Loading...
PC 2015 11 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director OFFICIAL MAPPING OF HIGHWAY 101 FROM PIONEER TRAIL TO FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (CSAH 61). Oehme: Thank you Planning Commission members. Tonight before you we’d like to share our findings for the 101 improvements and environmental documentation that we’ve been working on for over a year. We’ve been working on this project with the State of Minnesota, MnDOT and then Carver County in conjunction with their staff and again we’ve been working on environmental documentation and preliminary design to try to figure out what the best future alignment for that section of 101 should be. As you know 101 has improved from basically south of Highway 5 down to Lyman, or to Pioneer Trail. That section’s been improved now and with the new river crossing going to be opening up next week it’s kind of imperative we, staff feels that this next last section of 101 be improved so we’re working with our partners at the County and State level to try to advance improvements to this section of roadway. So with that I’d like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates. He’s been helping the City with the environmental documentation and the preliminary design and kind of helping the City go through the process so with that. Aller: Welcome Mr. Horn. Jon Horn: Good evening Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As Mr. Oehme said we’ve been working on the Trunk Highway 101 project for about the last year. About 12 months worth of work. I’ve got a brief power point presentation. I’m going to try to cover a year’s worth of work in about 15 minutes. We’ve been working in conjunction with City staff as well as staff from Carver County and MnDOT so this project has really been a great example of a multi-agency project to try to deliver a transportation project. So I’m going to give you a little background history. Tell you a little bit about the project. I’ll talk about the preliminary design process that we went through and the preferred alignment that’s being recommended. We did go through an environmental review process so I’ll touch briefly on that. The official motion before you this evening is to recommend approval of the official map to the City Council. I’ll explain that process to you a little bit but that’s really the motion that we’re looking for from the Planning Commission this evening and I’ll tell you a little bit about next steps and then certainly Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 open it up for questions. So the project corridor is on the north end, and I know Paul can you maybe point this out. Pioneer Trail on the north end. There. Flying Cloud Drive on the south end is basically the corridor that we’re looking at. It’s about a mile long. A mile long piece of roadway. Some background history. Back in 2007 there was a corridor study that was done that really looked at the entire 101 corridor all the way from 212 down to the river. It looked at the improvements that would be necessary to support growth as well as address safety issues in that corridor. A number of improvements have since been made. Obviously as a part of the 212 project it addresses everything down to Lyman Boulevard. The piece from Lyman to Pioneer Trail was done a few years ago and then the piece down at the river is actually being done right now so this is really the last segment of 101 between 212 and the river that hasn’t been improved. Improvements are necessary to improve capacity. It’s a 2 lane roadway today. Proposed to go to 4 lane design. A lot of safety issues. Steep grades. Blind driveways. Tough curves. A lot of issues that need to be addressed. One of the things about the project that’s a little bit unique as we’re going through our process to figure out what the design for the roadway should be but yet it’s not currently funded so the construction’s actually not scheduled so we’re trying to do some advanced work. Identify the corridor. Identify the right-of-way needs. It also sets the City, the County, MnDOT up to pursue some additional funding for the project but this is not a project that right now that’s currently scheduled to go to construction at any point, although we’re hoping that will happen. So preliminary design process. Between the 3 agencies we sat down. We developed 5 alternative alignments and we took those 5 alternative alignments and we ran them through a number of screening criteria to try to compare and contrast and to pick the most appropriate alignment. We also went through a pretty extensive stakeholder engagement process. The agency group met once a month. We had a couple open house meetings. We had some individual property owner meetings and we have been in front of the City Council at 2 work sessions so we’ve tried to gather a lot of input to help us select that preferred alternative. I’m going to run quickly through the alternatives now and just kind of give you a sense of the various alternatives that we looked at and one of the big challenges of this product is because of the topography and the grades and the curvature. Earth work. Retaining walls. Some of those things were big factors that we considered as we went through the various alternatives. This is the first alternative, and I don’t Paul maybe can you give me a little help again just to help orientate people. So on the left hand side of the drawing. Right hand side. Left hand side of the drawing is the roundabout that’s being built as a part of the new river crossing so that’s Flying Cloud Drive at that end and then on the other end is Pioneer Trail so we tried to come up with a design as I said that took out some of those sharp curves. One of the big challenges of this project was to try to figure out a way to maintain access to the Vogelsberg Trail cul-de-sac and I don’t know Paul if you can maybe point that out. Right at that location so there’s 4 residential home sites at that location and the original goal was to try to avoid impacts to those home sites so this alternative basically wound between Flying Cloud Drive and Pioneer Trail and tried to maintain access and minimize impacts to the properties in the area so this was the first alternative. Under this particular scenario access to the Vogelsberg Trail area came from the south off of Flying Cloud Drive. Next alternative. