Loading...
1i Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 12, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Ayotte and Councilman Boyle STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Justin Miller, and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT: Joy Melby, Mike Gorra, Mark Zaebst, Lifetime Fitness; and Tim Braff, Bridges Athletic & Golf. A, RESPONSES FROM THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, COMMUNITY CENTER. Mayor Jansen presented background information on what action the City Council has taken to date regarding the community center. Todd Hoffman provided the results from the Request for Information (RFI) that was sent out. Who was sent the R_FI, who responded, and who showed interest in participating with the City in such a venture. Councilman Peterson stated he would like to see the community center parallel track with the new high school project and asked if the city was going to hold a referendum to provide funding for such a project. Todd Gerhardt asked Mark Zaebst for his input on what Lifetime Fitness has done with other cities. There was discussion around conducting a survey or forming a focus group to study the issue. It was decided to form a focus group comprised of 20-25 people from various groups such as CAA, hockey, soccer, swimming, and the Park and Recreation Commission to pull together the information, and then conduct a survey, if necessary, similar to the process held for the park and trail referendum. Todd Gerhardt stated he would prepare a charge statement to bring back to the council at their next meeting. B. PRELIMINARY 2003 BUDGET. Bruce DeJong passed out handouts on tax levies and revenue schedules. He stated that additional staff members are being requested by staff, which results in a 10 percent increase. Todd Gerhardt asked what the levy limit was for the city. Mayor Jansen asked about the growth numbers, and what the status of TIF was for 2003. Bruce DeJong explained that single housing building permits were the lowest they've been since 1983, but there should be enough money in fund reserves if permits fall short in 2003. Councilman Peterson asked for a list of the new positions being requested. Mayor Jansen asked council members to call Bruce DeJong with any questions before the September 9m meeting when the levy needs to be established. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting Was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Peterson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyle and Councilman Ayotte STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Todd Hoffman, Sharmin A1- Jaff, and Bob Generous PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Rich Slagle LuAnn Sidney 7305 Laredo Drive Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: We have a couple of changes to the agenda that I'll mention right up front. We will be removing item 3(a) and (b) at the request of the applicant. That will be moved to our next meeting agenda. We are adding an executive session. Counsel, if you could share with us the description for our executive session please. Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. Following this meeting we'll have an executive or closed meeting to discuss pending litigation involving a condemnation matter with Mr. Pryzmus for a drainage and utility easement. The purpose of the meeting, closed meeting is just to discuss litigation strategy. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Moving on, we have no public announcements. Obviously our only announcement is we're two council members short this evening, unfortunately, but we will proceed with our, we still have a majority of the council present so we will continue with the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ao e, Resolution g2002-68: Receive Sidewalk Feasibility Study; Call for Public Heating, Project PW 191. Resolution g2002-69: Approve Easement Agreements for Trunk Highway 101 Trail Project 97-12-3. Resolution #2002-70: Approve Condemnation Resolution for Parcel 29 of the TH 101 Trail North Project 97-12-3. City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 g. jo Approval of Amended Hunting Zones. Authorization to Sign a Letter of Understanding with the League of Minnesota Cities for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Guide Plan. Resolution g2002-71: Approval of Election Judges and Rates of Pay for the Primary Election, as amended. Resolution #2002-73: Approve Resolution Amending the Membership List for the Southwest Mutual Aid Association. Approve Budget Amendment for the Marsh Glen Trail Connector Budget. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 22, 2002 -City Council Minutes dated July 22, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated July 16, 2002 m. Resolution g2002-72: Approve Resolution Supporting an Application for a Limited Use Permit for Construction of a Trail Adjacent to TH 101 from Lake Susan Drive to Bandimere Park and Adjacent to TH 5 at Bluff Creek and Riley Creek, Project RA-630. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Pete Keller: Good evening Madam Mayor, esteem Council members. My name is Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country Oaks Road, Excelsior, but it's really in the northwest corner of Chanhassen. I've served on a city commission previously and am aware of the time and the effort you all put in and I want to thank you for your dedication to the City. I'm a stay at home dad, and in July of 1999 while playing the backyard with the children in my daycare business, I began aware of some activity in the property directly behind our home. A church that was known as Holy Cross Lutheran Church. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 turned out to be that activity. And after many evenings in this room and contrary to our city ordinance, the council approved 105 foot communications tower in this residentially zoned church property on March 13th of 2000. If I may, I have a very small packet for each of you so you may follow along as I speak. May I hand that out? Mayor Jansen: Sure. Pete Keller: Pages 1 and 2 indicate the 8 conditions of the permit. Page 3 has the approved site plan of the tower, and page 4 shows the site and what's actually there today. The permit was issued to two parties. The first is US West Wireless, which is now Qwest Wireless, and as we know from the paper on the verge of bankruptcy. The second is Holy Cross Lutheran Church which has gone out of business. However the mortgage was and still is held by Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America and Lutheran Brotherhood. However the property is now owned City Council Meeting- August 12, 2002 and operated by Mount Calvary Lutheran Church in Excelsior. Since the construction began in June of 2000, none of the parties to date are interested in meeting the conditions of the permit, which actually doesn't surprise me as they had to file a lawsuit against our city on March 10tn of 1999 the Council approved this project. What I find exceptionally frustrating is the inability of our staff to make the parties comply with the conditions of the permit, or to use the financial guarantees US West Wireless submitted at the time the permit was issued. Looking at the conditions on page 1 of the packet I gave you, condition 1 concerning landscaping has not been met. Condition 7 concerning the fencing has not been met. However the biggest problem is the tower itself is in the wrong place according to the approved site plan on page 3 of your packet. And there is no mention in the permit of the metal cable that runs the full height of the tower on the outside and bangs quite loudly against it on windy days. Page 4 of the packet there shows what is actually on the site today that pertains to this permit. I've personally brought these problems to the attention of our planning, our engineering, our inspections departments, both of the city managers involved, as well to all three groups of the Lutherans at the church over the years. All to no avail. Unfortunately our home has an unobstructed view of the tower all day, and thanks to the flood lighting of the tower, we see it all night as well and that's why I care. My purpose here tonight is to beg you to direct staff to abandon the idea that the utility or the Lutherans are going to bring this project into compliance. Three separate attempts in the last 2 ½ years by different parties have all failed resulting in standing dead trees, trees placed well outside the project site, and no effort has been made to address the lack of fencing, the incorrect tower placement or the metal cable issues. It's time to draw on the letter of credit that the City has from the utility to get the job done either with our people or to hire it out to a competent contractor. Or better yet, this would be up to Roger, have the permit revoked for lack of compliance and have the tower taken down. Madam Mayor, your letter in the recent Chanhassen Connection inspired me to be here tonight and...that this project should be easy to complete, even if it is long overdue. I appreciate your encouraging words. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I do have some pictures of the site. If that would be helpful. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Pete Keller: Seeing none, thanks again for your dedication to the City, for your time this evening and hopefully for your help in getting this permit into compliance. And lastly, hello to Tyler and Ryan, it's time to go to bed. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Mr. Keller. It's standard procedure for us to refer these issues that come up under visitor presentation to staff so that they do have an opportunity to look at the information versus putting anyone on the spot this evening so appreciate your sharing the information with us and I know that staff has been working to try to rectify this situation so we will certainly get an update from them and get back to you. Pete Keller: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay, we'll move on if there's anyone else present that has an issue under visitor presentations that you'd like to bring to the council's attention, you can approach the podium at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE, CSM ENTERPRISES DBA FRANKIES PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD, CHRIS MONSON. City Council Meeting -August 12, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Frankies Pizza, Pasta and Ribs is requesting an on- sale beer and wine license. The establishment applied for, and received an on-sale beer and wine license in '96. During that time they have had difficulty in paying their sales tax. In January of 2002 received another notification that sales tax was up to date and that the license could be reinstated if the applicant reapplied. Their background check has been positive and staff is recommending approval. Mayor Jansen: You got choked up over that one. That's okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Any questions for staff at this point? Okay, seeing none. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone present that would like to address the council on this agenda item, certainly step forward to the podium at this time. Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Council, conm~ents or a motion please. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve an on-sale beer and wine license for CSM Enterprises dba Frankies Pizza, Pasta and Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor liability insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Jansen: As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, agenda item number 3, the Steven Cohoon project has been removed at the applicant's request and we will be reviewing that agenda item at the next council meeting. Which is probably a good idea because we do only have 3 council people present so hopefully we'll have a full compliment of the council at that time. AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY GYMNASIUM BUILDING, PHASE I. Public Present: Name Address Dan Blake Julia Sharma David Happe Kathy Schroeder Susan O'Brien Kelby Bailey 306 West 78th Street 6300 Oxbow Bend 604 Summerfield 7720 Frontier Trail 6628 Aster Trail 6580 Pleasant View Way Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. On August 28th of the year 2000 the City Council approved Phase I of the master plan for Chapel Hill Academy. Basically this master plan included four phases. Phase I had a classroom addition as well as a gynmasium. The site is located pretty much in the center of a residential neighborhood. The north and the east portion of this site is residential, as well as the northwest portion. One of our concerns when we went through this process the first time was the size of the materials that were going to be used on the exterior of the building. This is a utility sized block and this is what the applicant, I'm sorry. A jumbo sized block. And this is what the applicant was proposing to use City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 on the exterior of the building. Typically within a residential neighborhood you have either this size of brick or siding. As a compromise the recommendation was to utilize a utility size material, and there was quite a bit of discussion on this item. Our role is to implement your decisions. There is a difference in opinion as to what was approved by the City Council at that time. Our understanding, and based upon the way we read the plans, the lower portion or the base of the entire building was to be constructed of the jumbo sized block. Everything other than that would have to be a utility size brick or block. The applicant's understanding of what was approved was the gymnasium portion, which is a 27 foot tall building, was to be constructed of the jumbo block. The area that is located north, south of the gymnasium, which is where the locker rooms are supposed to be. That area would be brick. Again, our understanding was the entire structure would utilize the utility size bricks or blocks rather than the jumbo size. The only place where our understanding, the only place where you would use the jumbo block would be along the bottom portion of the building. Councilman Peterson: How high? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Approximately, it's the area that is immediately under the windows and all the plans indicate it's the red brick that, or the red block that you see out there today. Approximately 2 V2 to 3 feet. Other issues that have come in dealing with this application, as we were looking at the building permit, include a sidewalk. Phase I included a sidewalk that connected the gymnasium with the rest of the building. Our concern of course is to separate pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic, and that's one of the reasons why we would like to see the sidewalk put in at this time. The entry way off of Great Plains Boulevard has been eliminated at this point, and the intent is to add it at some point in the future. This is a fairly large, unadorned elevation. Whenever you have entryways that are pronounced, people know that this is where they need to enter. So it's a dual purpose. It's identifying entrance into the gymnasium as well as adding an architectural element to that elevation. Third issue deals with painted block along the south elevation which faces West 78th. The gymnasium is in this area. What you see out here is locker rooms. The applicant wishes to delay the building of the locker rooms to a later date, so basically this wall which faces West 78th, at some point will become an interior wall. At this time they would like to use block, smooth block and paint it the same color as the lighter colored portion of the building, so basically to match the rest of the building. The ordinance prohibits the use of painted block unless approved by the City Council. Also as part of the ordinance states that it should be in areas that aren't visible. So with these changes, staff did not feel comfortable approving a building permit. Again we're here to implement your decisions and we are seeking clarification from the City Council as to what your decision was on the materials as well as splitting this Phase I into additional phases. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Sharmin, why don't you leave that back up, if you would. Just to clarify, are they recommending, or is their preference is to do the large, jumbo block all the way around right now? And not do the, I'll sort of, large, medium and small brick. Let's do it that way. Are they recommending or requesting large brick all the way around? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Just a moment please. This is the building permit application. This is the elevation that faces. City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Councilman Labatt: Great Plains Boulevard. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Great Plains Boulevard, thank you. This portion, which is the hallway, will be brick. Everything else that you see here is the jumbo block. This is the elevation that faces south, which is West 78th. Everything is the jumbo block, and this is the area that will be painted. This elevation faces east. Now right from the beginning we agreed that this portion was going to be painted. The City Council approved it in that fashion, with the understanding that it will become an internal wall in the future, and again the ordinance permits painted walls if approved by the council and if the3' weren't visible. And the last elevation is the north elevation. That entire elevation is intended on this plan to be the large, jumbo block basically. And it faces residential single family homes. There are mature trees separating this elevation from the single family homes. Does that answer the question? Councih-nan Peterson: Yes it does, thanks. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman Labatt: So they're proposing, let i-ne make sure I understand this right, to paint the large block on the west and south elevations? Sharmin A1-Jaff: On the east and south elevations. The east is the elevation that will. Councilman Labatt: Will be the interior wall in the future. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Right. And the south elevation then? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The south elevation is what faces West 78th and where the locker rooms will eventually be added. Councihnan Labatt: And what will happen with the west wall that faces Great Plains then? Sharmin A1-Jaff: It will be extended. Councilman Peterson: It will be painted too. Same color, won't it? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. No painting. This is the wall that faces Great Plains Boulevard. This portion is brick right here. Everything else is block. It will be the final finish. No painting on that. At some point in the future they will be adding another, I want to say 121 feet. Councilman Labatt: The locker room. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The locker room. And it will be a continuation of the brick. The brick sized brick. Mayor Jansen: So the portion of the wall that we would be painting right now, on that south elevation where the lockers would go, it will eventually be an interior? City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So it's really the same situation as what we approved in the initial approval. We approved a wall to be painted because it was a temporary situation. This is an instance where they'd like to delay the lockers so it becomes a temporary situation until the lockers are constructed. Sharmin AI-Jaff: That's correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So that's the addition. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. This is not a public heating. I realize that we have numerous in attendance around this issue, and we certainly appreciate that. What I would like to do is have a representative come forward and cover with us some of the issues that staff just addressed, and give us the perspective from the applicant's perspective if you would please. So if you'd come forward to the podium, and state your name and address for the record. Dan Blake: Madam Mayor and Council, my name is Dan Blake. I represent Chapel Hill Academy at 306 West 78th Street. And I think that these people are my supporters here tonight, but like I said I will try my hardest to speak for them tonight in this situation. I will try to address the topics one at a time. See if I can keep myself organized. Maybe this picture. This is our 3D model that we used when we came in originally, and I want to try and go through, is wanting to see the surfaces on this picture and I think that also just, and Sharmin didn't do it exactly correct what we're proposing but it's sometimes hard on those flat elevations to see this. So this is the, Main Street, West 78t~ Street and Great Plains Boulevard. This is the question wing that we just completed last fall. Sod that we just completed last week. This is the existing school part of the building, showing a re-facing of that to match. This is the existing church part of the building showing us some building all around it. This is the gymnasium and in front of it is the locker room and corridor. When we were here before we had talked hbout a scenario of a mixture of block and brick in various locations and the way we had proposed, or the way I thought they had proposed it, was all around the building at the base, a kind of block in a darker color. Above that on all one story surfaces brick and, with the exception of this band, block again to match the base. And then again over here, a block and a base brick right above, rather the two story surfaces of the gym and they're in the back. We propose to build that entire building out of rock face block. And it is the larger modules and Sharmin's got paper. I've got brick. Mayor Jansen: Sharmin's were easier to carry. Dan Blake: Here's all the samples, and just to kind of get the gist of what we're talking about, and I know you're familiar with construction. It's sometimes hard to see out in the field. I think it's fair to say when we started we wanted to build the entire building out of this material. It's the less, least expensive and I think it might be fair to say that staff wanted us to build the whole thing out of this, and we talked about a scenario where we, where this might be a compromise for part of it. In reality what we built after approval, and this is the 4 by 12 that I believe was approved for the brick surface. In reality what we built was a base out of this 8 by 6 and the upper 12 feet is this brick right here. Smaller brick. The residential sized brick that you have behind you. However on the gymnasium we always proposed that the two story walls be block. We added some of these columns that you can kind of see here and you can see them shown on, some of these elevations...and we added some windows to try to break up some of the massing of the block but it was always proposed to be this in a couple different colors. The primary reason for that is the way you build the building. If I put this brick, which is about 4 inches thick. I City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 build a block wall, smooth face block, and I attach the brick to the outside of it. It is much, almost purely a decorational item. If I build it out of this, which is what numerous buildings are built out of these days, the inside wall and the outside wall is the same piece of block. It' s one chunk of our building. And that's why we propose to do that. The gym building would have just a painted finish on the inside, with integrated color on the outside with the various columns and such. These are my accent colors. I think we have a color scheme that everybody's okay with but I can show that in detail if anybody wants. I guess the point I'd like to make though is it's for block. This property when we purchased it was zoned office i~..stitutional. Still is. We came in with an application that we thought met the requirements of the zoning. A site plan to review... master site plan. When you, the office institutional district does not have any material requirements specified. It doesn't have what's allowed or doesn't have what's prohibited. Some of the districts I believe have some of those specific types of things. There is a general statement in the ordinance that speaks to compatibility, and one of the things we discussed before is compatibility exactly with what, especially on this gym side. We did quite an analysis of the surrounding materials, buildings and materials. Actually a very low percentage of the surrounding buildings have brick on them. Many of them have siding that is 8 inches or 12 inches in dimension. Realistically, I don't know how a gym is ever compatible with single family residences around it, but I think that as long as the materials are generally consistent with what you see in the area, I would think that that would