Loading...
2k. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1995.CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 1995 1 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief description of how the meeting would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Jeff Farmakes, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, and Mike Meyer ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Don Mehl ' STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern; and Kate Aanenson, Planning Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS /OAK HILL SITE PLAN /DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Alan Brown Drew Clausen 1 Applicant 7659 Nicholas Way Oak Hill Homeowners Association Till Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to Jill? My only question Jill, now this was a project that began and commenced grading in 1992? So that tree has withstood. Sinclair: Yeah. A good two full seasons. Throughout all of this, since it has gone through two seasons where it's had exposed roots, you know whole summers, and it's still, if there's any damage to be done, you could have seen it this last summer and it still looks really healthy. In spite of the that. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Dean Johnson: Hello. My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and the developer of the Oak Ponds project. I think the request that I'm making here, more has to do with the fact that I ' the tree is, due to topog problems and due to a mistake in location of where the tree was when the tree survey was done of the site, has ended up closer to things and higher to things than what was originally anticipated by our grading plan and by the engineer. We ended up being, originally I believe the grading plan showed like a 7 to an 8 foot height of this tree above the road. It's more like 10 -10 1/2 feet. We also have the tree being closer to the road than what was anticipated so more or less what ended up happening is what we thought was going to be a workable situation, we thought we were going to be far enough away from the tree, turned out not to be true. Whether the tree surveyor made a mistake, if the topog was a little bit wrong. Irregardless, the situation has arose where now the tree is farther to the south than what was anticipated and the grade is higher than what was anticipated. So in trying to deal with this and not trying to cut any more roots, we went about putting up a Keystone Wall that was ... not fully engineered. What I mean by that is, we could not put the ' recommended amount of construction behind this wall to match the engineering recommendations of a Keystone wall without cutting farther back into the bank, which would have cut farther back into the roots. Again the tree was thought to be farther north. The 7 or ' 8 foot wall we thought we were going to deal with, this wasn't expected to be a problem. We ended up building part of the wall actually and then got stopped. The Building Department stopped it because it did not meet all of the, did not meet the requirements of the specifications of the manufacturers basically is what ended up happening. It kind of was started because everybody's best opinion was, including the landscaper building the wall, who had 22 years of experience doing this type of work, thought it would work. Felt that since the tree had stood, and the bank has stood for 2 years. Actually at that time a year and a half, that we weren't looking at a real pressure situation on the wall. That the dirt, being it's clay, would self support to a degree. It's already proven that it has. And that the wall could be put in such a way, even though that it lacks some of the engineering, would still stand and be alright. It ended up not happening. We ended up looking at other alternatives with the staff and staffs help. We looked at boulder walls. Boulder walls cannot be engineered at all. There's no such a thing as an engineered boulder wall because there's no way of knowing what the surfaces that are going to be in contact, specific weights, friction, all sorts of different things end up coming into play with the boulder wall. There's just too many variables so a boulder wall didn't end up being any better type of solution to it. Because of the staff report I looked into doing a poured concrete wall was one of the recommendations or request of the staff. I talked to an engineer by the name of John Dahlmeier that is actually used by the City of Chanhassen. Does a lot of work for the building officials, Steve Kirchman and Steve Turrell and those types of people. He looked into putting this poured wall up. Felt that there would have to be, from the back of the wall to the end of the footings that would support this wall, there would have to be 5 feet of distance basically and what you're looking at is an L shaped affair. Putting the plat of ground with the wall coming up vertically out of it but you need the weight of the dirt on top of the footing to stop the wall from tipping out. So we'd end up having to cut 5 more feet in, back to possibly damaging, or not possibly, probably damaging roots. Also probably you have a bit of an alternative there. I guess I'm not really prepared to speak fully about it but if we can dig 5 foot farther into the bank, it probably would have continued on with the Keystone wall because we probably would have been fairly close... doing that. Because of all these , I ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 problems, because of the height, that's really what caused us to bring this back. We have ' found that trying to put this wall in has turned out to be, turned out to take more space, turned out to get it in properly to any type of an engineering requirement is going to cause cutting closer to that tree... probably losing the tree is what we're getting back from the different people. I did address it to the Homeowners Association to see what they would like on it This is the Oak Hill Homeowners Association. The President of the Association is here so I'll let him speak as to what their feelings on the tree was. That's kind of where it ended up being and maybe what we should do is bring it back to you people. Bring it back with a plan where we do take the tree but we do replace it on a caliper inch basis which was originally in the development contract and I guess we'd like to hear wisdom on it and ' guidance on the thing. I guess I'd like to introduce Drew Clausen who is the President of our Homeowners Association. ' Mancino: If he could wait and speak during the public hearing, that would be fine. ' Dean Johnson: Oh, okay. Mancino: Mr. Johnson I have a question. In that area, is that a dedicated green space or the ' park area for the development where the tree sits at this point? Dean Johnson: When that area was, when preliminary plat was first approved, there were apartments, if you remember on the north side of Santa Vera. There was going to be 101 apartment units and the plan was to put a pool in that area that the apartment building would own and operate. If the townhome association wanted to, the right to use the pool or... so to ' speak of the maintenance costs... That what was approved. What ended up happening though is through negotiations with the city and through negotiations with the seniors, the senior site became developed beyond that location. And with needing the densities of those apartment ' buildings in order to ... in other words if I were to build the apartment buildings and the senior site, we would have been over densities in the area and so between, in negotiations and being that I am a for sale townhome builder, I agreed to build the townhouses. They ended up basically swapping density with the senior site. With that there became nobody to own and manage the pool area anymore. There's no one entity like an apartment to do it. Now you have an association. You have two different associations. Nobody to build it. Put it into the... mortgage for it or do anything of those types of things so a pool basically came out of existence. So basically what's happening, not to talk too much longer here, is that I ended up owning it and right at the moment nothing's been decided... Mancino: Okay, but it is staying a green area at this in Y g g point with the rest of the oaks that are there and a trail system through it? Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Dean Johnson: The trail's already through it. The only thing is it's a private piece of ground and ... Any other questions? Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you. Farmakes: I have a question for our engineer. The city has several boulder walls. How do boulder walls become so unstable? Hempel: Boulder walls that you see in place are put in by private developers like Lundgren and so forth. They're on private property. They're owned and maintained by either homeowners association or private property owner. Those walls generally are 7 feet or less and they've fared pretty well. I've only noticed a couple areas that have failed and the development's gone back and repaired those. These have been withstanding pretty well. Getting in the 10 foot high range of the boulder walls, we're a little uncomfortable with that. They're not engineered. Reliance on landscapers who have been doing it for a while and their expertise in it, it was felt there may be some liability with that... Farmakes: So it's the height primarily and then with the, is the issue? Hempel: That and then also applying a fence on top of that retaining wall. Mancino: Then I have another question to piggy back on that. I have also seen on Lake Lucy, on the northern side of Lake Lucy between Yosemite and that Shadow Lane area, there is a limestone wall... which is higher than 7 feet I'm pretty sure and it has been put together with cement and limestone so it's stable but I'm sure it has no support, other type of support and it seems to be holding. It's been there for years and years and years. Hempel: That wall was installed with the Lake Lucy Road improvement and I believe after the first year or so it did require some repair but after that it's been holding up very well. Mancino: So it has the limestone in the cement. Is that something that engineering would support on a wall this size? And especially since it has settled and I believe it's maintained. Hempel: As the developer, as Mr. Johnson indicated, it seems like the banks are very stable. During the winter /spring thaw season you do get the frost movement