1e. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 1996.f
a
i
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 5, 1996
Vice Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Don Mehl, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd
Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT TO FILL A 0.037
ACRE TYPE 1/2 AG/URBAN WETLANDS AND MITIGATE BY CREATING 0.07 ACRE
OF TYPE 1/2 WETLAND. THIS WORK WOULD BE DONE AS PART OF THE
PROPOSED KNOB HILL DEVELOPMENT ALONG YOSEMITE, ACROSS FROM
CREEK RUN TRAIL, METRO AREA PROPERTIES, INC.
Public Present:
/e,.
Name Address
Joe Knoblauch
John Knoblauch
Clayton Emmer
13017 Maywood Lane
16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie
6321 Yosemite Avenue
Phillip Ellan presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions for the staff?
Mehl: I have one. By adding to, let's say the eastern end of that. It's not, in high water
times it's not going to encroach in on back yards or properties?
Elkin: No. The homes are meeting the minimum buildable site. 2 feet above the high water
mark and what will happen at a 100 year event, it would overflow into the wetlands and go
underneath it. Go across the street there and into the natural waterways along this way up
north so the homes would be protected under 100 year flood.
Mehl: Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Form own edification give me some sense of how you expand the edges. Just
Y ,g Y P g
bring the, do they bring in a backhoe and bring it down to a level.
Elkin: I think what they would do in this case is probably bring a dozer in and dust level it
into the same elevation as the existing wetland. This wetland is somewhat of a degraded
wetland. From the area it has been farmed and there's like some corn stalks in it so it's an
ag /urban wetland. A condition of approval, we could also have him clean out and improve
the conditions of the wetland. That would be something we could recommend also. ,
Improving the quality of the wetland.
Peterson: Is it reasonable from a cost perspective? 1
Elkin: Well it's just a matter of grading out. Taking the vegetation and stripping the
vegetation off the top and grading out certain square footages and removing the undesirable ,
vegetation so there would be some cost to the developer. I'm not sure if we can, you know
he is mitigating so I don't know if we can ask him to do that also but.
Peterson: This would be the reasonable time to ask.
Elkin: Sure. Other questions of staff? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission?
John Knoblauch: No I don't.
Peterson: We want a motion to open the meeting for a public hearing.
Skubic moved n Jo ce seconded to o the public healing. The public hearing was opened.
Y P
Peterson: We're now open for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the Planning
Commission may come forward and do so. If you would state your name and your address
first please. Anyone wishing to address? Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? '
Joyce moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hearing. The public hewing was closed.
Peterson: Any other discussion? Don, comments. '
Mehl: It looks to me like a reasonable solution to the problem. I personally don't see a t
problem with it. I would support staffs recommendation.
Peterson: Thank you. Bob. I
1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Skubic: I would support the staffs proposal and recommendation.
Joyce: Pretty straight forward. I'd support it too.
' Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing new to add.
' Peterson: And I concur. With that, do I hear a motion?
Mehl: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
they approve the Wetland Alteration Permit 996 -3 for the proposed Knob Hill development
subject to the three conditions in the staff report.
' Peterson: Is there a second?
' Skubic: I'll second it.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
' Mehl moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning ommission recommend to a rove Wetland
g PP
Alteration Permit 996 -3 for the proposed Knob Hill development subject to the following
conditions:
' 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan
requirements.
' 2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be
completed by the applicant.
3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around the existing wetland.
' All voted in favor and the motion cai7ded.
u
u
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL '
FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 7.03 ACRES
LOCATED SOUTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD, AND EAST OF STONE CREEK
DRIVE EXTENSION, REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
TO PUD -4, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 26 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -
OF -WAY, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 25 TOWNHOME UNITS AND A CONDITION
USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND FILLING WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, '
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane ,
John Dobbs 645 5th Avenue
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff. I have one Bob. If you could just talk through a little bit on '
issue number 1 with the addition of environmental features to be achieved through mixing of
unit types. Walk me through a little bit better idea of what you mean by that. Is it wider
units and not as long but?
Generous: Well, all these units are basically, I can't remember the dimensions. They are '
narrow and long, which has made them a little squaterly. They might fit in a little bit better
and give you bigger setbacks. Another idea is to single... Put the roadway on one side and all
the units on the other. So there are alternate designs that we might be able to work with and '
that way we create a, potentially a better view corridor here and the fronts of these units
looking out over to this larger expanse of wetland area. That is something that we don't have.
We have tried something similar to that as a part of the Creekside Addition. It just didn't
work out but it creates more of a public space and Bluff Creek and the storm water pond that
they're creating. Could also build two level units where you have a lower and an upper.
There's a potential that since he is at the low end of the density, he could get an additional '
density to make it work financially for this project to go forward.
Peterson: So you're not necessarily saying changing every unit but more of a mix. Having I
some longer, some multi - level.
Generous: Yes. Fit it into the site a little better. I
J
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Other questions for staff? Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If you would state your name and address please.
John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs with Heritage Development Company, 645 5th
Avenue... I was here with the Creekside project and there were a number of ideas kicked
around about how to, an alternative type of neighborhood that Bob mentioned be worked out.
What we've tried to do with this one is, there were a number of issues that came up for a 7
acre parcel as we moved through, and I was at Park and Rec the other night and I actually
asked to get tabled so some of those issues could be worked out. In particular which side of
the creek the west /east branch... The price point of the Creekside subdivision is essentially
$280,000.00 and up for single family homes so what we did intentionally was we tried to set
up trying to build our end product that would make a higher density but price point was
applicable to what was going on to the south, which is the Creekside Subdivision... So what
we did ... and as you read this, you read the staff report and I think everybody... It's a very nice
building and it has the potential to be two streets, 40 units. The problem with a private drive
versus going public, Ken Adolf from Schoell and Madsen is our engineer and he talked about
that a little bit but I guess what we did is we intentionally set off to have a little bigger unit
that was a little bit more ... trying to fit something that would fit something that would fit in to
what was going on inside and also was going on in terms of the prices ... the 50 foot setback
from the creek exists as code now. We are 100 feet back from the center line of the creek.
Todd Hoffman and I, the Park and Rec, and there's a letter that he wrote to me and I would
imagine when we come back you will see there is ... 50 feet from the center line of the creek
over to the... The problem with, that I have with the comments made by Mr. Generous is that
there's also an issue about the financial aspects associated with the project. The road that
runs north /south, Stone Creek Drive is going to be put in and funded entirely by this 25 unit
project. We're also going to end up being assessed for Coulter Boulevard, which is going
through. Those two numbers together are going to be fairly large for a 25 unit project. So
doing a one sided road or those are the kind of ideas, all design wise and aesthetically would
be very nice. Plus an economic reality about whether this project can actually financially
sustain so there are some real... economic issues and on one side, we already have the one side
of the street here. Just to get up to Coulter Boulevard and then there would be the
assessment for how Coulter Boulevard comes through. This way ... so there are some real
issues associated with that so it's... I'd be happy to answer any questions and maybe Ken can
speak to those right -of -way issues for a public road versus a private.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and
Madson. We're the consulting engineers and planners to the applicant. This is going to be
the site plan that was submitted with the application on which in red we've shown the
setbacks. We've got the 100 foot setback from the creek. The main branch of the creek is
actually down here and there's a storm water basin that's been constructed on the north side of
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that. So that's, that would be expanded to also service this development. So this indicates,
what's shown on there is what would be the flood elevation of that storm water basin. In
addition to what's shown here in red, there's a relatively significant change in elevation from
the water elevation in the storm water basin up to where the units would be and then there's
elevation change continues on up to the proposed elevation for Coulter Boulevard so the
street needs to, and the units need to kind of fit in. I've got some elevation inbetween Coulter
Boulevard and the existing pond creek. You can see that the site is fairly constrained here in
the north /south direction and that was really the reason that we went with the private
driveway because it allows the units to be pulled closer together as compared to a public
street with a 60 foot wide right -of -way, which was recommended in the staff report and
there's front setback requirements from there which has a tendency to really push the units
apart to a point that it almost ends up being a single loaded street. This also shows his street
connection 300 feet south of Coulter which again pushes it south more so there really isn't
enough space on the south side of the street to put anything in there. So that's just kind of a
sketch to indicate what the additional constraints that result from a public street with the
resulting front yard setbacks.
John Dobbs: And if I could, I'd just like to follow -up. We came tonight knowing that there
were a lot of issues and that this item would probably be tabled and we're okay with that. It
would be nice obviously, if there's a lot of issues, that we have some general direction as to
what's.:.would be very helpful. The problem, as I'm a developer and ... the problem with doing
a series of custom buildings on this project, these 25 units becomes problematic for the
builder to re- design. Figure out ... in terms of entry and product type for each individual... so
they, builders tend to try to keep that to a minimum and at the same time ... nice exterior and
very nice ... So it'd just be helpful to get some direction and know where we're going and... I'd
be happy to answer any other questions.
Peterson: Thank you staff. I know we've got 37 points for you to address, which is sizeable
in and of itself. If you could maybe summarize what some of your major issues are so that
when you're asking for direction, and we can empathize with that.
John Dobbs: Sure. I guess my big, the big direction would be that, whether it would be
private or public as a drive and the reason for private would simply be to try to work with a
very constrained piece of property. We are trying to put a product in that I think is a price
point for the area based on what we're doing at Creekside. It's probably fairly acceptable...
and density isn't very large. Just under the 3.5 -3.6 units an acre I think. Almost... If this
product isn't acceptable with the constraints of a public road comes in, we'll probably have to
go with a denser, more vertical, small type of unit. We tried to work with the economics of
the site ... Also get some direction on the product and the density and private versus public
road. We'd also try to leave it as green as we can. Again there's a lot of green space on the
11
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
end and as ... remember with the Creekside site, there was a little discussion about parkland
' and that kind of thing. I think actually this time Todd Hoffman and I have come a long
ways... and worked all that stuff out. I think it will be a nice addition to the corridor...