make it compatible. The Highway 5 corridor district, which apparently this is also in, will have some additional standards. The highway corridor issues is a little more specific in what's allowed, and it says that exterior surfaces are face brick, stone or less are architecturally extra concrete cast in place, or pre-cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent, and that goes on to state what you cannot use, and it doesn't state, say any kind of a rock face block exclusion. I don't know if the original intent of the Highway 5 corridor district is, and why this property applies to it. It seems like it's very fringe as far as Highway 5 corridor, but nevertheless that's the standard that's offered in that section of code. So I guess another item relative to the decisions to be made relative to block is, what exists in other places in the city, and again this is 2 year old material that I have. We had a number of buildings identified in the city that have been recently built and approved that are built out of the rock face block material of this size, and are adjacent to residential users. A couple of the prominent ones is the CSM building over on Dell and Lake Drive, which I believe is the Young America office building right now. The walls are up 24 feet tall, and the comer is up 27 feet. 100 percent on rock face block. You've got single family, be it Eden Prairie, across the property line but they're adjacent there. The St. Hubert's gym building is on pre-cast wall with 16 inch square panels, kind of a rough concrete look. And as well in that area the Foss Swim School is built out of block and that, while it's in a commercial district is immediately adjacent to the single family. So in my opinion the council isn't doing anything outside of their code or outside of what they've done to allow the block usage on this building and that's certainly our desired request tonight. The second item has to do with this temporary south elevation. Again maybe you can see it on this picture, if you can zoom in a little bit, but again this is the protrusion...and we're only building half of that protrusion and this is the side facing south, West 78~h Street. Again it's very hard to see this dimension going on here. This bottom part sticks out about 25 feet or so. It is a temporary wall interior to the building and in the future it's a corridor wall. We are proposing to paint that temporary wall, and are proposing to paint it in the same color scheme as the rest of the building. With a darker, and then the lighter will go up and then the banding so that it matches. We also added windows to this wall, just because we thought well the city's not going to let up put up a full blank wall. We'll put something in there to give it a little bit of an appearance from across the parking lot to West 78th Street. So yes, it's visible, but visible only from quite a distance, and also it would be covered up. And what I have for you today is a proposal, at least a place to start if you're interested in talking about it. Relative to that temporary wall what I would ask is that the council grant us permission to do that and build it as City Council Meeting- August 12, 2002 we propose, and that in the event, and add a condition that in the event that Chapel Hill Academy does not move forward with an attempt to build the locker room portion, or at least request a building permit.., within 3 years, then we would agree to re-face that temporary wall with a combination of the block on the base and the brick above so that it matches the classroom walls. And we went back and forth a bit amongst our organization trying to decide you know what's fair. I'd like to tell you we're going to do it in one year, and that's what we hope to do. We hope to build it all at once but we decided we're better off to build part than none... Longer than 3 years seemed like maybe that' s asking much of the city so that' s kind of where the number, about 3 years comes in so. That's item 2. I'm going to skip to item 4, which is the rooftop canopy. In this picture, well here. Back to this picture. Some of these roof top canopies over these entryways. We are proposing to build roof top canopies, but we'd like to put, build that when we build the locker room. The locker room extension is onto here, like that, and the roof canopy actually is supported on part of this part of the building. It's wider than just that doorway and I suppose there'd be a way to temporarily jut that out and hold that thing up, but it didn't at the time that this was, when we proposed to build it, again it's part of the next phase and I wouldn't expect the city to build the rest of that without putting that entry canopy on. We don't envision using that door as our entryway. It's got a side entry. It's as much just a decorator feature for putting that entrance. It's not intended to call that out as this is the main door. We intend the door is to face the parking lot, would be our active entry way. The sidewalk question that staff mentioned...to work that out. Now one of the things that's different from this plan from before is that we're proposing to build an enclosed link between the two buildings. When we've shown this before it was a free standing buildings. Again this enclosed link would eventually be encaptured by the rest of the building. We don't envision a lot of traffic outside, like we did originally. However, I would intend to finish the sidewalks out to the parking lot and so if there's an issue there, I think it's a communication issue between myself and staff as far as what sidewalks were to get built, but they would all lead to the parking lot... That was the other issue. Did we, I don't remember. Did you speak to the roof top...? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. Dan Blake: Okay. But the staff comments relative to the roof top equipment, we agree with that completely. That was a communication issue again. We didn't show that on these plans because we intended the manufacturer...to prepare separate drawings which did not get over to staff...so I think it's fair that staff was wondering where'd that go. But instead of an architect's version, we wanted the manufacturer' s version. So we will be screening the roof top equipment on this addition as well as adding some screening to the roof top equipment on the classroom, which is more visible than we thought it would be after we built all that up. I guess having said all that, and man I have a lot more stuff I could say. I have a ton of pictures. I have a lot of information that I'd rather just step back and answer any questions that anybody might have. Mayor Jansen: I think the fortunate part is that the 3 members that are here, were here when you came through the process the first time so at least we are familiar with some of that history and the issues as they were discussed. The unfortunate part, and probably why we are here, is that the council meeting, the final council meeting, this very rarely happens but we do not have the taped version of that council meeting so we do not have the verbatim minutes and we did have lengthy conversation around this particular issue with the block size, be it block brick or all the terms get intermixed and it is unfortunate that the little bit of confusion happened at a point where we don't have those minutes. But thank you for going through that. I do have one thing Dan, while you're up there. Nann, if you could re-focus onto the last picture. Where you just diagramed where the future locker room addition will be with the canopy, is it only that shorter wall that would be painted as a temporary? City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Dan Blake: Okay, from the west side, from Great Plains Boulevard, this is, everything that's colored in here from, we've got the gymnasium. Two story is proposing to be block, and then we've got brick through here. So nothing's painted on this side. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Dan Blake: And that's the side closest to the street. So this edge right here, which if you left to the other, becomes this face right here, is the side that's proposed to be painted. Mayor Jansen: And it's only the shorter portion of that? Dan Blake: It's the low portion, that's correct. It's about 12 feet high. We're not even proposing to build that parapet on there at this time. And that's the exact same situation on the east side, where the top portion of the building would be built of permanent material but the lower section that will be added onto, would be built with a temporary finish. It's that approximately 12 feet high. Mayor Jansen: 12 feet, okay. Alright, thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate it. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Councihnan Peterson: Just one. Dan, as you look at that, what are you going to end up painting? Is it going to be a cinder block wall essentially that you're painting? Dan Blake: It would be essentially a cinder block wall. So it will have a little bit of texture to it, but we, you ~ow it would match the size and shape of the adjacent materials so we'd be painting. It would be 3 colors total. We have this, not much darker but a little bit darker base that the existing building of this, and then we have the bands out of this, and then the field is this color. But that's exactly, we talked about applying like a stucco finish to paint. We could do that. However, that's all material that has to be sandblasted back off because that becomes an interior wall. That's really the main reason we wanted to...this building even out of this rough face block was because they become locker room walls... Councihnan Peterson: I mean that's actually the dilemma that you're going to hear the 3 of us talk about in a few n~nutes is that a painted cinder block wall is not a pretty thing. Dan Blake: I understand that. I think it depends on how it's done, and I think it depends on for how long it's there. Now we could debate whether what's there today is a pretty thing. It's a pretty goofy building. I think anything we do is going to make it better, and I think anything you do to allow us is to help us in steps move forward. We're pretty excited about what our small organization' s been able to do over the last couple of years and get that first... Drown up interest. We've got people committed 100 percent of the necessary funds to build the gymnasium piece, and we have decided as an organization instead of borrowing money to move ahead, we want to, we'd rather build it as we raise the funds so we don't get ourselves in a bind. And like I said, I have every reason to expect that we'll build this next year. It's a need. This, we envision this gym being a community asset. We don't ~know how much time we'll have to give up, but we would expect that if there's any un-used time that it would be available for rental for community teams, etc. so those lockers are going to be a piece of that. So we're not cutting them out because we don't think they're needed. We're cutting them out because... Councilman Peterson: Well, I'm with you. You answered my question. 10 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Dan Blake: Alright. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Maybe while we have both of you here, while you're still at the microphone Dan. The issue of the sidewalk. Is the segment that Dan is referring to by the front part of the building, the sidewalk that you were referring to on the plans as approved on August 28th? Are there any additional sidewalks? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. There are. Mayor Jansen: That are an issue. I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. I didn't have sidewalks on the plans in the packet. Sharmin A1-Jaff: This is the sidewalk that was approved. And with the proposed plans, the applicant, and correct me, it was somewhere here? That you were ending the sidewalk. Dan Blake: Maybe we can show it on this. Now we've got this twisted. Maybe I'll turn it so it's the same way. So here's the gym. Here's our...and corridor is the ultimate construction out here. We're proposing a sidewalk coming from this end up the parking lot and a sidewalk coming to our front door off the parking lot. These sidewalks along here are already in place. And then we have the interior corridor that's linking the buildings. So a sidewalk across, and this is showing this future building on it. A sidewalk across here, this is really part of the usable parking lot. We try pretty hard to have safety patrols out there in the parking lot. I don't know that again, we're not intending to use this door other than sort of for emergency exit and decoration so here's our access point from outside, and here's our access point from inside so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And so anyone coming from the existing portion of the building down the existing part of the sidewalk, they're then crossing the parking lot to get to the building? Dan Blake: If they were walking outside, I guess that's corredt. They would do that. But what we have here, the way we have this parking lot used, is this, we don't have any parking on this side. That' s our drop off kind of lane, but the cars are out in the middle and along these entrances so this is kind of circulation thing. If, I guess if we thought this was productive we could extend the sidewalk from this sidewalk out to that sidewalk along the back of the parking lot. I wouldn't be opposed to that. Mayor Jansen: Does that meet the needs Sharmin? Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yeah, absolutely. And again, I mean. Mayor Jansen: You're trying to keep people out of traffic and we understand. Dan Blake: And depending on how this all works, this might all end up hard surface between here so it's not... Mayor Jansen: Okay. So it sounds like the two of you can work that out, if we leave that condition in. Dan Blake: That one's easy. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate you're working through that with us. Okay. At this point I think I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to bring this back to council. I don't 11 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 want to fail to acknowledge everyone in the audience and Dan says he thinks everyone's here to support him. If you wouldn't mind just a show of hands so we can see who is here in support of the Chapel Hill's proposal, appreciate that. Okay. Thanks for coming tonight. Why don't I bring this back to council for discussion and we can maybe cover each one of the points so that we can clarify exactly where we'd like to go on this, and I want to thank the applicant for working with staff and acknowledge that having gone back through all of the minutes, I can see why we're at this point. There was a lot of intermixing of the term brick and block and dimension and I can see where there could in fact have been a little confusion and going back to my notes from the last council meeting, that's where I really wanted to have had those minutes because I do know that we had the discussion over building one wall or two walls when we got to the gymnasium and the size of the block so, just want to acknowledge. I do think that it was appropriate that you're back, even though it did cost you a little time on the project and we apologize for that. Council, whoever would like to begin discussion. Councilman Peterson: I'll take a stab at it. I read the minutes and again, I sat through the commission meetings while this was there and struggled with wanting to have the project go and needing to have some consistency and some interaction with the neighborhood. Giving that transition that Dan talked about, and we talked about earlier. I really don't think that the cinder block is going to look good painted. You know and I can, as I was reading this this afternoon again, I thought where is there some kind of, can we give them some kind of timeframe to get the locker room built, and I think in my mind I thought giving them a year to 18 months to build that, if not then put the fagade on there. So at least I think it' s interesting that they presented not 18 months, but 36 as an alternative. I think 36 is a long time to have a cinder block wall in a prominent area of Chanhassen. I mean anybody driving on West 78~, it's a very visual building. It's going to be a very visual building. It's going to draw your eye to it. So I'd be open to something creative, something less than 3 years, and to help him through this, but I'm in more of the 18 month range. And I want to try to be as helpful as I can, but it is so prominent and it's going to draw your eye to it. The building's that I' ve seen painted with cinder block just look cheap you know, and I don't think that, I know they don't want that. They're struggling with finances. I can't, I'm putting finances out of my mind because I can't make decisions based upon that. Plus I don't think we should. To that end, give them some kind of timeframe and I think we've addressed the sidewalk issues so, that's probably where I'm at. Mayor Jansen: Did you talk about the block size on the gymnasium? Councilman Peterson: You know as you read, as I read the minutes, I guess I saw the clarity, I saw more clarity in the block size being the intermediate one, both from the planning minutes and from the council minutes do I' m more biased towards the intermediate size, than I am the larger size. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: So you want me to go next huh? Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Since you volunteered. Councilman Labatt: I volunteered alright. Okay. Well I'll take a little bit different stab at it. I think that, I really feel that once Chapel Hill gets the gymnasium built, that will elevate in their proposed condition here of said 3 years, I think that this will stimulate them to get, this will stimulate the whole process to get those locker rooms built quicker. They' 11 see the need for them and people will step forward more and while I'm comfortable with their 3 years, I think that those 12 City Council Meeting- August 12, 2002 people over there will raise their capital and get the locker rooms built sooner than 3 years. So I'm okay with the 3 years. The bricks. I'm okay with the big brick. I mean it' s, to be honest with you, I'm fine with the 8 by 16 inch on the gymnasium. And then as far as number 4, the canopy. If I understood Mr. Blake right, their point is to put the canopy in there once they do the locker rooms. So shouldn't we just strike that out of there right now? Wouldn't that be? Mayor Jansen: If you agree with their not needing to Put that in until they do the locker rooms. Councilman Labatt: Until they do the locker rooms. Mayor Jansen: So they're not having to do a temporary. Councilman Labatt: Right. But if we strike it out of there now, does that eliminate it forever or once they come in and put the locker rooms on, will that canopy be put on? Do we need to make it a condition now or worry about it later? Mayor Jansen: I don't think striking this would strike it from the master plan, correct Sharmin? Sharmin A1-Jaff: What you can do is, add at the end of that sentence, of number 4. Shall be added when the locker rooms are built. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Okay. And the sidewalk is, I take it has been worked out between Mr. Blake and staff and I would hope that they would connect the two sidewalks. I've seen it from days over there so I know what it's like. Other than that, did I hit everything Mayor? Mayor Jansen: I think you did. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council, just so you know. You need 3 votes in favor to amend your site plan. Just as you' re going through and re-establishing conditions, you should know that. Our ordinance. Mayor Jansen: Are we amending anything? Todd Gerhardt: Well it sounds like you're amending the site plan. Other than just clarifying the block. Mayor Jansen: If all roof top equipment shall be screened, I think that's part of the. Todd Gerhardt: Original. Mayor Jansen: Original condition. Okay. Entrance canopy, if it's with the locker rooms, that's the same as the original. Todd Gerhardt: Just the timing. Mayor Jansen: Right. All we're doing is changing which phase, actually because this is a delay for Phase I even. Okay, sidewalks we're not changing anything. It will just be a matter of whether we're painting the 12 foot cinder block wall on the locker room, I think would be the only change. You can correct me if I'm wrong. That sounds like the only change. 13 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Roger Knutson: If you're just clarifying your prior action, that would just be a simple majority vote of the council members present. If you're amending the site plan, it takes 3 positive votes. Councilman Peterson: The sidewalk wouldn't be an amendment? That's a change. Roger Knutson: If you approve site plan, and making a change on how the sidewalk is going to be built, that would be a change. Mayor Jansen: Okay, let's see where we end up and then we can decide if it's passed or not. Correct? Can it still be tabled then or are you? Pardon? Roger Knutson: You can table it or you can vote on it. You can see if there's consensus among you before you vote. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Roger Knutson: That'd be the easiest thing. Otherwise what would happen is, I don't want to predict how anyone's going to vote. Let us say it was a 2-1 vote. And someone in the majority, which would be the one, the prevailing side, would have to move to reconsider. So that person could move to reconsider the one, could move to reconsider. You then move to reconsider. Puts it back up on the table, and then you can postpone until your next meeting. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Roger Knutson: Or you could just have your discussion now and determine whether there is consensus and if there is no consensus, or there's some division, if you wanted to you could just, the motion could be simply to postpone to the next meeting. Mayor Jansen: Great. It can never be simple. Councihnan Peterson: Let me try to make it more simple potentially. Have we talked about, there's two the visual sides of this thing for the public primarily are the west side and the south side. What is the possibility of letting that be the intermediate, the middle side brick and the other side being the large side? As another option. Councilman Labatt: So the two different sized bricks on sides 1 and 2 in essence. West and south would have one sized brick, and north and east would have a different sized brick? Councilman Peterson: Yes. The size that most people visualize as you're driving through town and through that area, they'd see the smaller brick which is considered to be more residential and elegant. The sides would have trees in that are more hidden, would have the larger, more cost effective brick. Mayor Jansen: I guess we could go there if we need the approval tonight. I guess I'll state where I am on the proposal. And again I wouldn't mind if we had in fact had the verbatim minutes from that last council meeting because I do remember this conversation pretty vividly as we went back and forth between block size and brick size. I don't have an issue with allowing the jumbo size as the construction material for the gym. And my reason for that, I affirmed this afternoon by driving by the now newly built extension on this building, which is wonderful. And I've been over there obviously before this but I went over specifically to look at the rock face block on this 14 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 trip. Having that as the construction material for the, I understand this is a big wall and that it's 27 feet, but it's a gym. It's a school. I drove by St. Hubert's where they have the push up panels I think they're called with the big squares. Councilman Labatt: Tip ups. Mayor Jansen: Tip ups? This is much more visually appealing. I looked at the Foss Swim School, and that I don' t find offensive. I think maybe because of the blend of the colors, the fact that it's textured, I don't have a problem using the jumbo size on the gym and I certainly appreciate the fact that when we were reaching our compromises, that the majority of the building did end up with the 4 by 12 inch brick, and that by luck of the draw when the building was built, it's the regular sized brick. Because it does look terrific. And I think it's much improved and I'm sure the school would agree. You know having used the smaller brick is very appealing in the look of the school. I think of the gym differently. It' s a large building. You can do it in large block. So where I'm going obviously is more in the same vein as Councilman Labatt, and I am okay with the 8 by 16 rock face block for the gym. As far as the painting of the cinder block, here I agree when I hear painted cinder block, it is just 12 feet. That's a little better. It's not the portion that's looming up above, and that's going to be the rock face block. 