Loading...
PC 2005 04 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Jerry McDonald, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke and Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Mark Undestad and Deborah Zorn. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Sacchet: Now as we do every year at the first meeting in April, we adopt our Bylaws and I don’t think we changed anything in them from last year, but since we have several new people, should we just quickly run through the highlights of it maybe. Aanenson: I’ll just ask if anybody has any questions or changes? Sacchet: Questions or ideas that you looked at it beforehand. So if we’re all happy with it, we have to take a motion to adopt them right? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Anybody want to make a motion to adopt them? Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission adopts the Bylaws of the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen as published April 5, 2005. Sacchet: Do we have a second? McDonald: I’ll second. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission adopts the Bylaws of the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen as published April 5, 2005. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR. Sacchet: Then we have election of Chair and Vice Chair. First a Chair, and the way we do this, we take nominations and then we vote, right? Aanenson: That’s correct. Sacchet: So do we have any nominations? Papke: I nominate Uli Sacchet as the Chair. Larson: I’ll second that. Sacchet: I’m willing to do it but I’m also willing to pass it somebody else if somebody else wants to do it. Larson: Come on. You can nominate yourself. Anybody. Kurt, Dan, Jerry. McDonald: I’ll nominate myself for the position. Sacchet: Jerry nominates himself. Alright. Now how do we proceed? Aanenson: You need someone to make a motion and second the motion for somebody to get a majority. Sacchet: Alright. Somebody make a motion. Papke: I make a motion for Uli Sacchet as Chair of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Keefe: I’d second that. Papke moved, Keefe seconded to appoint Uli Sacchet as Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Sacchet and McDonald who abstained and the motion carried. Sacchet: I guess I’m doing it for another year. Thanks guys. Vice Chair. Do we have any nominations? McDonald: Okay, I’d like to nominate myself for Vice Chair. Sacchet: Alright. Do we have any other nominations? Do we have a motion? Keefe: I’ll make a motion that Jerry becomes Vice Chair. Sacchet: Do we have a second? 2 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission appoint Jerry McDonald as Vice Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: Alright. Now that we have that in place, I guess I’m going to have to sit in the middle a little longer. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO COMMERCIAL; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR TWO LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND AN 8,100 SQUARE FOOT BACK WASH TANK, APPLICANT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-12. Public Present: Name Address Todd W. Perttu 203 ½ Chan View David Peters Briarwood Court Duane Day St. Cloud SEH Randal Leppala St. Paul SEH Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start on this side? Papke: Bob, it wasn’t quite clear to me what the access is. Where does the street come from on the west side there? th Generous: Great Plains Boulevard and then West 79 Street is the extension into it, so behind the car wash and then Brown’s Auto and the lube place. So it’s that same street and it would just extend that roadway down. Papke: Okay. How will this impact the traffic, the foot bridge access and traffic? It looks like the foot bridge, the bridge, foot bridge over Highway 5 is going to come down and then feed onto the cul-de-sac there. Generous: Nann, if we could go to the overhead. Yes, the foot bridge comes here. There actually will be 2 connections over to the pedestrian. To the street. One would be the trail that th comes down and connects back to 5. Also loop back to West 79 Street extension. Or you can come down here and then there’s a stairway and people can get to the sidewalk, and then cross th that and get on, take West 79 Street. Papke: And how does that differ from what exists today? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Generous: I believe, this just loops up to the end of the cul-de-sac which is right here. And this part is the same. Coming back down the hill connecting to 5. Papke: The only reason I’m so, oddly I run the Dave Huffman 5K every fall. You wouldn’t believe that I could actually do that. I know. It’s dubious but, and this is towards the end and so there’s 500 or whatever people that are going to go trooping through there every September and I was just curious as to how that will impact that particular. Generous: I would think they’d run down the road and then come that way. Papke: Okay, so that no issues. Generous: I don’t anticipate that being a problem. Unless they try to take that shortcut of course on down the steps. Papke: The views of the roof from the foot bridge and from some of the buildings that are going to be on the other side of Highway 5, is there going to be a little bit of a view down on the facility? Is the roof going to be visible at all? Generous: I wonder, that might be a better question for the architect. Duane Day: I’m Duane Day from SEH. There will be a small portion of the roof that’s. This is the view that you would have from your, from the bridge. And as you can see on this area here, there is a small portion of standing seam metal roof that would be visible. Papke: You think that will be a reasonably aesthetic view given, is that glass block that I, one of those windows? What’s the composition of those windows? Pseudo glass block. Duane Day: Those windows are actually an insulated translucent panel. This panel, as was mentioned, does diffuse light so that if you’re inside you don’t get a real glare. It also has a very high insulation value compared to glass, and is much stronger. We are planning to have those windows located in these areas and in front of them we will be using a grill very similar to the pattern of the railing that’s on the bridge. We have really looked to the bridge as an inspiration for our design. And we have also, will repeat that then again on the ramp railings and stair railings. Sacchet: Deborah, you have any questions? Zorn: No. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions. First one deals with orientation of where all this is at. You’ve got a traffic circle that’s currently down there. Where does that overlay on the map for all this with the new road and everything? Duane Day: I can trace that. The current circle comes down around and then back out. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 McDonald: Okay. So we’re going to eliminate the circle and this is going to set pretty much where the circle currently is then. On the bridge, currently now you can come across the bridge and you’ve got kind of a straight shot. Is there anyway to do away with those steps and make that more of a ramp down through there? And what I’m thinking about, I know a lot of people ride bicycles across that, or you know just walking but is the, I know the elevation, that’s probably the steepest spot as far as the elevation. Duane Day: That is the steepest spot. We’re looking at an elevation difference somewhere approximately 10 feet. That’s why we will extend the bicycle, well the trail that will be completely handicapped accessible or bicycle accessible. McDonald: Okay. And the other question I’ve got for the city, by the time we go and we put all this in and you look at the lot that’s left down there, what kind of use do you see for that? I know you say that it may be used for a city building or maybe we’re going to look at something in the future. An office building or something, but you’ve sandwiched everything in between a railroad tracks to the north. That land kind of begins to get kind of small down there. I don’t think there’s going to be much room left for any parking of any facility. What did you have in mind to put down there. Aanenson: The city does own that entire piece of property. As Bob indicated, that was a Red-E- Mix site. It was actually a heavy industrial type use there. And when the bridge went in, at that time we were contemplating a larger park there. Going back to the original use, because the city owns it and the commercial nature, certainly we would look at a use that’s probably not a high destination, traffic trip generator. So we look at it could be an office destination so we would look at that carefully based on trip generation. McDonald: Okay. If it were to be an office, what would you do about parking? Aanenson: We’ve looked at site plans actually when we did the subdivision to see if that could work, and it’s going to take a specific use that would meet that. Couldn’t fit on there. Again, getting access off of Great Plains is difficult because of the railroad tracks and you’re too close to Highway 5 frontage for the turn movement there so really the only way to get access would be via this road. McDonald: Okay. And then the other thing you’re wanting to do is to exceed the diameter of circles. You want to go to 60 feet here. Is that because of the type of vehicles that may be coming, or radius. I’m sorry, the radius of the circle I think is to 60 feet. Is that because of the type of vehicles that will be coming back in for water treatment and everything? Saam: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly why. Semi’s delivering chemicals once a month. And just for ease of movements turning around that, that’s exactly the reason. McDonald: Okay, and that gives you enough room then for that and everything. Saam: Yes, again it’s larger than our standard commercial cul-de-sac radius of 48 so that’s why we don’t have any issue with it. I mean it’s plenty large. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And then the other concern I had was again because of the width of that, there’s a steep bank right there where the railroad tracks go. How close are we actually going to be to that? Are we going to impact any of that to where you’ve got to worry about anything on the, I guess the little valley that the train tracks run through. Because there’s not a lot of room there. Saam: Yeah, oh go ahead. Duane Day: I was just going to point out, right now the road is slated boundary is right here. And the valley that you’re referring to basically starts at this point going down here and then coming back up. McDonald: Okay, so we’re not going to have to worry about having to put in any retaining walls or any of those things? Duane Day: No, not on that site. McDonald: Okay. All the questions I had. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Debra. Debbie. Deborah. Eventually get it. Debbie. Larson: I answer to both. Sacchet: Any questions? Mark? Dan? Keefe: Yeah, just had a couple quick ones. Parking for this. The requirement is just one space for this building, is that what I’m reading in here? Generous: They have 4. Keefe: Yeah, but the requirement is only 1. Generous; It’s mostly storage. Keefe: Yeah, but in the conditions I think it says that 1 accessible parking space with an access be provided. That is all we have to provide for this? Generous: Well they’re providing. Keefe: They’re providing more it looks like. It looks like. Duane Day: That is accessible. Generous: Handicap access. Keefe: Oh okay. One handicap accessible parking space, okay. But in terms of the amount of parking that’s required per building, of this use, we’ve got more than enough? 