Peterson: Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, may I have a motion to open
this for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. The public healing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter? State your
name and address please.
Richard Frasch: My name is Richard Frasch. I live at 8000 Acorn Lane. My land would be
contiguous. My lot would be contiguous to this development. To me conceptually I don't
know first hand the economics necessarily. We have these large lot properties right to the
west of it. We've Stone Creek to the southwest. You've got Creekside, which are real nice
homes there. I really do not want to see townhomes there. I'd prefer to see single family
dwellings and I think that makes for a better transition and quite frankly I just think that
townhomes, particularly as you drive through some of the other cities like Eden Prairie or
Edina, they don't put a very good face on the city driving through it and I would prefer to see
the Planning Commission not recommend this and rather have this move towards a single
family dwelling so it would be comparable to the homes at either Creekside or Stone Creek.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Bob. Any comments regarding this?
Skubic: Well could you move on and come back to me. I'd like to collect my thoughts here
a little bit.
Peterson: Kevin, you're on the hot seat.
Joyce: Well I definitely think it should be tabled. I don't have any problems with putting
townhomes in there. It's not a huge development. You know I think conceptually they look
rather nice. It'd be a nice transition from what's there right now to the townhome
development. But as far as the plan itself, I think it has some work to be done. I don't
understand this building site 14 and 13 being off like that. That I have a problem with. No
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
access to that or using some sort of—driveway there. I think that, I kind of agree with Bob
Generous. I think you could widen these things and have them fit into this space. So I'd like
to look at it further but I'd like to table it. I'm not opposed to it but I think there's definitely
some work to be done and I think you could probably fit the building and that's really where
I'm going from.
Peterson: Thanks. Ladd.
Conrad: I'm okay with the townhome concept here. I think it's fine. I like the product. It's
really an economic issue. Does it fit? And it's really terribly difficult to give direction
tonight. I mean that's what we should do but it's terribly difficult. It's easier to come to a
bottom line on direction by saying we've got to reduce the 37 points out there and something
that we can deal with. I can't deal with 37 points. I'm not saying cutting it down to 2 or 3
but we've got to reduce that. I think I heard Bob say some things that given we move some
things around, we probably could justify a private drive, and I think you've got to work
towards that. Bottom line to me is, it does get tabled. It doesn't work right now. It has
potential to work. Still may not be financially feasible but I think I've got to dump it off on
staff and say, you've really got to work with staff on this one. Bottom line, I think
townhomes are fine there. I like the product look. I empathize with the developer. It's hard
to change designs through the project. It seems simple but it's hard... different things together
or whatever it might be but again I think you just have to work with staff on this one and
that's much direction but I think staffs comments are valid and I'd support them tonight.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I agree architecturally it's shown us a good product. It looks good on all four sides of
the building. But I also agree here we've got a lot of points that staffs concerned with and
we are, I think we need to table it to allow them to work those out.
Peterson: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Well the applicant pointed out that there were constraints on here. I can understand
the difficulty ... I understand the general concept... The private driveway, if that's what's
required, I'm okay with that. I'll go with what staff recommends on that.
Peterson: Dave, I've got a question for you. Can you give me some sense as to how onerous
a public road would be with that small of a development?
Hempel: Well 25 units, it's not all that small. I guess staff isn't totally opposed to a private
street as long as we can see some benefit from a private street. We've got three conditions
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that have to be met to warrant it and if we don't meet those, we could be setting a precedent
for future developments as well. With this layout here it works to the developer's benefit
with a private street to lay out the units. I guess I can't justify it based on meeting the three
points listed in the ordinance.
Aanenson: If I could just add to that. I guess what we see as the environmental feature here
is the creek and we're not sure that this, this is the product he's chosen for this property.
' We're saying that we're not sure that this layout does the best justice for the creek. That is
the feature that we are trying to preserve right now. So would we support a private drive if
we're working on the best to save the creek? Probably, but we're not sure we're there yet and
' that's what we're trying to work through.
Peterson: And my comments parallel the rest of the commissioners in that I think the
townhouse idea, at that level as far as cost. I mean you have the opportunity to make some
fine, build some fine properties that can only add to the neighborhood and certainly enhance
it. Maybe not decrease not certainly enhance the neighborhood so I concur that they work
' with staff to find a solution. So with that, may I have a motion.
Conrad: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission table this PUD 496 -3 and SP #96 -6
' and CUP 996 -1 per the condition, going along with the conditions in the staff report.
' Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Second.
I Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
' Comad moved, Joyce seconded to table the conceptual and p►neliminaiy planned unit
development, PUD 996 -3, Site plan 496 -6 and Conditional Use Peimit 996 -1 to add»ess the
concerns and issues of staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
0
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 UNM, 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
Bob Smith
Ken Adolf
Jeanne Lindberg
Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh
Dona Lee
Craig & Nina Wallestad
Peter & LuAnn Sidney
Rodney Melton
Doug Johnson
Mike Minear
Dan Schleck
Roger & Gay Schmidt
6800 France Avenue So. #170, Edina
6800 France Avenue So. 9170, Edina
Schoell & Madson, Inc., Minnetonka
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
2441 Bridle Creek Trail
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
2475 Bridle Creek Trail
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
2322 Boulder Road
2421 Bridle Creek Trail
2250 Lukewood Drive
8501 Galpin Boulevard
Bob Genei -ous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Conrad: Sure. A couple. What's our buffering between the project to the north and this
particular property? Is it just space?
Generous: Basically. There is some evergreen plantings but not a whole lot.
10
7
U
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: And the guidelines that we had for buffering. Our new buffer ordinance probably
' doesn't govern in this particular instance.
Generous: Well it would because you have medium density adjacent to single family but Jill
did the analysis so they would have to provide additional plantings to meet that but not a
whole lot. We have to take into consideration with that additional space, the wetland
preservation. You can give them a proportionate reduction in that.
Conrad: Okay. I'm going down through what the City Council directed back in February or
maybe earlier in terms of what they were looking for when they turned down the office
' industrial project. Tree preservation, wetland protection. How did you respond to that in this
report Bob?
' Generous: Well as far as tree preservation, we did the analysis and they are actually
preserving. It appears that they're preserving additional treed area or canopy area. The
configurations have changed. Unfortunately these two scales aren't quite the same but we
' pick up additional savings on this area and elongated the central area. And there is a little
additional savings within the center. I didn't loop the road going through because of the
layout of the previous cul -de -sac. They were going in there and they were going to have to
grade that area. And then on the south side they had houses backing up there to there.
' Conrad: Okay. Now the big question that I think maybe you can summarize for me. I read
the staff report but I think you've got to interpret it a little bit for me. The reason we tabled
or we turned down the last project was because it was zoned industrial or guided and that for
' commercial so we weren't comfortable taking that off the tax rolls or the benefits would
achieve the city. Here's a case where we're sort of getting a little bit of the benefit and
putting in a transition based on planning so it's a transition. Can you summarize again for
' me, and maybe the people here, what the tax loss will be because of this. I think you did two
different analysis so we have one estimate is pretty close to a wash and another one is further
away from that.
Generous: Right. I summarize it. If you look at this development versus a smaller ... I
believe it's 140,000 square feet. While this proposal has a net benefit, tax benefit, revenue
' benefit to the community of estimated $41,442.00 so they pay that much more in taxes than
they use in expenditures based on some assumptions of average expenditures per revenue that
came out of the study that we were able to find. If we go to the office industrial component,
we're to develop at the highest intensity that we believe feasible on the site. The net tax
revenues would be $98,630.00. Obviously it was a smaller development so you have 130,000
square foot development, it would be a $40,682.00 net revenue. So it actually is less. At
about 150,000 square feet they would, the net revenues balance out. And that's not to say if
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 1
h r hi '
this were to develop as a corporate center and they go u hi p g e , then we can get higher
square footages on those sites. ,
Conrad: So we might be losing $50,000.00.
Generous: $50,000.00. '
Joyce: How do you appropriate the costs of new residents that will be in this development I
versus the schooling and stuff like that as opposed to office industrial?
Generous: Well that was the average cost of $1.04 per. '
Joyce: $1.04? Okay, that's.
Generous: The range was, I believe it was $1.02 to $1.07 in the study.
Joyce: I have one other question regarding the tree loss, removal situation. In that site, the ,
trees I see that are being removed are really mature trees. There's a couple of groves in there
that kind of make me a little leery here and they're going to be replacing those how?
Generous: Well their landscaping plan has 360 some trees in it. '
Joyce: But they're all like ball and burlap type trees? '
Generous: Yeah, I believe it's 2 1/2 inch. '
Joyce: So we are taking down very mature trees and putting up saplings.
Generous: The next generation. However we are trying to preserve large lots of that and the '
developer has told staff that they are interested in looking at providing additional retaining
walls within the development. That could save additional trees so that we have to get to a '
more definite detail for them to be able to work with that.
Skubic: Recommendation 16 regarding trees lost due to construction practices. Dealing with '
schedules in the city. I would assume that a rate of 2 times the diameter would buy the sub-
total of some of the smaller trees to replace the larger trees.
Generous: Well unfortunately when we do inventory it's based on caliper inch. You '
generally will come out ahead because if you dig a 48 inch tree and double that, you're up to
96 inch caliper inches. Area wise you can do it also. That's where you take, if you do it by I
12 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
canopy area that's removed, then you can two times that area and there's a formula that tells
' us how many trees. We believe if they're going to, the saplings have a better chance of
survival than the big trees and that's what this is considered.