3 years is a long time. I don't know if we can go somewhere inbetween Mr. Peterson's 18 months and the 3 years and hit a 2 year window as far as actually having that built. I understand the school wants to proceed even more quickly if you can. I don't have a problem with painting it, though I would much prefer that it be rock face block, but that's okay. I understand that it's temporary. Everything else I don't see as any sort of a catching point. Again I just, as discussed, I think you've worked the sidewalk issue out. The entrance canopy, adding it with the locker rooms when that's built. And the screening of the roof top equipment, I understand the applicant intended to do that. So I think the only issue then that remains is the size of the material on the gym as a whole. Councilman Peterson: So I've got another question. The cinder block, the cinder block is going to be interior. The painted cinder block is going to be the interior wall eventually, right? So why wouldn't we be able to just put the rock face, let's say the large rock face there now and not bother with painting a cinder block. Mayor Jansen: Dan, can you speak to that for us please? Dan Blake: Sure I could. Mayor Jansen: Is there a big difference between the. Dan Blake: Well it's probably doable. It's an inside wall. It would be an interior wall, inside the locker rooms. You normally would finish that with a smooth, shiny kind of finish. Even if it's block, you'd paint it shiny. You know you have a locker room, you treat it different than... structure. So if we built it out of rock face block, we would just have to probably bum that out in the future instead of having that as a block wall, just bring it out a couple inches and you know like a sheetrock wall in front of that, so that would be a doable scenario. And maybe that's a fair compromise to look at and suggestion. I would be open to a different timeframe, especially if you told me that the only way you'll let us build the building is if we put the brick on right now, I would be certainly table, I'm better off to agree to 2 years than...how to finish that interior wall, why that would be a problem. 15 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Mayor Jansen: And if it were the rock face block, we wouldn't necessarily have to put any kind of a time limit on there for you at all. Dan Blake: That's true. Mayor Jansen: Because then it would be complimentary to the rest of the building. Dan Blake: And as long as I'm standing here, can I make one more point2 Mayor Jansen: Sure. Opportunity knocks. Councihnan Peterson: Be careful because I think you may have a consensus. Mayor Jansen: Oh, go sit down. Dan Blake: When we. Councilman Labatt: Come on Dan, get out of here. Dan Blake: I had a question that came up at the Planning Commission. I can't remember if it was Mr. Peterson or someone else, was right where we do that window and column thing on the side that faces main street, and so we were instructed to do a little bit of an elevation study to look at that, and we did that and that's what this picture represents. And the point I'm making with this picture is that from the street side, from a normal person's view, very little of that block wall shows up, and we have these windows at this band height and the colunms below that and so we didn't put them there because everybody agreed that you'd barely be able to see them, behind that wall. And my point is that, that same is tree with how much rock face block you have. The ground that services the brick wall, and on the main street side that I understand why everybody cares about, you know you'll only see that top section from the band width height. And then on the west side, from Mr. Labatt's half of the discussion, specifically requested that we add some additional landscaping in the form of evergreen trees at a larger size than, and although we haven't agreed to a size, on the west side, on the Great Plains Boulevard side, on that wall for that very purpose. To help soften that look so that's where I just wanted to bring those points back up to the previous discussion. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt: Didn't we talk like 30 foot evergreens? Councilman Peterson: We should get that on the record right now as to how many did we request. Mayor Jansen: That will be the next time we see you back. Councilman Peterson: And what kind of evergreen we wanted. Why don't you make a motion Steve? Councilman Labatt: Okay, I'm going to see if I can work this out here. Mayor Jansen: We wouldn't need number 2 then. 16 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: This is just a clarification. Councilman Labatt: Oh boy, I had them all written down here. Mayor Jansen: Oh did you? Give it a stab. Councilman Labatt: So they're willing to rock face the wall. Okay, so if I say, I would move that we would approve the, require the applicant to incorporate the following conditions to be consistent with the plans dated July 24, 2000 and approved on August 28, 2000, to state the following. Number 1. The applicant shall utilize materials that are consistent with the classroom addition as staff has said, or block on lower 3 feet of the building and brick on the remainder of the building with the exception, right? Mayor Jansen: Yep. Councilman Labatt: Of the gym which may utilize the 8 by 16 inch rock face block. Okay? That sound alright so far? Is everybody tracking with me? Councilman Peterson: Yep. Councilman Labatt: Good. So striking number 2. Number 3. Councihnan Peterson: 2 could remain. Councihnan Labatt: 2 could remain? Councilman Peterson: You still don't want to paint them either way so. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so 2 will remain then. 3 will remain. Striking number 4. Roger Knutson: Or modifying it. Councilman Labatt: Or modifying it to, Ijust got a page here. Ah, that's okay. Number 4 would be to add after the added, remove the period and say, when the locker rooms are built period. Number 5 would be as amended to work with staff in fitting the sidewalks as the two highlighted tonight. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Jansen: Point of clarification. Councilman Labatt: Oh no, there's no clarification. No way. Mayor Jansen: On point number 2, if we're doing the rock face block on the south elevation, it's not going to need to be painted, correct. Councihnan Peterson: That's why it says it's prohibited. 17 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Mayor Jansen: So okay. So we're just saying it's prohibited. Okay, that's cool. So we have a motion and a second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council requires the applicant to incorporate the following conditions to be consistent with the plans dated received July 24, 2000, and approved on August 28, 2000: 1. The applicant shall utilize exterior materials that are consistent with the classroom addition (block on the lower 3 feet of the building and brick on the remainder of the building), with the exception of the gymnasium which can utilize the 8 x 16 rock face block. 2. Painted block along the south elevation is prohibited. . All rooftop equipment shall be screened. The entrance canopy facing Great Plains Boulevard shall be added when the locker rooms are built. The sidewalk along the perimeter of the gymnasium shall be added to the plans as discussed between the applicant and staff. All voted iii favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Jansen: And again, appreciate the applicant working with staff and coming back in and getting this all set up and appreciate it. And your project is loo~ng great out there. Good luck with the rest of it. And thank you Council for wor~ng through that one. COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATES. Mayor Jansen: Any Southwest? Councihnan Peterson: No, we're right in the middle of the budget process, like we are here. So we' 11 have some ideas and some recommendations next month but nothing substantial. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Are you on the budget con~nittee or the development co~mnittee? Councihnan Peterson: Development committee. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Actually I can speak to that, because we're far enough along now where, whether or not you guys have been away. We've got Ruby Tuesdays going into Southwest Metro Station. We've got Krispy Kreme and we've got Culvers. Interestingly enough, Culvers has got a design that will shock you. It does not have any blue. It's a design that. Councilman Labatt: Is it a drive thru? Councihnan Peterson: It has to have a drive ti'tm, but it is a huge departure for them. Krispy Kreme is a pretty major departure. Ruby Tuesdays is relatively similar to their style, but all 3 projects are wac'king for approval through the Eden Prairie Planning Commission probably next 18 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 month, and construction can start soon after but the buildings architecturally are dramatically different than the corporate standard so it's going to be a very interesting project when it's done. And the housing is, there's 271 housing units in there that are also very distinctive so. Todd Gerhardt: Any retail below the housing? Councilman Peterson: Not below the housing, but there's other, a walk-up retail, 5 or 6 stores that will be there. Todd Gerhardt: So they were able to incorporate the drive thru with the apartment? Councilman Peterson: With Krispy Kreme is a drive thru, and there's a drive thru at Culvers so, are they integrated really well? No. You're going to do some meandering and walking but there's going to be water affecting a lot of green too. Todd Gerhardt: Because that's one of the issues we're having now on the bowling alley site is, depending on what type of a housing unit would go there, you probably could not include a restaurant below it and deal with all the complaints that would go along with the apartments. Councilman Peterson: Wow. Well that's not the case in Hopkins. Not Hopkins but, both the new St. Louis Park development, Excelsior, and the one over in Richfield over, what is it, Lyndale and 494? Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: They've got restaurants below don't they? Todd Gerhardt: I haven't seen. You know you can get like a Subway, something that doesn't have the big grease type smells. Or the traffic or the loud music that might go along with a Champps. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think you're right. Todd Gerhardt: So we can get the quieter type restaurants. Councilman Labatt: No piano bar? Todd Gerhardt: There's a McDonald's that had a piano bar. Councilman Labatt: Really? Todd Gerhardt: One over by Centennial Lakes, they've got an artificial piano bar. Roger Knutson: Oh yeah, the player piano. Councilman Labatt: The one with the satellite drive thru. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, that's the one. Roger Knutson: It's weird. 19 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: It's a weird development. Mayor Jansen: Thanks for the update. Any other updates under council presentations? Okay, administrative presentations. Todd, anything to add? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: We plug along hoping for good weather on the library project. Preparing update on the construction budget for you. I'm planning on bringing back the coffee shop proposal to you. I've got submittals on that and we need to make some tough decisions looking budget wise and operation wise in the coffee shop. If we' re going to include that or not in the library because we're going to start pouring floor on the library probably in September and we've got to do utilities with that. Councih-nan Labatt: How are they on their time table? Councilman Peterson: The library itself? Councilman Labatt: The library construction. Todd Gerhardt: We're probably 2 weeks behind due to the weather. Wet weather. They are hooked up to water. Storm sewer got connected today, and sanitary sewer, I didn't hear on the sanitary, if that got connected. But water was connected last Saturday and so moving along. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. And not to put you on the spot, but we were asked last week by a resident. The Highway 101 trail, where are we at as far as beginning construction on that? Todd Gerhardt: Construction has started. If you've driven along the corridor, it has been staked and they have done some tree removal as a part of it. What you haven't seen is the heavy equipment. Councilman Labatt: Pretty soon though huh? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we' re still trying to get some easements. You authorized condemnation tonight and I think we've got about 70 percent of the easements, the way I understand it. Mayor Jansen: Now do we get going with construction even before we get those easements? Do we just start at the other end or how does that work? Todd Gerhardt: Well, on the south end I think we have all of the construction easements so that's where they started the tree removal. The difficulty will be on a couple of those on the north end. We may not get to that this year. Try to get the gravel base as much on the south end, but odds are we'll probably have to go to conderm~ation on two of those. And we want to make that connection to the Pleasant Road up there. Hoffman and staff feel strongly that we've got to connect that Near Mountain neighborhood to the trail. You can't scoot them back down Pleasant View and then cut through. Councilman Labatt: Cut through to Fox Hollow. Todd Gerhardt: The residential neighborhood that doesn't have a trail. You can't put them on a street and go. If you' re going to spend that kind of money, you should connect it. 20 City Council Meeting - August 12, 2002 Councilman Peterson: You should drive up there guys because it's scary how close that trail's going to be to. I mean I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it. I'm just saying it's going to be kind of. Todd Gerhardt: I'm still trying to figure out how they're going to get a trail in there. Councilman Peterson: Well that's what I thought. After they staked out I went what? You know. Mayor Jansen: Great. Okay. We will adjourn then and we will be going into executive session so if I could have a motion to adjourn please. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 6, 2002 Vice Chair Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Bruce Feik, Steve Lillehaug, Uli Sacchet and Rich Slagle. Alison Blackowiak arrived during discussion of item 3, Town & Country Homes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Jason Angell, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Kind Deb Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen 2351 Lukewood 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: R__~._QUEST FOR PRELIMNARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 14.027 ACRES INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT TO CREATE HALLA MARYA_NNE ADDITION. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRI._~CT AND IS LOCATED NORTH OF CREEKWOOD DRIVE AND WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 101 DON HALLA. - Public Present: Name Address Don Halla Maryanne White 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff. Yes. Slagle: Just one to you Madam Chair, as a point of clarification. I need to abstain from this due to the fact that the participants are clients of mine so I'm going to sit down. Sidney: Thank you. Yes. Sacchet: Quick question of staff. One thing I wasn't clear about is on the second page of the staff report. It talks about the subdivision being vacated. Does that also apply to the piece, there are two pieces shaded on the map. Does it also apply, I was just curious, does it also apply to that piece to the northeast? A1-Jaff: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sacchet: So both have been vacated. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: But we're only dealing with the one on the southwest comer? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then I had one more question of staff. Condition 4 states that there will be a development contract, that no eligibility remains what you just explained was the 10 acre business. Until such time urban services are available, and the city reguides the site residential low density. Is that already a given that it will be low density? This does not imply a commitment that it will be, okay. A1-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Just want to clarify that, okay. That's all my questions, thank you. Aanenson: Could I just add to that? In the 2020 land use plan, it is guided low density. Sacchet: That's the guidance, okay. Aanenson: That is the guiding so if you were to change and make it something else, it would require a land use amendment and approval from the Met Council. Just for clarification. Sacchet: So the overall vision is that it will be low density? Aanenson: Correct., Sacchet: I mean it's not a commitment, but it's the vision. I mean that's what I'm trying to weigh a little bit where we stand because we express it here in this condition... Aanenson: That is the vision that that area be low density residential. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Feik: No questions. Lillehaug: No questions. Sidney' I guess I will only comment that I agree with the staff' s interpretation that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinances. Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Oh I'm sorry, applicant first. Yes. Don Halla: Hi. I'm Don Halla. There was a question that came up today about the total number of trees on the lot being insufficient. I went out and counted them, which I never have done before, and there' s 124 of them, which actually means the trees are located on, it' s a little less square footage than when I thought I took 2 acres would be 27 foot on center. So we're about as dense as you'd want a full grown tree to be. The only place that's really been opened up is a little area that a couple trees were moved from, but different spot on the site so Maryanne could put a Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 garden there. Maryanne is my daughter and I'm just gifting her the property is basically what it is. And if you'd like to see, if anybody wants to see the density of the trees, I took some pictures today so. Sidney: Sure, if you have them. Don Halla: In addition, I believe we have already paid all the fees that are outlined to be paid. They' ye been paid previously when we did a subdivision so I believe there's credits there that will be checked on and worked out. AI-Jaff: Earlier today the applicant and myself spoke regarding this item. Both engineering, as well as Lori Haak who is our Water Resource Coordinator, are researching that portion of it. And if the fees have been paid, then that condition will be removed. Don Halla: Any questions anybody has of me? Sidney: I don't think so. Don Halla: Thank you. Sidney: Okay, thanks. Now, we'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Please come forward, state your name and address. Seeing none I'll dose the public hearing. Commissioners, comments about this application. Feik: Seems pretty straight forward to me. I see no problems. Sacchet: Ditto. Sidney: Ditto. Lillehaug: Same. Sidney: I guess the one thing we should note that staff has recommending waiving the tree replacement. AI-Jaff: That's correct. At this time and when the outlot is platted in the future, they will be required to meet ordinance requirements as far as number of trees on the site. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: That appears reasonable. Now I have one question though Madam Chair, if I may. What did you recommend about this thing with the fees? Are we leaving this condition on right now with the stipulation that it will be removed once you verify that the fees have been paid? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. And would it make sense in condition 4 to say this, where we're talking about the city reguiding this site residential low density, if you refer to as planned in the 2020 vision for the city or is that overkill? AI-Jaff: How about we leave it as is. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sacchet: That we leave it as is? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. I'n't willing to go along with that. Sidney' Okay, how about a motion? Feik: I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat request 02-11 SUB to subdivide a 14.027 acre parcel into 1.97 acre lot and a 12.05 acre outlot as shown on plans dated received July 3, 2002, subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. Sacchet: Second. Feik moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat request (02-11 SUB) to subdivide a 14.027 acre parcel into a 1.97 acre lot and a 12.05 acre outlot as shown on the plans dated received July 3, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.97 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,576; the water quantity fees are approximately $3,901. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,477. 3. 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. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City establishing that no building eligibility remains for the 12.05 acre parcel until such time urban services are available and the city reguides the site to Residential Low Density. , The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees according to city ordinance. Show the width of the existing right-of-way on Highway 101 and Creekwood Drive. 7. Add a legend to the plan that defines the different line types. 8, Show the proposed grading that is planned for Lot 1. The applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for the wire fence in the front yard easement or move the fence outside of the easement. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 10. The replacement-planting requirement shall be waived. When the outlot is subdivided, then proper tree preservation requirements can be applied. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Rich Slagle abstained due to a conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON A LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6681 HORSESHOE CURVE, JEFF & JUDY KVILHAUG. Public Present: Name Address Brian Nowak Judi & Jeff Kvilhaug 1735 Perkins Lane, Maple Plain 6681 Horseshoe Curve Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff? Okay. Sacchet: On page 2, I think there must be an error in the first paragraph in background it talks about Laredo Drive and Chan View Road. That must, that's not applicable here. Angell: No. Sacchet: So I want to make sure I wasn't missing something. Angell' No, that's a typo. Sacchet: It seemed to be in a different neighborhood. Other than that I don't have any questions. Thank you. Sidney: Okay, nobody else? Angell: And the applicant and their architect are here also. Sidney: Okay. Well then I'll remember them this time. Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward and/or their designee and make a presentation. Please state your name and address for the record. Judi Kvilhaug: I'm Judi Kvilhaug and I live at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. Jeff Kvilhaug: Jeff Kvilhaug, same residence. 6681 Horseshoe Curve. Brian Nowak: Brian Nowak, 1735 Perkins Lane in Maple Plain. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sidney' Okay, any questions for the applicant2 Do you have any comments about the staff s recommendations? Brian Nowak: I think the staff has done a good job of summarizing what the concerns were. Safety was the first major concern. There were a lot of design considerations that went into the siting of the garage and the renovation of the house. We really didn't get into those issues in the application but that was part of, a major part of my client's concern is that it fit into the neighborhood. That it look nice by scale as well as permit a safety... Sidney: I see by the dimensions of the lot there really isn't a lot of leeway in terms of what you can do in placing a garage. Brian Nowak: Right. And we're dealing with an existing house that there had been work done about 8, 5 years ago? 5 years ago. Some major renovations so we couldn't change like windows on the first floor in the kitchen would look out onto the street. They have small children and they have a concern about being able to observe them. Sidney: Well an attached garage is out of the question. Brian Nowak: Yeah, given there's an 11 foot fall between the street and the house, an attachment would have been impractical. Sidney: Okay. Yes. Sacchet: One question. There are two sizeable oaks on the south side, and it's my understanding that one of theln can be saved reasonably and the other, which is actually the less nice one will have to make room. Could you just elaborate on that briefly? Brian Nowak: Sure, that's the intent is that the one that would be closest to where the garage is being moved will be taken down and the other one protected and saved. Sacchet: You wor~'t have to dig down there for foundation or anything like that? Brian Nowak: Well we'll have to dig down away from it but we don't, given the terrain that is there now and the pavement on it, we're hoping by taking the pavement off of the existing roof structure, getting rid of one tree, that the remaining tree will have a much better chance of survival. Sacchet: So you're not really going further than the current pavement is, in other words. Brian Nowak: Oh no. Sacchet: Okay. That's important because chances are there's not that much roots under the pavement. Brian Nowak: That's right. That's what we were thinking. Because that pavement has been there in recent history. So we're actually creating. This is the existing pavement comes right to the trees and then here, the building will be here but we're taking out a lot of pavement in this area, Sacchet: So the pavement will actually be further away from the trees than it is even now. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Brian Nowak: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Well that's. Brian Nowak: You know the root structure is notjust the structure but it's kind of the heat the pavement creates on the roots and the ability to get water into it there. Sacchet: Right, okay. Good. That's a good answer. Sidney: Okay, anybody else? Lillehaug: I do have a question. I met with the applicant today and I asked the question, there is obviously room where the garage could be shifted. The proposed garage could be shifted to the north to allow a 10 foot setback on that south property line, and my question to you is, could you explain why you wouldn't want to do that. Because you could allow for a 10 foot setback on both sides of the garage. Judi Kvilhaug: That question was asked of me today and my answer was, basically we have 50 feet to work with, 26 of which are garage itself leaving 24 feet of green space. So by moving the garage over 5 feet from the lot line and asking for a 5 foot variance, that allows for number one, well. Not specifically in this order but in my opinion in this order. Number one, safety for me. I can see the street and what's going on in the street. And number two, it allows for better green space as you drive into the neighborhood. It just, it allows for a better view of the house from the street. For neighbors. Aesthetically it's more pleasing. If we moved that garage into the center of the space it would be a garage with a house somewhere behind it. Since we do have that 11 foot grade so you wouldn't see much of the house that way. And it really would not allow me to see the street. Jeff Kvilhaug: The lot also does slope from the northern corner to the southern edge and so by keeping it further to the south edge it minimizes the drop as much as possible. The differential between the floor of the garage and the house. So it just seems to be the proper site for it. Brian Nowak: We also, because of that what Jeff is saying, we could reduce any need for a retaining on that side so we are eliminating some hard cover issues there. Judi Kvilhaug: I mean we worked with the drainage for the 11 years that we've been there and it naturally drains now quite well to the north side, and we really need to leave that slope as it exists, and you saw that today. That's probably the largest pad that we have on the street side of the yard. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Judi Kvilhaug: Thank you. Jeff Kvilhaug: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. State your name and address. Seeing none I'll close the public hearing. Angell: Madam Chair if I may. Sidney: Yes. Angell: Also I have received several calls from residents in the area and none of them expressed any disbelief in the project. They've all seen the plans. They all agree and as long as engineering staff works with them on drainage issues, they see no problem with the proposal. Sidney: Okay. Commissioners, comments. I'll look this way first. Lillehaug: Okay. I fully support the 16 foot variance on the front yard. It's safer and it definitely reduces the non-conformity. I'm not 100 percent, totally sold on the 5 foot variance for the side yard setback. Generally for the main reason is, it could, the garage could be set in the center of the lot, not requiring this variance. I generally don't like to support shifting a non-conformance from one property line to the opposite side and then encumbering the other property. Is the applicant's request reasonable? It is. I also think that it's reasonable to move the proposed garage northerly 5 foot. By doing this I think it would also allow that second oak to survive and not be cut down. For this I'm 50/50 on supporting this variance. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: Well I do definitely think there is a hardship with being so close to the road. That seems very obvious. I'ln generally in favor of this variance but also in favor of doing everything possible to save the~trees. Now in terms of those trees, the one that's closer to the garage is really not as nice a tree. It's at an angle. It's lop-sided so really the second one that's further away, that's the one that I primarily think needs effort to be preserved because that' s, that one's straight and bigger. Under the circumstances I would be inclined to give the applicant the solution they have because it's a difficult place to fit in and to have the drainage work and everything. I don't think that oak that is closer is spectacular enough to warrant forcing that to be less set back. That's my comments. Feik: I generally support as shown. I drove by the parcel as well. There is a garage on the adjacent property next to it, which is very close to the lot line as well. For a different reason I support quite frankly the 5 foot variance in that it clusters those garages a little bit together and it actually opens up some additional space that otherwise wouldn't be there. So I support it as is. Slagle: I think that I support the front yard setback. I, along with Steve, have some concerns about the ability to place it into a conforming situation, because we could with that side setback. And even though the 5 foot is more than the current 2 V2 feet, I'm not, what's the word. I'm not persuaded yet that we shouldn't allow for it to be moved northward 5 feet and then set within the conformities because we will see more of these and I think as we try and do each of these every other week, we run into situations where we try and understand why we are suggesting things. And I would like to see us come up with that conforming principle if you will, and we have the opportunity here. So I'm in favor of it with the 5 foot variance being eliminated. Sidney: Okay. My cormnents. I agree with staff's interpretation. We're decreasing a non- conformity, which I think is the major consideration here. We are creating new setbacks. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 However, I think as the applicant has discussed, we're talking about some drainage issues. Also issues with placement of a new garage in terms of how it relates to the slope on the lot and I think that's an important issue. I don't really see a problem with the request for the two different setbacks and would be in favor of the application as it is presented tonight. Any other comments? Okay. Let's see where we go. And I'll need help with staff when we have a vote. Anyone brave enough? Sacchet: I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance 02-10 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front setback, and a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback. And to allow the hard cover surface to cover 3,256 square feet, 29 percent of the property, for the construction of a detached garage, including a home addition with the following conditions 1 through 4. Sidney: Okay, we have a motion. Feik: I'll second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance ~q)2-10 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback, and to allow the hard cover surface to cover 3,256 (29 %) of the property for the construction of a detached garage including a home addition, with the following conditions: The applicant will submit a survey that shows the elevation at the edge of the bituminous and a drainage swale between the garage and the residence. . A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. Contact the building department for demolition permit'requirements. . The setback must be measured from the eave to the property lines. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sidney- Okay, help staff. AI-Jaff: It's a recommendation that goes to the City Council. Sidney: Okay. So in this case the motion does not carry. Does carry but. AI-Jaff: It carries as a recommendation...because the majority approved it but in order for it to pass without going to the City Council you need ~A of the vote. Sidney: And we haven't met that condition, okay. So let's explain again for the applicant please. And for everybody. A1-Jaff: It goes as a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Sidney: Okay, and we haven't been able to approve it tonight. Planning Conmfission Meeting - August 6, 2002 A1-Jaff: No. Sidney: Because it didn't meet the requirement. A1-Jaff: The 3A vote requirement. Sidney' Okay. So in this case it goes automatically. A1-Jaff: To the City Council. Sidney: To the City Council and will you be wor'king with the applicant on that? Oop, I should have said Jason. I'm sorry. Angell: Yes. Sidney: Okay, thank you very nmch. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A CONCEPTUAL PUD OF 88.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR 540 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED AS~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD~ SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. THE CONCEPT REVIEW PURPOSE IS TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF REVIEW, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address John Hanna Gil & Margaret Susan Lundgren Mitch & Jill Anderson 1853 Char Jeurissen 9715 Mark & Jen Johnson 9715 Kara Strazzanti 2901 Aline Stewart 2848 Mary Jo Hansen 2890 Mark Johnson 2901 Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 1322 Alton Street, St. Paul 24760 Cedar Point Road, New Prague 2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska Timberview Trail, Chaska Audubon Road Audubon Road Forest Ridge, Chaska Timberview Trail, Chaska Forest Ridge, Chaska Butternut Drive, Chaska Lyman Boulevard Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: I think a couple maybe large picture questions. Now let's see, you're not really talking about developments until 2005. Why are we considering a concept plan at this stage? And aren't we more in kind of the open discussion phase where we might just informally talk with the applicant? Why a concept plan? Aanenson: Good question. This is the process that's used throughout, well the City has used historically. We have one applicant that goes forward that triggers the rest of the development 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 because the City's not going to pursue any action unless there's somebody that's willing to go forward because at that point we have to do a feasibility study, which costs us or the developer so we need to start working on that. When 2005 comes to keep, maintain the land supply and the land prices, we need to be starting to do this work now so we're not sitting with a 2 year gap with no available lot inventory. It takes a long time to put all these issues to rest and a lot of discussion. I think that's what the concept plan is now, to have some sort of idea as to what, and to bring the people together and say there's something real happening and get everybody going in the same direction. So there has to be a project to make that happen. Sidney: Okay. And then this is the benchmark which initiates it. Aanenson: Correct. And it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, which is the framework that they're following. Sidney: Okay. And a couple other questions. Well one question here. I was looking in the list of people xvho were notified. Were folks in Autumn Woods in Chaska notified? Aanenson: I'd have to double check the list. We went beyond for the 500 feet and notified all the people that were further than 500 feet that were in the original study area. Sidney: And how about the School District 1127 Were they notified? Aanenson: Yes, they're aware of it. Yes, I've talked to Bev Stofferahn. And I did get a letter which I handed out from a gentleman that has a little sliver piece. He also owns a piece across the street. I gave you a copy of that letter. And I concur with a couple of his points. That he doesn't want to be left as an island so again, that's part of why we do the area wide to include all the properties because they all have to work together when you're talking about systems, sewer, xvater, roads. Sidney: Okay. Commissioners. Should I look this way? Lillehaug: Sure. I guess I have a big picture question. Did you indicate that part of the AUAR, a traffic study would be required? Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. And then when doing this traffic study, how will this traffic study and the 212 traffic study, how they will be coordinated and linked together? Aanenson: In the comprehensive plan we did a no build and build 212, and that may cause some implications looking at the phasing. How far east we can go with the traffic. How much can be handled along Lyman or Audubon if 212 does not go forWard. Again the comprehensive plan did contemplate a build/no build. Powers is also a system related to the 212, so that's something that we' II be looking at. Lillehaug: Okay. And then one real simple, quick question. We got a letter here from Charles Wagner. Aanenson: Yeah, that's the one I was just talking about. Lillehaug: Where's his property? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, Aanenson: It's a little sliver... He also owns property across the street. comment on that. You know being included in it again. And I concur with his Lillehaug: Okay. Feik: Questions? MUSA needs to be brought into the site. From which direction would that be brought? Aanenson: Right now we have a lift station on the Degler property that's serving the upper Bluff. Feik: Regardless of the name, can you show me where it is and also for the other people who might not know the name. Aanenson: Right here. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: And that is the sewer. That sewer's serving, going north. Going all the way up to Westwood Church up on 41. That's the upper part of it. That sewer will provide for this whole area. Feik: So bringing that sewer line into the south to this property, that's going to stimulate development down in the surrounding properties. Aanenson: That's CO~TeCt. That's why we met with all these property owners back in June. Feik: By this property going to residential, how do you believe that might affect the guiding of the properties adjacent to it in that most of it was guided to be commercial or park. Would you expect some of that guiding to be changed? I'm guessing, since this isn't the next sort of, we're sort of leap flogging a couple of parcels here and I guess my point is, if by doing this, how is that going to affect in your mind the development, the style, the timing and everything else of the parcels to the north and the east2 Aanenson: Good question. We had that similar situation on Highway 5 where you've got the intersection of 5 and 41 happening before everything in the middle is happening, and that situation similarly they petitioned. This project would require a petition from the City Council. That was another thing we brought up with that meeting on the 26~h. They have to, the City has to accept the petition to go forward with services and again, that's why you do the concept review. To see if there' s something to go forward. If the council's not going to pursue that because they feel like they don't want to force development, then this project wouldn't go forward as part of kind of wrapping this together. Feik: Okay. And then dovetailing back to that. Aanenson: The land use? Feik: Yes. The land use on the northern portion of this property, which is the overlay district and the adjacent bluff situation to the west of that. My question is, has Park and Rec seen this and do they have an input regarding this parcel? How it could better be used in access. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Aanenson: They're looking at a park in this larger super area. When I say the super area, I'm talking about the whole 2005. Maybe not necessarily this piece, but something adjacent to it. In 1998 when we put this plan together, looking at the Bluff Creek overlay, there was a large piece of environmental property that we're trying to save that's got a lot of trees and wetlands between those two, so there is a natural break. That's why we gave it either option, because we felt there was enough transition through topography and natural features that allowed for a natural break so they still could go independently. If one went industrial, one could go multi family. We have that similar situations in other parts of the city. Feik: And having a smaller enclave of industrial surrounded by residential potentially on all sides? Aanenson: It's industrial across the street in Chaska too. That was one of the reasons why we gave it too. Feik: And there's wetland north of Lyman. Aanenson: Correct, yes. There's industrial across the street in Chanhassen too, to the north side, which is kind of making that transition and we felt like the natural feature in there made a good break. That's the recommendation that we came up with in 1998. Feik: Thank you. Slagle: A couple questions Kate. First of all across the street in Chaska, I know that on Lakeview Drive there is commercial. Maximum Graphics, what not. Going south are townhomes. Then there's a farm. And what is that farmland zoned in Chaska? Aanenson: That's Mr. Wagner's. I'm not sure he said in here. I know the piece to the north is industrial. Slagle: Okay, but the one in Chaska. Across the street. Aanenson: I can't speak comfortably on that one. Slagle: Okay, I'd like to know that at some point if we could. Aanenson: Sure. Slagle: Just to again try to balance what that area might look like. There's been some comments about forcing growth or encouraging growth or what not. Can I just ask a simple question why? I mean as an example Westwood, that was approved and that lot that's in essence land locked, and they've come and said hey, we want to develop and from last I heard it didn't, the petition and what not didn't go through. So why would we, I'm just throwing this out for discussion. Why would we want to encourage growth in an area that's perhaps even further away from? Aanenson: Nobody's saying that piece can't develop. What we're saying is they have to provide municipal services. Sewer and water. They don't want to have a wider road or bring sewer and water down. That's the issue. It needs municipal services, and a wider road. 13 Planning Cornmission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Slagle: Okay. Then let me ask this in a different way. What would be the down side to not doing anything with this property for 2-3 years? As far as the MUSA. Not expanding it. Waiting 3 years and then proceeding with sort of the plans that we're doing now. Aanenson: Waiting 3 years? Slagle: I mean I'm just asking. Aanenson: That'd be like 3 more years before it was to develop. Because it's going to take a couple years. Slagle: Okay. And again I'm just trying to think as a citizen who might not see all these meetings and understand sometimes what we do. But there will be costs associated with this development. City money. If you're talking multi family homes. Lots of kids. Burden on the schools. Aanenson: Right. I think we gave a comparison as opposed to industrial. As opposed to single family. Slagle: Correct. Correct, and so I'm just wondering because some of these people are here, residents might be wondering why we' re sort of proceeding with this particular idea of multi family homes. I mean this developer and you could be in front of us saying we're going to develop a. Aanenson: An industrial park. Slagle: Or an 80 to 100 unit single family. We want you to change the land use and so forth. And I understand because of affordable living and what not, that's sort of what the staff is leaning. Aanenson: No. No. It has nothing to do with the affordable living. You know we looked at overall thresholds of land and what's around it and what would be the appropriate. You know I put that in there for some of the goals when we're trying to look at housing type. You look at what's around that area. Someone could come in and ask for, to change it to lower density. Slagle: Okay. So it's your opinion that we have not, as a city or staff said to the builder here's what we'd like to see, and that'd be multi family homes. Aanenson: Well in 1998 we made the decision, the council approved that plan for medium density. That's what they paid that price for. Slagle: I understand. Aanenson: So if that was to go away, then someone will sit there long enough until the economy of scale works out to pay for that. For industrial. Slagle: Okay. So I just want to be clear. A builder could have come to us and said, we're buying this property and we want to develop into lower density housing. Obviously that's going to require a change. They could have done it? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Aanenson: Sure. They could have come in and asked for apartments. They could have come in and asked for a Wal-Mart. They could have asked for a lot of things, sure. Slagle: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. Okay. That's it for fight now. Aanenson: Just to be clear, we would have said it was inconsistent and probably said that we would recommend against it because it's inconsistent or if they would come in and ask for colmnercial or something like that. Feik: May I follow up on one of Rich's quick questions? When you said, he asked you as, respect to bringing these services into the site. Would the services be brought from Lyman to this site at the sole cost of the developer? Aanenson: That's generally what happens, correct. A feasibility study is done and the costs are attributed to the development. Feik: So it's bisected the parcel to the north. Ultimately the parcel to the north is going to benefit from that. Does that parcel to the north then, how do they end up paying for that? Aanenson: Right. There's a feasibility hearing that's done and a... Saam: If I could just add something Bruce. Feik: Yes. Saam: Typically what happens, and of course it's up to the council but typically if the property to the north didn't develop, they'd maybe be assessed one unit and then the rest of the assessments would wait until that property is developed or sit on the tax rolls. That's typically what happens, but anything can happen. So I don't want to say that's what's going to happen, but that's usually what happens. Like on Highway 5. Feik: I would just hate to see a farmer assessed for services that they don't want for a number of years. Sacchet: I've got a few quick questions, but I want to clarify something. One part of the discussion here seems to circle around why we're looking at this 3 year ahead of time, and I want to be really clear about this. We are, the way I read the report, I come away with the impression that we're not looking at developing this before 2005. Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: We're looking at the process of going through all these steps, the environmental study, what have you, to take up this time. So we're not accelerating the development from when it's actually appropriate. Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: According to the time table of the MUSA line and all that, correct? Aanenson: Correct. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sacchet: Now in terms of the AUAR, the area wide environmental study, you pointed out some areas that you want them to focus on. The facilities. The utilities. The environment. The traffic. So we can actually, we can request specific areas to be focused on at that point and look at it area wide, is that how that works? Aanenson: Yeah. I put in here specifically what's in the statutes of what they can, but also we can ask because we'll be the regulatory governmental unit, which means we're the body that would review all that. So that' s, that would come back. That hearing would come back before the Planning Con-nnission and the City Council so if there' s other things that you wanted them to look at. Sacchet: We are free to actually request specific things. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Now in terms of the school, we're in the process of looking at where it could possibly be a school. I mean there's not even a decision that there will be a school, another high school, but we're looking at possible sites. There is no conflict that this site would possibly be a consideration? Aanenson: They're aware of those discussions. The school board is aware of this project. I mean they have to work independently. Sacchet: So it would be up to the school board to speak up about that, if there would be a concern about that. Okay. In terms of the preservation, the Bluff Creek watershed management plan is quoted in the staff report with those 3 wonderful goals, to preserve and manage the high quality wetland and so forth. Restore...ecosystems. Recreate natural links and so forth. These type of things, could they be part of the conditions we put on this development? Aanenson: Absolutely. I think as far as the environmental, what they do a tree survey. And I think that's one of the things that we put in there too. That they come back and how are they going to integrate this plan into the overall goals of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Are they meeting those and how. Sacchet: Now, the staff report also makes a comment that the boundaries of the primary, secondary Bluff Creek district would need to be field verified by staff. So that's just to fine tune where exactly the sensitive area starts or, could you elaborate a little on that please. Aanenson: Yeah. We had some concurrence on some of the features when we walked the site but that's something again with, at the concept level without expending those dollars but all the wetlands would have to be delineated. Again, in looking at the area wide review, we're not going to make the adjoining properties until they're ready to develop but we need some, what we like to see with doing the area wide, is how does that corridor work through all the properties. Kind of looking again at the holistic approach instead of just specifically this one. I mean obviously they'll have to do the tree inventory and the wetland delineation but again stepping back and looking at the overall creek. As you recall when we put that together we originally looked at, and with the park referendums, could we accomplish buying all the property within that primary corridor, and we decided we just couldn't do it. So the tool that we came up with was the density transfer and that we would take it on a piece by piece basis. But with doing the area wide we can kind of look at that big picture between the two segments. t6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sacchet: Now the staff report makes a very strong statement that the current proposal protects all the environmentally important areas. And judging by when you put before the map up with the Bluff Creek primary delineation, it appears that actually all this development is not, it doesn't touch into the primary anywhere. As a matter of fact, the way I read it, and Ijust want to make sure I'm clear about this, that the two preserved areas, the one to the north and to the south, are the areas that are in the primary. Aanenson: Again, the primary zone has to be field checked. I mean that's... Sacchet: Needs to be verified. Aanenson: Right. And we did...and we're in pretty close concurrence of those features that are out there. And enhancing some of those. Whether there's some erosion or some... Sacchet: And we're considering the northern part more sensitive where you would want it untouched. Aanenson: It's beautiful. Sacchet: And the southern piece is, it would lend itself more towards trails? Aanenson: It's a nice stand of trees. It creates a nice buffer, correct. Sacchet: So the part that's being developed is really the flat part. Aanenson: The farm part. Sacchet: And it's not the tree part. Aanenson: Correct. It's the farmed. Sacchet: I mean on the aerial it actually comes out pretty crisp that the area that's to be developed is not, doesn't have tree cover and it's also pretty flat, is that a fair statement? Aanenson: It does rise as you go towards Audubon. Again that's whatMr. Wagner was concerned too that it's falling. The development... Sacchet: There's a little bit of slope, okay. The housing plan, now this sketch in front of us outlines a little bit what would be, I guess there's 3 different areas or types of housing. So to make a housing plan we'll go to further detail and analyze... Aanenson. Right, we're asking that it come with you. If you have specific ideas, you know to give, to lead them in direction. Specific types of products or lot sizes, whatever, that's what we're recommending is they come back with a plan that's... Sacchet: In that context I would like Kate, I would like to ask you, there's a table on page 11 of the staff report that outlines the city index, benchmark and the goal for affordability life cycle and density. If you could just explain a little bit what these columns and rows are. City index, benchmark. What are we benchmarking? What does it mean city index? What does it mean affordable or life cycle? To make it really sure, and then the overall average kind of perplex me too on the bottom of that table. If you could explain that a little bit, I think that'd be worthwhile. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6,200~2 Aanenson: This is the Livable Communities Act. Even if all the rest of this area was to come in multi-family, the city will always be 60 percent single family detached housing. That's always going to be our predominant land use, and that was one of the decisions that went into when we said we want to do is preserve these natural, instead of doing the larger lot. If we did the large lot and came in with a subdivision, back to your question Rich, how do you do a density transfer if we came in with a large lot? How do we preserve these unique features if we can't go out and buy them all? So this was one of the tools that we talked about. And again we're talking specifically right now about product. Certainly the developer is looking for some lead from the Planning Commission and the council as to what direction. We've given them some ideas. Again we want to introduce different types of product. We've talked about some of the smaller lot detached, similar to what we've got in Walnut Grove that do really well. And some other types of products but what this talks about in the Livable Communities Act is the different types of product. Whether it's owner occupied and rental, again the city is 90 percent owner occupied. While we're bringing on a lot of rental, we're also bringing on just as much so the ratio isn't changing, if you follow, we're tracking that. And then there's affordability for owner occupied and affordability for rental. As you know we struggle with both of those. Again looking at some of the density for example in Pulte, we asked that in the row houses that they try to provide some of those under affordable based on the Met Council. Right now that number' s approximately $1'70,000 for affordable. We're still in income of 40. $40,000 plus to make those, so the rental again, we haven't done any affordable rental. We've bought a lot of rental product but the affordability for rental is a lot tougher to do, but again we've got goals for that. Then looking at the density, that's what we look at for density for single family. 1.8 and again for the multi- family. Overall the city, what are we averaging? So the overall average, that 3.3 is overall between the two. What is the city's overall average? And we're tracking that. Sacchet: That's city wide average. Aanenson: And again, how we came up with those numbers, we went back through, historically through the city as it's development patterns. We wanted to be able to have a goal that was achievable and we looked at that, and again that's what we're meeting. And that hasn't changed since that 1991 comprehensive plan. Those densities. Those are consistent with what we' ve doing over the last 20 years. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Sidney: I have a question then as we move down the row here. Let's see, on page 4 of the staff report you talk about the comprehensive plan and that in the city's 2020 land use designation, we're talking about 80 acres and you calculated 50 percent industrial and 50 percent medium density residential. And in this case we're proposing to give the developer 40 acres of industrial land. What is the city getting in return for those 40 acres in your opinion2 Aanenson: Well again, looking back at what can we do if we want to capture some of the environmental features. Could you do it industrial2 It's a little bit tougher because you can't compress. Most of the industrial buildings we have in town are warehouse type that only want to be so tall so you can't make it more vertical so it's a little bit tougher. And large parking lots too, give them the benefit that you could with the housing product. Again it would just depend on the type of development that went forward if you could still accomplish it. Sidney' Okay, another question about affordable housing. We had that information in our packet. Have you had any discussion with the applicant about that? What their goals might be? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: What the city would want? Aanenson: I guess specifically it's laid out in here that we want to see a plan of what types of products. That we want to see diversity in price point, so it's not all one price point. And that it's not all one product. A lot of variety and that we would hope that they could accomplish some of that. And again they've indicated that it's going to be owner occupied. So the lowest end would be 170 if you're trying to hit the affordable product. Sidney: Now I'm jumping the gun but does the applicant have a discussion of their different products they have? Aanenson: Well it's noted on here. They talked about walkout townhouses, back to back condominiums. We've given them some other ideas. We've got a lot of back to back townhouses in the community. In my opinion, enough. So you kn~w we're talking about that and I think they're flexible too, to looking at some other products. Sidney: Okay. I'll wait for the applicant to discuss things. Okay. Down the line here. Lillehaug: I've asked my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, good. And excuse me if these have been asked. Just give me the look and I'I1 stop. Uli alluded to the school sites, and we've been looking at school sites and ranking them. Do you have any feel as to what District 112's time line is as to? Aanenson: Maybe Mr. Degler could answer that better than me. It's my understanding it's this fall that they're trying to make some decisions on other sites. Gayle Degler: Right but I don't want to speak at this point for the School. Blackowiak: Right, understandably. I understand that. I'mjust trying to get a feel for. Aanenson: ...this fall that they're trying to make some decisions on. Gayle Degler: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, because I know that we as a Planning Commission have looked at this. City Council's looked at it, and I think at this point it's in the school district's hands and I guess my question or my comment I guess at this point would be, do we need to rush this through before the School District makes an ultimate decision because if they're talking this fall, then a month or two out I don't think would make a significant difference, but. Aanenson: Well. Blackowiak: I just don't want to take anything off the table if we've already said, this is a site and it's over 80 acres. Aanenson: I don't think it's off the table as far as the developer's concerned. They're willing to talk to the school district. The school district's willing so I don't think either, whatever 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 reco~rm-tendation goes forward it's not off the table and you know we've talked about some of the things that Chaska's done in working with the developer and making, and the City. all becoming partners. All that's still on the table. So but you need a willing party to kind of have those discussions so, it's kind of fruitful to have that too. Blackowiak: Understood. Park deficient area. Has the Park Director or the Park and Rec Commission talked at all about what they would like to see? I know this is one of the areas that when we did the trails and open space referendum several years ago, which was looked at. I mean this area was looked at as an area it would be nice to acquire or something. Where does the park? Aanenson: There is one in this area. I don't want to disclose exactly where it is but it's not specifically on this area, but it' s kind of again a combination of a couple of different things. But the park, they did meet with the park commission. The applicant did go to the park commission meeting. They have had that discussion. Again we anticipate open space, not only with, to preserve the natural features but also some open space with this project to provide whatever amenities they need for their residents. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm assuming that a traffic study would be part of this. Aanenson: Absolutely. Blackowiak: What kind of numbers are we looking at? I mean if there's a school in the area, for example let's say that it's not specifically this site but something to the north or whatever. How does that affect what we had looked at for 2020 and how that's going to affect traffic patterns in the area? Aanenson: Right, and that's why staff is recommending that we go with the area wide and we shoot for the outside as far as most intense possibilities based on, you have to base it on our land use plan. Based on that. And then looking again, we indicated that we think the public facilities so that would also include a fire station, the park, a school, and so all those would be included in the mix for the traffic study. And also, I don't know if you were here for that part too. The 212, no 212 build and can all that be absorbed without 2127 That again kind of comes into the mix tOO. Blackowiak: Okay. A final question. General concept plan talks about what is required. Did I miss, I haven't seen identification of lot size and lot width, is that? Aanenson: Because it's a PUD, we didn't put that in there. They did outline. Blackowiak: Okay, it says general concept plans for a PUD shall include the following. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: Okay, so do we not have it yet? Aanenson: No, because I made the decision that it wasn't appropriate at this point because we're not sure, you ~know they gave us a type of product that they were looking at, and it' s a lot of minutia with this size of a project that I'm not sure it would give you any, you're getting too detailed at that point in my opinion. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, I was just looking you know, just what the code said. Aanenson: Yep. Blackowiak: And then finally, refresh my mind. Number of units and acreage of, up on 5 and 41. Arboretum Village. Aanenson: There was 120 gross. I think developable was closer to oh, 60 or 80. I can't remember off the top. The overall density is I want to say 6 or 7. Blackowiak: Okay, and number of units is, what was the final number? Aanenson: I think it's closer to 320, 340. 343. 340. Sacchet: 330, 340 1 believe. Blackowiak: Say 340. And total acreage then is? Aanenson: The gross was 120. I don't remember what the. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is 50 percent smaller and 50 percent more dense? Aanenson: I can't say that for a fact. I'm not sure. Blackowiak: That's just quick math so, don't hold me to that. Okay, those were my questions right now. Thank you. Lillehaug: I have one final question. The back of your packets you had your, the tax chart and your fiscal disparities charts. When I look at your three different scenarios basically it seems to be a wash with all three scenarios. They seem to be. Aanenson: Correct. Actually what's moving for tax capacity is more then multi-family, yeah. The numbers, we re-ran those looking at some projects that we've done recently and the 50 square foot might be a pinch high. It might be closer to 44 per square foot for the commercial. But again that's staging it out. Excuse me, industrial. There's not commercial. Staging that out over the next couple years. And again that's based on today's tax rate and how the legislature set it up. Sidney: I think we have a few more questions. Slagle: Kate, has Town and Country built here in Chanhassen? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Okay. Would there be any developments that are close by that people could look at? Aanenson: Yes, there probably is. Actually there was one that Mr. Palmater did who I didn't -know did, it's up in Golden Valley that I really liked and actually recommended. He said oh by the way, I did that project. I don't know if there's any that you want to mention. Richard Pahnater: You can go to our web page... 21 Planning Conmaission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Slagle: Great. Later on if they could state that web page, that would be great. Just touching upon Alison's question on Highway 5 and 41. So is it, because I like to, trying to be graphic here and visual. So we're looking at a piece of property that is smaller than the 5 and 41, or somewhere close. Aanenson: We have to talk net and gross and that's what I don't have the numbers. I know the gross of Pulte was 120. The gross on this is 80. Slagle: 5 and 41 ? Aanenson: Correct. So I don't remember what their net was. Slagle: But many more units in this one than that one? Aanenson: I can't say that. I'm not going to go on the record and say that without looking at the number. Slagle: Okay. Okay. Okay, that's it. Sidney: Okay, go ahead. Final questions. Sacchet: Ladies first. Yeah, final question. Just real quick Kate. I mean when we have a major development like that across the street from another city, would we commonly coordinate that somewhat with the neighboring city or do we just do our own thing? I mean like in this case would we somehow work with the Chaska city to make sure it fits and coordinates? Aanenson: Sure. When we put our comprehensive plan together and looked at the different zoning options, each adjoining community has a right to comment on that adjoining so when we put this together and talked to them, what are your plans? What are our plans to see where there's rubs and then we asked for some changes in their plans regarding transportation specifically around the Seminary Fen, which you're aware of. So yes. Sacchet: So we do it in the overall planning. Would we also do it with a specific project like this? Aanenson: An EA? Sure. They have a right to comment. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. That's what I want to hear. Sidney: Okay, I think we're done. At least for this portion. So onto the applicant. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Please state your name and address for the record. Krista Flemming: Good evening. My name is Krista Flemming. I'm with Town and Country Homes and I'm the Project Manager for the land development side of it. Tonight also with me is Richard Palmater. He's the Vice President of Land Development for Town and Country Homes, and Ed Hasek with Westwood Professional Services. He's our landscape architect. I guess first this evening I want to thank Kate and a lot of the staff for working with us diligently on this project and really taking this through and guiding us through all the questions that we've had because as you have many questions, we also have those questions. This project is a few years out there, even though it will be here in a blink of an eye. So just a little bit more background, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 and Kate' s really explained a lot of it but we started meeting with her in March and with some of the other staff members, to look at this project and then we took a site visit. Walked the site and really got a feel for the land. A feel for the protected areas that the city's plan had pointed out and get an understanding for how we could, should actually put together a concept plan without just taking a look at it on paper and trying to put something together. And then after that we had a concept plan put together. Presented that to the city. Discussed it with the staff, and went forward with having the neighborhood meeting. And as you are all quite concerned about how this development is going to affect the area and push out future development, we are also concerned with that and I just want to reiterate before we get into some of the details on the plan that we're not anticipating to develop or push development before 2005. What we're trying to do with this project, and with your guidance is to get an idea and work through the steps that need to get us to there, like the area wide study, so that when 2005 comes around and the MUSA line is extended, we, as well as many of the other property owners, will be ready to advance the development appropriately. The neighborhood meeting that we had with the staff just took a look at all the people that have properties in this area that Ms. Aanenson has been talking about and really showed our concept, but then also looked for a lot of input from the neighbors. And answer some of the questions that you have tonight as far as, continuing farming and green acres and assessments and that type of thing. So we also, after that we met with the Park and Rec Board and talked about the area as Kate had said about where we would have a, or where the city would like to have some large parks and then how this specific site is affected by some of the goals of the Park and Rec. And we've concurred with their recommendations of taking a look at having some special open space and park areas within the development in addition to this large area wide park and these open space features that are part of the Bluff Creek plan. So tonight we're here to really just get some feedback from the Planning Commission and as we've gone through with all the process to bring everybody else up to speed and get everybody else thinking on terms of future development, we'd like to hear from Planning Commission and what your concerns are. And as we look at our concept plan and kind of talk about some of the products that you have been questioning about. We are proposing all multiple family residential but a variety of products and we have not shown you any specific products tonight. We've generalized the areas as far as back to back products, row of townhomes, empty nester detached townhomes, that type of thing at this point because in 2005 we anticipate our architecture will evolve greatly from this point, or until the time when we actually start development. We do have a web site that you can take a look at all the developments that we're doing right now. We are a national company so we have a branch in Chicago, which is our corporate, and then another branch in Florida. You can see some of the different types of products we do in those areas and we're newer to the Minneapolis area. We've been here 7 years and are starting to try to bring some of those products into the Minneapolis area as well. And the web site is townandcountryhomes, all spelled out, all one word, mn. Sacchet: And, a-n-d? Krista Flemming: A-n-d. townandcountryhomesmn.com. And I will, we can have that written down for Kate so if you guys want to take, make sure we've got that straight so you can take a look at it and feel free to visit any of our projects and contact us if you'd like. Our concept plan really just shows some of the major connections that we feel are going to have to take place that we' ve gotten feedback from the staff. This is the preservation areas that were identified with the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and then just taking a look at mixing up some of the products within so we can definitely see that we're not trying to put one product throughout the entire development. We want to have something that's unique in this community. Unique to many different life styles as far as people that are starting out with first time homebuyers and some of the affordability issues that you've discussed tonight, as well as making it available to those who 23 Planning Cormnission Meeting - August 6, 2002 want to live in a townhome community but maybe move up a step. Have a little bit bigger townhome and then also empty nester. That type of thing. So those are the different products we're looking at tonight. And I guess lastly, we've taken a look at the staff report and we concur with it. We're willing to work with the staff and commission and council with any recommendations you have, as well as the neighborhood. We've been trying to contact the neighbors and get a feel for what they're looking at because ultimately we understand that our parcel is not the next parcel to develop. There are other parcels that are going to have to develop in order for this one to develop and we want to be