Loading...
PC 2005 07 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Matt Wessale 9350 Gary Avenue, Waconia nd Dave Johnson 219 W. 82 Street PUBLIC HEARING: HARD COVER VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED TH AT 380 WEST 86 STREET, TROY & VIRGINIA KAKACEK, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-18. Public Present: Name Address Larry Martin 2707 Spy Glass Drive th Ginger & Troy Kakacek 380 West 86 Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions at this time? Larson: Yeah. I’ve looked at this… Is it on? Hello. When this came up before, you know I understand that they didn’t pull the permit to do the extra patio. Is it that large of an issue? I mean we’ve gotten letters and things from some of the neighbors. They don’t seem to be opposed to it. What is the main problem with this because the way I see it, as it is, it looks like a nice improvement. It’s not a detrimental looking improvement to the home. So is the problem because of the surface water? Metzer: Right. This home’s located in a single family residential district and they are limited to 25% hard cover for the whole property. If they’re over that, they either have to bring it to compliance or we end up here with the variance process. We as staff can’t be subjective about it. Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larson: Okay. So the main issue we’re dealing with here is the fact that maybe their lot is smaller than maybe others in the neighborhood. Metzer: Right, but the fact remains that they have to comply with the 25%. Larson: Okay, thank you. That’s all I have. McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Zorn: Josh I have a question. Metzer: Yes. Zorn: In order to come into compliance you need to, for hard cover surface, surface ratio needs to be 25% or less. Metzer: Right. Zorn: And on page 4 of the report indicates that as the survey had shows that the home and driveway alone are 25.8. Have you discussed with the homeowners ways to rectify that? Or what an option would be… Metzer: The only option would be to remove part of the driveway. Shave off some edge of the driveway. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: It’s not that significant. 111 square feet. If you took a strip along the edge of the driveway you should be able to accomplish that. Zorn: Okay. Papke: What’s the style of the house? Is it two story, rambler? Metzer: It’s a two story. Papke: It’s a two story. So it’s almost a 2,600 square foot foundation, two story house. That’s pretty substantial. Keefe: What is the, you said that the homeowner came in and asked for, you know consulting with staff in regards to the landscaping. What do we typically communicate to homeowners in regards to landscaping in terms of what they can do and what they can’t do? Do we have sort of strict? Metzer: Well I believe the specific question at that time was, and this occurred long ago. The specific question was how close can they come to property lines with landscaping and the answer 2 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 was, you can landscape anywhere on your property but we encourage you not to, to stay out of the easements in case we have to come in there and do work. The city would not be liable for replacing any landscaping that was removed. Keefe: Right. Do we typically you know recommend any sort of materials or recommend anything in regards to how we landscape? And one of the things if somebody were to come in and say well here’s what we’re thinking of doing, you know they might say we’re thinking about putting in some plantings and whatever and they might include a patio, but maybe they wouldn’t, but do we get into those types of. Metzer: It’s got to be very case specific I guess. You know it’s hard to say. In general if there’s an idea that they’re going to be placing patio or anything like that, the issue of hard cover would be discussed. Keefe: Okay, so it really just never came up in regards to. Metzer: Apparently not. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Metzer: I can’t say first hand so. Keefe: Right. McDonald: Anyone else? I guess I’ve got a couple of questions for you. On the patio you had talked in here about maybe alternatives. If they were to put a deck up, does that begin to alleviate the problems and if so, are there special considerations there as far as the under foundation of a deck or anything? Metzer: As long as, we don’t consider a deck to be hard covered if there’s no hard cover underneath. If it’s soil or some sort of landscaping with a fabric layer, we don’t consider that hard cover. McDonald: Okay. On the, there was another thing in here that I’m a little confused about and that’s the drawings that were submitted. And correct me if I’m wrong but as I read this it sounds as though the owner had one set which may have had these layouts on it. You had another set that did not have these on it and what we approved as far as I guess the final approval were the drawings in your possession. What happened? Metzer: The big issue with the difference in the drawings was the driveway. The shape and size of the driveway. What the city received in the permit package was the first drawing that I put up there. You can see the difference in the driveway there. This was submitted as a part of the building permit process and this is what we received as an as-built survey, and the applicant informed us that this was what they had in mind the whole time. So that’s where the confusion came across as far as we know. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Undestad: The submitted one was the 25% hard cover, is that right? The permit? Metzer: I believe it was the 24 point some odd percent. McDonald: Any further questions? Keefe: Just to be clear on this. The driveway on the right looks like it’s more like a lane and a half coming in from the curb. Then widens out to the two lanes, and is it a two stall or three stall? Three right and then the one that you received or approved did not include the patio coverage or the sidewalk coverage. Metzer: Right. The survey on the left was, we require as-built surveys for after homes are built so this was the survey on the left was an after the fact. Keefe: And the one on the right doesn’t have either sidewalk or patio and had the reduced driveway. Metzer: Right. Keefe: And that meets, it just barely meets the cover at 24.8. Okay. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Any other questions? Zorn: I do have one more. As a new home builder myself, during the process when we were working with our lot and the way the house would sit, I don’t recall our builder indicating at all a concern about size and this hard coverage surface ratio. Is there, do you encourage builders to talk with their clients as they move forward? Just thinking that that might have resolved a lot of confusion… Metzer: Well I know builders are made aware of the hard surface restrictions in their zone that they’re building in. Zorn: Okay. Generous: Well it’s a requirement on the design now that they give us those calculations. Zorn: And that will likely help a lot. Generous: Yes. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay. And with that are the homeowners here? 4 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: Good evening Chairman McDonald, commissioners. My name’s Larry Martin. I’m here on behalf of the homeowners this evening. My address is 2707 Spy Glass Drive and I’d like to address this issue for the homeowners. The commission asked, you know what is the procedural posture for this evening and the answer that was referenced is correct. It is in the alternative that there’s two possibilities at the end of this process, after you make a recommendation to City Council. City Council can either grant the variance, based on your recommendation or deny the variance and once the variance is denied, if the variance is denied, then those hard surface improvements will have to be removed. If the variance is granted, those improvements can remain and the variance runs with the property and so there will always be an exception for that piece of property that they’ll be allowed a 30% hard surface coverage, based upon that variance. And that’s the reason we’re here tonight is to ask for that variance. The back drop, the question you had of staff is very good review of kind of the key issues, but as you focus on this variance request, really what you need to kind of key in on are the 6 elements that staff has outlined for you in their staff report. I think you’ll find that on page 6, it’s listed as items a through f, and I think when you page down and take a look at item f, well there’s really no dispute there. I think item f is the one that talks about light and view and that kind of thing, and interfering with your neighbor’s property. Well that’s not a concern. There’s no dispute about that. However, there is a little bit of a disagreement on each and every one of the rest of the elements and so what I’d like to do is take a little bit of time and talk to you about those and explain to you why you can make findings that are reasonable and make a recommendation to City Council that this variance would be okay. And what I’d like to do rather than starting with a is kind of go down the line a little bit to item d, which is whether or not the hardship, the purported hardship is one that’s self created. That’s kind of an important issue when it comes to variances and Planning Commissions generally spend a lot of time on that. One, it’s kind of like well are they making their own problem. In this case staff is saying that yes, this was a self created problem because the applicant should have made a request for a zoning compliance review, and if they had done that then this problem wouldn’t have occurred. And that’s a fair observation but the commissioners need a little bit more of a back drop to the history of this so they can understand how things, how the miscommunication occurred. Now we’re not here to say the staff did anything wrong. We don’t think we did anything wrong either, but we got caught in a sideways position here and that’s why we’re seeking your help. Those surveys that were presented to the building department and the planning department a while back and when the application was first made do not show the patio but I think that the actual building plans show a patio and actually the future expansion of a, I don’t know if it’s a porch or 3 season or screened porch. Maybe if I could ask for your assistance so I do this right. What the file should have, or we didn’t compare this to the file. The file didn’t have these plans along with future patio, future patio, four season porch, hot tub… Well of course under the hard surface requirement, none of that’s going in. However, we did set out very early on disclosing that these future plans were intended. My clients recollect it very well because there was an issue with the proposed footings for the four season porch that had to be revised. I guess it was a $200 cost revision for making that footing revision. However when they actually came in to build the house it was decided they couldn’t afford all that and so it was pulled back and they just decided to build it without the four season porch and without the patios for now. After that, and I think it was something like the end of 2004. End of 2003 when the house was being completed, when well there was a 6 month time period when the landscaping had to be completed and at the end of the 6 months they knew they had to have all the landscaping in. They decided well you know 5 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 what, maybe we should put in the patio now as long as we’re putting in the landscaping. The applicant came to the city and met with them two times in July to talk to them about the patio and the landscaping and it was specifically a question of whether or not they needed any permits for the patio. And of course the city code at that time, and I think it’s still true today, you don’t need a permit for the patio. So there wasn’t a triggering event for a review. And so that’s really where the miscommunication is and that’s kind of what generates a problem. But anyway, not only did they come in twice in July to ask about the permit process and whether or not one was necessary or what they needed to do, including the patio, but their developer came in after. Not developer but their builder also checked to see whether or not he needed a permit to put in the patio. And of course the response was no. You don’t need one in the city of Chanhassen to get a patio built. What you do need is a planning review. Well, I don’t know if you necessarily need it because there’s no permit that you have to take out for it. But arguably because of this result you do need to come in and talk to staff about it and get permission. Otherwise you get in the situation that we’re in. However when you go to the counter and talk to people about it, they say you don’t need a permit. Well it sounds like staff’s kind of worked that all out and you’re required to show calculations to prove your hard surface requirement is met or that you’re not exceeding it. But we were caught in that gray area where things weren’t explained quite so well. Now, that’s all important back drop to this item d. The alleged hardship is not being self created. Well, you know who’s fault is it? I don’t think it’s my clients fault, and I don’t want to say it’s staff fault either, but there was a point in time when things where a little bit gray about what you needed to do to put in a patio. You didn’t need a permit. But a zoning compliance review would have been really good if somebody had told us that we needed to do that. If they would have told us, then they would have built a deck. Now we’ve got the patio and that’s a problem, and tearing it out now is a hardship after all this is said and done because there’s a significant amount of money that’s invested in it. Okay, so that’s kind of the critical juncture where things went awry. Now is that a hardship created by them? I don’t think so but you know that’s a finding of fact for you to make and make a recommendation to the City Council on. But then after you decide that, if you decide that that’s not self created, then the rest of the elements I think are a little bit easier for you and so like for a, literal enforcement causes undue hardship. Well, if the hardship is based upon a miscommunication with staff and it’s really not the applicant’s fault and here they are in a situation where they spent a lot of money on an improvement and if you go the wrong way on this and don’t grant them the variance and they have to tear it out, they’ve lost a lot of money and if you lose money, that’s a hardship and if it’s a lot of money, it’s an undue hardship. And in this case I think we’re talking about an investment of about $6,000. That’s going to be painful if they have to do that. Item number b. Conditions are applicable to other property generally in the zoning district. Well what staff is saying is true there. Certainly the 25% requirement is a requirement of each and every property within the zoning district that they’re in. However, the special condition that applies in this variance request is that it’s the miscommunication is the condition or the event that creates the hardship that creates the problem. Is the miscommunication and the unfortunate circumstances that arise because of it the same thing for each and every property and the jurisdiction? Or in that zoning district. The answer is no. I mean this is going to be one, you know hopefully you won’t see a whole lot more of these pop up but when they do come up, it’s a good thing to help your neighbor out on when things have gone awry. It won’t be an overriding problem with a bunch of property in the zoning district. C. Is the purpose of the variance based upon a desire to increase value or income potential for the property? Well certainly there’s an investment in those improvements. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 However this is a motivational element. You know what’s the purpose of the desire or the intent of the applicant once they achieve it? Well it’s not a money making thing that they’re working on. What they want to do is avoid losing money that arises back again from that miscommunication. And so I think staff’s proposed finding there is a little bit too strong, and it’s more to avoid loss than it is to seek gain. And that brings me back to that item d which is the not self created issue that I started the discussion out with. Commissioners, the light and air problem is not an argument, point of argument with staff. And I want to say again is that there was, I think it’s clear that there was a gray area in how they should have been treated a while ago. That’s something that happens frequently in cities and I don’t think anyone’s to blame but we strongly request that you give the alternative. Staff’s been kind enough to list an alternative decision for you to recommend approval of the variance. We hope that you, to pick that out as your choice this evening and adopt findings of fact consistent with our presentation. There is, this isn’t worth mentioning because really, but I just put it on the record so you understand the issue. There’s a condition that’s been added regarding trees. With respect to trees, I think there is a subdivision condition that requires 2 trees in the front of every lot, and then there’s a series of trees that were to be planted in the back of these lots. In my mind there’s a little bit of a difference in interpretation on how that applies. But after I reviewed the condition it just says you know comply with the subdivision condition and so if there’s a disagreement on how that’s to be interpreted, we can work that out. Certainly it’s reasonable to require us to comply with the condition of that subdivision because it’s already stated. How you interpret it’s a different thing. Unless Ginger and Troy have anything to add, we’ll answer any questions that you have of us. McDonald: Okay, I’ll throw it open to question. Undestad: I just have one question. When you did your initial building permit application, did you talk about the 25% coverages and all that at that time or? So you really had no idea that any of that was going on? Larson: I’ve got one quick one too. We spoke earlier about possibility just cutting the driveway out. Is that a consideration for your guys? A portion of the driveway which would put you in compliance. Rather than taking out your patio. I understand not wanting to get rid of that but a portion you know. Undestad: I don’t think that would work. A sliver would be if they didn’t have any other hard surface on there. Their initial plan that was shown on there, their house and driveway was, actually that was over on the 25%. Larson: I mean instead of. McDonald: If they take all the hard surface out except the driveway, you’re still over. Papke: So let me ask the converse question. At the end of the day we have to either approve or deny the variance. Would you be willing to accept a variance of .8% that would allow the driveway to remain intact and simply remove the patio? 7 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: We definitely would like to have this heard by the City Council. Let me state it this way. When we made the appointment for the initial meeting, there was also a request in the application for a variance to include the sidewalk and the other hard surface areas, and we took a look at that and we said well, you know what. The biggest issue that we have here is the patio. That’s where the biggest expenditure is. That’s where we were. We got off the beaten path by the miscommunication. We’re trying to avoid that loss and so we really want to exhaust all of our potential remedies. Now having said that, what we did try to do when we tabled it and came here tonight is try to eliminate anything that you know is easier to say yes to, and so like if you wanted to say you know, take the sidewalk off. Well we would say yes to that anyway. Or take the gravel pathway out. Well they ask us that, we’ll say yes to that. So you know let’s just do that before we go ask them for the big item. Because that’s really what we want. If there were a way to easily do it structurally to amend the construction of the driveway, it’d be easier to say yes to that too but the thing about that is, it is constructed in such a way that it’s not a 2 car garage, as it says in the staff report. It’s a 3 car garage and if you don’t you know have a minimum amount of dry space to get to that third stall, you know even if you, even if you cut it out, then you’re driving over the grass and that gets compacted into a hard surface and becomes an eyesore and we just want to maintain it for reasonable maneuverability. Keefe: I’ve got one question. Can you go back to the permitting of the patio briefly and restate kind of, I got lost a little bit in regards to what happened there because at least my thinking is that most builders who come in and most patio builders are pretty familiar with coming in to draw a permit for a patio within the city of Chanhassen. Larry Martin: Well that’s the confusing part is that Commissioner, Chairman McDonald, Commissioner Keefe. The city doesn’t require a permit for a patio and so when people come in and say, do I need a permit for a patio. The city says no. They walk away and say well I can go build my patio. What you need to say in addition to that is, however you might run into a problem if you don’t have the zoning compliance review, which technically is a permit but if they don’t hear that, they just walk away and figure that they can build it. Now staff has solve that problem because you have to submit your impervious calculations before you draw a permit. So that glitch in the system has been eliminated. But we’re still stuck…was still confusing. Papke: Several questions all related. Was the builder of the patio the same as the builder of the home? Larry Martin: I don’t think so. No, it’s a different builder. Papke: And did you ask the builder of the patio whether or not he or she was aware of the hard surface coverage? Larry Martin: Actually the builder of the patio came in to ask also about permit requirements and he was told that there weren’t any permits needed. Papke: But did you ask him if he was aware of the hard surface coverage limitation within the city of Chanhassen? 8 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: We didn’t understand the hard surface requirement until. Papke: Have you asked him since then? Larry Martin: No. I’m assuming not. McDonald: Any other questions from anyone else? Larry Martin: Thank you commissioners. McDonald: Well I’ve got a question for you. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out this permit thing myself. As to when things happened. The original builder of the house I take it had nothing to do with the patio. The patio was contracted after the house was built? Larry Martin: That’s correct Chair. McDonald: Okay. And the builder who did that you’re saying was unfamiliar with the zoning compliance review or the fact that there may be other zoning issues that just because he doesn’t need a permit for a patio, he may end up needing a permit to be in compliance with our zoning ordinances. He didn’t understand all of that. Larry Martin: Well there is no permit requirement. McDonald: There would be no permit requirement but with the zoning compliance review you would have found you didn’t meet the 25%, so a builder should have known that while I don’t need a patio, I may need to look a little bit further and make sure that there’s not something else that’s going to jump up and sabotage all of this. Larry Martin: That’s true commissioner. If it’s reasonable to anticipate that a builder once told that permits are required, should have a reason to believe that a zoning compliance review was necessary. Which seems unlikely to me. That’s a little backwards. McDonald: Was this a builder who had done other projects within the city of Chanhassen? Larry Martin: I don’t know the answer to that question. Ginger Kakacek: Yeah he’s been… McDonald: And he’s done projects in other municipalities I take it also? Ginger Kakacek: Yes. McDonald: Then why wouldn’t he be aware of the fact that there was probably a zoning compliance that he should have looked at? I could understand where the homeowners may be confused in this. I’m having a problem understanding how a licensed builder would be confused. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Ginger Kakacek: …where he should put the patio… McDonald: He’s still licensed. He is licensed, right? Ginger Kakacek: Yes, he is licensed. McDonald: If he’s done, if he does commercial projects he should know. Larry Martin: Quite frankly Chair I’ve been practicing land use law for 25 years at a broker, appraiser. Worked for cities. Worked for counties. I understand the hard surface requirements. It seems easy for me to see and understand how someone would be confused if they came in for a permit and if the issue about zoning compliance wasn’t raised at the time of permit application. That they would think that nothing else would be necessary. McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I have. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing no one else I will bring it back up to the council for discussion. Who wants to start at which end? Papke: Okay, I’ll start. I’m opposed to granting this variance for two main reasons. First of all it was partially justified by the applicant that the neighbors don’t come close to exceeding the hard surface coverage, but the city code clearly spells out that we manage hard surface coverage on a lot by lot basis. To try to manage this across a whole neighborhood would get us into a tar pit of discussions as to how do you allocate the over’s and under’s and all that kind of good stuff. So clearly from my perspective the fact that the neighbors don’t come close to exceeding the coverage is no, is not a valid argument. The other one is the argument as to the hardship nature of the request, and this is similar to some of the other ones that we’ve discussed in the past, that as as-built situation, just because someone has built the structure or put in the patio, that does not, and having no knowledge of the city code restrictions, does not constitute a hardship in retrospect. So I do not see any cause for hardship here. The third argument, or issue is, well I’ll leave it at that. That’s probably enough said, thanks. McDonald: Debbie. Zorn: I also would not recommend this variance for the same reasons as Kurt. I’ve been through that process of the home building recently and I know it’s a difficult situation and I feel for this homeowner but I think it would be very hard for us to continue to be confronted with variances throughout the city. And I am very pleased that there are some alternatives that the city is recommending and if considering a .8 variance might, probably wouldn’t be something we would recommend. Possibly so, but I guess that’s something for a discussion for another time. Papke: I’ve got one additional comment. Yeah, the third issue reoccurred to me. The other issue surrounds the zoning compliance process and the applicant stated that this is new and so they weren’t aware of it at the time but one has to recall why this was originally implemented and I haven’t been around that long but I’ve been around long enough to been a part of the initiation of that process and the zoning compliance process is there specifically to help avoid 10 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 these kinds of situations as a communications tool. It’s not a requirement that we put on people to add extra work or there’s no extra rules there. It’s just specifically to help avoid these kinds of situations and help eliminate communication miscues and so the fact that this occurred during the time period within which that was being implemented, okay so we’re improving the process but that doesn’t necessarily excuse the lack of knowledge of the city code. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I’m trying to find a hardship here and I think despite what the applicant came up and said in regards to letter d, I’m just not quite there in regards to buying into that. Our job is really to you know enforce the code and we can potentially grant a variance here if we find a hardship but I’m just having a hard time getting over that threshold and I feel for the applicant but I think our job is really to, you know we’re here to interpret and I think you’ve got to take it to the next step so I would deny this. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: My main issue with this is the whole reason these rules are put in place is because of the, to keep Chanhassen and to keep the water and all that in compliance or just to make sure that the land doesn’t get messed up in case we have a big water event or whatever. And yes it’s a hardship but it’s also that if you have to tear this out, all the money that was wasted going into this. However, like everybody else has said, lack of knowledge is not necessarily an excuse. I feel bad that it wasn’t spelled out to you as clearly as it possibly should have, but again I think too your builder, your original architect, everybody that was submitting plans and they…had known. The fact that it was put in there as a potential on your original plan isn’t saying that it’s actually going to be done because that would be an issue that would be brought up later. So unfortunately I would have to suggest denial on this as well. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No comments. McDonald: I guess the only comments that I will make, I don’t want to repeat what everybody has said but you’re asking for a big variance. 4.8%. While that may not seem like a big variance, we’ve had people in here before that have asked for less than that and we’ve sent them back to the drawing board. These rules are in there for a reason. Again what I go back to is that you had a licensed contractor do this. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are code compliant. They have a liability to do that as a duty to you so I just, I have a problem granting the variance. I would probably be more likely to grant the variance on the driveway because you do make some good points there, but as far as the patio, it’s not as though we’re going to be taking away your back yard. It’s not as though we’re going to be taking away your patio. You can put a deck out there and it’s the same thing. You will still be able to use your back yard. So based upon that, I guess I would throw it open for a recommendation. Papke: Before we make a motion do we want, based upon what the applicant has heard, do we want to give them one last opportunity to amend their application? 11 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: I will advance that courtesy to them, if they wish to amend their application. Larry Martin: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Then I will throw it open for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements and to plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. McDonald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 12 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11. Public Present: Name Address Richard Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Char Jeurissen 9715 Audubon Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay with that we’ll throw it open. Does anyone have any questions for staff? Who wants to start? Zorn: Hey Kate I have two questions. One of the discussion points that we had last time was the length of the driveway, perhaps from the private street and the issue that making certain that the driveway was long enough for a car or large vehicle wouldn’t hang over the end and disrupt traffic on that street. Can you speak to that? Aanenson: Sure. That was addressed and modified. Originally the version you saw before had 459 units and that actually was modified to, so this is where we have the drives that were shorter. All the driveways now are 20 feet in length and they can accommodate the guest parking and we believe that makes a better design. Zorn: Great. And then my second question is in regards to the retaining wall. Can you, do you know what the heights of those would be? Aanenson: Sure. Zorn: Being that they’ve been reduced but just curious to know what they’ve been reduced to. Aanenson: …said it on here. Zorn: Oh I’m sorry. I overlooked that. Aanenson: Yeah. It’s 4 foot through here. In this area, this one is steeper. There’s no wall through here. Again what we’re hoping is that, as these two catch up the project…make sure that we can actually balance and blend those grades together. So I think originally it had over a 20 foot wall… Zorn: Thanks. McDonald: Is that all Deborah? 13 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Zorn: Yes. Papke: You mentioned the parking plan. The only drawing we have in the staff report looks to be kind of a hand sketch here and the parking isn’t real clear. The on street parking. If either you or the applicant, perhaps the applicant has a better drawing or if you do. If you could just quickly review for us what the on site parking looks like. Do you want to wait for the applicant to do? Aanenson: Well yeah actually it was, I thought I put it in here as one of the attachments. Papke: Did I miss it? Aanenson: It’s a colored one. I’m not sure it copied off in black and white. I also did include all the building plans for all of the product to. Papke: We could get the building plans for the individual units but I didn’t see, maybe I just missed the parking plan but I know for certain it wasn’t in color so it was really hard to figure out. McDonald: Dan, any questions? Keefe: Sure. In regards to the pool part, I think we talked about this a number of times. In terms of access to the pool park. We talked potentially about having some sort of north/south connection but are we still just looking at walking across the collector road to get to it or. Aanenson: Yeah, I think one what, in working with the applicant, looking at that, looking at traffic calming. With the sidewalk here. We can have this as a significant crossing between the two projects. Encouraging people to cross at that intersection. The sidewalks on both sides, and with the median in the middle, we discourage them to cut across so you’re at maybe a controlled 4 way stop. For that movement across which was a suggestion, they did support that. Keefe: And just in terms of you know, I’m not exactly sure what they’re planning in terms of the sort of family orientation versus other types of residents but you know I could envision a family pushing a stroller, trying to get over to the pool area. Or to a park. What is the general distance from sort of the northern end of this project to the regional park? Is that like. Aanenson: Well it’d be more like, the 20 acre? Probably more a neighborhood park. Let’s see, go back to, so we’re right in here. It’s right here. That would be a trail. Keefe: It’s a pretty fair distance, isn’t it? Aanenson: I doubt you would push a stroller from there. Yeah. Keefe: And then in regards to getting to this particular pool area, you would have to cross the road. Is that? 14 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Aanenson: That’s correct. Keefe: Okay. Just want to be clear on that. The product types in terms of the livable communities, we talked a little bit about, it looked like there might be a reduction in that now. Aanenson: Yeah, again there’s no assistance or anything and again they’re coming in at 197 would meet the Met Council’s, and that would probably maybe, about 50 I believe… Keefe: Maybe 10% would come in at that? Aanenson: Yeah. Keefe: Okay. That’s it for now. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: I don’t have anything. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Some of the design of the facades of the buildings there we talked about doing some changes and on here I can see with the black and whites… Aanenson: Yeah, based on… Yes. What we’re working on is getting some additional…can you see that? With some additional brick. The color palette. I think the one that we’re looking at for additional brick still was off on the side…and then the issue that this one with the gray. Can you see that one? Just the gray, that we change that out…little more institutional so. You get a lot of articulation fenestration so we felt really good about that. McDonald: Is that all for right now? Well, if there’s no further questions of staff. Are we waiting on a drawing to come back up to answer Kurt’s? Aanenson: Yeah, if we can take 2 seconds I’ll flip this off and I’ll run up and grab that. McDonald: Okay, we can take 2 seconds. Papke: So could you just point out where the different parking areas are? Aanenson: Sure. The largest unit has the guest parking… At the end of this private street will also allow some guest parking. Otherwise in, is this the Chateau? That also has guest parking in the driveway and additional on the private streets. We also have provided for on street parking on these public streets. And that’s again… This street, which does have some additional moved over. This street now with the revisions will actually tie back into this, a problem with this road now goes this way. So these… This has shifted a little bit so we’ll pick that up. The guest 15 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 parking again, the driveways, kind of the end. And this is the area that’s changed where we actually get the walkouts or this… Papke: So the dark areas on that drawing, all the parking places… Aanenson: That’s correct. So they also differentiate between driveway stalls will be the maroon. Private drive is beige and the public streets, so blue is on the public street. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: Again that’s a different look that we’re trying in this, some of the traffic calming. Some of the design and things that we talked which is our multi-family. It was a different look with the streetscape, and depending on the type of product where you actually walk up to this, we have a walk up style… McDonald: I have a question for you, once you’ve got that because that’s different than the drawing here. Aanenson: That’s right. This is revised. The one you have is a little different. McDonald: Okay, the street connection then on the north end, has that been removed where now that’s just going to be a loop in there instead of a connection? Aanenson: This will now, the street actually. Put one out on that side. So this was the plan that you saw in April. Revised plan based on the city’s road with the round-a-bout. Now this will come through and was how that guest parking was. That will need to be relocated. Again we’re still waiting to see where exactly the road went. Applicant: Kate, it’s just being relocated to the south on the eye brow… Aanenson: Yeah, it’s still in that area, yeah. So I’m sorry… So that’s the change is the connection there, and again these are the products that changed. It’s also… The first iteration, some of the guest parking in the driveway, that was some of the concern, whether it was close enough. McDonald: Any further questions of staff? Okay, then I would ask the applicant to come up and. Kevin Clark: Good evening Chairman, fellow commissioners. My name is Kevin Clark. I’m the Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes. A Kyat Manning Company. With me tonight is our development team that’s been working with staff and others. Rick Jansen, our V.P. of Acquisition. Krista Novack, our Community Planning Director. Chris Morrell, our engineer with Westwood Professional Services. Ed Hasek, our Landscape Architect. Westwood Professional Services. David Wheaton, the wetlands specialist, also with Westwood Professional Services. And David Sellgren with Fredrickson and Byron. I want to express our gratitude first to the many people who have contributed to the plan you have before 16 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 you this evening, including city staff, planning, engineering and natural resources. City consultants, neighbors, the Park and Rec Board, yourselves, earlier Planning Commissions and City Councils. Especially the city’s planning staff, Kate and her team have been instrumental in the evolution, not only of our plan but this entire AUAR area. Kate, thank you again for your thorough overview of our application and the history of the journey that we’ve been on since early in 2002. There have been many milestones achieved since those early meetings. Since receiving concept approval from medium density residential project in the Fall of 2002, a lot has taken place to get us to this point tonight. There have been many meetings, site walks, private tours, studies been commissioned, engineering assessments have been done, wetland inventories, workshops with both the parks, Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition to these the State is now underway with the Highway 212 improvements and now other landowners have begun to work with the city on other future developments in this location also. Certainly a lot of energy and resources have been invested in the planning of this project and the surrounding area. We are back before you this evening requesting preliminary plat approval for our plan that represents 446 multifamily units. We are in agreement with the staff’s report and believe we have respectfully addressed the numerous requests, requirements and concerns we’ve been asked to incorporate into our design. These include protecting natural resources, elevating our architecture, accommodating public infrastructure improvements, and enhancing the community. Since our last meeting we have made numerous adjustments to our proposal to address these concerns. I’ll name a few. We’ve revised our plan to meet all the Bluff Creek Overlay District requirements. We have minimized the need for retaining walls by more closely matching existing topography. We have completely revised our plan to accommodate the new alignment of the main collector road. We’ve addressed the request to provide adequate and evenly distributed parking, visitor parking throughout. We’ve upgraded our architecture to respond to staff feedback. We are incorporating staff recommendations into our landscaping plans. We have submitted, or substituted different buildings as Kate pointed out in order to further enhance and protect the Bluff Creek Overlay District which also result in a reduction of units. We’ve been careful and deliberate to preserve as much open space as possible to ensure that these areas are protected for further generations. These are all positive developments and we are very excited with the final results. Other attributes of our plan include the pedestrian friendly planning that we’ve included, tree preservation. We’ve been able to include the Jeurissen property. If you remember earlier plans showed that parcel as being kind of developed around. We’ve worked with them and have incorporated that into our plan. It’s sensitive to the natural amenities. There is a neighborhood identity to the site. The pool amenity as proposed. The view shed as shown by the perspective that Kate had on the screen. The fact that we have no garages facing city streets. Again the elevated architecture. The affordable housing component, and the life cycle housing component of our project with units with first floor master bedrooms. All these factors add up to a very well thought out plan. We are committed to making this neighborhood a success story for the city, our neighbors and ourselves. Again the staff report was very thorough and we stand ready to discuss any elements of the proposal with you this evening. We thank you for consideration of our proposal and we look forward to our continued partnership with the city on this and possibly future opportunities. And again we’ll stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions? Who wants to start? 17 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Keefe: I’ve got a quick question. I’d like to hear your comments in regards to the pool area and accessibility to the pool area because we had a number of discussions about potentially moving it to the north side. And people’s access to it and I’ve got a concern that maybe the, only the people on the south half might be able to get access to that because it’s going to be a fairly busy street. Can you speak to that a little bit? Kevin Clark: Well I know early on a number of the discussions certainly tied into the pedestrian nature of the site and with that the collector road. There were early suggestions of, would there possibly be some way to do an underpass and the infrastructure and the sewer and water lines don’t really allow that feature to be done, to take something under the street necessarily. We talked about and looked at moving it to other locations, but where as that could be done, one of the features of the plan was to have this be a focal point as you not only come down Audubon but as you then progress into the neighborhood. And blend that with some of the trail systems that we have that abut to the natural wetland and storm ponds that were created. So while there’s going to be instances where people are going to be using the pedestrian pathways to get to the pool, we thought that this was the best siting for all considerations. It is going to be a stop intersection with median areas for people to rest as they progress across the street. And also with the traffic calming features of that street it’s designed to be 30 or 35 miles an hour street? So it’s by design already designed to compliment pedestrian environment that we’ve been looking to create. McDonald: Any other questions? Papke: I’d like to chat a little bit about the round-a-bouts. This is the first incarnation of the plan that we’ve seen with the round-a-bout and you’ll have to excuse me but a week or so ago I spent some vacation time in Bend, Oregon. A city that’s been built up with about a dozen or so round-a-bouts so I had kind of first hand experience with it over several days. And one of the nice things about round-a-bouts is they can accommodate very nicely you know more than 2 or 3 or 4 roads coming into them. You can go quite high if you look at some of them in Paris for instance with dozen roadways. Did you consider, or would you consider perhaps, you know right now you have several roads coming in within a few hundred feet of the round-a-bout onto the new collector roadway here. Did you consider or would you consider perhaps terminating one of these at the round-a-bout? That would be a rather substantial configuration change and I suspect you’re going to be very reluctant to jockey around your development to that extent. Just to accommodate one less intersection with a collector, but I have to ask the question. Whether it was considered or would be possible. Kevin Clark: This, certainly one of the biggest hurdles in the last few weeks to work with have been the alignment of the collector road. The introduction of the round-a-bouts was really provided by the city’s consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates and looking at different varieties or different orientations based on, Kate showed you the picture of the…structure and distances between flood plain and all that and what would be the most prudent way to do that, and preserving wetlands and slopes, trees and everything else. And so the round-a-bout feature in earlier plans had, did not have that and showed the round-a-bout then as an element to be introduced. And it wasn’t, I guess at that time with the engineering both internally and with the consultant, deemed to be a prudent location for the round-a-bout and they were using these 18 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 feature to allow for both the calming feature of it and then also the ability to have, make bends in the road at a few other locations and I think they are located here. One, first and down near the P in Peterson, where our project would go north and then the other one up to the north. Aanenson: The city kind of drove, or the consultant drove the design of that and so there’s certain things that came out in the AUAR that the developer has to accommodate, and one is that there needs to be a touch down point from here to Pioneer Trail. That was a recommendation so what that accomplishes is exactly what you’re saying that’s what I was trying to point out that that will also serve as another feeder street. This is the main thread through the project. The rest of it is development driven, and that’s why I’m saving it. We’re trying to work with the developers to find those tie in places so we get the round-a-bouts in the right spot for them to tie off to the collectors that go to the other spot. So to the best of our knowledge this appears to be the best spot. Again whether it straddles the property line again then Mr. Peterson will have to tie into that to tie down to Pioneer. Is that kind of what you’re asking? Papke: Well, what I’m asking is how many, how many connections will there be into this round- a-bout? Is it, you know right now we see 2. Now when we look at the Sever Peterson property perhaps that’s something, if the people who are, have the next proposal in front of us tonight maybe can start thinking about you know it would be silly to have a round-a-bout with just 3 streets coming into it. You’d like to see 4 or perhaps even more because that’s how these things become quite efficient, but then they get bigger the more streets you have coming into them. Aanenson: Right. Well the goal is that this would be the feeder street, as this is. All streets come to this street where it becomes a collector, such as this street here comes down to Pioneer. All the other streets would feed into that. We minimize the connection points onto the, yeah. Papke: Right. So how many roads are we talking about coming into the round-a-bout? Aanenson: Right now? Papke: Right now it’s 2. Aanenson: One more. One more. Papke: So one more, so it’d be a total of 3. Aanenson: Correct. At this location, it’s probably be 4. One going to the north. One going to the south. Again working with the Fox family to try to figure out where the best location is. There’s a wetland here. To make sure that this works for them. Correct. Papke: Right. Because what I’m concerned with is, you know I would hate to see us have round-a-bouts just for the sake of having round-a-bouts. To have them be you know not a positive contribution to the functionality of the roadway. So you know I’d just like to see if we can maximize the utility of this round-a-bout and not you know, because it was late to the game. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Aanenson: Correct, and they’re being kind of held hostage by that decision which we said from the beginning that that’s being driven. I think that’s why it’s important that we give you an update on the 212 and more specific of the align. Again we have planned another meeting with the group to finalize the design end of July, first part of August and then we’ll bring that to the City Council and to you. But I hear what your comments… McDonald: Any other questions Debbie? Mark? I’ve got a couple for you. Will there be an owners association within this development? Kevin Clark: Yes, there will be a master association. McDonald: Okay. And I know we’ve gone through a lot with colors and architecture and the look and everything. Will the owners association be responsible to kind of keep that so that, as far as colors that would be available to paint your houses or change, put fences in or begin to change things? Are they going to control that within reason? Kevin Clark: They’re going to control that extremely because they, there are restrictive covenants and really the association oversees certainly the preservation and the long term viability of the community by it’s capital plan for replacements, whether it be a landscaping or maintenance of buildings and such that those maintenance plans take into account again landscaping, garage door colors, things like that. So the association has really ultimate control over that and then there’s an architectural review component of that group that if there was a decision to change it, I’m sure not unlike the first issue talked to you tonight, they would come back to the city and say does this meet with your, you know your zoning ordinance or something. McDonald: Okay. I really have no further questions and what I’d like to do is just say thank you. I know that you guys have come a long way and all this and it’s changed quite a bit. Staff’s done a remarkable job also and I’m glad we’re able to do something that makes everybody happy. It’s kind of a win/win situation and hopefully it will turn out that way and everybody will be very proud of this area so thank you very much. Kevin Clark: Thank you. Zorn: Jerry, could I ask a couple of questions? McDonald: You certainly may. Zorn: The pool area, will that, is there a playground area planned for that area right now? Kevin Clark: Not in the direct location of the pool area. We’re looking at putting play equipment more on the north portion of the project. Zorn: Okay. Okay, thank you. Kevin Clark: Thank you. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Thank you. Now as a point of confusion for me, I believe this is still an open meeting. Aanenson: That’s correct. McDonald: Okay, we just moved that forward. What I will do now is anyone out in the audience that wants to make comments, I would invite them up to the lectern and what I would ask again is state your name and address and address your comments to the commission and anyone wish to come forward? Okay, well seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting. Oh, just a second. Okay. Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. I have property as part of the AUAR district. 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Just have a couple concerns. One is dealing with the zoning change and just to understand what happens, when that is going to happen within the rest of the area. If that has an impact on any other properties. Number one. And I think there’s still work we’re doing with the east/west collector road which I think we can deal with that in the other meetings at this point, but really the primary question I have is, is there, if this is changed or not necessarily changed but if this goes as residential, the office industrial for the 2020 guideline is reduced and is that going to be made up in other parts of this development or just changed. That’s my question. McDonald: I have to ask staff. Aanenson: Yes it may. That may change somewhere else. Rick Dorsey: So at this point in time what you’re proposing is to change the comprehensive plan, is that what I’m hearing? Aanenson: No. It’s guided either or. Rick Dorsey: No, like relative to the rest of the area. Aanenson: Not at this time. I say it may. Rick Dorsey: Well, and that’s what I’m asking the question. Would that require a change in the comprehensive plan? Aanenson: Yes it would. I thought you were talking about this piece. Rick Dorsey: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to address the commission? Okay, seeing no one else standing up, what I will do is close the public meeting portion of this and I will come back to the council for comments. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Papke: I don’t have much to say. I think, I’m just tickled pink that a project of this magnitude was able to come in with no variances. I think that’s a credit to the developer and a credit to city staff. It’s a pleasure to be able to review proposals like this that you know it’s been a long, arduous process but we’ve come up with a pretty good results so I’m very, very supportive of this. McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: I too am very pleased with the products put forward here and the adjustments that have been made in responding to our feedback a few months ago. So pleased about that. I do remain concerned about the location and access to the pool and playground area and the bike path and sidewalks and such so if there’s any room to continue to explore options, that would be, that’d be great. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: I’m in full support of this, and they worked really, really hard with staff and come in numerous times. It’s really an example of what, how a developer should really come in and work and they’ve come to the Planning Commission a couple of different times. Work with us to you know taking our suggestions and incorporated them. Worked at a lot of issues in preserving wetlands. Bringing in a lot of trees. Your building design is innovative in a lot of ways. Really done a nice job and I fully support this. McDonald: Thank you. Debbie. Larson: I’m pretty much with everyone else said. Looks like a great project and I’m in support of it. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Same. McDonald: And I guess I’ll just finish up, again I want to thank everybody that’s been involved in this. There are a couple of issues that have come up but I have full confidence that you’ll all be able to work through them. This whole thing about the pool and crossing, I think you know we never really know how things are going to work until they’re actually there and I think by having an owners association and the fact that the builder and developer here is very much willing to listen to people, I have every confidence you’ll be able to solve the problem and I think by designing these streets so that there’s a lot of calming in there, all of that will help too. So I’m very pleased with this. I mean I remember when it was first brought to us. There were a lot of questions and issues and I’m just amazed that you didn’t come back with a bunch of variances and good job on the retaining wall and everything else so thank you. With that I will entertain a motion from the commission. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Keefe: I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings, including 446 units, 3 outlots? Aanenson: That’s correct. Keefe: A, B and C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the flood plain and a wetland alteration permit as stated below with conditions 1 through 84, is that right? Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: 1 through 84. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Zorn: Second. McDonald: Okay, I have a second. Keefe moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 446 units, 3 Outlots A, B & C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the Flood Plain and a Wetland Alteration Permit, as stated below: Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval 1.Provide design plan the shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site. Engineering Recommended Conditions of Approval 2.Before site grading commences, the three existing buildings on the property must be razed. 3.The final plat plans must incorporate the changes shown on Westwood Professional Service’s July 12, 2005 sketch showing the revised layout of the east-west corridor, the roundabout, the additional street connection from the development to the east-west corridor, and the revised building type and orientation in the southeast corner of the plat. The developer may be required to plat the west ½ right of way for the north-south segment of the collector road and the roundabout. 4.The eastern intersections of Street D to Street B must be revised so that the streets intersect at 90°. 23 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 5.On-street parking may be used to satisfy the parking requirement with the following stipulations: a.On-street parking is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with Section 12-16 of the City Code: Winter Parking Regulations. b.Credit for on-street parking is not allowed along the curve of the public streets. 6.The developer’s engineer must work with Peterson’s Bluff’s engineer to ensure that the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line and to eliminate and/or decrease the height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 7.Ground slopes shall not exceed 3H:1V. 8.The final grading plan must show the proposed top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. 9.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit. 10.The existing driveway at Audubon Road must be removed. 11.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. 12.All of the proposed house pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. 13.Storm sewer calculations must be submitted with the final plat application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 14.The last public storm water structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water body must have a 3-foot sump. 15.The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 16.The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the final grading plan. 17.Blanket drainage and utility easements are required over all common lots, however the following storm sewer segments shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association: a.Northeast and west of Lot 5, Block 1, b.Within the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 1, 24 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 c.The connection between the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 1 and the public lateral within Street D, d.South of Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, e.South of Lots 15-17, Block 2, f.South of Lots 11-13, Block 5, g.North and west of Lot 13, Block 5, and h.West of and between Lots 4 and 5, Block 6. 18.The plat must be signed by a Land Surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. 19.A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans. 20.Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 21.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 22.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 23.Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K. 24.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 25.Upon project completion, the developer must submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design. 26.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. 27.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District. 28.The benchmark used to complete the site survey must be shown on the grading plan. 29.Intersection neckdowns are limited to public street intersections only. 25 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval 30.Full park dedication fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland dedication. 31.The trails on both the north and south sides of collector road “A” are widened to 10 feet. 32.The internal or private trail north of Block 1 be carefully planned to allow convenient access to the Bluff Creek Corridor. 33.Other internal or private trails connecting residents to amenities within the PUD be enhanced. Wetland Alteration Permit Recommended Conditions of Approval 34.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 35.The applicant shall work with staff to address comments received from the reviewing agencies, including conducting MnRAMs for impacted and replacement wetlands for use in sequencing flexibility for impacts on wetlands A, D, E, J and L. Details regarding the stabilization of areas upslope of mitigation area M2 shall be included in the replacement plan. More detailed plans for mitigation areas M1 and M2, including cross-sections, shall be submitted. The applicant shall consider restorations of wetlands A, F and G for new wetland credit. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 36.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 37.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin C. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 38.All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 39.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including 26 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 40.Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water infrastructure. 41.A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be in place before applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 42.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 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 (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 43.Clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them. 44.Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. 45.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 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval 46.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 47.The applicant shall work with staff to address comments received from the reviewing agencies, including conducting MnRAMs for impacted and replacement wetlands for use in sequencing flexibility for impacts on wetlands A, D, E, J and L. Details regarding the stabilization of areas upslope of mitigation area M2 shall be included in the replacement plan. More detailed plans for mitigation areas M1 and M2, including cross-sections, shall be submitted. The applicant shall consider restorations of wetlands A, F and G for new wetland credit. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 48.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 49.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin C. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 50.All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 51.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 52.Bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 53.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 28 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 54.A copy of the LOMA shall be submitted to the City prior to alterations within the floodplain. In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain. 55.The developer shall determine the base flood elevation (100-year) to ensure that the structures will meet all floodplain elevation requirements. 56.The grade stabilization structure at the north end of Basin A is in disrepair and shallbe replaced. Before the development incorporates this structure into the permanent storm water management system, the structure shallbe assessed and a plan proposed and approved by the city for the repair or replacement of the structure, as well as long term maintenance. The applicant shallwork with the property owner to the north to get permission to repair or replace the structure. 57.Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shallbe provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water infrastructure. 58.A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shallbe in place before applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 59.Minimization of the amount of exposed soils on the site is needed; phasing of the development shalllimit the disturbed areas open. 60.All emergency overflows need temporary and permanent stabilization and shallbe shown in a detail or on the SWPPP. Energy dissipation (riprap and geotextile fabric) shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of flared end sections and outlet structures. 61.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 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 (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 62.Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed and could be located in the proposed permanent storm water pond locations. If Pond A does not get excavated prior to disturbing the contributing area; a temporary basin shall be constructed approximately in the areas of 29 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Street D and Lot 5, Block 3. Temporary basins shall be labeled on the SWPPP. A detail shall be provided for the temporary outlet structures for the temporary basins. Clay berms shall be used to temporarily divert runoff from the construction site to the temporary basins prior to discharge. Additionally the clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them. 63.Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. The inlet control (for area inlets, not curbside) detail shall be mono-mono heavy duty machine sliced silt fence with 4 foot maximum spacing for metal T-posts. A rock berm placed around the silt fence shall be at least 2 feet wide and 1 foot high of 1 ½ -inch clear rock. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be installed in all inlets through out the project within 24 hours of inlet installation. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 64.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $288,050. 65.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 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval 66.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. 67.A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 68.A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. Inspections and Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval 69.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 70.There are a number of additional fire hydrants required and some will be re-located. Discussion has been made with Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, to their relocation. 30 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 is required 71.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 72.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 73.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 74.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. The Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal will determine which streets will need naming. 75.“No parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs to be installed. 76.Submit cul-de-sac design dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Building Recommended Conditions of Approval 77. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 78. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 79. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 80. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 81. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 82. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 83. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 84. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Kevin Clark: Chair and commission, thank you very much. Appreciate your confidence in us and we’re looking forward to continuing to contribute to this kind of feedback we get nationally and locally and we’re glad to be part of it in Chanhassen so thank you very much. Appreciate it. McDonald: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL, PETERSON BLUFF. APPLICANT, J. EDWIN CHADWICK, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-20. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, who wants to start? Anyone have any questions? Keefe: Kate, I’ve got a question. In regards to the land use, 2020 Land Use Plan. With this change we’re going to see a reduction in the planned office industrial and an increase in the residential, low density residential. Can you tell us sort of over a period of time what happens in regards to if we get a little bit out of whack. What is the potential down side to it? And then it’s kind of early in the process where we’d have a fair amount of time to make up the variances but what happens if we don’t get it? Aanenson: Well one of the things that we’re working on right now, which we have guided that we believe will probably go more in the industrial, will be the old 212 corridor. We’re looking at that. We’re doing the corridor study as 212 becomes 312 and the old 212 is turning over to the County, the engineering department and planning staff is looking at an access corridor and how we provide good access for that because that we see also as a office industrial corridor. As we update the comprehensive plan we’ll be looking at those pieces. We just found out today we did get funding from the State to study the 101. One of the major problems we have in the city is going north to south. Bob’s...tomorrow with the 41 river crossing. That’s a heated issue. You know whether that’s actually going to go to provide access again getting people over the river, so we’re looking at that and how that provides access for some of that southern area to provide additional industrial. So that’s something we’ll be looking at. We’ll be updating the comp plan. It has to be done in 2008. We’ll be starting on that process next year. Kind of looking at taking a tally of where we are to date. Are some of our assumptions valid? Invalid and a lot of it has to do hopefully when you look at the tax, how the state’s, and that’s fluid right now. Industrial’s softer than multifamily. Multifamily takes a little bit more so that’s always a moving target too so we’ll be looking at that and giving…as we move forward. 32 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Keefe: What’s the down side for not hitting your target? You know I mean what happens? Is it a revenue issue or what is it in terms of, say we end up with more residential than… Aanenson: Well, sometimes it’s the people perceive. There’s a different service demand in different product types so really what it comes down to is do you need more schools or do you need more…for police and fire. Some of those sort of things that actually comes with industrial you have lots of demand on service. You may have more demand on a lot of services that the city sells so you know it’s those sort of issues. You’d have to provide schooling, and you know we’ve got the school district numbers. The Chaska district does a very thorough study, we just recently updated their’s, looking at product type and single family does produce the most number of children as opposed to other products, attached or otherwise apartments. Single family in general is the highest number of children located, so the…part of it’s demand. Those sort of things so it’s just the service call out, those sort of things. Keefe: So the guts of this change, you’re looking at point, was it .4 percent increase or something along those lines in regards to the plan. Aanenson: Yeah, right. And again looking at this, when we put the numbers together and updated the comprehensive plan we compared ourselves to other similar situated cities size in scale. Whether that be Chaska, Savage, kind of what percentage they have industrial. You know ultimately it’s the model that this city wants to be and where that, how that plays out. But again trying to be responsible to the overall economic stability of the community. Providing enough commercial to meet those needs. Some industrial and different housing styles. Keefe: Thank you. Papke: Just kind of following up on that. Question on page 6. The table for the AUAR. Is this the total net developable acres, is this before or after Town and Country and Peterson Bluffs? Aanenson: That’s before. Papke: This is before. Aanenson: So what we did is we maximized that so what we said, total residential units in that area can be 1,500. Papke: Okay. So if I understand this correctly, the total net developable acres initially drops industrial with 70 acres and between Town and Country and Peterson Bluffs we’ve lost 60, so we’re left with 10? Aanenson: No, it’s actually 30. There’s still some on the Degler piece, which is. Papke: Okay. Because you know, according to the staff report we lose 20 with Peterson Bluffs. We lose 40 with Town and Country. 