in the ground. Typically you see it in roads too where you get the bumpy surfaces. That's typically what happens with the ... if they're not anchored securely below the frost line. It's very well possible that boulder walls could hold up over time. The true test would be the first and second spring thaw. 4 I 1 �I u it 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Otherwise they could just tear up part of the road. Just kidding. May I have a motion and a second to open for a public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, please come forward. Draw Clausen: Thank you. I'm Drew Clausen, President of the Oak Hill Townhomes Association. And really is just here to speak to one portion of this. Not so much the type of wall, keystone versus concrete versus limestone and concrete, which is mortar, but to a large extent the reasons Dean is undergoing this exercise is at our request. When the Association was turned over to the homeowners, at that meeting we asked the status of the wall and Dean explained the process he was going through to build a wall and we requested him to stop because of the fact that some of our association members have children. Others have friends who have children who come to play in the summer and our intent in that island is to have that be a recreational area. And I don't know how many of you have 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children but our concern is one of safety. I'm 6 foot 2, 6 foot 3. As I stand there, that's at least an 11 foot drop, possibly higher. There is very little below it. Even with sod it would be probably just about 2 foot before you have a concrete curb and an asphalt road and we feel that somebody's going to be climbing on that, fall down and hurt themselves. It really isn't a liability issue. It's more of an issue of just ease of recreational use. We took a vote of our association, because we're the ones that really are most affected by the aesthetics of it. It was a 3 to 1 vote, I forget how many, the whole association wasn't there but it was something like 35 or 36 to 9 or 10 to request that Dean, through whatever methods are appropriate, ask to have that hill sloped down and replace, take the tree down and replace it with the appropriate trees. I've read the report. There's some discussion on if the Council or the Planning Commission should approve this, what type of trees should go in and again that really isn't what our concern. None of us are in that, that's not our bailiwick in other words. But what we are requesting and urging the Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies is to grant the request to remove the trees, slope the hill down so it can be used without concern of safety. We also are not desirous of a fence on top of an 11 foot wall. We feel that there's no way that we can imagine to have that be aesthetic, especially when you're talking about again, 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children who are going to be climbing on things and now you've just added more height for them to climb on and fall down. So that is our primary concern. Again we certainly urge the Planning Commission and the Council to grant the request because we're the homeowners that are going to have to live with the decision. Any questions? k, Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Fmmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments and questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: I'd like to get a little bit better understanding I guess and the ... but what would a poured wall look like? Would it have a brick facade in front or is it just a piece of gray concrete? Is there a variety of options? Hempel: It would be a cast poured in place type structure similar to what you see on a bridge abutment or something like that. Cosmetic can be added. You can add color to the concrete. You can add a textured wall face more to make it look like a block type wall. It all gets very expensive though. Those are our options available. Peterson: If you had to control the price of a poured concrete with some addition nuances to it versus the ... block, can you give me a ballpark as to what the cost difference would be. Double? Triple? Hempel: Certainly. I'll give you a range. The Keystone or allen type block is in the range of $14.00 - $15.00 a square foot. Similar to a boulder wall, retaining wall. That might be closer to $16.00 a square foot. Poured and capped in place would be in the range of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot so it is double. Peterson: That was my only question I guess. I'm struggling between the issue of keeping a tree that age that has a long life span versus the request of the neighbors and the owners that live there. I think I have to do some thinking on that a little bit yet. Mancino: Would you like me to come back to you? Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: It's a legitimate safety concern and I've often argued with the statistical safety. It seems to ... common sense but if that's the case, if there is a safety issue, I'd rather have children be safe than have a tree saved and I'm sure the city would also, the question seems to me is, is it a safety issue? I'm not going to preport that I'm an expert on that and I think C� 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 that we have a Public Safety Commission and /or city engineers that should respond to that issue. We have plenty of walls around this city and some of them are above 4 feet, 5 feet. I'm not sure we've had that much trouble with people falling off of them. But if there is a legitimate concern, maybe the tree has to go. I'll leave it at that. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I sure would like to see the tree preserved but there certainly are legitimate concerns about safety ... I'd agree with Commissioner that safety has to come first. Also I don't know, it's not clear to me what could be done to make this aesthetically pleasing. I appreciate the details ... but without actually seeing some renderings, I'm not sure what it would look like. When you look at it now it certainly is a very attractive. It sounds like there is ... process of putting up a wall would be further jeopardizing the tree. Audience: Could you speak up? Skubic: Certainly. In the process of constructing the wall, we might be jeopardizing the tree further and after all of our concerted effort we end up not preserving the tree anyway. So I think there's a legitimate amount of concern here and I'm tending to feel that the tree would have to go. ' Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I have yet the same concerns as Bob and the rest of us. It's safety number one I think is, having a fence on top of that high of a peak there really, I've got a young one too and I can see where your concerns are coming from. Also putting a fence on top of that, I don't know how you can do it and make it look good. It just, it's so close to the road I just ' don't know. Maybe you could make it look fairly decent but then the tree dies. People 100 years down the road are going to think we were crazy to design that but yeah, that's all the comments I've got. I'm leaning towards taking it down. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Any further comments? Peterson: I think they do parallel. I think aesthetics is probably my number one concern with safety coming in after that. I think in this case, with the desire to keep trees that age, I would vote to remove it and replace it with the appropriate number of younger trees. Mancino: Okay. Mr. Generous do we, is this something hat we k g as to see in detailed renderings on that... structure or wall to be... 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: Yes. Mancino: I'd like to do both. I'd like to one, keep the majestic, old oak as obviously the City Council wanted to in 1992 when they asked that it be saved. And secondly I'd like to also make it safe and I think that there are other ways to do that besides a fence at the top. You can certainly put bushes. You can put 3 to 4 foot high junipers that spread and come down over that fence and kids are not going to get in the middle of those junipers or jump off of it. So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it come back with some drawings of what kind of wall would work and even what kind of a safety medium we could use up there besides a fence that would keep young children from... Jump off into the street anyway but are there alternatives that haven't been talked about... So that is kind of where I am going. I have all the concerns that every other commissioner does too but I think there are some other answers than what we're looking at right now. Any other comments by the commissioners? Peterson: Is timing an issue as far as making a decision now? Is postponing it and getting that. Mancino: I would say no. Is that an issue at all? Generous: Not really. Mancino: Okay. It's been up there that long. Is there a motion? Meyer: Is it a motion to table this? Mancino: If you do motion to table it, you can ask them to come back with something. Meyer: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table this then and come back with some renderings. Maybe some different alternatives like Nancy had asked for before... Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to table the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds and ask the applicant to being back color rendeiings and alternatives for a wall and safety precautions for children. All voted in favor and the motion caned. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE 222,580 SO FT OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL INTO 7 LOTS AND A 20 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LUKEWOOD DRIVE DEMPSEY ADDITION TIMOTHY DEMPSEY. ' Public Present: Name Address Paula & Mike Robinson Bob Beyer Tim Dempsey Peter Knaeble Roger Schmidt 2224 Lukewood Drive 7221 Harriet Avenue so. 2301 Lukewood Drive 6001 Glenwood Avenue Galpin Boulevard Bob Generous presented the staff repoil on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Peter Knaeble: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble. I'm a civil engineer with... Engineering. We're responsible for the preparation of the preliminary plat and the exhibits for this project. And I'm here tonight with the owner of the property who currently lives on the property, Tim Dempsey. And Bob went through the staff report, or the information in the staff report. Covered most of the stuff that I was going to. I'd just like to reiterate that again this project, the ghost plat for this project was done last year when we did the engineering and planning work on the Minger Addition next door. Again that ghost plat showed 7 lots and that's what we're showing also today. And again the project meets all the city codes. We're asking for a variance to push the lots up 10 feet to save trees in the back of the homes and that was a similar variance that was given to the Minger Addition next door. Those were also designed I believe for all the lots, at about 20 foot setback instead of the standard 30 foot. Again to save the trees ... for that project. If the Planning Commission has any questions, we're here to answer. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commissioners? I'd like to open this for a public hearing. May I have a motion please? 2 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 1 Fmmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. ' Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt and I have the property just immediately south of Tim's property. I guess the question I have is, where it shows the wetlands down there at the base ' of those lots, is there any fill at all contemplated for that area? Because at this point there, I know there's some standing water down in that area at times and of course if that was filled in, I've got the property across the drainage ditch there and I'm sure I'd get some standing water and I've got a lot of trees in there that I don't want to lose. And water would, you know I'm sure would kill those off after a short period of time so that would be my only , concern at this time. Mancino: Thank you. I The applicant stated something to Mr. Schmidt from the audience. Mancino: And there is no fill in that area at all. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Mike Robinson: Mike Robinson. I live in the Minger Addition and my only question is, what are the size restrictions on the property for the homes? ...are they going to be similar to the Minger Addition in terms of size restriction and similar pricing of homes. The applicant answered the question from the audience and it was not picked up by the microphone. Paula Robinson: My name is Paula Robinson and I live in the Minger Addition as well and I just have a couple of questions. One is, what is our access being shown on ... on Galpin and on days I wasn't even able to get back to my property and so that's something that I'd really like to know if that's going to go on for a period of time. Mancino: Can you wait one second and we'll t to answer that. Dave what kind of city t3' rules do we have about that? Hempel: As a part of this project, Bentwood Circle, which is a private driveway street right now, will be upgraded to a city street. In conjunction with that upgrading, they will be required to maintain access to the existing homes on Bentwood Circle. There should be no 10 1 L Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 impact on Lukewood. That's already built to city standards so we don't need to tear into that street. Are you a resident of Bentwood Circle or are you on Lukewood? Paula Robinson: No, I'm on Lukewood but because of construction anticipated on Galpin, Lukewood at many times was shut off from the... Mancino: So that shouldn't happen. However, there will be crews going back and forth on Wood... Paula Robinson: Right, and are they going to block off our access? Mancino: I don't think they're able to. Hempel: No. They're required to maintain access from a public safety standpoint. They may only have parking like on one side of the street and maintain that in and out. A comment was made from the audience that was not picked up by the microphone. Mancino: That was your first question. I think you had a second question. Paula Robinson: That was my main concern. Paula Robinson: Yes, I just had a second on the drainage of the area... Mancino: Again I think Mr. Hempel could answer that for you. Hempel: Madam Chair, with this development they will maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern that's out there today. The only grading that's going to be done is for the new street and as individual houses are built, the city requires individual grading, drainage, tree removal plans be submitted with building permit applications are reviewed to insure that the drainage patterns are maintained in that area. Mancino: Thank you. Paula Robinson: You're welcome. Mancino: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I've got a question on the Schmidt property. Is that something that's developable yet? Is that something that we should take into consideration at this point? Hempel: Staff did look at the surrounding properties to this. The Schmidt property is located south of this. South of the Bluff Creek tributary would be serviced through Galpin Boulevard. Mancino: Can you point that out Dave. Where is the Schmidt property? I mean I see it just west of Galpin here. Dave Hempel went to the overhead projector to point out the location of the Schmidt property. Mancino: So you're expecting that to go off of Galpin? Hempel: That's correct... Meyer: Who would I ask about that 10 foot setback ?... Generous: As part of the tree preservation, that was one of the things we were looking at. If you can pull the housing pad closer to the road where we have most of our impacts of trees, you're able to save a larger areas. The Minger Addition we have, tree preservation areas that we have 200 -300 feet deep because we have... we're trying to save the mature stands to the rear of the trees and provide them some screening from Galpin Boulevard. In addition..., the first one may be, Lot 7 may be able to be pushed back from an aesthetic standpoint. Sharmin told me that she'd like to see the setbacks from the front of the house maintained all the way along that curb. Meyer: That's all the questions I have. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I have very little to add. Unfortunately we're taking, are taking down some nice trees here but I appreciate the effort and I support the variance for setback here and let's preserve some of them. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. 12 7 L. II, L t Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Farmakes: No further comments. ' Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. ' Peterson: No comments. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Bob, how do we get to the city park which is south of ' this subdivision? Generous: There's a trail segment that was put in as part of the Minger Addition. It's right to ' the east of Lot 1. It follows that eastern property line. Mancino: But I mean if I'm a resident and I live north on Galpin and I want to go to the city ' park, where do I park and get out of my car and go to the park? Generous: I don't know that it's designated for that. It's a passive type park so you would, ' the closest trailhead that I'm aware of is at the Autumn Ridge site. That trail system will eventually commit down into this area along Galpin. Mancino: And does this trail system, it just stops at the cul -de -sac? It does not go through this development out to Galpin? ' Generous: No. It just, it will be an on street trail for anyone who would want to walk that area. Mancino: Okay. And why doesn't it continue? Is there a paralleling trail system on Galpin? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. A couple other questions. On Lot 6, and on Lot 2, by pushing that ' back to the 30 feet, which is the setback and not a variance, especially on Lot 6, if we go backwards, we're not taking out any trees according to what I'm looking at. ' Generous: No significant trees. Mancino: Okay. So Lot 6, by doing a variance, does not save any trees. And Lot 7 does ' not save any trees. Generous: I believe on Lot 7 the only, the saving there is the wetland setback and grading. 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Tell me that a little bit more. Explain that a little bit more. We're saving grade back there? Hempel: Madam Chair, Lot 7 yes. There is required fill given the topographic terrain right now. If you push the house pad further on down the road, it requires more fill to bring that house pad up to grade and more fill beyond the house to match these to grade. If you keep it up the hill farther, less grading and filling is involved. Mancino: Okay. And Lot 5 I can see that we are saving trees in the back and Lot 4 is the existing home and also on Lot 3. Lot 2 it seems to me that we would save some trees in the front by pushing the house pad back a little bit. Generous: I wonder, I could have Jill answer that. Sinclair: Your question is about Lot 2? Mancino: Yes. On Lot 2 there is the 26 inch oak and those oaks in the front which, you know on so many of the subdivisions now there are no trees in the front yard so. Sinclair: Yeah, that's true. Mancino: So in looking at this and saying, there are such beautiful trees there, would it be possible to save some in the front also. Sinclair: From past experience, saving trees in the front yard is one of the most difficult things a developer can do. It doesn't work well because you have contractors that want to come in and park their trucks there. Put their materials there. You have utilities going to the house on one side. That usually cuts the roots. It's very difficult to effectively preserve trees in the front yard. So it's better to sacrifice those and save all the ones in the back yard effectively than to run the risk of chancing it on a couple in the front yard. And you know because these are big trees, they ... fairly negatively to any kind of disruption and the moisture in the soil. The cutting of the roots. Any kind of compaction. All of that takes a real toll on the older trees. Mancino: Okay. Let me ask you one other question Jill. On Lot 7 you had suggested that those two oaks, those two 26 inch ... oaks be taken down. Sinclair: Right. Kind of the same deal where, where the oaks are right now you know it's probably a 3 to 4 foot difference between what the new grade will be and where the oaks are now and it is fairly close. It's not like the other tree we just discussed where there's 12 feet 14 1 r L Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 or so. You know within 5 feet of these trees, there's going to be this 4 foot cut on one side. ' In front of them has already been graded for the road so effectively they're taking out at least 3/4 of this and