a part of that and keep the process moving. So at this point I guess I'll open it up to any questions that you might have for us. Sidney: I have a question. I checked the Saturday paper in the home section and saw an ad for Town and Country and it talked about townhomes and single family homes and you have four different townhome. Premier collection, the homestead collection, courtyard and village. Could you explain what those are? Krista Flemming: Our homestead collection is a back to back product. We have, we range from 6, 8, 10 unit buildings and we have that in a variety of different locations within the Minneapolis area. Our premiere collection is a, is basically a row townhome. It's a little bit larger townhome and may have a walkout or a lookout to it so in essence you end up getting a story, a feeling of a 3 story, lookout, walkout building. A courtyard collection is more of an urban townhome and we've just started building that product in the Minneapolis area and it gives you more of a denser urban feeling, but yet it's geared to be more pedestrian friendly. All front doors on public streets with guests being able to drive up in the front and you park your own car through an alley way in the back or a cartway in the back. Sidney: It says Shakopee. Is that, do you actually have a products there and available? Krista Flemming: Yes. We actually have a product that we, we have a model that you can take a look at in Shakopee. Three of these products that we're talking about are in Shakopee right now. The last one is the village. The village collection and that is, it's a combination. It"s a newer product that we're doing and it has some single level living, either on the lowest level. The lower level is all one level or you go up and then you live on one level just above that. And then there's another option in there to have a two story, so it mixes it up a little bit but it's all, is in a row townhome version so it's a little bit more unique. But all those products are in, except for the premiere, in Shakopee. And then we also do single family. Right now all our single family is concentrated in Maple Grove and we have a couple of different projects up there that we're working on. And we're working on some future projects in the area to bring in some new single family and some enhanced multi-family products. Sidney: I'm wondering if you have had any discussions about the percentage of each of these types of products you n-fight have in this proposed development. What the price points might be? What kind of... you might have. Krista Flemming: When we initially took a look at this, we did take a look at just kind of generalize an area based on some of the topography at this point and...the topography and the natural features, that type of thing and where it's flater, take a look at something that is more conducive to those types of products. And as far as specific percentages are concerned, we have a very, very generalized plan right now. Until we actually do a more detailed project plan, actually go out and survey all the topography specifically and evolve some of our architecture, we won't really ~ow exactly what we're going to have other...percentages. And then as one of the things that is, staff had noted in the back of the housing plan and working with the staff to get an 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 appropriate mix for what some of the demographics would be as well. We may need to look at the site and take a look at, at the time, in 2005 with what's the market really wanting. Is there more of a need for, in this area to have some more empty nester type homes or is there more of a need to have more of the, little bit older family home. You know something where you have a middle range family, that type of thing and those are the types of things that we're going to study within the next couple years as well. Sidney: So is that the reason why you didn't really commit to a sketch? Krista Flemming: Yes. That is definitely the reason why we didn't come in with a specific sketch for you because we want to get your feedback too. If there's specific products that you've seen that you feel that you would like to have certain features on, or layouts in this development, we'd like to get your feedback now as well so that we can progress with that with the staff and come back with something that really has included your input. Sidney: Okay. Got mine done. Anybody else? Sacchet: Few quick questions. Now on that concept plan that you just had up on the projector. You actually do give quantities. You say 80 back to back. You say 80 walkouts. You say 140 row. You say 110 back to back. 110 walkout townhomes. How do you come up with those numbers? I'm just curious. Krista Flemming: These numbers are based on area and the land use plan. So when we, what we did is we took a look at these general areas that they're showing with the rows, and we took that area and then calculated it based on what the densities proposed for this area are allowable would be and just came up with that broad number. As Ms. Aanenson's report notes that in order to get a specific number we have to actually go through and make sure we're also meeting the guidelines of the zoning ordinance, that type of thing. But this is the first broad glance if you just took a flat. Sacchet: So it's based on the area basically then? Krista Flemming: Yes, correct. Sacchet: The amount of street frontage and area and all that. And that would reflect what you commonly do in your developments? Aanenson: Can I just comment on that too? Excuse me for interrupting because I did look up the Pulte numbers. Now when Pulte first came in it was closer to, I believe 478 or 500 and I did look up the gross and nets. I want to make sure I was accurate. It was 120 gross, 63 net. If you recall everything on the north side was twins, except for a few at the end where we had to, the city wanted the more park property be put in some 3 units, but those are all twins so it was under 2 on the north side of West 78th. On the south side, higher. That's where the more urban rows. So that was 63 net and the overall density was 5.7, and that's why I indicated in the report, they just took the 8. You can't guarantee you're going to get that because you have to demonstrate that they can get the parking that they want and all that with the product choice that they pick. So that would be the outside. And we need to throw a number out there to do an environmental assessment. To do a traffic. You have to shoot for the outside so will they get that many units? We don't know. It may be less. Significantly less. 25 Planning Con.mission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Krista Flemming: Right now our site is 88 acres and just, we haven't done our specific delineations or topography, that type of thing but we are anticipating between '70 and '/5 developable acres, so that would be the net considered and that will be, the specifics on that will be told at time as we go through the required report and documentation. Sacchet: You have those two circles, amenity core areas. What is it? Krista Flemming: In those two areas we had just proposed at this time to build some type of a green feature, open space feature. Sacchet: Playground or? Krista Flemming: It could be a playground. It could just be a natural open space. It could be something that's joined. There may be a ponding area in those specific locations and it's joined with a trail connection that comes through there. It has a little totlot or something along those lines. Initially we've just identified them at these intersections to provide some of an entrance or a connectivity to the main street so when you're driving through the neighborhood you get a feel for it as well as being a central location for people that live in that neighborhood. And when looking at this with the Park and Rec Commission, they liked those features and they also recommended taking a look at maybe doing some other features within the development to spread it out as well. But that's what those are initially is to show that we do intend to have some special features for this neighborhood specifically. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Feik: Nothing for the applicant right now, thank you. Slagle: I have a couple. The meeting that was held at the Rec Center. Any idea as to how many neighbors attended? Ballpark. Aanenson: I do upstairs. They signed in. I think there was 12. And this is the area, the 2005 study area. MUSA. That's what it was intended for. To talk about. To tell them that we've got a pending project and as you've indicated, that things are changing out there so I believe there's about 10 property owners and I think a pretty good turnout. Slagle: Krista if you could, could you give me your thoughts or your company's thoughts on sidewalks and then trails within the development? Krista Flenmfing: Well what we've seen in many different communities and what we'd like to have in our con'nnunity for our residents is to have connectivity and sidewalks and trails are definitely the way to do that and the Park and Rec Board has, or Commission has also recommended that they are going to want to see that connectivity happen throughout here. And we are very willing to make sure that gets incorporated into this plan and work with the staff to see if there's any ways to really connect into some of the plans that they have for the Bluff Creek Overlay District and that type of thing. And then with the overall area and if there' s a specific large plan in this 2005 area that's for park, we're going to definitely want to work with the street connections and add trails and sidewalks to that. Slagle: Pool. Any talk of a pool2 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Krista Flemming: No talk of a pool. We haven't had that kind of detail but, in discussions but we typically have not done those types of amenities as some of them start to get to be issues with homeowners association and that type of thing. So at this point we're just looking at green space or park type facilities. Slagle: That's all. Sidney: Okay. Thank you. Okay next up we have a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Mark Johnson: I'm Mark Johnson. I live at 9715 Audubon Road. I guess I'm just not really clear as to exactly what we're discussing here. It seems like, what is the issue? Is it whether it's going to be commercial or residential, industrial? Because there seems to be a lot of, we want it medium density but we don't know how dense. We want townhomes but we don't know what kind. I guess I'm just, I'm not clear as to what we just spent all this time talking about. It seems like a lot of himming and hawing about it. Sidney: Good question. Who wants to take a stab at answering that? I guess my take on it, and I' 11 try and answer as a commissioner is that staff has been working with an applicant. They're thinking about a development in this area and they're coming to us for direction as to what to do really. So it is a lot of himming and hawing right now. So now is the time for feedback, concerns, whatever for staff and also for the developer. Mark Johnson: Oh alright, thank you. Aanenson: Let me just add to that. You directed the question and that is the question. That is the right question. First of all, is it going to be industrial or is it going to be residential? If it's residential there's certain things that it can only be. Exceed so many units. They'll have to come back and design that but they don't want to spent that level of design work until they know they' ve got something going and that' s a series of 2 years of coming back with a lot of meetings because as a part of the PUD they also have to develop design standards. Come back and all that so it takes a long time so the first question what you're trying to decide tonight is, is it going to be residential or industrial? Mark Johnson: Thank you, that was the question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Madam Chair, could I just add something? Sidney: Sure. Blackowiak: Mr. Johnson, I'd like to hear your opinion. What do you think? I mean as a resident. I didn't mean to put you on the spot but you're here and you know, what do you feel? Mark Johnson: Alright. Char Jeurissen: By the way I'm standing up here because I'm his mother. Mark Johnson: We're actually co-owners of the property. We each own half of it. This is where I live right here. This little piece in the middle of everything there. And well, one thing I'm concerned with is this. This is all pretty wet along here. It's grassy wetlands and it seems that a 27 Planning Cormnission Meeting - August 6, 2002 lot of the developments going on there. I think they're putting roads through there, whatever. There's a lot of wildlife out there. That's one thing that I enjoy about the place. And I'm wondering what's going to be done about privacy. Anything you want to add? Char Jeurissen: Yeah, my concern on here is this part right here, because'that is a natural waterway and has the creek in there. We have fox. We have wild turkeys. We have deer. We have everything through there, and that's my concern. I want it to stay that way. As far as the developer's concerned, across the, right across the street is Autumn Woods. Those are $450,000 and up homes. Do we want $170,000 homes across the street? That's another concern. And how to look that, how to fit it into the nature of the land and the rolling of the land. So yeah. Sidney: Any other comments? Okay. Mark Johnson: That I can think of. Thank you. Sidney: Anybody else please. Mitch Anderson: Hi. My name is Mitch Anderson. I live at 2853 Timberview Trail which is in Autumn Woods across Audubon. Thanks for the opportunity to come and provide some feedback. It's important for us to get engaged in this process and thanks to the city for putting that sign up right as we drive out of Butternut because we really wouldn't have known about this otherwise. About the meeting or the development or anything so thank you very much for that. I' ve got a couple points I'd like to address to the Planning Commission. First off on the central question of industrial versus residential. I think residential is very preferable from the perspective of the residents of Autumn Woods. I think the main concern we have probably with this, not to be too blunt about this, is the density of the proposal that we're looking at today. It's very dense compared to the surrounding areas. I think when you go back and look at this one more time. Here's where we live in here. This is Autumn Woods. There's about 50 homes right there. 50 single family homes in there. This is a farm that's I believe in Chaska's plan single family. Guided for single family. There are apartments up here, and this is industrial up here. So everything really adjacent to this is single family homes and I guess if I had my preference I'd love to see single family homes in there. I think that's much more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and we could, I think do a nice job with a single family development there. Obviously that's not consistent with your land use plan but for what it's worth, that's what we'd like to see. In terms of the staff recommendation on the report, I think the area wide survey is absolutely key to this because with that ~nd of density, if this were to go forward, we'd absolutely have to understand the impact of the traffic. Audubon is already tough. My neighbors that commute out Butternut and have to make left turns onto Audubon in the morning are very adamant that this is already a problem and 500 homes in that development would make it I'm sure worst. I can't tell you how much worst but we definitely want to look at that, as well as the impact on the school system. Being in District 112, it's a fast growing school system and we need to make sure that we're addressing that. And I think this area wide plan is the right way to do that and I would really you know applaud that recommendation. I don't know if it makes sense to add into a thing like that. Whether you know if we're evaluating this whole area, whether or not we could do an impact on surrounding neighborhoods in terms of impact on property values and other things. If that could be considered part of a plan like that. If it makes sense for me as a property owner that, of course I'm interested in, selfishly in the value of my property in Autumn Woods, and I don't know if there's a way you can look at similar developments in similar neighborhoods and if there's been impacts on property values and if that would be an appropriate thing to include in a study like that. It seems like we even selfishly, that'd be great to see you know if I can anticipate problems as a result of this. The parks thing is 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 critical. I think if you look at the Autumn Woods development, right here is the totlot in our development and I think we want to make sure that there's similar amenities in that kind of a development so they're, just so it keeps the same kind of character and nature of totlots and things and places for the kids to play. And the last thing that I did is, now I'm not a surveyor guy here. This is the map up against the window, so behind here you've got this proposal in on top by, I downloaded your 2020 land use plan and I overlaid just to get kind of a sense for the outline of the Bluff Creek area here. The primary and secondary zones, and this development, and I think you can see. And this is pretty accurate. I mean it lines up pretty well with the roads and major features. That that's what we have in here. You preserve the wetland and most of the primary and secondary areas, except for right in here, so there's the primary line. There's the secondary line. Down in here I think as Mr. Johnson pointed out, the wetland, the primary and secondary is all through the southern end of the development here so I certainly would encourage the developer and the city to make sure that we do as much as we can within the tools and processes and things that we have available to try to preserve as much of that sensitive area and the wildlife and the nature of that home as possible so. Again thanks for the opportunity to provide comments and if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to answer them. Sidney: Questions? Lillehaug: I have a quick question being you're a Chaska resident. Mitch Anderson: I am a Chaska resident. Lillehaug: Would you like to see a Chanhassen school in this area? Mitch Anderson: I'm not in a real great position to answer that. My gut reaction isn't, but thanks for the opportunity to invite us here to comment. I do realize we're Chaska and you're Chanhassen but this idea of working together as two communities and as a couple of you pointed that out tonight, that spirit of cooperation and I hope that continues throughout the whole process and we want to be involved and help... Thank you. Sidney: Anyone else please? Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler, 1630 Lyman Boulevard and just a few things came to my mind as we listened to the discussion tonight. Number one, the letter from Mr. Wagner. Is that public information? Aanenson: Sure. I can get you a copy. Gayle Degler: Okay. I would like to look at that later. Another comment was made about the public meeting that was held for local property owners. And yes, obviously a lot of property owners did attend. That was one of those nights where I had a conflict and obviously I did not make that meeting so just because the meeting was held for, not everybody is able to attend every meeting. Aanenson: Your wife and your mother were there. Gayle Degler: Exactly. Exactly. Another comment as far as the land. It was indicated that part of it is pretty flat, and I have been farming it for years. Part of it is pretty flat, but obviously part of it that I do farm, just so you're aware of it, is rather hilly. Just so that nobody gets the wrong impression. I think she indicated that when she mentioned the walkout basements and the 29 Planning Co~mnission Meeting - August 6, 2002 different styles of housing so I just wanted to verify that. What I'm most concerned about would be how this would, this development would impact our property and my parents of course. If this were industrial, how does that, because part of my folks' property is zoned industrial. How does that affect my folks' and vice versa? If this goes residential, could we get residential? Or because if the council would give this one residential, and eliminate the industrial, would that put more pressure on our property, my folks' property, that that would remain in industrial and not in residential? And I'd like to somehow have the impact in that. The other comment is, just looking at this shot. Is it an optical illusion or does it appear that that road, proposed road heading to the north is a different size than the road that's going through the development? From my distance, it almost looks like it was a smaller road and I was just looking at the concept plan that's against the wall over there and there, it looks like it's the same size. Aanenson: I don't think that decision has been made or anything on that. If I could just comment on your first question. Which is the industrial and what would be different? I think that part of it, really the piece of the puzzle that as a staff we're trying to solve and that is infrastructure to all the pieces. Whether your's is industrial, this one's industrial, we still need a road system that works to connect these properties. We still need the sewer and water for all these properties, and that' s kind of the biggest framework piece that we're trying to put together that we want to work together with this area wide to talk about. We want to minimize creek crossings and that there so whatever the zoning is, we still need to work together on those issues. Gayle Degler: Okay but my concern was, would it be harder for our parcels to be 100 percent residential if this would go residential? Aanenson: Let me just clarify for the Planning Cormnission. Mr. Degler's property that he's talking about is guided industrial. It doesn't have the either or so. Gayle Degler: It doesn't? Aanenson: No. The most easterly portion, this portion is medium density. On the other side of the creek is industrial. So that was your concern. If this all went residential, could you have the opportunity to go residential... Gayle Degler: On the whole parcel? Aanenson: Correct. And it's guided industrial. That would take a land use change. I mean that's something that they would have to consider. Gayle Degler: So you're saying it would have, if this parcel would go residential, it would have no affect on the minds of the Planning Cormnission. · Aanenson: I did not say that. Gayle Degler: Okay. Because obviously the city in the past has been very protective of the amount of base that was out there for industrial type purposes. Aanenson: That's correct. Gayle Degler: And I just, you know if there's a trade-off one direction, you know I'm looking for a trade-off the other direction. That's all I'm asking the council, the Planning Commission would keep their options open. You mentioned the school sites. Like I say, I'm not speaking anything 3O Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 with the school at all, but let the Planning Commission know that the school district is looking at it. I'm sure you're well aware of it and keep your options open. At this point, thank you. Sidney: Anybody else? Yes. Mitch Anderson: Can I ask just a question? Sidney: Sure. Do you want to come up please? Mitch Anderson: Sure. Hi, Mitch Anderson again from Chaska. Could you just clarify what office industrial is? Aanenson: Sure. Maybe a typical example would be just as we indicated, just to the north of you. If you go down. Mitch Anderson: Printing guys and that up there? Aanenson: Yeah, those kind of. Chanhassen's, our standards are a little bit different than Chaska's as far as, we tend to be a little bit more light industry. Pillsbury, which does have a lot of trip generation, through traffic. Our's tends to be more office, warehouse mix. It's not quite as, if you look at similar to what's behind Audubon. There's frozen food...little bit more trip generations. Mitch Anderson: Okay, what are shopping malls and gas stations? Aanenson: Co~mnercial. Mitch Anderson: Commercial. So it's not commercial? Aanenson: It' s not commercial. If someone did come in and they wanted to do commercial, that would take a land use change so we only look at those two options because we do get a lot of requests for people that are looking for a commercial sites. But we didn't receive those. We just said that wasn't the appropriate one. Mitch Anderson: Thanks for clarification. Deb Kind: Hello Planning Commissioners. I'm Deb Kind. I live at 2351 Lukewood Drive. I came here to sit in the back row and just hang out, just of course I'm interested in what's going on. I can't resist to speak. I'm a person who is not affected by this at all. I live far away and I just want to speak as a taxpayer in the community. I really want to encourage you to keep as much industrial office tax base as possible. And it's not clear to me, after listening to the discussion, which is interesting not having the packet. You don't really know as much what's going on. It's not clear to me from the discussion whether it's an either or for the entire parcel or whether part of it is guided for office institutional, office industrial, I'm sorry, or what Kate. Can you explain that? Aanenson: Sure. I guess they could have come in with the either, with splitting it. The way that percentage came up is when we put together, we had to base our sewer and water plans, based on the certain threshold so when this piece of property, we said it could be either or, industrial or. Deb Kind: So but on the land use map it's got the diagonals going through the whole thing? 