Skubic: So if they lose a tree that's 24 inches of caliper, you have to replace it with one
that's 48 inches?
' Generous: No, not one that's 48. 48 caliper inches so they go let's say, four inch trees and
put 12 of those in. But we would then be able to hold them specifically responsible for that
replacement.
' Peterson: Other questions of staff? I'll continue on the same round with trees. In the event
that an office /industrial complex went in there, would it be fair to assume that the majority of
' those trees would, more of those trees would be gone with an LP than it would be with this
unit, or one similar to it?
t
� n
I I
F
Generous: Yes.
Peterson: Just because of the impervious surfaces and.
Generous: And because they have to have the flatter.
Peterson: Flat grade.
Generous: We could save, depending on the design probably of that middle area but the rest
of it would be...
Peterson: Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission?
Al Block: Yes, thank you. I'm Al Block, Town and Country Homes. Chairman, members of
the commission. We appreciate the opportunity to present some information to you about our
development. Bob Smith who is also with our company will also be participating in this. I'll
try to be as brief as possible. Just a little bit about Town and Country Homes. We are
somewhat new to the area. We have been building here for about 4 years. We started out in
Maple Grove ... and now we are building the townhome product that we are proposing tonight
in Burnsville and Eagan. However our company is 38 years old and we are a family owned
company and Minnesota is a division for the family that is located in Hinsville and West
Chester, Illinois. A few general comments about how we've approached townhome
development and it is a significant part of our business today overall. Probably 50% to 60 %.
And that is, first of all we believe in these developments being tightly controlled with a full
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 '
end units are two car garage. They are the largest unit as far as square footage. They are I
14 1
'
r buildings
set of covenants and conditions that take care o f exterior maintenance of the b g s
themselves, as well as the landscaping and so on. The covenants are very extensive, very
detailed. A couple of examples. If you have a two car garage, we require that if you have
'
two cars, they both be in the garage overnight. Not on the street. We enforce this. We hire
professional property management people from day one, when we start building. From the
local area that begin to put a program together as buildings are being built so that they are
'
ready to maintain the landscaping, etc from the very early conception. That's something that's
very important to us. Some experiences that we have had with developments such as this.
First of all, all of the units are for ownership. They are not intended for rental. We have
'
found that for a community of the size we are proposing, typically you will have one or two
units on average that actually will be rented out. On rare occasions we will have investors
that will buy, purchase a home and rent it out. Or you will have people that own a home, get
'
transferred out of town but are going to be back in a couple of years but they prefer to keep
ownership of the home while they are away and while they're away they rent it out. So you'll
'
have that kind of situation. Secondly, another comment that we get a lot is that this is going
to be a community that will have tons and tons of children and therefore lots of problems, etc.
This has not ever been our experience and our buyer profile in Burnsville and Eagan where
'
we now have quite a few buyers for whom we are building homes, proves out that in a
community of this size, we typically will have about 30 children to 35. Many of our buyers,
in Burnsville and Eagan as well as all the other townhome communities, are young
professionals or they're empty nesters. In the case of empty nesters, a lot of times they're
moving down to smaller homes and also looking to the idea that somebody else will maintain
them. One of the things that we always do is we have a small area set aside within the
community that if we end up with a number of young children, we will install our own
privately maintained by the property owners association, a totlot facility where there is
equipment that encourages those young people to stay within the community and
'
playground
not transition out of it as far as trying to get to a playground that's across the street or up the
road and that kind of thing because it puts them in danger. Another thing that I'm sure will
be discussed this evening is what are these homes going to be priced at. The base price,
'
without options, without basement, is in the range of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 to as high as
$120,000.00 for the largest unit. However, many of these homes will have basements. We
are experiencing in Burnsville and Eagan that most buyers are purchasing quite a few dollars
'
worth of options. We have a number of townhomes units there that are in the $150,000.00
price range and going on down from there. I'd like to take a few brief minutes to just show
you some pictures of the models of the two communities in Burnsville and Eagan and I want
'
to forewarn you that these were opened in March. These pictures were taken in March so
there's no landscaping installed yet. It's just been installed now. I'd like to just point out a
few features. Of course this photograph is slightly misleading in that the garage will open
,
instead—these kinds of doors because this is a temporary model situation in this area. But the
end units are two car garage. They are the largest unit as far as square footage. They are I
14 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
approximately 1,480 square feet. All of the townhomes are two bedroom. They're all two
' story except we do have the capability in some of the interior units to create a situation where
we put two different units side by side together, creating what we call a flat or all of the
space being on one floor, and therefore much more handicapped accessible. In that case there
' is... It is standard and typical to put brick on the entire front of the units around the garage
door units. The garage door openings, I'm sorry, as well as around the openings to the
buildings themselves. Just an example of entry door and ... some brick around it and so on.
' The siding with all the vinyl we found to be the most durable and least susceptible to denting
and that kind of thing. The interiors are designed with a lot of openness to them with
skylights, these kinds of features. All of the bedrooms of course are on the second level,
' except in the case where as I described... At this point I'd like to turn it over to Bob Smith to
talk a little bit about the land plan itself and some of the features that are incorporated in that.
One thing I want to emphasize is Bob will be reporting to you on a neighborhood meeting
' that we conducted last week. The number of comments that came out of that from the
neighboring property owners that I thought were, and Bob thought were very beneficial and
you will see some things tonight presented, there is amendments to the plan that we have
' presented to your staff prior to tonight. Any of those amendments that should you deem it
appropriate... these amendments that we present, we are committed to implement the
establishment of So I want you to know that... With that, I'm going to turn it over to Bob
Smith... I should also mention that the owners and developers of the investment office part of
this are here tonight and they wish to make comments...
Bob Smith: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bob Smith and I'd like to present to you this evening a little bit more detail about the site.
First of all, I have a photograph here of the aerial of the overall neighborhood. As you can
see here, Galpin comes down along here. Lyman comes into here. The school, this was
taken about a year and a half ago. The school under construction is right in this area here.
We have a large lot estate development here. We have some woods, swamp in through
here... This development here, as you can see is under construction. It's built up now. Our
development lies in here. Directly to the north is Trotters Ridge. On the west side, as you
can see are the industrial buildings. Pretty hard surfaced area through here. It's hard covered
through here. Along the south of Lyman is the greenhouse, or an agricultural type industrial
use. So as you can see here, these development transitions from the industrial to agricultural
to the more office industrial use to a medium density residential to a low density residential
into this very large wetlands here. Very traditional transition concept that planning people
use to get to the lower densities of the Trotters Ridge type development. If I may, I'll go to
the overhead and just very briefly go over some of the plans and some of the details. A little
closer detail here you can see where Galpin comes along this side with Lyman in here. We
have some of the older buildings that are in this area in here and in here. As part of the
recommendations in the staff report, we will get a demolition permit. Those will be removed.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 1
water that comes off of the driveways. Off the roof tops as well as off the streets. Pick up I
16 1
Any wells in the area will be removed. The wetlands that are on the site are in this area here.
There's a wetland in this area. There's a wetland in this area. Each one of these wetlands
stands independently of the other. There's a small little wetland in this area. The vegetation,
'
treed vegetation primarily is through this area. There's some scattered trees along here as
well as some trees and vegetation along Galpin. Just recently Galpin has been widened and
that slope along here is quite steep. There's a proposed walk, 8 foot bituminous bike trail
,
along the top of that. A subsequent planting you'll see where we've proposed to tie into this
walkway on this end. Very quickly you can see how..., and you have seen this already. We're
proposing this evening is a request to a guide plan amendment, 22 acres. 22.6 acres on this
'
north side from industrial to medium density residential. We're also proposing this evening or
requesting that a rezoning amendment be made on the entire development from agricultural
'
estate lot to PUD mixed development. The guiding is along this side is already industrial.
As you can see there's two conceptual industrial buildings on this. This is not a request this
evening for an approval of these two industrial sites. However part of the request is for the
'
site plan approval as well as a preliminary plat on 24 units. Excuse me, 24 lots with 142
townhome units. Very briefly, and it's pretty hard to see sometimes on these because they are
very detailed. I'd like to illustrate on this is just very briefly the grading. As I said
previously, the grading of another development came up the side of this hill where this
curvature is here. This curvature has not been built now because of the steep slopes in here.