they are large trees once again so you know, they could survive but the chances are bad, yeah. ' Mancino: Thank you. What are Outlots C and B? What do ou do with those two outlots Bob? y ' Generous: Those were established as art of the Minger Addition. I p g believe there was a transfer between Minger and the Dempsey's. That Minger transferred it to the Dempsey's for ' when he subdivided his land. Mancino: How come that didn't become part of Generous: Well eah that's y dust showing the underlying plat. That will become, Outlot C ' becomes part of Lot 1 and Outlot B becomes part of Lot 4. Mancino: Thank you. And the last question is, we needed a post development canopy ' coverage_55% and we're at 54 %. Are there trees that needed to added to it? Generous: That would be the canopy area? Mancino: Yeah. Sinclair: ...calculations it comes up to about 2 trees they would technically have to replace. Mancino: Thank you. My last question has to do with the ... other developments that we are ' going to be seeing tonight that has ... canopy coverage like this. 80% to 90 %. You're recommending that for the water line, for all the water lines, using a trench box so as to not disturb the area. n i� u Hempel: In this project the sewer and water lines have already been installed. There's really no need to do that. The individual sewer service can be stubbed to the property line once that home is built and the sewer line will be extended into the house. Typically with that the sewer and water contractor... box. He simply trenches it to a normal trench width or most time they do even narrow because more digging costs more money. Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. I think it's a good development. It will work out well with the Minger development. It's well though out. May I entertain a motion? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning #95 -REZ 5.1 acres of property zoned A2 to rural single family for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and subject to the following conditions number 1 and number 2. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning 5.1 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #95 -21. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: A second motion for the preliminary plat please. Skubic: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommend approval of a preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -21 Dempsey Addition for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot frontage yard setback as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 with the following conditions number 1 through number 18 as outlined by the staff. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 995 -21, Dempsey Addition for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot valiance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown in plans received November 6, 1995, with the following conditions: 16 � I 1] 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 J 1. Tree preservation conditions: ' a. All tree fencing as drawn shall be installed prior to any grading or excavation. b. Fencing shall be extended to property lines between Lot 3 and 4 as well as across ' the rear yard of Lot 6. c. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. d. All trees in front yards of Lot 1, 3 and 5, Block 1 shall be protected by tree fencing. ' The fencing shall be placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk. e. The two 26 inch oaks in the northeastern corner of Lot 7 are not recommended for preservation. ' f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. ' 2. Buildin g Department artment conditions: ' a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and ' garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. ' 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances. ' 4. The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and /or State codes. 5. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to ' the City for review and formal approval prior to final plat approval. 6. All seeds disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored ' with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ' 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 ear and 100 y year storm events in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and ' approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed 17 0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm dvents. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 11. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 12. The northerly lot line of Lot 1 shall be adjusted to provide a driveway access to Lot 1 that will avoid encroachment onto the City's trail. 13. The proposed single family residential development of 4.2 developable across is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,360.00 and a water quantity fee of $8,316.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tiles as directed by the City Engineer. 15. The existing residence on Lot 4 shall be connected to City sewer and the septic system properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 16. The streets and storm drainage system shall be constructed in accordance to the City's rural street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 18 0 �1 r L u F Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 17. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 18. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit. All voted in favor- and the motion carded unanimously. Mancino: When will this go in front of City Council. Generous: January 8th. PUBLIC HEARING: TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL; LOTUS GLEN Public Present: Name Address ' Ted & Cathy deLancey Charles Stinson Don Streeter ' Dr. James Erland Rick Corwine Tom Pauley ' Kelly Lang Andrew Hiscox 1 �I Applicants Architect Streeter and Associates Chanhassen 7600 Erie Avenue 7604 Erie Avenue 7501 Erie Avenue 7500 Erie Avenue Bob Geneinous presented the staff repot on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this point? (Due to a taping error, a portion of the public hearing was not recorded on this item. Taping of the discussion began again at this point after the applicant and the applicant's architect had presented their plan and the public hearing had been opened.) Mancino: Bob, for Mr. Corwine. How wide is the ... going to be and how close will these... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: I believe that the easement or the area is 30 feet and the private drive is 20 feet? Rick Corwine: I guess my specific question is, is there a limitation into how far a private driveway can be from a property line? Or from a structure. Hempel: No, there isn't. Typically the private drive would be centered in the 30 foot wide easement. Rick Corwine: Would there be a problem, okay. Mancino: So you would have 10 feet from the private drive to your property line. Rick Corwine: Right, okay. I would like to see some efforts made to offset that. The Property to the north of that access strip. Their house sits quite a bit to the north end of that property and they have some trees in that area that would be a buffer. I'd like to see some efforts made to move that a little bit farther to the north of that 30 foot strip there. Especially seeing as there's no particular restrictions on it's specific location to the property line... Mancino: Is the northern neighbor here tonight? Rick Corwine: No, they're not. And I know that it's somewhat of a concern of their's. Well I guess I can't speak for them. Those are my primary questions tonight. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tom Pauley: My name is Tom Pauley. I live at 7604 Erie Avenue. Just south of Rick. My concern is, I probably live on the lowest part of Erie Avenue and there's a tremendous amount of water drainage that goes through. That ponds in my yard and goes down this creek ... and when you get the 1 and 2 inch rains, there's a lake in my yard. It goes over to Rick's yard and the neighbor's yard and as long as that water's allowed to keep moving, we don't have a problem. But that's my concern that when you're doing all this, you consider that because if that water is interrupted somehow, I mean it hasn't gotten to my house yet but I can see it coming at my door. Mancino: Dave, could you... what's coming in now and will that change after development? Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. (Dave Hempel went over to the overhead projector to answer Mr. Pauley's question and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) 20 u �I P Ll I I �� �I n 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Kelly Lang: Good evening. My name is Kelly Lang. I live at 7501 Erie Avenue, which is lake property on Lotus Lake. Two doors down from the proposed development to the east. My concern is driven from the whole reason that we moved to Chanhassen and that was the Lotus Lake and the quality that it has. We've spent, we've only been there on the lake for two summers but have spent some time recreationally on the lake enjoying it and enjoyed the quality of the lake and over just the three, last three years we've seen the quality of the lake diminish. Felt good last winter when the city came out with their plans for the surface water plan and the preservation of the other lakes as well as Lotus Lake in the city and I am concerned that on the plan, as I've picked it up from the city last week, they're asking that the Surface Water Management Plan be developed prior to asking for your approval and would ask if the city planners and commission feel comfortable with the development as proposed that will not impact adversely the quality of the lake because not only are you dealing with the neighbors, but everybody that's around the lake. Hempel: Madam Chair, I can address that. The city has another opportunity here with this development, as we did with the Lotus Lake Woods project to do our surface water management on the property in conjunction with development. Any easements... the surface water management plan does ... to take the runoff and by -pass the... Kelly Lang: There is a drainage ditch coming out of there right now. In fact going into the left... Is what you're saying less water will likely be coming from there? Hempel: ...pre- treated before it discharges into Lotus Lake... Mancino: And right now that isn't being done. Hempel: That's correct. Right now it's an open ditch... ' Kelly Lang: Yeah but the development will bring more fertilizer and other types of lawn treatments that has been shown by the water plan or the people that were involved in the water plan, that that has... and what I just heard you say is that this pond will gather some of ' that in most instances but in major storms, that runoff will potentially increase the ... and that type of thing through the ditch area. I Hempel: That's partially correct... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Dave, isn't the city right now doing an education process with the Lotus Lake residents about fertilizer and when to use and which ones are the best and not to use, and especially in an area like this, I'm sure there isn't much grass anyway but. Kelly Lang: Yes, the city's doing I think an exemplary job on a lot of the things that have involved maintaining the quality of the lake and adhere to the non fertilizer use on my own lawn, but I also suspect that, I believe that families living off the lake, but near the lake, they will have less reason to feel like they are part of the problem and maybe would ask that the commission ask that the water level or the ponding level be increased to a 4 inch to 6 inch rain runoff into the lake because 3 years ago when we were waterskiing on the lake, I remember there were three very small patches of milfoil. Today it's 100% surrounded by milfoil around the lake. It's one of the degrees of quality that I've seen deteriorate rapidly. Based upon Diane Desotelle and the outside firm that they had come in and do some of the educational things last year, she indicated that it is the runoff and fertilizer. The lack of, currently the lack of ponding and that type of thing has created that type of degregation in the quality. And that if we protect it for the 2 to 4 inch rainfall, that's better than what we have today but with the amount of, I think not knowing what the amount of effort you have in creating a pond, it may be a small, additional effort to raise the level of the ponding and the wall prior to it entering into the ditch to protect a 6 inch level of rainfall. So we have a chance to prevent further degregation of the lake quality. Mancino: Is that ever done? Hempel: Madam Chair. This site here is an environmentally sensitive area. We will be working with the developer to size the pond as large as we can and yet preserve the trees and natural terrain out there. I'm not aware of any ponding areas that are sized, from an economic standpoint, for a 6 inch rainfall. That's like a 100 year storm event. More typical for a 2 1/2 inch rainfall is the standard set forth. Mancino: 6 inches is a 100 year? Hempel: Storm event which happened a couple times in the last year. Mancino: Wouldn't you know it. Thank you. Appreciate your comments and your concerns Anyone else? Andrew Hiscox: My name's Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. I'm the property that's directly east of the deLancey property and I think this is great. I think Ted's done a great job of drawing a plan up but I do have a couple of concerns to go over. If you look at, if that's north, as you're looking at that rendering right there, I'm a little concerned about the 22 J C 1 Lei I Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 private drive and how close it is to the property line. It's already been brought up tonight that ' there's really no code or ordinance that says how far a driveway has to be from a property line. But I've lived in the house for about 7 years. I look out the back of my house and it's all woods. I see deer out there and rabbits and raccoons and things like that and it'd be sort ' of nice to sort of keep that ambience. I know nothing lasts forever. However I'm wondering if there might be some way to suggest that we put in some sort of buffer between the existing homes and the new development. I don't think that's, again it's not an ordinance but I guess I'd like to solicit your opinion on that and see if that's something we might be able to get put into the plan. ' Mancino: Okay. Bob, do we have any ordinances right now when we abut single family to single family to buffer it? ' Generous: No. I believe as part of their design they're looking for separation. I don't think it's more for, it's for the benefit of the new subdivision rather than for the existing development there. Like he said, they're looking at higher valued lots out here and that ' equates to higher value homes. They're going to think that they should have a screen from the existing homes in the neighborhood. ' Andrew Hiscox: I think that's great. How do we formalize that? Mancino: I think the Planning Commission will talk about during their comments. So what I'm saying is we will not give you an answer right now but we will discuss, as we discuss comments and make a recommendation or not to do that. ' Andrew Hiscox: Do we get to re -open that for discussion after you've had your discussion? ' Mancino: Ah, no you don't. Andrew Hiscox: Well then let's continue right now. I guess what I'm saying is. ' Mancino: This is not a discussion period. This is for us to get the... ' Andrew Hiscox: I understand. Mancino: And I will bring that back to the Planning Commission once the public hearing is ' closed. We will make comments and we will discuss it and we will take a vote. And if you would like further discussion, you may certainly do that at the City Council. 1 Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. 23 L__.,' 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Is there any other area that you wanted us to? Andrew Hiscox: Well, not at this time. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Comments. Discussion. Peterson: I think all and all that the plan as it's been presented has been obviously thoroughly thought out over quite an expansive period of time and I think all the major areas have been addressed and it seems as though they've worked with the city and accommodated the wishes of the city into many of the design factors. Dave, I guess I'd like to talk a little bit more, get a better understanding again and it's been 20 or 30 minutes now. I guess I'd like to go over again the primary rationale for separating and then changing the road system as it's currently being presented on the chart here. So if you could just briefly walk through it again for me, I'd appreciate it. Hempel: Commissioner Peterson, the only consideration... Peterson: Thanks. I think that basically the plan, as it's presented, I think can be worked out between the developer and the city. I'm comfortable with it as the way it is. As presented by staff. Mancino: And would you like to see the applicant and staff work together on the suggestions and have it come back to see how it works out? , Peterson: I think as ... really hasn't had a great deal of opportunity to respond to the most recent city request so I think that'd be certainly appropriate. Mancino: Mr. Farmakes. Farmakes: This is kind of a unique development. A little bit different than what we're used to seeing. Typically we're used to seeing farmland being subdivided and being filled up with development and then of course we get people coming in from the development next to it who are upset because they want to continue seeing what they moved out for, which is cows and horses and whatever. We have a different area here. This is an area that's sort of been 24 I I Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 insulated or surrounded by development for many years and it simply hasn't developed ' because it's owners chose not to develop. In fact the property that we purchased was a similar situation. When development started in the 50's and the developer held onto it for 20 years before they sold it. I agree that Frontier Trail is a unique situation. I'd like to see ' limited access. I'd like to see Lots 1 and 2 perhaps access off of that same drive rather than add an additional drive. Possibly rearrange these homes a bit to set them back from the road, if possible. Obviously the development's high quality. I think considerations for the property ' have been well taken into consideration by the architect. Other than the issue of Frontier Trail, it's quite a quality addition... Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I also think that it's a very fine proposal here. They're certainly developing this with ' large lots minimizes the amount of traffic on ... topography and the trees quite efficiently. I would like to see the applicant and staff work together to try to buffer the private roadway to the east to see what can be done with that. There's also some alterations that need to be made in regards to the bluff lines and certainly that needs to be worked through and with the uncertainties, I'm not sure that this should be moved up to the City Council. I don't know, ' maybe it should. I don't know. I just have a little uncertainty about that. There might be a little more work that I'd like to be done with those things before it moves on. I can be persuaded otherwise. ' Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. ' Meyer: I'd like to know, this shows a 9 lot ... to the land, could they come in and do quite a few more? I know we had heard 23... ' Generous: Sure, you could do 15,000 square foot lots. Meyer: Okay, so what they're doing right now is really trying to develop something that's... ' Generous: Yes... especially on the top part of-planned unit development and then it's more lots. Put larger lots down here. They could have done twin homes development. ' Meyer: Okay. Also Andrew Hiscox had talked about buffering the private drive but actually the way I look at this, I mean there will be a driveway but they won't even be going past, it ' will be a driveway for the house but it won't be going. Andrew Hiscox: Excuse me, it will be about 16 feet from my back door. {, 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Meyer: The building pad, yes. Andrew Hiscox: No, the driveway. Meyer: What I was speaking of was a private drive for serving all the houses and that won't. I believe that's all the questions I have. Mancino: I think it's a real quality development. I'd like to see it come back and I'd like to see it come back after the applicant and their engineer and architect have looked at the city's request for how to approach Lots 1 and 2. Take that into consideration and work together with staff on that. I'd also like to see it come back with the particulars for Lot 4 and 5 and where the housepads can go on that according to our bluff ordinance. And I would like to have the