6 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Generous: Yes. What the water superintendent told me, there’s 1 person that will probably be there. Keefe: Yeah, alright. But in terms of code for this type of building. Aanenson: Correct, and that’s based on the square footage. There’s office that you’d use and then the warehouse of the water treatment plan doesn’t require parking. So it’s just based on that office component part that the parking standards are derived from. Keefe: Okay so, alright. So we’re fine in regards to that. I don’t know much about water treatment plants but in terms of the pool, is there like odor which comes out of these things and how do we deal with that? I understand the pool’s underground but can you speak to any of that at all? Saam: Yeah, I mean I’m not an expert. I toured a few water treatment plants and I guess from an outside, at least in my experience, you don’t notice any odor. Again we’re different than a sewer treatment plant. Those things do stink. Keefe: Yeah, but I mean you do have water that’s just sitting there and a potential bacteria could build up. I don’t know. Saam: Yeah, the water that’s sitting there for the most part has been treated. There’s some coming in that when it goes through the filter and then the backwash tanks it’s still dirty, if you will, but it’s mostly, for the most part it’s moving around. It’s not like we’re storing a large amount of dirty water, if that’s what you’re getting at that. That isn’t happening. Keefe: Yeah, so at least from your understanding we really probably shouldn’t see any sort of odor or? Saam: No, and I’ll give you an example. I live in Savage. There’s a water treatment plant there at the end of a residential cul-de-sac which we toured, so that, it’s been there 5 years and the city there told us the neighbors love it because never have parties you know. There’s no stench or anything like that so, I mean that’s a great case in point where the places don’t stink. Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to you know, at one point I guess this land was set aside for parks and open space, something along that line. Was there envisioned that, and it was sort of a gateway to Chanhassen. Was it envisioned that we would have some sort of a entry signage to Chanhassen at that location and would that be something we would consider as a part of this, just since it’s a city owned? Aanenson: Sure, that’s a good question, and actually I’ll back a little bit on that. When the bridge got put in place, over on the Legion site it was contemplated at that time that actually that would be the Southwest Metro Park and Ride so when we put in for the ISTEA money, or the funding to get the pedestrian bridge over Highway 5. The rationale was anticipated that there’d actually be a park and ride there. The Red-E-Mix site was really just to clean up that horrible use and the trips that were right in the core of downtown and the fill that was going on with that, so the reason it got converted to the parks open space at that time was really the touch down point of the bridge and Bill Morrish who was working with the City, he was with the University of 7 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Minnesota, had recommended some entrance landscape areas so we contemplated actually just doing, we went through a lot of different iterations of doing signs and monuments and we had big maple leafs and kind of moved back to what are we about. We’re about trees and so actually they kind of came up with the plan, just doing landscaping and if you look, that was one of the things we talk about. There is some significant trees that are out in front of what is now, what we call the old Hanus building. So that was one of the issues that, and Jill’s been working, our Forester’s been working to re-vegetate that slope but really that’s kind of what the goal was and not to put a monument sign but just something more subtle and that would be trees in that area. Keefe: Now we’re actually going to be reserving a lot to the east of that, so presumably that would be another building which would go in. Aanenson: The right building. It’s got to fit on the lot. Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. And we’re not anticipating any signage on this building other than maybe Chanhassen Water Treatment Facility or? Duane Day: I think we’ll be down to as little as just having the street address on it. We don’t want to call attention to it. Keefe: Okay, that’s it. Sacchet: Yeah, I’d like to dig a little further into what you just brought up Dan. So you’re saying originally when it was condemned was just to clean it up primarily. But we had this vision at the time to make it like a park like, open space gateway so we’re totally abandoning that at this point? Aanenson: Correct. It was never, that was an idea, it was never implemented into our ordinance. There was a couple different versions of that. Actually Bill Morrish proposed one of them. Then Hoisington-Koegler actually did another version of that, and that was kind of Vision 2000, which called out different vegetation upon different intersections in town. One being a sugar maple. One being an oak, but that was never really carried through into an ordinance format. We always go back to saying, you know when we do those entrance things, we kind of fall back on heavily landscaping because that’s what, no matter what corner we’re at, that says a lot about who we are. Just the trees and that sort of thing. Sacchet: Now you say there are several types of uses that could go onto that extra parcel. Because it seems to be quite a significant change of direction at least with what was considered over the years. Do we have somebody who’s interested in it or do we have an idea of what to do? Aanenson: Yes, we’ve had calls on it, yes over the past, yeah. Sacchet: And so we also have some ideas what the City could do with it? Aanenson: Sure. I mean I think, those are the things that we always have to weigh. You know somebody holding onto it for some other use. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Sacchet: What would the city do with it? Do we have anything specific that would fit there? Aanenson: Not at this time. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. At this point do we have a variance in there? It says in the staff report th a variance for setback to West 79 Street. Generous: That went away when we took the dedication of additional right-of-way out. Sacchet: Okay, so that’s not an issue anymore. The retaining wall, the retaining wall next to the access road on the north side of the underground tank I guess you call that. Seems to be pretty big. I mean it says 6 to 10 feet. And I’m a little bit at a loss. I don’t really fully see the grading lines on the plan. I had a little bit hard time envisioning what the grading is actually taking place and I wonder whether you could give us a little bit of an idea how that works. Duane Day: Basically what we’re doing with that is breaking that up into two shorter retaining walls rather than going with one huge wall. There’d be a retaining wall that would be right adjacent in here with a second retaining wall, excuse me. With a second retaining wall behind it about 10 feet. Sacchet: So the road is lower than the building there? Duane Day: The road is lower than the building, yes. Sacchet: By about how much? Duane Day: We have set the building actually up approximately 4 feet from the, to create a loading dock which, and from that, the pavement at the loading dock out to the street slopes down another foot. Sacchet: Okay. So we’re going to have about 5 feet then? Duane Day: There’d be approximately 5 feet to the street itself, yes. Sacchet: And the reason why we have to put the retaining wall in is that we don’t have to dig as deep to put the tank down or how does that compute? Duane Day: We have a problem with the water level. Sacchet: Oh it has to obviously be… Duane Day: We have to be above the water table. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright, so that makes the requirement. Okay, and then I have a detail question. It’s probably one for you as the architect as well. On the, like we have that loading dock at the western end of the building and that gets access from the north side. Duane Day: That’s correct. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Sacchet: Now it seems like on the south side however it also has an opening door just on the opposite side of the building and I was just. Duane Day: Is this what you are referring to sir? Sacchet: Yes. Is that actually an opening door or it seems like on the plan there was. Duane Day: No, actually what that is, it’s a large louver. Inside that room we will have an emergency standby generator and in order to cool the generator we have to run a large amount of air. Sacchet: So it’s a door to let in air basically, if you would have to run the generator? Duane Day: It’s a louver to let in air, yes. Aanenson: Like a shutter. Sacchet: A shutter, okay. Alright, that’s my questions. Thank you very much. Duane Day: You’re welcome. Sacchet: Now how, any other questions? Yes, go ahead Jerry. McDonald: Just a follow-up. You’d said that there were roughly 3 sites. What’s the other sites you looked at and why did you determine that this was the best site to put this on? Saam: I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the question Commissioner McDonald. McDonald: Okay. During the presentation you had mentioned I think there were 3 other sites you had looked at and you had chosen this one. What were the 3 other sites and why did you choose this one? What makes this a better site than the others? Saam: Did you mention 3 sites Bob? I guess I wasn’t. McDonald: I could be wrong. Saam: The reason I know that we took, or chose this one. First of all we own the property so we didn’t have to secure land which is costly in Chanhassen. So we own the property. It’s geographically it’s close to an existing well field just to the north. We have 3 wells there. Wells 2, 5 and 6, and the way, in a perfect world you’d like to have your treatment plant as close to your wells because if you think about it, you pump up the raw water with the well. You get it to the treatment plant. Treat it and then you disperse it from there so we don’t want to for instance have the treatment plant a mile from all the wells and have to have all this piping and that sort of thing. So geography wise we own the property. But we still had to check with consultants Department of Health on the design of the building. They have certain requirements…If there were wetlands on the site. You know we still had to do a site investigation to make sure it would fit here. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 McDonald: Okay, so of all the sites you looked at this one meets all the criteria that we need to put this plant in Chanhassen. Saam: Correct. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Okay, good questions. Alright, if there are no further questions. Now the City is actually the applicant so we already heard from the City obviously so we go to the public hearing. At this point I’d like to invite anybody who’d like to address this item in front of us to come forward and tell us if you have any comments. Yes, if you would step up to the podium and move the microphone your way please. State your name and address for the record. Todd Perttu: Yeah, my name’s Todd Perttu. I live on the 200 block of Chan View. I probably wouldn’t have moved there if I thought that there was a water treatment plant going up a block away from me. And certainly I could expect less for my house if I was to sell it with that water treatment plant there. I wasn’t really assured with the person going to a different water treatment plant and somebody saying well they’d rather have a treatment plant there than a party. Not reassured that there might not be loaders. I’ll probably be able to see this from my back deck and. Sacchet: You’re just across from. Keefe: The north side or? Sacchet: The north side, yeah. Todd Perttu: Yeah. Aanenson: Can you zoom in? Todd Perttu: I’ve got the odd shaped lot right there. Sacchet: Okay, thank you for pointing that out. Todd Perttu: If there is odors and everything else, is there something, some kind of recourse that we’ve got to take to come back on? Sacchet: Well we do have ordinances for the city in terms of, what nuisance ordinances that cover odors. Saam: Did you want me to address that? Sacchet: Yes, maybe we could just briefly address that please. Saam: I would think certainly if there were odors that would happen at a site like this, while we don’t expect them, I would think that the city would do whatever we need to do to correct those. There are certain things, scrubbers, that