33 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Aanenson: Yeah, I go by page 5. This is the other, the other piece right there. Papke: Okay. Related to that, on page 11 under the conditions. The first condition here, I’m a little confused by what it really means. Any land use changes to residential land use shall be based on another property requesting an industrial land use within the 2005 AUAR. What does that really mean to the developer? Aanenson: They had that same concern. I think the goal there was to see if we could try to replace that. That’s always something the City Council wants us to look at, and that goes back to the same question that Commissioner Keefe asked. You know what are we doing to make sure that we’re maintaining that and that was my answer, that we noticed another piece in the area. Not necessarily even in this 2005, although we do have a request. Some of that’s looking whether or not that deal comes about, we may or may not. Papke: So just to make sure I understand what the intent of this is, I mean the developer has no control over this. So this is really kind of a warning if you will or a caveat to the developer that approval of their application might be contingent on compensating. Aanenson: Right. The council may direct the staff to say you know if you can pick it up somewhere else, then we feel better about losing it. Putting them on notice. Papke: Okay. Then I understand. Thank you. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Larson: I don’t have any. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just one more on the industrial. As these are coming in now and we’re going residential and again the city’s looking for industrial, I think some of the concerns with the people aren’t ready to develop their land right now. When it gets to them and say the residence, the city wants industrial land, is that going to be forced on them? Aanenson: Right, well that’s always been an issue and because we do have other pieces that sit out there for a while because sometimes you’re waiting for the larger, for example Lifetime Fitness. The owner of that development asked several times for the city to split the piece. The city chose not to because we were waiting for that large tenant, and luckily we didn’t or we wouldn’t have Lifetime. So sometimes we just have to hold for the right tenant and that’s, the pressure isn’t there to change zonings. We’ve had that request with the school district about the property for that one to come in and change to multifamily and the council chose not to do that at that time and that’s the piece just as I mentioned that’s just north of this, kitty corner that the school district just bought. So there’s always economic forces to bear. But again we looked at, because we know the road is a blending of those two pieces and the topography, that lent a lot to the decision making that the staff went through. Again going back to how we got to Town and Country’s piece, the residents on the Chaska side. You know we looked at both those pieces. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Preserving the trees. The road issue and made the decision to go on that kind of lot fit in. What we’ve heard from a lot of people, and I know Mr. Fox is here, you know that we’ve heard a lot of people say they’d rather be on the other side with this, of the corridor had they known that. At the time we put the comp plan together, we weren’t even sure 212 was still going to be funded. So we looked at those across the street. How Degler got their piece industrial because all 3 of those corners were then industrial so that kind of was the rationale for some of that. Keefe: One more question. Just tying into, and there’s no proposal attached to this in regards to. Aanenson: That’s correct. Keefe: It’s just merely a zoning change. Why, why do we have just a zoning change without any sort of proposal? Aanenson: That’s a good question. Because if you go to the next level, as you saw the plans for Town and Country, there’s just thousand of dollars spent in engineering costs so this is really just to get an early read from you. To say does this make some sense and are we going to get no consideration, some consideration. So this is really what it is, kind of put together some ideas and get some direction and that’s what that list has all the building comments of staff, engineering, planning that put together in order to say does this make some sense. Is there a rationale basis to even go to the next level? McDonald: Okay. Well I’ve got a couple of questions for you. Need you to educate me a little bit. We’re being asked to approve a zoning for this to be a preliminary planned unit development. We’re given some details. But as I understand it, all this does is create a framework for development. What happens here is that the developer is kind of given the dimensions of his box and what he will do is fill it in. If you agree with it, that’s what we’ll bring to the commission. If not, you all will negotiate and work within to then come up with the inside. Am I? Aanenson: That’s correct. McDonald: Am I correct in all that? Aanenson: Yeah, again similar to the Town and Country process, they make, now they know where the road is, might say this is where we want, they may change some of the product type on that and then as a transition and that we probably put that on a work session for you and then kind of get it tighter and then build the plans from there. McDonald: Okay. And then, to kind of go where everyone else’s concerns are, if we go with this PUD, are we locked into looking at residential or if the builder comes back and says, no. I want to go industrial, does he have that kind of freedom of by approving this are we locking into a certain type? Aanenson: As stated in our city code, conceptual PUD has no legal standing. Even if you told them, I mean obviously the goal is to give some good faith direction but if the council could 35 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 obviously say something completely different, or they could come back and say you know we really changed our mind. We’d like to see something else. That’s, you’re allowed to do that too. McDonald: Okay, well I thank you for the education. I have no further questions. Does anyone else? And at that point is there anyone here from Mr. Peterson or representing his side of all this? John Chadwick: My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle. Chair, Planning Commission, staff. Thank you for the chance to visit with you this evening. Pretty exciting to be working here in a, what do I say, highly listed community. Really glad to do that one. I continue to support that. I was pretty excited when I saw that. I was going to be brief and then I remember my brother’s a pastor so brief is really kind of a relative thing. But Mr. Peterson is here tonight. He’s owned the property for 4 decades or been involved in it for even longer than that. Worked on it as a kid when they used to thrash, so if there’s any kind of questions you have on the history of it, I think he can provide that to you. There’s a great desire to make it a very nice project and to support the notion of a signature project and signature area for the community. And to that end the support of residential, we’re asking for that now that there’s residential on the west you just approved. There’s a beautiful park in the Bluff Creek Overlay District as well as a brand new city park to the north, and it was pointed out residents, residents use parks so rather than put an industrial building that nobody’s going to use the park, gee wouldn’t it be nice to have people that are right there to use that park that you’re going to build or have. And then if you look to the east, it looks like there might be some more residential coming in so to put a little sliver of something other than residential between all of that might not be the very best design to have Peterbuilt mixing with Tonka Toys. We’d like to support a very nice, kind of a little bit higher, high end development if you will overlooking that bluff and a little bit on the creek area, and there’s a lot of nice trees down in the valley. So we’re looking to preserve all of that rather than not preserve it and want to utilize those beautiful views that are there. And speaking of utilizing, in support of the AUAR, there’s definitely a plan to build that east/west. I think Bluff Creek Boulevard. Thank you. In support of that and this would allow utilization of that and of course repayment of the assessment right away, which is, we’re trying to support community goals and so we’d be able to do that. And in support of all of that we’d ask your kind consideration and that this can be given where it’s located and given the beautiful natural topography that it would be a nice addition to the community and we’d ask your consideration of it. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, any questions from the commission? Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got one question for you. If you were to receive approval on this, what is the general timeframe that you’re looking at for development. John Chadwick: If we were to get approval, we’d like to go as fast as we can. We have an engineer standing by and if they say, so that would really be great and it would really be nice to dove tail with all the efforts of engineering and planning on the AUAR. And that combined with, as I said in other meetings, kind of an army of yellow equipment coming over the ridge with the building of 212/312. Wouldn’t it be nice to tie that in and get some real good utilization 36 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 and you know let’s put our heads together and let those guys all work at once instead of leave and then have to come back. I mean that would be ideal. Keefe: So you’re looking more short term than maybe 10 years out? John Chadwick: Oh lord yes. McDonald: Any other questions? I have no questions at this time either. With that, this is a public meeting so I will throw this open to the floor. Anyone who wishes to address this issue is invited to come up for the lectern and all we ask is that you state your name and address your comments to the commission. Okay. Seeing no one coming up, at this point I will close the public meeting and I will entertain motions from the commission. Oh I’m sorry, I guess I am putting the cart in front of the horse. Okay, yes. Discussion for the commission and we will start with Kurt. Papke: I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I received my packet here to prepare for tonight’s meeting. I was very impressed with the quality of the development. The low density. The layout. I’ve already expressed, and you probably already heard my opinions on the round-a- bouts so I’m hopefully you’ll work in that direction. Being a homeowner just about a half mile east of this development and running by this area every Saturday and Sunday morning on my morning job, one area of concern I have is, and Mr. Peterson is probably aware of this having lived in this area, is that Pioneer Trail here makes sort of a natural valley and makes a natural sound reflector, okay. And the sound coming up just from Pioneer Trail today is pretty substantial and of course 212 will certainly add to that. And so one of the things, you know I was a bit surprised to see the single family along the south, southeast corner of the development. It’s up on a, the sight lines will be spectacular of course, but with any high place, development will also come a certain amount of susceptibility to sound, so I would hope the developer would be very sensitive to those sorts of issues, be it berms, trees, whatever you wish. I’m certain MnDot will do their utmost with 212, but for Pioneer Trail there’d be no protection from road noise whatsoever, and it’s one of the things, unless you live in this area you don’t appreciate, it’s a very quiet area because of the lack of development right now. I mean you can hear for about a mile in the morning a car coming down Pioneer Trail and so I think sound abatement will be one of the issues that will really contribute to the quality of the development in here, since you’re going to be quite close to both of the highways. Other than that I think it’s a great development and I look forward to seeing your future plans. McDonald: Thank you. Deborah. Zorn: I agree with Kurt. I think it’s a very nice plan and it’s a transition from the west and I would support this moving forward. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: No comments. McDonald: No comments? Debbie. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larson: Well I’m thrilled to finally see some low density going in because everything I’ve seen since I became part of the commission has been high density. Not that they’re not lovely projects. They are, but I’m thrilled to see it and good luck with it all. McDonald: Okay, Mark. Undestad: I agree. I mean it’s time to get it going with the rest of the package out there makes sense. McDonald: Okay. And I guess the only comment I will add is that I look forward to seeing details as you fill in what’s going to actually take place there and it should be exciting. We look forward to it. Okay, now with that I will entertain a motion from the commission. Zorn: I motion to, that the commission recommends approving Concept PUD with the following conditions, 1 through 26. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept PUD with the following conditions: 1.Any land use changes to Residential land use shall be based on another property requesting an Industrial land use with in the 2005 AUAR area. 2.Implementation of the AUAR recommendations. 3.The preliminary plat plans must incorporate the updated alignment of the east-west collector street and the proposed roundabout. 4.Turn lane requirements and the typical street section shown in preliminary plans must be consistent with the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report” recommendations. 5.A preliminary utility plan must be submitted with the preliminary plans and must comply with the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain design shown in the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report”. 6.A pressure reducing valve is required within the development and must be shown on the preliminary utility plan. 38 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 7.The preliminary utility plan must include lateral storm sewer to service the proposed development. 8.The developer’s engineer must work with Town & Country’s engineer to minimize the amount and/or height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 9.The attached single-family townhome buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 10.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 11.Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. 12.Complete proposed site, grading and utility plans must be submitted to determine more detailed requirements. 13.The City will be seeking park fees in lieu of land dedication on the Peterson parcel. 14.A report documenting the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual must be submitted to the City. 15.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around all Natural wetlands. 16.Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 17.All structures must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 18.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) must be shown on the plans and preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 19.The primary corridor boundary and the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary corridor and the setback. 39 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 20.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 21.Based on the existing canopy coverage for the site, the developer will need to meet minimum planting requirements. 22.Bufferyard planting will be required along the south and west property lines. 23.Landscaping for the attached housing area should include native species for overstory and foundation plantings as well as non-native, ornamental selections. 24.Large groupings of materials will help extend the natural areas into the developed sites and create privacy for residents. 25.A strong, boulevard tree planting element is recommended within the development and required along any collector roads. 26.The development should establish viewsheds to be preserved as part of the development.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-23. Public Present: Name Address Tom Witek 2318 Stone Circle Drive Jim Leonard 2360 Stone Circle Drive JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail Rick Buan 2569 Stone Creek Lane West Mimi & Nate Espe 2300 Stone Creek Lane West Cathy & Kevin DiLorenzo 2382 Stone Creek Lane West Ron Blum 2081 Stone Creek Drive Christine & Mark Fischer 2407 Bridle Creek Trail Peggy Emerson 8409 Stone Creek Court 40 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Aleta & Alex Donaldson 2460 Bridle Creek Trail Steve & Sarah Dale 2487 Bridle Creek Trail James Wise 2747 Wagner Drive Peter Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail Roger & Gay Schmidt 8301 Galpin Boulevard Paul & Amina Rinkes 2208 Boulder Road Mike Krych 2127 Boulder Road Rodney & Janice Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail McDonald: Before we start on this I’d like to make a couple announcements. First of all Mark Undestad is not going to participate in this portion of the meeting because of a conflict of interest. Secondly, this particular proposal before us has drawn a lot of comments and a lot of concerns from the people that live over in Trotters Ridge. We received numerous letters. I know individually we received letters. The council has also received letters. Everything has been forwarded to all members of the commission. We have read all of your letters and all of your comments. One of the other things I would like to also address is that I know I did receive some phone calls that I did not return. I’m not sure if anyone else on the commission did, but the policy of the commission is to not have an exparte communications with individuals and the reason for that is that we want to make sure that everyone gets a uniform response to their questions and answers. We welcome your questions to us and they are addressed by staff and also by the commission. With that we will now start the hearing on this particular project and I will ask for a report from staff. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Let’s start with Debbie. Larson: I have a question for you. I went out and looked at the site today and my concern tends to be with Lots 1 through 5 say. The homes that are over there. Beautiful homes over there. There are no trees within this area and this building’s going to go up and I’m wondering if they’re planning on putting substantial tree cover and buffer in there. I mean it says there’s a 100 foot buffer but is it going to block the side of the building because if I lived there, and certainly would like it to be camouflaged as much as possible. Generous: Yes to both of that. They are proposing some berming. As part of the letter you received, the neighbors have requested some larger berming and the applicant has actually had a neighborhood meeting with them and so I’ll let him present what he’s agreed to do on that. But there is extensive landscaping that our buffer yard requirements have to go in and that would be done as part of the subdivision review, so those trees would go in no matter, let’s say lots may not build for another 2 to 3 years but the trees that they put on the edges will time to grow over in this area. And they’re also looking at some switching on the site because they’re over on some areas and under on others so they’re going to meet all those areas where they’re under. On the west side where they’re over, they’re going to transfer that to the north side I believe… 41 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larson: Okay. And my other question is, it kind of looks like where this Lot C would be in, and actually maybe even part of Lot 8. It looks like quite a ravine that leads up to where the homes are. Is that going to be the area that you’re talking about that’s going to be filled in? And will it be filled in all the way back up to where the homes are? Generous: I don’t know that it’s totally all the way up there. Larson: And maybe it’s because the trees on Outlot C were high. Maybe that’s. Generous: They’re raising that whole area on the east and then on the end of that they’re going to put the berm into so. Larson: So if they raise that, that raises your building higher too, correct? Generous: Yes. Larson: Okay. Generous: Also it’s down low from, if you look at it from the road, it will still be below that elevation where they have the parking lot elevation and then the first floor is a little bit up above that. Larson: So what’s the purpose of raising that? Is it a drainage issue or is it a? Generous: Well partially it’s also to prepare the site for development and to make sure that the, everything, the utilities all work because they’re going to put the road in and they have to meet minimum driveway elevations so they can’t be too steep on that. Larson: Because like I say, it puts the buildings down in the ditch, then the people wouldn’t have an issue. Okay, that’s all I have. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I think you spoke to this a little bit in the report and maybe just a little bit now. Can you address the access to Lyman Boulevard? Generous: I think I would defer to Alyson on that. Morris: Good evening. I’ve had some conversations with Bill Weckman over at Carver County Public Works. With both Galpin and Lyman being county roads, we really defer to the county regarding access. Mr. Weckman has expressed that the county prefers the access to be at Galpin. They are looking at Lyman Boulevard to be an east/west collector. The significance of that being an east/west collector throughout the county is, particularly with the 212 project. How that meets up with 212 there. They want to limit the access onto Lyman Boulevard for safety reasons so that Lyman Boulevard can carry a larger amount of traffic with fewer conflict areas, i.e. where an intersection would be. The other reason for the proposed access to be at Galpin is the city 42 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 standard for access spacing on this type of road. The 2020 comp plan has directed a regional analysis of the roadway system identifying both Lyman and Galpin as arterial roads. As such they recommended access spacing guidelines. The city’s code requires a 1,320 foot spacing. If you’re looking at Lyman Boulevard and also with the wetland in the southwest corner there, the closest, or pardon me the further away they can have an access from Galpin is 1,000 feet, so it wouldn’t meet the city’s requirement but it would meet the city’s access spacing as far as intersecting at another cross street, i.e. the street to the east. So that was the reasoning we went through with this proposed access to Galpin. Keefe: How far is the current access from Lyman? Morris: The current access from Lyman actually does not meet the city standard. That’s correct. But it does meet, it’s a lesser of two evils if you will. Neither access would meet the access spacing. However there’s currently an access to Galpin at, I apologize. I can’t remember the cross street. At Stone Creek Drive, so that’s the place that they said to have the location for the street connection. Keefe: Okay. Let me see that one…to the building height and the buffering between Trotters Ridge and the proposed buildings. It looks like the design standards that you’re proposing would not allow a building over 40 feet, and we’re looking at an elevation of it looks like around 956 I think, so we’re looking at a substantial height for a building. You know you have to take about 40, essentially we don’t know that they’re going to go to that necessarily and they have to come in for review on each particular lot, is that correct? Generous: That’s correct. They have to do a site plan review. Keefe: Okay. And is berming that they’re proposing what is on, and I’m not sure if I’ve got the right plan or not but is 966 the berming height they’re proposing? Generous: What showed up on the original plan. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Generous: It should be 3 feet above the ground floor elevation. Keefe: Okay, and then that’s on the northeast corner and then to the northwest corner we’re looking at, I mean I don’t even see any berming. Generous: No, they’re using some distance in that instance. Keefe: Yeah, so you’ve got 200 feet. 200 feet from the property line and okay. Generous: And then preservation of the existing vegetation and then additional landscaping. Keefe: At least on my plan I’m looking at, it doesn’t appear that there’s many trees, but I may be not looking at the right thing in that northwest corner. 43 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Generous: No there’s not. Significant trees. Keefe: Northwest. Well really in either case from what I could tell. I mean Outlot C had all the trees. Generous: Yes. The majority. Keefe: Right. And then Lots 5 and 6 it looks like are, don’t have a lot of trees on them so okay. Generous: No. If you go up…you can see from the entrance all the way down to the development. Keefe: Right. I’m particularly sensitive to the residents to the north and trying to make it as little visual intrusion as we can in regards to that. Okay. McDonald: Okay? Deborah. Zorn: Come back to me. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: What’s the responsibility of the developer and the city in terms of the drainage on the northeast corner? This kind of gets back to one of the points that was raised before when you put, if you look at the topo maps here, there’s a natural drainage to the south to the wetland and I have some concerns with Trotters Ridge. It looks like Lot number 1, 2, 3 and 4 maybe 5, all drain towards that berm. How would that be accommodated in this plan? Would there be a storm sewer? Would there be a swale? I mean these people probably don’t want a pond in their back yard. What’s, what would, how would that be mitigated? Generous: Well I know there’s already a pipe in the back yard to take water to the north. I’m not sure if it’s, the developer could probably. Papke: Maybe we can defer until you, maybe defer until it’s your… The other question I had on the plans is, on the west side of Lot 6 there’s a retaining wall that goes down to the cul-de-sac. That looks like that’s quite substantial. If I’m reading the plan correctly, it’s not marked on the plan but if I just look at the elevations and so on, it looks to be almost a 12 or a 13 foot retaining wall. Does that kind of match your understanding of the plans? Is it a pretty good sized wall? Generous: Yes, that’s my understanding that that, so they don’t have to grade into that treed area. Papke: Okay. The intersection of the proposed access road with Galpin and Stone Creek there, I assume it would have to be at least a two way stop obviously, but are you looking at a potential four way or how will traffic be controlled at that intersection? 44 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Morris: Traffic control at that intersection again we’d have to refer to the county since it’s under their jurisdiction. We can certainly work with the developer so that they can post a stop sign at their entrance. I think that would be a good place to have them stopping traffic so that they can make a safe passage out to Galpin. Papke: So were you talking about a stop sign on Galpin to, or from the exit of the development? Morris: From the exit of the development. Papke: So you would not foresee any kind of a four way stop at that intersection? It would strictly be a two way stop at best, is what I hear you saying. Morris: At Galpin and the proposed access? Papke: Yes. Morris: I would, at this point we can, all we can do is get them to have a stop at their intersection. To make Galpin a four way stop we have to then bring the county in because it’s their jurisdiction. Papke: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Now we’ll go back to Deborah. Zorn: Bob, is it safe to assume that each of the individual lots will be further discussed at another time, but is it safe to assume that all these lots are showing a 40 foot height building and that respective parking would include that so if the buildings were proposed to be lower, that parking would decrease. Generous: I don’t know that we were looking at the 40 foot height. I think they were spreading these out more, but the parking would correspond to the square footages that they had in their site plan. Concept site plan. So yes, if they had smaller buildings on the individual lots the parking would be down. If they are two lots together that had complimentary units, we could look at shared parking. Zorn: Okay. Keefe: I have one Jerry. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: Going back to the access onto Galpin. Do you have any sense on what the traffic count will be coming out of this development? One of my concerns is now if these buildings are built individually, it would be nice to sort of have a sense on what we’re really dealing with in regards to traffic. Because it sure looks like a lot of parking. 45 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larson: Yeah, it looks like a lot of parking. Morris: Bob did a preliminary analysis of the number of trips based on the most intense use of the property. Based on that he came up with 26, just around 2,600 trips. Again looking at the 2020 comp plan transportation, they use the land use as their guide when they generated traffic volumes. Since their proposed land use of this parcel is consistent with the 2020 plan, we can feel with confidence that the numbers that were generated in our comp plan showing that Galpin as it is right now, 52 foot wide street is sufficiently designed to carry that additional traffic. Keefe: Just to follow up on that. The type of use being office industrial would be, you know leads you to believe there might be some larger trucks going in and out of there. I know there’s some going in and out of there today but if you’re talking 2,600 trips, you’d be talking a substantial increase potentially in what goes in there. Can you give me your thoughts in regards to volume of larger trucks going up and down, you know the increase in the volume of larger trucks going up and down Galpin. I mean do we try to guide them in any particular way out to Lyman or do we have them go up Galpin or give me some sense on the traffic flow in regards to. Morris: Well without knowing the exact uses on the property it’s very difficult to give you a number of tractor trailer turning movements into and out of the property. What we can look at is on a regional basis where would these tractor trailer units be coming from and the most logical route that they would take. Ultimately if they’re coming from an east/west they would take 212 up to Lyman, north on Galpin. That’s just a guess. As far as a turning movement there. In order to improve the safety at the intersection, I did talk to the county engineer about striping and turn lanes. Right now there’s right turn lanes for both north and southbound traffic on Galpin at the intersection of Stone Creek, and the entrance to the site there. When I talked to him about that, about the possibility of striping a turn lane, he expressed that the county wants to have a consistent striping pattern throughout that corridor. That they would keep, if this project were to move ahead they would keep an eye on the traffic volumes going in that area, and at that point on a system wide basis of going and striping turn lanes which would have a taper into a left turn lane and then the sufficient length of the left turn lane going, if you’re going northbound on Galpin, to make a left turn onto this public street to access the proposed development. So we’ve done a lot of, we’ve had a lot of conversations with the county trying to work with the resident’s concerns. I understand we want to keep traffic off Galpin but also looking at, on a regional basis, what the county wants for a regional corridor and trying to make the proposed access on Galpin as safe as possible. McDonald: Could I just follow up on that, while we’re talking about that. With the number of trips you’re talking about and the parking spaces and the potential for the people that are in there and everything, what would trip a traffic light study at that point? Because come 5:00 you get everybody in the world trying to get out of there. We’re creating a problem. Morris: To do an analysis as to whether a signal is warranted, there’s several warrants that need to be met in order to meet the requirement to get a traffic signal. They include traffic volumes, traffic speeds, accidents, accidents with fatalities, that sort of thing. Those are the criteria for a street light. That’s not closing that, of course we don’t want to have fatalities out there, but those are the warrants for traffic signals. 46 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Now who controls that? Do we have any input into it or because it’s a county road, is that strictly something that they would control? Morris: Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of experience with Carver County. I’ve had more experience with Dakota County and I guess it’s whether or not they wait until all the warrants are met or if they feel that they want, if they foresee the need for a street light there, for a traffic light there. If they want to do something of that nature. The forecasted volumes on Galpin actually within the 212 project going through are, there’s a reduction in the forecasted volume because 212 will alleviate some of the traffic off Galpin, so there is, you know there is some positive… with 212 going through there, there will be reduced volumes on Galpin. But again it’s, with the county being in control of that, that road, we would have to defer to see what they would do. McDonald: Well let me ask you this. What input do we have to get the county to look at that? I mean do we get to call them up and say hey, we’ve got a lot of traffic there. We want to see a study. We want to see something done, or are we just at their mercy? Morris: We certainly could, and like I said I’ve had several conversations with the county engineer. He’s been very responsive to the proposed project and the questions that have come up by residents, so we could certainly ask what his thoughts are regarding a signal at that location. McDonald: Okay, and again the whole thing kind of depends upon the details of what goes into these lots. I mean the way it’s laid out right now…the mercy of waiting until the details fall into place. But this is something that we do stay on top of and watch and okay. Papke: Could you explain the rationale or the logic behind how 212 will reduce traffic on Galpin. It seems somewhat counter intuitive in that right now most of the homeowners along Galpin would naturally drive up to Highway 5 and now with 212, the natural inclination would be to drive down to Lyman. Take Lyman to the 212 on ramp at Lyman and 101. So it seems, you know it doesn’t you know seem immediately obvious to me that that would be the case. Another thing, considering the other two projects we’ve approved tonight, there’s going to be a lot of population down in the AUAR area and we have Lifetime Fitness now and the natural path from the AUAR to Lifetime Fitness is right up Galpin. Okay, so I’m kind of struggling with, you know and I understand the computer models and everything but I’m kind of struggling with you know how, you know is this really going to be indicative of the kinds of traffic levels we’re going to see. Morris: I apologize…regarding how 212 helps out on the traffic volumes. With the traffic going to the site. Being able to access from 212 to Lyman then going north on Galpin versus taking 5, Galpin and going southbound. Reducing the length of Galpin that they would have to travel. And unfortunately I haven’t seen any of the traffic forecasts for 212 to see how the different divergents go. In the 2020 comp plan they do have the forecasted volume for Galpin with 212 being in place. The 2010 count would be 6,000 with 212 being in place. Otherwise it would have been 10,000, so they have their computer models that take all the streets and place the collector roads in place and that’s how they generate those numbers. Unfortunately I’m not aware of how the traffic is being directed by the anticipated growth on Galpin. 47 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Larson: I’ve got one more. You know I’m not quite fully understanding, and maybe you could, you explained it once but it didn’t sink in. Explain to me why we can’t have the entrance on Lyman versus Galpin. I’m looking at this. A logical spot would be between the pond and 2, to me. Are there safety reasons or what’s the reason why they couldn’t come in off of that road? Morris: Okay. There’s from two different perspectives. From the county’s perspective, they want to limit the access onto Lyman Boulevard because they see it as an east/west collector road through the county where they want to take larger traffic volumes with minimal entrances to make it a safer path, a safer road. Minimal road connections to it. Larson: But aren’t you compromising the safety of Galpin for the safety of Lyman? You know what I mean? I mean I’m just thinking, you know the residents here and all the traffic, I’m looking at these parking spaces and I’m going man, that’s a lot of traffic going in and out of there. They’re going to be going both directions. Not necessarily one way or the other. Morris: Right. Lyman also has a higher traffic volume. Projected traffic volume than Galpin does. Larson: Not after this… I mean truly I’m looking at these parking spots and I’m just counting what, and you know there’s a lot. Morris: Well the information that we had was, like I said, the SRF analysis with the 2020 comp plan which included, which analyzed the whole, the city wide based on existing and proposed land use. Existing and proposed road systems, and based on that information they came up with a traffic volume of 6,000 vehicles per day on Galpin, which is a little higher than what it is right now. That’s for the 2010 count. That’s the 2010 projection. So with Lyman having higher traffic volume the county wanting to use Lyman Boulevard as an east/west collector, that was one of the reasons why we weren’t proceeding with the access to Lyman. The second one was that the city’s requirement for, with Lyman Boulevard being classified as an arterial, the city’s requirement is that any access, accesses have to be 1,320 feet apart and/or meet an existing intersection. So it doesn’t meet the city’s requirement for spacing. However as Councilmember Papke had mentioned, the proposed access doesn’t meet that 1,320 foot spacing requirement either. However it does meet up with Stone Creek Drive, which is an existing intersection. Larson: But it’s residential. You know what I mean? Morris: I agree, and. Larson: It’s not the same kind of road to me. It’s a residential thing going into trucks and other things and to me that seems not logical in my opinion, but that’s what they’re, because it’s a road they just consider it. Morris: It’s an existing intersection. We’re responding to the county’s request. Larson: Sorry. Didn’t mean to drill you. 48 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Morris: No, that’s okay. McDonald: Further questions from the council. Commission. Larson: Yeah, I have one more actually. McDonald: Okay. Larson: Getting back to the building site for Lot 6. There’s, I know that we’ve got a proposed height of 40 feet. Could that possibly be reduced rather than accommodating, such as a 3 story, maybe a 2 story building? Would that be a consideration just for that lot, because other, the other residents seem to have a nice buffer. You know the ponds and the trees and everything, but that lot, I mean those people in those homes, they’re going to be looking at buildings and I don’t know if that would be a consideration that they could just for that particular one. Generous: As part of the PUD you could make specific standards for specific lots. Larson: Okay, well that would be something that I would be interested in pursuing if in fact this goes through. Keefe: That’s a good question. So would we do that at this point or would we do it at individual site review? Generous: No, you would have to do it as part of the design standards. To create those building parameters. An example would be Villages on the Ponds. On the east side of the project there’s a two story height limit. As you go to the middle of the project it’s a 4 story height limit. McDonald: Any further questions? Okay, seeing no further questions from the commissioners, I would ask if the applicant is present and wants to address the commission. Ben Merriman: Good evening Chairman and commissioners. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m with Eden Trace Corporation. I’m the developer of the site. Would like to just kind of go over the site plan a little bit and how we arrived at some of the design standards that we have in working with the city. Address a couple of issues that have come up. First of all, if we can go to this drawing. When we looked at this site, it was a lot of different things…and then after reviewing it with staff…put this into a preserve. This whole Outlot C goes into a preserve. That preserves these trees. Now we were dealing with additional trees that run through this way, and there are some more here and down here. We preserved these by running the lot line from these two lots right down the center of the trees. So with the setbacks of those lots we’re able to save a great deal or all of these trees that are in green right here. We’re also saving the trees that are here, and along here. We are losing some in here. This area actually is raised by about 6 feet, so this area comes up through here. Comes up about 6 feet so we will lose some of these trees through here. We did look at an access point coming off of Lyman that came up through this way and at the county’s request it was switched to here. We had both, we looked at both alternatives and this is the county’s request. We’re doing a couple of unique things with respect 49 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 to water on the overall site and then I’ll address some of the questions that have arisen in this 100 foot setback with the neighbors to the north in Trotters Ridge. In most of our developments we take all the water off the impervious surface, off the roof, off the parking lots and it runs into a pipe and then it’s piped down to a regional pond. What we’re going to try on this development is to take the water off of these impervious surfaces and actually into the ditches. We’re going to design the ditches so that they run towards the regional pond and then pipe it across roads and then into the regional pond. And what this does is it allows a lot of the water to actually penetrate back into the soils in this area versus going directly to the holding pond, so it’s a new type of way to transfer the water and we think it will work quite well. We’ve also in this area up in here again to preserve some of the trees, what we did is we put a shared driveway through here and we kind of bent it into the Lot 4 and 5, so Lot 4 and 5, this lot and this lot will share a driveway versus each one having their own, and that preserves some of the additional trees and from there. With respect to trucks, yes. This will create traffic and the traffic counts that they projected I think are probably fairly accurate. With respect to large semi truck traffic, these buildings, people may say that a 50,000 square foot building is a large building. It actually isn’t that large when it comes to a distribution type of a facility. If you’re going to have a distribution facility and run large semi trucks, which are going to carry large volume of product, you’re probably going to be in a building that’s going to be 150 to 300,000 square feet. And they’re prevalent around the Twin Cities. And so that’s the type of building that would house a large semi truck traffic. Most of our developments, and we’ve developed a number of different properties here in Chanhassen, are companies that are in very light manufacturing. Some are in software companies. It’s a very diverse mix of companies. And most of them, we don’t have anyone that’s in heavy manufacturing of any type and we don’t have anyone that’s really per se in distribution as well. We have some people that re-package items and then send them out. They’re just duplicating type machines. Those type of things. Want to talk one more thing about this retaining wall was brought up and it is a fairly steep retaining wall. And what that allows us to do is to, if we build this retaining wall we can get access to this lot and we can also preserve and stay out of the drip line of all those trees. If we slope it, it becomes a longer, elongated and we’re looking at doing that so we may reduce this retaining wall some by sloping but there will be a retaining wall in here and that’s basically so that we can build up to it without going into the drip line of the tree. Otherwise we have to maintain a certain grade level from trees coming down, and so by putting in a retaining wall, we can bring this cul-de-sac up to the retaining wall and still stay out of the drip line of the trees. If we go into the drip line of the trees, you’ll lose the trees. If you run the caps on any type of the roofs, that tends to kill the trees so that’s what we’re trying to alleviate there. Want to talk a little bit about this is a 100 foot setback that’s in here, and want to talk about two things. One is with the 100 foot setback we can put a berm across in here and the berm with a 3 to 1 ratio we can get about a 12 foot high berm, and that will be sloped up. Hit 12 feet and then slope back down. We’ll plant spruce trees along the top of it and then on both sides, or a majority will be on this side but on both sides we can plant spruce, maple, lindens, those type of things. Ash. And we think that will help out a great deal. We’d like to plant the spruce on the top of it because it offers a great deal of visibility blockage during the entire season versus just in the summer months, and we think that will help a great deal. The 100 foot setback is basically a code issue that we’ve complied with here. The water drainage, all of the water in this entire project filters this way and as I explained, a lot of it runs through the ditches because that’s a new way of running the water that we haven’t tried that the watershed district would like us to comply with. It all runs this way. The only water that 50 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 would actually go towards these homes would be from the top of that berm going that way. So you could essentially say for approximately 50 feet if the berm was centered through this 100 foot easement, the water from the top of that berm would go towards these homes. There is an outlet pipe that runs from here and runs under and actually runs towards the wetlands to the north. Papke: If I may interrupt at this point, as long as we’re on the topic. Ben Merriman: Sure. Papke: My concern was not your development draining into Trotters Ridge but rather the opposite. My concern was let’s take the example of Lot 2 here. Lot 2 drains towards your berm. Ben Merriman: It does. Papke: Okay. And where will that water go? Ben Merriman: There’s a pipe that runs out here and it actually runs north. Papke: So is there a, is there a storm sewer? How is that water captured and transported to this pipe you’re speaking of? I guess I’m not understanding how the water gets out of this low lying area. Ben Merriman: Drainage. It naturally drains to this point or, it’s either here. It’s right in this area here. It doesn’t show up on this plan. And it naturally drains that way currently and then runs that direction. There’s no really, to my knowledge there’s really no standing water over in this area except in heavy rains and then it slowly runs out of that pipe. We could, and can, if we believe that there may be a problem, take the water around and run it towards our site. So we could put an outlet for this area to run towards our regional pond if it’s deemed necessary. Because we certainly don’t, by putting a berm in I do not want to increase the amount of water in this area, and we can certainly run a