applicant respond to the homeowners on the east side and what kind of buffering can be done and what you would suggest doing. Bob, I had a question for you on the amount of money in their storm water quantity fees. It is $1,980.00 per developable acre and in the city we have calculated it as 8.7 acres. If they can't develop in the bluff area, should those be considered as developable acres? And what is the city's position on that and if the city doesn't have one right now, you can certainly get back to us. Hempel: I guess first what jumps out for me I guess Madam Chair is it still generates runoff as the other property does and it should be included. Maybe because it's a bluff and the lots are larger, maybe some credit rate that we've applied as a residential single family rate, about $800.00 per acre plus $1,980.00 per acre. They may be given some credit for that bluff... We can take a look at that. Mancino: Okay. I would hope that we do. Those are all my comments. Oh, one more question. What is a trench box? Dave? Hempel: Excuse me? Mancino: What is a trench box? On 25, and I brought it up earlier tonight and asked a question about it and I don't even know what one is. Hempel: That is a metal box that is used to preserve the cave in of the side walls when they excavate the trench if they're in an unsuitable material or high water table area. The soils will move on them and cave in. What this box does, it limits the trench width. Instead of having to be a 1:1 slope or 1:1.5 slope, it can virtually go sheer up and down with it. You just move this trench box along to protect the workers from cave in's. Mancino: You mean you just use that for water lines? 26 1 u I ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Hempel: It can be used for sewer and water lines. The biggest piece of equipment though that disturbs the area is the backhoe itself running through there and turning and that's where you'll get the area of a 30 foot wide swath essentially being impacted by construction. ' Mancino: Okay and it's written down that they're leaving a 40 to 45 foot swath and is there, is it 30 to 35 feet? Hempel: If it's just a water line going in, which is very shallow, 7 foot deep, 30 to 35 foot would be the limit of the impact. ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I entertain a motion? ' Farmakes: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the Lotus Glen #95- 22 SUB. ' Mancino: Can you wait until the motion is done please. Farmakes: For the following reasons, as listed in the Minutes by the chair. Mancino: Okay, is there a second? ' Skubic: I second it. Mancino: Any discussion? ' Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat 05 -22 SUB for- Lotus Glen for- further- review between staff and the ' applicant. All voted in favor- and the motion carded unanimously. A question was asked from someone in the audience which was not picked up by the ' microphone. Mancino: Well and Bob, we need a guide here... I haven't read it completely because we just ' received it so I feel uncomfortable giving you my thoughts on it not reading it. Have you had time to read it? ' Farmakes: I was given it just after the beginning of the meeting and I do not have the bluff ordinance memorized, although I was involved and helped put it together but I cannot, off the top of my head, along with 15 other ordinances that we're dealing with here tonight, make a comment on that... ' 27 0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot I ... we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10 %; AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN- SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Marc Simcox Diane & Randall Schwarz Joanne Dake Bob Hansen Michael Reid Jim Donovan Jim Emmer Tom Wilder Mike Prebble 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood 1377 Ithilien 1336 Ithilien 1344 Ithilien 1328 Ithilien Chanhassen Chanhassen Shorewood 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography as well as 10% street grade and ... There's not going to be as much grading probably... staffs 28 0 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 alternative. It fits the terrain though much better. You're not significantly lowering the knob ' or filling in for the house pads. Mancino: So the difference between that concept and what the applicant has brought is that ' you're going south...southern turn and this will eliminate even greater the 10% grade? Hempel: We believe we're working with the existing grades better than the proposed plan ' before you this evening. Mancino: Another question is, and none of us are ... to the east. They have access to Lilac Lane so they do have an access point... Hempel: We have a limited access point to Lilac Lane. Approximately 18 to 20 foot wide. The street is a substandard city street. It actually borders right between the city of Shorewood. It's also here in Chanhassen. I believe the city of Shorewood has maintained ' that street. At this point tonight we're not looking at a thru street connection. We're just trying to provide full street access and utility service to the Donovan parcel. ' Mancino: And as you said, Lilac Lane is owned by Shorewood? Hempel: I believe it's maintained by the city of Shorewood. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning g John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the developer of the proposed parcel called Knob Hill. Craig from Engelhardt has two drawings here. One showing the proposed cul -de -sac ' that's been submitted. Also on the top would be a likely scenario if staffs recommendations are followed. Just to quickly mention on David's comments on looking at the, only the service of the Donovan parcel. I believe in the staff report on page 5, the bottom. When ' abutting property develops, staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending the street to the east to service Donovan's and potentially when the abutting property develops out to Lilac Lane. So that's really the issues that we're going to ' talk about here. This is going to sound like a broken record because what you just went through before. I'm in the same boat here. This property's been in my family 85 years. It's been my wife and myself dream to eventually build on the homestead site of my great ' grandfather's home. I build homes for a living. My goal's not to be a developer but developing this piece myself was the only thing I could do to make sure that the homestead site be preserved and the site be carefully planned the way my family would want it. I've probably more questions than answers for you but I think all the issues at hand need to be 1 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 , addressed further than this meeting with city staff, my engineers and myself. But I appreciate the commission hearing our concerns on hopefully the successful development of this parcel. ' Other than the details that are addressed in the staffs report, the plan in my mind boils down to two basic road layouts which I think is why everybody is here tonight. My plan number one, my plan of a cul -de -sac to service the parcel and staffs recommended plan for a ' continuation of a road through my parcel and eventually continuing through the Donovan parcel to the east when it is developed and hook up to Lilac Lane. A cul -de -sac plan, not necessarily my proposed cul -de -sac that you see on the bottom plan over there, but a cul-de- sac meeting staffs wishes and the grade and the right -of -way areas is preferred by myself and the surrounding neighbors. A continuation of this road, which I call the top cop's road to the east, in my estimation would be confronted with the following. Two hills near the connecting t collectors, neither of which meet Shorewood or Chanhassen's specs for safety. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard intersection. This intersection is a 28 foot wide roadway that was improved 2 years ago up to Teton Road. The city prefers a 31 foot wide roadway. Grading ' on this improvement was an 8.26 grade. The city prefers a 7% maximum grade. But we're a 7% grade as close as 50 feet to Powers Boulevard. The city prefers a 2% max grade within 50 feet of this intersection. Or of any intersection. I understand that may be a State recommendation, I'm not sure. A transitional speed zone at the intersection of 45 mph and 30 mph and poor sight lines for the drivers east bound and south bound. This roadway is 85% in the city of Shorewood and 15% in the city of Chanhassen. Also another issue that I'd like ' to bring to the commissioner's attention is the hill at Apple Road at the county line which is actually on the northwest corner. Yosemite Street turns into Apple Road at the county line, ' which is the northwest corner. The average grade for the first 450 feet into Hennepin County is 9.08. At the hill crest this grade's within 150 feet to the center of my proposed road coming into Yosemite. In regards to the Donovan parcel, which is actually shown to the southeast of the top drawing, it's almost a 90 degree turn on the Donovan parcel. The sight lines for the Donovan property are poor with mature trees blocking vision on the entire west side. There's a dangerous ravine at the end of Lilac Lane which would definitely be a hazard. ' Not to mention there's about 20 significant trees that would be lost on the substandard part of Lilac Lane. Another issue of concern is the servicing of just the Donovan parcel. It's come to my attention recently that Mr. Donovan does have a 50 foot easement for road purposes for ' future development. Therefore when future development would take place, it could access onto Lilac Lane. So there's no need to take road right -of -way from my parcel to service his land. ...The first page is just a map showing how close Apple Road and Powers connect just , to the north of this parcel. And Lake Lucy Road would be the other collector to the south. And the next three are the existing Lilac Lane improvement that was done from Powers to Teton Lane, which is probably about half of Lilac Lane. Maybe a little less. A third to a ' half and that shows the 28% width. The 8.26 grade coming into Powers Boulevard with basically no landing. And the last page just shows how much was in Shorewood and Chanhassen. The next page does show the grade. This is from the city of Shorewood on the 30 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 grade of the hill just to the north of where Yosemite turns into Apple Road. The average is ' 9.08 in that first section. The next half section map shows Ithilien, which is a lot of the neighbors that are here tonight in that subdivision. It does show highlighted Lot 5, which is the issue with the Donovan easement. The next page, with the easement over Lot 5 does confirm from Valley Surveying and also Del Cutter at Carver County Abstract, that this is a valid easement. It's a 50 foot wide easement. 