The URL can be used to link to this page

1f. Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 19961 f CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City, Engineer; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BLVD., REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOME UNITS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Al Block 6800 France Ave. So Bob Smith Frank Svoboda Ken Adolf Greg Krauska Cindy Skack Tom & Marcia Kladek Gayleen & Roger Schmidt Jeri ? Bill Rodriques Ron Lindberg Monica Kilber Mike Voigt Debbi Skubic Dennis Medo 9170, Edina 6800 France Ave. So. #170, Edina 24000 TH 7, Shorewood Schoell & Madson, 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Mtka 2209 Lukewood Drive 2209 Lukewood Drive 2491 Bridle Creek Trail 8301 Galpin Blvd. 1840 Galpin 2357 Stone Creek Lane West 2480 Bridle Creek Trail 2470 Bridle Creek Trail 2483 Bridle Creek Trail 2483 Bridle Creek Trail 2420 Bridle Creek Trail 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 1996 Name Address Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh 2441 Bridle Creek Trail James Stasson 2461 Bridle Creek _Trail Arvy & Marleen Eeg 2479 Bridle Creek Trail Doug Johnson . 2,322 Boulder Road Janet Snedeker 24000 TH 7, Shorewood Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item, and in order to have continuity on this item which was tabled at the last meeting, Vice Chairman Peterson conducted the public hearing on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff? Mancino: Yes Mr. ,Chair, I have just a couple In looking ,at the Minutes from your last meeting, and I may, be asking some questions that were answered at the; last meeting. I'm sorry ' I wasn't present but I- did see that one of the questions that,the Planning Commissioners :asked for was an aggressive landscaping plan. L didn't have in my packet 'any new landscaping plan. Is there, one and has staff had time to review one, if there is one? Generous: There was. It was, submitted: at 4:30 this Monday. We have looked at it. It is a sign. ificant increase in landscaping. We believe it's in the wrong locations. Mancino: So we are going: to see that tonight? Generous: Yes, they'll provide some . details on that. They have increased the number of the species. Evergreen trees. We think that we could do a better job to it's strategic location of the landscaping rather than, theyput it where they removed the buildings and now they're hiding fronts of buildings and that 'didn't'seem to-be an issue before. We'd like to work with them on that. Mancino: Okay. And included in that plan is also delineation of which trees. will be removed. That we think will - come, out: during the construction process: Is there a, -.I know that on most of the landscaping plans that we see, we have a line that shows the delineation of which trees will actually be removed and I have not seen that on any of the plans to date. Generous: On the °revised grading plan they show. where that would be and that again came Monday afternoon so we weren't able to get that into. the packet. Mancino So that. we <.wi11 see that,_tonight also ?: 2 L F Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Generous: Right. And they also did do all the calculations for us. ' Mancino: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? I've only got one Bob. You talk about this, the two environmentals, Phase I that was done. How did you know there was a difference between... ' Generous: We just looked up. I provided a copy of the conclusions for both of them. One of them said they did not find any significant environmental problems on the site. And the other one talked about some issues that have since been resolved such as tires and batteries that ' were stored on site. Peterson: That was the first one. Generous: That was the first one and then between that and when this came forward, the property owner went out and did some... Mancino: Cleaned up. Generous: Cleaned it up. So again, the applicant has connected the two fronts so they can further discuss it. One of the issues was an underground storage tank that was specified as 1 being a potential on the first assessment and didn't show up in the second one. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mancino: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I have one more. I supposed soil contaminations, what do rules of city require for that whole area? I mean do we go in and every 2 feet do soil borings ' to decide if there's any soil contamination you know under the ground. In the ground. Hempel: Maybe I can address that a little bit. The building department with the demolition permit of the buildings and so forth will require soil reports, excavation and with that they will check for contaminants and deal with it accordingly. Mancino: And that is a matter of what this becomes, whether this is industrial office. Whether this is multi - family. Whether this is single family, Whatever. Do you go through the same procedure? ' Hempel: Any sort of development period. 1 Mancino: Thank you. Meeting - June 19 1996 Planning Commission eet g Ju , Peterson: Would the applicant or designee like to make a presentation? If so, please state your name and address. i Bob Smith: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bob Smith, Town & Country Homes. This evening we're here before you as a continuation from the last, 2 weeks ago the project and I'd first like to introduce some of the people out there. We have Mr. Al Block, President of Town & Country Homes, the Minnesota Division. Mr. Frank Svoboda, environmental, and Mr. Ken Adolf, our engineer. If you have any ' questions later on, these people will certainly be able to answer them. Mr. Block will be presenting some of the buildings later on after my presentation. The last Planning Commission... specifically to look at how our development impacts along the property line of Trotter's Ridge with all the landscape, environmental and wetland. The old plan, that you had seen last week, which is this plan here, specifically the area that we are looking at changing is identified in red. I this area here. This parcels has 142 homes on it. We identified through discussions here and through neighborhood meetings, which we also had a neighborhood meeting last night, that the neighbors would rather not see the rear of the building but in fact would prefer to see the front of the buildings, ends or diagonal views. So that's what we have done is changed our predominant design. Changed the street location and that's mostly what you see request a 140 homes. We dropped 2 homes in the development on this end. As you see here, the development has no homes at all along the property line. The home on this side is a diagonal view, and in the subsequent drawings you'll actually see this home as viewed from off the property in this location. We have, so you'll be able to see the , fronts here and the end on this one as well as the diagonal on this one. All along this edge here is a berm that is about 5 to 6 feet tall and pine tree landscaping all along the top. The previous plans that were submitted... plans had not changed to that point yet. They had shown only deciduous trees, specifically red maples. This plan here does show pine trees. We can change the locations, the species to whatever staff would like to see along that. This plan shows that we do a solid screen of pine trees that are 6 to 10 feet tall. Staggering them so ' we get a more natural look along the berm. This building here is an eight building. That's looking down which is added to the angle. We have the end view here which shows, really the minimal amount of impact. Visual impact on the building, or on the view. As I said, last , night we had a neighborhood meeting and many things were discussed. Two of them specifically were the wetland and the environmental. Mr. Generous had touched on the environmental. There is two, phase one environmental impacts. One associated with the previous development that in fact we didn't know about until last night. The second one was done by Pierre Environmental, which looks at the site. This morning we're having the two consultants talk to each other. Seeing where the differences are in the two, phase one request. ' Looking at such things as contamination. There's two particular diesel, above ground tanks that were removed. Looking at those. Looking at ... the soils that may have been contaminated. There's tires that were on the site that are now moved. There are batteries that 1 I I I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 were on the site that are now removed. All of those different items are being looked at. Continuing on through with the environmental study, we are going to be taking soil samples throughout the site. Continuing a thorough environmental assessment on the development. If delineation is necessary, we will do that in accordance with the city's ordinances and State regulations through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the things that were also discussed last night, that I already touched on were the berm along here and how this berm is screening and protecting. With a 6 foot berm and the smallest tree of 6 foot, you're looking at a median 12 foot screen on there, all the way up to a 10 foot screen with a 6 foot berm, looking at a 16 foot, a median screen of this entire area, as I said. This can be adjusted back and forth. Openings and closings. Different trees. Closer spaced trees. Whatever would satisfy the development. The other issue was the, one of the other issues was the wetland in this area here. Wetland people have delineated that in the past and have gone out there and again delineated that. We're studying that further through final engineering as well as environmental and in conjunction with the city staff to determine where the appropriate water level would be at for the wetland. The trees that were removed on the site, I don't have that plan with me this evening. The trees that were, and if you look on here, there's trees in the entire center area in the massing. Right through the center here there will be trees that will be taken out in this location, all through the sides and rear. All these trees will stay as well as all the trees along the edges of the wetlands and behind the homes. The wetlands will not be filled in these area and in this, there will be some small filling in this small remote wetland filled in this area. We are mitigating, opening up wetlands in this area to the 2:1 ratio in addition to storm water basins which are designed in this area and in this area, which really gives us a 5 :1 mitigation when you take into consideration the new wetland created and the wetland used on sedimentation basis. We do have this plan. Thank you. The trees that you see on the entire development, all the way around through here, up in here, and down in here and all along in here. The removal area is the shaded area through here and through here. The trees that will remain are up in here. All these trees. There's trees all along the back and trees along in here as well as in the front. In this area. The specific number of trees that are removed ... 234 trees are on the site. The number of trees on this plan that are proposed for removal is 137 trees. The proposal of the tree replacement that we have on this development is 384 trees to be replaced on this so we're looking at approximately 3 times the number of trees to go on the development as are removed. So from that we're adding trees, screen trees all along the perimeter, along the street. We're adding trees along here and adding the trees in through here. All along the perimeter. Along this area, as well as individual trees all along the, around the buildings themselves as part of the unit landscaping. At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Block, who will be presenting the. I have one more plan, excuse me Al that I'd like to take and show as far as a cross section. Another question that had arisen last night, was very specific on this building right here, which is this building. On how much land was being cut down. The comment was made last night that this hill is about a.30 foot hill, and. in fact this cross 5 F Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 ' g g , section that was taken through right here with all these buildings is this cross section right through here, and the cross section right through here. You go along the back, you're looking ' at probably an 8 foot rise in the hill on this side is a little farther down through here. Coming through here, we're looking at about 6 foot rise in the hill. These are actually the buildings, the homes that come through here. Showing the slight fill to this area. There's a slight cut through this area...about a 6 foot cut in here. Along the back property line as you , can see is totally non - impacted. Another cross section that we took is right down the center line of these two streets so we can see how much, where the land has been cut and filled. , Once again, starting at this end down here ... the green represents the existing grade. The red represents the proposed grade. We are coming down about 9 feet right through this area. Right in here. By the time we get out, we feel there's going to be a slight amount of fill and a little bit of fill in this area here. That cross section that we want to look at is the cross section through here, which is that berm area. Of big concern was, how high is that berm ' and how high are buildings above the natural ground. The natural ground once again is the grade of...through this area through here. This is a berm that we placed in here to create a solid earth screen. As you can see, this area has been filled all through here. It undulates up and down to create a more natural look. Coming through here ... C, Section C right through the end of the building, that there is, it needs natural berming in the back. One of my concerns was the previous neighborhood meeting, is that these trees were saved along here and right out the back of the building... so that these trees will not be impacted. If you have any questions of myself, I'd certainly like to answer them but I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Block. Al Block: Thank you. Al Block. Home address is 6558 Kingfisher Lane, Eden Prairie. Office address is 6800 France Avenue South, Suite #170, Edina. I'm going to take a couple minutes and respond to one of the requests that was made a couple of weeks ago, and that was that we show some more specific views of the buildings. How the landscaping fits in with them, and what the visual approach would be looking from the property to the north, , Trotter's Ridge... And I'll start from this area here on the easterly end with the building that you now have the end view of. And there are a couple of views here in these two displays. By the way, these are photographs blown up of our existing buildings we're building in Burnsville and then our landscaping plan as we currently have drawn it and added to those displays. And so the end unit, starting out and of course trees, when we initially plant them are going to be smaller. This is the end view of this building. There's a brick area around the entry door. The rest of these ... little brick wrapped around this end. So the only traffic