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aanenson: Jon I was just going to tell you that we did tour this last fall with the Planning Commission and we went down to the roundabout and we stopped at some of those points so just to give them a sense as we knew this would be coming forward so I think it’s helpful for them when you go through it in more detail yeah. Jon Horn: Yeah and it’s certainly hard to tell, really understand the product area looking at a flat drawing because the topography is so significant out there that hopefully you all got a chance to understand how important it is to consider that as we went through design process. So this is a second alternative. This is a second alternative. Very similar to the first other than instead of having access to Vogelsberg Trail from the south it actually came from the north and Creekwood Drive but otherwise the alignment for 101 is very similar. Third alternative we actually looked at a scenario where instead of following 101 along the north end, we actually cut straight through and impacted the Halla Golf Course just south of Pioneer Trail. Right-of-way impacts more significant but just kind of a way to try to straighten out the alignment. This alternative at the Vogelsberg Trail cul-de-sac actually slid the alignment further to the west resulting in impacts to the 4 residential home sites on Vogelsberg Trail. The fourth alternative, the south piece south of Creekwood is very similar between this alternative and the previous. Instead of extending straight north to connect to 101 at Pioneer Trail, that actually more closely follows the existing alignment kind of where the Mustard Seed’s at as you approach Pioneer Trail. And then the fifth alternative was kind of a compromise and discussions of the Vogelsberg Trail people. They said well is there a happy medium between the alternatives that avoid us but have significant impacts with earth work and retaining walls and the one that takes us out, is there another alternative so this was kind of the alternative we came up in working with the Vogelsberg Trail residents. It maintains right-in/right-out access and again Paul maybe point that out. Right-in/right-out access so they wouldn’t have full access to Vogelsberg Trail. It’d be right-in/right-out only. So those are the 5 alternatives that we looked at. We did look at a number of screening criteria’s so we looked at roadway capacity, safety. We wanted to be able to provide trail accommodations in this area. There is an existing regional trail crossing in the area that we wanted to consider. We did look at right-of-way impacts. Looked at the ability to allow for future growth in this area. I know there’s a number of property owners that have interest in developing their properties so we wanted to consider that as went through the process. We did look at environmental impacts. Wetlands. Trees. Earth work. Impacts to the existing land that’s there. We looked at cost and we looked at future maintenance requirements. So through that process we came to alternative 3 so this was the alternative 3 alignment that I previously went through. Connects on the north end to Pioneer Trail. Generally follows the existing alignment of 101 up to the sharp curve at the Mustard Seed. Takes that sharp curve out. And then runs along 101 and does result in impact to the 4 properties at the Vogelsberg Trail location was the preferred alternative. We did look at trails. I don’t know Paul maybe help me out again here. So the project does include the extension of trails along the west side of the roadway all the way from Pioneer Trail down to Creekwood at that location and then on the east side it extends all the way from Pioneer Trail all the way down to Flying Cloud Drive. There would be a new bridge crossing with the regional trail that occurs right there. So basically that would be a grade separated crossing. Much safer than what it is today and there’d also be an underpass or a box culvert crossing down to Flying 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Cloud Drive so trails on both sides from Creekwood to the north as well as a couple of grade separated crossings on the south end. From the development perspective, a number of property owners expressed interest for utilities. Right now it’s wells and septic’s in this area so this graphic shows a potential extension of watermain as a part of the previous piece north of Pioneer Trail. Water was extended. It would be proposed to extend trunk watermain all the way down from Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive and then sewer because we are going down the bluff, basically what would have to happen is we’d have gravity sewer that could be installed along the roadway and a lift station would be necessary kind of where Paul’s point out there. Sewage would flow to that lift station and have to get pumped back up to one of the City’s collection system. The goal would be that if the roadway would be built we’d want to put some of these facilities in the ground as a part of the roadway construction just because they’re so significant with the grading and the earth work that’s required for the roadway improvements. So I mentioned the environmental review process. Because the project did result in the addition of an additional travel lane and over a mile of roadway it was mandatory that we had to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet so we went through that process. Prepared the environmental document. The 30 day comment period that was required by State statute for that ndrd extended from August 2 to September 3 so we went through that process. We did receive 9 comments. Six from property owners. Three from agencies so we worked through those comments and based upon the review of those comments and the environmental impacts the recommendation will go to City Council is that there’s no need for additional environmental studies. No need for an environmental impact statement as a part of this process. So right-of- way needs. In order to accommodate that alternative 3 alignment we would actually impact 21 parcels and I’ve got a graphic here in a minute that would show that. It’s both residential and commercial as well as some undeveloped properties. There are 6 properties in the area that would require total acquisitions. Five are existing residential home sites so 21 properties. Six residential properties. Six total takes. One undeveloped. Five residential home sites. Because the project is not currently funded, there’s no plans to move ahead with construction right now because of the funding, lack of funding, and in discussions with some of the property owners they were really concerned that now we know this project is looming over our heads, we know it could impact our property, is there some mechanism the City can work with us to be able to identify timing and get an understanding of when potentially, if the project does proceed forward do we have time to move out of our home sites. The Met Council’s got something called the right-of-way acquisition loan fund that’s a fund source that’s available to assist public agencies in certain circumstances like this where it provides some flexibility in the timing of when the acquisition could occur. And also would allow for kind of the establishment of what that corridor is so that’s really the purpose of that official map. It establishes where that corridor is for the roadway. Doesn’t necessarily require that that area is acquired right away because again the project is not funded and there’s