28.51 onto Lot 5 and 21.5 that is on the existing Donovan parcel. And the next legal document is that easement dated 27th of April, ' 1973. On the next three pages is a petition, obviously concerned residents. 52 adults from the surrounding area. And last but not least, a letter from the City of Shorewood that I received today and it reads as follows: Our office received a copy of the above referenced ' plat and found it to have little or no impact on the adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the city's considering a possible thru connection to Lilac Lane. ' This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about such a connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is very substandard, narrow street serving only 6 homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property and would be interested in seeing any other plans that you may have ' developed in this regard. However at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making the Lilac Lane a thru street. It is our understanding that your Planning Commission will consider this matter at the meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood's staff, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director. I understand that at least cul -de -sacs have been granted within the past years within a half mile. Shadow Ridge, Ithilien and the Mason property. And also to clarify the staff and the commission why we propose a 10% grade variance on our plan for the cul -de -sac was for one purpose and one purpose only. That was to save trees which is really my high priority on this parcel. And I was told by Engelhardt that in order to save more trees we had to raise the road grade, in order to especially save, there's quite a few cedars up where I'm going to live on the big parcel on Lot 5. That is going to be left as one lot. Besides all the safety issues I've raised for a continued street, it ' seems very clear to me that a continuation of the Knob Hill Road was not meant to be. It should have been planned through the Ithilien property, not a band -aid thru street. This is why a cul -de -sac makes sense for my neighborhood. It's safe for my kids and the Knob Hill traffic can go to Powers Boulevard, via Apple Road to the north and Lake Lucy Road to the south. Both level intersections that would be safer for all. I'm sure with staffs help we can come up with a cul -de -sac plan that meets the grade staff prefers and preserves the best ' liability of the trees and the surroundings of my family property. We're moving onto this land to make friends, not enemies and to contribute to the community and hopefully we can find common ground. So I'd ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to staff not to ' pursue the connection of the roadway through the Knob Hill Addition to service Donovan's 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 property but to allow for sewer service only and to pursue a cul -de -sac plan that will enhance the area. Mancino: Thank you. I did have a question for you. Just state for me very clearly, forget Lilac Lane and what will happen if it goes through the Donovan parcel. You seem to want the cul -de -sac and what are the reasons for you wanting to continue or to just have a cul -de- sac on Knob Hill. Just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John Knoblauch: Actually to be honest with you, I'm not really opposed to servicing Donovan's property. If it was Donovan's property alone and I could be assured of that, I would not be against dead - ending my road at his property line. And that I've made clear to staff. As far as the cul -de -sac, obviously it makes my lots more valuable. I have two growing boys and one on the way, and they're pretty active. I guess that's really the gist of it and I think that's the way my family would have wanted it, so. Since the issue of the easement came up with Donovan's, and he's really got his own entrance off of Lilac, I guess I'd prefer a cul -de -sac because if he didn't have that, I probably would work something out with him. Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. I'm going to stop for just one moment. It's 9:25. Kate, we have to be out of here by 10:00? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: If we are not done by 10:00, because I see that we have quite a few people who are going to be addressing us. We may have to table this and come back and resume the public hearing because we must be out of here by 10:00. Anyone else who is on the agenda, I don't think we're going to get to you tonight. Do you have any recommendations or any other suggestions? So I just through I'd tell you that no one else will go on tonight. It won't be until January 3rd. We'll come back and we'll continue the public hearing at 10:00. We'll see you again on January 3rd. I hope this doesn't hold up anything for the applicant, etc, and I hope that everyone who did come tonight can join us again after Christmas. With that the public hearing is open and I'd like your name and address. Mike Prebble: Thank you. My name is Mike Prebble and I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition and I stand to be the one most affected or not affected, 32 L F1 0 I J ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 depending on which plan that the city and Mr. Knoblauch go forward with. This is my lot ' right here and for a thru street... I believe Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop his Knob Hill Addition as a cul -de -sac. He has shown me a plan that shows a very subtle use of land with home sites nestled in amongst the existing trees with the least impact on changing the neighborhood with an increased density of people. He has 12 home sites. It's been my experience that, at least where I live it's 2 car families and pretty much both work and so that's two cars leaving, two cars coming home and maybe a kid to pick up and maybe go shopping and so if you count all of those car passages from one house, I came up with -8 minimum and if you multiply that times 9 homes, that's 96 cars minimum going, plus you talk of things like mail delivery and garbage pick -up and etc and I forgot something so I go ' again. My lot being the corner of Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition, apparently the planning and zoning commission, when they put my house on this lot. It was built in 1991, into '92 is when we moved in. We didn't know or didn't realize Mr. Donovan's easement onto it but I ' believe, according to the map and the measurements that I've done, if this street is put in as a thru street according to the existing easements, the corner of my attached screened porch ' would be 17 feet from the curb and I heard from the previous thing that it's 30 feet is the minimum so apparently my home was placed in a position that, according to what was Mr. Donovan's right -of -way, and I don't know if the city. Maybe the city didn't know of his easement or not. My house could have been moved. It didn't have to put right there because it's a new home and I wish that would have been addressed when we were in the stage of getting approval for where to place the homesite where our home is built. A thru street there, that's 12 homes. If Mr. Donovan or someone who buys his property and develops that, I talked with Mr. Hempel and I suggested 10 or 12 homes may go there. Mr. Hempel thought maybe 15 was more appropriate so that's another 15 homes. I'm going to guess 2 car ' families. I'm going to guess 8 trips minimum in and out. We're looking at around 300 cars a day could be potentially going past my house. Stop. Turn the corner. Go. Come back. Stop. Turn back. Some of those cars may be not so well tuned up. Some of those being ' trucks. The hill right there, my home. Northwest general air movement. I'm really concerned about air pollution right into my porch. I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about how busy that street could become. I have three children. A freshman in high school, a 9 year old at Excelsior Elementary and a 3 year old. I believe that Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop some fashion of a cul -de -sac. Your question of why do you want a cul -de -sac is why I bought that house on a cul -de -sac. It's homey. It's neighbors. ' The only people really who drive on our street are the people who live there. Occasion person who may be lost or looking for something but I look around, when I see people, it's the people we live with. A thru street is not homey. Is not neighbors. We met with the ' safety people last winter at one of our neighbor's homes talking about neighborhood safety watch and how nice it is that everyone knows and can see and can come and go so if you see something suspicious, meaning something you haven't seen for a while, you can easily think. ' Maybe I should call. Maybe not. A thru street does not allow that familiarity. My 33 n Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 recommendation to your group is some fashion of a cul -de -sac and Mr. Knoblauch mentioned something about, he could service Donovan's property. I love that idea. If some fashion of cul -de -sac ends with some fashion of a dead end here on Donovan's property, a nice road about here, that's another... If Mr. Donovan's easement is taken off my property, the Ithilien easement is taken off my property, I stand to lose approximately 20% of the land that I've got there. So thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Jim Donovan: Yes, my name is Jim Donovan. I'm the famous Donovan resident there with the property. As far as the easement is concerned, I know I can say whatever I want here in front of the Council because it doesn't mean anything as far as saying it about development. I have no intentions of ever developing that piece of property. I have no intentions of ever selling it. I'm going to die there when I'm 100 so. I'm 61 now so I've got a long time to go. And Mike and his wife can feel free that there will be no, nothing done with that corner. I know that that has no legal standing or anything else like that but that's my feelings. As