pipe and get it around the berm and take it towards our regional pond here. That wouldn’t be a problem. Does that sort of address that? Okay. With respect to building heights, on this particular building what currently I think you have is it 45 feet and 4 stories or how is again? Generous: 4 and 50 is what the IOP district would permit. Ben Merriman: It’s what? Generous: 4 stories and 50 feet. Ben Merriman: 50 feet. I think what we would be willing to do is to drop that down to 35 feet for this building, so that this building comes down and has a 35 foot limit. And that would be to the top of the parapet. In other words there’s a finish floor elevation and then it goes up and then there’s a roof, a flat roof and then the roof actually extends above that and that’s called a parapet, 51 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 so it would be at the top of the parapet. So it’d be 35 feet from the ground to the top of the parapet. So we’d be willing to do that on that particular building. McDonald: Excuse me. If you do that on that particular building then you’ve more or less limited that building to pretty much office space haven’t you? Ben Merriman: No. When people start stacking pallets, and this gets to a fire issue so I won’t get too in depth into it, but when people start stacking pallets you can basically if you take 3 pallets high, you put on racks and go 3 high. After you go to 4 pallets or 5 pallets high, you get into a fire code issue and then you have to get into in rack sprinkling. Early suppressant fast response systems in order to suppression that much product in that much area, and so generally people don’t do that. Unless you’re going to the distribution facilities that I mentioned before, if you’ve got a 200,000-300,000 square foot building, then that’s exactly what they do. They go 8 racks high. But this one will be limited, this would be basically a building that would have about 3 pallets high or it’d be an 18 foot, 20 foot, 24 foot clear building. Inside. Bob mentioned this as he was going through the presentation. We’ve got access trees over here on the west side and we’re going to take that down to the standard. The city standard. We’re going to take those trees plus a lot extras and we’ll wind from here across with trees. As many as we can get in, given that in 5 years we have to allow for growth, but within landscaping design standards we’ll basically pack this area with trees with the berm. The same thing on this area over here. We’ll also line this area with trees and we’re going to increase the amount of trees along Galpin Boulevard on the top, on the road side. On the hill side, and so that will act as an additional visible block from neighbors here. And the same thing for here. Larson: I’ve got a question for you while we’re on the subject of trees. In the woods that it looks like you’re going to be taking out the trees. The gray area. Ben Merriman: Here or here? Larson: Yeah. Are any of those trees mature oaks, because I know there’s some oaks. Ben Merriman: Yes, some of them are. Larson: Yeah. How many proposed old mature oak trees do you plan on taking out, do you know off hand? Ben Merriman: I don’t know exactly how many oaks are in there. I’d have to go to the tree, yeah we’ve done a tree count and with species so we know exactly how many trees are on here and what type of trees they are, and that’s how we get to the calculation for tree replacement and we’re actually going to exceed the tree replacement count. And I understand these are large trees, and that’s the whole premise of what happened up in here. That’s why we went through this process of Outlot C and made this a preservation easement to retain all those trees. We’re not able to save all of them. Larson: Okay. 52 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Any other questions? Keefe: Can you speak to your sidewalks and where they go throughout the site. Ben Merriman: There’s a sidewalk down I believe it’s just one side of the cul-de-sac that runs through here. It’s not on both sides is it Bob? Generous: I thought there was just one. Ben Merriman: Yeah, it’s just on one side. There will be a sidewalk that runs on the cul-de-sac. Keefe: Okay, and then how about up along Galpin, what is the. Generous: Trail on both sides of Galpin currently. Keefe: Okay, and does that tie, go down to Lyman as well or where does it go? I mean does it terminate at Lyman? Generous: I believe so, yes. Eventually Lyman will have a trail system too. When it’s upgraded. Keefe: Okay, the future would have a tie in, but it terminates at Lyman. There will be a sidewalk going into this site. A sidewalk along the street that goes into the site, and then all the way up Galpin. Generous: Right. Ben Merriman: That’s correct. Keefe: Is there anything on the west side, and I don’t even know what’s on the west side. Generous: It’s an industrial park. Ben Merriman: The west side, the industrial lots back right up to this property. There’s a berm that runs across there and that’s about it. Keefe: There’s no path system… Generous: Not internally, no. On Lyman there will be. Keefe: Yeah, okay. McDonald: Any further questions of the applicant? Ben Merriman: Thank you. 53 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Merriman. With that I will throw the meeting open to public comment and what I would ask is that you come up to the microphone. Address the commission. Give us your name and address as it relates to your interest within this plan and everything. So whoever wants to come up first. And also, as you’re doing so, it’s 10:00 right now. What I would ask is that you not repeat the same things over and over again and I would hope that you all would have gotten together and you’ve got your lists down and thank you very much. LuAnn Sidney: Yes, I should be passing out coffee right now. Chair and Planning Commissioners, my name is LuAnn Sidney and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail, and I’ll put this up here so that can be projected. I live in the Trotters Ridge development and my house is the fifth house on the south side of the neighborhood and I would be directly impacted by this proposed development. Last Thursday evening a number of neighbors got together and met about the proposed development and to discuss the staff report. I will be speaking on behalf of the neighbors for a few minutes when I present a request concerning buffering and restrictions to the PUD. First let me set the stage by showing you an aerial view of the. McDonald: Excuse me ma’am. Would you point out your house on the map? LuAnn Sidney: Oh sure. Right here. First let me set the stage, like I said, to show you this aerial view of the Trotters Ridge and Stone Creek neighborhoods and the industrial development in Chaska to our west, southwest and southeast. Trotters Ridge and Stone Creek are truly on the edge of residential civilization in Chanhassen and we truly need some relief from the intense industrial development near us in the proposed development we’re talking about tonight. This is why we’re asking for increased buffering and restrictions to the PUD. We really need a reasonable and satisfactory transition between these vastly different land uses, industrial and residential to maintain the quality of life in our neighborhoods. And I’ll point out a few features here on this map. Hope they can hear me. We have Trotters Ridge to the north. And this is Galpin Boulevard. Right in here we have the subject property, and then Stone Creek to the east. Please note the intense, large area of industrial development and I think that really points out the fact that we are really just, well we really need some kind of reasonable transition between these uses. And also as I was listening tonight the commissioners did point out justifiably that we have some very severe traffic concerns too in this area because of all the development in Chaska and we’re adding to it with this development as well as the school just south of Stone Creek. So when the neighbors met, as I said we discussed the staff report and we would like to present a request in the form of condition amendments to the development design standards. Hopefully this will be useful to you on the Planning Commission. Be both concise and time saving and obviously I’ve had experience as a Planning Commissioner and I was hoping that these would help you and you wouldn’t have to formulate conditions as you go here when you start discussing them. I’m wondering if you received the revised list today? Everyone. Yes, I believe so. We’ll go through here and there should be some highlighted areas. Bolded areas in the conditions that we’ll point to this as a revised version of today. In condition 1 of the staff report we’d like to increase, and this will be added to the current condition. Increase spruce, ash, maples and lindens to the east and north side, including Outlot B of the development to exceed buffer yard requirements by 100%. And on the north of buffer yard D, which the developer has selected the 20 foot depth, we’d like 40 feet and more trees at the same intensity. And on the 54 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 east side it’s buffer yard D at 15 feet depth and we’d like 30 feet of the same intensity tree plantings in that area. Plantings along Outlot B should be outside the wetland buffer zones, and we noted in the landscape plan, which I don’t have marked a sheet whatever, that they had noted that they were planting the buffer zone which is a no no. Okay, condition 3, we’d like to increase the buffer zone around trees and that’s to protect the root system of these mature oaks. We have a lot of mature oaks in that area. And I’d like to see and we would all like to see I should say, the people who met, increasing the space between the tree and where any Bobcat might run. Okay, condition 5. Trees should be planted beyond the wetland buffer zones. I know that that needs to be revised from the site plan from the developer. 23, condition 23. If you look on sheet 5 of 13, and you do have a reduction in your packet, …the retaining wall on the outside line of Building 6 be moved outside of the 100 foot buffer zone on that side. Now maybe Bob would look at that. I wondering if you can pass this around. Okay, so the retaining wall we’re concerned about is that this is impacting mature trees, and especially impacting the folks on Lots 1 and 2. So we’d like to have this retaining wall moved so that we can save more trees on that northeast corner and east side of Building 6. And even more down there. Now we talked a bit about. Keefe: How far are you talking about because it’s a 100 foot setback and then, so you’re talking what? LuAnn Sidney: 200 feet. Yes, we’d like a large buffer there. Especially if we’re going to ask for increased plantings, it makes sense that we’d have a larger buffer zone. Okay, 26. We talked about the moving the primary access to Lyman Boulevard. Because of the intense, potentially intense development of this property we’d like to see a secondary safety access road be provided and that could be the Galpin entrance, but that would not be the primary entrance. We’d like to move the primary access to Lyman Boulevard and again it’s really a concern about safety and Commissioner Larson mentioned the fact that we’re going from a residential street intersection to an industrial street right across the road, and that seems unsuitable. And why not put all the trucks on Lyman? That’s what it was built for. And will be expanded to accommodate. And also I received a note from one of the neighbors that there is a current need for marked crosswalks on Galpin. And I guess that’s more of a note to staff. 36(h), construction of the rock entrance must be off Lyman, again pointing to Lyman Boulevard as the primary access and all construction traffic shall stay off Galpin. And then 51 we also reiterate the concerns we have about moving the primary access to Lyman Boulevard. When I asked staff a few questions and we did talk about the fact that the plan doesn’t show a water surface stub for Lot 6, I guess there’s a little bit of juggling of the shared driveways to make it more symmetrical for Lot 5. But I guess what was most concerning to me was learning that potentially what we’re talking about in off site grading, we’re actually talking about grading to provide the berm… We’re showing potentially grading actually into Lots 1 through 4, and I don’t think people want that. So I think that really speaks to the fact that we need a larger buffer there and I’m sure a number of the neighbors will be addressing the water issue after me but I need some relief here. There’s no reason to encroach onto the property owners back yards to put this berm in, so we need more space. And we do have the new condition 53. And then we also thought of some additional conditions we’d like you to consider recommending. Truly we need 100% screening from the north boundary properties and like I said, we’d like the buffer zone to be increased to at least 200 feet. And that’s condition, new condition 54. 55. The applicant shall reduce the square footage 55 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 of building 6 to a maximum of 50,000 square feet and provide appropriate articulation using staff’s term, especially on the north property boundary. We’d like to see the heights of buildings 5 and 6 not to exceed one story, plus whatever screening or parapet might be there for the roof top equipment. The applicant shall add a minimum 15 foot berm and again landscaping to provide screening for Outlot B on Lots 1 through 4 in Trotters Ridge. This would be a mixture of trees and also the berm along Lots 1 through 4 will have grass and be mowed and maintained. That’s what the neighbors who own those properties would like. So not a natural berm but something that would be maintained and have grass. We haven’t gotten word about Outlot B. What they would like to see if they want a natural berm or manicured so that will have to be addressed later. 57. That has to do with our property. The silt fence or tree protection fence on the north boundary, we’d like that at least 10 feet away from the drip line of a large oak that we have in our back yard. This tree is a 40 inch diameter white oak with a 60 foot crown and we’ve been babying it for many years and spending a lot of money on it and I’d like to see tree protection fencing way away from the dripline and also not extend the berm into our lot area but in the berm at Lot 4. 58. I added, which is saying, directing the fact that we want a permanent conservation easement. I guess I’m still confused because we have options given in the conditions to condition 53 that it be city owned or private owned. Whatever it is, it should be permanent. Outlot not to be developed. Okay, 59. Keep the retaining wall 10 feet outside the drip line of existing trees on the northeast corner, and I think that whole area needs to be revisited. We have some encroachment on trees and with a little bit of give from the developer we could save more trees if we increase that buffer. And move the retaining walls. 60. Again we’d like a larger buffer. Increase it from 50 feet to 100 feet along the east side of Galpin and add more trees. And I added as I was writing here and this is my contribution here this evening, is that the applicant will conduct a traffic study based on current uses in Chanhassen and similar industrial developments to include the impact of the proposed school and the new Town and Country development because I can see where we’re going to have a heck of a lot of a traffic on Galpin as a result of those developments. Plus we already have what we have with Chaska industrial parks. So you have the power as the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council these changes which will help both us and the city. And I’d like you to consider these new conditions. And we also as a neighborhood discussed some other conditions which Bob Generous suggested should really be a part of the development design standards and this sets the tone for ongoing site plan reviews that will be, being brought before you. We’d like to see the applicant limit the hours of operation of any business from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. and that would be changing in the staff report under the development design standards the permitted uses. And also under that same section, business type shall not include conference, convention centers, hotels, motels, or research labs. Now the reason for research labs is we have enough odors and fan noise already. We don’t need any more so anything that would contribute to that, please you know make that a use that’s not permitted. Also the applicant shall not permit outdoor storage of any kind. We’d like that as part of the prohibitive, and I created a new section ancillary uses. That’s an eyesore and it really will be detracting from the views from our neighborhood. Businesses shall not have outdoor paging systems. Again another prohibitive use. We’re dealing with that already from Chaska. The applicant shall provide for additional sounding proofing materials in Building 5 and 6. That can be added into any building materials and design. And also the light level for site lighting shall be zero. Not one-half. Zero foot candles at the north property line. That’s under H(4), lighting. And really the light pollution is really severe from Chaska. Just no lights if we can, I’d love that, no lights in the development but at least no lights. 56 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 I don’t think that that would go over but at least no, we can minimize the light pollution at the property line, and also no lighted signs, either externally or internally lighted will be permitted, and you can add that into the signage part. Also another personal note, under E. Building Material and Design. E(5). Concrete shall be finished in stone or textured. I just really have a, I don’t know, I do not want to see painted concrete buildings anymore. It just doesn’t do a thing for me and I don’t want to look out from my back yard and see that as well. So anyone I thought I’d end with that. Maybe just read a comment from our meeting and we came up with kind of our statement concerning this development. The Trotters Ridge development requests special consideration and a reasonable transition between the residential industrial areas due to the fact that we are being made an island of residential within a sea of industrial development, which is truly true after you look at that aerial view. Residents chose to live in this area for the natural beauty in the area provided by mature growth of trees and safety of the area for our children. So be happy to answer any questions if you have any. McDonald: No questions. Who’d like to speak next? Thank you very much for coming up. Go ahead. If you could just state your name and where you live. Mike Krych: Yes Mr. Chair. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Mike Krych. I live at 2127 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek neighborhood. I just wanted to add a few things that she had mentioned from prior to me but a couple things I did sit through a good portion of this meeting and I was encouraged to hear the discussion regarding planning, zoning and land use as it related to the other developments that you were looking at east of Audubon and south of Lyman, and specifically as that related this idea of blending. And I think that’s very important component as it relates to this specific development that’s being proposed here as well. As you drive along Galpin from Highway 5 down to Lyman it’s essentially all single family housing there with the exception of some multifamily housing on the west side of Galpin up towards Highway 5, and then there’s the Bluff Creek Elementary School. And that is there when you get down to Lyman, there’s some natural breaks. I guess in terms of the land use, I don’t see this particular parcel falling into that concept of blending and I would have a slightly different term for it in that what we’ve got here is several neighborhoods that do have some connectivity and I think that’s very important here. That we maintain a sense of continuity and connectivity between neighborhoods. And this, by introducing this specific type of development being industrial use, it doesn’t provide that sense of blending or connectivity. Again if you look at the aerial maps of the city, again south of Lyman that’s I think obviously natural break from going from residential to actually the industrial south. There’s much development along those lines anyways. I think the other natural break is at where the wetlands occur on the west side of this proposed lot. In terms of the natural break from the industrial uses to the west, versus as you travel east towards the intersection at Galpin, that is a dramatic change and again you’re entering into a neighborhood that’s very much residential. I would like you to just consider that intensely as you look at this and review this. Our neighborhood, Stone Creek we put together some issues that I’m not going to go through. I think you probably have a copy of it. It was again issues regarding proposed development and there are some city planning zoning issues as well, but I wanted to just make a couple of comments regarding that and it had to do with good design and providing quality solutions as they relate to land use, aesthetics, safety and function. I think we’ve talked quite a bit. You have brought up a number of those points as well so, but in terms of land use, there needs to be an appropriateness of the contacts in the surroundings, you know 57 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 professional service types of buildings. Might be okay. I guess I’m looking at this realistically that something’s going to happen there. So I’d like to make sure that that quality of the project and the design of that hits on all these points that the previous speaker was talking about. Just one quick thing regarding aesthetics with industrial buildings. I would actually like to propose an amendment as well that speaks to the materials and character of the architecture. That it sticks with (a), quality materials. Not secondary types of materials and I view rock face block or painted block, you know colored block, that’s all concrete block no matter which way you slice it. And I think it’s a distant second cousin to the materials such as brick, stucco, architectural pre-cast, even metal if it’s used in the right way. So, and then I guess I have a couple of specific questions. I’m not looking for answers but one has to do with the retaining wall as proposed in the middle of the site. I think on the south edge of Outlot C, well can I ask. What is the height of that wall? Okay. As soon as you exceed a height of 4 feet or so, then it has to be engineered and typically often times has to have tie backs into the landscaping so you’re not only, you’re not just building a wall at that point necessarily. If you have to have tie backs, it does affect the grade beyond where the wall is which could possibly mean going into the tree line, into the drip line and affecting the trees that are there so even though I respect the idea of trying to protect the trees that are there, I ask that it, we be careful in terms of how it’s engineered so that it actually serves it’s purpose. And I guess with that I guess that’s all I have for tonight so thank you for listening. McDonald: Thank you very much. Next. Ma’am. Christine Fischer: Hi, I’m Christine Fischer. Sorry, wake up everybody. I’m at 2407 Bridle Creek Trail and I just, I’m going to be very brief. LuAnn articulately represented my neighbors and I in her comments to us but 2407 is Lot 2 and so we are directly impacted by this and just a couple comments on the building height. I encourage you to seriously, I’m one who’s requesting the one story height on this because I’m looking out my windows at, I don’t want to be seeing the Great Wall of China as I’m looking out, so that will definitely impact us directly. Another comment on the water. The developer indicated that he wasn’t aware that there was any standing water issues. But that is our lot that, Lot 2 and the drainage pipe that he’s referring to is there and after a significant rain we do have standing water back there for a while, so there is a drainage issue there. At this point. And then one other comment that I want to make is about the safety issue and we talk about the roadway and to the traffic, the increased traffic, and I just want to make a comment again referring to our neighborhood being in this kind of, this little island by itself. There are no lighted crosswalks for our kids to get across the road to go to Bluff Creek, to go to a park. If they go up to the light at Highway 5, there’s a sign that says no crossing to cross the street there. There is not a lighted, so in terms of safety, there isn’t a lighted crosswalk for them and so just increasing the traffic at this point, and we’ve only got the painted on crosswalks which you know how effective those are. So those are a couple kind of real specific to our lot and our situation that I wanted to share with you. So thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next ma’am. Sarah Dale: Hi. Sarah Dale, 2487 Bridle Creek Trail. Our lot is adjacent to lot, to the number 1 that looks out on Outlot B. In the back of Trotters Ridge. And our concern is that we back up to D.S. Brown, an 80,000 square foot warehouse, industrial site that makes a lot of noise. Has a lot 58 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 of lights and we are now going to be surrounded by a lot of noise, a lot of lights if we have two industrial complexes on either side of us. It clearly is a very intense, dense development they are proposing for this site. Building number 6, the front is approximately the same size as the D.S. Brown building. Square footage wise. In Chaska and that is a huge building. 