not funding for the right-of-way acquisition but it really establishes where that alignment is. It also protects the corridor for future development so if a property owner comes in and wants to develop their property, the official map’s in place and they know that they cannot build things in the way of where this future roadway corridor would be so it really protects the City but it’s also for the benefit of the property owners as well. You know they can plan their property and use of their property recognizing what will ultimately 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 happen with the roadway. So this graphic shows those properties that would be acquired. Those properties in purple are the ones that would be acquired in their entirety so there’s 4. I don’t know Paul maybe help me out again. Four at Vogelsberg Trail. At that location. The Malakowsky property just north of that which is the other residential home site. The purple piece on the far north end is actually an undeveloped piece of property and then the Bacardi property which is the other big piece, the City, County and MnDOT have actually joined together and already purchased that property so that property has already been purchased for the project. The stuff shown in orange on the graphic is strip takings where we’d be taking part of parcels but not the parcels in their entirety. And then this is a graphic I know that’s in your packet. This is actually what the official map would look like. It just identifies where the areas that would be necessary to be able to accommodate the roadway would be. So there’s a couple of graphics that show where those impacts would be and what the official map for the corridor would look like. So in terms of what happens next. Again the motion before you this evening is to recommend approval of the official map to the City Council. We are scheduled to be on the rd council agenda on November 23 to accept the EAW and make a negative declaration on the need for an Environment Impact Statement and for the council to then approve that official map. Assuming that happens between the City, County and MnDOT, they will be exploring the potential use of those RALF funds to be able to help with some of the right-of-way acquisition impacts in the area. The official map is actually a requirement to be able to use those RALF funds so it’s really an important first step to be able to allow RALF funds to be used. And then ultimately final design and project funding to allow it to go to construction but again that currently is not in place for either the final design or for construction. So threw like I said 12 months of history at you so and I went kind of fast. I don’t know if there’s any questions but I certainly would stand for questions or… Aanenson: I just have one question for Paul. There is a public hearing at the City Council. This is a little bit different than normally that they happen here but I know notices went out and Paul you might want to mention how many property owners notices went out on this. rd Oehme: Right, so thanks Ms. Aanenson. So yeah there is a public hearing on the 23. Notices have been sent out to all the adjacent properties and some properties that not just abut but would be potentially impacted by the project so I think in all I think there was like 125 notices that have gone out so I’ve got a few comments already from some property owners. Some people have stopped in asking what was happening so we’ll see if there’s any more substantial comments than we’ve already received but overall we’ve, I think we’ve seen a lot of positive feedback from the project. I think the 2 neighborhood meetings that we’ve had and numerous individual meetings that we’ve had with the property owners along the corridor you know actually help us determine, better determine what the potential impacts were and helped choose an alignment that does limit some of the impacts in conjunction with the future improvements that are being proposed tonight so. Aller: Thank you. I just have one question for either Mr. Oehme or Mr. Horn. The environmental, the negative finding for the environmental study. Does that include the potential 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 for the water and sewer to go in at the same time? Or would we need to redo that process if we decide to do that? Jon Horn: No there’s actually one of the, a couple of the questions in the environmental document ask about the utilities and that was mentioned in there and the utilities themselves don’t require the environmental review. The roadway does but they are addressed as a part of that environmental assessment worksheet. Aller: Great, thank you. And I appreciate all the time and effort that you put into it and staff has put into this because I was thinking as I looked at the staff report that this does go back a number of years and I remember going to the open houses. Not only for that but for the corridor if we were going to put in the water and sewer and a lot of these same individuals were coming so I would be very surprised if there’s someone out there that doesn’t know that this is coming in some form or fashion and has a positive or negative to say so. Jon Horn: Yeah we’ve had really good turnout at our open house meetings so we’ve been pretty happy with that. Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Madsen: Does this impact that historic brick home or property at all or does it leave it untouched? Jon Horn: It does not. That was actually one of the criteria that as we developed the alternatives to try to figure out a way to avoid that. I didn’t mention that as I went through the presentation but the alternatives either go to the west side of that, which a bulk of them do and the one that does go further to the east, it actually avoids it on the east side so that was actually one of the design criteria to try to avoid that farm site. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Commissioner questions? So at this point I’ll be happy to entertain the motion. Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the official map of Highway 101 from Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion? I think as I alluded to before we’ve had a lot of public input. I think we’ve had a lot of options to look at. All the criteria… We looked at safety. We looked at environmental impacts. We look at what’s going on with individuals out 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 there and all those listed criteria are in the report and I think it will be a really good project when it comes about. So any additional comments or questions? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the official map of Highway 101 from Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: GATEWAY MEDICAL BUILDING, PLANNING CASE 2015-21: REQUEST FOR SIGN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 4,300 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL BUILDING ON 1.29 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND TH BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) AND LOCATED AT 195 WEST 79 STREET ND (LOT 2, BLOCK 1, GATEWAY EAST 2 ADDITION). APPLICANT: RBSC CHANHASSEN, LLC. OWNER: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located east of West th 79 Street, north of Highway 5 and west of Highway 101. It is bordered by the Western th Railroad to the north. Access to this site is off of West 79 Street. The site has an area of 1.29 acres. It is zoned Highway Business District. Just a brief history on this site. It was previously owned by Apple Red-E-Mix. In 1992 the City initiated the condemnation process and in October of ’93 Red-E-Mix vacated the property. In ’95 the City purchased the site so since ’95 this site has been, this entire area has been in City’s ownership. The eastern end was a taco shop and in ’91 the City initiated condemnations again of the taco shop. This was done in conjunction th with the realigning Highway 101, 79 Street and Highway 5. In April of 2005 the, let’s back up one second. In 1995 the City constructed a pedestrian bridge across Highway 5 and in 2005 the City approved the construction of 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an 8,100 square foot back wash tank and the building has been constructed. One thing that it would th be important to point out at this point, as you can see the site is accessed off of 79 Street. In order to get to this point, typically vehicles will be turning along Highway 5 onto Great Plains Boulevard. There is an access point right here that will take you to Dakota Retail. I’m sorry, Great Plains Center which is a newly constructed strip mall. Followed by another access point. This one is exit. Exiting only and it’s intended to serve the car wash. And then comes the turn th that would lead you onto West 79 Street and to the location of the site. So I needed to provide you with this background because later we will be talking about a directional sign and staff is recommending approval. This way you have the background and you know why we are recommending approval of it. So the application before you is for a 4,300 square foot medical office building and for an off premise directional sign. The building is proposed to be located along the southwest corner of the site. With a potential expansion in the future for a second building. The second building would be located east of the current proposed building. Maximum hard surface coverage in this district cannot exceed 65 percent. The applicant is proposing 26 percent so they are substantially below the maximum permitted. The ordinance requires 1 parking space per 150 square feet of medical office. This would translate to 26 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 31 parking spaces so they exceed the minimum requirements. Trash enclosure is located in this area and it is north of the site. It will be screened from views from Highway 5 by both landscaping and then you also have the building as well. The architecture of the building. The design of the building is very attractive. It is intended to compliment buildings and structures in the surrounding area so you have the water plan along the west. There is the pedestrian bridge along, also within the vicinity of the building. One thing that as we were looking at the design of this building, one thing that we found to be very attractive and interesting is the V shaped design of the roof system. The roof top equipment would be located on top of the building and staff believes this is a very attractive roof top equipment screening. The other thing that we also need to point out is how it compliments the design of the water plant so the water plant is designed in a pitched shape and you have the exact same thing going on only in the opposite direction as far as the V of the building. Another element that also compliments the surrounding area is the galvanized metal that is used as a trellis around the building that is intended to compliment the design of the bridge. The materials that are used on the building are very durable. The applicant is proposing to use aggregate block. Rough faced block. Galvanized metal. Trellises. Glass windows. All 4 sides of this building have received equal attention and it is very well designed. One of the things that we mentioned earlier is the potential for a second building and you just need to, so this is the building that is currently proposed to be built in the future. This is what you would be seeing as you travel along Highway 5 westbound. I can’t guarantee the birds in the sky. Another thing that the applicant has done with this application is the landscaping. They have chosen to have vines that would, that are very colorful. They will compliment the design of the building. The same is true of the bushes and the trees. All of them are flowering and staff is very pleased with the overall design of the site. The site will incorporate patios along the east and west of the building. These patios will have benches, chairs, tables, bike racks. Signage on this site is intended to be located along the southwest corner and it will be a monument sign. The City Code allows these signs not to exceed 8 feet in height. 64 square feet in area. What the applicant is proposing is, has an area that is less as well as the height of the building, of the sign is 6 feet in this case. They’re also proposing to have an electronic message system along the top portion of the sign which is permitted by ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the signage. The second part of the sign deals with the location of a directional sign to the site and it’s an off premise directional sign. The City Code is very clear that directional signs are permitted only in cases when access is confusing and as we talked at the beginning in describing the background of this site, access to this site is truly confusing and if you miss your turn you need to go back and try and circulate the area and hopefully you’d get it right the second time but we do believe that a directional sign is warranted in this case. Staff has developed a criteria for this sign and the majority of the criterions really deal with safety issues insuring that you are not within the sight triangle. Making sure that the trail is protected, so on and so forth. Since the staff report was written staff has added a couple of entries basically dealing with the ownership of the sign. The City will be owning and maintaining this sign. We have informed the applicant of this change to the staff report. We are also, one of the other entries that we added was the uniformity of the font and on th the sign. Again as mentioned earlier the sign would be located at the intersection of West 79 and Great Plains Boulevard and it would be outside the sight triangle. One of the other things 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 that was discussed, right now there is