We've proposed to come up to the edge of the slope and actually keep the trees that are in
,
this area here. One of the things at the neighborhood meeting that was discussed was this
corner in here. The proximity to the lot line. In another plan you'll see how I have resolved
a little bit of this area in here. Earlier Mr. Generous had discussed the request to drop from
146 units to 122 units. That plan will also show that we have taken this building here and
dropped two units and changed this a little bit around in here. Additionally this unit, this
building in here has dropped two townhomes that we've reconfigured as somewhat to loosen
this up which would also help with the sidewalk access into the cul -de -sac. One of the things
that I would like to show on this is the grading ... just conceptual on industrial. That it is a
very large, a very flat area in through here that in fact this whole development were to be
industrial, which would end up creating a large, flat areas like this. Typical of office
industrial type development. What we've done here is, by putting a street in this
configuration, we've been able to take say all of the trees in this area, as well as saving all of
'
the trees in this area. In addition there's trees out in this area as you can see, as well as these
trees and a lot of the back here remains undisturbed also. Very quickly, utilities. There's
utilities available in Galpin at this location. We propose that sanitary sewer be brought
'
through the streets into the tie in that's in Galpin as well as water brought through here. This
plan does not show it. We worked with the City Engineer and we're proposing to loop water
'
back through the back side of the road side of the industrial site so that we can have adequate
water pressure. Storm sewer is located on the ends of the cul -de -sac to pick up the storm
water that comes off of the driveways. Off the roof tops as well as off the streets. Pick up I
16 1
I
F
u
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
the low spots with the catch basins that brought it through pipes into a wetlands. This
location as well as this location and brought into here. These wetlands is created design
wetlands and sediment... before they would go into the wetlands. These have been designed
and meet the watershed district criteria. There's also a wetland that will be created in this
area to pick up the water through here. The industrial site and the wetland basins that will
catch water here. Level across into a basin here before it comes into this wetland. Planting
plan. If you look at Town and Country, we want to create a very lush, green street tree
planting as well as a unit planting. These trees along the street are planted as ball and burlap
trees. They have a two year guarantee on them. We've found that anything that lasts two
years do last. Often times there is a mortality after one year. We've put a two year guarantee
on these trees so that they, anything after one year to replace, they're once again guaranteed
and then after two years the guarantee goes off and we've found that there's a very good
mortality and they don't die. We're putting in pine trees along this area and this plan shows
red maples. The subsequent plan ... we will put pine trees along this to increase the buffer
along with that lot line. Unit plantings are proposed all along the sidewalks, in the fronts,
between driveways, trees, in the fronts as well as approaches along the sidewalks or the side
entrances, as well as plantings all along any of the stoops and patios which may be in the
back trees. Small plantings all along all sides, all the way around. We've proposed to put
about $2,000.00 worth of plantings into each unit, which is identified by a very rigorous... and
identified by both scientifically and common names provided by nurseries and planted by
registered nursery people. Last week we had a neighborhood meeting. Very good discussion.
We had about 32 people at the neighborhood meeting and there was a lot of discussion,
specifically on this last cul -de -sac. Galpin will be along this side. Trotters Ridge along this
side. Some of the discussion was how close these units are to the property line. And how
close these units are to the homes in this area here. ...drop two of these townhomes in this
area here, what we've done is reconfigure this area. Right now it shows that this townhome
is approximately 50 feet from the property line. As we get down to this end we're looking at
approximately 65 feet and it continues to be farther down. I'm going to lay this over the top
here and then I will put them separately so you can see the change. Before we do that, one
of the things I'd like to identify that brought this issue up and with this issue was you'll notice
right here, and we can look at it on a larger plan if you wish. There's a storm catch basin
that was put in here by the developer of Trotters Ridge. This catch basin has been put in
such a way that it's caused a drainage problem. It's been put in too high and the people in
Trotter's Ridge here are becoming inundated with their own storm water. What we've found
by doing this is that we could, with participation from the city's engineering department, that
they could do the design. We will construct and fix the drainage in this area here. Not our
responsibility but as good neighbors, we want to take and fix the drainage in here so that
everyone works well as well as the drainage works in our development. But as part of that,
as part of reducing two townhomes. Let me line this up here so we have this north property
line all lined up here. What we've done, this is where the location of the old townhome
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
layout was, as well as in here. As well as the cul -de -sac around this way. What we proposed
is taking this cul -de -sac, tipping it slightly. Not disturbing this unit. Taking this group of
townhomes. Sliding it around. Taking this group of townhomes and centering them out. By
doing that, we've created about 65 feet of distance. We've increased this distance by 15 feet.
We've also put a berm in this area here and in this area. We've left an open spot in here,
which will create positive drainage coming through here. The berm is proposed to be about 6
feet tall. Between 5 and 6. Each one of the grading lines represents 2 feet, as well as a 4 to
5 foot berm on this area to screen anything here. What this does, it creates a positive earth
berm then it will have a continual screening that these people here will have separation from
the townhomes. In planned section we've cut directly through this area right here. Let me
take this off so we can get it a little clearer. We've cut through this berm to this unit, to the
street. To this unit in here. Center line of the street is here. Trotter's Ridge property line is
here. What we've done is created a berm that comes up this way. The unit, the street, the
unit then drops down into this which will be a walkout unit here. As you can see, this is a
solid berm. Pine trees will be planted on the berm. Let me go back here. Now the
landscape plan which shows pine trees in this area. We'll increase the number of pine trees in
here and rather than putting in a deciduous tree, which will get very tall, with nothing
screening in the bottom, we'll put all pine trees along here. Also which will be planted on the
berm. Finally, this is pretty easy to see how the development will lay out. This does not
have that most recent change in this area here. This is how it was before. We will take and
tip this cul -de -sac out so, what the black lines represent here is the trail system that we
propose to put in. This will connect to the sidewalk along this street here. It will tie in
through the woods onto this cul -de -sac. It will come through the woods here on the end of
this cul -de -sac. This dashed line in here represents a cul -de -sac, excuse me. Off the end of
the cul -de -sac, represents a sidewalk which will loop around and rather than coming straight
up, we will bring it around at an angle to transition up this hill here so it's a nice easy slope
coming up ... get the bituminous bikeway down into the development. The other thing that this
illustrates, that this coded drawing illustrates is that the trees in here and in here, along in
here are all natural trees. As well as this area remains undisturbed back in here. This area
has been left ... the industrial site simply to show that this is the concept and it's not the final
site approval. Lastly, once again looking at the aerial photograph here. In a little more
detail. Once again we're asking for the approval of the guide plan from office industrial to
the northern, on the northern 22.6 acres to medium density residential. We're asking for
rezoning of the entire development from estate lot agricultural to a mixed planned unit
development, PUD. We're asking for 142 townhomes as well as a preliminary plat of 24 lots.
To summarize this is really, as I've spoken was a classical study of transition. Going from
industrial to agricultural type industrial to office warehouse industrial type through here.
Medium density at about 7 units per acre to the low density of Trotter's Ridge. Finally to the
wetland which is to the north. If you have questions of myself, Mr. Block, we'd certainly like
to answer them. Thank you.
18
P,
Fil
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant?
Conrad: Two. They're all 6 and 8 unit complexes. You don't have a 4 unit design?
Al Block: We did not include a 4 unit design in this case. Part of the reason is, every time
you have a break between buildings, you start to take out more trees. Existing trees, those
kinds of things. By massing more town units in a building, you can have a little more
attrition situation as far as tree removal.
Conrad: On your eight - plexes, I need a better elevation of your units. I just don't have a
good feel for what you're proposing. And what.
Al Block: This happens to be a 5 unit building,
Conrad: That's a 5 unit building. Do you have your 8 unit building here?
Al Block: We do not.
Conrad: How wide is that 8 unit building?
Al Block: The 8 unit building would be approximately 150 -160 feet. I believe the
architectural plan you submitted there was a floorplan.
Conrad: Real tough for me to read it. I'm real worried here in terms of-back on the project.
It's hard for me to look at what's presented and get a sense for some fairly massive structures,
because of the 8- plexes and see how that looks on the project. So that's why.
Al Block: There are a number of different things we do and are incorporated to break up that
linear feel. For example as it was pointed out by Mr. Generous in the staff presentation,
many of these buildings have vertical breaks in the roof line. There are some changes in
' elevation. There's a transition from one to the other and Bob, could you kind of point out the
building roof line.
Bob Smith: Some of the roof lines break along in here. There's a unit that could step down
to a grade. We'll have a break along in here. You want gables and hips through here. That
will all break up. As you can see down in here, these as Al had pointed out earlier do have
doors in them because they're models but this is what the garage doors actually look like. So
that this is the actual view that you will see in the field. Out in the neighborhood. The
garages will have hip roofs in them to break up the front of the roofs and pop outs for the
windows so that we do have a good break all along the front.
19
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: You said this is a 5 -plex?
Al Block: This is 5.
Conrad: And we don't have any in this project. We have sixes and eights.
Al Block: We just didn't happen to have one colored to scale. We certainly could ... and
submit it as a 6 and an 8. Obviously a 6 unit building is not going to be a whole lot longer
and I believe, I should correct the information I gave you on...
Generous: It says 149 in the plan.
Bob Smith: The overall dimension of the 8 -plex is 149 feet 0 inches.
Al Block: By a combination of, the way the garages are placed, and the way the roofs are
constructed, it breaks up.
Conrad: Well you can sell me on that but you don't have anything here tonight that does.
This is not what you're building and.
Bob Smith: Actually we have submitted this, if I may approach, to I believe what this
gentleman is talking about...
Conrad: I think the City Council's going to want to see that.
Joyce: Especially with a PUD, right?
Conrad: Yeah. It is a PUD obviously and also the real elevation is real important. I think
we'll all have concerns about the neighbors and visuals and anyway that's.
Joyce: You're going to have eight garage doors on an eight unit that will have a two garage
on each side and six garage doors.
Al Block: Yes.
Joyce: I was curious about the property manager. Are you going to have a property manager
living on site? Is that the plan? I didn't understand that part.
Al Block: No. It will be a professional property management company that is in charge of
that as opposed to not having anybody really that checks on things or that is just on call.
20
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Joyce: So they maintain the.
Al Block: Everything on the exterior, yes. All exterior maintenance to the buildings and
landscaping and grounds.
Joyce: Thank you.
' Peterson: Other questions. Going back to the property management aspect of it. Once it
becomes an association townhouses, how much control is there really at that point in time?
Don't the individual owners really have the control to pick the property managers and you
' talked about, you don't allow the cars to be parked out. Is that realistic long term? I mean
that the owners eventually could change that upon transferring the property management.
I Ll
J
Al Block: They could by a vote of a certain majority make those changes. That's never
happened to us and typically they will retain the property management company we select at
least for several years.
Peterson: A couple other questions. A little bit about the berming height. You said towards
the residential to the north you've got 5 to 6 feet. Is that the maximum that would be
reasonable? Or possible. Can we go higher or not?
Al Block: I suspect if we took a look at it, it'd be possible to increase that one...