31 Planning Co~runission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Aanenson: Correct. Deb Kind: It's not just part of it that's guided that way. Aanenson: Right. So our assumption was that it was 50 percent industrial, 50 percent multi- family. So that's what that percentage. Having said that, could the developer have come in with a mixed project like that? Yes. Deb Kind: That's where I was going. Aanenson: Right. Could the project come in all industrial? Yes. And this applicant came in all residential. Deb Kind: What I'd like to encourage the Planning Commission to consider is guiding the developer to consider a mixed use planned unit development. I think a PUD is totally appropriate with all the sensitive areas. The green spots staying green, but maybe consider having part of it be, stay commercial. Maybe business neighborhood would be appropriate so that we get that tax base and not have quite so many homes putting pressure on our school district and that sort of thing. It's kind of nervousy being here. Up there it's not, I'm kind of shaky. Sorry. And then I just want to remind you about having compelling reasons to do things. Taking away from that 50/50 rule. I did see the packet. There's some allusions to it being a wash, tax base wash. Whether it was industrial or residential. I've always been told from staff that residential is the wash. They give about the same as what they receive. Sometimes they give less than what they receive, but at least office industrial we get more in tax money back and I think we really need to keep that component there. I guess that's the main thing I want to hit on. Thank you. Sidney: Anybody else? Okay, seeing no one else I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners. I'm sure we have lots of comments. Let's start, if we can, maybe addressing the land use issues. Maybe getting past the himming and hawing and focusing on the large issues, like Kate said. Are we talking about industrial or residential or mix? Really the rezoning issue. And then if you can think about some of the issues surrounding the PUD. I have a number of them that I can probably speak to in a few moments but anyhow, who would like to start? Slagle: I'll start. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: I think the way that I feel, excuse me. I'm just getting over a cold. The way that I feet is that currently I could not give you an answer one way or the other without seeing the different options. I almost. Sidney: Options meaning? Slagle: Industrial versus residential, medium density. I am trying to get an idea of the vision of that piece of property, and what we have is a proposal for one idea. Although multiple ideas within that idea, it's basically a medium density proposal. So for me to say I think that's great, I have nothing to compare it to. So the one thing that I would add is that if we're going to stick with the cun'ent land use plan, which I obviously think we should, I'd like to see ideas more than just this conceptual idea of medium density with multiple types of homes within it. Because I have to be honest. I think the density of this piece of property is way too high. I mean I'll just be 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 honest with you. I do not want to see more and more properties developed within the city that look like we see, where you look across and it's just roof tops. And just, to the developer it's probably helpful to hear those things at this point. So I just want you to know that I am really going to be looking for the uniqueness, if you will, if this is the path we follow, in creativity. Because we've seen what's happened in the past and there's some things that are lacking in many people's minds of certain developments. So just to let you know that I'd like to see more options than just this one. Sidney: Okay, I have that on my list here. Okay. Feik: Okay. We have a unique asset there and I would like that not to be hidden by industrial. That northern border of this parcel. However, that' s not to say that a good portion of the rest of the property couldn't go industrial. I have a concern regarding the density being unknown at this juncture without something a little bit more firm as far as what they really believe they can get in there reasonably. The unknown factor of the density bothers me to go forward on strictly a residential piece. And also I would like to have seen some product type from this builder, either in front of us today or that I could have reviewed prior to this. I think I would have had a different feeling of what I'm looking at because I'm feeling as though I'm working in the dark. Not sure what I'm looking at. Sidney: Okay. Rezoning issues. Feik: Zoning issues. Again, I would, I don't see a problem keeping a large portion of that as commercial. Sidney: Industrial. Feik: Excuse me, industrial. That doesn't bother me. I think the proximity to the major thoroughfare just south of that, being Pioneer and just west of'it goes over towards Home Depot and everything, I don't think it's inappropriate. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: A PUD is definitely the way to go. The way I see this. We have a very sensitive environmental situation there with the Bluff Creek and the PUD is the tool that the city has available to shift some densities and make sure that the sensitive areas are properly preserved. Personally I think residential is appropriate here based on the information in our package. In our package there is a little table that explains the tax capacity of 50/50 industrial office and residential, of all residential and all office industrial, and not only is it a wash. Actually the medium density residential is slightly better in terms of tax base. Now I don't know whether that's accurate. But based on that table, medium residential is the most advantageous from the viewpoint of tax based on information in front of us. I would not want to see it go single family residential because if it goes that route, we could possibly lose the PUD aspect, and as such the aspect of being able to protect the natural features in the area. There is definitely density issue. I share that sentiment with commissioners that spoke before me. I think that the density is going to be the delicate thing to fine tune here. By first glance the density seems a little high. But we haven't really drilled down to that level to be able to really judge that. The comment that came up from the Chaska resident from Autumn Woods I think is very appropriate. I mean we don't have much of a transition aspect there, but if you can build in some sort of a transition. At least maybe with the products that you put in, that we try to have some sort of a flow. I mean we do that city wide, and we should do it here and we should do it in the context of the city of Chaska. 33 Planning Conm~ission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Because it's all one con-Lmunity in that sense. Whether it's across the street or not. The area wide survey I think is very crucial. Looking at the parks aspect. Looking at the traffic issues. That's things to look at as we refine this. The wetland delineation I think is a big issue because I see a little bit of a discrepancy like the residents, the neighbors. Immediate neighbors have pointed out that there is this arm of a wetland reaching into the southern area of this development. That definitely needs to be looked at. I mean everyone needs to know where is the wetland and what's there and that needs that we want to be sensitive to what impact does it have. How can it be mitigated and shift things around to make it work. Neighborhood commercial. There isn't any neighborhood commercial down there except the bank on the comer of Pioneer and Audubon I believe. Is it a bank even? No, it's not at that corner. Blackowiak: It can't be commercial can it Kate? Sacchet: I mean it seems like it could be a good thing. To have some very low key neighborhood corm~ercial component in there potentially but that we delegate to build it in, that it could be worthwhile to consider on a small scale. Aanenson: I think that's another reason to do the area wide. Just so you're aware, some of the property owners in here as part of the 212 petitioning, some of the remnant pieces were adamant about getting some commercial. It's been the staff's position that it's tied into the design. Where it's appropriate working through the overall design. Looking at traffic. That's why it's so important that we do this area wide. Where is the peak intersections? Where should that be? How does it transition to the other pieces? Just to give it to one person, without looking at that entire piece, staff was uncomfortable doing that. The PUD does allow for 25 percent support conm~ercial. As you're aware up on the Arboretum Village we did give some support commercial. There's a transit hub through there. That's another piece of this that we would look at too. Southwest Metro and moving through there, so again we would look at that as an area wide. How that works. Now just having said that, I wanted to ten, nd you that at the intersection of 212 and 101, that this was given in the 1991 comprehensive plan. That's high density at that intersection plus commercial. So as we move through this and making those transition, we looked at that so. Sacchet: We need to see it as a large context. Aanenson: Yeah, what's the scale of that and then also on the piece as you go up on 101, the piece outside of the Mission Hills was given some support commercial there too so, how does that all work in the scale? So we didn't, you know we've talked to them about that, and kind of again, the larger 2005 MUSA area, but it's back there. And we would put that in the background study for traffic and transportation too but, and we're kind of careful about where that goes right now based on those other two locations. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that Kate. It's true, we need to look at that in a larger context. Just to wrap up my comment. I do think the medium and with the shifts, some areas might be effectively more, possibly even more than medium. We have to see how that works out with the density transfers but I think that's it. Thank you. Sidney: Okay. Additional comments? Lillehaug: I'll just comment here on the land use quick like. I think PUD is definitely the way to go with some transfers. I guess I am concerned about the parcels to the north there. They are guided as office and industrial, and we will have to look at them in the future. As far as right 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 now, this is guided as office industrial and residential and I think residential is a good fit for this area. Blackowiak: Okay. Just a few comments on the zoning. I also agree the density is pretty intense and I don't think that I can really support 540 or 520 or how ever many homes it is in there. At this point it looks like we're almost leap frogging. I mean all of a sudden we're just plopping this medium residential in with very little consideration as to what is happening to the north, on the Degler properties. What is happening to the south, and how it's going to fit into the overall Bluff Creek development and it just doesn't seem to fit as I look at it fight now. We're looking at this plan in a vacuum and I understand that it's just how we have to do it sometimes but I agree with Rich's comment that it would have been nice to see, okay this is how an industrial could have gone in. Or this is how a combination could go in. So we have a better feel for how to evaluate one of three choices because we're given different tax options, etc, but we aren't given any different plan options. It would have been nice to see that. I think this is premature until District 112 does something. I would really like to see, I mean we've given them all the information we have. I would like to see if indeed there's going to be some sort of decision this fall. I'd like to see what that decision is before we lock ourselves into, even though this is a concept, I would like to see what District 112 is going to say before we go ahead. Kate, help me. Tax capacity versus cost of service provided. This has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide those services, does it? Aanenson: That's correct. Blackowiak: Okay, so basically, and tell me. I've often heard that, and I think this is what Deb was kind of alluding to is that it costs more to provide services for residential than it does for industrial commercial. Aanenson: It depends on what type of commercial industrial... Some have more, depending on the nature of the. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is actually just income, not anything that has to do with expenses of providing services? Aanenson: Taxes. Blackowiak: Right, it's tax income. Aanenson: Tax capacity. Blackowiak: Right, and not how much the services would cost the city to provide. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. 212/312 issue. Do you have any inkling of what's going on? I mean I don't want to put you on the spot. Aanenson: They're out securing right-of-way. They're doing design build and Matt was at a meeting this morning. The State is working diligently to get design build so they're ready if money is freed up, so they are working on acquiring most of the right-of-way has been acquired and they' re working on the design. Is there anything else you wanted to add to that? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Saam: They've offered on all the right-of-way. They don't have it acquired yet, but there's offers in. The official line is 2011 to 2015 for construction. They don't have funds allocated as of yet for it. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, I guess those are my zoning issues. I, again would really like to see something, other plans to compare it to. Aanenson: Can I just comment on that? Blackowiak: Sure. Aanenson: This is what the developer came forward with so unless somebody else came forward with something, I mean we have to respond to this application so that's kind of where we're stuck so you have to say yeah or nay to this application. If they don't want to do an industrial, then someone else has to come forward. And part of this process is the catalyst. This application is the catalyst to study the larger framework issues. If the school was to go down there, we still need to provide sewer and water, and this again is kind of a catalyst to make some other things happen. Whether we do some park, some schools, some other density transfers or something like that too. So I guess the other thing I just want to make sure is understood, we do leap frog all the time. Westwood, Pulte leaped over everything else on West 78th and there's still big gaps in there so it happens. Just because, and that's the unfortunate part about the free market economy is some people are ready to develop and other people aren't, and that's a tough thing for us to struggle with too as the staff. When somebody's ready to go and somebody isn't. And ultimately the council has to make some of those decisions to say whether or not, if the people ahead say we don't want to have to pay those assessments, or there's enough assessments on the line to make those projects go. But unfortunately it doesn't always happen in sequence. So it would have been nice if somebody else would have come in first, but we'd still be having this same discussion to say how do we frame up the rest of this because we need to figure out the road system and the sewer and water for this whole other area as far as service so. Blackowiak: Okay, that's it for my comments. Sidney: Okay. I'll take a stab at zoning stuff and then have more. Sacchet: I'd just like to clarify a point. I think it's pretty important because now I'm actually very confused. Blackowiak: Glad I could help. Sacchet: What exactly is the expectation for us to do tonight? I'm looking at where we find land here and are we trying to recommend to City Council something? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Because it doesn't quite spell that out in there so we are, the conditions that you put in front of us is the set that you want to see, is that something we stand behind those can be presented to council, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That clarifies it, thanks. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- August 6, 2002 Sidney: Okay. I think I have plenty of comments I guess and kind of stick to the broad overview. I think I have a feeling, the first thing I wrote here is that it seems, the concept, supposed development seems premature to me because of MUSA 2005 and also School District 112 considerations. We're talking awful long time from now before really we might see any development. And in my experience on the Planning Commission, this seems to be so far in the future that I guess I'm a little bit confused why we're seeing it. And that's why I brought up the point, it seems like this is more of a, in my mind, an open discussion item where we still have a lot of issues to flush out and it's really even not in my mind to the concept plan stage. And I'm concerned that if we are talking about a concept plan at this point, that we would, as a Planning Commission, give us more of an elevated status of more credibility to this proposed development without really having a lot of details, and that's where I think we still need some details in this concept plan. In terms of the zoning issues, I really think we should strongly think about sticking with the comprehensive plan. I guess I've been on the Planning Commission long enough to have a feel that we really need to, if at all possible, as a city, maintain our industrial base. And to give that up could have tremendous tax implications for the community in the future. And 40 acres in my mind is quite a bit, and I guess I'm not quite sure that we're really getting anything significant in return for giving up 40 acres of industrial land for residential development. And I share the other commissioners concerns about the density, and I think that's where we need some more details in this concept plan and more input from the school district, Park and Rec, etc, etc. So I' 11 kind of leave it at that for other commissioners to fill in the blanks, and I guess at this point my feeling is that I'd like to table this until we get some more information. I'd like to hear other comments. Slagle: I'd agree. Sacchet: May I add something to that? Sidney: Yes please. Sacchet: It's tricky because on one hand we're looking at a concept, so by definition we're looking at something that's not defined yet. We're being asked for direction and I feel like there's a lot of merit in the concept that's being presented. I would be very careful, because personally I would not want to give the impression that I don't like the concept, because I like the concept. However, I see discrepancy that in the, in what's in front of us to pass to City Council to endorse or reject, it' s a little bit a dichotomy. There' s a lot of details. I mean go all the way down to Fire Marshal and Building Inspector comments. I mean it looks like we're light years away from that. So what I would be in favor to table it, but not in the sense of showing resistance but actually in the sense of wanting this a little more lined up to the concept of to the stage of where this concept is at. And at the same time I would want to welcome this concept, because it has tremendous merits and yet we need to be able to go through it a little more from what...we have to have this dialogue continue. That's my comment. Feik: I concur. My microphone's down here on the table. I would also like to table this but for a probably shorter period of time than I think what some of my other fellow commissioners are looking at. My reason for tabling this is, I've had all of four days to take a look at a plan that the residents have had weeks to look at. That the Park and Rec Commission has had significantly more time than we have had. I think it is fair and equitable to the applicant that we take some time to review what has been proposed, and that we give the applicant some legitimate, timely feedback on our part. I don't think it's fair that we ask the applicant to draft commercial plans or do some other things. I think there's certainly some questions that we might like to ask staff in 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 relationship to this as it relates to tax burdens and some other things, but I guess I would like to see it tabled for a very short period of time. Couple of weeks. I'd like to see it come back and addressed in a very forthright manner. Sacchet: If I may add to this. It would be very interesting in the context of this concept to get some more specifics from the applicant in terms of the products that you work with. Not that, I wouldn't ask you to do specifics for this, but in terms of the context. What are your products? What are some of the specifics that you have done? Yes, we can go pull it down from the web page of course, but if you can help us to bring that to life a little bit, I think that would help too. Lillehaug: Two questions. How long can the commission actually table this for? Aanenson: I was going to add. You have 60 days. We can ask them for an extension if they want to wait that long. But I guess that's a question you have to ask thern what their timeframe is. They've got a purchase agreement. Krista Flen-uning: In just listening to all your discussion, it's been a very good discussion for us to hear as well and we agree with some of the points that you're bringing up and how you'd like to take a little more time to really research us before making a decision and trying to present something that you support to your City Council. So we would definitely continue our review process beyond the 60 days to help you guys take a look at that in more detail. Sacchet: Thank you. Lillehaug: And then one other question. If we were to approve it as it stands right here, what type of conm-fitment is that for the City? I mean in 5 years. Aanenson: Concept is non-binding. Non-binding, so in order for them to move it to the next level, and the reason why we didn't put a lot of things in there: It was my recommendation, was really to get a blank slate. To get direction from you. You know to say what do you want to see? It's a blank canvas to say, you know they said we want to introduce 4 or 5 products. We've asked them to come back with a specific plan. Really what we're trying to figure out tonight, do you want them to go forward with residential or do you want them to stick with industrial? Some of the same things that have come up with both. I mean some of the same systems need to be analyzed but for them to go forward, there needs to be some direction. So I guess that's what I was asking, hoping that we would get you know some of the housing plans. There's certain things that you would like to see, and I guess that's what they're saying. They're saying they're hearing some of that so. Sidney: Okay, I've been writing down a list of things that personally I would like to see in the next go around. Alison, do you have any? Blackowiak: Yeah, and I'll just add a couple things. I'm going back to page 2 where it talks about general concept plan and I know Kate you said you didn't introduce some of these things, but for me to embrace the concept, I mean just telling me 540 units is scary. I don't want to hear that. I want to see, okay show me some roads. Show me some walkways. I mean give me an idea of where these things might be and then I might be a little more comfortable embracing the concept because like LuAnn pointed out, we're elevating this to something maybe more than it is because we don't know what it is. In other words, I don't think this is a concept yet. I don't think this is a concept plan. It's a concept. Maybe it's not a concept plan. I'm splitting hairs here, but do I want 540 there? No. But if you show me 540 and can it fit in and can, show me 