probably one of the largest bubbles of a cul-de-sac in the city of Chanhassen. It’s 120 feet wide and what the applicant is proposing to do is put an island in the center and staff will be working with the applicant on this location. There are some tweaks that need to take place and that’s very normal with applications that appear before the City. I need to point out that one of the things that the applicant had requested was parking along the cul-de-sac and because we have a well in that area staff is recommending that the bubble th portion be marked as no parking but the road itself, West 79 they are permitted to park along there. And we’re hoping that they wouldn’t need it because they do have ample parking on site. The other thing that we need to point out is the fact that this site is located adjacent to a regional trail that runs parallel to the southerly property line. The applicant is proposing to extend a sidewalk and we are currently working with the applicant to insure that, what they’re proposing is the best route. One of the options is to just come directly south and connect with the trail that is right here. What the applicant was proposing is actually to go around the cul-de-sac and then back down and then onto the trail. We do believe that most people will just take a shortcut. And with that staff does believe that this is a very good use of the land. It is an excellent project and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aanenson: Mr. Chair I was just going to add a couple other comments. I’m not sure it was clear in our staff report but this is city owned property and we’ve had it for quite a while. We’re really excited with this use to come in there because it is difficult. We’ve had some other users that would be high trip generations which would be again we talk about the way finding. Where the off premise sign is still city property is why the position we took to the applicant would build on that sign but we’d maintain that property because it’s city owned property and that could provide for some other way finding in that area but we’re really pleased with how this project turned out. The applicant also owns the other parcel and we’re confident he will do the same due diligence to that site so we just think that’s what a great entrance to the city with that building. It really, really reflects kind of what’s in that area and a really nice design so we’re very happy about that but I just wanted to point that out that this is, the City has entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Schold and he’s done a wonderful job working to get a great site plan. Aller: Thank you. I guess my question was with the V shape. I’m used to, we’re in Minnesota and there’s going to be a lot of snow sometime. Maybe not now. This week but what are we going to do with the snow? Is that a good weight bearing roof? Has that been discussed and then also it would act as a rain catcher. What are we going to do with runoff? Aanenson: Mr. Schold can answer but actually that architect also did the library here in front of City Hall. Pretty well known firm so we have confidence in that so. I don’t know if he may have some other. Aller: And then the water system that’s going to be placed in, I would love to know just how that works because it interests me. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aanenson: The stormwater? Aller: The stormwater system because I know we’re replacing and we’re going to put a lot of hard cover on there. It’s still well under but there’s been some remediation and some clean up in the area and I think everybody’s going to be interested in just how that system works. Aanenson: Yeah, there was some contaminated soil. Phase 1 was done on that and actually a Phase 2 so that affords you a different track to go down for stormwater management but it does meet all the City requirements. I don’t know if you wanted to add anything else on that Paul. Oehme: Sure that, so it’s an underground system that we’re capturing the runoff from the parking lot into the building. It basically helps the rate control and some water quality benefits too but it’s an underground system that’s going to take some maintenance. It’s kind of in lieu of your typical NURP pond system so it’s basically an underground chamber piled with rocks on the bottom with basically a storm pipe more or less zig zagging it through the system so that’s once, when rain comes, larger rain events come it kind of fills up but the rate, the outlet more or less stays the same so it’s been used in the city in the past. I think the Toll Line parking lot has a similar system that’s being used here. The Cub Foods. Aanenson: Powers Pointe. Oehme: Powers Pointe. Cub Foods in Shorewood over on 41 and Highway 7, that has the same system in it too so it’s been used. It’s a technology that’s been around for a while now. Aller: Great. Additional questions? Weick: I’m sorry, oh go ahead. Madsen: I have a question about the report mentions some soil contamination and that it’s apparently contained and I’m just wondering if it has been fully remediated or is there still contaminated soil and is there any risk to disturbing that soil during the excavation stage? Aanenson: No. So that was done with the Phase 1 environmental and then they actually did a Phase 2 environmental and so that’s the reason why we’re you know, affords you to do the other water treatment so we’re not, we’re staying outside of the disturbed areas and that’s been remediated so, so we’re confident that we’re not going to make, disturb anything that’s been fixed already. Madsen: Oh okay. Aller: Mr. Weick. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Weick: Yeah. Two questions. One, several of the diagrams in the site plan here and the report reference the future building just as a point of clarification. We’re not, we’re not making any recommendations based on the future? Al-Jaff: No. Aanenson: That has to come back through the whole site plan review. Yep. Weick: Okay, just to clarify. Aanenson: And I just wanted to clarify that the owner. Weick: Yep. Aanenson: Mr. Schold owns that property too so because he’s done such a nice job on the existing building he wouldn’t want to deter or do anything that would you know detract from that. Weick: Understood. And then the off premise directional sign. Was that a suggestion of the City or a request from the applicant? Aanenson: When we went into the purchase agreement there were 2 things that they requested. One was, he felt strongly about landscaping and the outdoor experience that he wanted with his building and so he always wanted to put the island in so that was part of the purchase agreement as was the off premise sign because he recognized that, just to make sure there was proper queuing to find your way in there. Everybody that looked at it before wanted to try to get off of Great Plains. You can’t. MnDOT is too close and so you know that’s why we thought this was a great use up there that was kind of more a directional, I mean a destination as opposed to a convenience. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Additional questions or comments? Yusuf: Just, on page 13. The picture that you have, are we intending for 2 way directional traffic around that, around that island? Aanenson: This one? Yusuf: Yep right there. Tietz: The traffic flow. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Yusuf: Yep this. Al-Jaff: The intent is for, one of the concerns that the engineering department had was would vehicles go around the cul-de-sac or would they just go in and out of the site. So typically this is what you would see happen. However because of this layout one of staff’s recommendations was potentially creating a tear drop design for the island and change the entrance into this site so that traffic would be moving straight into the parking lot and out so you won’t be going around the cul-de-sac necessarily. Yusuf: Do you anticipate any traffic concerns for users who aren’t too familiar with the routes? Or not knowing how to navigate that island. Aanenson: I’d just say that’s one of the conditions that we’re still working on. Yusuf: Okay. Aanenson: We want to meet the applicant’s desire to landscape it. We also want to make sure that we have safety issues addressed and as we talked about there’s a well there that we want to make sure there’s nobody parking in front of so those are the few things that we’re working on. We’re trying to meet some deadlines here and so we’re going to address that. Oehme: Potentially looking at maybe some signage out there and one of the criteria that we looked at too for the no parking was, there’s some delivery trucks from the water treatment plant and then from the automotive building, business just to the west of here that there’s some bigger trucks that deliver so we need to accommodate that flow of traffic there so it’s, the volumes on the end of the cul-de-sac here are very, very low so I think that’s going to help you know with the traffic flow and at the access points. The geometrics of where the driveway is, that kind of is, that’s where we get into a little bit of conflict I think in terms of where the traffic flow will be so we just want to make sure that maybe there’s some striping out there we’re going to look at and maybe there’s some signage too that we need to enhance it. Like we said we might want to change the configuration of the island too to help clarify where traffic’s supposed to go so those are the kind of things that we’re looking at. Yusuf: Thank you. Aller: Great. Any additional questions at this time? Okay. If we can have the applicant come forward and state your name and address for the record and your representation. Randy Schold: Randy Schold and my address is 8925 Twin Lakes Crossing, Eden Prairie. Aller: Welcome Mr. Schold. Randy Schold: Thank you. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aller: Can you tell us about your project? Randy Schold: Oh I think Sharmeen has done a wonderful job. The interest for us is, has been in the first phase of the project and it’s to provide a medical office building. I’ve looked at the site for years as it’s sat vacant and thought definitely that it’s under used in it’s present state and wondered with the good visibility why and I think Kate or Sharmeen mentioned the access dilemma and if I’m not mistaken Kate I think you mentioned access off Great Plains but what I think several developers have made an attempt over the years to do is to get access off of 101 and that’s not acceptable and not going to happen so that’s caused some development problems quite frankly. As a real estate developer as I am access is critical and although we’d like to think that cars are becoming less important and walking and biking and all of those important things are, that we all believe in are critical. The car and parking often drives these deals and so the question is how do you get people in a car to find their way to this site and so that’s, that’s all about the way finding concerns frankly that we’ve had from the outset of being interested in this site. And the second concern has been what is just really a confusing and odd cul-de-sac which serves really nobody or a few trucks and is completely over sized in my mind. And without a doubt every consultant and individual we have out at the site to take a look at it is just baffled by why that cul-de-sac exists so our attempt, my attempt as a developer is to find a way to, and the design team, find a way to bridge this gap between I think what is a valid concern and vision or desire from a planning perspective to have this as a wonderful gateway site with a nice building and a building that is welcoming to the city of Chanhassen as one approaches, traveling westerly on 5 but there’s this conflict where the cul-de-sac is, looks like it should be serving a light industrial use. So that really is the reason, and if there were other ideas on how to humanize that cul-de-sac and bring it down to a scale where it’s more compatible with office you know I think we’d be all ears and this was our design teams attempt in terms of the island to try to, try to make the site just more welcoming. So aside from that I think the site is beautiful. It’s got great visibility. The feeling of it now in it’s kind of rough state, we want definitely to tamper with but we don’t want to destroy the kind of garden landscape, heavily landscaped aspects of it. To us that’s what Chanhassen is. It’s different than being in the city. You know it has this wonderful kind of village feel to it and we want to reinforce those feelings and the design team is a terrific team as Kate mentioned, or Sharmeen. They designed your library. They’re working at the Arboretum presently. They’re, so I thought they would be a good fit for this project and, and I think they’ve done a wonderful job with the design of the building. In answer to your question about the V shaped roof, not everything is engineered but certainly there are lots of V shaped roofs even in Minnesota and in addition to the drainage going the two ways the roof would be canted towards the roof drain which would then tie into the system that the City Engineer has described. Aller: Great. Any questions? Tietz: I just have a comment. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Sure. I just, I think it’s a great solution for really a, as you said an under utilized but a sliver site that’s been there since we moved out here. I remember when Apple Valley Red-E- Mix was there so it’s been there a long time. And I also want to commend you on the selection of the architect and the proposed design. I think it’s a very fitting solution to the site. The scale and the appearance and I also, I think MSR also did the bridge back in the. Aanenson: Yes… Tietz: In the mid 90’s. Randy Schold: That’s correct. Tietz: Yeah so they have quite a history here in Chanhassen. I think it’s great to have a good architect. Randy Schold: Thank you. Weick: I have a question and if it’s not appropriate let me know. Can we speak to the type of business that will be in the building? Aanenson: I think right now it’s still proprietary but it will be medical related yeah. Weick: It is, okay. And the reason I ask is to me it’s relevant to the off premise sign in the sense that, what amount of you know unique consumer visits would you have there or is it appointment based? Aanenson: It’s appointment based so I think you would have kind of your regular clientele like you would with any other you know medical office. Weick: Okay. That’s just kind of what I was getting at. Aanenson: Yeah and I think that’s why we felt that it was really a good fit because you don’t have people trying to meet at a restaurant somewhere that can’t get, find out how to get there so you would have your regular clientele going there by appointment. Weick: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you sir. Randy Schold: Thank you. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aller: At this point in time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item and anyone in the audience wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comments. Madsen: It’s a beautiful building. Hokkanen: I think it’s going to be a beautiful building as you drive into Chanhassen. I think the aesthetics are just really nice. Aller: Any additional? I think it’s a unique piece of property. It’s been totally under utilized and the City’s going to increase it’s tax base ultimately as a result of it. It will come off the non- tax rolls and be put on the tax rolls but more than that when you drive in, we talk about all the construction down south by the 61 corridor and how that’s going to be a gateway from the Chaska area and the Shakopee area. Well this is one that really separates us from the Eden Prairie area and I think that it’s important to have that, it’s like if it comes out the way it’s depicted in the drawings it will be a breath of fresh air. Kind of come into Chanhassen. I think it’s a beautiful addition and architecture and I really enjoyed looking at the articulation of the building not only by the windows and the physical design but using the landscaping. The vines and things as part of that. I think that’s going to be really nice. So with that. Weick: I do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I’m not opposed to the off, it sounds like I am but I’m not opposed to the off premise directional sign. I will say however I personally I don’t think we need it. I think that people, especially in a use that is primarily appointment driven, you know people use. Hokkanen: Google map. Weick: Phones and maps, you know. I don’t know, I don’t know if we need any signs to be quite honest with you, let alone more signs. So personally I don’t think we need it. I wouldn’t oppose this because of the directional signage and certainly if the City has other uses as well that’s great in the future but wanted to put it out there that I personally don’t think we need an off premise directional sign for a use like this. Aller: Point well taken. Any additional comments? Then with that I’ll entertain any motions. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve site plan review for the construction of a 4,300 square foot medical office building on 1.29 acres of property zoned Highway and Business Services District, an off premise directional sign and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a motion from Commissioner Undestad and seconded by Commissioner Tietz. Any additional comments or questions? Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 4,300 square foot medical office building, Planning Case 2015-21, as shown in plans dated received October 16, 2015, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resources: 1. The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along Highway 5 and the north property line to meet minimum requirements. Planning: 1. All rooftop equipment must be screened. 2. The materials used on the trash enclosure must be the same material as the building. 3. Off-premise direction sign criteria: a. The sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height. b. The sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet. c. The sign shall be located outside of the sight triangle and shall not interfere with the driver’s intersection sight distance. d. The sign shall maintain a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb. e. The sign shall maintain a 1.5 foot separation from the trail. f. The sign shall not be illuminated. g. The sign shall not interfere with snow removal operations. h. The sign lettering shall not exceed 6 inches and have a uniform style. i. The sign shall only include the names and logos of the businesses and a directional arrow. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 j. The sign design shall compliment the design and materials of the proposed building. k. The sign shall not obstruct driver’s views of any city owned street signage or railroad signage. l. The sign will be owned and maintained by the City. m. The applicant shall build the sign. 4. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize design of the directional sign. 5. All signs must meet city ordinance. A sign permit is required prior to erecting any signs. Building: 1.The building(s) are required to have automatic fire-extinguishing systems. 2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.Any retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4.Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal: 1.An additional fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. 2.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Engineering: 1.The trash enclosure must be relocated, or the developer must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 2.An easement for the maintenance and construction of the cul-de-sac island shall be recorded with the purchase agreement of this property. 3.All easements, existing and proposed, shall be labeled in the plan set. 4.The developer’s engineer shall provide a separate “existing conditions” plan page to show the existing conditions and topography of the site as well as existing easements on the property. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 5.Revise grading south of proposed building to minimize channelization of flows and to maintain drainage on the subject property. The latter may be excused if permission granted from MnDOT. 6.Project designer shall work with city staff to assure accurate contacts are included on sheet SW-1. 7.References must be to appropriate storm water management BMPs. No infiltration is proposed on-site. (see DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING WATERS on sheet SW-1) 8.Sheet SW1 shall include Rice Marsh Lake as the receiving water. 