movement, whatever you would have on the end of this building would be simply the residents going in and out of the front door. This was one of the concerns that we heard a good bit about, and naturally so is what about people looking out of these townhomes, into the homes or their back door. This window here is not a part of any room that one could be ' in that. room and . look out. the .window and be at a higher elevation and. look in. - It's strictly 6 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 the staircase area and it's designed for light... area and so on. Bringing light both down and up in the home so it's not an active living area where you could do that. Where you could be looking into homes. That happens to be the area, by the way that is the closest to any home and according to our calculations, to the rear of this home is 110 feet. The next area I want to spend a little time on is this 8 unit building. Of course this is a sharp shoot ... has a lot more mass to it. This happens to be a photograph of the rear of an 8 unit building that we're just completing in Burnsville. Again we've added in the landscaping plan. Fortunately there ' are a couple of relatively large trees. One is 30 inch... caliper right in this area which brings us the ... or corner of that building obviously is the closest to any home which according to our ' calculations would be 165 feet. And then it angles away. Again we can work with your staff and with the neighborhood as far as custom design this landscaping system to shield that building from the neighbors to the north of us. And there, incidentally there are a number of different approaches you can take. You can say we're not going to berm it. We're just going to put in a lot of trees. You can get a very gentle berm ... trees or even high berm that was presented by Bob. This happens to be the front of what that building looks like. This may actually be, you know this is a 7 unit building so it actually is a little bit longer ... and see how it stretched out. Over here we have a 6 unit building and again the landscaping would be similar except you have two large units. I think this one actually is the rear of the 6 unit building here. So that's how you see we tend to put landscaping in between the at grade patios and so on and so forth. By the time you get, and that building by the way is 285 feet to the closest home. This, your back to an 8 unit building... wetland. A lot of things in between you and you have 305 feet in horizontal dimension. So I hope that answers, and begins to give you an idea of what's going on with the landscaping plan and... I think I went through the main points I wanted to make this evening. Now I do have panels of all the materials, if you want to take a couple minutes to look at those. There are five different color plans. ' Peterson: Why don't you briefly review them. Al Block: You would? Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Block a question? Can you put those pictures back u p a minute? Can you show me the front of the 7 units? Where's the, I just have a couple ' questions. Where's the front door? I mean I haven't seen... Al Block: In here. In this area in here. We tend to put the front doors in back—and in ' corners so when you look in you don't see them except in this case. Then in here, the front doors are hidden back in these areas on the side. ' Mancino: And on the left unit, what's the? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Al Block: Yeah, this space happens to be filled in temporarily with these kinds of doors I because it's a model area. Ordinarily these would be garage doors in here. Mancino: Oh, okay. I Al Block: So if you can kind of imagine this... That's what it's going to look like. Mancino: Then I have a couple questions on your middle photo. The backs of the units. A , couple things. They're obviously different price ranges for the townhomes. Can you add a screen porch? Can you add a balcony? What are some of the changes that can be made and is there a difference between the lowest townhome and the highest priced townhome as far as the outside appearance? Or is it all done internally? Al Block: I'll answer the last question first, because it's probably the easiest. Most of the differences are in front as far as the difference in price. The other key element of course is the interior units have the one car garage space. The end ones have two car. Mancino: Okay, and you said most. Al Block: Most of the difference in price. I guess all of the difference in price. Mancino: Is it all? Okay. Al Block: As to your first question, our covenants would not permit anybody to make any modifications to the exterior of the building at all unless they were to get approval of the property owners association. And that is very, very difficult to do because you haven't given approval... Mancino: So once they buy in, that's it? Al Block: That's it. i Mancino: But being a first time home buyer, I come in and I say can I add a screen porch I right now? As you're constructing I would like to. Al Block: No. No, during our construction process we allow no changes at all from these plans. From the exterior. All of the modifications are interior. Mancino: Thank you. , a 1 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Joyce: I have a question Mr. Block, if you don't mind. You said you have this development down in, a similar development down in Bloomington? Al Block: No Burnsville and Eagan. Joyce: I'm sorry, Burnsville and Eagan. Are they, how large are those developments? Al Block: In the case of Burnsville, it's 108 townhomes. In the case of Eagan, it's a total of 200. There are 90 in the first phase. Joyce: Okay. Are they of the same price category as what we're talking about here? Are they all? Al Block: These will be priced higher than that. Joyce: They will be? Al Block: Yes. Because the costs are higher. S Joyce: So what you've built in those other two areas are six - plexes and eight - plexes basically, similar to what we're talking about here right. Al Block: Yes. There are a few buildings that are 4 and 5 units, but the lion share are 6, 7 and 8. Joyce: Have you considered, I guess I'm just throwing this out. Putting some duplexes and quad - plexes into any of these developments that you're putting up? Al Block: We always are looking at that. One of the difficulties, when we refer to it, it's not difficult. One of the problems with it is, immediately your cost of construction goes up significantly. It's always much more cost effective to build in the 5, 6 or 7, 8 unit building. Joyce: I kind of assumed that but it's a narrow price range is what I'm getting at. But that's the price, basically you have a narrow price range in the other two developments as well. Al Block: Yes and no. I brought along some information and I'll address that for just a moment. And I'll give a copy of this to your staff. It's kind of interesting. A lot of people are kind of focused particularly on the lower price range home, since obviously for us a concern and what impact is that going to have on the ... and so on. In Eagle's Ridge, the ' community in Burnsville, the first 18 sales, and we've gotten beyond .this .so this is... Out of 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 the first 18, at that price range by the starting price range is $79,900 to $105,000. Because of all of the options and upgrades and other things that everybody puts into these homes, there ' were three that were priced at $87,002.00. Two that were in the mid -90's and 13 that were $100,000.00 to at the top end, $130 something. In Eagan, a somewhat similar situation happened. Again the price range on the lots are slightly higher. It starts at $83,900 and goes to $108,900. There were three in the high 80's, one in the mid 90's and 15 that were $100,000.00 to $140,000.00. Joyce: Thank you. Al Block: If we're ready I'll take a minute to get a ... And by the way, I'm going to give you an updated sheet here and you'll see some information, if you're interested here. What is happening in the brick business is there are some things that previously were being put into brick and /or manufacturing processes. There were found to be somewhat detrimental to the environment so the brick samples I'm showing you, there are going to be very, very slight differences. The new name, and the slight difference in color is parenthesis on your sheet. So what is not in parenthesis is what was presented. And the first, A, I think is now called Spaulding 2. It might have been 4. It's a combination of this roof material, brick, siding, facia, soffit, shutter. That should be item B on your list. Same scenario. Shingle, brick, siding, facia soffit, shutter. This one's a little smaller. We didn't have a large, this is number C, or letter C. Shingle, siding, facia, soffit, shutter. Letter D. Same rotation. E. A little more of a traditional. We do by the way invoke, try to work with your staff if you choose on this but we do invoke a very, very specific color rotation and so on these so we don't have... Mancino: You've shown us five different bundles of brick and roof and siding. Is that, if I look at your layout of the preliminary plat, you take one of these packages and you apply that entire area to one of the buildings, correct? Al Block: Correct. Mancino: And how do you decide which building gets which package? , Al Block: Take into consideration landscaping, location, direction of sun light. All those kinds of factors. The surrounding features of the land and ... very professionally. We'd be more than happy to include your staff in that process. It's a team... It's not one individual that does it. The architect designing the buildings. The landscape person that designs the landscaping system. Ourselves. We've also got... Mancino: Thank you. 10 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Al Block: Yes. Six is about 125? Bob Smith: Yes. ' Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. ' Al Block: Thank you for your time. Peterson: What I'd like to recommend now is that, there seems to be some issues and questions that the neighborhood has and I'd like to offer that we open it up for another public hearing. With that I ask my fellow commissioners to motion that we open it for a public hearing. I 7 L Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Is there anybody from the neighborhood or the area that would like to make a presentation or comment before the commission tonight? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I spoke here last time at the Planning Commission meeting. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I've got a few comments and 11 Al Block: I think that pretty much covers... unless you've got any questions. 1 Peterson: One more question from myself at least. The building on the eastern portion of the development. Is that a eight -plex or is that six? Al Block: That is an eight complex. ' Peterson: The picture in front of me directly... that's a picture of the seven? ' Al Block: This one was an eight and that is a seven. Peterson: Can ve me some, give i basically g the length of the back of the six the back of the Y seven and the back of an eight approximately? I may have asked this last time. Al Block: Eight is 149... ' Peterson: For the eight unit? Al Block: Yes. Six is about 125? Bob Smith: Yes. ' Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. ' Al Block: Thank you for your time. Peterson: What I'd like to recommend now is that, there seems to be some issues and questions that the neighborhood has and I'd like to offer that we open it up for another public hearing. With that I ask my fellow commissioners to motion that we open it for a public hearing. I 7 L Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Is there anybody from the neighborhood or the area that would like to make a presentation or comment before the commission tonight? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I spoke here last time at the Planning Commission meeting. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I've got a few comments and 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 questions for the Planning Commission. I also have one question to start out for the proposed buildings, about whether or not balconies can be placed on the backs of buildings. I guess I wasn't clear from the presentation about that. I'd like to continue with a few comments and then ask some questions, like I said. Last week the neighbors... petition drive and we wish to inform the Planning Commission that we have filed a petition with the Environmental Quality Board requesting to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Several of the concerns cited in the ... included the potential for detriment to the effect of the surface quality ' water. The ground water, wildlife and a lot of wildlife habitat, the danger to species, historical and archeological resources ... and looking at some of those matters, they were very interested in the fact that Indians, well I should say Native Americans, had been part of history in this area and... Also as part of the discussion about the name Chanhassen. I had never known what that was ... big tree. That's the maple. The other points that I brought up have to do with aesthetics and... Also I have a question about the water quality issue. This is one of the ponds... This occurred on June 5th. We were wondering about this as a community. I would like to ask the Planning Commission if this is what is termed commencement of construction under the Chanhassen zoning ordinances. Also, is this a , violation of the U.S. Corps of Engineers wetlands regulations and also the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. In wrapping up, we wanted to let the Planning Commission know that we, as a neighborhood, will.be canvasing again this coming Saturday to produce a letter... Also wish to gather information from... about what the ... about options for industrial office or some other types of building mix. We intend to inform the Planning Commission and City Council of this... ' Peterson: Thank you. 11 : Hello. M name is Nina Wallestad. M Nina Wa estad y y husband and I own a house that is under construction at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. I believe that the developers have tried to address some of the concerns on the eastern portion of the bordering but I would like to express my concern about the western portion of this bordering position. My husband and I are in the tenth lot over, if I could point to it for just a moment. This one right here, and , because of the situation of the trees on our particular lot, 2 or 3 trees to be specific, we were required to set our house further back on our lot. So although most of the Trotters Ridge houses are fairly close to the curb, our's sits further back. So I would just like to have that be addressed in this plan in that even though these buildings are a certain distance away from the lot line, our particular house happens to sit even further back on the lot. And I would also bring up the point that in order to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot, we were required to set our ' house back. This plan is going to wipe out more than 100 trees, and it doesn't seem it seems kind of incongruous that to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot we had to make that adjustment but here a developer is about to wipe out over 100 trees and it's not going to be required... address the fact that these are huge oak trees that are of value and ... kind of inconceivable to me that, 12 1 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 it seems like a double standard basically is what I'd say. I'd ask you to consider that. We were happy to do that because we wanted to save the trees and we believe they're a real asset to this part of Chanhassen and I would agree that applies just as much, 200 feet to the south of our house as it did on our actual lot. Thank you so much for considering that. We appreciate it. Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek Trail. I am the lot right here. This weekend my wife and I took a perimeter tour of the various developments that have grown up in the greater Galpin neighborhoods. The only thing we noticed was that each different development was allowed to develop it's own uniqueness and separate it from the other community developments that were ... next to it. And we keep hearing the word transition talked about and the only think lacking in this transition is transition. We're talking about light industrial, townhouses right up to the executive home sites without, I think a natural buffer to protect those views. And I also think that if you are looking at townhouses or you're looking at something to develop here, I would think a more creative development would be in order. I mean the questions I've been hearing up here are, well okay. Last year it was the Scherber Brothers, I remember that and one of the things was that they said cookie cutter neighborhood. That the neighbors opposed on this property and I would look at this as a cookie cutter townhouse development. I don't see any difference in the concept, except that it's for lower income. But I think the puralistic concept of mixing income groups in there, or trying to get different looks in different townhouses and try to create a neighborhood in this property rather than just something that I frankly, I had a meeting with this firm ... Twin Cities market and we're going to be able to drive ... so there will be nothing unique in a neighborhood that is I think quite frankly for it's uniqueness of all these different developments. So aesthetics is all I can say and I think that this does not answer any, these tweakings that you're talking about, don't address the aesthetics at all and with that I would take my seat again. Thank you. Mike Minear: Good evening. I'm Mike Minear, here with my wife Jeri from 2421 Bridle Creek Trail and I just want to give you a quick update on the water issue. The builder, as we talked to them last night, had offered to work with staff to address the water issue and they had volunteered to help address it. I guess my concern is, as I understand this plan now, there is no specific plan or guarantee that the water issue for the homes here, and certainly the water issues here, have really been addressed. As a homeowner I saw the ... on the water issue and as I said two weeks ago, the city has told me that they really don't have the power to deal with this. And if that's the case, that's fair. So what I would ask however, before the plan is approved, that the water issues are addressed and it's really dealt with upfront as opposed to us having to try to deal with it, with the builders afterwards and they really don't comply with... I'd appreciate it if you'd consider that before you make your decision, thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Peterson: Anyone else like to address the commission? Hearing none, seeing none, is there a motion to close? Oh, one more. Jim Stasson: Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek Trail. Just a couple of questions. You had mentioned that the Fisher property was cleaned up between the first engineering survey and the second. I'm wondering, does that have to be supervised or can anybody just clean that up? And if so, what are the supervised... The developer mentioned that there have been soil samples. I think a lot o£..they've done a lot of soil samples but they've already done... Peterson: Maybe you could comment on both, there's two questions that have been raised tonight. Water quality issue and the ponding drain. Explain the scenario behind ponding drain and undulating construction... Hempel: As far as the ponding drain, it's my understanding from discussions with Mr. Fisher that the pond outlet control had become plugged over the last year, which raised the water level in the area. And what Mr. Fisher has done is gone and cleaned out that outlet control to allow it to drain down to the water level that's been established for the past years. I believe the staff person, Phil Elkin, the Water Resource Coordinator has been out there. Also a DNR Conservation Officer has been involved. But that's about as much as I know on that. As far as the clean-up goes, again it's going to fall back with any kind of demolition out there, an additional soil test will be performed. Removal of storage tanks. Those sort of items require the soil sample. Peterson: Other comments? Al Block: ...say, we mentioned it last night but not here tonight but along the one storm drainage problem that exists, I believe it's inbetween Lots 2 and 3 on the northern half. Either work with that and if there's any way ... there's a system being developed... And as to the wetland, we're ready to work with the experts who know this kind of thing and city staff in order to... Peterson: While you're up there, you may want to address the balcony issue was raised earlier also. Al Block: Oh yes, thank you. No. Balconies are not allowed except ... in these plans it is possible as an alternative to build what we call flats and what we do is take two units and actually convert them so instead of them both going two story, as currently, they're one level so that all the living space is on the lower level and one living unit and all the spaces in the upper ... so that was to create a balcony for the upper living area. We discussed at the neighborhood meeting. last night. that we .certainly would. agree that on these buildings here, 14 1 ri F- ' I L Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 we will not build that kind of units so ... our plans which would be submitted and approved by your staff, no balconies on the backs. Peterson: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have one question to ask Mr. Block. Another question was brought up about trees and to what degree, seeing your drawing... move one of these units to save some of the oaks ... as you go through the final planning, the final platting, the final grading looking at that to move the building, cock it a certain way, etc. just to save some trees. Al Block: Absolutely. We'll work with your staff in order to do that. Along with that, in our landscaping plans, and the plan submittal ... if this were to get any kind of approval, it would include some very specific things ... make sure that the trees are part of..very specific procedures of training the roots, fencing them off, so on and so forth. Linda Statton: My name is Linda Statton and I don't live in Trotters Ridge but I do live at 2209 Wood ... Drive, which is in the Oaks, on the other side of Galpin. And actually this was just brought to our attention, this proposed development... but I would very strongly urge the commission to look at how developers of this type ... other communities in terms of, I understand that Chanhassen has a need for a wide variety of housing price plans but I'm wondering about the fact that this is right in the middle of an area where the ... price point is about $225,000.00 and I know from the surrounding neighborhoods it goes up to $400,000.00 and I really question whether this is the appropriate type of development... commission's really looked at that and what the impact has been in other communities about this type of development having put in ... and I'm just wondering if they're in areas where the adjacent properties are similar to this environment. It sounds like it's sort of that transition issue again ... but I did want to speak out to that.... neighbor not just in the development next to this but down the street. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin. Again not part of Trotters Ridge, but they've represented themselves quite well. Just for generalities, I too support their views and I don't think this is the kind of development we want in that area but as somebody that lives close by, there's a couple of points that I just want, a couple questions to ask. Number one, nobody really addressed the fact that this building along Galpin. Again, they'd be sitting ... and there's a lot of us what we in Minnesota call scrub trees, that's red cedar, that are nevertheless they help. They help screen but I still think, that's still not much tree and I'm wondering if somebody's looked at the aesthetics from the street as having a lot like that. The other thing is, would be that these are, a couple of the trees are being removed 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 and trees are being saved. I don't know, I haven't been on that property for several years but I'm wondering if the trees that are being removed aren't primarily the prime trees there... The trees, if they're just a number ... red cedar, which they're not what I consider a prime tree. The one other point is, and I don't know the answer to this either but how practical is a one car garage in units like this? Living out this far, this far out from town and so forth.... parking in the streets so those... Peterson: Anyone else want to address the commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public healing was closed. Peterson: Kevin, may I get your comments? Joyce: Thanks. Peterson: You're welcome. Joyce: Okay. Actually before I get into my comments I wanted to respond to some of the correspondence I received from the neighbors in Trotter's Ridge. I think we all got letters in the mail. And it was mentioned in a couple of the letters that I received, the concern of increase in crime if this development is approved and built. I think there needs to be some sort of clarification here. We're talking about affordable housing, not low income or subsidized housing. And I think if this project becomes a reality, the people who occupy these homes would, will qualify for mortgages. Will probably, I'm sure be gainfully employed to necessitate the ability to pay those $90,000.00 4100,000.00 mortgages. Certainly they'll be different in financial position than the people in Trotter's Ridge and they'll have, I'm sure some of them will have different life cycle positions. They might be retired or single. Don't want the large expense of having homes that are hard to maintain and that kind of thing. We're pretty confident they'd all be really good citizens here in Chanhassen, and I believe that the level of crime for 140 units of this type of development would probably be the same as the level of crime for 140 units in Trotter's Ridge if it was expanded. So I think your group has done a great job and I think you're very well organized and I strongly urge you to continue your presentation to City Council, but I just thought that bringing this crime issue up was kind of irrelevant and maybe that's really the wrong way to pursue it. I didn't hear about it at the meeting tonight but it was mentioned in two letters. And that kind of leads me into what's really relevant about this situation is the affordable issue. Label that's put on to these homes. I guess I'd consider it kind of a stigma attached to this project. As has been stated before, this area is definitely going to be developed. There's no ifs, and's or but's about it. We can delay. the inevitable for as long as you want but you know it's by 16 l F 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Indian artifacts out there and everything else but this will be developed some day. The neighbors I've found,or at least I'm hearing have basically stated they would rather see it office industrial than these townhomes and if you consider the amount of tree loss and grading and mitigations necessary to put the office industrial in, it kind of proves to me that ' the neighbors just want anything that's not affordable housing is what it boils down to. I mean that's really the nuts and bolts of this discussion here I guess. So affordable housing I think is a central issue here. And I think it's a real problem with this development here too. The Livable Communities Act was mandated by our legislature and I think it's a real nice idea in theory. It's like every other nice idea, it's got real problems implementing these types of things. And I think project is a kind of a good example of that problem. I would believe ' that the Livable Communities Act goal was to integrate affordable housing into these communities. With other levels of housing priced above affordable, and this is a real huge ' development with a very narrow pricing. Marketing price. It's really kind of segregated from the neighborhood to the north and the neighborhood to the east. And I don't think that's what the Livable Communities Act wanted to do. You've got a big development that's going to be ' called affordable in between a lot of large, other developments that have other price tags on them. So I think it would be more suitable for this, I think this would be a good townhome development but I really think it'd be more suitable to have varying levels of income entry. I ' think it'd be much easier to accept this development if it was from $85,000.00 to let's say $150,000.00 or $160,000.00 .... If we have, rather than six and eight plexes but we had some duplexes in there that weren't "affordable ", you could have a more diverse neighborhood in there. I think a more diversed housing appearances. I agree with some of the neighbors, it is a cookie cutter looking neighborhood. I do think that the developer has gone out of his way to appease the neighbors in this situation. I think they put a lot of effort into putting the ' trees. The first rendition of this, I have a real problem with the tree loss... obviously attack that aspect of it so I appreciate that. But once again you're berming up so that, it's not really the transition... affordable housing in here. I just don't think that's the, I don't think that was the concept of affordable. I think that this, I think that the planning staff did an excellent job working with the developer to try and get a mixed use in here. I think that affordable housing definitely could fit into this equation. But I'd like to, I'd be much more comfortable ' with a balance of, what's the term? Non - affordable housing? I don't know. Whatever you come up with that kind of term. And I think we're going to run into this problem again and again and I think somewhere they can get a little more imaginative or the developers have to get a little more imaginative with a large development like this to insure that we're not plopping 140 units of "affordable housing "... I think if this was defined as a townhouse development that had a range and didn't fit into, had some affordable housing but wasn't classified as affordable housing, I think a lot of the neighbors... so those are my comments. Peterson: Don. Your comments please. 