Peterson: I mean I think it'd be beneficial to go as high as we can, depending upon obviously
the space and the angle. The slope.
Hempel: If I could just interject one comment here with the berming back here. Mr. Smith
did indicate about the watermain loop with the cul -de -sac. This is one location that we had
recommended a watermain loop as well. There's currently an existing waterline that runs
down the next lot line east of where that storm sewer line exists. There's a 12 inch
watermain. We'd want to loop in the cul -de -sac to see which would be underneath the
isolated berm there. We could work on relocating that berm to an area ... and that location is
the existing water line that we'd like to see extended for water quality and water pressure
reasons. So that may impact their shifting those units a little bit more in that cul -de -sac.
Peterson: What about the berming to the office industrial to the south? That wasn't
discussed. I think it was maybe in the ... height of that.
Bob Smith: Right now that is conceptual...
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 1
Peterson: So the berm would not be in this property but it would be on the IOP property.
Al Block: That's correct.
Bob Smith: Which is located in this. This is what is conceptual. I
Peterson: Lastly, we spoke earlier to Ladd's question about the front of the building and how
we would be breaking up the front. Talk a little bit about the back of the building. I think
I'm comfortable with the design of the front and how it does break it up versus being a solid
'
wall but certainly with the back you don't have the opportunity to do that as much. Without
the rendering of the back, give us a sense of what the back would look like if you would.
'
Al Block: Bob, can you throw up a landscape drawing of the back side. On the back side
there's an opportunity to break it up with quite a bit of landscaping inbetween the decks and
patios. That landscaping certainly could be brought around behind those decks and patios to
make that rear area nice.
'
Bob Smith: One of the things that ... it's difficult to see here, that this would be a gabled roof.
Very similar to what these roofs would be so you have face breaks, roof breaks coming down
as well as window breaks. Patios coming out of the back and plantings inbetween. So we'll
'
get some breaks up and down and along the roof line.
Peterson: So each walkout unit then would have a patio and a balcony? Is that right? Or
not.
Bob Smith: Yes. Along the Trotter's Ridge, I don't believe there are any walkouts. I think
'
those are all at grade type things.
Peterson: So those would be the lower. The lowest structures would be towards Trotter's
Ridge.
Bob Smith: That's correct. The only walkouts or lookouts would all be internal would be
these, these, these, and that's it. All the rest would be no walkout or lookout.
Peterson: If you had to prognosticate, how much of the building, in looking from Trotter's
Ridge, how much of those buildings would you see with the berm and with the evergreens on
top of the berm.
Bob Smith: With the berm being about let's say 6 feet tall, the evergreens that we would
plant would be anywhere from 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall standing at that point. If you use a 6 foot I
22 '
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
tree, a 6 foot berm, you have an automatic 12 foot. 14 foot. 16 foot depending upon which
' size tree. So we're looking at anywhere from 12 to 16 foot automatic berm which would
bring it up pretty close to the second, above the second story.
' Peterson: It's just Trotter's Ridge is at a lower elevation.
Bob Smith: Actually where these would be at, Trotter's Ridge is actually at a higher
' elevation than what these are. The back yards here are about 62 to 64. We're proposing
these, right now ... at about 62. With that new design that's going to drop the street about a
foot so these will be about ... so they will be slightly lower than the back yards of Trotter's.
And by the time you get to the homes, you have a slight rise. Actually even a dip because
the water's flowing out...
J
I
1
Peterson: Thank you.
Bob Smith: Realistically the combination of the two does pretty much cover a first floor and
begins to impact the upper floors.
Peterson: Other questions for the applicant? Thank you. May I get a motion to open the
public hearing.
Comad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened.
Peterson: I have some sense that we have some conversations to be going on tonight. I
would ask that we certainly want to hear everything that is said from all people that do wish
to come up tonight. I in turn though would ask that if what has been said by the previous
individuals, that I think we will soon get a sense that there is a theme so that if we can
maintain a number of people that wish to come up, please do so and listen to the predecessors
so with that, is there anyone that would like to address the commission. If so, please come
forward and give your name and address please.
Dan Schleck: Good evening. My name is Dan Schleck and I live at 2250 Lukewood Drive,
which is northeast of the proposed subdivision. And let me say this. One of the reasons that
I wanted to come and speak tonight is because I recently relocated here from the western
suburbs of Chicago, which also happens to be the home of Town and Country Homes. And
one of the things that I guess I wanted to talk about tonight is what I'd call SST, and that is
Suburban Stacking of Townhomes which is so prevalent in the western suburbs of Chicago
and which is something that I wanted to get away from when I came here and I don't think
it's in the best interest of the city. Let me start out by saying that I think the staff has done
an excellent job in reviewing this project, however there are a few things that I think need
23
V
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
maybe a little bit more study. First of all I'd say that the impacts on infrastructure to the city
need to be investigated further. I think that it's been shown in the plans and in the study by
the staff that there is going to be some impact of runoff in the area of surface water. That the
topography of the area is very complicated and given the level of study that's taken place so
far, maybe the total impact of this runoff hasn't been adequately investigated, and I think that
possibly some more study needs to be done. Secondly, in my subdivision I know that we are
constantly have problems with electricity and I think that if this proposed subdivision was to
go in, it would put a significantly higher draw on the electrical system in the area. I wonder
if any investigation has been done at all with the electrical cooperative to determine what
impact, if any the subdivision will have on power supply to the area. And what changes
might need to be made. Next I'd like to say that in reviewing the report of the staff, on page
8 it's indicated that the cost part of the equation has not been adequately defined. What does
this mean? Does this mean that the cost potentially could be much higher than $1.04 for
every dollar of revenue generated?
Generous: Or it could be less.
Dan Schleck: Either way it hasn't been... And that's something I think needs some more
study. I think on page 6 of the report, it also discusses the loss of tax revenues to the city
and that needs to be looked at carefully as well to determine is it in the best interest of the
city to rezone property that results in a loss of tax revenue. The second major area that I
want to talk about is environmental impacts that may be presented as a result of this
subdivision. Page 19 of the report discusses some of the wetland issues associated with the
proposed development. However it notes that based on the new law that was passed in the
last legislative session, the city has not adopted the new wetlands legislation and
developments are being treated on a case by case basis. I think more study needs to be done
on the wetlands issues and the impacts of this project. Given the wetness of this whole area
of town, and I also think it may be inappropriate to trade -off wetlands at a 2 to 1 ratio given
the nature of the area of town. It may be appropriate to go with some higher ratio in trade-
off. Next, one of the issues I think that has not been adequately addressed is what impacts, if
any this development might have on ground water quality in the area. The report of the staff
indicates that there's significant number of wells and septic systems in the area that are going
to need to be closed and abandoned but he said they will be abandoned according to State
Health Department guidelines. Is that appropriate? Is that enough to protect the ground
water in the area? That hasn't been addressed. Next I think that based on my review of the
staff report, there's been no investigation of the presence of any endangered species or critical
habitat in the area. I think that this is important for the community and the State as well.
The environment has been a very important part of the state of Minnesota and I think these
things should be investigated in the wake of development. Lastly, with respect to the tree
preservation program that's been addressed by the city. I know that in my subdivision,
24
F
i
1
I
F_
L
Li
� I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
although many of the trees were "saved ", they've been significantly impacted by the
construction. Several of them are not expected to last more than 2 or 3 years and I just
wonder if this has been looked at in terms of conservation of the trees. Yes it may be
appropriate not to take down the trees to build a road but if you build a road right next door,
it's still going to die. Next I think some of the issues with respect to public safety have not
been adequate addressed. Page 10 of the report addresses some of the traffic issues with
respect to this new subdivision but it seems to focus on the new street, or rather the street
layout... some of the traffic issues associated with that. There doesn't appear to be much
report on what would happen to Galpin Boulevard. And what would happen with respect to
the increased traffic from the subdivision during both construction and occupancy. What
impact might be to the number of school buses that run of Galpin every day and also the
school children that travel to the school on the corner of TH 5 and Galpin. The next issue I
think that has not been adequately addressed is the changes in aesthetics that will result from
this proposed subdivision. There really is not a good discussion in the report that discusses
the impact on the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood has traditionally been a
single family neighborhood and the introduction of multi - family dwellings will impact the
neighborhood and it's aesthetics. Additionally the noise and the dust generated during
construction, and the crowding of what I called the SST before, I don't think is good... Next I
think, and most importantly, there is some discussion in the staff report about consistency of
the proposed development with the comprehensive plan of the city. But let's face it, the
proposed development is not interested in the comprehensive plan because it requires an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. I think that everybody here realizes that there is a
need for affordable housing in Chanhassen, and that's an important part of the community, but
I also think that a community can't rush to build affordable housing. That some type of study
to look at the community as a whole is necessary to find out the best and optimum location
for such affordable housing. And again I'll restate with respect to the comprehensive plan, the
result of this amendment will again reduce the tax revenue that could be generated by this
property under it's current zoning and I think that has to be looked at a lot before you
consider that's best for the community. 1, to some extent think that I speak for the local
residents of the community when I say this. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to
re- evaluate this planned unit development. I think that the developer has to some extent
attempted to address the concerns of the community but has not adequately done so. I think
that members of the local community would agree that the buffer area between Trotter's Ridge
and this proposed development needs to be increased. This increase in the buffer zone would
better facilitate a transition and would have less impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
I think that it would be appropriate to require more industrial development and reduce the size
of the acreage for the planned amendment for the comprehensive plan. I think that this is the
fiscally responsible route and that it is more acceptable to the local members of the
community. I think that the developer needs to better address the environmental issues
associated with this development. I think that it's appropriate to require a 3:1 wetlands trade-
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June S, 1996 1
become rich at the expense of the local community's quality of life? Thank you. I
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
'
off for any wetlands destroyed and I think that some type of environmental study o f t h e area
is necessary. I'll finish by saying this. This commission was created and empowered to
protect the community. This mandate necessitates that any developer work with the neighbors
and the community so that the developer and the community can result in a situation that is a
'
win /win for both. I think that if the developer is not forced to work better with the
community and address some of the concerns of the community, that this commission is
'
doing a disservice, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the people in the local
community of this development are committed to having this proposed development changed.