9.Sheet SW-1 indicates that there will only be 0.07 acres of new impervious. Staff calculates the new impervious to be 0.32 acres. The SWPPP shall be amended to accurately reflect this. 10.Sheet SW2 – SOILS AND NATIVE TOPSOIL shall be amended to indicate that six inches of topsoil is required on all disturbed areas to be used as green space. 11.Sheet SW2 shall be amended to indicate that the city must receive a copy of the dewatering plan and approve before any dewatering can take place. 12.Note shall be added to SW2 indicating that all outlets must be stabilized within 24 hours of connection. 13.The graded slope south of the proposed building shall be stabilized with an appropriate rapid stabilization method for offsite discharges. 14.The pipe configuration used to outlet underground system into pond shall be made as shallow as possible and with as large a drop as possible into STM MH1 so as to dissipate energy in the system and minimize rates. Ex. Raise SW invert by 1.5 feet to 948.3. 15.Sheet C3 shall use the city silt fence detail which shows that wooden posts are not allowed. 16.Sheet C3 shall use city detail for rock construction entrance or shall be amended to show that geotextile fabric must be placed under the rock. 17.A final stabilization plan will be needed. This is typically the landscaping plan. The sheet included shows only woody vegetation south of the building to the property line. This must indicate how this will be stabilized. 18.The applicant must meet the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies, including the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 19.The applicant must evaluate other methods of volume reduction, such as capture and use, to achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable. 20.The applicant shall provide the city with a drainage map corresponding to the provided HydroCAD™ model. This shall be used to determine if pre- and post-construction rates are consistent with city requirements. 21.The applicant shall provide water quality modeling to the city for review and approval. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 22.The sump at CB 1 on C1 shall be deepened to three feet and a device such as the SAFL baffle, the Preserver or equivalent shall be installed. 23.An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed and made available to the City. 24.The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the stormwater facility with either the watershed district or the city. 25.The plans shall show locations proposed for stockpile areas. 26.The plans shall show existing and proposed elevations at the lot corners and the corners of the proposed structure. 27.The developer’s engineer shall continue to work with City staff to find a geometric layout that would successfully route vehicles and minimize conflict. 28.The plans must label the dimensions of the parking spaces, drive aisle and the 26-foot by10- foot turnaround at the end of the aisle. 29.An additional plan sheet must be provided that does not show the “Phase 2” construction, but instead illustrates what is to be constructed on the site in “Phase 1” only. 30.The plans must show the driveway entrance grade. 31.The bituminous trail shall be revised into a concrete sidewalk that shall be owned and maintained by the property owner. 32.The plans shall be revised to show dimensions for the width of the proposed sidewalks and trails. 33.These plans must comply with all ADA regulations for the site. 34.The developer’s engineer shall work with City staff to determine if a connection can be made directly to the switchback trail that leads to the pedestrian bridge across Trunk Highway 5. 35.All of the service utilities shall be privately owned and maintained. 36.Fees for City water and sanitary sewer connections shall be collected with the building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aller: Those of you at home wishing to follow this item, it will be before the City Council. Aanenson: Next Monday night. Aller: Next Monday. Aanenson: It’s a quick turn around. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 Aller: Fairly quick so it’s not the normal turn around. Tune in or come on down to watch it November 23, 2015 right here in the City Council chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Aller: I’d like to thank Commissioner Weick for filling in for me at that meeting. You did a great job chairing. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Can someone please note those Minutes? Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 2015 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Sure, so because we haven’t met we’ve got a few items that you have taken action on that now the City Council has. One being the variance that was on Red Cedar Point for the shoreland, the retaining walls. Then also the request for a, the indoor gun range. That was also rd approved by the City Council and then on November, I think that should say November 3. The thrd 9 meeting because you did not have a meeting on the 3. There was no items going forward so. Following up on that we’ll go through the future planning items. So at your meeting on st December 1, I know there may be one person, if anybody else knows that they wouldn’t be available on that meeting. Okay, so we have a quorum. So we have an interim use request for a senior daycare so that’s pretty straight forward but they do require an interim use permit and then we’re going to have a public hearing on the code amendments that are, that you have jurisdiction over which would be Chapters 18 and 20. There’s some other ones that would just go forward to the City Council. So with that we are working on quite a few projects in town right now so we anticipate the first part of the year that we’ll have quite a few projects going on. I think that’s all I had. Oh I had one other announcement. A week today will be the bridge opening so that will th be November 24 at 11:00 a.m. The new bridge at 101. They’ll have a ceremony down there at 11:00 a.m. Anybody that’s interested in attending so pretty exciting. We’ve got the 61 corridor done. We’re working on now, the Hennepin County’s got that side done. Mr. Oehme and myself will be meeting with the City of, excuse me Carver County to talk about the planning going to the west of the rest of the 61. Just the upgrade of that section of road. They’re working on that now too so that meeting actually starts tomorrow. The first kick off meeting so things going on and then we’ve now just talked about the 101 project so as we move south. I think one of the things that both Mr. Oehme and myself have heard some of those properties on the north end of that, they’re ready to develop. There’s some properties there so getting that infrastructure 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2015 in place is helpful. One to get funding and then allow for some of those other property owners to develop so with that Mr. Chair, that’s all I have. Aller: Great. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21