The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2006 11 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Kathleen Thomas, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Elftmann 7600 Quattro Drive Robert Crawford 7600 Quattro Drive Scott Larkin 3650 Annapolis Lane No., Plymouth Bill Braunwarth 7600 Quattro Drive Larry Vortherns 7600 Quattro Drive Colin Evenson 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Adam McLane 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Brian Guthrie 8123 Stone Creek Drive Jerry Cornell 8345 Stone Creek Drive Mike & Darlene Leonard 8129 Stone Creek Drive Christine 8595 Drake Court Bev Schram 8297 Stone Creek Drive Donna Hernandez 8289 Stone Creek Drive Laurie & Marina Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Homer & Dorothy Sutter 1913 Creek View Court Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff Creek Court Chris & Brenda Berg 8269 Stone Creek Drive Sandy Opheim 8305 Stone Creek Drive Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road Andy Kayati 8715 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Scott Jesse 8198 Stone Creek Drive SOUTH LEG HIGHWAY 101 UPDATE, PAUL OEHME, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER. Oehme: Thank you Chairman McDonald and Planning Commission members. I'm Paul Oehme. I'm the City Engineer for the City of Chanhassen. Staff though it'd be a good idea to give the commission and update on our progress of the 101 corridor study. This is a joint project between Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Carver County, MnDot and the City of Chanhassen to look for, to look at potential future improvements to the corridor. This is only an update. This is not a public hearing, it's my understanding. We're just here to update the council on where we're at with the project right now and we're not asking for any action to be taken at this time. And just, you know we're still working through the project. There is no funding that's out there right now for any improvements. Long term improvements at this time. With that being said, I put together a little power point presentation for the commission I want just to go through. Again this is just an update of the corridor study that the city staff is working on. We've been working on the project for about 9 months now. The corridor location is basically from Lyman Boulevard all the way down to the Scott County line. It's approximately 3 1/2 miles long. And the purpose of the study is just to identify alternative solutions for potential future improvements and preserve long term safety capacity and mobility along the corridor itself. With the 212 project opening up in 2007, we are anticipating this corridor will take additional traffic up to 212 and we're trying to plan for future improvements there. Again this is just the preliminary stages. This is a phase 1. We're still looking at some more detailed studies down the line. Environmental documentation. We still need to put together plans and specs for construction and again, no time frame has been set on any of those future phases. The issues that we've identified to date are numerous, and if you ever drive out there, you understand most of them I would think. Sharp curves. Not meeting State aid standards. Undulating terrain. We've got wildlife intersections out there. The drawing before you right now is just the area along 101 north of Pioneer Trail. There's a lot of wetlands along the corridor too so any future realignment or widenings would definitely, potentially impact those areas. This drawing is showing some of the issues south of Pioneer Trail down to the Scott County line. Again we've got steep, or some very tight curves. 50 miles per hour curves. We've got potential historical house that's out there that we would definitely want to try to avoid. Blind intersections. About a 13% grade in some areas coming down the bluff. We've got a trail, Hennepin County trail that's out there that we need to address if any future improvements were to take place out here. And of course the Y. Looking at future improvements along that segment of the roadway. Just based upon the current capacity inefficiencies in this area during peak periods. A.m. and p.m. peak periods. There's wetlands that are again out here. The Fish and Wildlife Service property that we've got to be mindful about in the floodplain. We've looked at traffic. Crashes in this area. This drawing kind of represents some of the major areas that we know of traffic, or traffic accidents. Either multi car traffic accidents or single car, cars going off the road. Those type of things so we've looked at all that information now. You know based upon some of the findings that we've found already, the corridor crashes, the severity's about 3 times greater than the average corridor considering the same volume of traffic out here so it is kind of significant. We are still working on the traffic forecasts for this area. I'm working with Carver County on their modeling of the entire county. We're still, we're really close on that. We're hopeful to finish that, wrapped up really quick here. We're trying to keep with the Carver County Access Management Plan of the quarter mile spacing between major access points. Because this roadway potentially will be turned back to the County in the future. And again this is a minor arterial collector roadway designated by MnDot so it is anticipating and designated to take traffic, just not local traffic, more regional traffic. That being said we do know there are some topographic challenges that are out there and the characteristics of the area we're trying to be mindful of that and residential properties out here so. But also plan for future developments in this area. Some of the environmental issues and historical issues that we've identified so far here. Berman Field is there. We want to try to 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 preserve and protect that park. It is an asset for the city. Historical Straw Hill Farm that I already touched on south of Pioneer Trail. We've got the Hennepin County Regional Trail that's out there. We need to maintain that function and potentially on a light rail transit corridor. Threatened endangered species, we're looking at any of those issues. Additional wildlife service lands. We need to be mindful and try to avoid those lands if we can. And then other concerns. We're still looking at potential burial mounds that are out here. Seminary Fen is in the area, and trout streams as well we're looking at potential impacts. This drawing, this aerial photo is showing one of the steep curves or radiuses that are out there. It's over by Halla Nursery and it is quite, can be quite dangerous sometimes. The historical Straw Farm that is just north of the bluff. Trying to avoid that property. And just to show you the aerial photograph of what 212 and 101 intersection currently looks like with the Y. Try to improve that. How that intersection th functions. To date we have had 2 neighborhood meetings. One on July 17 of this year. At that meeting we invited neighbors and properties in the corridor to come in and we talked about the project in general. Getting them familiar with the schedule and the process and what we're trying to accomplish for this project. We developed, developing partnering, trying to develop potential solutions, both long term and short term improvements. And also identifying certain issues, or those issues that we talked about on the previous slide. Then most recently we had a th neighborhood meeting on November 15 which we presented 4 potential realignments of 101 with improvements as well. Those are shown here on this drawing. Basically there's again there's 4 alignments. The blue alignment is fairly close to the current alignment of 101. That alignment we're looking at just trying to improve some of the sight distance issues. Improve some of the access issues. Get it more up to MnDot standards. It's a 35 miles per hour design. We're anticipating you know maybe a 3 to 4 lane roadway along the corridor. Whatever potential future improvements are made. It's just based upon the traffic volumes that were projected in this area in the next 20 years. The green line over the east, as you recall, the east alignment. Basically it's the same alignment as the central alignment except for the south leg south of Pioneer Trail which is basically in the center of the drawing here. The alignment does veer to the east a little bit. It does improve some of the traffic movements through this area. Access is improved a little bit and down south, and then also the improvements down to the corridor, down by the bluff as well is improved with the alignment. Does, it you know cost wise it, it would cut out a couple more properties if that alignment was chosen and also you know impacts to some of the residents, residential properties that are out there. The red alignment to the west basically is, from a traffic standpoint is probably the best alignment. Unfortunately is probably the most costly if we go with that alignment. The alignment would be basically built th west of 96 Street right now and hug the Bluff Creek Golf Course on the east side and down the bluff. It does have some challenges getting down the bluff with this alignment. And then also the purple line is the Powers Boulevard alignment which would re-route 101 over to Powers Boulevard and bring it up to the interchange at 212 that direction so significant impact to the golf course. Basically wipes it out and potential impacts to future developments if that area would ever take place. So there's not a clear cut you know alignment that works out here. It's, there's pros and cons with each so we're going through a matrix right now which is, and rating each of the alignments and trying to come up with a criteria for which alignment will ultimately end up evaluating the future and keep the, hopefully pick out an alignment in the future to build if need be. We also looked at improvements to the 101 and 212 interchange. Several improvements that we're evaluating currently. One we have to address is the…impacts in 20 years and also along the corridor too, up the bluff. Whether the no build implications. You're looking at a segregated 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 or off setting your intersection as shown on the right here. Basically eliminating two signals that are currently out there and going with the most non-intrusive alignment. Next couple of intersection improvements we're looking at are basically a single point intersection. Basically at the Y currently. That intersection would, the 212 intersection would have to be raised up maybe about 12 or 15 feet to accommodate the grade going up the hill. We're trying to maintain about 8% grade going up the hill right now. Again it's in some areas about 13%. The alignment to the right there is basically following the same alignment in front of Bluff Creek Boulevard. As it is right now, picking up grade as you go up the hill but then T'ing off and going south from that intersection down to current 101 alignment. There's some wetland or wet, Fish and Wildlife right-of-way impact to that and again most of these intersections down here would need additional right-of-way acquisition from private properties. We're also looking at two options for interchanges. The left drawing shows what we call the jug handle. Basically an intersection with 101. It would fly over 212 with two signals. One on 101 and one on 212 for those movements, and then also a familiar folded…intersection that's currently being constructed over at 101 and 212. So that one, the jug handle is, you know it addresses some of the right-of-way issues on 212. More or less being within the 212 corridor and 101 corridor that is right now. So we're currently coordinating with local, state and federal agencies. You know cities, Shakopee, Scott County as such. We're out for comment right now. We hope to have comments back by the middle of December now. We're continuing to meet with the Council, Planning Commission, Carver County Board. Neighborhood meetings. We're still planning to have a couple more of those. Private property owner meetings, those things. Still planning to have one more open house with the public and we're continuing to update our website as information comes in. So future schedule would include again open house. Finalizing the draft of the scoping study. Selecting alternatives for future study. We're trying to pick one corridor out here to basically work off of. The objective here again is to officially map this corridor so property owners, future developers know what, this is where potentially we're having our future 101 improvements will take place. And then also future studies, more environmental review preliminary design, final design. We don't know what environmental reviews we will take yet. It depends upon how big of chunks, how big of chunks for 101 we're going to be doing. Potentially an EAW, EIS, EA. We don't know at this time. And then also trying to secure some funding in the near future for, if we decide to make any improvements out here. And then future turn back of old 212 and 101 basically back to the County. MnDot, from MnDot to the County so that's a quick presentation for 101. If you have any questions… Again, just wanted to update you on where we're at. We're trying to finalize this in the next couple months here so we just wanted to keep everybody informed with what's happened. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: I've got a quick question. Traffic loads on 101 are expected to increase with the build out of the southern part of Chan. If we didn't, or I mean I presume the new alignment would also include widening it to what, 4 lane I suppose. And provide access across the river. More ready access across the river. You know is that going to drive additional traffic into the City? I mean what are the initial traffic thoughts in regards to. Oehme: Yeah the traffic study right now, currently 101 is, it's right around 6,000 trips per day. In 20 years it's right around 17,000 trips per day. And you know again the impetus here is, it's a 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 minor arterial collector. It's supposed to move traffic regionally. We're seeing impacts on our local streets. Bluff Creek Boulevard for example takes a lot more traffic than it should right now for our local and that just costs the City more to maintain those type of infrastructures. Those roadways too so we want to try to keep the traffic on regional and arterial collector roadways where it should be. So, and MnDot's, that's MnDot's. Keefe: So their traffic projection, 2020 includes essentially an access across the river. Oehme: Correct. Keefe: Yeah, okay. McDonald: Thanks Paul. We'll wait for further developments on this. PUBLIC HEARING: CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC-REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION TO EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE, ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP. APPLICANT, CITIES EDGE ARCHITECTS/CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-36. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for staff before he goes off? Nope? Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Would you come on up and state your name and tell us what you think we need to know to help us make a decision here tonight. Colin Evenson: My name is Colin Evenson with Cities Edge Architects. We have the owner here also. Bill Braunwarth: I'm Bill Braunwarth. I'm the Director of Sales and Marketing. Colin Evenson: I guess we'll be happy to field any questions. McDonald: I don't believe we have any questions for you. Okay, at this point then I would open this up to public comment. If anyone wishes to come forward and address this particular issue, please come up to the podium and again, state your name and address. Katie Vickerson. I am a resident that backs up to that business, one of them on there, is why I'm here. And I guess I just received this so I would, personally I would like to see some visuals of what this expansion might look like and how this property, whether, is it going up? Is it going out? How is this going to affect the properties that are the residential properties that are on the other side of the tracks as far as visually. These are all questions and concerns and maybe that's, you have all that. I just, I'd like to know more information because this is all I've received and what I've heard here to me is not enough for me. I don't feel comfortable with saying I approve of this without knowing more information at some might our neighborhood. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Okay staff, is this something that you're prepared to do or is this something you would want to take up at another time? Generous: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. There is a conservation easement on the back side of this property and there's mature trees. This development will be preserving all those trees in that easement area. The building will be no taller than what it is now and if you look at the topography there, it goes up and then you have the railroad tracks and then it's back down on the other side. The majority of this building won't be seen. If anything this should be an improvement because there's a loading dock area on the existing west side of the building and this will add additional separation if you will from the residential properties to the north. The building is, like I said, the top of the parapet is 20 feet 8 inches so it's well under the 50 feet that our ordinance would permit. We think this expansion to improve the operation of their business and allow them to do more things internally. It complies with all ordinance requirements. Like I said, we're preserving the trees that act as a buffer now so those won't be, those will remain. And the back of this building is actually built into the hill so it's like a retaining wall, and unfortunately our overhead's not working. Undestad: Can you show her the, these…? Normally you can see it up here. Katie Vickerson: No, that's fine. Generous: So this is the existing building and the expansion, the 7,000 square feet to the west. This is the tree line and the railroad tracks. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And so will this, this build up will remain the same height? Generous: Yeah. Katie Vickerson: It will be built into? Generous: Yeah. They'll dig it down and that will act like a retaining wall and it will meet the grade on this side. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And all the trees will be maintained? Generous: Yes. There's no change there and then there's some shrubs that will come out with the building back in here. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And then this will be, I'm assuming that this is a straight brick wall… Generous: If you can see it now, it will maintain the height of it. Katie Vickerson: Okay, thank you. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one come forward I close the public meeting and I'll bring this back before the commissioners for comment. Let's start. Keefe: Yeah, I've just got a couple questions just on the conditions. Number 5. Roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building. It says to the maximum extent practical. What is that? That's kind of non-specific. Generous: Right. And we'd like the majority of the water going back into the grass and then coming around the side of the building. Keefe: Is there a way to be more specific on that or not? Generous: Not without having, actually maybe Alyson can. Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, staff's recommendation with that one was just, without driving the roof design for drainage to the back, to the north there, we just wanted to direct the applicant to push the roof drainage to that north side for the exact reasons that Bob had mentioned. And we can certainly look at some stronger language but we just felt that, given the .7 cfs increase in runoff, that they projected is fairly, it's insignificant as far as the storm sewer design is concerned. So to become any more stringent on that we felt was excessive. Keefe: Okay, because he called it out in here I was wondering whether it was more significant. Fauske: Staff doesn't feel that it's very significant. Keefe: Alright. Okay. And then the other one is number 10. Just all rooftop equipment must be screened. I mean are there. Generous: That's an ordinance requirement. Keefe: Yeah, I mean screened with what? I mean is there a building, sort of direction or code or anything to the screening? I mean the screening I presume, air conditioning equipment or, yeah. Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioner, yes. Our ordinance specifies that it has to be screened from the property line from a, for a person 6 foot tall and so the parapet height we believe will be able to provide all the screening that's necessary. Keefe: Okay. So the parapet height will be tall enough. Alright, good enough. McDonald: Okay. Thomas: I'm okay. Larson: Well I see no problem with this. It seems pretty straight forward so… 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Undestad: No questions. McDonald: I have no comments either so at this point I guess I would be looking for a recommendation. Keefe: Sure, I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends the City Council or the Planning Commission, City Council approves the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006 and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 10. McDonald: Okay, do I have second? Larson: Second. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006, and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.All trees and shrubs shown to remain on plans dated 10/20/2006 shall be protected during all construction activities with tree protection fencing. Any trees or shrubs lost due to construction damage will be replaced after the construction has been completed. 2.Foundation plantings for the expansion will be 3 pink spire crabapples and 24 Japanese white spirea. 3.The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City and receive staff approval of the erosion and sediment control plan prior to commencing work on-site. 4.Building Official Conditions: a.The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c.Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. d.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 5.The roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building to the maximum extent practicable to increase the time of concentration to the existing storm sewer system. 6.A building permit will be required for any retaining wall four feet tall or higher. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 7.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8.All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9.Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 10.All rooftop equipment must be screened.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSE HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC./ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Are there any questions concerning this environmental worksheet? Keefe: Yeah, I'm not clear on the difference between the EAW and EIS. EIS is a little bit more involved? Generous: It's a lot more, yeah. They look at the more specific details. They'll go into, well what will happen is this would act as what's called a scoping document. It will point out an issue that needs to be studied further. Let's say that there were some you know ground water contamination or something that would result of it. You would have to look at that further as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Keefe: So negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Generous: It says you don't, basically we don't need an EIS. Keefe: Okay, but do we know that at this point? Generous: That's, based on our review the three issues that have come out are those traffic, storm water management and the wetland impacts, and those were issues that the city customarily addresses and we do a pretty good job on those. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Keefe: Okay. So I mean, is the scenario, you know we do the EAW and a bigger issue comes up. Does it, you know because we've done a negative declaration, I mean is there potential that, while doing the EAW, an environmental issue might come up. You follow where I'm headed? Generous: Right. There is always that potential. That's why as a part of the draft we try to look at all the potential issues and why we send it out to other agencies, because maybe they know something that we don't. Keefe: Oh, right. So that would come, and they were looking at, okay. Generous: And what will happen is if they do come forward with an issue, before it goes to City Council, we would need to address that. Their comments. So maybe they say, I don't know for instance that we need to put a search light on the site. Then we can look at, well this isn't really an appropriate location or whatever but. Keefe: Alright. I've got a couple more. How many trips are we talking about? I mean how many, I mean this is a significant grading operation, looks like. You know what I mean? You're talking, I mean looking at this it's probably a couple of signals that you're going to be adding? Generous: Oh yeah, traffic. Keefe: During construction? Or during the grading operation? Generous: Not that, that's just for the build out of the high school. Keefe: So this is in the next, okay. So this is really for building the building. The high school, right. Fauske: Correct. Keefe: As traffic expectation, not for the grading operation that we're talking about. Fauske: Correct. The traffic projections that you've received there are assuming full attendance at the school and then they also did a background on the anticipated growth within the area as far as development is concerned and they identified areas that ultimately based on those numbers would need signals. And I believe that Mr. Stack did go into detail as far as what signals he anticipated or he projected would be need to be installed soon after the school opens and which ones may be required with future growth. Keefe: So at this point, because we're considering the Interim Use Permit for grading, to what extent do we need to focus on traffic impacts associated with the build out of this school at this point? …we're doing this two stage you know. Generous: Right. As part of the grading plan we don't, it's not an issue. We don't have to look at that. As part of the ultimate build out of the project we have to address, be cognizant of that and be able to address that. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Keefe: Right. Generous: And like I, the traffic study says, these are the improvements that you need to put in place to make the roadway operate. Keefe: Right, but we're not really looking at the actual, I mean there wasn't really anything in here around traffic impacts and real you know, you know the signal interchanges. McDonald: If I could just interrupt, okay. What you presented us with is a two fold problem. This question about the EAW does impact the long term as far as building the school. But they're here tonight though to talk about is just construction upon the site which at that point, as I understand it from reading through this, does not impact traffic because you're going to store everything on site. So everything would be contained to the site until they're ready to come back to us with a plan for a school, at which time then the traffic and everything comes into it. Keefe: So we'll consider traffic at the next one. Generous: Right but it's pointed out as part of this document because. McDonald: They presented that to us and we need to make a decision on a recommendation that this either goes forward with the EAW or we recommend an EIS. So from that standpoint. Keefe: And interim use on the grading. McDonald: Right, and the interim use on the grading. The two are separate. Keefe: Alright. So we'll have a chance to look at the traffic at the next. Generous: You'll get the site plan review, yes. Keefe: Yes, right. Okay, alright. Generous: And we'll have, if you, we have the, we didn't put the traffic study in there because it was quite large but we can provide this document. We tried to take the tail end of it. You know the recommendation. What the results were. Keefe: I've just got a couple more questions. Why do they grade now? Why do they want to grade now versus you know in? Generous: Timing. Keefe: Yeah. And what's, what's the timing issue? Before it freezes up? Generous: I don't know if the applicant would be better. To start, because it's a lot of dirt to move. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Keefe: Okay, and just from the time it takes to move… Generous: Yeah, then they're going to do it next. Keefe: Where is the anticipated date of vertical? Anticipated date. I guess you've got to do horizontal first. Generous: So they have to make the site developable first and then they're going to build on it. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Alright. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: I'm alright. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: No. Undestad: No. McDonald: No? Yeah, I have no comments or questions either at this point. Would the applicant please come forward and if there's anything you would like to add to this. Generous: Alyson, were you going to go with…? McDonald: I'm sorry, I forgot about the, you were going to cover the actual, yeah we kind of got lost. Fauske: Good evening Chair McDonald and Planning Commissioners. I apologize that our overhead isn't working. I'll do my best to just do a quick explanation. On a little bit of a color rendering showing what the applicant is proposing to do under this grading interim use permit. The applicant has come forward at this time for this interim use permit for the sake of preparing the building pad essentially. So what this shows, that's their building pad. They have a staging area to the west. This is Lyman Boulevard here and the railroad up here, and I apologize to members of the audience that we're not able to have this on the video. Basically the site constraint lies with this high pressure gas main which is shown in yellow. This is actually the easement. But in conversations with, between the applicant and the pipeline company, looking at the size of the gas main, the pressure to do any kind of grading or any relocation of that pipeline, significant impacts both financially and just with the high pressure gas main…concerns so basically this whole yellow area is basically a no grade zone. I believe their final grading plan, their intent is to show no grading within that corridor, so that really drove the design of their site. So just to look at what they're looking at in the interim, the areas in blue show their temporary sediment basin, and this green area here shows that stockpile. When we first looked at this application and saw the height of the stockpile, we were concerned. There's quite a bit of 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 fill going in there, up to I believe 45 feet at the maximum. Driving along Lyman Boulevard, try to put it in a little bit of perspective. Up around the area of the pipeline you have an elevation of about 950. You do go down a bit in elevation but the top of this berm will be at about a 998. So you'll be looking at about a 48 foot height from the road surface that's usually, as far as people usually can get a better feel for what we're looking at here. But looking at the site for alternative stockpile locations, we're really quite stuck. They sited the locations, the building pad on actually fitting this…as best they can and with this pipeline easement, to move it any other, to split the stockpile up if you will, and provide temporary sedimentation basins, it's a very, very tight site. So looking at this, taking a step back and taking a look at what can be accomplished on this site, for this interim use permit, we just look to the applicant and ultimately their contractor to be very, very diligent with their erosion control and best management practices because it's so close to the Bluff Creek so. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions associated with their grading permit application. Keefe: So how do they prevent it from, all that dirt from sliding off? Fauske: Well they do have, very good question. They do have basically on the stockpile, they direct the runoff to the temporary sedimentation basins. We've been working with our Water Resources folks on staff here to see if there's any materials. We're not using conventional silt fence. Those just won't be efficient in these situations. Stabilization is the key to the stockpile and so we'll work with them as far as staging the placement and stockpiling and getting areas stabilized as quickly as possible. Keefe: If they're doing it in winter, I don't know what the timing is. I mean what are you looking to put on top of it to keep it from blowing and… Fauske: Well the applicant will have, they have their erosion and sediment control plan that they can expand on a little bit. There are certainly in Minnesota it's becoming very important to have something like that for winter construction. One of the things that our staff has looked at is, there's a spray compost that you can actually put on in colder temperatures. I don't know that they've really established what the lowest temperature is for that type of application but again that's certainly, the applicant can talk a little bit more about the staging. How much fill they anticipate to put in that stockpile within the winter months and talk to you a little bit more about how, as they progress, how they will do the erosion control. Thomas: I actually do have a quick question for you. How long, I imagine it's going to be…but how long will it stockpile? I mean is it going to be there until the school is obviously graded or I mean how long does it sit? Fauske: I would actually like to refer that question to the applicant so they can talk about their timing. Larson: I have a question regarding the gas line. How far below the ground is that? Fauske: I believe it's 8 to 10. 3? 3 to 4. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Larson: So will it be clearly marked? I was reading this and I'm going, how do they know where it is and how do they know not to put part of the stockpile over it, you know what I mean, where it would accidentally get hit. I'm thinking safety issues here but. Fauske: Right. Typically what happens in a situation like this is, the representative from the gas line company is usually out there whenever you're doing any kind of work over their pipeline. So any kind of cutting, filling, they're usually out there and the applicant or their engineer might be able to expand on this a little more. In the City's experience we've seen them out there when they're crossing the pipeline with heavier equipment. Larson: Well they're going to be crossing it a lot aren't they? Fauske: Correct. Larson: Yeah. So would they build some sort of support over it or? Fauske: The pipeline will work with the applicant as far as ensuring that they have enough material over the top to make sure that they're not putting too much pressure on that soil and that they won't compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Well you've hit just about all the ones that I've got. The only question I really have is that, you talk about the erosion control. Material containment. We had a small problem over on Bluff Creek with the last development that went in. There was, I don't know if it was a storm or water or what, but are we convinced that we've got enough control here so that we don't have a lot of this washing down into Bluff Creek? What are we going to do to oversee all of that? Fauske: That's a very good question. Between the City, the Watershed District, the MPCA permit that they will be required to have, we're finding more and more contractors are really listening to what erosion control specialists are saying as far as getting your site stabilized. There are very stiff fines associated with any kind of non-compliant issues, particularly in Bluff Creek. Again it's communication for the most part. McDonald: Okay, are there bonds associated with this? I mean I know that we ask for bonds for a lot of other different types of things when you do construction. Because of this, you know and erosion control, do we require a bond up front for that? Fauske: I think we're in a unique situation with working with the School District. Certainly in the past we've always required a letter of credit or form of surety to ensure that. If something goes wrong, but all the measures, mitigation measures will be put in place. We can certainly, and unfortunately I don't know off the top of my head, with the ISD being basically a not for profit, what we can require for security. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Okay, the only reason I ask that is that if something goes wrong, we have to clean it up. Bottom line. If we can't get someone else to do it, we are responsible. So I just would like to see something that assures that the City is protected. Undestad: You also do inspections on that from the City side too. Fauske: Absolutely. Undestad: You're on top of it out there. Fauske: Yes. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. I guess if the applicant wants to come forward and, you've heard some of our questions at this point. If you want to make sure that you address those. Jay Pomeroy: Chairman McDonald, Planning Commission members. I appreciate being here tonight. I may jump around a little bit because I was writing down my notes as you asked your questions so I apologize if I go from EAW to interim use. The school as you know is going to be built on the bluff if you will overlooking Bluff Creek and with that in mind they're going to try to keep with that character of a fairly natural landscape and trying to tuck what will be a walkout building into that slope as it looks towards the east. That's the lower part of the building and it will be a walkout to that direction. We are, as a matter of fact, working with MnDot as Bob mentioned, that MnDot is doing a Bluff Creek realignment project next summer. They may take some of their material and place it on the school site. We're kind of working with them and there is a conservation easement that's going to be worked through and negotiated over the next months to allow that conservation easement to fall on the east, or I'm sorry, on the west side of Bluff Creek. On the east side of the school so that as well may be utilized as a joint pathway, trail that serves not only the school but also the community. So with that again the natural landscape is going to be fairly important to tie north to south and along Lyman Boulevard. The question about why now. The school would like to open in the fall of 2009, and so with that we're trying to make a jump, or get a jump on the earth work and as we've talked about tonight, the interim use permit is really to grade the building pad. And to a little bit contradict what Alyson had said, the stockpile was going to be at about 970, or something 92. I can't remember my prefix but a 892? What was it? 98. The top of the pipeline is up at a 972. The road is at a 950 so actually the stockpile will only stick up another 20 feet higher than the pipeline. The building will be at a 950. The building will be fairly close to the line in elevation so that it presents itself well. You don't want to go up or down too much to get to the main door. So with that we'll tie in of course with the gas main that's going to be protected and again tuck that school in. The why now again though is to try and take that 975 elevation, that's the bluff if you will. The high point of the site basically to excavate that soil down about 20 feet to get to our finished floor of the building. That 20 feet of material is being deposited on the north side of the gas main, which will eventually become the baseball field. The softball field. The track complex. And that grading will be accomplished next summer. Those bids will be let, pending your next th review in March, we're gearing towards a March 6 Planning Commission meeting next time. For the site plan review, and ultimately to bid that work in the spring so that that stockpile is 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 really there for about 6 months and then by the end of fall, we'll hopefully have a site that's basically rough graded throughout. Keefe: Where are you going to take the stockpile to? I mean if that's going to be ballfields, are you going to leave it on the site or just remove it from the site? Jay Pomeroy: No. What we have to do, we have to get through the EAW and again try to establish the building pad. We honestly didn't have time to get through the wetland permitting process and although we're going through the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek process with Bob Obermeyer, in this interim use permit we just don't honestly didn't have the time to get through all of the wetland mitigation and placement efforts. That will happen in this next step. So once that occurs, we'll be able to, not that I want to but to fill wetlands and to basically use the entire site rather than really just the portion that we are. Although it looks like we're affecting a majority of the site, we're moving about 250,000 cubic yards. It seems like a lot but ultimately we're going to move probably about 700,000. Which is fairly consistent with a site like this and a high school setting. The gas main you mentioned. We've been in fairly constant contact with Howard White. He's the local representative from, for the Magellan Pipeline, as well the contact in Omaha I believe it is that kind of signs off on everything. We will only be able to cross the pipeline in one location. Fairly, well very obviously fenced, and designated during this construction period, and the next construction period. As a matter of fact the final build out will really only be able to cross that with pathways or trails or perhaps paving in very limited sections, so we're trying really on the design part of it to really diminish that easement through the use of landscaping and walls and different methods so that it doesn't look like a corridor. It looks like you know, it opens. It closes. It dives. It dips. So again the crossing of that though would be accomplished with basically a soil bridge so as Alyson mentioned, you don't have these point loads pressing down on this 12 inch steel gas main in order to protect it. And again Magellan has to sign off on all that. As part of this process and our final say build out. As I mentioned we're going to meet with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. I think th that meeting has been set for the 6 of December. The bonding, just to go into that a little bit. We are a tax based entity obviously, or at least the school district is. Anderson-Johnson's not. The contractor will be required to provide a 100% performance on labor and materials bond to the school district, so that's one certainly insurance if you will, to make sure that the project gets done but also that they've got some weight on their shoulders to make sure that they don't allow anything to get out of hand. As well the MPCA and our NPDES permit that we have to go through, the school district and the contractor are co-signers of those, of that and so again the inspections that not only the city does, the contractor has to do and the state will do, the MPCA permit is pretty obviously binding. So that will certainly provide some responsibility of the contractor. And I think that's it for now. Maybe to answer your questions, I hope if you have any more. Certainly I have Mike Spack here with traffic engineer to answer questions. Keefe: The mound. The big hill that you're creating, how do you prevent. Jay Pomeroy: The erosion? Keefe: Yeah. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Jay Pomeroy: Maybe, even to back up. The sequencing for the process, or for the project we'll strip top soil and…with the silt fence again that provides the separation and the limits of construction so that we don't go into the wetlands. And even to satisfy the buffer away from the wetlands. So now we have an established top soil berm. Now in the winter time it's not going to become established with vegetation but the blanket will be fairly permanent. It will be anchored. That will also serve as again the drainage limits where eventually water will start to pond in there. That will start to establish our temporary ponding. Once the top soil berms are in, then we'll start to strip the rest of the top soil and deposit that on the north side of the gas main. As that is being built, again that's being built from the lowest, low end up. That will also have to be stabilized as they build it up to make sure that again, we probably, although Minnesota's getting warmer and warmer every year, we probably won't get too many rainfalls in January or in December but what we're looking for is the spring. You know when spring comes around, to make sure that everything is established, or at least covered with a fairly permanent ground cover, blanket, just anchored straw mulch. Compost. Spray. Whatever it may be that is best going to work. And then as again, they build up that stockpile to establish the building pad. Again that comes up and it's benched so that it comes down benched. It comes down. It's benched. And it's established as they go up. McDonald: Questions? Undestad: Just one. Grading. You know you said you're moving about 700,000 cubic yards. When you're all done, is that site balancing out where it all. Jay Pomeroy: Yeah. Undestad: Really? Jay Pomeroy: You know we, our, this is what we do is schools and you know, you try and get it right on the nuts with the quantities but you know when you're working with earth work, it might be 650. It might be 750. But the intent is certainly to keep it there and they may have to elevate the baseball field 2 feet to get rid of some soil or to lower it 2 feet to take it, but that's the intent. McDonald: Okay, I have one question but I think it's really for staff. And it's probably Alyson. On page 4, down at the bottom we talk about sanitary sewers and it's the second paragraph from the bottom. The last line you say no more than 1 foot of rings is allowed. Condition 25 says no more than 8 inches. Which is it? Fauske: Thank you for that Chairman McDonald. 8 inches is the correct value. And actually speaking with AGA today regarding that fill over the sanitary sewer, they've actually indicated that for this interim use permit application, that they have altered their grading plan to, so that there will not be any fill over that sanitary sewer in the interim use, which we are extremely pleased about. McDonald: Okay, so condition 25 can stay the way it is at this point. Fauske: Yeah, but thank you for bringing that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: …the correct level. Okay. At this point then I would open this up to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments to the commissioners. Andy Kayati: Good evening commissioner. My name is Andy Kayati and I live at 8715 Valley View Place in Chanhassen. Essentially I'm just east of this location. Looking west off my front door I see what is currently the bluff. I guess I have some concerns. One of my first concerns with respect to this is, I came to this meeting tonight and I find that the 7,000 square foot preparation is far greater than what's prepared for a $100 million dollar project so that concerns me a little bit. I look at that bluff every day when I leave my house and in the conversation that you're having, the alteration that you're making to that bluff is going to eradicate about 25 feet off the top of that bluff. Is that correct? Jay Pomeroy: That's right. Andy Kayati: And in doing so, plus you're going to fill in some wetland areas and things like that where I walk along the path on a regular basis. I have concerns with that because I don't see the specifics to that and that concerns me. I don't know what specific wetlands are going to be affected there in that area. When I moved to Chanhassen 13 years ago I understood there were regulations on bluffs in the city of Chanhassen. It concerns me that those regulations, my understanding was that this bluff fell into that regulation, is being mitigated for the school purposes. I do have some concerns with regards to the athletic fields. Lights. What's going to be involved there. What affect that's going to have on our neighborhood, which is relatively quiet at this particular point in time. Traffic concerns me. Traffic's not getting any better out this way. Concerns about how to curb access to the Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood where we live. You're essentially putting 2,000 students plus staff into that building every day. And that concerns me. That terrain currently acts as a natural wind break for our neighborhood. Winds come out of the west. The wind comes down from an elevation of 950 feet above sea level. Comes up that hill and essentially protects our entire neighborhood. You're taking 25 feet off the top of that. You're putting this edifice on there, with sharp corners and creating wind zones. What affect is that going to have on my property as far as potential wind damage to my siding, to my roofing, and things like that? These are concerns that I have as it relates to this, this project. And finally is the aesthetics. As I said, I look out there currently and I see this rolling corn fields, deer, soy beans… Now I'm going to see a school. That's going to take 25 feet off the top of that bluff. So you know, these are concerns that I have. The gas line concerns me. I've lived there over 13 years. The gas line is less than 200 feet from my house. I knew it was there. Everybody acts like it's a surprise that it's there. I think that the City, it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. We pass it every day. So as I say, these are concerns that I have. These are concerns that I think that the commission should address. Like I say, we're spending a lot of money in this city. It sounds like it's gone and I would like to see the most effective use of this property and the most aesthetically pleasing use of the property and the least intrusive use of the property. And as far as I'm concerned, what I see in use is extremely intrusive right now… 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: I believe the answer to your questions will come as we get the details of the plan. A lot of what you've asked about is really beyond the scope of what we're going to be looking at today. Andy Kayati: But, excuse me. McDonald: Well again, I'm just trying to point out to you that you will have an opportunity to address all of these issues because we have not been given a detailed plan. We do not know what the school looks like. All we're being asked tonight is to just allow them to go in there and level off a spot to put a school. As they have stated, they will come back before this commission with a detailed plan and at that point we will be addressing all of these issues of traffic. The aesthetics. You know impacts to neighborhoods, so a lot of your issues, while we can't address them tonight because we do not have the information to do so, they will be brought back before this commission. You will have an opportunity again to look at these plans and address that in an open meeting, so. Andy Kayati: Excuse me, that's understood. However, they are asking for the ability to re-grade the land without having specifics of the plan. McDonald: I understand that but it is allowed under our zoning ordinances and that's the only thing that we can look at tonight. Andy Kayati: And I'm allowed to question it so thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward? Al Gomez: I'm Al Gomez. I'm one of Andy's neighbors actually. 8748 Valley View Place. And really mine's more of a question. As we've looked at various projects on that same property and the bluff ordinance had come up previously that prevented the leveling of that property. To Andy's point, it seems like we're that much further along and already talking about grading and it seems like that ordinance is out the window. What makes that different and is the school prepared to build without altering the terrain or is it pending on that terrain being altered? You know it's a shame that we don't have any of the pictures up because we are talking a lot about elevation and stockpiling and you know us laymen are a little confused as to what that really means. You know the 20 feet and a walkout building really is hard to picture without seeing something up and while I understand a lot of the, I think the aesthetics maybe that Andy was referring to is the current natural terrain that we have. Outside of what the, what's going to be there once the school is there. And to say you'll get all that after the grading's done isn't going to help us because by then you will have flatten the land. So the question for me was more around, does our ordinance apply or is it out the window. Is it beyond this stage of negotiation and if so, when did that happen because we weren't aware of that. And I think that will probably help explain. And if we could get copies of some of the plans that you were covering, it might help us better understand. I mean I know you all were struggling to share a couple of pieces but we didn't have the benefit of seeing that. McDonald: Okay. Are there plans on the city's web site with any of this? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Generous: These are all linked down there. On the city's web site. McDonald: Yeah. Keefe: I think that's a relevant question with regards to the bluff ordinance. The applicability of it here or not applicability. McDonald: Yeah. Are you prepared at this time to address whether or not this is an exception to the bluff ordinance or if it's within the bluff ordinance? Generous: No. I wasn't part of that discussion. I believe there have been discussions that this was man made to make it a bluff long term. McDonald: So it's not a natural. Keefe: Does it meet the definition of a bluff? Generous: Only to the extent that it meets the slope requirements. There's arguments that that slope was created…and when you create a 3 to 1 slope on your property it's not…even though you may have the elevation and the slope. Andy Kayati: If I can ask a question from here. I have a hard time believing that that's man made. For somebody that's farmed the land for as many years as they did, to maximize the use of that property or make it you know, I'm really struggling with that piece. Again, I previously had Mayor Mancino on my property when other buildings were proposed indicating that that was part of the bluff ordinance and directly indicating to me that there, you have no concerns. That's protected land. In whatever gets built will be on top or beyond and not visible to us and that's not the indication I'm getting now. And again, I mean other than hearsay, how do we know that that in fact was man made? And again, I'm the farmer and I don't know what I would build that hill to farm because it's not usable farming land the way it sits. I think it's a pretty big issue and I really, I really implore for all of you to take a look at it because again we do feel, seem to be a lot further down the path than that, and again if the decision's been made, I think you should inform the citizens of Chanhassen. McDonald: Well I'm not sure any decision has been made. I mean you bring up a valid question at this point. We do owe you an answer for, that's part of the thing of having a public meeting. I guess what I would, if staff is not prepared at this point to really look into this because we do need to look at this. Especially if prior city officers have made certain comments, which doesn't necessarily mean that that's the case. You need to understand that. I would entertain a motion to table this while staff comes back and presents this at our next meeting. Keefe: I guess what we need to do is to, you know you're looking at a variance. We need to determine whether it's a bluff or not, right. And then we'd be looking at a variance to be able to grade, is that correct? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: If that's the case then it would have to… Then at that point it would have to be a variance. So does anyone want to make a motion to table this and we'll direct staff to address this issue? Jay Pomeroy: May I speak? McDonald: Yes, go ahead. th Jay Pomeroy: Certainly the hope is to go to the Planning Commission on December 11, when the EAW. The EQB comments are all back. Certainly not trying to push in any direction here. I don't know if it's appropriate to have staff, and I think the City Council is certainly a public meeting as well for this issue. Perhaps be addressed at that point. I certainly understand where you're at but I think the school district is really trying to get into the work and not to use that as a crutch but I appreciate it. McDonald: Okay. I do understand that but part of what the Planning Commission is, this is an initial public meeting. In some cases this may be the only public meeting on this particular issue, depending upon how it goes. Do you want to? Keefe: Yeah, I think you know, just in light of we need to be in a position where we properly enforce you know the ordinances and we need to determine whether this is a bluff or not so I would motion to table until we determine that. McDonald: Before I call for a vote on that, I will say that this issue did come up about timing th and I do understand it. It's the 11 is our next meeting, or at City Council. There is only one issue on that so we do have room on the calendar to discuss this at this point and what I was assured of was that this would not overly impact what you're currently doing as far as the school because of some of these other comments you're waiting for. That that does appear to be a real drop dead date. Nothing's going to happen before then so we're not impacting anything by tabling this. Generous: Mr. Chairman if I believe that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would thth be December 5 or 6. And then we would still theoretically be able to get it to council on th December 11. McDonald: Okay. Then there is a motion before the commissioners at this point to table this thth until December the 5 or 6. Keefe: Our next meeting. McDonald: To our next meeting. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request for an Interim Use Permit and review of an Environmental Assessment Review Worksheet 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 for Planning Case 06-35, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc./Independent School District 112, Applicants. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. McDonald: Okay the motion carries with a vote of 4 to 1. So this particular application will be tabled until our next meeting. In the meantime what staff is given direction to investigate for us is, is this a bluff or not. And if so, will it require a variance in order to do this construction. Okay? And at that point we will suspend the public meeting. It is not closed. We will just suspend it until we are back at our next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX, REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUB HOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA); A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE; AND A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARINA ZONE ON 38.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. APPLICANT, BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS, PLANNING CASE 06-34. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: Regarding that variance to locate the storm water pond. Is that typical that we do that or atypical? I mean are there other instances where we have done that? In the Bluff Creek priMarina zone? Generous: We did, Mr. Chairman and commissioner. We have permitted it under a variance condition before. Under the Pioneer Pass where we're showing that it didn't, there's no feasible or appropriate alternative. As part of our review of this project, we did have the applicant provide us with looks at alternative storm water ponding. They weren't as, they weren't a preferred. One was on the western edge of the project but then we would be building our storm water pond into the side of the hill, and there's some stability issues that you'd have long term with that. And then the other one was to see if they could bunch it more in it's present location but push it out of the wetland, but to do the storage, they can reduce the size of the pond somewhat by not treating those off site water sources. But there would still be some intrusion into this, so this was the best alternative. It is the logical location for the storm water pond on site. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Keefe: Just to piggy, I mean we're looking at the site plan on 12 buildings. Was it considered to maybe locate the pond, to reduce the number of buildings or anything within, was that one of the options? Generous: Well that was, yeah. You can always reduce it but the developer, and I'll let him speak to that, had this, this is what he needs to make the project go forward. Keefe: Okay, so if it's, if this is the minimum then this is the most logical place for it to. Generous: That was our analysis that this was the most logical place. We believe that the little bit of intrusion that they're proposing, the compromise is we get an enhanced environmental, revegetation plan. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Just ask one question on the site plan, and I'm going to go straight to the retaining wall on this, and all those walls, I mean there's a lot of wall in here and you know, 200 feet at 14 feet high. I mean how are those spec'd out in terms of what the materials are. I mean I know they all have to be engineered right, but I would think that anybody sort of looking at this is, it's fairly significant in terms of, is that something you can speak to? Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, with regards to the retaining walls, I think the applicant can probably give you a little idea of what he's perhaps looking at as far as color, color pallet for the retaining walls. To answer your question regarding the height, what staff intended, what the table provided within the report was just giving the idea of the maximum wall height. For example, a 14 foot high maximum wall would be at one point. We'd certainly be happy to go and take a look at how the length of that maximum height exists but it does taper down to 0. Keefe: So the 500 foot one at 15 feet is more kind of… Fauske: I'd have to take a look at the grading plan. I can certainly clarify that but we just felt that with the types of developments that we're getting in now with a lot of retaining walls, we just felt it was necessary to have the Planning Commission, City Council both have an idea of the length that they would be looking at of a retaining wall. We don't intend to mislead and say it's a 15 foot high wall the entire way. We can certainly talk more about tapers and such. Keefe: Can we talk about the product for this type of wall? I mean you know this one that's facing the site or is it facing outside, you know everybody outside will have to look at it you know within the, you see what I'm saying? Fauske: Right. It depends on where they are on the site. Certainly. Keefe: Well there are two in particular. Along the east of the pond, there's 14 feet and 190 feet long… Fauske: I don't have an answer prepared for you right now. I can certainly be more than happy or perhaps the applicant can further elaborate on that. With regards to materials, I would leave 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 that up to the applicant but anything over 4 feet would have to be an engineered wall because of the amount of material that we'd be holding back. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Kathy. Thomas: Not at this time. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: No. McDonald: Mark? I only have one question for staff and that deals with the retaining pond. Is it your position as you're coming here before us is to tell us that the harm of this variance is outweighed by the benefit to the wetland and that it will contain the surface water runoff for treatment before being emptied into the wetland? Generous: Yeah partially and also the enhanced environmental revegetation that we're getting in there. The species of trees and vegetation that are on the site right now, aren't the best. You know there's a lot of noxious weeds and things and this will improve that. McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Generous: Well as a condition of approval we're requiring, we're recommending that they dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over that area. We wouldn't have that on a straight site plan. McDonald: Okay, so we are getting benefit for the variance? Generous: Right… McDonald: Okay. With that I would ask. Keefe: I've got just one last question. Can you speak to noise from this particular operation, just in terms of noise mitigation or what the intent is, because you know it is slated to be you know an auto related use. I don't fully understand the concept but. Generous: Right, and maybe it'd be better for the applicant because as it was explained to me, it's not a high noise generator. The types of automobiles aren't in those dragsters or the modified… It's Porsches, BMW, you know Mercedes. But the applicant can better, more to the operation. I tried to give him, as part of his application to provide a sense of that. And so he can better explain that. Keefe: And just in terms of understanding, I mean we've got hours of operation here, and I don't know about the public. I mean there's 24 hour access for an owner. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Generous: Yeah, there's no public access really per se. Keefe: But there was reference to hours of operation like 8:00 to 6:00 or something in here. Generous: That's when it would be, they would have their proposal is to include a car wash facility for their members and also I think some assistance with mechanical repairs. I mean those people would be at the site at that time. That they would be able to help a owner with his vehicle. Keefe: Okay, so it's really 24 hour. You know in terms of noise type of ordinance related to this. I mean what if we get into this and that is the, like revving of engines and that, I mean what does the City have in terms of a mechanism to manage that? Generous: Well if it meets the nuisance requirements, then we can cite them. Keefe: Yeah. Generous: But it's not, the use is permitted. A storage facility is a permitted use in the IOP district. We think this is the least intensive industrial use that we can get on the site. Keefe: Yeah, I don't want to jump to conclusions that it's going to be noisy. I'm just. Generous: I think the applicant can better address those. McDonald: Okay, well let's have the applicant come forward and have him address these issues for us. And anything else you feel that we should know that would help me make a decision. Bruno Silikowski: I'll try. Good evening. Well where do you want me to start? Maybe perhaps what this is all about? These are private garages. I mean I'm kind of a car enthusiast. I have a bunch of vehicles that I like to keep. Once I buy them I tend to store them someplace and had a very difficult time finding kind of quality storage. Some place that's safe. Secure and has the kind of amenities I'm looking for. A higher end finish. Most of them that you find are nothing more than metal pole barns. One of the, a lot of security issues that I've heard from other people that do that, you know with those other locations. So what I'm building here is something that I need personally. And then what I found out is there's a whole lot of people like me, enthusiasts. I've been a long time guy in terms of auto enthusiast and I have a lot of cars so what I'd like to do is keep them, but in a place where I know I can look at them. Store them. Polish them when I want to. The kind of cars we're talking about here are people like me who have a collection. We may not touch the car for months. You know it's there. Polish it. It's kept clean and that's it. Hence the museum too because we have, it's a small museum. You know you somehow were able to point to some, can I do something here real quick, just to give everybody maybe the mental image of a piece of picture. You know some of the things I want to share with you here are some of the additional. Some additional drawings that have been done by the artist and the architect and such. So what you saw here originally is actually, this is the more current version. So we're going for a much more high end finish, and as Bob pointed out, these are the materials 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 that we're planning on going with. It's a carriage house look. What you see here, what I'm going to point at are small museums inside of the club house. The idea of this is not only that we love collecting things, but we like to be able to talk. Right? We like to share our stories. We like to look at each others cars. That's what this is about. When you talk about hours of operation. Yeah, I'm an enthusiast but I also like to sleep so there's no way I'm going to be working on my car other than probably during the day. You know normal hours. And I am a typical person who is going to be an owner in one of these units. The idea is, instead of having our stuff scattered all around in different storage locations, we consolidate it and we bring like minded people together. The types of people that are coming here are the types that can afford all this stuff. So we tend to, you know there's a sort of natural filtering of what you'll see and frankly those customers are going to dictate that the finish and the look and the cleanliness and the quietness and all that is there. In terms of noise, honestly these are cars that you see on the road every single day. These aren't wild, you know we're not going to be sitting around revving our engines up. That's not what we do. It's a place to store our things and like I said, in a highly safe way. Just to give you an example, inside of our storage units I'm offering as an option is a web cam so if you're out traveling somewhere around the world and you want to take a look at your collection or show somebody, you dial into the web site and you zoom in on your vehicles. It's meant to be that way. And also on security wise, if somebody enters into your unit, it not only screens the video of what's going on inside a unit to an internet site that you can go review later, but it also emails your phone. Emails your computer so you know what's going on. So I'm trying to give you an idea that this is a kind of a higher end finish. It's a light use because guys like me, like I said, I have a car and I've got a number of them. I may not touch them for 6 months. But that's, I need a place to be able to put them. That's what this is about. Keefe: What about the, you talked a little bit about the number of buildings and the critical mass of the facility. Bruno Silikowski: Well I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. The reason why we have the buildings the way we do is they're. Keefe: Just in terms of number of buildings and the size of the operation. Bruno Silikowski: It's, there are two things. It's a very expensive piece of property. Two, it's a very difficult site, as I think you're probably already aware of. It has a lot of sloping on it and frankly our density is pretty light relative to what we could go for but the, to make it work in the Performa, we worked, as Bob mentioned, a number of iterations of the plan and frankly this is the plan that works. So we kind of need to go this route. Now the, what was I going to mention to you? Oh, the size and the shape of the building are pretty much dictated by, if you think about it, inside the unit will be about 2 car deep. And so what we did is we tried to go, give enough space for people to be able to store their vehicle 2 deep but yet, you know minimize how really big it can be. You know now we end up generating a bunch of buildings versus one large building where people would store it all inside. This way you have your own personal unit. It's locked. You're the only one who has access to it, unless you allow someone else to go into it, and that's what I'm saying. Highly secure and safe. McDonald: Okay. Kathy. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Thomas: No, I think he answered my questions. Bruno Silikowski: Excuse me? Thomas: You answered my questions. Bruno Silikowski: Oh, okay. Larson: Where's the race track going? Bruno Silikowski: Pardon me? Where does the race track go? Larson: Where is the race track going? Bruno Silikowski: Well it's not here. It's in a different part of the state. Actually that's a separate project and I just want to make sure that no one gets confused because there's been a few things written about me in Forbes and things like that. Some of what I'm working on, and there is a separate project that is completely independent of this. So don't be confused. That is not what's going on here. Larson: I was actually being facetious. Bruno Silikowski: You were being facetious. Okay. Well, okay. I guess that's it. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: One question for you. Bruno Silikowski: Oh, sorry. Undestad: The number of units, I mean as you've got all these buildings spread out on there. I know I wrote on here. I apologize. I can't find it right off hand. How many cars can you, once you get everything in here, how many cars can you put in? Bruno Silikowski: Well I mean there's a theoretical and then there's a reality. Generally speaking you'll put a couple cars in your stall. That's what you do, so if you look at it from that standpoint, a couple cars in a 1,000 square foot room, so you're probably talking maybe 300 cars. 400 cars total. Somewhere in that neighborhood. Undestad: Is that theoretically or is that realistic? Bruno Silikowski: Is it? No, I think that's realistic. Yeah. But the theoretical would be, you can squeeze a bunch more in there, but that's not what this is. Undestad: And they're allowed to work on the cars until 8:00 at night, is that? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: They're going to, David Eide who wrote kind of the law for Minnesota is actually writing our condo association. There's kind a bit of covenant restrictions. We are very sensitive to making noise 24 hours and that kind of, it's just not going to happen. We're not going to allow for it. We, it's a group of people, we're not renters. You know we may tinker with our cars, but we're not people that really rip their engine out and you know, just for fun. McDonald: Well speaking of that, is that the type of things that could be going on or is this more in line of you know a Jay Leno type of a thing where you've just got these cars and yeah, you take care of them. Bruno Silikowski: It's more in line like the Jay Leno idea, but I don't want to mislead you either. It's zoned correctly for having some mechanic do some of the work. The idea, part of the beauty of this facility is there's a lot of cars. They need maintenance, like any other does and it's kind of a hassle as owners of cars like this, of collections, to have to take them someplace. So for the minor things, the mechanic will be coming and doing work on our vehicles. If the car requires surgery, you know the engine, it's going to go to them. It's just not going to. McDonald: But again, everything takes place inside of one of the condos. Bruno Silikowski: They're inside closed buildings. McDonald: Inside a closed building. Bruno Silikowski: Not out in the open. In fact what you'll find is, we really don't, you won't see any cars sitting outside. Most of the time people will come in. They'll pull their car inside their little unit and you won't see them again unless they walk over to the club house. And this is empirical because I've seen it in other locations that people have built things like this. It's just the way it works out. It's very lightly traveled. In other words, there's not a lot of people coming in and out at any one period of time. And it's quiet. McDonald: And when you get down to ownership, is this, do you rent a stall or do you actually own it as part of a condo? Bruno Silikowski: You own it. McDonald: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: Yep. McDonald: So the people with the cars there will actually be the owners of that particular piece of property? Bruno Silikowski: That's right. Building. Keefe: So have you written your condo docs to limit noise? I'm just kind of curious. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, I mean we certainly wouldn't want them storing any kind of hazardous chemicals, that kind of thing, you know so when you go through it, it's the logical, common sense stuff. We don't want people storing. I mean it'd be nutty to spend so much money to put the furniture in there but we want to make sure that doesn't happen. So there are certain things we're going to say you just can't store here, period. Keefe: In terms of operations and noise, are you limiting that? Bruno Silikowski: Yeah. I mean we are. That's the whole point of saying we have certain hours of operation, and maybe to address that a little bit more clearly. We will have a concierge desk inside the club house. When you arrange for, when the mechanic is coming in to do the minor maintenance on your vehicle, you know it still takes coordination. And so the way it would work is that a owner would type in on the internet, or the web site, kind of the request of what they need done. The concierge basically handles all that detail and the schedule to work and allows it to happen. They'd be the one to make sure that if the mechanic comes in to somebody's stall, even if they're not there, they'd be the one to make sure that they can get into their stall safely. You know they're getting the right one. That kind of thing, so when we meant hours of operation, you're not going to have mechanics coming in to, after hours. It's just not part of the plan. We're not having a restaurant. We don't want a liquor license. That's just not what this is about. Undestad: Can I ask a quick question? How much do you sell these, a unit for? Bruno Silikowski: Well, I'd be happy to follow up with you after the meeting to tell you. Yeah you know what you find is that everybody has a different need. Part of it, some people just need one space to put one car. Some people have a whole collection of things and maybe want multiple units, but have a contiguous space and so it just depends on what the people's needs are. Undestad: I'm just trying to get an idea of how many people, if you sell them all out and you say you get 200 to 300 cars in there, how many people are going to be coming in and out of there. Bruno Silikowski: I think I could estimate it. I'm thinking somewhere between 120 to maybe 150 people. Owners in this. That's about it. I don't see it going beyond that. In fact it may even stand out at 100. There's a number of people who have significant car collections and you know they're looking for 5,000 square feet. And 5,000, you know that doesn't take long to fill up the space. McDonald: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: You know I would like to stress, something Bob had said. This is really a light use and a clean use. We look at the whole issue of environmental protection is a big deal and this particular plan allows for water that's not treated today, coming off the railroad tracks going right into the wetlands and into Bluff Creek. We would be able to treat it with this particular set up, this plan and we'd be happy to do that. The revegetation is a great idea. We're very supportive of that. And we want to be a good neighbor. You guys didn't bring up lights. I 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 can tell you that's something else we're very sensitive to. In the evening hours the lights are off. It's going to be motion sensor driven. So if somebody comes in, obviously you need to see but it's meant to be very unobtrusive and to be a good neighbor. And to have a high end finish. I would think that this type of finish would look better than an industrial building, but that's my opinion. McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Bruno Silikowski: Okay. McDonald: Okay, with that, this is a public meeting. I will now ask anyone in the audience that wishes to come forward and make comment, to do so. And again I would remind you of, come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commission. So who wants to be first? Mark Zitzewitz: Commissioners, my name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff View Court which is in the Creekside neighborhood adjacent, or opposite the wetland from this project and apparently soon to be in the shadow in a very large pile of dirt. I come here, I'll try and be brief. There's obviously a number of people who want to speak on this subject but I come here to really stress that this is a project that will fundamentally affect the nature and character of an entire neighborhood. The creek and wetland area that is adjacent to this neighborhood is the center piece of this neighborhood. It's what drew all of these homeowners to this area. And to come with a project that clearly impinges upon the Bluff Creek corridor is of great concern to all of us. There are concerns over safety. There are concerns over aesthetics. With all due respect to the high end finish, what we're being asked to look at now, instead of wetlands and nature are dozens of garage doors and retaining walls. There are questions regarding, I think legitimately so, the affect on the nature environment here. This is an area that is protected by ordinance, and deservedly so. To impinge upon that because it is the most economically feasible alternative to the property owner isn't necessarily what the ordinance is designed to protect. And finally, along the same vein, there are legitimate concerns over the effect on property values of the neighborhood. These are properties that have, that owners paid a premium for, for the view. There's no question that this affects that because there's a request for a conditional use permit. That is a legitimate concern that has to be addressed. And I don't believe has been here. With all that said, I think there's a consensus, at least among the neighbors that I've talked to, that these affects can be mitigated by reasonable conditions on the property. I think the commissioners raise legitimate questions about uses here. We hear promises that, well you know these are folks who want to sleep so they're not going to be there late. That doesn't mean they can't be. There are promises that while this is, this is going to be relatively light maintenance on the vehicles, but it doesn't have to be. There are promises about lighting, but nonetheless at 3:00 in the morning, any of a 100 and some people can come and go as they please. I think there are legitimate questions about safety. About inviting 100, as many as 150 transient persons into this neighborhood. I think there are legitimate questions about the safety of property, given that this is a wetland that has flooded out twice in the last year. I think a number of these things will be reiterated by a number of people here but I think these are legitimate questions that have not been adequately answered at this point and I would ask that the commission at this point anyways deny the application. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Next. Michael Leonard: Good evening. My name is Michael Leonard. I live at 8129 Stone Creek Drive. In the Creekside neighborhood. I have the distinction of being the first person actually to have a house constructed in the Creekside neighborhood so I've been there, it will be 10 years in 1997. Although the first resident, John and Lori Day who actually moved in a month ahead of us, there were 5 model homes there. So I've seen this area kind of develop long before there was any development. Long before there was Coulter Boulevard. Long before there was Bluff Creek Elementary. Not long after Pillsbury was built. Pillsbury was McGlynn first. Who knows. Anyway, my major concern for me tonight, since I don't live as, this area isn't as obtrusive to my view. We look out and basically look at General Mills and we were here a few months ago, or a couple years ago when they had their, their building added onto and certain things or certain concerns that we had that were addressed by the Planning Commission, addressed by the City Council later on, I think should take some precedence here as far as mitigating the effects of developing this property. As well as concerns that General Mills took to heart and basically mitigate a lot of issues we have as far as noise, appearance to their building. I think that should have some concern. The other issue is, and I know other people are going to address this. I have, I pulled out a map here. This is from our lovely Chamber of Commerce and basically it shows, I don't know if I can get this underneath here and if you're going to be able to see this, but where our development is right along in here, we've got, we have basically where 3 legs of the Bluff Creek watershed all meet in our back yard. They meet from this area north of the Chanhassen Nature Preserve where there is a wetland as one head of Bluff Creek. They also meet up in here on the south end of Walnut Acres, and I'll get back to that in a minute. That's another leg of Bluff Creek. And then also up here on the other side, just straight north of Highway 5. Part of the issue that we have seen, and I've lived there for 10 years and I've seen it rain and I've seen it rain, and the last 2 times it rained more than 4 inches we had monumental flooding. Now according to some people development upstream and the runoff that takes place from those development areas supposedly has been mitigated. I would beg to differ. I think that, and one of the reasons I beg to differ is because I specifically know people within the south end, on the Bent Bow area and the Moccasin Trail area just north of this one leg of the watershed. Of that pond or that swamp you see there, and one of the individuals voiced to me, because she's an acquaintance of mine, that they want to do something to actually retain water up there. And I said well why do they want to retain water up there? They want to turn it into a big pond or lake. They don't want the water going downstream. And I'm wondering what the issue was there. I was unable to contact her tonight because it just came to me that I remembered that, that there was some issue going on there about having to keep the water up in that area. I would beg to differ that all the water comes from upstream, even though some people think that altering the amount of surface and the amount of runoff in that area doesn't affect us. You will see some pictures later by other people that it affected us greatly. In the 10 years I have lived in that neighborhood we have 6, 7 inch rainfalls in less than a 24 hour period have not seen the amount of runoff and the amount of flooding that we saw this past year. And that's pretty much all I have. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Marina Tofteland: Good evening. McDonald: Good evening. Marina Tofteland: Marina Tofteland. I live at 8325 Stone Creek Drive. It's Lot 6, Block 2, if you have a site map at all as a reference. These are some pictures. I'm sorry we weren't able to get them. Maybe you want to just have me bring them up to you so you can see them more closely. We weren't able to get them scanned and then give them to you by video presentation but this, these pictures here are looking out my kitchen window going to the northeast, so you can see the amount of flooding there. And this is between my property and my next door neighbor, Jerry Cornell at 8247 Jerry? Jerry Cornell: 8345. Marina Tofteland: 8345. This is our property line and it extends out into the corridor. This tree right here is probably within about 300 feet of the last building on this, on this building right here. So you know as far as looking at a potential condo owner, I would be concerned about my 75, $85,000 vehicle sitting you know really in a flood plain. The other thing I wanted to, so those pictures I hope are as helpful and when you're visualizing some of that, why the neighbors are concerned about flooding. And having to get water out of your basement, and this is right at the edge of my sod line. I mean right at the edge. Just about covered my fire pit, and there were neighbors that were you know pumping water out of their basement. My sump pump runs year round regardless of what's in the back, and when that flooding was happening, I could count 8 seconds until my pump would turn back on. I mean it was constant, 24 hours a day. So that is really a significant concern to us. When we initially purchased our lot 8 years ago, we called the City of Chanhassen and spoke to the Planning Commissioner at that time. He told us that this area outside of our window was zoned agricultural. That it did have the IOP, but it was adjacent to the railroad track and that it would very likely not be developed because it was such a small parcel. The wetland, he told me was protected and so of course you know then you go ahead with your purchase agreement and a significant investment of your home. A lot of people in our neighborhood, that is their single largest asset and so we'd like you to take that into consideration. We've all you know purchased that property with the idea that that investment is kind of where you, don't have all your eggs in one basket but certainly that's a significant part of your investment. John Day who was kind of helping us spearhead our neighborhood, we have had several neighborhood meetings and exchanging emails back and forth and John Day wasn't able to be here this evening. We did have an appraiser come and he gave his information to John and due to some kind of a computer glitch, that was supposed to be forwarded to me. I did not get it, so I don't have written proof that it will affect my property value, and several of our neighbors, or my neighbors, but we are relatively confident that that is the case. We aren't really opposing the project as a whole, but certainly we would like some modification. In the landscaping plan the staff recommended on the northwest property line of 23 overstory trees, and the developer states he'll put in only 14 of those overstory trees. Mr. Generous referred to some of the trees out in the wetland as being you know not as high quality. Noxious weeds and that type of thing. I feel a cottonwood tree is a valuable tree. I know it's not a hardwood but it certainly is pleasant to look at and also I think we need to remember the impact of an existing wildlife and that additional berming and matured evergreens, tall shrubs and grasses will 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 certainly provide nesting habitat, food and protective covering so. Let's see, there's one other point I wanted to make. We did invite…I invited through email by Bob, I invited all of you to come to my home. Look out my kitchen window and see that 720 feet from my deck is the end of this first building, or the last building I guess, and I didn't hear from any of you. So I just you know want to be taken, I want my point of view to be taken into consideration and for what I spent on the maintenance and the investment in my home, what it does to my property value and the aesthetics of looking out my window. We spend a lot of time and effort in maintaining our, the look of our home and I would like that to be taken into consideration. And I understand that it's a high end developer. It's great that you know it's a lot of people with a lot of money that are going to buy that and it's really a nice looking building. We're not opposing that per se but it would be less intrusive and more aesthetically pleasing to the eye with some modification. And certainly he could consider charging more per square foot and less building and still come out with the same financial gains. So, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Marina Tofteland: If you'd like to see these closer up. McDonald: Yes, if you could pass them up here. Marina Tofteland: This picture right here is, I took on Wednesday afternoon and the X on the picture is where the last building would be sitting. I feel like a 4H project. My son tells me I'm really good. Mr. Generous said he did come to my house. You didn't call me. But thanks a lot for coming. Oh you came to see John. Well thank you for coming. McDonald: I should state for the record that it is the policy that, you know the Planning Commissioners will not go to individual's homes unless we go as a group. As individuals we will travel to sites. I did come to your site over the weekend. I walked the path down below your house. I walked in front of the houses. Each commissioner will do that but as policy we will not go to individual's homes because that again taints our process so that is why no one did contact you, and I did try to contact you on Friday night just to inform you of the policy but you weren't home. So it was not, it is not a slight on our part. It is just, it is the policy of this commission. Marina Tofteland: That is good. McDonald: Okay, next. Jerry Cornell: Hi. I'm Jerry Cornell. I'm 8345 Stone Creek Drive. The pictures are being passed around, did you take those Marina? Marina Tofteland: (Yes). Jerry Cornell: Oh. The fence you saw was my fence. It's a 6 foot fence. It was 5 feet under water. You could have launched a boat to the back yard. So my concern is the water and the 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 runoff and I want to make sure that that's addressed. And it's getting worst. You asked about this… I did get a copy of that letter… McDonald: Again sir, I would remind you. Please address your comments to the commission. We are limited on time. Jerry Cornell: I'm sorry because I thought everybody had copies. I was just sent this by this John Day. It's a copy from an appraiser that says that our property values will devaluate with this kind of a project. So, with that I can leave that. If you'll give that to Bob. That's all I had. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Scott Jesse: My name is Scott Jesse. I live at 8198 Stone Creek Drive. I think a lot of my points have been addressed already so I'm just trying to cross those off and not be duplicative here but we're concerned about predominantly the water runoff. We've lived through this I think over the last few years. Predominantly in the last year. This is of grave concern because I personally as a property owner in this area have spent a few thousand dollars trying to redirect the water away from my house and my basement so that I don't have flooding anymore, and I am on a higher ground than some of my neighbors who are more impacted. It's more building in this area will cause, it's cause for greater concern because we continue to have these water issues. That's why you're hearing that comment come up over and over again. So that's of paramount importance to us. We're also concerned about the noise. I'm appreciative of the fact that this is considered light use. I think the building aesthetics are fine. I think that we're concerned about the lights. I think those were addressed but I want to make sure that there's some sort of documentation that we all come to an agreement that we understand if we're going to be good neighbors, as was posed by the applicant, that we need to make sure that those are addressed positively and it's not a promise that's made in a forum but is actually substantiated and documented so that we know there's a barrier in the future. Additionally we're concerned about the future. If there's going to be expansion of the area. If there's going to be other use of the property beyond the 14. Will there be application for additional use later on down the line? Do they want to expand and use other portions of the property? We want to make sure that that is addressed as well. We are concerned about the revegetation and the berming so if those, all those concerns can be met or addressed, then I think that we feel a little bit more comfortable about what is being proposed here. McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Scott Jesse: Thank you. McDonald: Next. Does anyone else wish to get up and make comment before the commission? Bruno Silikowski: If it's okay if I can address a few of the questions that have been brought up. The one thing, I heard the whole thing here. I heard a couple things here. Probably the biggest one I'd like to address right away is the issue of the water and flooding. I do have my environmental engineer as well as our main engineer who did the site planning and if you guys 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 would come up and tell them what you, what we've all talked about for a long time, it would be helpful to hear from an expert. Hydrologist: …I'm not actually an environmental engineer. I'm a soil scientist and hydrologist but I'm from…Environmental Services Company. I did the wetland delineation on the site. I also took care of the Incidental Wetland Exemption for that created wetland area and the two drainageways. And just hearing about your water concerns today, I think I've kind of got an idea of what's happening here. Right at…maybe zoom in a little bit. Basically Bluff Creek along the property boundary is a straighten ditch. This is an extensive peat land wetland that in the past was even more extensively ditched. There's, Bluff Creek itself still remains but there's also remnants of older ditches in here and this wetland actually never showed up on the NWI, the National Wetland Inventory because it's been…in the past that it was never picked up by their inventory. So it's being used for hay production in the past. Now that it's been left alone and the ditches have filled in, it's gotten back to it's wetter state. But I think when you have that higher infill that you're getting, you're getting a flush into the creek. You know your watershed's coming down. You hit this straight ditch that used to meander and control flow and it's just a straight row of shoot right here. It gets to this narrow intersection where it's got to go under a bridge and it also has quite a bit of drainage coming out this little knot here which is storm water and runoff from all of this area over here coming down this little ditch here. So I can see that you're probably getting a lot of water on your side, but this wetland over here is about 30 acres of extensive peat land and the bounce, when I did the environmental work on this site, I don't see that kind of bounce that you guys are seeing on your side. Because you're kind of confined over on your hill slope here, whereas this is just a very large wetland complex. And I think Bob, the engineer… Bob: Well the buildings are 12 feet above the edge of the wetland that's right here and of course our ponding and our rate control and everything will be required to meet the city standards and also the watershed standards so we can't increase any of the rate from our site. And the site is, or the site, we're only about 40% hard surface coverage and it could be up to 70% so it's quite a bit less than what is allowed by ordinance. Keefe: Let me ask a question. While the development of this site, including those 14 buildings on that site, will it increase the runoff off that site or will it actually decrease it? So the amount going into Bluff Creek, you know there's a certain amount that's going in today. You're going to expand this pond. Are you actually dumping more water into Bluff Creek? Bob: We actually had a lower rate than what's going off right now. Keefe: Okay. So the answer is that it will actually decrease, based upon the engineering that you're going to go on the site. The water going into Bluff Creek. Now that isn't going to solve the problems on the neighborhood's side of the creek necessarily, except it may decrease the amount of water going in. Is that a fair? Bob: It's not going to be a substantial decrease. I mean you're not going to, it's not going to be something you're going to see. You've got just as much area there so it's going to be going there. I mean there's something blocking that downstream that doesn't allow the water to progress 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 downstream from that site. It's backing up now. Either that or you're getting more water from up north, like they said, than they were in the past because they said they didn't have problems before. It's just happened recently. We've had a lot of storms over the last 5 or 6 years off this. If there was flooding this summer, we didn't have that much rain this summer so, something's. Hydrologist: As you see, it was at Bluff Creek…watershed up here. If you look at Bluff Creek above the neighbors, this is the neighborhood. If you look at Bluff Creek above that, it meanders and moves and that accounts for a lot of storage in the river and that's why some is ditched because they just want to get that water out of there, and this is an old ditch part of the creek and it just shoots right there and then it starts to meander again down here and it's just going to slow up. And they're on a hill. The topography right there you know, on their side, the west side is probably going up right away. On this site you have this extensive flat area and… Keefe: So I mean. Hydrologist: You actually have a lot of storage in that wetland on the site. Keefe: So, but you're not taking much of that wetland out, are you? Hydrologist: We're not even touching the wetland at all. Keefe: Yeah right so, so the runoff off of this site, and I mean, I'm trying to paraphrase what I'm hearing from some of the neighbors is, is the, will this project by placing these 14 buildings and where the site is, will it add to the water problems in a heavy rain event? Hydrologist: No. Keefe: By virtue of that. So the answer is. Hydrologist: The pond is constructed to support those 100 year. Bruno Silikowski: And if anything, as…it's a slower rate coming out of the pond so we won't add that to the problem. If anything it will help...At least we know it's not causing. McDonald: Well, if I can interrupt for a second. Just a second. Just a second. Excuse me. Okay, we're getting way off track here. It's not our intent to solve the water problem. The City would love to do that but there is another venue for doing that. And this project has nothing to do with solving water that comes from up north. That is a different issue entirely. We have had the question answered as to what impact they would have. We're going to leave it at that. At this point, unless someone else within the audience wishes to come forward, I'm going to close the public meeting. Bruno Silikowski: Would it serve, I'll address just a few more points and I'll be done. McDonald: You do so at your own risk. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: Okay, thank you. I just heard a couple other little things. Maybe, okay. Maybe I don't need to, okay. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Okay, at that point I will close the public meeting and we'll bring it back up for the commission for discussion. Keefe: Yeah, I mean from my perspective I like the concept. I think the buildings I think he's putting in a fair amount of architectural enhancement to the buildings, which could be a lot less architecturally relevant. So I like what he's doing there. One of my concerns is whether there's enough landscaping or what the view would look like on that northwest side and I guess what I definitely want to see, and I think they need to meet the minimums anyway, right? The required amount of understory trees so I think one of the questions that came up was whether you know the recommend, or there's a required amount. Yes, indeed the applicant needs to meet the required planting as outlined in the report, which I think will help. I also have a concern just around the appearance of the retaining walls to make sure that they're aesthetically pleasing and not just made out of, what do you call them? Keystone, thank you. Yeah, I would like a higher level of retaining wall material used on those. McDonald: Didn't we just pass an ordinance about retaining walls and materials? Generous: As part of the subdivision. McDonald: Okay. Sorry. Thomas: Ah, no. I'm pretty much in agreeance with Commissioner Keefe that…most of the concepts are industrial. I understand the concern of the neighborhood and the aspect that you've been looking at a property that hasn't had that on it but, what it's zoned for so I'm… McDonald: Okay, Debbie. Larson: Okay, I've got a couple things. First of all, pretty much everything they said with also I want to address the fact that the view. Again the property that is going in is actually very aesthetic. The fact that there's going to be transient people, I fully disagree. The people that are going to be having the kind of vehicles that it sounds like, if they can even afford to own this property, aren't going to be transients. They're going to be professionals I guess would be the best way to describe it, or I don't know. I just thought that was odd. The view from the other people from the other side. Again, anything else could go there. Another industrial building. I think what they're planning on putting in here is very nice as far as what it would look like. As far as your view. I mean would you rather have a blank building or would you rather have something that looks nice, and I think this looks nice so I'm inclined to go with this. I like the fact that they want to put a place for people to have cars like this if they don't really plan on having engines running at night or people working on their cars may be something that'd be put in place to prevent you know running of engines and that sort of thing at night time and I didn't see that in here so maybe that's something we could add. The trees, I think would need to be brought up to standards. I'd like to see more, you know, at least what the City's minimums are so with that I guess, I'm inclined to go with it. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I guess I have you know again what they've got going on. I like the idea of the concept and stuff I guess. Part of what I'm struggling with is the potential noise. Again we don't, I mean they're not supposed to be working on their cars but yet they can come in here any time, 24 hours a day. These people that live straight across, cars are starting up you know at any given time, coming and going. They live right across a open area out there. I do like the idea, but again I think if there were some way to maybe, if it was able to push back or some additional landscaping or screening to try to cut down the view and the noise from that area. I understand putting two buildings on the end are a deal breaker out there and it's something to think about. McDonald: Okay. I guess the only comments I've got. After hearing the concerns tonight about the water, and again as I said I was out at the site. The problem is that drainage ditch. You've got a culvert down there where everything comes in and that was one of the first things that I noticed also was the fact, what happens when it really rains? That's got to be stopped up and when that happens I can understand flooding. And that's why I said, that is a different issue and that is something that should be brought to the City because as part of our water management, it is one of the things that we do look at, but has nothing to do with this site. It is not a requirement of this applicant to try to fix the problem that he had nothing to do with. As far as the lights, again I was out there towards dusk. What do you do about General Mills? The lights that they have out there are a lot more intensive than what he intends to put at this particular site. I look at your concern about noise. This is no different than you working in your garage. I would expect that these individuals, and again they're not transients. These are high end professionals. These cars are not $70,000 cars. They're $100,000 to $125,000. Some of them I would not even be surprised were over $250,000. This is not the type of people, these are not the hot rodders that go down to Porky's on, in St. Paul and drive around with muscle cars. But I would expect that they would be good neighbors. One of the things that the applicant did bring up is that they are looking at adopting a condo ordinance in compliance with I guess typically what the State has got. That will have a nuisance requirements within that. And again, what I would encourage, if people get out there and start revving their engines, call the police. The nuisance laws will take care of that and if it continues, there will be serious problems upon that particular individual, and I'm sure there will be problems upon the condo itself so I think that you have protections there to protect you as far as those things. And again for the developer, if this becomes a nuisance site, I think that you will suffer financially and I'm sure you are aware of that. So I will depend upon you and the condo association to make sure those things don't happen, but again if the condo cannot self police itself, there are ordinances in place to make sure that they are policed. As far as some of the other concerns I heard people bring up about the trees and everything. At this point they do meet the minimum requirements and I'm afraid that's all the City can really enforce upon them. Now there are a number of stands of cottonwoods out there, and there were a number of trees that aren't even affected by any of this. None of those are going away. As far as the site itself, I guess it does have a history and you know as I tell everybody that comes through here, what would you rather see there? At some point it will be developed and the ordinances allow for something a lot more extensive than what's going in there. The retaining walls, those things will be governed by the City, and again what we will look at there is to make sure that they do meet the ordinances. I guess I was thinking that our retaining wall ordinance would 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 cover that because we did address Keystone but if that only applies to subdivisions then I don't have much leeway there as what I would like because we did. Keefe: We can pull that in. McDonald: Yeah, we did look rather extensively at retaining walls and looked at again from an architectural standpoint what those would look like. I know we spent a lot of time going through that. That's why I thought that that would apply. Other than that, I guess all I can tell you is that the applicant does meet the zoning requirements and you know based upon that, I guess I would support this. I would say that I think that there is enough protection built in into all this that if they do not meet your expectations, you do have other recourse. So with that I would ask that, I'm open for a motion and a recommendation. Larson: Do I have to do each one individually or? McDonald: Well, you have to do A, B, C and D. You don't have to read each one of those. Larson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park, IOP. Oh, do I have to read them all? McDonald: No. That's A. Larson: And that's A. Okay, and B. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for development within Bluff Creek corridor with a variance to locate the storm water pond within Bluff Creek Primary Zone in conformance with the grading plans prepared by the Sathre-Berquist Incorporated dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And C. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions, one. And D. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan for 12 buildings, (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Berquist Incorporated dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And is that it? McDonald: That will do it. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Keefe: Friendly amendment? McDonald: Friendly amendment. First of all, will you accept a friendly amendment Debbie? Larson: Yes, I'll accept a friendly amendment. Depends on what it is. Keefe: Will you incorporate the retaining wall language from the subdivision ordinance into this. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 McDonald: Okay, let me ask staff. Generous: It'd be in the site plan. McDonald: It is? We can do that then? Okay, I just want to make sure I'm not creating a problem here trying to direct something that we can't. Okay. You've heard the friendly amendment is to incorporate our ordinance for retaining walls into this, into the conditions. If you will accept. Larson: That's fine. McDonald: Okay, and where would that go? Generous: Number 7 under site plan. Keefe: Number 7? Okay. McDonald: Number 7 under engineering conditions? Keefe: Well it'd just be a new. Retaining walls. McDonald: Okay, number 7. Retaining walls. Okay. And incorporate city's, the language underneath. Okay. Keefe: Incorporate language from the subdivision, language regarding retaining walls from the subdivision ordinance. McDonald: You okay with that Bob? You got that? Okay. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approvestheRezoningof the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOPAll voted in favor and the motion carried . unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permitfor development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 2.The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3.The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4.Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1.Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2.Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a.The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b.The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c.The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d.A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e.Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f.The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g.A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h.Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. i.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k.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) and comply with their conditions of approval. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 l.A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m.The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n.The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o.All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. b.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. c.Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. f.Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.Building Official Conditions: a.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 c.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d.Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5.Forester conditions: a.All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. c.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d.The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e.Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping 6.Engineering Conditions: a.The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b.The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. c.Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d.The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e.An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f.Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 g.The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h.The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i.If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j.The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k.The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the 7. subdivision regulations.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION, SECTION 18-41, FINAL PLAT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Anyone wishing to come forward to make comment, please come to the podium. State your name and address. Okay, seeing no one come forward, close the public meeting. I bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Okay? Okay, okay. Looking for a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. McDonald: Okay, I have a second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 3, 2006 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 46