I think if nothing is changed, the commission's actions will force the community to pursue all
judicial and administrative remedies available to them. Potentially including petitioning the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board or Pollution Control Agency to require an
Environmental Impact Statement for the project. I leave you with a question. Is it in the best
interest of Chanhassen as a community to allow an out of state developer to come in and
become rich at the expense of the local community's quality of life? Thank you. I
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
LuAnn Sidney: I'm LuAnn Sidney and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and I wish to present
a few items. I was really concerned after I heard about the meeting last week with Town and
Country Homes ... and so concerned that I went out to Town and Country Home developments
'
that are currently in the Twin Cities, in Eagan and Burnsville and took a look at the type of
product that this developer wishes to build in Chanhassen. And I took some photos and I was
really concerned because you know we talked about the back elevation... and to me what they
look like are apartment building type units from the back. And for me, as residents of
Trotter's Ridge, our property would overlook this type of development. I don't know if that
was... I think the other about what I saw in Eagan and Burnsville is that the surrounding
point
areas where these townhomes are being built are nothing like Trotter's Ridge or Stone Creek
or even the industrial portion of Chaska which we are opposed to. What I saw there in Eagan
was a SuperAmerica. I saw Meredith Cable. I saw Highway 13. Highway 77 ... forming a
triangle where these townhomes are located. There was very low vegetation and none of the
additions that were given in the statement here tonight. In Burnsville... similar in nature in
that it was up against Highway 13. There is a school in back of the development. Very large
apartment complex which actually abuts one of the rear portions of one of the units that they
were starting to work on, and also a strip mall and I guess in my opinion what they have
chosen in Burnsville is...strip mall development in the R -4, you know incorporations in
,
Chanhassen as it is proposed in this development. I'd like to present the photos for you to
look at them. It does have some examples of the landscaping that you'll see. In Eagan I
have ... of the back of one unit... Hopefully you'll get a sense of what the land is like. In
,
Burnsville it's a similar situation. I have some photos of landscaping put in the front. A little
similar to what you saw in the drawings and the... I was surprised, and I guess not surprised
26 1
L 1
C
n
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
at they did not show you a detailed photo of the orientation of the backs of the units. I guess
I'm surprised that ... from Chicago... I think what I'll put on top here is an example of the
landscaping. I guess another point that I'd like to make, and a personal type of observation.
We just recently moved here to Chanhassen and I actually work in Eden Prairie in a small
chemical company ... and we're looking to build and we'd like to build somewhere in the area
because that's where ... and we've been looking at properties and one of the selections was the
property in the commercial development which is along Audubon Road and I kind of told my
colleagues at work that just think, I could walk to work at some point if it were possible. So
I guess I have a feeling that this commercial would be something that I would support. Also,
I guess just to wrap up here hopefully. I had looked at the Mission Hills townhouse
development off of Market Boulevard and there are a couple of homes which the rear portions
of the lots that are—fronts of homes which to me are much more appealing. Also I looked at
Lake Susan Hills Drive and the Prairie Creek development and those are a very similar look
to the type of structure there. It's not as massive as what you're talking about in the proposed
so those are the three points. The photos. You can take a look at those. Also the fact that
personally I'm not objecting to office industrial. Also the fact that these townhomes as
proposed do not seem to fit the pattern which has developed here in Chanhassen.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Nina Wallestad: Hello. I'm Nina Wallestad, 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. A lot has been talked
about the northeast corner of this development, especially where it butts up against Trotter's
Ridge but as somebody who lives on the northwest corner I'm very concerned. Looking at
the plans of the area, and knowing the wetland that I see when I'm standing in our house,
they don't jive. The wetlands is huge compared, in fact two years ago when my husband and
I were looking at the lot and considering buying it, in the middle ... there was absolutely no
water anywhere to be seen. Now there are very large wetland areas and I look at the drawing
of the map and to me they just don't jive so I would just really keep, encourage you to make
sure that we're working with the right data here when it comes to the topography of the area.
Another thing that I just discovered just recently walking around back there is that there's
actually a little creek connecting that big wetland area to, it seems to be the far area and it's
just running right along the east /west border. I guess it would be considered that border line
between Trotter's Ridge and this development and I don't see that addressed at all on this plan
and considering that there are wild turkeys, ducks, even a pair of deer that we saw this
morning. Tons of frogs. There's a lot of wildlife here that's going to be impacted and given
all of that, I would just urge the denial of this plan until a further study of the wetland area
can be made. And if not denial than I would urge a further setback on this development to
make sure that it does not encroach upon, not only our lot lines but especially the wetland
areas that makes this area such a beautiful place to live. Thank you very much for taking our
comments.
27
L 17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 ,
Peterson: Thank you.
Mike Minear: Good evening. My name is Mike Minear and I live at 2421 Bridle Creek '
Trail and out of respect for your time I have one issue that I share with you and it's also
water and drainage but a different angle. When we met with the gentlemen from the builders '
about a week ago we brought up a lot of the drainage concerns and I think my concern was
that they really didn't know about them. And in more of a deep discussion with them about
the draining and so forth, they said that they needed to do further study and what concerns '
me is that they submitted to you a plan where by their own admission they had not really
studied a lot of drainage issues and I'm wondering if we're really ready to approve that. I
thank and commend them for trying to address that issue with us but I have the following ,
concern. My builder clearly did not do the drainage correctly. As they point out, Trotter's
Ridge did not do it correctly. We tried to work with the city and the city has been kind
enough to send letters to our builder. Our builder was not a local builder. Basically ignores '
them and after about a year of this, just this week the city engineering people basically have
say look. We tried to write the letters to help you but we really have no authority and we
can't do anything to force developers to do it. I live right on the other side of where they're
proposing the berm. In a deep rain, or even a moderate rain, we get... standing water in our
yard and it stays there for a number of days and we are at the bottom of a hill that I'm not
sure where it comes through on the drawings. Basically what their drawing is doing, and I '
can appreciate any effort to berm our view but we're going to be at the inside of a V where
the water's going to come down. It already pools at 10 to 12 inches of water and my concern
is, will it pool worse? Will it come up to my basement? Are these folks, are they going to '
be any more responsive than the builder that we paid our money to and is the city going to be
unable to help us with that problem too? And again, I appreciate the need for tax revenue. I
just feel that before we approve this, we need to study the water issue further and really nail
it down once and for all. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? ,
Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek '
Trail. I want to go back to the issue of the aesthetics and the... Those drawings you see don't
reflect the topography at all. The berm would only protect something on a parallel, flat
land... The topography rises dramatically from that flatland and I know from my house, which '
is only two houses away from the gentleman who just spoke, the land rises precipitously so,
and so the townhouses will be placed 50 feet away from my property line, which is the
wetlands come down to here so ... and I do have photographs and that wetland does go out
quite a bit beyond my property line. My wife and I take photographs... So nevertheless, 50
feet beyond those lines, we're talking a hill that goes up. So when you see the back now, the
aesthetic beauty of the back ... so those go up the hill. So it's going to take a berm the size of I
28 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
a small mountain, that high in order to protect us from that view. So I don't know what the
' berm issue is even about. I really don't understand that and I think you've also seen pictures
there of the type of pine trees that they see as berm type of pine trees, arborvitae type of pine
trees ... that are dead. So those ... The aesthetics are very serious. If they'd like to come back
' with another proposal where there may be more land dividing it, but right now it's a transition
that really doesn't transition at all. It's just that it butts up to... That's all I want to say.
Thank you.
7
Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 2461 Bridle Creek Trail and our property
also will be looking out over this sea of townhomes. I, a person can tell by my sweatshirt
and my earrings and everything, I'm very much into preserving the environment. I'm very,
very concerned about the number of trees that would be taken out. As I look at the property
on the east side of the property, a majority of those trees—that they're proposing the road right
through. And we talked about these are 100 year old oak trees and... I'm very concerned
about that. I'm also wondering why Town and Country couldn't—and this would allow a
buffer that everyone is so concerned about between the developments ... industrial over in that
area. We just recently purchased our property in November. At that time we were concerned
about what was going to happen over there and we had spoke to Sharmin and she said that
there wasn't going to be anything unless it was back, up over on the other side of that berm.
The already existing natural berm. So now to have somebody tell me different... Also I guess
I'm curious how this ... with the number of people that would be coming in and we are of
course all of us here are concerned about depreciation of our properties... It's true at one time
we've had everything from pheasants to like they said, wild turkeys to wild minks and
pelliated woodpeckers and everything coming into this area so it really is a beautiful area.
We'd like to see it preserved. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Peter Sidney: My name is Peter Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and my lot also
borders the proposed development to the north. We would be about 65 feet from the back of
the townhouse. I also have a number of concerns about this proposed development. It seems
to me it is an appropriate use of the property. I'm concerned that it's based upon a
redesignation of the zoning that was laid out in the guide plans on the industrial to medium
density residential development. Sufficient justification for ... economic impacts ... that it was
industrial behind there. We could live with that. We already have industrial to the west of
us which is Chaska right now. I'd also like to address the tree issue. I have two concerns
about the loss of trees. It's a beautiful area. One of the things that makes Chanhassen special
is the mature trees on the property. In reading the staff report I see that the tree loss would
be 65% in the residential portion of that. Going from, I believe 48% coverage down to 18%
when the requirements is at least 30 %. As has already been pointed out, that these trees...