sort of thing that business industry use, but again this 11 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 isn’t going to be like an industrial. It’s not like General Mills/Pillsbury’s going to be moving in next door. Really I don’t expect any odors there but if there would be some, definitely the City would I would hope step up to the plate and correct them. Todd Perttu: Okay. I’m going to be able to probably see this from my back deck. Is there any plans for a wall or anything else that might be near the railroad tracks? Between the railroad tracks on the north side of the tracks or anything else to maybe block the vision or view of this. Sacchet: I’m not sure whether that would be feasible with the elevations. Keefe: You know one of the things I did notice in the write up was, it looked like the landscaping plan there were, it looks like there was going to be an extra number of trees. An extra amount of landscaping. Could somebody speak to the landscaping? Because it looks like the number of trees at least that are required are geez you know like 5 on the Highway 5 side and you’ve got 23 scheduled. Generous: Well they have, this is a landscaping plan. They have this area in here. There’s 5 trees proposed in that. There’s some shrubs, understory trees. However you know my question to you is, have you seen this building elevation? It’s a block building with glass. That’s you know. Aanenson: I think that’s what might be helpful if we can just meet with this gentleman and get a point from his house showing what he would see. Because he’s actually a ways… McDonald: Well the other thing too, in that particular area there’s already a number of trees there. This is directly behind the graveyard where the building’s going to go in… Aanenson: That’s my point. We can meet with him and try to resolve that. McDonald: Yeah, because I don’t believe that sight’s going to be a problem. Sacchet: Would that satisfy you to meet with staff and then talk through it specifically what it does from your angle? Todd Perttu: Sure, as long as. Sacchet: Do you want to come up once more? Todd Perttu: Maybe we could put up that, not this last slide but the one prior to that showing where the tanks are. I wasn’t really sure where that was in relation to where the bike trail… Generous: There’s the tanks but they’re all underground. There’s 7 retaining walls to the north of that. That’s what you’ll see is landscaping and the retaining walls. Not a tank, and then this will just be green space that goes down to the trail system. Sacchet: The tank is underground so and I think from your side, that’s mostly what you see is the green space. 12 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Todd Perttu: Yeah, that’s the big thing. I thought maybe I was going to be seeing the tanks. Sacchet: Alright. Well I’m glad we were able to put that one to rest. I would be concerned about that too. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, are you? No? You want to speak up? David Peters: I would just like to ask one quick question. Sacchet: Yeah, why don’t you come up. Ask your question. That’s what the public hearing is for. And if you want to state your name and address, just for the record please. David Peters: My name’s David Peters. I live on Briarwood Court. I just would like to know whether or not this facility would eliminate other facilities of this nature in other parts of Chanhassen. Sacchet: Can you address that? I guess that would be a question for you Matt. Saam: Sure. The current plan, well I can say this won’t treat all of our water. But the current plan is this is the first of 2 planned plants in town. Now nothing has happened on the second one. In fact we don’t even own the land yet, but the plan is to build a future second one. To treat the remainder basically of the pump water in town. Keefe: And Matt, just to clarify, there isn’t a water treatment facility like this in Chanhassen is there? Saam: No. Keefe: This will be the first of it’s kind in the city. Sacchet: No, it’s my understanding, I think I just got an actually notice in the mail that there is an information session next week, is it Thursday? th Saam: The 14. th Sacchet: On the 14 about the consideration of location near Galpin for, because that would then be the second water treatment plant that you’re referring to, okay. And that’s probably what you’re asking about too. David Peters: In regards to that, could this plant then be increased in size so that no other plant would be necessary? Saam: Based on what I know of it, no. Just because of the site constraints. We’re so tight there as it is that I don’t believe we have plans for future. Exactly, and like I mentioned before, we have some wells in the Galpin area. It wouldn’t make any sense to try to get those wells to come here just based on piping costs and all that so. David Peters: What chemicals are used? 13 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Sacchet: Do we know? Saam: Yeah, basically there’s a chlorinator. There’s an oxidizer to take out the iron and manganese. That’s the big problem. And then there’s fluoride that we have to go on. David Peters: It only takes one person, so if there’s, I assume they’re there to run the equipment. How loud is the equipment? And does it run 24 hours so that people are going to hear that equipment outside the building 24 hours a day? Saam: I don’t believe again as with smell that noise is going to be a problem here. As far as equipment, a lot of this will be automated. The way you like the plants to work is that they work at night when, basically because the electricity is cheap then and a lot of people aren’t using the water. So at night they say pump the water, clean it. Get it all out and ready, and then during the day hopefully, maybe in July it won’t happen but they can pretty much shut down or do some other processes that won’t use up a lot of power. But yeah, we only plan on one full time person here so a lot of it will be automated. David Peters: And when was the other meeting for the potential other site? th Saam: It’s next Thursday. April 14. th Sacchet: The 14. Aanenson: In this room. Sacchet: In this room at what time? Generous: 6:00 p.m.. Sacchet: 6:00 p.m.. David Peters: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else have a comment to this topic? Seeing nobody, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. Want to start on this side? Keefe: Sure. I generally support this plan. I think it seems like it’s a nicely designed building. They’ve upgraded the landscaping from what the requirements are, which I think is positive. Pleased that the tanks are underground. I think from a landscaping and from an aesthetics standpoint that helps a lot, and it seems like they’ve addressed the paths and the walkways so I’m comfortable with it. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Mark, any comment? Undestad: I just agree with Dan. Great project, yeah. Sacchet: Ditto. Debbie. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Larson: My original thought was, what it would like to the residents that are nearby when I was reading this and I thought oh no. And then after I saw the plan and what they’re doing, you know they’re going beyond the required amount of trees and shrubbery and it looks like they’ve got a wonderful design, kind of making it a park looking site which was somewhat the original plan anyhow. I’m agreeing with this as well. Sacchet: Okay. Jerry. McDonald: Actually any concerns I had were pretty much answered in the questions and everything. You seem to have taken everything into account from engineering and architectural standpoint. The only concern I would have is that lot down to the east end but I don’t see that as being significant enough to oppose this so I’d be in favor of it. Sacchet: Thank you. Deborah. Zorn: I agree with comments that were made. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: I think the aesthetics are really exemplary. It seems to almost evoke, I don’t know if this was conscious or not but it seems to almost evoke the library design as well. Was that? Duane Day: We looked at that building… Papke: Yeah, yeah. And so from that perspective I think the biggest complaint we might have on this is, it doesn’t look like a water treatment plant. I mean it almost looks like a school or something so I wonder how many people will be fooled as to what’s actually there. The only concern I have at this point is, back to the noise issue. When the emergency generator runs, those things aren’t quiet. Now you know, the best scenario, it won’t run very often. You’ll probably run it more for testing purposes than you will under actual situation where it needs to operate. But that’s the only concern I have at this point, from a noise perspective or anything like that is the emergency generator. Randal Leppala: I’m Randal Leppala. I’m with SEH and a project designer that did the initial layout of this plant. The emergency generator room has a sound attenuator packets on it and they’re sized and designed to keep the noise at the Minnesota State restrictions on what db noise you can have at the property line, so this will be designed to reduce the noise at the property line to the levels. Aanenson: I just want to add too, and the louvers are facing the freeway which was a design feature. Sacchet: Alright, thanks Kurt. I don’t have too much to add. My one concern is that empty parcel to the east. I do believe this is an ideal place for the water treatment plant because it doesn’t need much traffic access. It fits in, even though it has to be a little sandwiched but I think they did an admirable job doing that, and it looks like a really attractive building. And considering the tank is under water and all that, I really think that aesthetically it’s not going to 15 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 be an issue. With your assurance about the noise and before what we said about the smells, I don’t think that should be an issue. And as we said before, the city does have ordinances that put a lid on that sort of stuff as it is. But my concern that the lot to the east, it seems like it’s really a pretty big jump from having a park like open space as an entrance to the city to all of a sudden have a lot that could be sold commercially. I have a little bit of problem with that personally but that’s not really the key point of this application in front of us. I certainly would want to stress that it’s going to be rather a delicate thing to fit something in there that traffic wise first of all, th it’s compatible with the very restrictive access that 79 Street provides, and then also to be compatible with the idea that this is kind of the first look at the downtown when people come in. I mean that’s why we got rid of the Red-E-Mix I would expect to a large extent, and why we thought maybe the landscaping would be the proper thing to have there. So I want to emphasize that concern, but that’s obviously not a reason to hold up this water treatment plant so that’s my comment. With that, I’m willing to take a motion. Papke: Do we need 3 or can we do this in one? Sacchet: We can do this in one. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Right? Aanenson: Yes. Papke: Okay. I make a motion, I make 3 motions that the first of all A, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use amendment for parks and open space to commercial. And B, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of nd the preliminary plat for Gateway East 2 Addition creating two lots, one outlot and right-of-way th for West 79 Street, plans prepared by Hanson Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. dated February 9, 2005, revised February 26, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to conditions 1 through 25. And C, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the site plan review for a 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an nd 8.100 square foot backwash tank on Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway East 2 Addition based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to conditions 1 through 10. Sacchet: Wow, that’s a long one. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Keefe: Attempt a friendly amendment to. Sacchet: Well let’s do a second first. McDonald: I second the motion. Keefe: Propose friendly amendment. There’s nothing in here in regards to the landscaping that is proposed in here. I mean do we typically add in where the city or the applicant would adhere to the proposed. Sacchet: It’s part of the plan, isn’t it? 16 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Aanenson: Yeah, it’s as shown on site plan dated would include the landscaping plan. If you want to just add something, including landscaping plan. Keefe: Including proposed landscaping plan, or landscaping plan as proposed by the applicant. Papke: That’s acceptable. Sacchet: Okay. Any other aspects? Alright. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Commercial. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of nd the preliminary plat for Gateway East 2 Addition creating two lots, one outlot and right- th of-way for West 79 Street, plans prepared by Hanson, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. dated February 9, 2005, revised February 26, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. 3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width must be 20 feet wide. 4. An access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 shall be recorded across Lot 1. 5. Submit a separate site plan, grading/drainage/erosion control plan and utility plan. 6. Pedestrian ramps per City Detail Plate No. 5215 are required at the street crossing of the proposed trail. 7. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show all proposed contour lines in bold. d. Show the emergency overflow elevation from the proposed pond. e. Show all proposed contours on the north side of the proposed trail and on Lot 2. f. Do not show the proposed sanitary/water lines on the grading plan. g. Show the proposed storm sewer to/from the pond. 17 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 8. On the site plan show the dimensions for street width, cul-de-sac radius, parking stalls, trail, etc. 9. On the utility plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utilities. b. Show the proposed rim and invert elevations for all sanitary and storm sewer. 10. The proposed retaining wall along the north side of the backwash tanks will require a building permit from the City’s Building Department. 11. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City’s Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be used along the entire south and west construction limits. A rock construction entrance, th per City Detail Plate No. 5301 must be added to the plans off of existing West 79 Street. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 12. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Chanhassen’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans, including plan and profile drawings of the proposed utilities, are required to be submitted at the time of final plat. 13. Additional signage shall be installed alerting motorists to the blind approach near the existing Hanus Building just west of the site. 14. The applicant shall work with the watershed district to provide regional water quality infrastructure on this site. 15. The flow path and velocity of the water from the flared end sections to the storm water shall be evaluated. 16. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) encompassing an erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed for the site. 17. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be developed. 18. Erosion control blanket shall be applied to the storm water pond and any disturbed areas between the flared end sections and the pond, as well as on any slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 19. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared end sections. 20. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time 18 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Steeper than 3:1 7 days (Maximum time an area can 10:1 to 3:1 14 days remain open when the area Flatter than 10:1 21 days is not actively being worked.) 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. 21. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 22. Inlet protection shall be provided following installation. Wimco-type inlet controls are recommended. th 23. A rock construction entrance shall be provided from the site to West 79 Street. 24. Chanhassen Type I silt fence shall be installed around the south and east sides of the site. 25. 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), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation), and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan Review for a 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an nd 8,100 square foot back wash tank on Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway East 2 Addition, including the landscaping plan prepared by the applicant, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits in the southwest corner of the property prior to any grading. 2. Staff will coordinate the transplanting of any existing maples prior to construction. 3. City staff and the water treatment plant consultants will research and determine if alternative ground covers can be used over the underground tanks. 4. Where appropriate, seeding will replace sod with the exception of along the curb line, trails and adjacent to the building. 5. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 6. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 7. One accessible parking space with an access aisle must be provided. 8. The west wall of the building must be of one hour fire resistive construction as it is located less than 30 feet from the property line. Openings in this wall must be in accordance with the building code. 9. The building owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 10. A site survey must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, SECTION 20-1564, BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Any? Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: Can you explain to me what you just said about the fact that we created a problem, because I’m not following that part of it. What did get rescinded? Generous: What was it, prior to 1998 the City did not have a Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance that required setbacks from the primary zone. Before that time we had lots of, specifically single family developments that had taken place within the corridor and they were, the lots had been built upon. And often times they were built within the primary zone. McDonald: Yep, there’s an example for that right here. Generous: Yes, and so we based this ordinance on the bluff protection ordinance which allowed the city adopted after development had taken place and we sort of said existing setbacks could remain. Well we adopted that and then we went through the entire zoning ordinance and we wanted to originally amend the wording. The specific section of the ordinance and we had changed the whole ordinance and by just changing that word, by not re-codifying what was adopted, we repealed it. And so we want to un-repeal it. That’s what the attorney told me I had to do. McDonald: Okay. So everything within the primary zone will now be able to protect and with it being appealed, that was a problem. Generous: Well only for existing, the existing developed lots. McDonald: Okay, so that way we don’t have to do variances and all the. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Aanenson: Exactly. You’re penalizing all those people every time they wanted to add on, do a deck, they had to come before you. And that wasn’t the intent. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? I have a math question. In the ordinance, the way it’s drafted, we state that in a normal case there is no disturbance within the first 20 feet of the setback to the primary zone, correct? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Now what we’re trying to accommodate is if there is a building that’s potentially already encroaching somewhat into the setback. That they have some wiggle room rather than everybody has to come for a variance. Now if I look at what we’re saying in clause 2. If the existing principle building or structure setback is less than 40 feet, and greater or equal to 20 feet, then the first 50% of the established zone setback shall remain undisturbed. That means if let’s say the building is 20 feet away, 10 feet will not be disturbed, correct? Generous: Right, be the buffer. Sacchet: Then if we look at number 3, if the existing principle building or structure setback is less than 20 feet, there shall be no grading alterations beyond the existing setback. So if the house happens to be 90 feet away, they cannot do anything in the whole 19 feet. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. So if you’re 19 feet you’re out of luck. If you’re 20 feet, you’re lucky because you still get 10 feet. Generous: Of grading. Sacchet: Okay. So that was intentional? Generous: Correct. You have to draw the line and. Sacchet: Okay. We couldn’t find a way to make it a little not quite as abrupt a switch there in the middle, because the person that has 19 feet is going to be not very happy. The person who has 20 feet, they’re going to be able to play and they’ll have a 10 feet setback. While the one with 19 can only have 19. Right? Generous: Yes. For alterations, right. Sacchet: For alterations, yeah. Generous: But usually that’s a, in these cases it would already have been graded and so we’re not going to allow any more grading beyond that point is what we’re saying. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Sacchet: Right. I just was pondering whether it would be a possibility to not have that gap in the sequence. I mean, I don’t know one way. Keefe: That would be without a variance. I mean they would need, require a variance. Sacchet: Right, without a variance. Okay. Keefe: So I think part of the change is to reduce the number of. Aanenson: That’s the main goal. Keefe: Right. So I mean we may still have 1 or 2 that may still need to get a variance if they want to do something. It would reduce, potentially reduce the number. I think your point is. Sacchet: How many of these variances do we see at this point? Aanenson: You haven’t because we had it in the code. And just when we re-codified. Sacchet: Oh, it hasn’t really taken full effect. Aanenson: No. Generous: We were receiving at least a half dozen in 4 months. Aanenson: But it was in place, you understand that. This ordinance as written here was in place. It just got removed when we re-codified. Sacchet: Okay, so we’re not changing. It’d be basically putting in place what was there before? Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Right. Sacchet: So the guy with 19 feet was out of luck before already and the guy with 20 feet lucked out already so that’s not new. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Well that’s a little bit of a sugar coating there. Alright, any other questions? Now this is a public hearing so I’d like to invite again anybody who wants to comment to this, to speak up at this point. This is your chance, and seeing. There’s somebody wiggling. No, not standing up. Seeing nobody, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for comments and discussion. Do we want to have any comments? Discussion anybody? Want to comment on this. Alright. Papke: We’re consistently inconsistent. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – April 5, 2005 Sacchet: Well I could sing a song about that in some other departments. Alright. So we would take a motion then I would presume. Keefe: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amending Bluff Creek Overlay District Section 20-1564. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Larson: I’d second that. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amending Bluff Creek Overlay District Section 20-1564. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 15, 2005 as presented. Sacchet: Before we adjourn I do want to point out that the last item on our agenda has been moved to discussion. The discussion on Liberty on Bluff Creek, Town and Country Homes so we’ll do that in discussion after we close the meeting. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 23