17 L Meeting - June 19 ' Planning Commission g > 1996 Mehl: I agree a lot with what was just said here. Some things have been done here that I agree with in orienting the buildings. And in moving a couple buildings here right next to Trotter's Ridge. It would seem that even though they're oriented and ... that somebody can look straight up the back of the building. It might be a few feet farther away so that concerns me ' a little bit. I agree with the mixed use, the transition as we've tried to show here. But I also have mixed emotions too about the price range of the houses immediately next to some of those that are in the 2, 3, 400,000 range. So I guess I'd like to hear what the rest of you have ' to say about it at this point. I'm not totally convinced but hear the rest of you. Peterson: Jeff. 1 Farmakes: I apologize I wasn't at the previous meeting... As I recall, when Timberwood came in and Stone Creek was put in and I remember one woman making a comment that we should insist that each home sit on 2 1/2 acres because they had more acreage. It's kind of a slippery , slope when you get into varying zonement based on the value of the home. It's real, the value of the home is determined by the market and although we indirectly sort of define the , basic price of the home, townhome or whatever priced zone, we don't zone by saying in this particular zone of single family, all houses can be between $400,000.00 and $500,000.00, and therefore transition on any development next to us can't be less than say 10% of that value. We don't do that. That's just not how it's done. When someone invests in property, and they're on the edge of a development, that developer sort of defines, by covenant or by market, the value of that development and i.e., usually someone who develops the farmland next to it, picks up on that and there is some transition. Unless there are extenuating circumstances. In this case there's extenuating circumstances. The city obviously is looking for areas to come up with affordable housing. Usually those areas predictably will be next to ' an industrial area. Could be next to a freeway or next to a commercial zone ... any of the properties around here where you see this type of house, and you can find them on TH 101 up here, and 78th. You can find them behind Byerly's. Those type of townhouses. Basically ' in a $20,000.00 price range between $80,000.00 and $100,000.00. It's a very typical type of townhouse that you'll see all over town. The cost of property in Chanhassen, the cost of building this type of unit and the cost of selling it is pretty much dictating what type of home , is going to be. If the issue that we talked about here is affordability, and that $20,000.00 price range is basically what you're going to be working with. And the question is, is this the appropriate place to put it? It does border an industrial area. But it also borders an area that ' I think was referred to as executive homes. That's a marketing term. Not a zoning term. We don't have an executive zone. And I don't think that we should. The issue of market is the market's determined. We should be able to, at a minimum zoning and if we get into an area ' of PUD, I think that we should be careful to note that we shouldn't expand beyond the manageable amount that we're going to do affordable housing because I agree with you. You ' can create a stigma to a neighborhood by doing that. It would be preferable to me if we deal 18 1 �J Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 with this issue as part of a development. Where integration is an important thing. That we try to do that. I'm not smart enough to know how to do that. But I know that that's a central issue in the lot of stuff that we've discussed. The integration of affordable housing, and how we're doing this I think is very typical. People invest a certain amount of money into property. They want to protect that. If somebody on the edge of that development changed the rules, they'd be very upset. They're concerned about their investment. They're concerned about all this other stuff. The letters you said about crime and fire hazards, material, Indian artifacts and stuff, they're skirting the issue of what we're talking about here. This is an economic issue of certain economic classes in a situation and when we talk about this, I think it's best that we talk about the real issue, rather than skirt around this thing. And at least from a zonement aspect, we deal with minimums and I think we have to support that. From a political aspect, that's for your elected officials to deal with. I'll leave it at that ... the developer has been cooperative dealing with some of these issues. But I don't think that you can deal with the issue of solving both sides of the problem by waving his hand and saying, okay. All these townhouses now are going to be $250,000.00 and up. That's not how you solve the situation. You either are or you aren't... Peterson: Nancy, your comments. Mancino: Well I have, the last time this came in front of the Planning Commission it was single family. We, as a planning commission, I don't know if it was a unanimous vote or not, said that we wanted to keep the IO zoning. The industrial office. We did not want to lose tax base, etc. and that this had been when everyone moved into this area, they knew that it was industrial office. So when we moved it to City Council we made that recommendation. That it not be rezoned to single family. That it stay IO. And I am still in favor of that. When it came, has come back to us from City Council, and I guess Bob I'm asking this to you. It came back because City Council wanted us to look at including multi - family with the IO? Generous: They mentioned a few different options. A compromise development was what they directed staff and the Scherber Brothers to work on. Scherber Brothers did not want to compromise. Mancino: They didn't want to compromise at all? So someone else came in and compromised. I strictly speaking, and I don't know if it will, how we would handle the transition but I still very much believe in the industrial office zoning stay here. And to be the entire, what is it, 42 acres. But I will say that I think staff and I think that the applicant has worked well with staff. Has listened to all of the neighbors concerns and has made a just, a very faithful effort to try and take in all those concerns. So thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on this. I think the City Council is really going to really do this and I think what we've done in the process is, we're bringing it forward to the Council and Mr. Mayor, some I think a reasonable alternative for this land. I think that it's probably along the lines of what the City Council was asking for. It's a pretty good PUD. And I think that the neighbors do understand that no matter what goes in. The nice thing about what's going on is I think something's going to go in here and we're getting our hands around it and we're solving some of the problems. We probably will never appease the neighbors in what goes in here, given the zoning. I'm sure they'd like to have something that looks like what they live in right now. I've struggled with this because I've sort of committed when I guide something, I hang in there with whatever I guide land for and that's what neighbors can count on and that's pretty much the way I vote on issues unless I feel there's neighborhood support. Because it's our communication with them beforehand is the one thing we can do that lets them know what we want to do and what they are going to have to live with in the future. Saying that, I guess I'm, it's one of these, I'm playing a role now where I think, and I need to say it, I think I know what's best for you and I hate to do that. But my real problem here is, I have a real easy time voting and keeping the current direction for the land use as industrial area. It makes sense tax wise and, but it doesn't make sense though on a couple issues. It doesn't make sense environmentally. This is probably a better environmental plan than what we're going to get when we put commercial in there. Also you're going to have some real big footprints when you put commercial in there. And it's not going to be as good as this. So I'm trying to listen to what the neighbors are saying and a lot of it is something I can't solve, like I think some of the commission have said, but in terms of what I think would be more livable in terms of long range for them, this is probably better than anything we can do with industrial commercial in that area. I can't imagine, and I've been trying and I'm not a developer but I've been trying to figure out how I'd do it to be sensitive to all the issue and I really don't know that I can, so the bottom line is, I see a couple things that I think that the applicant has solved some of my problems. A couple things I haven't solved yet. I still think the back sides of the buildings are exceptionally boring and exceptionally bad. I really don't like that. I would have liked to have seen a landscape plan in my packet so there's a couple issues that I would have liked to have seen. I think maybe the variety of building materials might help us but again the back sides of things are a problem. I also still don't think, my biggest issue still is the northern part. Still is the footprints that I see so I'm not sure how I'm going to, you know I do believe that what's here is probably in the best interest of the neighbors in the long run if we solve some of the problems. And that's only because I see, I can't find a way I can put commercial in there being better than this particular plan. Would sure like to look at the building profiles on the north side. Again the eight - plexes and the 150 foot, I think we've solved some of the problems. I'd really like to figure out, and maybe that's what the City Council can do. See if ►Ti7 1 77 I r I� I� r- L 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 we can get down to some four - plexes on that northerly side. But that's my only other issue with this plan. Peterson: Well I too am struggling like the rest of the commissioners and it really comes down to a couple. One that Nancy mentioned earlier that this area came to us a few months ago and we said that there wasn't... single family homes, there wasn't enough of a compelling reason to rezone it. It wasn't unique design and it didn't provide any additional character to the community. That was one of the primary reasons that I chose to vote against it. So to that end, I struggle with that on this same plan, which I think has less uniqueness and I think in many ways we've defined uniqueness in this one as being affordable. I don't want to accept that as a rationale to rezone in and of itself. As Ladd mentioned too, I think part of the reason that we'd consider rezoning is neighborhood agreement and in this case, we don't have that seemingly. And as Ladd said also, I'm confused as to why they wouldn't agree. I look at, if the back of my neighborhood were developed and was to be industrial office, I'd much rather have it be a complex like this. But yet I'm not hearing that tonight, which further pulls me to not approving this, and it's primarily for those two reasons so. Any additional comments by members of the commission? Mancino: I would like to have some discussion around, if we could, hear some comments from one of the conditions of the approval in the report is, number 2. The developer shall insure a minimum of 50% of the units meet the Metropolitan Council's definition of affordable housing. I would just, I think it would be a good idea to give the Council support or staffs recommendation of that or not. If you don't mind my asking, how did, and this may have been talked about at the previous meeting and I'm sorry to repeat any of this if it is so. How did staff come up with a 50% affordable meeting? Aanenson: Sure, I'm glad you asked that question. Bob touched on it briefly but as you recall, when Scherber Brothers came forward with their project, there was different zoning options. And we said if we were going to change this, there had to be some advantage to the city. Obviously one of the goals the city needs to achieve is some affordable housing. When Scherber Brothers chose not to pursue any other options, and there was four alternatives for the property. Somebody else came forward. Originally they came in with a larger portion of this property being multi - family. We ... as much industrial with the transition. When they originally approached the city, they represented to us a product that was 100% affordable. We had some of the same concerns. They knew what the price margin, and I think maybe we should address that to the applicant to tell you what the price margin is because they are greater than I think what you believe they are. So we said 50 %. Again, we don't want to put them all in one spot but we said if there needs to be, if there is a reason to change the zoning, then there should be something, a goal, and diversified housing is a goal of the city. It's in our Comp Plan right now. And that is something that we would want to achieve. So 21 Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 ' g g , we put the 50 % in there. We don't see this whole, 100% so 115 is the price for affordable housing as defined by the Metropolitan Council. , Mancino: 115. ' Aanenson: Thousand. And more, correct. So there is product above that. There is various options within this. There are walkouts. There are lookouts. There's slab on grade so there ' is an opportunity for a wide range of, as they indicated, of add -on's and these start at a higher price, and maybe the developer can speak to the price range on that but we believed that 50 %. Again, we don't want to see all of, the whole produce being in the affordable range. ' Do you want to talk about the price? Al Block: What the price range... I Aanenson: Right. Al Block: The largest home ... with basement, with options, is probably $150,000.00. And the lowest end probably $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 would be the lowest priced home. Peterson: Any other questions or comments? Can I get a motion? Please. ' Mancino: I will make a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends the City , Council keep #96 -1b in the original zoning of Office Industrial. Peterson: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'd second that. Mancino moved Farmakes seconded that the Planning ommission recommend that the City ' g ty Council deny the Land Use Map Amendment 996 -1b from Office /Industrial to Residential ' Medium Density, Town and Country Homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Thank you for coming. I Audience: I didn't hear the motion. Could that be repeated? Mancino: The zoning stay IO, Office Industrial. Zoning stays. PUBLIC HEARING: 22 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT J, BARDWELL ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 6250 CHASKA ROAD, BLACK WALNUT ACRES, WILLIAM SWEARINGEN. Public Present: � I J Name Address Bill & Nancy Swearingen Diane Lenertz 6250 Chaska Road 6269 Chaska Road Shmmin Al -Jaff presented the staff nepoit on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the Planning Commission? If you are, please do so at this time. Bill Swearingen: I read the staff report. Mancino: If you could come up and state your name and give your address. Bill Swearingen: I'm sorry. My name is Bill Swearingen and I own the property with my ' wife Nancy. I've read the staff report. We've worked with Sharmin. The staff report is comprehensive and I agree with it. Nancy and I agree with it 100 %. We're willing to comply with everything that Chanhassen has asked us to do. We're sorry to leave here. We're going to be moving, as soon as the closing takes place which will be in the next several weeks after approval, and we'll miss you all. Mancino: And you're moving in the summer from Minnesota? Bill Swearingen: Yes. Mancino: What summer, yes. Thank you. May I have a motion please to open this for a public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Favmakes seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. Please state your name and give your address. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Diane Lenertz: I'm Diane Lenertz. 6269 Chaska Road. I live directly across from what would be the outlot. My only concern with this is ... did try to assure me but I still want to state it for the record, is that by splitting this lot into an outlot, it opens it up for further sale of the outlot and then possible rezoning... commercial because of the frontage on TH 7 and TH 41 and that was... That is my concern. Mancino: Okay. If we could respond to that. Kate Aanenson: I can address that. The Swearingen's have tried to sell their property for at least a year. Nancy Swearingen: One year. Kate Aanenson: One year, and we've had numerous conversations about, because it is a large piece adjacent to the highway, and there's another remnant piece, what would be the acceptable options. We told them, as a staff, that we would only look at residential, quasi - residential. We didn't want to introduce commercial and what it would do the integrity of that neighborhood. There are already front facing lots on that and so we did look at possible alternatives such as maybe even a bed and breakfast because of the large lot but we said if it was to be something like that, it would have to maintain that large lot. Certainly the staffs position is that we want to have this be residential and we don't foresee commercial to degrade what's happening to the integrity of that neighborhood. But right now it's unbuildable until it comes in at a later date to be platted and our desire is to see it remain residential. But it conforms with residential so, there may be something else. Nancy Swearingen: Well all I can say is we worked very closely with our realtors and every report, we have renovated the house for the third time in 25 years and I'm a native of Chan and the road noise has gotten to be such a point that our realtor, the last realtor ... had said the lot, the land is unsalable because ... and we were panicked and we didn't know if we could sell it and this is an awesome deal for Chan. We've got a family that wants to raise their boys... decide what you're going to do with that corner. So the land wasn't sellable. For one whole year we had rave reviews and every comment was the road noise was incredible, and very difficult to sell so to just keep you fill where that land exists. And the our other neighbor probably knows this too, from the sound from the road. It's okay for us to be a buffer but that may not last forever. So you have an awesome buyer. Mancino: Anyone else wish to speak? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public heating. The public healing was closed. 24 �1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I don't have any, thanks. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Kevin. Joyce: Nothing additional. Mancino: No questions. I have none either. May I please have a motion? Conrad: I move the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96- 15 for Black Walnut Acres for one single family lot and one outlot as shown on the plans dated and received June 7, 1996, subject to the conditions of the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Would you take a friendly amendment and add the, what Sharmin gave us as a condition. Conrad: What was that? Mancino: The remnant piece located in the City of Shorewood shall be accessed via Chaska Road through Outlot A. Such restriction shall be recorded against the Deed for Outlot A. You would agree with that friendly amendment? Conrad: I certainly would. Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion? ' Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of ' preliminary plat for Subdivision #96 -15 for Black Walnut Acres for one single family lot and one oudot as shown on the plans dated Received June 7, 1996, subject to the following condition: 1. The remnant piece located in the City of Shorewood shall be accessed via Chaska Road, through Outlot A. Such restrictions shall be recorded against the deed for Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A NURSERY AND VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 101 AND TH 212, SKIP COOK Public Present: Name Address Skip and Teri Cook Harold Hesse 15506 Village Woods Drive 1425 Bluff Creek Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions? I have one. On the recommendation number 8. On page 9. It says stop signs shall be erected at the intersection of the driveways and Highway 101 and 212. Oh, I see what that means. Aanenson: Just kind of a queuing. Just so people understand that they're coming out onto a collector street. Mancino: So that is as they leave. Number 11, unused pallets and equipment located along the north property line shall be removed from the site. Equipment can be put in storage can't it? Aanenson: Well that was kind of, there is two storage buildings that some of the equipment, that there seemed to be some excess debris so I guess that's what we're saying. We want a list so we can see how it's expanding. A list that we believe that there's a threshold of equipment that can be stored on the site and we want to see more specifically. That was left off of the application. Mancino: And on 14, the deceleration lane. Who pays for that? Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. That's typically something for the applicant to work out with MnDot. As part of the upgrade of 212, there will be some widening in that and maybe some slight modifications done to the turn lanes or the expansion down there to provide a deceleration lane for the site. Mancino: But that is between the applicant and MnDot. I mean we, as a city, aren't saying you have to put in a deceleration lane. 26 1 n IL ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Hempel: That's correct. Because we don't have the jurisdiction on that highway but that ' would be MnDot. Aanenson: Yeah, and we did speak to someone from MnDot and they do want to work with the applicant and review their plans and give them approval so that is one of the conditions. They have to get MnDot approval. And because a signal is going in, as Dave indicated, there might be some modifications that affect access and they should work to get their approval. Mancino: And they would have to do that regardless of the expansion and what's going in there right now? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: I mean MnDot would come to them and say, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Peterson: Just a general question and the applicant, if they're here to respond to but I'm asking staff. Some of these things are financially onerous to some degree. Is this an issue ' that you've discussed with them or not? As far as like the acceleration lane and some of the other points that's going to cost them some money to get it done. Aanenson: Correct. I think some of the deceleration may be accomplished. Some of that may be accomplished with the signal going in at 212. If you look on the back, I believe some of that may. It may be as simple as just eliminating and forcing all the traffic to come out at TH 101. That might solve the problem because now with the light, you're going to have traffic stacking so it might be just easier to come out on TH 101 anyway where you have a controlled access point. We believe because they're in the landscape business, there is ' stock material that they can be using. Even if it's ball and burlap along TH 101 to provide that screening. Again because it is temporary, you're right. It is hard to do some of those improvements but we believe that some of that can be accomplished, just through careful design consideration of where they're storing things and how they're screening them to look. Again, there's concern that because this is the southern end of the city, we tend to look the other way and we are concerned about the visibility and entrance to the city. Mancino: Thank ou. Is the applicant here and do the wis r y pp y s to address the Planning Commission? Skip Cook: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. i 27 ! �J Planning ommission Meeting - June 19, 1996 ' g g Skip Cook: My name is Skip Cook. I own the property that we're talking about. On the ' corner of Highway 101 and 212. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the area, exactly where it sits but it's on the northwest corner. The current, I own the property and ,lust to make clarify because I own the property. I lease the property, okay. I'm coming to the end ' with the lease agreement of 4, a minimum 4 year lease with Wilsons Nursery who has a wholesale business in the city of Chanhassen, operating out of my place... They ran into some problems with management or whatever so now they're sub - leasing it to Henning. Dick Henning... so he's the one currently running it. When I first got the letter, I believe it was from John Rask and it was to the effect that I was in violation of something so immediately when you're in violation of something, I mean if you're speeding down the road, you're going ' to stop and talk to the officer or whatever or go through the ... so the first thing, I didn't go directly to City Hall. I did it through an attorney who I believe you're familiar with Kate. Craig Mertz. And so he went, the list I was given to prepare is I was totally unprepared or I didn't know where to start ... I thought he could do it quicker... so he got that together. What I, after further studying and looking at the letter that... staff report that was dated the 19th. In the second paragraph, if you look, this is just my conclusion and maybe you can... At the ' beginning of the second paragraph. Mancino: Excuse me. What page are you on? ' Skip Cook: Page number 2. Second paragraph. The subject property has been used as a farmers market and retail nursery prior to the adoption of the Chanhassen zoning ordinance in ' 1972. So you'll have to correct me but in my thinking, leasing it to someone, the whole property is the garden center and a retail nursery. I have not added a building. The two buildings that Kate talk about are there. They're used for nothing other than storage. There are no retail sales that occur out of there or ... to a nursery or any other business. There has been no land added to this property since as far as I know, since the nursery, garden center was opened. 10.9 acres, roughly more or less. As far as on page 3, and these are kind of ' questions that I've been putting out to you too. As far as illegally expanding, on page 3, the first paragraph after number 5. The land area to the west of the building which is currently ' used for storage of nursery stock was illegally expanded. I don't quite follow that. How it was illegally expanded when I didn't go through a land ... trees are agriculture and they're regulated by the Department of Agriculture. The deal has always been an agriculture. I don't ' know how, if it was ... than agriculturally permitted ... I guess that's a question. And I'm probably... Aanenson: No, that's fine. If I may, I'd be happy to answer that. It is a non - conforming use. ' It's a retail on an agricultural A2 property. We did make an amendment. Skip Cook: With a grandfather clause.: 28 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Aanenson: Well, you have grandfather rights which means you cannot expand any of the ' retail component. Okay, there's now the contractor's yard kind of component has expanded. You can display rocks. They're selling mulch. Dirt. Those sort of things. That has expanded. Okay. So if it was being continued to use in the way it was, they have the right to that, ' which is the original building and selling flowers. Are trees being grown on the site? Yes. Are trees being brought in? Yes. That's where it kind of falls into some of the gray area. ' But it has expanded as far as things that are being done on the property, and that's part of the documentation that we went through. If you look on this part of the report, and this is what we spoke to your attorney about too. ' Skip Cook: But the original, part of the deal, all of that was used and under till for years ... so that goes along with the project. There has been no property added to that. Now the trees, when they're in the field as far as the retail displaying those, from my point of view, and maybe I'm sounding a little bit ... those trees are growing. If you put a tree in any of your yards, you can't tell me that that tree isn't going to grow. Whether it's in a pot sitting on your ' front step or it's in the ground. And that's when something is regulated by the Department of Agriculture, and you have an existing report from 1972 you know annexation or whatever it is of that area into Chanhassen, that I noted in that second paragraph, it's almost a given that that's. Mancino: Skip, I don't think we're going to get this, that part of it solved tonight. Do you ' have any problems with the recommendations that are proposed? Skip Cook: Yeah, I was very happy I guess, I'm not sure... Many of the things on that list I ' have, it scares me like you first brought up Nancy and then Craig, on the cost. It's not a get rich quick operation down there we're leasing it out... u Mancino: Have you had time to go over with John or Kate these recommendations and discuss them with them? That might be what's in order. Instead of doing it right now, why don't we table this and give you time to confer with staff and question or ask about any of the recommendations. Skip Cook: Okay I'm under the idea, I'm not running this but I'm under the idea that the tenant is not expanding it. It's being used for the nursery and for the... Aanenson: We've explained this to his attorney. I think his attorney understands the issue. It has expanded. It's our opinion that it expanded. Like I say, I believe we put a condition in here that based on the type of use, temporary, that meets the city's objections that are not too onerous on the applicant. 