5, which would be our view to the south of our lot, over the wetland which has no trees, has only grass, would be the back wall of Lot 5 and I really do not want a Great Wall of China everywhere I look out my bedroom and back doors. I just don’t think that is fair to the residences of Trotters Ridge. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next. Ron Blum: My name is Ron Blum. I’m at 2081 Stone Creek Drive. I just have a couple of comments to make regarding what I think the implied use of these buildings might be. As I look at this preliminary plat, it looks like these are set up for multi tenant uses. Most of the back of these buildings to me indicate that there’s a dock door, as many as 5 to 7 dock doors per building. And not knowing the developers, or I should say from the developer’s standpoint, he probably doesn’t know exactly the use of these buildings yet as I think was earlier stated but I think there’s a high potential for not only the 2,600 vehicle traffic but also numerous larger truck type deliveries and will calls that the developer didn’t think are going to happen. Just the indication that the multiple back doors on all these buildings are susceptible to multi tenant rather than single tenant use. You’re going to have as much as I calculated, if all these dock doors are used on a regular basis, you know close to 600 deliveries or will calls per day. So the, that all plays into with the traffic items that were brought up earlier. The noise obviously is an issue. The comment that the developer made as far as the building heights and the early suppression fire systems. More and more companies that, I should say more and more building owners are going to the ESFR type sprinkler systems for the resale value of their building, not knowing the tenant use or the purchaser of that building down the road. They are putting in these ESFR systems so that they can better have, have better resale for their buildings so they are spending the money up front and the ESFR system allows them to pretty much bring in any type of tenant for high piled storage as he’s referred to earlier. So I think the trend is going more and more to future use of these buildings and I hope you keep that in mind as you look at this long term use of these buildings because there are some things that should be considered. Obviously a lot of them are, some of them are visual. Not a lot of the comments that were made that I have a concern with for on the east side of the development areas as far as the buffer. Not knowing the street elevation. The building pad elevations and the height of the buildings that are being allowed by city ordinances. I’ll have to do a little more homework on that but I have a concern for height of building and how the east side is buffered as well as the north side as it relates to the Stone Creek development. Lighting is an issue. It’s already been brought up. The tree preservation that the developer spoke to earlier. Again is addressing and probably benefiting his buildings from an aesthetics standpoint and also buffering the north development but speaks very little to the east side buffer, not knowing what berm elevations are again so I probably need to do a little more homework with getting the plan in front of you and the elevations and such too. But most importantly I think the traffic issue has been noted numerous times but I don’t know if the 2,600 number that was mentioned earlier plays into the high potential for truck traffic, and it’s going to be not panel truck. It’s going to be semi traffic. I can guarantee you that because I have a little experience with knowledge in these buildings and these buildings are being set up for 59 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 high truck traffic by the indication of the multiple back doors on the buildings as the plan shows. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next. Drew Dingman: Good evening. My name is Drew Dingman. I live at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail which is Lot 1 in Trotters Ridge. Directly impacted primarily by Building 6, which is the topic I’d like to discuss briefly tonight. The comment that was made to me last week at the open house at the rec center was that a lot of thought was put into the design of buildings 2, 3, 7 and 8, as well as 1 and 2 staggered the loading zone and such to provide screening, and I was impressed by that consideration. That stands in my opinion in stark contrast to the design of building 6 with it’s very long straight edges against both Trotters Ridge and Stone Creek. It’s hard to not take it personally. It’s a very dramatic, here’s the building and I struggle with that. Both in our neighborhood as well as at Stone Creek. If you look at the, I’m not sure what’s available visually but if you look at this design here, there’s a great deal of pre-existing brush and trees along this entire, or where the parking lot is designed to be. I guess I ask the commission to consider requesting that building 6 be redesigned in the spirit of building say 3 or 7 such that it’s a much smaller footprint. It also provides a much smaller front edge to both neighborhoods. It would allow the parking lot that currently is providing a terrible view to the Stone Creek neighborhood, would allow that to move back to the south or even to the west, tucked in. And it would also limit those straight edges that I think are unsightly and are creating a lot of the angst and a lot of the discussion about buffers here tonight. My second request would be that, not to reopen the whole access road issue, but real briefly I would ask that the commission either contact the county on our behalf and just ask that a modicum of logic be used. I think the comments that were related here earlier I would echo those completely that the intersection of residential and industrial is really not logical. The gentleman from Stone Creek mentioned flow and Galpin from north to south is very residential. Lyman from east to west is very industrial. It makes much more sense for the industrial access to be on Lyman simply from a flow perspective as…from an aesthetic perspective so thank you for your consideration. McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt and I live at 8301 Galpin Boulevard. That would be the property right across the street from Trotters Ridge. East across Galpin from Trotters Ridge, and actually most everything that I had concern about was addressed tonight but and I just want to reissue, or reiterate what the last gentleman said too that Galpin Boulevard is essentially, as far as traffic goes, is essentially residential and Lyman is commercial so it just doesn’t make sense but I think staff can tell you this, but I’ll pass it on too so make sure you know but when you come to Galpin Boulevard, there’s school bus stops on that road now. From a safety standpoint. As far as I know, I don’t know of any on Lyman. There’s, if you’re coming from the north on Galpin to the turn off going to this development, you’re coming over a pretty good sized grade and the traffic on Galpin is I think a 45 miles per hour speed limit. But there is a lot of it going a little faster than that so I think that there’s a safety issue as you come over this grade where you turn, make your right hand turn into this development. And I think, well as far as on Lyman Boulevard, I think that’s due for an upgrade if I, I think I’ve heard that and so if it’s, if it isn’t set up now to handle that kind of traffic, I would think when they upgrade it they should be able to 60 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 get it to the point where you could put the entrance off of Lyman instead of Galpin. And the only other thing I’ll say about traffic is that when I pull out of my driveway now and turn north to go up 5 and I’ve got a little hill behind me, people come from the south and if I turn up here and by the time I get up to my 45 mile per hour speed, you know I’ve probably got like 2 or 3 people right on my tail already so these people are coming in a lot faster than probably what the speed limit is, so. Okay, then LuAnn mentioned about hours of operation within the development and I don’t know what, if the city has any standards but how about hours of operation for the construction part of this. You know for re-grading. Putting up the buildings and stuff like this, I would think that too that there should be some kind of limits put on the operation there. Probably very similar to what they do for you know what she proposed for the use of the buildings after they’ve been put up. And sitting there I was wondering, there’s an awful lot of screening going on here with berms and trees, and I’m wondering who is responsible for keeping that up once it’s in place. In other words, you know we had a hot spell. Getting up there and watering the trees. Is that the developers you know, and perpetually. I mean not only for the first year or second year or third or fourth year. Who does it? The city? The developer? Or it certainly can’t be the residents around it or people who own those lots, so there’s got to be some, you know some kind of control of maintaining that and if trees die, replace them. Or if trees die as a result of construction, you know getting too close to roots and stuff like that. I think there should be something put into the plan that those get replaced properly too and so on. That’s all I have. Okay, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Sir. Jim Leonard: I’ll keep it brief because I’ve been here since 7:00 waiting for a chance to talk. I know everybody wants to go home. My name’s Jim Leonard. I live at 2360 Stone Creek Drive. Second house I on the left. Okay, so this directly impacts me quite a bit. Just recently moved to Chanhassen. Purchased the house back in March. Chose Chanhassen as a place that I wanted to live. Ended up in Carver County. Okay. So my loyalties are with the city as we’re talking about this. There’s two points that I really have concern about. One I’ll address to the developer. Those trees in the southeast corner, you’re taking out too many. You need to do something to save some more of those trees that are over there. We’ve talked about all the other areas. My neighbors from the other, from Trotters Ridge and our neighborhood, we talked about the rest of it. I trust you as our chosen representatives will make the right decisions to protect the things that need to be protected, but let’s look at those trees in the southeast corner. Secondly, we need to get this thing exited out onto Lyman. I mean Galpin is just the wrong place for that. There’s too many kids in the neighborhoods. There’s way too much stuff there, like I said. I chose to live in Chanhassen. I live in Carver County as a result of that. If it’s a dispute with the County we’ve got to figure out how to handle this. I know we need to co-exist but we need to handle this and have it exit out into the right place. I’m all in favor of economic development. I understand the needs for these things but we’ve got to make sure that makes sense for the community. Thank you very much. McDonald: Thank you. Next. JoEllen Radermacher: Good evening. My name is JoEllen Radermacher. I live at 2479 Bridle Creek Trail. I’m number 11 on the plan. I look right out onto Outlot B and it is a wildlife 61 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 preserve area. I do ask you to take into consideration the setbacks that we have requested and the berm requirements that we have requested. There’s a multitude of wildlife back there and when I look out my kitchen window or I sit on my deck, right now we have a beautiful view out there and I hate to think of looking out there and seeing a building out there. And without a berm or some kind of control, that’s exactly what we would see. We have, as I mentioned previously, we have a multitude of wildlife out there which includes, we have deer, pheasant, ducks, including wood ducks, even the pileated woodpeckers, and of course the others, raccoons and everything else too. But we all as a neighborhood have come to enjoy them and talk about them frequently. I hope you take into consideration the impact of all of this on our wildlife and also on our views that we see. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next. Sara Morlock: Good evening. My name is Sara Morlock. I live at 2325 Boulder Road, and I’ll show you… My lot is this one right here. So we too are directly impacted by the proposed development across the street, basically in our back yard. The picture I passed out to you shows you the existing trees today and as you can see what they are proposing keeping is minimal. And they’ll replace it with 2 ½ inch saplings which isn’t going to provide any kind of decent screening for our back yards, and these are our back yards. So I really ask that you thoughtfully consider your decision making regarding this, the proposed development. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next. Peggy Emerson: Hi. I’m Peggy Emerson from 8409 Stone Creek Court and I’m on a committee at Bluff Creek Elementary and I just happened to see the long term plan for the school. That will either be a middle school or a high school within, I think it was 5 or 8 years and I could be totally wrong on that. But I know that one thing that they were planning on was having a bridge for children, pedestrians to go over the train tracks, so that would make all those kids you know go up Galpin and. Aanenson: There’s a railroad trestle underneath the tracks already. Peggy Emerson: No, on Lyman. You know there’s a train that goes right across Lyman. Aanenson: Yeah, there’s a track, the trestle that goes underneath. Peggy Emerson: So the school you know would be down Lyman. A bridge going along side Lyman that will cross, let the children cross over the. Aanenson: We’re still looking at trying to do something underneath too. Peggy Emerson: Oh, okay. Aanenson: Yeah, we’re working with Steve Pumper on that too to go underneath. There’s some grade issues there. 62 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Peggy Emerson: Okay, but then this goes to the traffic issue. I mean if you have semi’s turning that corner right and going up north on Galpin, I’m thinking it’d still be a problem with all the children traffic, and especially with Lifetime Fitness, you know maybe the over 12 year old kids, you know that can go there by themselves, they can ride their bike over or whatever and then there’s going to be the crossing Galpin problem. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Next. Okay, no more comments? Okay. Then the public meeting is closed and at this point I will bring it back up to the commissioners for comments. And start with Debbie. Or would did rather I go to the other end? Larson: No, that’s alright. I’m getting punchy. It’s almost 11:00. As this sits, I’m not comfortable with it. I know there’s a lot of thought that has gone into trying to preserve trees but I think not enough thought was put into the neighborhoods that surround this. The traffic. The streets and I tend to disagree with the county that this is the best exit for this particular subdivision going into a residential area. I really strongly oppose that and as it stands right now I don’t think I can go along with this. That’s all I have to say. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I have a question of staff. Follow-up question. In regards to the access to Lyman, you know one of the things I’m thinking is Chaska’s business park, which is directly west of this empties onto Lyman. They’ve got a big access onto Lyman, and the county has allowed them to have access of a commercial industrial facility onto Lyman. And I wonder why they wouldn’t allow Chanhassen to also have an access onto Lyman for it’s commercial industrial use, and maybe they don’t want more commercial industrial use on Lyman. Even if they go to upgrade Lyman to four lanes, they’re still going to have to accommodate Chaska’s business park of all the trucks and traffic which is going in and out of that, you know that. I mean there’s a lot more industrial and commercial there than is going to be in this park. So I don’t know what we can do to press the issue. I don’t know if we press it all the way or you know ended up berm, or I don’t know. It’s just an area where I feel fuzzy for me. I guess what I’d say is I’m not in support of pushing all this traffic out onto Galpin, and I live right next door to that development in Chaska and I see them push all their traffic out there, I think they ought to be able to accommodate the amount of traffic out of here onto Lyman like they do out of that park. In regards to, so in regards to the road I guess I would want to see a revisit on that. The, and just one more statement on that. It would be, you know I agree with the residents in regards to, I don’t think it’s the industrial residential mix in regards to traffic going out onto Galpin really makes sense, just especially given in light of the neighboring property just to the west. Neighboring development to the west. In regards to, I would potentially be in support of this development this evening in regards to, if we could revisit the road and then what I’d like to do is to look at a number of different things in regards to berming and buildings. One, I would be in support of a, if we limited Outlot 6 to something less than 35 feet. I think it would be either a 1 or a 2, possibly a 2 story on Outlot 6. I’m thinking something in the line of, I don’t know what the building is, 12 feet? Is that what we’re looking per story. Plus a 4 foot parapet. Is that kind of what it is? So you’d be 16 feet or 28 feet. I think probably 16 feet. And then, and I would like to see the berm increased and I would like to accommodate what the residents have proposed on that one which would be a 15 foot berm which I think pushes the setback to 125 feet versus 100 63 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 feet on the north side. I would like to see the, one other. I’d like to increase, you talked about increasing the number of trees on Outlot 5. Or not outlot 5 but Lot 5. And maybe you have a better feel for that in terms of the number of trees but there’s reasonable screening on that given the, it looks like it’s an over 200 foot setback to the building, or it looks like it’s over 200 feet from the lot line to the building with appropriate screening there we might be alright. And then I would like to see more trees saved on the east side. So those are my comments at this point. McDonald: Okay. Deborah. Zorn: My overall impression of this proposal is, it’s quite difficult for me to find the blend, as many people have discussed this evening. In particular the access point. If we were to work through an access point, that would make much more sense off Galpin as I’m a resident on north of Highway 5 Galpin so I can feel what the residents are expressing this evening. There is a concern with the Galpin entrance. If we were to work through a Lyman access point, my concern then would be maintaining the integrity of the trees along the boulder walls. A lot of the comments that have been made this evening. Something that hasn’t been discussed as much but simply sound proofing and having that be a great part of the purpose of the berms and how to do that. The size of building 6 and I would agree with Dan’s comments on the 16 foot proposal. And again the walking paths, lighted paths. All aspects related to that. I think those are my main concerns moving forward with this proposal and I guess encouraging the developer to rethinking maybe the best use of that building 6 lot and how he can, or my standpoint I think a residents is to make that much smaller, which I guess makes that a little less desirable to develop but that greatly impacts the amount of trucks and other traffic that would be coming through as that is the largest I believe building on the site. Moving towards building 7 or building 3, that’s been mentioned this evening. I think that’s maybe what would mirror the rest of the proposal and so I really think Lot 6 or building 6 right now just doesn’t make much sense to me. So that’s it for now. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: I think I’m going to be a little bit of a contrarian tonight. Several of the residents have pointed out both audibly and in writing that they feel that for instance Trotters Ridge is a bit of an island of residential within an industrial office park. To me it seems, it feels more like a fault line. Okay, we’ve got the residential continental plate meeting up with the industrial office continental plate and we’re getting the Rocky Mountains kind of erupting between the two. And I think a lot of our issues come around to the fact that there’s no transitioning here. I mean it’s just you know very nice homes to boom, office park and unfortunately you already have that. You already have that abutting up to the Chaska office park so it’s, this is just intensifying an issue that I think already exists. I think where my contrarian views are going to come into play is, I feel very strongly that we’re going to have to connect to Galpin. You know we can debate whether an industrial office park meeting up with Stone Creek Drive on Galpin right there is a good thing or not but I think ultimately when this parcel gets developed, that’s where it’s going to have to come in. You know from what we’ve seen of the other developments that have come through, I just don’t see Carver County you know letting us put another outlet onto Lyman. I just, I think Chaska gets away with it because they meet the list. They’re more than 1,000 feet or quarter mile what it is apart. That’s why they do it because they have the spacing and this one, 64 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 we either rip up a wetland or we come out onto Galpin, so you know I don’t see a way out of that impasse. Keefe: Except the Galpin entrance is not in conformance with the county guidelines as well. Papke: No, Galpin is okay. I beg your problem? The north/south connection is too close or what’s the issue? Keefe: From Lyman to the entrance it’s not long enough already anyway. So that one’s not… McDonald: We will defer to city engineer on this. Morris: For clarification, the quarter mile spacing is the city’s guideline in the city code. And that’s correct, the one on Galpin doesn’t meet the quarter mile access but the city code also stipulates that access onto an arterial street such as Galpin should be made at an existing cross road which the existing cross road would be Stone Creek Drive. Papke: Okay. Another thing to consider is that the Chaska residents, or the residents of Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge and also along Galpin are also going to use Lyman so they’re, you know some percentage of the time so they’re going to have to cope with whatever additional intersection comes out to Galpin. And in terms of butting up industrial office with residential, I believe we have some similar situations up on Audubon inbetween 5 and Lyman where we have residential on the east side. We have industrial office on the west side. Aanenson: Yes. We also have it off of Dell Road up against Eden Prairie. Papke: Right. So we do have several precedents for this occurring and are we aware of any safety issues surrounding that at this point? Aanenson: No, but I would like to, as long as you opened up that topic. And the issue came up of who’s going to maintain. On the Eden Prairie side, those neighbors actually worked to increase the buffer. Provided land. They maintain their side. It’s difficult, there’s something we need to be honest and discuss. It’s difficult for a developer to go on somebody else’s property to try to maintain it. That is going to be a problem. So what we’ve worked on on those is the property owners manage their own, especially when you’re negotiating because this is a PUD and it got loaded up. The developer could come in and do a straight subdivision and if it didn’t meet any ordinance, you’d be compelled to approve it. So now we ask them to do a PUD. Now we’ve gone kind of way over on the other side and somewhere we need to find kind of that, because if we’re going to go 125 feet, then someone needs to take responsibility. The person that buys that business, they’re responsible for sprinkling that, which we would require because otherwise it’s not going to live. Especially when we’re on that tall. Somebody needs to take responsibility for the other side. Papke: I have a question about that setback. The Chanhassen City Code here, if I read it, we’ve got, correctly for IOP we’ve got a minimum setback of 50 feet when it abuts a residential district. And then we have 100 foot buffer yard required when the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 65 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 And the next paragraph says the buffer yard is an additional setback. It is to be cumulatively calculated with required setbacks outlined above. Now that sounds to me like 150 foot setback, if I read it. Or am I reading it wrong? Aanenson: We have not interpreted it that way. Papke: Cumulative says add them up. Aanenson: Correct, but the two other examples I gave you are not 150 feet. Papke: So, but you know the way I read it, I would interpret this situation as 150 the way I read the code. I mean, you know. For IOP so you know I would be supportive of 150 foot setback on that line if that’s, you know we’re the Planning Commission. If that’s how we read the city code, we either got to change the code or we’ve got to lay it down that way. Couple other issues. On the wetland areas, I’m not real in favor of berming along the edges of that. You know water quality, the wetland person isn’t here tonight but I suspect their opinion wouldn’t be real favorable with putting a big berm right next to a wetland there. I mean that would, I imagine that would really mess with the drainage along that wetlands so you know a couple trees or something like that might work. Oh let’s see. I think I’d be in favor of somewhat more limiting the uses in here. I think the residents pointed out, I think motels/hotels would be a very poor use of this area. It doesn’t look like that’s what’s being suggested but I don’t have any issue with eliminating that. I think we’ve done a good job of keeping those sorts of things along Highway 5 and I think that’s a good thing. I’d also like to take out contractor’s yards because those are notorious noise makers and early, you know early morning noise makers. I think if we have 150 foot setback on Lot 6 and we do, the developers sound very amenable to doing very intensive landscaping and given that additional size we might be able to get a berm to the point where from ground level you can’t see the roof line anymore so I think if we had a condition like that in here, you know I think that’d be reasonably, reasonably palatable. Keefe: At 35 feet? Papke: Yeah. So I guess I’m not as pessimistic about this proposal as perhaps my fellow commissioners. I really think the developer did a great job here with Outlot C. I mean that’s, for a commercial development to come in with that kind of a dedication and buffer zone and tree conservation, you know the alternative could be a lot worst here. Okay, so I think we’ve got to be realistic that if we deny this proposal and City Council denies this proposal, the next time you’re in here, you’re going to have a lot longer faces potentially, okay. So do keep that in mind. Aanenson: Commissioner Papke, can I just ask a question? Papke: Yeah. Aanenson: Mr. Mayer who owns the property right now has a contractor’s yard. That is one of the desired owners right now so obviously that. 66 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Papke: That ain’t going to fly. Aanenson: It’s in the southeast corner and…so I just, he is one of the owners. I just need to… Papke: Well okay. You know if it won’t fly, it won’t fly. Aanenson: I just want to point that out for the record. Papke: No, I’m glad you brought that up. That could obviously be an issue for that. That’s all I have to say. Aanenson: Yeah, that’s his business there right now. McDonald: Does anyone else want to add to their comments or anything? Well, I’m not sure quite where to start either. If we adopt the proposals that have been put in here, I don’t think this becomes developable land. You squeezed it down to where there’s nothing left. I tend to agree. I’ve been out to the site and looked at it. I can’t see how what’s there right now is better than what’s being proposed, and I do look at, I understand about the buffering between residential and industrial. We’ll have to tell you about that one but yes, the land will be developed and you may not like what goes in there on the next go around. I think that we should jump on the offer of limiting building 6 to 35 feet. If we can do some things as far as the berming, we can minimize any of the impact there as far as the views of the neighbors and try to mitigate that as much as possible. The other issues, I’ll go along with what the commission wants but it seems as though if we put too many restrictions on this it’s just going to stay what it is and I don’t know what he’s going to turn into from that standpoint but I mean you go out there and you’ve got rolls of tar laying around. You’ve got gravel pits. You’ve got all kinds of stuff, and what they’re, especially the area there to the northeast is, it’s not high quality wetlands I would say. So, and the whole issue about Galpin versus Lyman. Okay, if we put the exit on Lyman, the only time anybody’s going to be going up Galpin is to get to 5. They’re still going to be going up Galpin Avenue. Most of the turns are going to be down to Lyman, which are to the south, which are away from the residential areas. These are county arterial roads. They do not differentiate between residential or commercial. They’re arterial roads and we have no control over that. We have been through this before about exits onto highways. We went through it with the State about 41 because of, oh the farm. I forget the name of it now. Larson: Yoberry. McDonald: Yeah, we went through it there. You’re not going to get these, you’re not going to get that changed. They have done studies. They’ve got rules. They’ve got regulations and they do not bend. We’ve already been through this on a number of different projects. Well it’s the county too. I mean they follow the same thing. So I mean I’m in favor of some of these restrictions. Others I have to tell ya, if you start restricting hours, I don’t know who’s going to be able to go in there and do a business. We have to be realistic. These are businesses. People will go in there to make money. Yes, they can’t be hotels. They can’t be anybody that generates loud music, stamping plants or anything such as that. You should get good neighbors and I think 67 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 you’re entitled to that and part of the restrictions that we’ve put on here about who’s going to go in should help to ensure you get some of that. Yes. Papke: A comment about hours. Something else for surrounding homeowners to consider. If we restrict hours, that intensifies the traffic flow during rush hour, okay by not allowing a second or third shift. That means everybody goes in at 7:00 or 8:00 and everybody comes out at 5:00, and so you know, yes. There will be a little bit more noise at night but it also makes the traffic problem worst so you’re kind of trading off one problem for another. McDonald: And I guess the other thing, the question I was asking about a traffic light. I mean that’s one of the things that. Someone want to make a comment? Audience: I just, I guess if you’re going to have the possibility of being able to have three shifts…wouldn’t you have three different, you know you could possibly have 300% more employees going there. Logically that would be the next step so. McDonald: One of the things that I wanted to get back to was a traffic light there and I would hope that the city will follow up and we will push, if it’s required, we will look at putting one in there. That will also help the issue there. Otherwise yeah, we’re going to create a big problem come 5:00 and 7:00 with everybody in the world trying to come in and out of there. And I guess that’s it. I mean at this point I’ll throw it open for a motion from the commissioners. Audience: If people have a question… McDonald: No, the public meeting is over. Papke: Okay. I’ll attempt to stumble through this one. Okay, I make a motion that we recommend rezoning of the property located within the Chanhassen West Business Park from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report based upon the findings of fact attached to the report. Second motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, I recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell and Madsen dated June 17, 2005 based on the findings of fact attached to the report and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 53, with your additional one Bob. Is that correct? Generous: That’s 1 through 53. Papke: 1 through 53. I’d like to add condition number 54. That in the northeast corner abutting Lot 6, that we follow the city code and have 150 foot setback. Condition 55. We restrict use for no motels/hotels. Condition 56. The combination of the berm height and landscaping and the height of the building on Lot 6 be such that you cannot see the roof line while standing on the ground on Lot number 2 of Trotters Ridge. And condition number 57. We resolve, they work with city staff to resolve any drainage issues with Lot number 2 in Trotters Ridge. Then motion C. I recommend approval of the wetland alteration. Keefe: Can we do an additional amendments? 68 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 Papke: Why don’t you let me finish then you can toss in your friendlies. I recommend approval of the wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell and Madsen Inc. dated June 17, 2005 subject to conditions 1 through 10. And at that point I’ll entertain friendly amendments. Keefe: Friendly amendment to B. Increase the tree preservation or landscaping on the east side. Of the development. Papke: To what? It has to be somehow. Keefe: Yeah, right. Papke: Objective. Keefe: I’m trying to, what do we say right now in terms of that? Papke: Did you want to increase it by some percentage beyond the proposed landscape plan as given on the drawing? There is a drawing. I think it’s what, drawing 6 or something like that, that has, that shows all the landscape plans. Keefe: The east property line. Well at least bring it up to the required amount. Is that already in here? Papke: Yeah, I think that’s. Keefe: Is there a recommendation in here to bring it? Papke: Yeah, I think it was in there. Yeah, it’s number 1. Did you want to go beyond minimum somehow or what are you proposing? Keefe: Well, the question is whether the minimum would meet what we want it to do. McDonald: Well, can I ask a question of city staff on this. I mean we’ve been through this before with trees. We have a forester within the city. Aren’t there limits as far as the density of trees that we look at? Generous: For replanting. New plantings, yes. McDonald: Right, and as a part of any project, isn’t that part of the process as far as going in there? Generous: Yes. You would review the landscape plan that looks at the viability of the trees over a long period. 69 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And should also look to make sure that it meets city code as far as spacings, quantity, density and those types of things. Generous: Yes. McDonald: Then I’d say it’s in there. Aanenson: Let me just add one other thing. Just for clarification, for everybody’s edification actually. Each one of these projects again has to come back through site plan so you will get another chance to address screening, buffering, additional landscaping with each plan. Not to say you don’t want to add something more but just to make sure that everybody understands that. Papke: Sure, sure. Keefe: Alright, then I’ll retract that amendment. But let me take a run at another one. Which would be to address the access to Lyman with Carver County again. McDonald: I’m not sure we can do that. That’s a condition we’re putting on there we have no control over. I mean we’ve been through this before with 41 and again that comes down to, those were interagency. Papke: Well we can request city staff I would think to revisit it with Carver County engineering. Aanenson: Sure. Papke: You know we all understand what the likely outcome is going to be but we can certainly ask the City Engineer to please revisit this, given the consideration and the fault line that we’re creating here. Okay, I accept that amendment. McDonald: And then did we say anything about the building height on building 6? Papke: The condition I put in was a combination of berming, landscaping and limitation of the height must be such that from ground level on Lot 2 you cannot see the roof line. McDonald: Okay. So it could be less than 35 feet. Papke: Could be less. It depends upon how, my preference in these kinds of situations is to, is to specify the outcome to the developer and then let the developer trade off berming and landscaping versus building height. Larson: What about buffering on building 5? McDonald: Are you proposing an amendment? Larson: Do I have to? 70 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 McDonald: Well again, all of this is covered by… Larson: Okay, never mind. Alright. McDonald: Trees and those things. Keefe: And then they’re coming back for each one. McDonald: And then again, each one is… Okay, so it looks like we will accept amendments, or conditions 1 through 53 and then we have added 54 through 58. Okay. Do I hear a second? Keefe: I’ll second that. McDonald: And I have a second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance rezoning the property located within the Chanhassen West Business Park from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report based on the findings of fact attached to the report. All voted in favor, except Zorn and Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. ” Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the “ Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to the report and subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in the south and east property line bufferyards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 2.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities. Fencing shall remain in place until construction is completed. 3.All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 6/17/05 shall be protected. Any trees damaged or removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 4.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 5.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas 71 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 6.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 7.The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP standards. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 8.Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail is needed. The emergency overflows may be stabilized with a turf re-enforcement mat or fabric and riprap. 9.Notes on the plan describing timing of temporary stabilization with Type 1 mulch and seed or erosion control blanket and seed shall be included. The notes shall include timing of stabilization as well as the rate of mulch application (2 tons per acre, disc anchored). 10.All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end section installation. 11.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 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 (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12.Erosion control blanket shall be specified in the swale from the flared end section to the wetland along the west boundary of the site. The blanket specified shall adequately protect the area from designed velocity and depth of flow. The blanket and seed in the swale shall be installed within 5 days of culvert installation. Erosion control blanket is recommended for 72 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 the pond slopes from around 952 to 942 contours. All blanket on the plan shall be shown as a shaded area. 13.Temporary sediment basins shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; details should be provided. Temporary basins shall be constructed in the area of the proposed permanent storm water pond, the southeast corner of the site prior to discharging to the culvert under Galpin Boulevard, and possibly in the northwest area of the site to handle water runon from the north prior to discharge to the wetland. 14.Any and all area inlets or drop inlets in paved areas shall be protected with alternate controls/Wimco details. The engineer shall research and provide alternate designs for Wimco-type inlet controls to fit the various types of inlets. 15.Additional inlet controls shall be provided for adjacent inlets on Galpin Boulevard and Street A. 16.Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 17.Type 1 and Type 2 silt fence locations shall be specified on the plan. Type 2 silt fence shall be installed around all wetland areas and in the southeast corner of the site to protect the culvert under Galpin Boulevard. The silt fence shall be extended along the south side to close the gap in the silt fence. 18.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 19.The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $413,661. 20.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 21.In lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction, full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for the proposed Chanhassen West Business Park. At current rates, the park fee would total $359,500 (35.95 x $10,000 per acre). 22.A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 23.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 73 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 24.Provide a water service for Lot 6. 25.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 26.Fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 27.The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 28.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 29.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire code Section 503.2.3. 30.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage be vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire code Section 501.4. 31.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including storm water ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and buffer areas used as PVC. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 32.The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the sewer crosses from one lot to another. 33.Private utility easements are required for the sanitary sewer and water lines that serve Lot 4 but go through Lot 5. 34.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 35.On the site plan: a.Revise the cul-de-sac pavement radius to 48 feet. b.Revise the parking driveway aisle from 24 feet to 26 feet wide. 74 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 c.Revise the public street width from 32 feet to 36 feet wide. d.Increase the full access width off Galpin Boulevard to 44 feet and create three lane access. e.Shift Lots 1 and 8 easterly access further toward the west and realign the across each other. f.Show at least one, 6-foot wide, side walk along the public street. g.Show the access off Galpin Boulevard turning curb radius. h.Realign lot 5 access perpendicular to the shared driveway. i.Show street lights. j.Show handicap parks and ramps. 36.On the grading plan: a.Extend silt fence type between the storm pond and Outlot A. Silt fence Type II must be used adjacent to wetlands and storm pond. b.Revise contour lines to match 3:1 maximum slope and tie the proposed contour lines with the existing contours for Lots 4, 5, south of Lot 2 and northeast of Lot 1. c.Show the proposed contour lines for Lot 6. d.Show all retaining walls top and bottom elevations. e.Show all emergency overflows (EOF). The EOF must be 1.5' lower than the adjacent lowest floor. f.Revise Lot 6 parking slope to 0.7% minimum. g.Add a note to remove any existing structure and access off Galpin Boulevard and all disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. h.Show 75-foot minimum construction rock entrance. i.No retaining walls structure is allowed within public street and/or public utility easements, revise accordingly. j.Show 20-foot utility easement for the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3 37.On the utility plans: a.Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. b.Show the proposed sanitary and storm sewer stubs inverts. c.Add storm sewer schedule. d.Public storm sewer pipe type must be RCP and 15-inch minimum diameter. e.The last street accessible storm manhole (STMH#2) must be built with a sump. f.Revise sanitary sewer pipe from DIP to PVC-C900. g.On the utility profile show all sewer and pipe crossings. h.Minimum vertical separation must be 18 inches between watermain and sewer. i.Call out watermain fittings 38.Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in the state of Minnesota with an approved safety fence on top of it. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. 75 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 39.Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 2109, 2110 2204, 3104, 3109, 5201, 5205, 5214 and 5215. 40.Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. 41.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. 42.Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots for each of the entrance drives. 43.Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 44.Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. 45.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 46.All private streets are required to have 24-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back- of-curb, be built to a 7-ton design and contained within a 40-foot wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design. 47.Six-foot wide sidewalks are required. 48.All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the state of Minnesota. 49.All of the proposed building pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. 50.Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. 51.Comply with Carver County memo dated June 28, 2005 and revise the plans accordingly. 76 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 52.Revise plan sheet size to 24 x 36 using scale 50. 53.The developer shall either dedicate Outlot C to the City for open space purposes or dedicate a conservation easement over Outlot C.” 54. The northeast corner abutting Lot 6, follow the city code and have a 150 foot setback. 55. No motels/hotels be allowed. 56. The combination of the berm height, landscaping and the height of the building on Lot 6 be such that you cannot see the roof line while standing on the ground on Lot number 2 of Trotters Ridge. 57. The applicant work with city staff to resolve any drainage issues with Lot 2 in Trotters Ridge. 58. City staff be directed to revisit the issue of access from the site onto Lyman Boulevard with Carver County. All voted in favor, except Zorn and Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe “ Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1.A no loss determination shall be completed for Basin F 31-34. 2.Exemption requests shall be completed for Basins F 51-80 N, Basin F 91-97 and Wetland A. 3.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 4.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 5.Several corrections must be made to the Wetland Mitigation Plan (sheet 10 of 13): 77 Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2005 a.Wetland A is shown as an impact area. Upon finalization of exemption paperwork, mitigation will not be required for this wetland; b. Wetland C (Basin F 87-90) is 0.05 acres in area; and c.Wetland D (Basin F 81-86) is 0.09 acres in area. 6.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 7.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 8.Drainage and utility easements a minimum of 20 feet in width shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9.Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 10.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.” All voted in favor, except Zorn and Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 2005 as submitted. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 78