterior walls less than ten (10) feet from property lines must be of fire resistive rated construction in accordance with IBC Chapter 6 and terminate in accordance with IBC Chapter 7. f. Separate male and female restrooms must be provided in each unit with an occupant load greater than 15, as determined by IBC Table 1003.2.2.2. g. Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. h. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to begin the preliminary plan review process to discuss permit procedures. 3. On the site plan: a. Revise the scale from 1"=20' to 1"=40'. b. Show the existing and proposed trail/sidewalk adjacent to the site. c. Show all dimensions for the improvements, i.e. drive aisle width, cul-de-sac radius, curb return radii, stall lengths and widths shall be 9 feet by 18 feet. 4. No direct access to Highway 5 is allowed. 5. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Remain open when the area is not actively being worked. ) Steeper than 3: 1 10: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 7 days 14 days 21 days 21 - - Planning Commission h~~èting - May 4, 2004 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch, or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. 9. The applicant shall provide a second trash enclosure area south of Lot 5. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Three additional fire hydrants will be required. Install one southwest of Lot 11 in the parking island. Install one southeast of Lot 6 in the parking island. Install one in the island between Lots 20 and 21 on the south side of the building. If necessary, please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location. Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. 11. Extend the sidewalks and relocate accessible parking access aisle as shown in Attachment 1. 12. The applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and over to the cul-de-sac, then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail system. 13. Relocate the trash enclosure and add another one as indicated by staff. 14. Add bike racks on the plan. 15. If entrances are granted on both sides of the southern buildings, there should be a walk on the north side of the building 22 - .- Planning Commission l\-LVeting - May 4, 2004 16. The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berming along Highway 5. 17. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Slagle: Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-59 TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, 8634 VALLEY VIEW COURT, PAUL & LAURA GRA VES, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16. Public Present: Name Address Kent Ludford Paul & Laura Graves 8615 Valley View Court 8634 Valley View Court Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Thank you very much. Let's begin with questions for staff. Anybody want to start? Tjornhom: I have one question, and in reading this, are there 3 entrances then to this? Bouvet: Correct. There's existing right now one entrance from the garage. One main entrance to the home, and then what they're proposing to do is have an additional, what we consider a main entrance so we have a combined total of 2 from the garage. Tjornhom: So there's 2 entrances from the garage. Bouvet: And one main entrance in the front of the home. Tjornhom: Okay. And so why are there 2 entrances from the garage? Bouvet: That's probably a question to be asking the applicant. I honestly don't know what the future intention of that would be, from how it's situated to under staff's determination it's to be used as a separate entrance up into the suite above. The stairway actually kind of makes a barrier between the two sides of the garages. One going right into the laundry room and the entryway directly to the left of the existing opening, right up through the mud room and up to the mother-in-law suite. 23