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 1
i
townhouses as close as 50 feet away. Another point s that I think it really does not fit the
character of the rest of the surrounding area. Single family homes in Trotter's Ridge, Stone ,
Creek, Timberwood Estates, etc. so I really believe that this is an inappropriate use of the
property and I think certainly further study is warranted. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission? '
Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin Boulevard. That's not in '
Trotter's Ridge. It's across the street ... but first of all as a long time resident of Chanhassen,
again I look at this is a very appropriate type of development to put in... I think maybe it
might be a good idea, and some of the residents in Trotter's Ridge are interested and that they ,
should probably take a look at some of the multi - family housing that we brought up earlier
and look at, I know some of those places are not new at all but I think that some of the ones
that are mentioned here in Chanhassen were probably quite a bit ... as far as what type of '
multi - family townhome housing is and also... Also I think if you want an idea of what the
backs of these look like, I'm sure you all have these. It'd depicted right here and this is
probably the back, this is the area ... going to see and I agree, you've got to look at the '
topography of the berm and the trees. I don't think it's going to be very much of a screen
effect. Maybe 20 years from now ... but for the next 10 -15 years. That's all I've got to say.
Dona Lee: My name is Dona Lee. My address is 2451 Bridle Creek Trail... First thing that ,
we also have a wetland in our back yard and it's not on these drawings that is just... And then
also just to represent the mom's, we're a very close community... There's probably 10 to 12 '
mothers that are home during the day. We're housewives and we see everything that goes on
and this would definitely bring up a lot of different issues. I mean we'd like to support the
idea of office... office buildings that are at ... and they look very nice. You can hardly see them '
from TH 41 over to Lyman Boulevard and ... thank you.
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek. We've been here before. We '
moved from Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. I think you're familiar with Frank
Beddor so we've been to a lot of these things. I'd just like to point out when we decided to '
move, I talked with staff. They said trust us. We won't do anything that you won't like so I
hope I can. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else have any comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion to close the ,
public hearing?
Comnad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed. '
Peterson: Ladd, do you want to tackle this one? I
30 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: Sure. Why not? I'm going to have to sooner or later. I appreciate the comments
' from the residents. They're real good. Very nicely said. I'm always amazed when we get
into here. Sometimes neighborhoods like things. Sometimes they don't. Just so you know,
from a standpoint of good conceptual planning, what was presented tonight isn't bad. If we
' were to design something and say this is how to do it, what they're presenting isn't. We'd
probably say this looks pretty good. City staff also represented the City Council fairly well in
terms of direction so I think what you're seeing is some direction given by the Council and
' the city staff listened to that and working and making something happen. Real issues, you
know we talk about revenue and then all of a sudden we see it and now we have to make
decisions based on, I think we're pretty committed to keeping this an industrial area. And
now I see a $50,000.00 amount that we may lose and you sort of say well, what do we gain,
what are we losing? And it's real tough to deal with. A couple things that I see that I don't
like tonight and again I'm not sure, I personally want to get this up to City Council. They set
a lot of the direction on this and I think they have a lot to offer in terms of guiding this but I
see a couple things that bother me and I guess some of these are words for staff. I think the
community brought up some things about accuracy of the data. I think the staff has to check
' the accuracy of the data. Whether that be size of wetlands or setbacks or whatever, I think
they brought it up enough that we should really challenge some of that. I'm concerned about
the massiveness of the townhomes on the north side. I don't really like 8- plexes going into
' Trotter's Ridge. That just doesn't, that bothers me. It's too massive and even though I think
we've grown accustomed and used to townhomes here, I still think in terms of a gradual
' transition, the 8- plexes are, and it looks like there's a 6 and it's hard for me to tell what's there
but again, a better transition would not be a massive wall there. I'd also make sure there's a
little bit better landscaping transition to the north into this particular development. I'd like to
see what, you know you can, I think the developer could sell me something in terms of
appearance if they had a four color elevation or rendering that I could look at but I didn't
really see that. I really think the rear elevations are a problem. I wouldn't want to live next
' to that. I don't really have a problem putting townhomes next to single family. That's okay.
But it does have to be appropriate. It does have to be something that is visually a feeling,
and I didn't see that tonight so that's a real issue. So I see all these things that I just
' wouldn't, I couldn't accept the plan as submitted. But then I get back to the $50,000.00, the
money aspect and I guess the other side of this, before I even get to the money aspect is the
fact of affordable housing and this developer may do that. Now that's going to help in terms
' of what our guidelines are in Chanhassen so that's one of those benefits that the developer
brings but in terms of the money that we're saving, or we could make in terms with the IOP
there, hard to turn that down. I guess so bottom line for me is I'm going to listen to what the
other Planning Commissioners have but I really see a loss of revenue to the community and
although I think this is a terrific transition plan, I still have a problem losing $50,000.00 or
$40,000.00 or whatever dollars it may be.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Thank you.
Al Block: Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to insert something just to respond?
Peterson: No. That hearing is closed so.
Al Block: All 1 was going to offer ... table it and we will work with the neighborhood and
come up with...
Peterson: We can discuss that at the end.
Joyce: A lot of what I have to say kind of echoes Ladd so I'll be very brief but I do want to
say that staff is under some pressure to develop, make these kind of developments. I think
they did a good job. I think it's a good concept incorporating this multiple use. I'd kind of
like to see it work. They have a mandate from the Metropolitan Council that somewhere,
some way they have to abide by it. I certainly commiserate with the neighbors but as you
guys know, this will be developed somehow. I mean we're going to lose some trees
somewhere. That isn't going to be a nature park. At least I don't see that as being planned.
So I did exactly what Ladd did. I put a T here and I put pros and cons and see if I could
weigh this thing out. And I definitely see that there's a need for affordable housing here and
this might satisfy this need so that's a plus for this development. What I'm uncomfortable
about is a couple of things on this left land side, is changing the comprehensive plan. Ladd
addressed that so I won't go into that any further. I'm uncomfortable about changing, totally
changing the character of the area. That bothers me a little bit. A lot actually. I think it's a
lot of tree loss and I think the reason for that is that the development is overly large and I'm
sure that's an economic concern for the developer. I mean he has to make some sort of
amends here to make his money but it's a lot of units. That's taking up a lot of trees and
changing this area of our community so I'm concerned about that. Another concern I have is
being a PUD, I know we'd like to see something kind of unique and I don't see it right now.
I'd be willing to look at it again but it looks like all the other sea of townhouses out there and
it just doesn't seem to fit into this particular area. So I would have a hard problem voting in
favor of this. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I think staff did a fine job of reaching a compromise here to meet the needs of the
city. I agree with them entirely in principle that it makes a good transition zone and offers a
mix of commercial and low cost home thing and so forth. But in practice I too agree with
the site and read the plan. I'm a little disappointed that there's still so much tree removal
and ... to Trotter's Ridge and view the area from the residents desires. I imagined what it
32
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
would look like. There's certainly a need for buffering there and I think the applicant is
attempting to address that with the berm and landscaping on the northeast side but I'm
concerned on the northwest side where you have a lot of open area and that hasn't been
adequately addressed. Looking at the rear elevation, it does look like an apartment complex.
Especially the walkouts. A lot of windows that everything is very symmetrical and I think
something should be done with that to go forward and taking Ladd's lead, I think a good
diagram with some kind of pictures from the neighbors yards with elevations where you can
see what the back of the units would look like with the landscaping would be very beneficial.
I know we've done that in the past when we had sensitive areas like this ... very convincing to
what the final project is going to look like from the neighbors standpoint. I ... think that the
photographs that were brought in by the resident actually looked a lot better than the diagrams
we have here. You might want to leave those at home next time. Regarding the medium
density housing. The city really has a need for this. It has to be somewhere and it isn't a
perfect fit here obviously... The industrial business areas of the city have a hard time finding
employees and affordable housing is certainly a very credible use of the land here. I think
there are things that have to be done in the buffer area to enhance the rear elevations of the
buildings there.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I don't have a clue as to what else to say about this that hasn't already been said. I
agree with what's been discussed here and I just basically guess I can't really support it
without seeing it come back with some additions and changes and further evaluation by staff
from some of the points that have been brought up.
Peterson: Thank you. I guess I'm a little confused. It never ceases to amaze me how the
residents can, how residents look at things. I guess my perspective, if the project is right, and
I think it can be, my perception, it would be better to have some type of residential between
single family and IOP, and I think if this project were tweaked a little bit, I think that can be
a better transition than having an office industrial park potentially 60 feet away from a back
yard because as Kevin shared, it is going to be developed. I think that it seems to me to be,
if we are going to change it from IOP to a medium density residential, it would be better for,
a much more smoother transition to accomplish that than simply having it from single family
to a small office complex or a small manufacturing company or something like that. But I
also agree with Ladd that work needs to be done to make it a little different. Make it a little
more acceptable between single family and the beginning of that multi - family. I think the
back of the building is an issue. I think there's further ways to separate that and break it up
and make it look a little more smooth, if that's the size. It's probably the appropriate thing to
do. And you'd also be able to see that from the road, Coulter Boulevard. It's going to be a
prominent piece as you drive by. The back of those buildings also. I assume that staff, you
33
Planning Commission .Meeting - June 5, 1996
looked at the materials to be used and the colors. They're there? Okay. So I don't know
whether we have an agreement on the commission or not. My sense is that there's a feeling
on behalf of all of us that we would table it for the developer to work with staff and work
with the neighbors to come to a more reasonable agreement as far as what types of building
and the relationship between the two, But I'd like to see, personally like to see it work. But
I'm frustrated I can't give the staff better direction than I'm doing. So with that, do I hear a
motion?