29 L Skip Cook: But that was, that's given in your letter that that's okay to store things... not stored for retail. Mancino: But it still needs to be streetscaped first. Between what you store and display, ' Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 g g , Skip Cook: You mean the parking lot in front of the building...? ' Skip Cook: Things just seem, on the list for example and the MnDot thing I guess, we said that was all... How about the berming, the permanent landscaping along Highway 101 and ' then further back to 212. I don't understand why we would screen trees. Aanenson: Well that's what I just said earlier. I said if you have trees on stock, if you could ' just move some of those trees around. Skip Cook: So 212, when you put in there earlier that I would need screening of 212. I don't ' need that? Because there's trees planted right in the ground in a neat rows all the way in the front of 212 and there's a... ' Aanenson: And then remove some of the rocks that are stored in the front. Right adjacent. There are pallets of bricks. Decorative block and brick. They're right along the property line. ' Skip Cook: That are in, that actually are in front of the building? Aanenson: Correct. Skip Cook: But that was, that's given in your letter that that's okay to store things... not stored for retail. Mancino: But it still needs to be streetscaped first. Between what you store and display, ' there needs to be some sort of greenery. Skip Cook: You mean the parking lot in front of the building...? ' Mancino: On the street. ' Ski Cook: It's been that wa it's been that way for a long time... P Y, Y g Mancino: Yes, that's what she's saying, to change it. ' Skip Cook: Well you tell me what I'm supposed to do. I guess I was happy to see the thing in the packet all of these attachments... If the use, it hasn't changed that much. Okay, I ' guess ... you direct me where to go at this point and... Aarienson: Well, we've been through this before with changing ... on some others so I think, if ' we can work with these issues. If you're comfortable with them, if the Planning Commission's comfortable, we can certainly work through the issues. ' 30 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Skip Cook: As far as TH 101 ... in my favor, and the ... you were talking about the storage with the neighbor to the north. That's all, it should be... Mancino: Well I think it'd be good to, after this is over, to have staff and you meet to go over the recommendations and make any changes that are necessary before it goes to City Council. Okay. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Falmakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward. Harold Hesse: Yeah, I'm Harold Hesse and I have land just adjacent to Skip and he's been a good neighbor and I just want to ... I think it would be fair to him in the end. It just looked very difficult with all the things we're asking ... and I don't understand them anyway, so thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public healing. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Ladd please. Conrad: Most of the conditions seem to be fairly reasonable to me, and I guess I don't have anything to say. I think they're just appropriate. They're conditions, if you want to run a retail operation, you probably should be doing some of these things and again, maybe somebody can educate me if they see an expense here that's out of line. I know it's not a high revenue generating corner right now but on the other hand, I think there are a couple standards and some of these are standards that we, well these are all standards we apply to everybody in Chan. Everybody so, I'm not looking for comments right now but I guess from the Planning Commissioners, if they see, I'd be interested if they see an excessive expense that's unreasonable, I think we should deal with that but other than that, again I don't think this is should be a penalty situation but bringing something up to a certain level of standard and I think Kate was right when we say we tend to forget about the south side of Chanhassen in terms of what we want it to look like. Mancino: Any discussion on the variance to the setback? Do you feel comfortable with that? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 i Conrad: I don't think, I don't know Madam Chair. Mancino: Okay. Craig. Any comments? Peterson: My only concern is whether or not the costs were prohibitive and as the, the one ' that really bothered me was MnDot. I think that's been discussed so I think we already have set the precedent. We do have a nursery that was here not too long ago when we went ' through very similar issues that we've already set the tone for what we need and what we want in Chanhassen so I concur with the staff comments. Mancino: Kevin. ' Joyce: Not much more to add. I will side with Kate. I was out at the property today and ' there are a lot of bricks and stuff right in front of his building that, that I feel is the front of the building and I think it should be cleaned up. I mean that's my opinion of it. If it's cleaned up, I don't have any problem with any of this stuff so that's kind of.. ' Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: Nothing to add. ' Mehl: I have nothing to add. Mancino: I don't either. I am okay. Well this is one question. Kate, the variance for the setbacks to be 50 feet instead of 300 feet from the adjacent property. Aanenson: Right. When we put together this ordinance, we really, we looked at what we ' had in place right now for wholesale nurseries. We said 500 feet. Because this is a non- conforming situation, it's very onerous to put that same criteria on there so that's what the setback is now. So really what we're kind of doing is just giving that as a blanket ... we felt ' was appropriate. Mancino: Thank you. With that, may I entertain a motion. I Joyce: I'll try it. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the interim use permit #96 -2 for a wholesale and retail nursery, and a variance from the 300 foot setback requirement for a residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and site plan dated June 10, 1996, and subject to conditions 1 through 14. 32 ' I� Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion please? ' Conrad: What were we doing with, what's was staffs comment on 14? Were we eliminating that? ' Mancino: No, we were keeping it and just making sure that the applicant works with MnDot. I mean it is not the city's responsibility to decide about the deceleration lane. ' Aanenson: I guess we also said, if it was too onerous, you always have the option of just using the access for TH 101 ... which may be a safer situation. Mancino: So let's say we're not making it further west, understand. Aanenson: If you want it further west, it's going to be... ' Conrad: I think staff also asked to put this property on an annual review basis. Under point number 6. Mancino: Would you accept this friendly amendment to number 6? ' Joyce: Yes I will. Mancino: Any other discussion? Can we read through number 6 so Mr. Cook... ' Aanenson: Sure. The use shall terminate one year following he availability of public sewer g tY p and water and then we would add, in addition, an annual review shall be made to show ' compliance with conditions of approval. ' Mancino: Thank you. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City ' Council approve the interim use permit for a wholesale and retail nursery, and a variance from the 300 foot setback requirement from a residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and site plan dated June 10, 1996 (prepared by Dick Henning Enterprise), and ' subject to the following conditions: 1 33 Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 g g , 1. Area 4 as shown on the site plan shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4. 2. A fifty foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials, growing ranges, and parking, except that the existing parking area and display area adjacent to Highway 212 and Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No materials or displays shall be placed within ' the right -of -way or obstruct the view of the traveling public. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 4. Exterior light sources shall be shielded. ' 5. No outside speaker system shall be allowed. 6. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service. In addition, an annual review will be conducted to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. , 7. Signage shall comply with city ordinances. 8. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways and Highways 101 and 212. ' 9. No contractors equipment shall be stored on the site with the exception of equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery. The applicant shall provide a list of vehicles, trailers, Bobcats, end loaders, or similar equipment that is proposed to be used and , stored on the site prior to consideration by the City Council. 10. Permanent landscaping shall be provided along Highway 101. The applicant shall ' submit a landscaping plan for staff review prior to consideration by the City Council. 11. Unused pallets and equipment located along the north property line shall be removed ' from the site. 12. The two white (32 x 40 foot) structures shall not be used for retail purposes. Storage of , equipment and materials is permitted in these buildings. 34 1 ft ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 13. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan for ' review and approval by the city engineer. 14. The applicant shall work with MnDot to relocate the access point on TH 212 further to ' the west. A deceleration lane should also be installed along westbound TH 212. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ' REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THREE BUILDINGS IN A 26,600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 3.4 ACRES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ' ON A LOT, ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, WEST VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE H, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Due to a faulty tape, the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation and some of the ' commission's discussion was not recorded. Taping begins again at this point in the commission discussion. ' Conrad: I really don't have an y questions Madam Chair. Mancino: So you're okay with the ... on the west side. When you drive up and park right ' here, this is what you're going to see. When you drive up to Building A and parking in the parking spaces right here. ' Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: And you were talking about the ... Are there any plantings? There are two trees ' right here. There's not a lot of foundation plantings around the buildings, correct? There's more of the perimeter. ' Charlie James: One thing that I want to point out here, and maybe it's because most of them are dead but this drawing does not take into account the boulevard trees that the city has. I've got a little bit... In this area here, there is plantings ... I know that there are some evergreens ' here, in this area. They're looking at little peaked right now but we didn't show those on our drawings. This is part of the city boulevard thing so these are in addition... Foundation plantings. Well. 1 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 1 Mancino: Question. You know was that a design decision that you made or? ' Charlie James: Well here was, okay. One of the things that's a little different on this site, and I'm going to take you back to the Kinko's. I guess this is something I hadn't thought of and you're raising a point here because we could have potentially I suppose have some beds in ' this area but keep in mind that on these buildings here, we don't have the big canopy like is on in front of Paper Warehouse and Pilgrim and all that because the site is so narrow, that by the time you add that on ... you can't lay this parking out to meet all the setbacks. So , something had to give here. We had to meet the parking requirements. We had to come in under 70% hard surface, draining surface, and so something had to give here so what we did is that the canopy in the back of this building is only approximately 3 or 4 feet wide but we just didn't want to have this cantilever out in space so we brought these, in essence what are fake columns down because they will suggest the columns that are on the front of the retail ' right now. But I suppose there is some potential to add some plantings underneath that. Is that what we have? Aanenson: You have planter boxes actually in front of, on the other side of Byerly's. Charlie James: Okay, yeah. There is a potential to put some plantings underneath this overhang, beneath the windows. Yeah. And I guess there's some foundation plantings along here ... In these areas here, there's potential area here, probably 3 or 4 feet wide where we could put in some junipers or something... ' Mancino: I think design wise it would be nice to soften it up. Kind of the institutional look it has with a little bit of landscaping. ' Charlie James: Well we'd be happy to look at that. I guess particularly if it's consistent with ' what we've got elsewhere. Mancino: Any other questions? I think that's it. Thank you. May I have a motion to open ' this for a public hearing please, and a second. Fat-makes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hewing. The public heating was opened. ' Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the ' public hearing. Fatmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed. ' 36 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Comments. Don. Mehl: I don't think it's too bad. I'm pretty happy with it. I think it's going to architecturally blend very nicely with the development to the east... I'm a little concerned about, I see there's some landscaping on the north perimeter, but what we've got up there are townhouses that are up on the hill. I don't know how much you can shield one from the other. The folks up there in the townhouses are going to be kind of looking down at the trees and the tops of the trees and the tops of the buildings. Mancino: They look down on the whole city. Mehl: Yes, right. And I haven't seen what kind of landscaping is done behind the Byerly's building... I assume that this will be similar to that. But I'm reasonably happy with it. I think it's... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm concerned ... to take the position. I look at these drawings to the east and west of Building A and B is shielding the view. I think if that's the case at all... You're going to be able to see the west side of Building B kind of, from cross angles you're going to be able to see, even the insides of the building or the inner section of the building to the east and west of those buildings. I think that the same recessing the detailing on what's going on with Building C should be incorporated to the east and west of Building B and A. Again to avoid the kind of slabbiness that we're getting out of the Kinko's building. Mancino: So what I see as Building C, which says west elevation with the reveals. Farmakes: That's an attempt to address that issue and make it a palatable from different sight angles. I think you're still going to have a problem with the larger buildings and i.e. you have a larger building, you have a longer sight line. So from various angles you're going to see that. I don't think that those are incredibly adding to the cost versus just going with... I think that like I said, I think... I'm not sure if Building C can commit to that, that that is not the developer leaves, it's tried to be re- developed... Mancino: Pardon? Not sufficient parking? Farmakes: Right. I guess I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Joyce: I don't think I have anything else to add. ' Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: No. I think we should make Charlie sweat a little bit more. It's too easy. Actually ' yeah, I don't have a lot of comments. I made it earlier, I really don't like the access. It's too bad. The thought that we actually could have pulled the building forward and really done ' some different things but that's not an alternative. Generally the parking lot is pretty clean. It's, I actually like the parking lot. The first time in a long time I've seen a parking lot look rather simple and straight forward. Design wise, I think the designs on the front elevations ' are interesting and I like them. And I'm having a real tough time on some of the east /west elevations in terms of knowing what to do with them. There are plantings that go in there to break it up. But I think I'd like Charlie to take a good look at what we could do. The corner ' building, Building C I think was done real nicely for the corner building. It broke up all four elevations real nicely and I compliment Charlie and probably staff for doing that. I think that's pretty good. I'd really like to see, you know there are a couple areas on, especially the ' west elevations on A and probably B. I'm not sure. Yeah, and B. I guess I'd like to, I'd support Jeffs comments on that. See if we could pull in some of what we did on C to those elevations. Otherwise I think it's a well done project. ' Mancino: Craig. Peterson: The only additional comment that I would offer is, the one thing I'm uncomfortable with would be really what the drive -thru is on Building C. All of us have spoken about this being the main entrance to the city and the first thing we're going to see, albeit small drive up ' window, without a display perhaps but with something there. It will be a drive up window on a rather large wall with cars stopping there and it's the first thing you're going to see when ' you look at this development. I look at, can that be placed on the north side and still following the flow of the traffic? Smarter minds that I have to decide that, and maybe... already have but maybe that should be reconsidered ... don't like that drive thru window where I it is. Mancino: That's a good comment. Any other comments? I concur with the last two ' comments on the east and west sides of the buildings. To add some reveal to them. Design reveals and to look at... The only other comment I would make is, it would be wonderful to add some more landscaping to the west side of Kinko's as we enter and come up, because it's , the main entrance of that whole area. Of that Phase II and right now it has the feeling of look up the back side of the building and I just think visually making it ... more interesting would help quite a bit. Otherwise those are my comments. May I have a motion please. ' 38 t 11 ' Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 g g , ' Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 996 -7 for 26,600 square feet of commercial development for three buildings and a Conditional Use Permit 996 -2 to permit more than one building on a lot for West Village ' Center... Phase II, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 19. And to add number 20. Staff and the applicant look at incorporating detailing on C to the east and west of Building A and B. And 21. Do you want to take that? ' Mancino: Oh, add additional landscaping to the west side of Kinko's building. ' Farmakes: The west side of Kinko's building. Do you concur with that? Peterson: Friendly amendment? Farmakes: Friendly amendment. To the west side, 22 then would be the, to look at the different possibilities for traffic. ' Mancino: Any discussion? Is there a second to the motion? Mehl: Second. Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96 -7 for- 26,600 square feet of commercial development for three buildings and a Conditional Use Permit 496 -2 to permit more than one building on a lot for- West Village Center Phase II, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant and /or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. ' 2. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the westerly and easterly property lines. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored and revegetated and removal is authorized by ' the City. 3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Carver County Highway Department and Chanhassen Building Department. ' 4. All drive aisles with two -way traffic shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face of curb to face of curb. 39 FiJ Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 5. If earthwork material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to ' City staff the designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities commencing. Hauling easterly along West 78th Street through the downtown will not be permitted. 6. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approve rock construction entrances ' only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to city streets, curb, or ' other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 7. The existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be preserved /protected from the site improvements. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement up to one , year after the site work has been completed. 8. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustments to the City's utility manholes and gate valves impacted by the site improvements. , 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The sidewalk shall be relocated to align with the proposed sidewalk in front of the building located in the southwest corner of the site. ' 11. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City , Ordinance 9 -1. 12. The 6" DIP pipe which is to the north of building B should be continued with 6" and ' not reduced to a 4". Contact the Fire Marshal for further details. 13. Provide for and show on plans post indicator valves for Buildings A and B. ' 14. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact locations of signs and curbing to be painted. 15. The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, ' dark bronze anodized with square heads. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right -of -way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate ' 40 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 levels of safety. To minimize off -site impacts, light levels as measured at the property ' line shall not exceed one -half foot candle. ' 16. The development shall comply with City Code (Section 20 -1303) in the installation of development signage. The proposed development has two street frontages. One ground sign may be permitted per street frontage with a maximum height of eight feet and a ' maximum sign area of 64 square feet. One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage. Wall signs may be located on the south elevation of Building A, the south and west elevations of Building B, and the south and east elevations of Building C and shall ' not exceed seven percent of the total area of the south elevation for Building A, five percent and 11 percent for the south and west elevations, respectively, of Building B, and 13 percent per elevation for the south and east elevations of Building C. A separate ' sign permit application shall be required for all signage. 17. The applicant must increase parking lot plantings to total 26 overstory trees. It will be ' necessary to make use of planting spaces on peninsulas and near parking lot edges to meet requirements. Ornamentals may not be used in parking lot. ' 18. The applicant must increase plantings along north perimeter to meet buffer yard "D" totals. ' 19. The applicant should also provide additional plantings (shrubs and trees) to the east of Building A to help soften the expanse of building. I 20. Staff and the applicant look at incorporating detailing on C to the east and west of Building A and B. ' 21. Additional landscaping be added to the west side of the Vinko's building. 22. Staff and the applicant look at different traffic designs for the drive thm. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Charlie James: I'm not saying this because ... I just want to make a point that. I don't know if any of you were aware of this. I was sort of taken by surprise but the National Association of Office, Industrial Parks and ... a nationwide organization and the Minnesota Shopping Center Association, which I'm not a member... selected West Village Center as the best shopping center under 100,000 square feet. At first I thought it was going to be like ... birthday party you know, and I wasn't going to go but we were up against some very ... project centers like '. Opus and the Circuit City Plaza at 494 and Lyndale ... and some other. And the only reason 1 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 I'm bringing this up is, as far as I'm concerned we got there together. There was a lot of.. ' and hair pulling but it's through many minds are better than just one mind... So the drive thru thing could be problematic for those people. People in this country drive on the wrong side of the car so, but it's kind of..so the point I'm trying to make is, I was honored by that and ' you all should be honored by that. Mancino: Well congratulations. Thank you. I Conrad: Charlie, make sure you release that story to the Villager. They'd sure like to see that in at least the local newspaper and probably the Association is going to send out a I release on that but make sure it gets in here. That's fun to hear. PUBLIC HEARING: ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20 -1124. REQUIRED NUMBER OF ON -SITE PARKING SPACES, BY AMENDING SECTION WE, TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WITHIN A PARKING LOT ' TO MEET MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE AND STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS. Shannin Al -Jaff resented the staff re oit on this item. ' P p Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? ' Conrad: It's hard to believe we changed but I think your wording is right. I never see people , in handicap parking stalls but obviously it's based on more information than I have. Peterson: I find it incredible too. I totally disagree with the State... ' Mancino: Do you ever have a hard time parking? Peterson: Only when it's raining and snowing. , Conrad: Somebody's using it. A non - handicap is using it. ' Mancino: Let's see, may I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please? ' Fminakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. 42 ' L Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up and do so at this time. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: May I have a motion please. Joyce: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1124, Required number of on -site parking spaces, by amending Section (1)£, to read as follows: Accessible parking spaces shall be in compliance with the State of Minnesota Building Code and state law. Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1124. Required number of on -site paring spaces, by amending Section (1)f., to read as follows: f. Accessible parking spaces shall be in compliance with the State of Minnesota Building ' Code and state law. 11 All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried. Mancino: If we could hear the reasons for the nay vote please. Peterson: It's strictly as a matter of principle. I don't think it's necessary. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE SECTION 18 -61. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS BY AMENDING SECTION (A)(50), TO CLARIFY LOCATION OF FENCES ALONG COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL STREETS IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. ALSO, AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20- 1018, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES, AND SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 43 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: I want to make sure I've got this right. So you're saying that you could fence on I the outside of the buffer and landscape it if it's 3 feet. And it could be a solid? Aanenson: Yes. 4 feet like if it's like a split rail or a more open type of construction. ' Mancino: I think I like the initial one... discussion at this time. Before we do that, I need to this for a public hearing. Could you go over Sharmin a little bit on Section 20- 1023(3)(c). In ' the staff report. Al -Jaffa Okay. Currently, let's say you have a corner lot or a thru lot where your back yard ' is Highway 101 and your front yard is any street, city street. What's facing TH 101, without this ordinance amendment, you could put up a 6 foot fence. And with this amendment, you're basically stating that if you have a double frontage, both of those frontages are considered a ' front yard. And you won't be able to put in the 6 foot tall fence. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. , Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning ' Commission at this time? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second. ' Fwmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public heating. The public heating was closed. ' Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I like it with your recommendations. ' Mancino: Ladd. I Conrad: Yeah, I too. I'm not an advocate of fences, so I think the original wording, especially for 18 -61 is more what I'd like to see. And the others are fine. ' Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I agree. Mancino: Jeff. 44 1 r, u I Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Farmakes: Fine. Mehl: Nothing to add. Mancino: I don't either. My only concern at all with this, on 20 -1023 is that people who have double frontage lots on an arterial probably get a lot of noise and a lot of light and they need good, solid buffers. Aanenson: Those people can. If you're on a collector, those we allow that. We agree. It's written right. I think she explained it wrong. We agree. If you're on a collector, you should, and you've got a double frontage lot, you should be able to put up a 6 foot fence. If you just have a double frontage lot in the regular part of the subdivision, you shouldn't be able to put up a 6 foot fence because you're probably in someone else's front yard. So if you do back onto TH 101 or. Mancino: Oh okay. Because 3 feet wouldn't help them. Aanenson: Exactly. Or sending it back ... if you've got 5 acres, it's punitive and that's why Sharmin put that in. You can have a minimum... Mancino: Okay, great. Thanks. May I have a motion please? Peterson: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance amendment to Section 18 -61, Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements to read as follows. I'm not going to read all that. Point number 5. Also that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20 -1023, Height to read as follows, point number 3. Also recommend the Planning Commission approve the zoning ordinance amendment o Section 20 -1018, Commercial and Industrial Fences to read as follows. And Section 20 -1018, commercial and industrial fences. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad: I'm just curious. How do we control fences? Aanenson: They need a permit. Usually anything that's a structure. 45 1 Planning ommission Meeting - June 19 1996 , g g , Conrad: Boy, do people know that? ' Aanenson: Yes. Well people get stopped for it but we send it out in the spring newsletter. We try to... ' Joyce: Do you grandfather the ones that are doing this now? What happens if people are doing it, you're in violation? ' Aanenson: People that have done it already? Joyce: Yeah. ' Aanenson: Or put it behind that we don't know about? , Joyce: Yeah. Aanenson: I'll have to check. ' Mancino: Thank you. ' Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment to Section 18 -61 LANDSCAPING AND TREE ' PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS to read as follows: (5) "Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city ' when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of ' trees and shrubs and /or tree preservation areas. Fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the collector and arterial street. Such fence must comply with Section 20- 1023(3)(a). Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and ' area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with ' the preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required." ' 46 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to ' Section 20 -1023. HEIGHT, to read as follows: (3) Corner or double fronted lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this ' section, fences located on corner or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions: ' (a) Any fence within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height if opaque construction, or four (4) feet in height if open construction. I� I �I (b) The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front yards within the corner site triangle. Two sides of the intersection of the two streets and run a distance of thirty (30) feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets. The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. (c) The front shall be determined by the location of the garage except for lots that abut a collector or an arterial street. Such parcels shall be considered double frontage lots with two front yards and must comply with Section 20- 1023(3)x. The Planning Commission also recommends approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20 -1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES, to read as follows: SECTION 20 -1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES. Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight (8) feet. When commercial or industrial uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at least six (6) feet in height may be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property if the City determines that there is a need for a fence. The City may elect to use landscaping consisting of berms and vegetation to provide screening. If a fence is used, said fence must be one hundred (100) percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight (8) feet shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 DISCUSS ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 -1. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Peterson: What was the price range prior to doing additional TIF to get the prices lower? Aanenson: I think they were around 125, so yeah. 125 -130. With the add -on's. Again it's depending on what you want to put on the interior. Peterson: I thought they were more in the 75 plus range. Aanenson: No. Mancino: So my numbers, if I take $825,000.00 for the expenditure in the TIF district, it's like $23,500.00 per unit that we're subsidizing. How long is this TIF district in action? How long is it's life? 25 years? On page 5, number 4. Joyce: I thought it was 10 years. Mancino: It's 25 years. Joyce: Is it 25? Mancino: Okay. Because every year... Aanenson: Todd has in his report that he's got a 10 year limitation and I'm not sure. I guess the objective is to try and get people in at that price. At a certain price to let everybody in right at 115 to try and give them a range that people can. Mancino: I'm interested. I thought it was a good idea about your first time home buyers. How did you come up with a net income of $43,000.00 and then going to the $54,600? Aanenson: Again, this is the affordability which goes back to, that is to qualify for $115,000.00, that's the income. I guess that's the staffs concern when people have the stigma and Kevin brought that up too about what's affordable and that's what they come up with. $43,000.00... It's not low income and I think sometimes that gets stigmatized. It's affordable, which is different. No, this is just new business. Again., what you're looking for is, and 48 L7 �7 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Todd, it's written right into the agreement too that the Planning Commission has to, because it ' is a housing district, just has to concur that it is consistent with the City's housing goals and policies. ' Mancino: Okay. And would you like us to make a motion? ' Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Any other discussion or questions? Craig. Ladd. Kevin. Jeff. Don. May we ' have a motion please? May I have a motion please. Aanenson: Actually, if you turn to the last page, Attachment 3, it's the resolution. That's ' what you'd be making a motion on. You're saying the Planning Commission agrees the program as compared to the plans for the city of Chanhassen. So what you're looking at is the plan is consistent with the housing goals and policies so that would be the resolution. So the two things would be the plan and program are hereby found to be consistent with the city's plans for development in the community as a whole, and the city is urged to hold a public hearing so the City Council will be holding a public hearing on June 24th. Mancino: So we're making a resolution or a motion? Aanenson: It's a resolution. It's the last page in the attachment. So you're adopting this resolution. Mancino: So we still need a motion and we still need to vote on it? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: We still need a motion. I think we're calling for a recommendation to the City Council that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development District No. 5 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 -1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen. Joyce: I'll make that motion. Peterson: Second. Joyce moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development Dishict No. 5 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing Dishict No. 5 -1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen, and approving the resolution 49 n Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 (Attachment 43), and directing staff to hold a public hewing. All voted in favor and the I motion cwiied. Conrad: Could I have a couple minutes Madam Chair? ' Mancino: Yes. Conrad: New business. ' Mancino: Okay, please. ' Conrad: One thing that would help me, as we table items and we make recommendations to the staff. And as it comes back in the staff report, I would like a section that highlights the ' issues that were brought up. So we can see the staffs understanding of what we said and why it's coming back. ' Mancino: At the very beginning. Conrad: At the very beginning. ' Aanenson: I thought that's what we did in the Town and Country. We put an update and tried to be succinct in that and tried to just focus. ' Conrad: I'm not looking at that specifically but I'm talking about, because I asked for about five things and they were, you know I saw one. And the developer responded to some of ' those in person today. Aanenson: Can I respond to that? What happened is we approved this, we're not having a , July 4th meeting. They had a drop dead date. We just assumed that we were pushing them back. It became very onerous on them to keep this on track through our dropping a meeting date, so that's why not all the things were articulated here and that's part of our fault of not ' informing them of the drop, there's no July 3rd meeting because of the 4th of July weekend. And they had a drop dead date in their contract so we were not able to put all the stuff in the report and that's partially our fault and I agree that you didn't' have everything in the packet , and I apologize for that. ' Conrad: But it just raised that issue that, and maybe this is an isolated case. I've been trying to think about that but it would be nice to summarize what you thought we said. And we can hear what staff thought we said were the issues if we table something. Rather than us trying to reconstruct _altogether, as we to through:- Now maybe you do that on purpose. Maybe 50 1 ' Planning ommission Meeting - June 19, 1996 g g Kate, you lead in another, these were the issues when Planning Commission tabled it and I ' guess that's what I'm looking for and I didn't see it this time. Maybe you do that other times but I'm not sure that it's this clear. ' Aanenson: I believe we understood the issues. I believe we probably didn't put it clearly in the report but we understood the issues to be, the design, the views, the landscaping, but ' you're right. We have an update that maybe we could have spelled it out more clearly. This is what we understand the issues. This is what you directed staff to work on. Mancino: Where it was, because there were two of us who weren't here the last time and I didn't have a clue either reading the staff report this time. But in the Minutes from our last meeting it very clearly had, that's where I had to go to to understand the new staff report. ' Joyce: It was number 2, 1 through 5. ' Mancino: But in other staff reports they have lead out introductory with how we left the tabling and... Any other new business? ' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: At the last meeting on June 10th the City Council approved the Highway 5 ' Centre. That is the one next to the Chan Inn. We will be seeing that back in here next agenda because there was a variance. We talked about the parking and front yard setbacks so you will be seeing that back. Mike Lynch was the applicant on Rook Place. They approved ' that subdivision. The one lot subdivision. Kevin McCoste who had the one lot subdivision on Tigua Lane was also approved. And then the Arundel subdivision, which was on Maplewood Circle. The Council had tabled that one but they did approve that also. That's all. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Plannin g Commission meeting dated June 5, 1996 as presented. ' ONGOING ITEMS: ' Mancino: Any ongoing items Kate? Aanenson: We have the, just about completed the draft of the Bluff Creek plan. On the next Council agenda, on the 24th I prepared for them a Housing Action Plan. We've agreed that we're going to participate in the Livable Communities. We set goals and this will be our ' action plan and there will be some things, if they approve it that the Council will be directed to work on so I'll be sharing... CSM was also given final plat approval. 51 Mancino: Thank you. Any other ongoing items that anyone else would like to bring up tonight? Oh I know. That is our next meeting and the meeting after that. We have a very ' full schedule for just having one meeting in July. I think Kate can tell us what's on the agenda prior to the meeting but Kate you were talking and wanted to make the suggestion to all of us that I think the one meeting is scheduled for what, July 17th? ' Aanenson: Correct. And if it is so full maybe we'd look at having two meetings, I Mancino: y g g , consecutive Wednesday meetings in July instead of having one just really long one. Maybe having it on , the 17th and the 24th. The 24th would be tentative so, as you know between now and the 17th of July, maybe somebody will not get everything together and they would fall off. What is the commission's feeling. Would you rather have one just very long meeting or split into , two? And that would be July 17th and July 24th. Peterson: My only thought is I generally schedule my travel for the off weeks and I haven't I scheduled July yet so. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. , Conrad: I may be out of town the 17th. Mancino: You'll be in town on the 24th? 52 ' F Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: When do you think Bluff Creek will be ready for public hearings? ' Aanenson: I'd like to set up a workshop session with that. I think there's dust a lot of information to get the Planning Commission up to speed. So I think we're going to be meeting one more time in July with the task force. They may want to hold some sort of , hearing and then I suspect August. We actually have a pretty full agenda ourselves over the next couple of months. ' Mancino: Is staff suggesting there be a moratorium on development in that Bluff Creek area until it is passed? For 6 months. ' Aanenson: I believe that we've got enough direction in that and that the projects that are coming through, we're holding those standards. I think we're okay in that regard. I just wanted to mention one other thing under new business. This is Don's last meeting. I just wanted to thank him for serving. Thank you. So we have advertised for a new commissioner. , Mancino: Thank you. Any other ongoing items that anyone else would like to bring up tonight? Oh I know. That is our next meeting and the meeting after that. We have a very ' full schedule for just having one meeting in July. I think Kate can tell us what's on the agenda prior to the meeting but Kate you were talking and wanted to make the suggestion to all of us that I think the one meeting is scheduled for what, July 17th? ' Aanenson: Correct. And if it is so full maybe we'd look at having two meetings, I Mancino: y g g , consecutive Wednesday meetings in July instead of having one just really long one. Maybe having it on , the 17th and the 24th. The 24th would be tentative so, as you know between now and the 17th of July, maybe somebody will not get everything together and they would fall off. What is the commission's feeling. Would you rather have one just very long meeting or split into , two? And that would be July 17th and July 24th. Peterson: My only thought is I generally schedule my travel for the off weeks and I haven't I scheduled July yet so. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. , Conrad: I may be out of town the 17th. Mancino: You'll be in town on the 24th? 52 ' F Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Conrad: I sure could be. But in general I don't like late meetings. This is pressing it right now. So I would, I don't have problems coming in two weeks in a row. I do have a problem staying here until midnight. Joyce: Right now I'm on vacation August 5th ... so I don't have a problem with either one. I can go either way. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I'm still waiting... Mancino: So let's make sure that we have it on July 17th, and if you could keep July 24th open as a tentative date so that we don't have these long meeting nights. Thank you for that. The taped poilion of the meeting was concluded at 10:30 p.m. An open discussion on Piivate Drive Amendments and Villages on the Pond were held at this point in the meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53