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 where some roads are. Show me how the parks are going to fit in. Where's some open space. Then I might be able to get behind that concept. Aanenson: I just want to be clear on that. You still haven't done the environmental stuff for this so you may make a judgment based on a plan, and we come back and say guess what folks, the road system whole change and this all flipped around so we have to be really careful buying into a specific design and that's what I'm trying carefully not'to lead you down that path because right now we' re trying to keep it blank. There's some general framework issues we want to agree on, but things are going to shift. The road may change substantially when we do this traffic study. Blackowiak: Okay, understandably. Then my second part of it was, is there any way that you as the planning department can ask somebody to give us a concept of office industrial? Can you sketch something out and say, this is what it could look like? I mean I don't want worst case scenario. I don't want you throwing it all in the primary zone and saying this is what we're getting, but what would be a realistic. Aanenson: I think that's fine but in deference to the applicant, they're not coming forward with that request so. Slagle: Well then if I can interrupt. Then that's why my suggestion of seeing the different options from this applicant, if they so choose. If they so choose not to, then I think we should vote on it tonight, yeah or nay and if it ends up being a nay, then they go back and say okay, what should we do. Should we go ahead and give them options for other, for the industrial/residential? Industrial only? Or we pull away from the offering, and these are strong terms. I'm not suggesting you do that, but the one thing that I want to make clear is that I think that when the concept plan was addressed to us some time ago, and that's thanks to Kate giving us a heads up, I thought it was going to be more open discussion. When we talk about elevating something that's a recommendation or in essence a means of influencing the council, that' s where I stop and I say, this is way premature before I want to get involved in that. So I am asking for the fellow commissioners that either we vote on it yeah or nay, to give them direction as to what their next step should be, or table it. I do, in concert with Alison, believe that there are some other things going on down here that I don't want to again start this process further down the road and then at some point go gosh, you know. The school's going in or where are the roads? I mean we're talking 312. I don't even see where the roads connect to 312. There might be an argument on the far southeastern comer of this development to have industrial because there' s a road that goes over towards 312. You know I mean so, I don't know if that all made sense but I hope it did. Sacchet: Kate, if I may Madam Chair. I'm still perplexed. We have a chicken and egg problem here. We talk about an egg and then we say we need the chicken and we talk about the chicken, we say we need an egg. It's a problem, and what's the procedure here? I mean we're talking about the concept and what we can do. Then you bring up the environmental study. Well should the environmental study come first? Well the environmental study has to have the concept in order to be studied. So how does it work? Could you help me please? Aanenson: Sure. It's a good question. You have to have somebody willing to go forward. That's what I was saying before, to create the whole process. If there's no one willing to go forward to take a risk and say I'm ready to develop, there is nothing that's going to happen. We won't decide any roads. The school's going to come in and we're going to say, we don't know how we're going to put the roads in place. We still need that discussion for anything to happen down there. We' ve got a catalyst for some of that to happen. It's not cast in stone. The concept review, we could make some changes as Rich indicated to say you know what, how this road 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 comes in is going to affect. We need to rethink that. It's not cast in stone. But for them to spend the money at the level of detail that you're talking about to go forward, they need to have some sort of commitment of what they want to do. I don't know if they're willing to look at industrial. You'll have to ask them, and my understanding is there wasn't. Sacchet: So in other words, what's in front of us is the question. Is this a concept.that we would have an interest going forward? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Is that in a nutshell what we're looking at? Aanenson: There's a lot of things that still need to be resolved, absolutely. Slagle: But in interest, it's very clear, important for all of us, an interest in, what is interest defined as? I mean, and I don't know the answer to that, but what does it commit it us to? Now I hear that it doesn't commit us to anything. Aanenson: Legally, no. Slagle: We can say gosh, you know this sounds like a great idea and this great applicant goes and spends tens of thousands of dollars on something and then 2 months from now we say. Aanenson: Or you get the environmental stuff back and you make some changes, correct. Slagle: Correct. I mean those are questions that I don't know the answers to. Aanenson: I guess, you know we've done this process in my 11 years here, 5 or 6 times and this is the same process that we've gone through. Villages on the Pond, Pulte, Arboretum Village. Slagle: You're batting 0 for 2. Aanenson: Pardon? Slagle: 0 for 2. Sidney: Well let's bring everything kind of back here and try and wrap up. I guess we can him and haw, I like that term. But I think my personal feeling is that, okay. We have an applicant before us. They have a basic concept. It's going to be going forward I'm sure with residential units in mind, medium density. How can we work with that and understand really more details of the concept to be able to make a recormnendation to the City Council. And then in the process understand if it makes sense to give up some industrial land to residential because we're getting something back in return, and I think that's the major thing that I'm looking for. Now for a list of issues that I'm kind of gearing up to table this, in my mind I recommend tabling this until we get some of these issues resolved and get more information. I wrote down a list of things that I heard and thought of. That is the other commissioners comments. I think in the staff report we need to have some indication in writing from the Park and Rec Director as to what their input is and where sidewalks and trails might be appropriate. Also some school district input. And I guess Alison if you have any conm-~ents about that. If you want that in writing or? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh no, not specifically. And I don't mean to put anybody on the spot but I just don't want to close off options. That's my only thing. I mean this is a concept, and I understand what you're saying about tabling. And then I'm thinking through and it's like, are we going to get the level of detail that we want by tabling it? I don't know. So I'm coming back asking myself the question. Okay, do we just vote and yeah or nay we move it along? And that's kind of what I'm thinking so I'll just throw that out. Sidney: And the third I'm thinking about, you know our next go around that we would want notification of Chaska residents. And I' m not sure if that was really done or not. Not that I could tell. I think it's important because we do have some transition areas that we're dealing with on the Chaska border. And I guess I'd be interested in understanding what the land use is of the Wagner property. Aanenson: Across the street? Sidney: Yeah. And then adjacent Chaska land uses and zoning. Also in the staff report we talked about, you talk about conservation easements and how those might be applied and just general where those would be used. I think the major hang up, you know really if it changes it changes but to have a sketch plan with product types, just a general layout of the streets. We know that the architecture's going to change but just if we can have some idea bout transitions and different products. Where they might be located within the development. Also some information about how the intensity of this project compares to other developments such as Pulte, Autumn Ridge and Walnut Grove .... what percentage is park or open space or whatever. Really a good discussion about the density. You know details really the gross and net values. Really discuss. If the developer' s willing, you know additional options. If there is some industrial component, where maybe a neighborhood business component, bring that forward. And then last on my list I have, impact on the Degler property. What those impacts might be. And then really if we're going to give up industrial, I need to have some kind of idea about whether or not we would get some affordable housing that results. Could we get-30 percent affordable? And how much park space could we expect? And I don't think these are really big things you know, well. Aanenson: You know the school district's not going to make a decision so I don't know if we can get you that so. Sidney: But at least acknowledge that they recognize that this is happening. So anyway, those are my list of things but if we were to table, what I would like to see in the next go around. Feik: I'm comfortable voting on this tonight and sending a message that hopefully would be clear to the applicant if that is the way the commission wants to go. If we don't decide on, to vote on this tonight or if we determine that we should table, and it does come back, it certainly will come back I' m sure, I would like to see a couple of things. One would be the second half of the tax implication as it relates to the cost associated with providing services to the different product type. Both the product type that's being discussed here now as well as the product type that would be potential, in another situation. However, should the applicant really like or wish to try to build generally as conceptually been shown tonight with trying to maximize the densities, which as a developer I could certainly see the desire to do that. I would want the significant commitment on the applicant's part as it relates to park access, to the natural areas. Definite commitments on the types and the amounts of amenities to offset that density. To get the density I would like to see something reasonably tangible discussed regarding not just totlots but, and I would like to see, I really like residential next to that, to what I'll call the ravined area on the north and I would really like to see, if possible, access to that parcel by the general public of 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Chanhassen. I think it's a unique asset and I would love to see some way to get to it other than having to ride a quarter mile bike path to get to it, so. Some sort of commitment on the applicant's part regarding some of the amenities that they could offer the city in exchange for the density, then I think there's something a little bit more to talk about as far as a concept plan for them to take forward to develop, to try to get the densities that they want. Lillehaug: I have some comments. First of all, I'm willing to go ahead and approve this concept PUD. We have a lot of direction on how we want to head and how we think you should head, but I want to explain my understanding of our, of the city's level of commitment and how I view that level of commitment. I see it as there's a lot of direction here, but if we don't see that this direction really fits as far as density, as far as the land use in a couple years, it doesn't meet up with the school, the EAW, it doesn't fit with that, I feel that we would be able to back out of this commitment based on that. So what I'm trying to explain here is that commitment, it's hard for us to give commitment and say go ahead and invest a lot of time and money on this because we want to see a lot before we give a commitment and right now I' m not willing to give a lot of commitment other than say go ahead with the concept PUD. Maybe that's not very clear but I guess that's my comments. Sidney: I'll make a comment here before. I guess I still feel strongly, and I want to express my view that we may want to table this. Reason being is that I would really like to see these issues addressed and it doesn't have to be in super detail or anything but at least addressed in a staff report because I think we run the risk of really losing you know the whole discussion if it's just in the minutes. And I'm not sure that their corporate or governmental memory is that long. Three years from now when the commission is different probably. Sacchet: Most likely. Sidney: The City Council is completely different and who knows what happens to Chanhassen, that this discussion's kind of overlooked and you know old staff reports exist and all this discussion that we' ve spent you know a lot of time here discussing the issues, you know really isn't in writing except in the minutes. So I guess I would really like to see these things addressed in the staff report and that we talk a little bit about it another time. Sacchet: The balance I think is to table it and address some of these issues. I agree with all the issues that were raised and I think it' s very important the comment you just made LuAnn, that we're not asking for you to make an exhaustive effort with all these topics, but address them on a concept level and a high level. And I would also want to ask staff to make recommendations that, the conditions accordingly. I mean we're not at the level of requiring Type III silt fence. Just to give you an example. Aanenson: Right, you want... Sacchet: Let's keep this whole thing on a high concept level on both sides and make a step, because the balance, and Steve you pointed this out. It's a delicate thing. I mean it's a give and take. We're working together on this and we're asking you to actually put some skin in the game to go do an environmental studies and what have you, and you're looking to us to have some indication, does that make sense? Is that going to be a reasonable choice for you to make that investment? And so I think that that aspect that you brought up in terms of commitment aspect, well there is a balance in there. And right now I think we need some of these things addressed on a high level to be able to give you the indication, yes. It makes sense for you to go make that investment. So I would say tabling is the way to go right now. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sidney: Okay, any other? Sacchet: The applicant. Sidney: Well I think we're done here with our discussion. Krista Flemming: I guess what, if you do decide to table tonight what I would recommend is, is going and taking a look at different projects throughout the Minneapolis area and seeing what things strike your eye as being good residential development and good park and open space development, connectivity and maybe bring back some of those suggestions so that we can even take it back to a more detail possibly at the next meeting, and I think that's what this meeting tonight was about. We have gotten clear direction from you, even though it's been confusing sometimes but it's. Sacchet: You're very kind. Krista Flemming: It's obvious that you're concerned with development and you want to make a good decision, not just a hasty decision so we're willing to work with you on that. Sidney: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make the motion that we table, how do we call this? The Town and Country conceptual PUD for 88 V2 acres of property for 540 residential units with, on the basis of our discussion. As discussed. Feik: I'll second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table g2002-3 PUD, conceptual PUD request for Town and Country Homes per the discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lillehaug: I think there's a, is there an error on the vote? Sacchet: Yes there is. There is definitely an amendment to the. Lillehaug: I don't think the names of the votes were counted correctly as far as who voted what. Sacchet: On page 13. Okay, let's wait til we get her. Thanks for catching that Steve. Aanenson: What item was that Steve? Lillehaug: The only item. Actually the two votes we did have. Aanenson: There was two votes. Sacchet: On page 13 and 14. Lillehaug: Page 13 and 15. I think Alison voted the opposite and Uli the opposite. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sacchet: On both votes. We'll get her attention eventually. Nann, we're talking Minutes. Lillehaug: On pages 13 and 15, Uli and Alison voted the opposite for both votes. So basically just swap their names. Sacchet: In both places. Thank you. Sidney: Anything else? So the minutes have been noted and corrections made. Steve Lillehaug noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 16, 2002 amended on pages 13 and 15 to change Blackowiak and Sacchet's vote. Vice Chair Sidney adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Co~mnunity Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 44 CITYOF 77'00 Ma~kd Bo~le',,a~d PO Box 147 . I ~'~ - Administration Phsne: 952.227.i!00 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Fs?ne: ~.52.227.113,0 :~s/: 952.227 ~ ~ ~e Engineering F':,sne: 952.227.i i60 ~:2.L,.7.1170 Finance ~'~,.L27.1140 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation C~ ..... £'2~, q~? , :,,_,::._-. s~,~ ~_,' i120 Fa ;:: 952.22.';.i 1 i0 Recre3'.;op Cenie" Pr, see: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.!404 Planning & Natural Resources P~ona: 9,52.227.1130 %x: 952.227.i110 Public Works !591 Pa~k Road Pr, sae: 952.227.i300 Cz..:: ~'3_.227.1al U Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.11!0 Web Site -~,..~ k~ ~ ir- ~.'~; ~ ; ~Sfi .,,!q. US MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Saam, Assistant City Engineerf~ Matt August 20, 2002 Approve Security Escrow Agreement with Matrix Development Hidden Creek - Project No. 02-09 REQUEST Matrix Development, the developer of the recently approved Hidden Creek plat, is requesting the City approve the attached security escrow agreement. BACKGROUND As a condition of approval for the Hidden Creek plat, the developer is required to relocate the intersection of Pipewood Curve and Trunk Highway (TH) 7. The developer is attempting to coordinate the intersection relocation with the current MnDOT construction project on TH 7. DISCUSSION In order for MnDOT to complete the Pipewood Curve/TH 7 realigmnent, the State is requiring that Matrix Development provide funds in the amount of $100,000 to the City. This is due to the fact that MI]DOT does not like to enter into agreements with developers and prefers to deal xvith cities. Upon completion of the construction work by MnDOT, the City will release the funds to them. If, for whatever reason, MnDOT has not completed the road improvements by December 1, 2003, the funds may be used by Matrix Development to complete the construction themselves. In either case, Matrix Development is responsible for the intersection realignment while the City is not obligated to complete any of the work. This agreement, in no way, releases the developer of any responsibilities outlined in the development contract for Hidden Creek. The city attorney's office has previously reviewed the agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recoimnends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the attached escrow agreement between the City of Chmzhassen and Matrix Development regarding the outlay of funds for the relocation of the Pipewood Curve/TH 7 intersection. j ms Attachment: Escrow Agreement c: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Roger I<h~utson, City Attorney Framk Thera, Matrix Development g:\eng\projectsXhidden creek~security escrow a~eement.doc OFFICIAL EJ-~3iNEER!NG COPY Received Revision ~o. Approved by Ci'~y En~lineer Date ~ Approved by City Cour~ The City of Chanhassen · A craw/no commu.:ffty with clean lakes. ,~ua!ity schools, a cha~ing downtown. +~'~" :% ~ .... - ~ ,,,,;,,,o businesses, winding trails, and beautilui parks. A meat p!ace to Hve. v:ork. *od play. ESCROW AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of August ,2002 by and between Matrix Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Matrix"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. Matrix is the owner of real property located in the City of Chanhassen (the "Property"). Matrix is platting the Property as "Hidden Creek." B. As part of the development of Hidden Creek, the City is requiring construction of a turn lane and ancillary roadway improvements within the Trunk Highway 7 right-of-way (the "Road Improvements"), as identified on the final plat of Hidden Creek approved by the City on July 22, 2002, and as further set forth on the Trunk Highway 7 plans (the "Plans"). C. The Mi~mesota Department of Transportation ("MnDot") has agreed to construct the Road hnprovements, at MnDot's expense, except for One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to be contributed from Matrix to M~Dot in consideration of the Road ln~provements benefiting Hidden Creek. D. Matrix has agreed to deposit said $100,000 in escroxv with the City, to be released to MnDot upon completion of the Road Improvements. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as folloxvs: 1. Establishment of Escrow. Matrix hereby escroxvs with the City the sum of $100,000 (the "Funds"), to be held pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Funds must be deposited by Matrix in cash; provided however, if the Funds have not been released to MnDot pursuant to paragraph 3 below on or before December 1, 2002, then Matrix shall have the option to replace the cash Funds with an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $100,000, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City. 2. Road Improvements. The Funds shall be held by the City in escrow in an interest bearing account (unless such a practice is against City policy) and released to MnDot only upon completion of the ~oad Improvements consistent with the Plans. The Road Improvements shall be deemed "complete" upon certification by a licensed engineer that the Road Improvements have been completed in substantial compliance with the Plans. 3. Release of Funds to MnDot. Upon the City obtaining the above-mentioned certification, certifying that the Road hnprovements are "complete," the City shall release the Funds to MnDot. Any interest earned on the Funds shall be returned to Matrix. 2244135v6 Printed 08/20/02 2:16 PM 4. Completion of Work by Matrix. In the event (i) MnDot has commenced work on the Road Improvements (the "Commencement of Work"), (ii) the City has allowed Matrix to proceed with certain aspects of its development pursuant to that certain Development Agreement dated July 22, 2002 by and between the City and Matrix (the "Development Agreement") based on such Commencement of Work and in anticipation of the Road Improvements being completed in a timely maimer, and (iii) MnDot has not completed the Road Improvements or has ceased work on the Road Improvements on or before December 1, 2003, then Matrix shall be required to complete the Road Improvements on or before June 30, 2004 and seek reimbursement of the cost for such completion from the Funds. In no event shall the City have an affirmative obligation to complete the Road Improvements. 5. Return of Funds to Matrix. In the event that as of December 1, 2003: (i) MnDot has not comlnenced work on the Road Improvements; (ii) Matrix has not conveyed any individual lots to any homebuyers (exclusive of any sale of the entire Property contained within Hidden Creek to a single person or entity); and (iii) the City has not allowed Matrix to proceed with certain aspects of its development pursuant to the Development Agreement based on an anticipation of the Road hnprovements being completed in a timely manner, then upon written confirmation from Matrix that it has not satisfied one of the conditions to the Development Agreement and that, as a result, it will not be allowed to proceed under the Development Agreement, the City shall return the Funds to Matrix. Provided, however, Matrix shall have no obligation to complete the Road hnprovements except as may be expressly required by paragraph 4 above or the Development Agreement. In no event shall the City have an affirmative obligation to complete the Road Improvements. 6. Alnendment of Escrow. No rescission or modification to this escrow agreement shall be effective without written consent of the City and Matrix. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreelnent as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, LLC: By: Its: Frank Thera, President By: Its: 2244135v6 Printed 08/20/02 2:16 PM