Conrad: Well I'm going to make a motion and again, this is tough. This is a tough one to
make. I was ready to turn it down but I tell you what I'd like to do and it may take the
community, the neighborhood to work with the developer a little bit. I'd like to give the City
Council. I just thought about it. The City Council has to make the decision based on
economics. That's going to be their job. Not necessarily our's here so their job will be
whether they want the revenue or not and our job is to make sure we have enough land
available to generate the revenue and taxes from IOP and maybe we can't do that tonight but I
guess what I'd like to do is send the City Council the, if it was to be developed this way, the
best possible that it could be. Which means the developer would have to come back and
show us what it really could be, and I think you've heard some of the issues that the
neighborhoods are saying. That doesn't mean we go along with the neighborhood, and also it
doesn't mean we're going to approve the project either. I guess there are no commitments
either way but I think what I'd like to, I'll make the motion Mr. Chairman to table this
particular planning case 996 -2 PUD, the #96 -5 SPR and the #95 -113, the LUP and the 495 -2B,
Wetland Alteration Permit. And table it to do the following things. For staff to validate the
accuracy of the information presented tonight. For the applicant to bring back a front and
rear elevations of specifically, the ones I want to see are the ones that are facing the
community to the north. Three, I'd like to see a real landscaping plan. An aggressive
landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the property to the
north. And I'd like to see Dave and the engineering department maybe reassure the
neighborhood that the water issues can be solved. The buffering I'm concerned with, not only
to the northeast but also to the northwest. I think we should take a look at that. So that's a
lot of work and again, there's a lot of work that we're laying on folks but I think at least when
this gets to City Council, Council will have a decent alternative to vote on and make a
choice. That's my motion.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion to that? Any other points that Ladd, I think he hit most of
mine.
34
0
1
r
' Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Comnad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission table Land Use Map
Amendment 996 -1B from Office /Industrial to Residential Medium Density for the noithefiy
22.6 acres, conceptual and prelimina►y approval of PUD 996 -2, pimliminaiy plat approval for
24 lots and associated light -of -way, Site Plan Review #96 -5 for 142 townhome units, and
Wedand Altei - ation Permit 995 -2B and to further review the following points:
1. The staff to validate the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant.
' 2. The applicant to bring back front and rear elevations of the specific units that will be
located facing the community to the north.
3. An aggressive landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the
property to the north be presented.
' 4. The engineering department review the water issues to reassure the neighborhood that the
water issues can be solved.
' 5. Review the buffering to the northeast and also to the northwest.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I NEW BUSINESS:
' Aanenson: I received a letter from Don that he's going to retire at the end of the month.
From the Planning Commission.
Conrad: Don?
Aanenson: Don Mehl.
Mehl: This Don.
' Aanenson: This Don. So we were sad to hear that but I did let the City Council know. We
had their packet this week going out so.
' Conrad: How come?
Mehl: The biggest problem is that I have this hearing problem and I have trouble hearing
' what's going on. It all started about 47 years ago. It turns out my left ear is, everything in it
1 35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996 '
is all solidified and blocked up, all the moving parts and whatever. Something I struggle with
1
a lot and I hoped that it wouldn't be a problem here but it has been. A lot of times I have '
real difficulty hearing and understanding people as they speak. Whether it be commissioners
or others.
Peterson: We have a hard time understanding them too. '
Conrad: That's too bad. I
Aanenson: That's all I had for new business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission ,
meeting dated May 15, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: '
Aanenson: The Council extended the Dolejsi plat, which is down by Lake Riley and Lyman
'
Boulevard. They're waiting for the road needs to be completed before they can do that plat,
which will probably be next year. They told PBK, where the boat sales were, to have the
boats out so those were gone as of Memorial weekend so the boats are gone up there. The
'
Arundel subdivision.
Peterson: How did that go, by the way? Was it heated or not?
'
Aanenson: Well the developers for the lease agency for the marina showed up. Not the
marina people so I think that kind of concerned the Council because they didn't show up so it
,
was more like the lease agent wanted them there worse than the other people. And then the
neighboring tenant showed up too with his concerns about blockage. Then the Arundel
subdivision, if you remember that's the one on the larger lots. He was still splitting... one acre
'
lots but there was concerns so the Council did table that one. It is back on Monday night.
And they did give final plat to Knob Hill contingent upon this wetland alteration permit...
good compromise what you recommended now so that was it. I had a few things for ongoing
'
items, if I could just move into that.
'
ONGOING rTEMS:
Aanenson: I did put something in your packet but I just wanted to bring you up to date. I '
know we had a work session where we kind of talked about some of the long range projects
that we're working on. Just to tie into the southern 1995 study area. We are working on that.
We've broken it up by staff people. We're also ... into the Bluff Creek study. The revisions to '
36 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
the PUD ordinance, we kind of put that in the master glitch ordinance but we are going to go
back and look at that as part of the housing implementation strategy for Livable Communities
Act. I think Ladd brought up a good point. If we try to limit the rules we should throw out
all the rules. What we want to talk about in there is maybe giving some zero lot lines or
some other kind of creative, give a little bit different housing in there. What circumstance do
they want so we don't have the mix of this kind of issue here, that we had tonight. How do
you make that appropriate transition so we're probably looking at bringing that back here
shortly. The Bluff Creek study, there is a draft. We will be bringing that back to you. I
talked to Nancy about that, in a work session. It's turning out to be a pretty exciting project.
There was a concern that we had with the item that we had recommended tabling tonight
because we're concerned about the recommendations and how this works into the
recommendations of that Bluff Creek study and is it environmentally sensitive to the flood
plain and what we're trying to do there. But the task force did review the first draft. We're
making a few changes but again we will bring that back to you. One of the other things we
did have on there was the transition zone, buffer yard. That was approved by the Council in
April. The neighborhood commercial standards. This is something that Commissioner
Mancino has looked at. She was concerned about some of the areas that we have zoned
commercial, whether or not the standards are such that we'd get compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood and that'd be more architectural compatibility. I think what we've
found in looking at those is that either they're in the Highway 5 zone, and we've already
covered that with the PUD so they're going to bring that back to you to raise your comfort
level on that. The Environmental Commission, they just had their first meeting. They'll be
meeting again tomorrow night ... to maintain our Tree City USA status we have to have a tree
commission, environmental. What we want to do is kind of make it not myopic in scope but
kind of tie the wetland and tree issues and all the environmental so they're kind of getting
going and what they are is just kind of a working group and making recommendations to you.
They're not holding any hearings or anything like that but they'll be making recommendations
to the Council and Planning Commission. One of the things that they'll be looking at too is
looking at the new wetland law and Phil and I did go to a training session on that and even
though the law does allow some flexibility, we're concerned about, because we've been so up
front on how we handle wetlands, we want to make sure we're not taking a giant step
backwards. There may be some appropriate things to look at amending but we certainly can
be more restrictive than the law so that's why they've been really careful on some of these
projects that say... We can do this now. Well now our ordinance still says this so we're really
careful on how we approach making amendments but... something we'll be working on in the
next few months. Private driveways just came up based on the last Arundel subdivision so
Sharmin has an issue paper ready to go in the next packet and I think that will lead to some
interesting discussion. Again the new wetland laws, we'll be working on that. Hopefully
we'll have something to you in July. And then the Livable Communities Act on the June
24th City Council, I'll be presenting to them the action plan and also there will be steps that
37
i
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
may result in the Planning Commission having to follow through in looking at the PUD
ordinance and the like so those are some of the long range things that we're looking at.
That's it. If you wanted to, maybe break into the open discussion.
Peterson: Can we just spend 2 or 3 minutes talking about what we just tabled. How realistic
is it for the developer to downsize, when you get to that level of pricing levels, the flexibility
is obviously less.
Aanenson: Well I think, depending on, I'm not sure what, we had more affordable and we
said at a minimum 50 because by the time people start putting options in so maybe what it
does is it takes, it pushes it closer to the margin that we wanted. At least for the minimum
Maybe before we might have had 75 %. Now we definitely push it closer to the 50. So I
guess, maybe there's some other things they can do to the backs of buildings that make it
doable to the neighbors so I guess.
Conrad: Why, seriously can't, four - plexes are selling real well. I know the product well
enough to know that he can still stuff.
Aanenson: Well it goes back to Southern Oaks. They did that product and that was the only
product they wanted to do and so yeah. So we'll see.
Conrad: But he can solve the neighbor issues I think pretty easily. If he puts in on the
northern part, some four- plexes and he won't lose many units, I can't believe he was that tight
to break even at 142 now. ...and I'm not trying to squeeze him. But I think he can make a
better transition and appease the neighbors.
Aanenson: Right. Or, and do the four's there and maybe pick them up somewhere else and
make bigger units somewhere, whatever but at least along those edges where it needs to be
protected, right.
Peterson: The other option is Poulte has got a similar development over by Eden Prairie
Shopping Center, by my office that ... and basically what we ended up doing there is putting
the rambler styles up against the neighbors in back so their sight lines were improved. These
are the same price points.
Aanenson: Right. That's one of the things we're thinking about with this PUD ordinance and
how can we get those. What sort of things do we put in place for this transition of style or
lot. When you start moving down so it makes it easier to do this because right now the
difference is so great that it's hard ... because nobody wants it. I think that it sounds like
they're going to do some stuff. Hopefully we get some positive results.
38
r
0
r-
I
n
L
y
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: Yeah, I think we moved them.
I Aanenson: Okay, should we break into the open discussion here?
' The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and an open discussion between
the Planning Commission and the applicant for Villages on the Ponds was held.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
9979