Loading...
7. Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes 11-15-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deborah Zorn, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Uli Sacchet and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: GALPIN CROSSING. REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A 10- UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 5. APPLICANT, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-38. Public Present: Name Address Mark Scholle 568 Summerfield Drive Rich Ragatz Eden Prairie Perry Ryan Orono Gerald Wolfe 7755 Vasserman Trail Mike Shields 7759 Vasserman Trail Charles Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail Larry & Michaele Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail Dianne & Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail Tom Kraus 7744 Vasserman Trail Andy Mital 7750 Vasserman Trail Maureen & Mark Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail Jeff Weyandt 7626 Ridgeview Way Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the approval process for the PUD and market study. Commissioner Larson asked about the statement regarding range of housing opportunities. Commission Zorn asked for clarification on the primary and secondary corridor boundaries. Commissioner McDonald asked for clarification on the approval process, roadway system layout, private street, uses on the property and the market study. Commissioner Papke asked for further clarification on the traffic th study and traffic flow in the area of Galpin and West 78 Street and the criteria that will be used Planning Commission Summary – November 15, 2005 to determine the amount of office/commercial use on the site. Chairman Sacchet asked about permitted uses and size of buildings on the site, the Bluff Creek corridor boundary and the condition requiring soil borings. The developer, Rich Ragatz addressed the commission’s comments regarding the proposed uses on the site. He also stated they were looking for input th from the commission on possible uses on the north side of West 78 such as if the city is looking at concentrating the density and providing more open space or more buffer to the existing wetland. They even thought it’d be a logical place for a daycare. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Andy Mital, 7750 Vasserman Trail stated his only concern was the traffic situation of people making U turns out of the Kwik Trip and CVS site. Larry Martin, 7725 Vasserman Trail was also concerned with the operation of the intersection, concern with maintenance and look of a private street, buffering the commercial businesses, the need for a connection to the trail system from this development, setbacks from the wetland and power easements, and storm water retention and runoff concerns. Charles Gelino, 7729 Vasserman Trail expressed concern with the elevation of this property in relation to the retention pond. Jeff Weyandt, 7626 Ridgeview Way had concern with drainage, and lighting from the commercial buildings. Tom Kraus, 7744 Vasserman Trail stated his concern was with the amount of vacant commercial property in the vicinity of this development and the time line of development of the buildings. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. He summarized the concerns of the th residents being traffic, concern with the use of the private street, the proximity to West 78 Street, the need for berming, the concern about the lowness of the ground near the twin homes, that drainage issues be studied further, a lighting plan and concern about the demand for commercial. After commission discussion the following motion was made. McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends concept planned unit development approval for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1.Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2.The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3.Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4.The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 2 Planning Commission Summary – November 15, 2005 5.Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6.Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7.The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9.A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10.A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11.The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12.Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13.This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14.A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15.The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16.The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17.The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall 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. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 3 Planning Commission Summary – November 15, 2005 19.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20.All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22.The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23.The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24.The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. ? Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. ? Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. ? Parcel B No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. ? Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. ? Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. ? Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. ? Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. ? 25.Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26.The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28.A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29.The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The 4 Planning Commission Summary – November 15, 2005 plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31.The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32.A traffic study be completed for the proposed development.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION: DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED EAST OF THE GEDNEY PICKLE PLANT, NORTH OF STOUGHTON AVENUE AND SOUTH OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. APPLICANT MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-30. Public Present: Name Address Carole Schmidt Roseville th Dennis Wolf 4291 200 Street W., Jordan Ronald Jabs 217 Juergens Court, Jordan Dan Faulkner 2380 Shadow Lane Jay Molnau St. John’s, Chaska Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald questioned the city’s timeline for approval. Sharmeen Al-Jaff explained that the applicant has already waived their 120 day timeline. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the health and human safety issue looking at the impact of the electric and magnetic fields. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the possibility of new high tension wires being strung and the status of the city being the legal responsible governing unit for the study. The applicant Ron Jabs, representing Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, stated they agree with the staff report and explained they have met with neighboring property owners and managers and have received no negative responses. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicant to clarify the use and scope of the project on the site. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the scope of the environmental assessment taking into account any potential subterranean discoveries that might be encountered when the Xcel Energy site is removed. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation for a motion. 5 Planning Commission Summary – November 15, 2005 Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission approves the Environmental Assessment Scoping, directs staff to prepare the EA consistent with the scoping, tables further proceedings on the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and Variance until such time when the EA is completed and submitted to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 1, 2005 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 6 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deborah Zorn, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Uli Sacchet and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: GALPIN CROSSING. REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A 10- UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 5. APPLICANT, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-38. Public Present: Name Address Mark Scholle 568 Summerfield Drive Rich Ragatz Eden Prairie Perry Ryan Orono Gerald Wolfe 7755 Vasserman Trail Mike Shields 7759 Vasserman Trail Charles Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail Larry & Michaele Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail Dianne & Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail Tom Kraus 7744 Vasserman Trail Andy Mital 7750 Vasserman Trail Maureen & Mark Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail Jeff Weyandt 7626 Ridgeview Way Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Keefe: Yeah Bob, I’ve got a question. Going from, what’s the next step after concept planned unit development? Is it planned unit preliminary? Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Generous: They would do a preliminary plat, preliminary subdivision review. Get those, the preliminary engineering work done. Keefe: Okay. And then one thing I’m just looking at. I don’t know what page, it’s on page 4. Just at the bottom it says the City is undertaking a market study to determine whether we need additional commercial and office space. Just in terms of process, that happens after we grant the concept PUD? Just in terms of. Generous: Yes, it would be taking place probably concurrently there. Once they get concept approval they have an idea that the city supports this project but it really doesn’t have any standing. We don’t have to approve it but we give them a list of issues that they would need to address if they wanted to go forward with this project. In the interim we would have this market study done and it would tell us, we’re looking at, do we need more retail. Do we need more office industrial and where are appropriate locations for that? Keefe: Okay, so let me just follow that through. If the study kicks back and says that we don’t need more commercial, what is sort of the process then? Generous: If they came in and they said we don’t need it there, we can say no to that. Based on our study we don’t, this is not an appropriate location. Keefe: And then does the land use go back? Generous: Well it stays residential. This is just concept. As one, the list of things they’d have to do at the next step would be the conditional use permit. The comp plan amendment for the land use changes. Any rezoning. All that. The preliminary platting. All the general review processes for that we would undertake as a city. Keefe: Alright. Just one additional question. Just going back to the parking. If you were to go to that, I don’t know if you’ve given some thought in terms of the 3 building design. How much of a green space pick-up do you think you’d get? Have you gotten that far yet? Generous: No we haven’t but we think that we can create corridors... Keefe: Yeah, because it doesn’t look like there’s really any office… Generous: Well and also like I stated in the report, they over parked this just on the site plan basis numerically for the type of uses they’re proposing there. Additionally if they did come in again, if they could get complimentary type uses in there that some shared parking opportunities, you have an ability to reduce parking even further. And if the lot, if you can show proof of parking so you maintain green area until it’s proven that you know they have a parking issue up there and then they can have them pave it later. Keefe: Okay, good. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? 2 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Larson: I was just curious regarding that full range of housing opportunities and you’ve got only 10 units. I mean how wide a range are we talking here for something like this? Generous: Well I’m talking city wide. We don’t have many twin home units so that would be a different housing opportunity community wide. Larson: Got ya. Okay. th Generous: And you know single family probably not the best location for that on West 78 Street, and there wasn’t support before for townhouses. That would be the next step up in here. So this is a nice transition, and again blends into the Vasserman Ridge development just to the west. Zorn: Bob you mentioned that the primary and secondary corridor boundaries are not recognized. Generous: They haven’t designated them on this plan. At the next level that would be something that we would require they show and then there’s two things we’d look at that for impacts from grading issues and also for setbacks issues. Zorn: So the plan as it right now, does it seem, does it violate any of those boundaries? Do we know that? Generous: We think the housing around that little cul-de-sac bubble may be a little close but that’s yet, we’ll leave that to be determined. And that could be the, force the bubble up where they have to lose a unit or redesign it. So there’s, again that would be a preliminary issue. We can take care of that if they go forward. Zorn: And the MnDot traffic study, does that also dictate whether that Galpin Road exit/entrance would happen? Generous: Yes, that would be something that we would look at. If the study said it’s an unsafe location, then the city could say that we’re not recommending approval of that connection. But th then you’d also have to look at the flip side, if all the traffic’s forced onto West 78 Street, will that operate appropriately also. So. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Jerry, got any questions? McDonald: I’ve got a couple. First question I’ve got is, okay I’m a little confused about these PUD’s. Are we going to see the plans for this again or if we approve a PUD, does it skip us and then go straight up to City Council for any further approvements? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Generous: If you recommend approval and council recommend approval, then it would come back again as a preliminary planned unit development and preliminary plat. McDonald: Okay, so it would come back through…again? Generous: Right, and then additionally they may have a site plan approval as a part of that or they may come in later with a site plan on the commercial side. The residential would have to be pretty much finalized as a part of the preliminary plat. McDonald: Okay. On the roadway here, a couple questions on that. Was any of this dictated by us to have a road that would go through this island here as the way it’s laid out or is that pretty much, is that a question I should ask? Generous: It’s better for the applicant. However we are aware that MnDot did leave an access opening for them on Galpin. McDonald: Okay. Well then the next question is the entrance onto Galpin. We went through this before about spacing between entrances. Galpin’s a county road so it should fall under that. Do we have those kind of restrictions on here as far as entrances and exits off of a road such as this? Morris: This, the County certainly still has jurisdiction over this road. However Galpin Boulevard north of Highway 5 is treated differently versus Galpin Boulevard south. The County is interested in actually turning back that portion of Galpin Boulevard to the City so they’re not, they don’t tend to enforce their spacing guidelines but we would certainly send this over to the County to get their input on spacing guidelines. McDonald: Okay, and as part of the study, are we going to end up looking at traffic flow to look th at the determination of traffic signals up at West 78 and Galpin because of additional flow here? Is that all part of this too? Morris: We would look at what traffic volumes would generate. They would come up with a background amount of traffic and then the additional traffic that would be generated due to the uses proposed on the site, and based on that recommendation they would come up with how the intersection of West 78th and Galpin will function and they’ll come up with recommendations at which time we would put a four way signalized intersection there. McDonald: So we will get a study that will talk about, it rises to a level of a four way stop or the volume is such that there should be a traffic light there, or there should be additional turn lanes. Morris: Correct, and we can look to the Planning Commission to see exactly what you would like to see in a traffic study, both with signal recommendations with islands to restrict turning movements. Internal safe circulation, all those sorts of things we can look at a transportation professional’s recommendations. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 McDonald: Okay. Now getting into the way it’s laid out with all the parking spaces and those types of things. At this point this is only a conceptual drawing so what they could do is, they could always add a sixth building if they wanted to if we approved a PUD, is that right? Generous: Well except for you’re approving, yeah they could come back with anything under that. McDonald: Okay. I guess I have some questions for the applicant at that point as to that, but the study that you’re looking at doing as far as the commercial viability and the need for things, what exactly, is that a market study based upon what the city has and doesn’t have and is it a competitive study or how much of this is left up to the applicant to decide what kind of businesses will go in there? Generous: Well our study will look at what’s best for the City of Chanhassen. It will look community wide where our land uses are. Where our housing’s proposed. What type of commercial opportunities, do we need more retail? Do we need, you know we’re always, our surveys are coming back and people are saying well restaurants and I’m sure that will be one of the components of that. What are the types of commercial uses? McDonald: Okay. And then how binding is that upon the applicant at that point? I mean what’s to stop. Generous: It’s not binding on the applicant at all. It’s for the city to determine whether or not it’s, if that study direction says we need more commercial, then ultimately City Council will say okay, let’s designate additional lands for retail for instance. McDonald: Okay. Now the homes that are up on Parcel A, what it looks like is, I guess it’s 7, 8, 9 and 10, there is a feeder road that will be their driveway, another private driveway… Generous: Yeah. McDonald: Everybody would come in through the circle for that and would either you know go to their homes there or go down this little road. Generous: That’s correct. McDonald: Okay. And does that become a private drive or what exactly is that? Generous: Well it would be a private street and under the subdivision process we’d have them, it’s a variance. So you’d have to review that. McDonald: So are we responsible for maintenance as far as snow removal and those things? Generous: Not if it’s a private street, no. McDonald: Okay. I guess that’s it. The rest I’ll save for the applicant. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Back to the traffic study. Would it look at the probability of people doing U-turns at that area headed north there because that happens quite a bit already and I don’t know, does a traffic study look at people making those kinds of illegal maneuvers or does it strictly look at flow through that intersection? Morris: We can ask that the traffic study look at that. Look at driver behavior. Anticipate the number of U-turns that would occur at that. They can predict number of turns and review turns so we can direct them to study that. Papke: Okay. I’d like to see that happen because as the letter that we received here just prior to the meeting pointed out, and I’ve observed this many times myself, that does happen there and I have a concern. I know we’re not at commentary yet but since we’re at questions and we’re on this topic, I do have a concern that this additional road coming out to Galpin will exacerbate that situation with people driving by that entrance and it’s going to be natural for people to want to double back and turn at that point because that’s the entrance that they see. So that would be great. In terms of the building count here and you know 3 versus 5 or whatever buildings, Bob are there any standards, guidelines, you know looking for consistency other than the green space issue? What else would guide our decision making process about whether this is a suitable choice? Generous: Well as far as the comp plan, we use a floor area ratio of between .2 and .3 for office uses. Their proposal right now is under that so we think that the square footages work. They could probably even increase that and it would be okay. Subject to the traffic analysis. That they’re not over burdening the roads. The rest of it’s just a design issue. What, from the city standpoint, what is the vision we have for this corner. Papke: Okay. And one other question about the rezoning, market study, etc.. Would you also take into account in that study the space, or the areas within the city that have recently been taken out of the commercial zoning? For instance, you know recently in the southwest corner of the city there’s some conversions that have been going on. Will you be taking that into account as well? The balance that the comp plan steers us towards. Generous: Yes, and we’ll look at all our office/industrial and commercial land uses. And our projected build out populations. Papke: Okay. No more questions. Sacchet: Little more about this usage thing. That you said it would be studied but you also make a pretty clear statement they will be limited to a bank with drive thru, medical offices and/or clinics and offices. It’s not really our task but I would think it’s going to be something certainly City Council will look at. I mean how many banks is in the good of the city? I mean we have banks like weeds in this town and, but then on the other hand I feel very strongly that it’s not the city government’s task to regulate what kind of business comes in. I mean if the business goes 6 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 there and wants to take a chance and has a good prospect, it’s free trade here so. So I’d like to have a little bit of an idea from you, from staff, what’s the thinking behind proposing banks, medical offices, clinics? Generous: Well our major thinking for this corner, we believe it’s a good site for an office complex. The bank issue came up, we have banks coming into the community all the time asking where they can locate. There are some banks that aren’t represented in Chanhassen. Sacchet: It’s hard to believe. Generous: You know and that’s all market driven. They do their homework before they locate and even, they’re a good user as far as the city’s concerned because they do generally do high quality buildings. They maintain their facilities. They can be incorporated in a larger building, and that’s one of the things we’d like out here, that it not just be a bank but that it be an office building. A bank with, as part of a larger office building so there could be other users there. Sacchet: I feel like a collector of banks. Yeah, that gives a little idea, thanks. I don’t want to make light of it. In terms of where the Bluff Creek is, do we have a general idea where that primary, secondary boundary is or is that premature to try to at least give us a general idea. Generous: Well we did the, Mr. Pryzmus had the corridor surveyed at one time. I’m surprised he didn’t give it to the applicant. It’s generally follows the sewer easement on the east side. And then it cuts across and then it comes out with this wetland complex and then back in. Sacchet: So pretty much follows that wetland line. Generous: Yeah. Sacchet: But isn’t then the setback is supposed to be 30 feet? 40 feet? Generous: It’s 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone. It’s 56 ½ feet from wetland edges, so we think there may be a little overlap in there. Sacchet: So I mean, there isn’t, as I read that, there’s certainly not that much distance from where the wetland boundary is now right? Generous: Yeah, and this is just a concept so like we stated in the report, if they come forward they’d have to prove that they can meet all the required setbacks. Sacchet: Yeah, and I saw the applicant shaking their head before when we touched on it and maybe you can give us a little more an idea on that when we get to that. Let’s see. 5 versus less office buildings. I think we talked about that. The parking. There’s a mention on top of page 10 about property line issues. Property line issues that may impact some of the requirements of the proposed buildings, including but not limited to allowable size and fire resistive construction. Can you explain that a little bit more please? 7 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Generous: That’s part of the building and fire code requirements. If they’re going to subdivide the office component they have to have so much separation between the property line and the building or they have to do fire, different fire rating. They can’t have openings for instance if they’re too close to the property lines so that eliminates our windows, so they need to be cognizant that that will be an issue as far as the platting and site planning for the southern properties, as well as the residential on the north side. Because under a PUD theoretically they could have lots that just go around the building and the rest would be common open space, which is one of the things that we look at under a planned development. That they give common area for either the association or the community. Specifically on this one we know that we’d like to see the Bluff Creek primary zone included as a separate outlot so that everyone’s aware that that’s the demarcation there. Sacchet: One aspect of this asking the applicant to have less of this office building. What basis do we really have? I mean what are we, I mean it says recommendation or is this is something we can ask for or is it just, I mean is there a trade off with the PUD that we can get into that… Generous: Under a PUD the city can determine whatever uses it wants for that property. We’d be rezoning it. Again we’re hoping that as part of our market study on this come back and you get more clarity on that. One of the uses that I was looking at potentially adding would maybe be personal services. You know dry cleaning, things like that. People, things that people could use on a daily basis, but not specifically retail. Our concern if we open this corner up to retail, the traffic gets even more intensive and so. Sacchet: And then my last question. Last condition actually states that we ask for soil borings. Is that a standard requirement or is that because it’s close to the wetland or what exactly are we doing here? Generous: Well it is a standard requirement as part of the platting but our concern is because of the wetlands on the north side and Bluff Creek, that we get some verification that these are developable sites rather than you know a 20 or 30 foot pit that they’re going to have to dig out or the construction activity use pilings for that. So at least coming in under the preliminary plat we’d be aware of it and the developer would be aware of those issues. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. You have another question Deborah? Zorn: Yes, I have two follow-up’s. Just to clarify that. On the bottom of page 4 for the market study, is there a time line for the market study where we can ensure that when this comes before us again, this plan, that we, it will actually coincide with the market study? Generous: Well that, the market study’s going separately to council. I think it’s later this month to get approval to do it. We’re also contacting the Chamber to see if they’re interested in participating in that. So hopefully it’d be ordered this year and then to do the study we think we can, it will dovetail pretty close because there’s a lot of issues that the developer would have to rezone based on just the list that we’ve provided and I don’t know whether they can turn it around fast enough to do that. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Zorn: Okay. And then also on the bottom of page 4, just to clarify one of the letters from our resident indicated a sufficient number of banks and office space and I think this person is also alluding to why not retail space. On the bottom of page 4 indicates retail, commercial uses are not appropriate. Is it for just that traffic reason that you mentioned? Generous: Yeah, because of the intensity of traffic on there. You know convenience store. Another all night operation. When the person came in and talked to me, his concern was you know the lighting they have across the street, that this not be continued. So again office uses shut down at night generally and so they’re darker and quiet. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Alright. With that I’d like to ask the applicant, if you want to come forward and add to what staff presented. You may want to state your name and address for the record. Rich Ragatz: Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Rich Ragatz from Epic Development. I live in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Just wanted to come up and, this is a real unique site that we have here and at first we thought, we thought of some other uses for this site too. It’s well located. Good visibility. Good access. We even thought that maybe retail was an appropriate use but after talking with the city, found that they weren’t really encouraging that type of use and we are open to looking at the office and we think that having several different buildings is the way to go. If you look at what’s been built in the market recently, there’s a lot of, most of the people that are out in the market right now prefer to own versus lease and so we think a number of these buildings, probably at least half of them will be for sale instead of for lease. You’re seeing a lot of the office condos. The mortgage rates are still pretty good and that’s just kind of the mentality in Minnesota is people want to own versus lease and so we’re thinking that that’s more appropriate and we don’t really see that by doing 3 buildings versus the 5 buildings that you’re really going to save much in terms of parking and open space. We’d like to try and maximize the green space on the site but we’ll continue to work to see if we can do that. I guess on the north side of the property here, we think that the twin homes do a good job of kind of transitioning from the other adjacent twin homes and residential to the commercial that will be along Highway 5. So I guess with that I’ll just open it up for comments. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? McDonald: On this road that you have going through the northern part of Parcel B, what’s the purpose of that? And what I mean by that, is this still a viable development if the entrance is off th of West 78? Rich Ragatz: Well this access point right here is actually a platted access and we think that that is needed in order to make the developer viable. The people just, people like convenience and if it’s not convenient, then they’re not going to go there. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 McDonald: And the other question I’ve got is, you’ve got a lot of space here with these buildings and I tend to agree with staff that it is over parked. Is there any consideration as far as maybe cutting back on some of those spaces and turning that into more green space? Rich Ragatz: We’d consider doing that. We think there is too many spots on this site. Some other developments that we’ve worked on around the metro area, this is a fairly low percentage of buildings versus the total site area. This is I think about 19% and we’ve seen some developments, I’m doing a development down in Eagan that we’re a little more than that so we’re actually on the low end of the range in terms of buildings per acreage. And so we, I don’t know if you’d be open to looking at some, fewer parking spots per building so we could get more open space. That’s something we’d consider too. McDonald: Okay. I mean I agree with you that building space per the lot, I mean you’ve done a good job there as far as keeping it, it’s not over crowded. On the road, the concern I’ve got there and this is something I just want to know if you all would consider this or if it is but as part of this study, I mean you’re right across from the CVS. What I’m concerned about is at that point th from Highway 5 up to West 78, we’re going to create a traffic problem. Between people on your side trying to get in and out. Between the people over on CVS trying to come in and out, we can’t put a light or stop sign there and if say it comes back and says there’s even a potential at th that point are you willing to reconsider the entrance off of 78 or do something else? Maybe redo the layout. Rich Ragatz: Yeah, we’d look at that. McDonald: On the twin homes that you have up to at the top up there, have you done a look and to see where these are going to be as far as setbacks within the Bluff Creek area? Rich Ragatz: We have. The overlay that we got from the previous engineering firm, we use that in terms of coming up with this design and we believe that it fits within, it’s outside of the overlay district. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions from the applicant? No? Let’s see. So you’re fine with the idea that staff presented with the bank, medical offices, clinics, offices. Is that, does that make sense to you or do you have anything to say about that? Rich Ragatz: Well obviously you’ve seen there’s a lot of banks out there looking to be in every suburb and this area, there’s going to be a lot of homes being built here in the next several years in Chanhassen and there’s several banks that are anxious to take a hard look at the site. And we agree that it’s a great location for that. I don’t know if you’re open to looking at some other uses, if you’d look at a mix of office, maybe some professional services. Other things like that such as a dry cleaner. Maybe even a little strip center. I know it’s probably not a good work to hear but it seems like a logical location for that. Sacchet: Strip center, okay. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Rich Ragatz: I don’t know if you’re open to looking at more retail or not. Larson: Strip mall. Sacchet: Alright. We’re helping you out. Yeah, anything else you wanted to add from your end? Rich Ragatz: I don’t know if you’d be open to looking at anything else on the north side of West th 78. If we’re looking at concentrating the density and providing more open space over there and more buffer to the existing wetland, we’d be open to looking at something like that. We even thought it’d be a logical place for a little daycare or something like that. It’s a great location. Sacchet: Question of staff. I mean if we say like neighborhood business, that’s a term that came up sometimes in the context of these, not really central business district. Say neighborhood business. Now this one would be more restrictive the way you’re suggesting, right? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Once neighborhood business, once you say retail, unless you specifically list you know what the uses are. Sacchet: And with a PUD we could do that. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: I mean we could say daycare center. We could say dry cleaner. We could come up with a list that everybody could be comfortable with. Rich Ragatz: I think that’d be a great way to go because we can do market studies but really it’s up to the people that are out there looking at the time and then it would give us some flexibility if the market is dictating some other uses other than what we had there, as long as it falls in line with what you guys are looking for. Sacchet: I think that would be important because we want to make sure this can be successful. Alright, thank you very much. Rich Ragatz: Thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who wants to speak up to this topic to come forward at this time and come up to the podium and speak into the microphone. State your name and address for the record and you can move that microphone in front of you so it actually picks up your sound. There you go. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Andy Mital: My name’s Andy Mital and I live on 7750 Vasserman Trail, which is just a little a ways above where this development would occur. My only concern is a subject that a number of you touched on and I want to suggest we give this a very serious consideration and that is the traffic situation. I’ve lived there for a little over a year and a half now and I’ve observed people going to the Kwik gas, the gasoline station or the CVS. The majority of them coming off of Highway 5, if not all of them, make a U turn there. And with that ingress and egress that’s being proposed in this study, it’s just going to cause one hell of a big problem there in my opinion. And my only purpose for coming up here is to impress upon everyone here the importance of looking at this traffic situation and not come back a few years later and we’ll all say we’re sorry, we didn’t look at it hard enough. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Larry Martin: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail. I too am concerned about the operation of that intersection. Just some simple math would tell you that any vehicle that is going into that space is either going to have to make a left hand turn or, on the way in or the way out and many of them are also going to have to make U turns off of Galpin there. My personal observation is about 1 in 3 cars now that go down Galpin are making a U turn around there and I think it could get worst. Part of the proposed housing there has private streets. I don’t know how the Planning Commission feels th about private streets, but there’s one that’s parallel to 78 Street there. My experience with those, living over in Minnetonka is that the maintenance department doesn’t like them because there’s no place to put the snow, and they just don’t give a pleasing look in front of there. Towards that thing I’m worried about the berm separation too. Those townhomes that are on th 78 are going to be looking across at a commercial area there. I don’t know if a 6 foot or an 8 foot berm is appropriate there to do that but I think there is some buffering that is needed there. Those, because they are commercial buildings, commercial buildings do have trash and refuse pick-up. I don’t know if the city requires those to be located inside the buildings but certainly outside the building I think they could be there. For the office area there, it would be nice if we did have some walking trails between the buildings. I think that was in the staff report. Also a connection to the trail system would be in there too. Going along the north/south border is a power line. That power line does not show here on any of the things. There are various easements that they have on those. For the higher voltage ones, I could be wrong but I think they’re up to 75 feet of the easements and I think that could sway where those townhomes are located there. The area where the townhomes are now is a low area so there will be fill. I think in the technical jargon it’s what, Basin number 3 and it’s a Type II. So there possibly would be some wetlands swapping out and replacement having to be done there. In my estimation a bank is retail. I don’t know why people don’t think it’s that. There are cars coming and going all night. On the plan there they show many of the drive thru windows so it is a retail type thing. We’re worried about storm water retention on the site there. When you leave that much hardscaping, something has to happen. And staff picked up on that so there’s just a number of concerns that the residents in that area have talked to me about and we’ve talked and stuff. I wonder on the process, since this is so preliminary and since there are a number of things, would it be proper to have the applicant do some more work on this and then come back before the Planning Commission before it is given to the council so I thank you for your attention and we 12 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 are interested in good development in that area and we thank you for all the work you’re doing. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Charles Gelino: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Charles Gelino and the address is 7729 Vasserman Trail. It’s one of the lots that’s nearest to the adjoining proposed Parcel A. And I would like to open with a question if I may. I’m not aware of the practices. In the county I lived in previously the Planning Commission would go out and look at sites physically. Do you do physical? Sacchet: We make it a practice to go look at places, absolutely. Charles Gelino: This would be an excellent site for an early look. Just to my untrained eye, this ground is really low and we look across our storm water retention pond. The level of the pond and the level of the berm on the other side drops off dramatically in the direction of this land and into Bluff Creek. In the 4 inch rain that we had this fall, it was ponding in that land. It didn’t hang around for a long time but water did pond in that area. The other comment is, because it’s, this is only a concept, there are, it’s very difficult to comment on anything until they have a chance to do some work and see how well it really does meet the metes and bounds. It doesn’t look like the townhouses around the traffic circle would meet those metes and bounds but that’s an engineer can settle that one, one way or another so we’ll wait until the preliminary hearing, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much for your comment. Anybody else like to address this item? This is your chance. Jeff Weyandt: Howdy. My name’s Jeff Weyandt. I’m at 7626 Ridgeview Way and it’s a little bit up past where a lot of this is taking place but just a couple comments. When I looked at the plan, with that much asphalt in there and I’m sure you’ve given some thought to this already but for the amount of snowplowing and stuff you have to do for a surface like that and where you’re going to put it. I know that along our stretch of road we’ve had a lot of water issues this year and that may be a different issue for the Planning Commission on a different day but what’s happening back there is all along that ridge right now we are, everybody along there, their sump pumps are running constantly already and with the rains we had this summer, we had that overflow, that Bluff Creek area overflowed several times and it was over the trails and it got basically pretty much up into our yards, which is not a big deal because it doesn’t affect our house but our concerns are more along the lines if you put a little denser housing in, along the north side of this and you’re increasing the amount of snow that you’re going to plow, you’re decreasing the amount of area that you’re doing to drain water into, is it going to make things worst back there? Are we going to have more problems? We’ve had several people had their basements flood. We’ve got enough issues now and you may have already looked into it to your development, I’m not sure. I was reading as much as I could through there but that’s the main issue that my neighbors and I talked about. We want to look at the second thing we want to look at is with the amount of asphalt and the amount of parking there and the type of buildings we’re talking there. Like right now you can see a lot of light from Kwik Trip. You can see a lot of 13 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 light from CVS. How much of a lighting plan do we have here to deal with? With all these parking spots and all these office buildings that come in there, you know what are we talking about there because that’s something else we have to think about is how that’s going to change that area too if all of a sudden we’ve got all these bright lights in there. Something to think about also so if you increase the amount of green space, maybe that will help that. If you’re looking at that and maybe a little less density would be nice. I mean I don’t think you know I’d object to what is going on as far as office versus retail. I agree with you that it’d be better to have office than to have a bunch of stores in there adding to traffic problems that already exist as mentioned already, so I just, just a couple thoughts. I don’t know if they’re addressed that already, do you know? Has somebody already looked at the drainage issues in that area? Sacchet: We’re a little bit ahead. We’re not quite there yet. I mean we’re not looking at the specifics. I mean it’s a comment also a previous resident brought up. I mean is this going to come back? Are they going to work more on it? They haven’t really worked all that tremendously much on it. That’s why it’s a preliminary review and if, and they come in to get some direction. They come in to get your comments. Get our comments. To shoot for something that has some chance to actually go somewhere because that’s going to be an investment for them, so there will be much more and drainage would certainly fall into what would be looked at very carefully in that context too. Charles Gelino: Alright, thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to come forward? Please. Tom Kraus: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Tom Kraus. I live at 7744 Vasserman Trail. My concern is the commercial development. At the present time there seems to be a lot of unleased or unsold commercial space in that area. There is a complex, a strip mall at the intersection of Century Avenue and Highway 5 that has been there for at least 2 years. They finally got their third applicant when the liquor store went in there but there’s still at least 3 or 4 business areas that are empty, even in the Edina Realty section of it there is empty space in there too that doesn’t seem to be leased. In the other buildings on the, should we say the southeast section, past Bluff Creek school where they’re building those office complexes there, there seems to be a lot of over building in there. There doesn’t seem to be as many people wanting to them as the developer thought there would be, so I’m concerned about now probably we’re looking at maybe 2-3 years away before this whole complex gets done. How many buildings are they going to build that might be empty for a period of time before they’re used or will the applicant build a building as he gets a tenant or what’s going to happen along those lines there. I think those are some of the issues that you have in your marketing plan that will come forward and I hope we don’t get too far down the road before that marketing plan is presented to the Planning Commission to say okay, we already have too much commercial or retail or whatever we want to call it, space in that area. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to talk about this? See nobody getting up so I’ll, yeah. No? Alright, nobody getting up. I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for comments and discussion. We’ve got some really good feedback from the residents. I really want to thank you for speaking up. Express very clear aspects, concerns. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Things that need to be looked at and we appreciate that very much. Just to summarize what I got from the residents comments, the traffic concerns was mentioned several times. The concern of th the private street. The proximity to West 78 Street there. The need for berming. The concern about the lowness of the ground where those twin homes go in. Drainage issues that will be studied as it gets refined further. A lighting plan I would think that certainly would be part too of what would be looked at, and finally the concern about the demand for commercial, and that’s a really sticky thing. I mean to what extent can city government dictate what kind of business comes in? I mean ideally we have a little bit of a partnering and I think that’s what staff is aiming for with that study, but ultimately it’s the business demands that drive that most of all. Anyhow, comments. Discussion. Commissioners. Do you want to start Dan? Keefe: Sure. I think we have tremendous input, particularly at this stage of the development and I think these guys have a lot of things to mull over and consider in terms of coming forward with the next step of the plan. Generally I’ll encourage them to take that next step and to really look at it and come back and I think you guys are headed down generally in the right direction. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Hop in there Debbie? Larson: Sure, I’ll jump in. The traffic issues, I know what you guys are talking about. I do the same thing and I didn’t know it was an illegal U turn but I do it because I want to go that way. I want to go south out of there and to me coming out of there, you can’t see the other exit that you should be using so you don’t do that. It’s just not visible to me so I don’t see it. So that may be something that definitely should be looked at a little closer. The storm water, that’s also a large issue just because of all the water we do have in Chanhassen and the drainage and if we can figure that out, then I’m fine with it. The lighting issues, as was pointed out by staff, doesn’t seem to be that big of an issue just because if it is office buildings, they do. They shut down at night so I don’t know where that’s that big of a deal. The empty building issue. This again is more office space. Some of the ones that the gentleman pointed out were more maybe perhaps industrial and different types of uses so I don’t know if this falls into that same category but that’s I assume that maybe studies will be done too to find out what the need is and I hope that will be done so those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. You want to jump in Deborah? Zorn: Yes, I even agree with some of the additional comments from our commissioners. The traffic study still remains a concern for me. I’m actually a resident in that area so I also have concerns and hoping you can, that you will take some of the comments and think about some of the features that will retain a residential neighborhood. You know the lighting. Definitely the concern about the drainage and the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I know a lot of my neighbors did have flooding many times this summer and so. And also looking on that south side, if there’s any way we can reduce some of that parking, just to alleviate, add some more green space and to take away some more asphalt. Otherwise it looks like a nice addition to this side of town. Sacchet: Thanks Deborah. Jerry, do you want to comment? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 McDonald: Sure. I guess from a preliminary standpoint, I don’t have a problem with this. It looks fine. I would expect more detail. That was why one of my questions you know are we going to see it through here again. The whole issue about Parcel A and if that’s too low or not. I mean at that point I expect to see elevation drawings and that will begin to tell us where are you at as far as the elevation and what are we looking at for fill and what requirements the city’s going to put on top of that so that’s a detail that will come. So the private street issue, I wouldn’t th be in favor of this without the private street because that’s too many entrances onto 78. I have a concern about the traffic problems. We probably should have never allowed the entrance on th Galpin where it was at. I mean 78 was designed to be more of a feeder road off of 5 for businesses so that we wouldn’t have the traffic trying to get on and off of 5. But that’s water over the bridge. I just don’t think that we should compound the problem which is why I think th the entrance should be on 78, but we’ll wait for the traffic study to come up and see how there is. As far as the parking lot. Yeah, I believe you have over parked it but there’s probably room for you know, there’s definitely room to put some green space or reserve parking and if one of these buildings needs it at some future time, do it then. Otherwise, you know except for those concerns and most of those I think will shake out in the details, I don’t have any problems with the plan at this point. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Kurt. Papke: All I’ll add is, I’m in favor of some flexibility of the use of Parcel A. Providing that we’re of course sensitive to the fact that we’re right next to a residential area and obviously there are some drainage, wetland issues and so on so if you come back with a proposal that puts in a daycare center or something like that, as long as the hard surface coverage doesn’t exacerbate the drainage issues there, I’m fine with that because I think there’s enough traffic in that area and again with the limited access in there and the use of private roads to accommodate residential, I think a single environmentally sensitive business in there that fits in with the neighborhood I think would be very appropriate. So overall I think it’s a very good proposal. Sacchet: I think it’s an interesting thing. Ultimately the issue in front of us, the way I understand it is, are we fine with business type, office type use on Parcel B? Isn’t the guidance for that right now is residential, isn’t it? So that the main thing I think in front of us to, and I think we all expressed very clear, are we comfortable with an office type use. A business type of use within a defined framework that we can fine tune that it fits in with your PUD is the proper tool to do that. That we have that discussion and mutually come to an agreement, what is the appropriate collection of uses there. I think that’s the main thing that’s actually in front of us and I think you have, or you are for backing it sounds like by everybody expressed that. As far as going into details, I think it’s just way too early to really get too much drilled down into specifics. We know we do the business study. We know we do traffic study. We know as we move into this when we have a PUD we’ll define design standards. We define usage definitions. Eventually come to the point of looking at elevations and drainage and all that. I mean that’s going to happen in the future. I mean we’re not there at this point so I wouldn’t belabor that at this point too much. However the traffic concern is very real. But then on the other hand there is, and I don’t know how you call it. Established but a given access from Galpin. I think that is a given if I don’t misunderstand the situation. So I don’t know whether we even have the option of outlining the process of this to say well there shouldn’t be an access. We probably did traffic 16 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 studies purpose, if I understand it correctly, is more to find out how can we best mitigate imbalances. But I don’t think it’s necessarily going to go to the point that we can say well there should be an access to Galpin, but that’s just my personal opinion. I don’t know whether you have something to add to that Alyson. Morris: I think we can look at how the agreements that the property owner has, what stipulations they have. An actual access there and you would have to consult with the city attorney to see if with this going under Planned Unit Development, if having that zoning can restrict use of that access. Those are all things that we have to look into. Sacchet: Something we have to work through basically with the study and everything. Morris: But absolutely looking at mitigation measures. Sacchet: Okay. Yes Jerry. McDonald: I ask a question. This used to be a former driving range. Is that access, that entrance, is that what’s plotted there? Morris: We’d have to take a look and the applicant has their documentation stating what their access is for and as staff we would have to look at is that access granted based on a certain land use at the time. Was this zoned for a residential and they assume residential traffic volumes coming through here, so those are all things that we will be looking at through the traffic analysis. McDonald: Because that corner was significantly different when that was a driving range. Sacchet: Also one more question about the traffic aspect. I mean the fact that people make U th turns there at the intersection of Galpin and 78 Street, that’s the, mostly the people that use the Kwik Trip. That’s really totally unrelated to this parcel, and I don’t think that, at that intersection it would be more aggravated because you can’t go north when you come out of Galpin from this side. You can only go south. If you want to go north you have to use the other entrance so it wouldn’t really aggravate that U turn thing so I would consider that U turn problem unrelated to this parcel. Papke: Mr. Chair I respectfully disagree. Sacchet: Please, explain. Papke: I believe that if you turn, make a right turn off of Highway 5, headed north, you will see the entrance to this new development on the left and you’re going to go oh. I need to make a U turn up at the intersection here so I can double back and turn in because I can’t see the entrance… Sacchet: Can’t see the other one. 17 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 th Papke: …the entrance over on West 78. Sacchet: That’s a good point. Papke: You take the entrance you see. Sacchet: Right, right. So we’re going to have more of the same U turns. Okay, okay. That is true. That’s the type of thing that we’re going to be looking at. That’s the type of thing that we’re going to be discussing and weighing with this traffic study and hopefully get a good, strong foundation where that is at so that’s certainly one of the focuses of the traffic study to look at. I see you take notes Alyson, that’s good. Anyhow I think I made enough comments in terms of this concept plan. I think we have a pretty clear opinion about it so I would like to ask for a motion. It’s on page 10. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we adopt staff’s motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the concept planned unit development approved for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as a part of the next phase of development review. And that would include the 31 posted bullets with that. Sacchet: And just for the residents in attendance I want to emphasize that this is a recommendation to City Council. This is not a decision. Our role is to make recommendations to City Council so we have a motion, is there a second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Keefe: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Friendly amendment, sorry. Keefe: I think 32, do we need to add a traffic study be conducted? Sacchet: That’s not mentioned in there at this point? Keefe: I don’t see it anywhere in here. Sacchet: That would definitely be a good amendment if it’s not mentioned already. Good point. Keefe: I don’t see it anywhere. Sacchet: So we have accepted that Jerry? Okay, any other friendly amendments? In that case everybody in favor say aye. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends concept planned unit development approval for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1.Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2.The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3.Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4.The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5.Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6.Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7.The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9.A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10.A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11.The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12.Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be 19 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13.This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14.A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15.The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16.The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17.The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall 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. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20.All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22.The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23.The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24.The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. ? Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. ? 20 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. ? Parcel B No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. ? Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. ? Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. ? Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. ? Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. ? 25.Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26.The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28.A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29.The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31.The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32.A traffic study be completed for the proposed development.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. th Sacchet: Good luck with it. This will go in front of City Council on the 12 of December so for th the residents if you have an interest to see it through the process on the 12 of December, the City Council will look at it. They may or may not take comments. The formal public hearing is done here at the Planning Commission but depending on where it’s at and what the situation is, they may take some comments. Alright, with that let’s go to our next item. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION: DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED EAST OF THE GEDNEY PICKLE PLANT, NORTH OF STOUGHTON AVENUE AND SOUTH OF FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. APPLICANT MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-30. Public Present: Name Address Carole Schmidt Roseville th Dennis Wolf 4291 200 Street W., Jordan Ronald Jabs 217 Juergens Court, Jordan Dan Faulkner 2380 Shadow Lane Jay Molnau St. John’s, Chaska Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Keefe: Just a real quick one. A real quick one is, what you scoped out in here will allow you to answer, all the questions will be answered that you need to have answered. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. It will go beyond what we need. Sacchet: Yeah go ahead Jerry. McDonald: What’s the timeframe for all of this? I mean what, since they have presented something, we’re going to table an issue. I know we’ve only got so much time. Is that going to allow you enough time to do this assessment? Are we okay there? Al-Jaff: Yes. They have waived their 120 day timeline already. McDonald: Okay. Al-Jaff: They’ve given us a letter to that effect. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Yeah, in Section 3 there’s a bullet for human health and safety and there’s a bullet for electric and magnetic fields. When we’ve looked at this proposal before there was a lot of discussion around the relationships between those two so would, you know these are listed as 22 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 separate bullets but would I be correct in assuming that the health and human safety issue will be part and parcel will be, will look at the impact of the electric and magnetic fields? Al-Jaff: Yes. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Two questions. One is, when we were, you mentioned the overhead lines. For some reason I seem to recall from previous discussions on this that there wouldn’t necessarily be new overhead lines. That most of that is already in place. I don’t know whether you know that. Maybe we can ask the applicant if you don’t know but, so we’re not talking about having a whole type of new high tension wires strung? Al-Jaff: You will not increase the electromagnetic field within that area. Nothing is going to change. Sacchet: Or we can ask the applicant. Al-Jaff: Could you please. Sacchet: We’ll ask him. Then the other question I think is very crucial to me, it’s at the end of the report you state the responsible government unit is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the document. Meaning the study. Now the responsible governing unit is the city government, right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So we are legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the study. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: That’s, that’s definitely a responsibility. So by looking at this we have to make sure we cover all angles and you’re confident that we have an exhaustive list here. To be legally responsible for the completeness. Just want to ask you since it’s stated so explicitly here. Al-Jaff: It is a fairly comprehensive list that goes beyond, there are quite a few things that staff is aware they do not exist out there such as lakes for instance. I guarantee you there are no lakes out on the, within the study area, yet we’re still asking. Sacchet: Just so we have complete. Al-Jaff: We want to make sure that we’ve covered every potential aspect of an environmental assessment. Chances are the majority of these will say no impact, none exists. Sacchet: That’s going to be easy for them, that part. Alright. Thank you very much Sharmeen. I’d like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If you have anything to add to what 23 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 staff presented. You want to do so, and we may have some questions for you too. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Ron Jabs: Yes, good evening Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Ron Jabs. I’m an employee of Minnesota Valley Electric. Signed on as the applicant and try to answer all of your questions, however I do have a number of other representatives from Minnesota Valley. Different experts in various aspects. As to the basic report that Sharmeen has provided for you, Minnesota Valley fully agrees with and supports the recommendation, all of the different aspects of the environmental review process. They are very exhaustive and I think you’ll find that they’ll thoroughly address the concerns that come up through this sort of a process. Minnesota Valley as part of it’s normal due diligence has already contacted several federal and state regulatory agencies and they’ve already commented and those responses have been, have come back as not raising any red flags if you will. I have also contacted the neighboring properties around there. There aren’t a tremendous number of them. Obviously the M.A. Gedney Company is, they’re the ones that we acquired the property from and they’re very supportive of the project. I contacted St. John’s cemetery board. One of the representatives has actually met with two of them on site and we discussed the scope of the project and encouraged any kind of feedback, not only this evening but at any point through the process. I’ve also met with the owner and also the manager at the mobile home court that lies on the south side of Stoughton Avenue and I guess their biggest concern was that they just not be put out of power through the process, but essentially they were comfortable with it. We are getting rid of an old facility that Xcel Energy had in our process and in terms of aesthetics will actually make the site look nicer so I think there’s some real benefits to it, but I think the question was asked about the overhead lines. There are existing transmission lines, actually 3 different sets of them. There’s a 69 KV transmission line that feeds across the site. A 115 KV or kilovolt line and then a 230 that does kind of a diagonal actually across the M.A. Gedney property. Those facilities will essentially remain in place. We’re simply building our substation right underneath the transmission, the 115 and the 69. We need to move the 69 around a little bit so it isn’t interfering with the process or the substation itself but essentially those lines will remain in place. As far as new additional lines, what we refer to as our distribution level, that’s what goes back out, the high voltage transmission feeds into the transformers. Drops it down to a usable voltage. That’s what we call our distribution. That will be all underground, out of that substation. Feeds back out onto some existing system that’s out remote from the site so I think in a nutshell, that’s what we’re looking for. Concur that the, that Minnesota Valley and Great River Energy, our partner in this process, has waived the 120 day limitation but we do look forward to moving the process along you know as quickly as we can because the need is great and we want to get moving on it so that we have reliable power out there. I stand for any kind of questions. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. Yeah, Jerry. McDonald: I have a question. I just want to be clear. I mean you answered a lot of the questions I had. I was under the impression that you would be distributing power out of there. I’m glad to hear most of it’s going to be underground so that’s good. The majority of this purpose, as I recall from our meetings is more or less to take care of the southern part of Chanhassen which is scheduled for development within I think the next 5 years or so. 24 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 Ron Jabs: Yes. McDonald: And that’s the major reason for doing all this is so that we do have a reliable substation and distribution for the city. Ron Jabs: That is certainly correct. The new growth and in that southern portion there, the 312 growth that’s going to be spurred by that. Plus the other ties that are currently helping out to serve the Chanhassen area are becoming stressed and this is going to really reinforce that whole system. McDonald: Okay, and then you said something else that I hadn’t heard before about cleaning up the site and you included I thought the NSP substation. Is that going to go away and be folded in as part of what you end up doing there? Ron Jabs: I’m real happy to say yes. We didn’t want to assure that to begin with until we could negotiate that but there’s a .6 acre parcel that Xcel had a switching substation present right along Stoughton Avenue. It’s very prevalent when you drive along Stoughton Avenue, and we were able to, because they’re not really using that or it’s under utilized, they were willing to work with us and we now will be removing that. We’ll be running a driveway right through where the present driveway comes onto that site. Right through the middle of that old substation. The rest of that .6 acres is going to be green space and landscape. Our site is actually further to the north and so you’ll have a buffer between the roadway going in and I think you’ll be pleased when we get into the conditional use process and seeing the site layout. The landscaping and all those other aspects but of course tonight’s focus is on the environmental assessment and like I say, we’ve started some of those processes. We don’t want to make presumptions and move ahead of that game but we’ve already assembled some of the materials and we’ll address the EMF kinds of things as was brought up previously. McDonald: Yeah, just thanks. I’m glad to hear you’re making these changes and it will clean up the area and make it look a little less old industrial so, okay. Ron Jabs: We thought it was the right thing to do and you know we want to make it look decent too. McDonald: No further questions. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Just to add onto this a little bit. To be really clear, I mean by removing that old switching station you call it, chances are that you’re actually decreasing the radiation and the magnetic fields of that site. You’re using the same overhead lines and then underground distribution so from that would it be reasonable to state that certainly it’d be rather decreasing than increasing the potential impact because I think ultimately in this whole list of environmental impact items, the one that is really the crucial one is the human health and safety. And I think over time that probably will become more evident. It’s something that most people don’t really pay attention to yet at this point but then on the other hand I do know people that suffer from it too, so I just want to hear from you that by removing this old 25 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 station, I would think that what you put in is more fine tuned I would expect with new equipment to minimize those potential impacts. Is that a fair statement to make? Ron Jabs: I’m not, at this point I’m not maybe, not real prepared to address that in detail. Sacchet: The assessment will go into that more. Ron Jabs: It will and one of the main things is that you still have the 230 line, the 115 and the 69 pretty much running through in the original location and those influences are probably, I’m going to say it’s probably. Sacchet: Stay the same. Ron Jabs: Greater influences than the sub-site itself. And those equipments. Within the sub-site area, basically within the fence itself everything that is thrown off from the equipment itself is diminished and with an understanding of how quickly this diminishes with distance. I guess that’s the real key thing. The area is large enough and so forth that all of the, everything is within acceptable levels within the property and certainly with the fenced in areas that we’re going to be developing so, hope that kind of answers your question. Sacchet: Yeah, it helped. Kurt, you wanted to jump in? Papke: Yeah I had another question that occurred to me while you were conversing. I don’t know if this is for staff or the applicant. With the construction of the water treatment plant we had some environmental surprises with some things that were found underground here once excavation began and I guess my question was spurred when we started discussing the removal of the existing Xcel Energy facility. Will the scope of the environmental assessment take into account any potential subterranean discoveries that might be encountered when this site is removed? Al-Jaff: One of the things that we would ask the study would be soils for instance. It’s a matter of how far down do you go? And there are times when these things are missed. Morris: If I may. A lot of times with an EA document they will look at historical photos, aerial photos so they can look at past was there an abuse of use on that land and see if there was something that was being done that would generate something like that. Sacchet: Alright. Well thank you very much. Did you want to add anything else at this point still? Ron Jabs: Just kind of a follow-up. Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Ron Jabs: We did some soil borings on site and we decided to even take additional ones and so there will be reports available on that type of thing and we’re aware of the concrete disposal 26 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 issue that you ran into on that yeah. I guess we’re not aware of that kind of thing but that will be thoroughly looked at as we process. We need to assure ourselves too that the site is suitable and appropriate. That’s all part of our requirements. Sacchet: Excellent. Ron Jabs: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. Does anybody want to address this at this point, please come forward. Seeing nobody getting up, I close the public hearing and bring it to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Anybody want to add anything? Everybody clear? I have just one question of staff. I mean we have this motion, this recommendation that you’re proposing, but then you made a comment that basically we need to table everything else. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So we need to state that? We can make that in the same motion, right? Al-Jaff: If you, the recommendation, if you read the recommendation. Sacchet: That takes care of it. Al-Jaff: That takes care of it. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, because that only addresses the environmental study which implies everything else comes after, right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. Do we have somebody who ventures a motion? Papke: Okay Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission approves the EA statement scoping and that we direct staff to prepare the EA consistent with the scoping and that we table further proceedings on the conditional use permit, site plan and variance until such time when the EA is completed and submitted to the Planning Commission. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? McDonald: I’ll second. Sacchet: We have a motion. A second. I don’t think there are friendly amendments so everybody say in favor. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission approves the Environmental Assessment Scoping, directs staff to prepare the EA consistent with the 27 Planning Commission Meeting – November 15, 2005 scoping, tables further proceedings on the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and Variance until such time when the EA is completed and submitted to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: We wish you luck with this. We look forward to see the results of this environmental study. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 1, 2005 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 28