far as allowing Mr. Knoblauch to have a circle in there, that would be my choice. As I look out my house, when I come out of my garage, that's to the north of my property there looking at his piece of property. It would look down. I'm up on the hill there. You can see the pond and I am just to the south of that pond there on a hill. I look down, my driveway goes down and winds around the trees. The beautiful trees there and I was thrilled when John and his wife came over to my house and said that they had no intentions of destroying those trees. I know that all the neighbors were very, very concerned about a developer coming in and potentially ripping out 20 to 30 of those beautiful trees that are in there that have been there for ages and ages. This is Apple Road territory and apple tree territory. The trees may not be the greatest because they haven't been kept up but it is a very old and very lovely area there. As far as I'm concerned, and the people that I've talked to, we would like to see, and me especially, I would like to see a circle on the property as John has proposed. I would not like to see a road abutted to my lot line because basically what the town is telling me is that, hey. Eventually we're going to come through your piece of property and we're going to link up with Lilac Lane. Well, you know I don't like that. I don't want to have my property... lighting that goes all the way down the driveway. I've got a security system that's underground that goes down the driveway. I've got over 1,000 foot long driveway. I've got two stone pillars at the end of Lilac there that have a bar, or a radio prism that goes it through. When a person or a vehicle comes onto the property, it sounds at my house. All of these wires and electrical has been laid underground and led to my house there. So I have no intentions of ever developing that. Ripping up that piece of property. I would hope that the town would not, or the city would have no push to put a road through there eventually. And the idea of having John make a road that would abut to my property there and then running basically a service road along my property line there, my northern property line there, does 34 1 Ll I ' u 1- Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 not make sense really. John's idea of a circle with a road there servicing these homes here ' makes much more sense. It lends to the landscape. It does not degrade the property. It does not scrape it away. I mean there's beautiful homes. There is beautiful trees there. There's a cedar tree there. There's the slope of the land lends itself to what John has proposed and has done a hard job of trying to make the property look at least developed, if we could put it that way, as possible. This is an old area and it's a beautiful area and it's an area where people come to rest, relax, get away from city life. It's not an area where, as Mike said, you want to have 90 cars screeching around the corner. You want to have horns honking. Things like this. I think that everybody who lives in Chanhassen wants a nice, quiet life. I mean we're developing this city at a very, very rapid pace, as shown by what's happened downtown. The ' area that we happen to be in is the most northern part of Chanhassen, adjoining Shorewood there. We are sort of the last frontier as far as the northern part of Chanhassen is concerned ' and it's an area that has got it's own charm and it's own mystique. It's an area that John has proposed developing with the idea that, let's keep it the way it is right now. Let's not make it into a fast lane. Let's keep it so that when people drive in here, they're driving into their home. They're not driving into a big wide open, busy area here. And John has done, what we think and I think, a very admirable job of developing the property, of proposing to develop the property as far as the roads are concerned. As far as I am concerned, being the ' prime piece of property on the south side of this development here, and as far as the city is concerned, I would have potentially, any access that I would ever need, and as I prefaced my beginning remarks to the Council here. I have no intentions of ever doing anything. And the way I would like to have it, I would like to have it as John has proposed. I feel that that is the best plan for the entire area. Thank you. 1 Mancino: May I respond to a couple things you said. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear you understand that the staffs proposal to stop it at your property line would not at this point, or at any point until you decide to develop, would it go through your property. Jim Donovan: Right, I understand that. Mancino: There wouldn't be a service road. There would be nothing. It would just stop. Jim Donovan: I understand that. But you're bringing up a road to butt up against my property. Mancino: Yes. That is true. Jim Donovan: Which is an ugly, u 1 . gY I Mancino: To the property line. 35 Ll Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Jim Donovan: Yes, it's an ugly type of situation. Whereas now it's a beautiful type of thing. Mancino: And it would be a turn around and there would have to be some sort of turn around so it would look very much like a cul -de -sac. Jim Donovan: But right up against my property. Mancino: It would be up against your property line. Jim Donovan: Yeah, which is very bad. Mancino: And secondly it is, I mean we have to look ahead, after 100 years. Between 61 and when you're 100 and to your next life and say, then what's going to happen. I understand that you're going to be there and at this point do not see ever developing it. But we, as a planning commission, must look even further ahead than that. That's what we need to do for the city and I don't know what we're going to decide but I'm just also giving you our perspective on what we need to be looking at too. Jim Donovan: Well what you're telling me then is that, if you were to bring up, if you were to disregard John's proposal, put forth your proposal to abut onto my piece of property there, it would not be done during my tenure. But that some time a large swath of my property would become public road property. Mancino: If whoever, your heir, whoever you sell it to wants to develop. If that one person. Jim Donovan: But what you're proposing would basically degrade my property. It would decrease the value of my property. Mancino: As it stands now, someone would come in. If you wanted to sell it someone or give it to an heir who wants to develop it, and that would be up to you. Jim Donovan: No, what I'm saying is that what you're proposing or what you're saying is that if you were to put a road with a circular end to it, up against my northern boundary, it would decrease the value of my property. There's no doubt about that. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could make a couple comments. The first thing, the handout you have before you tonight with the easement, the 50 foot easement across Lot 5. First of all that is a private roadway easement. That cannot be dedicated for public use. It's a sole easement for Mr. Donovan to use. Okay, so that can never be upgraded to a city street. Now 36 n L r� k 7 L �I k I� �J fl 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 acquisition of property from Lot 5, which we have no desire to do. Your subdivision, well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Your property... (Dave Hempel stepped over to the overhead projector and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) Jim Donovan: That's fine with me. I understand that. Mr. Knoblauch might be willing, if that 28 feet, if you're saying that mine's a private one, right? That's only to be used by me. So Mr. Prebble has no worry because it will never be used because I've built what I'm going to build there. What if Mr. Knoblauch was to grant 21 or 28 feet, or whatever was necessary there? Hempel: That's one of our recommendations that he dedicate a 30 foot swath... Jim Donovan: Okay, but I'm saying on Lilac. From Lilac, that would Lilac west. Dave Hempel's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Jim Donovan: Right. So if he dedicated 28 feet, that would solve that easement, or that would solve that entrance. Hempel: That would get him... driveway. Jim Donovan: Okay. Alright. Then there would be no reason then to abut a road onto my northern part of my property. Hempel: The thing that we have to look at is the overall picture... Jim Donovan: As far as water and sewer is concerned, there is water and sewer on the property already. It comes in from Apple Road. City water and sewer comes into the property from Apple Road right now. Hempel: There's water ... sewer line here. Jim Donovan: No, sewer runs to the east. My sewer runs from the east. It comes right in. ...I have city water and sewer. Hempel: You have city sewer and water? Jim Donovan: Yes. It comes in this direction... 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any other comments? Jim Donovan; Okay, thank you. John Knoblauch: I just had one. If it's a private easement... Generous: If we can make the findings for the private street... There's environmental protection. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live in the property immediately south of the second round square from Yosemite. And as you can see from this, the driveway coming from the abutted road would come along the property line and those headlights would be right in our living room. Do you see that in that area? And on this 'plan ...this would be the driveway... We like the plan at this time. I'd like to know why the road is needed. Can somebody answer that please? Mancino: Excuse me, why what road is needed? Jim Emmer: Why, in a future time Mr. Donovan's property needs to be served from Yosemite rather than from Lilac Lane. Generous: When we look at development, Lilac Lane was a substandard street. This would be a, meet city code and the street that Mr. Knoblauch... Additionally, whenever we're looking at developments we try, where possible to provide two means of access to that for emergency purposes. Jim Emmer: Well no cul -de -sacs have two means of access. Generous: That's right and we, at a staff level we try not to keep getting cul -de -sac's in there. Jim Emmer: Can I take a poll of how many people here live on cul -de -sacs? Mancino: Excuse me, can you wait and come on up. Thank you. Jim Emmer: That's really all I have to say. I have a hard time understanding why we have to have a thru road potentially and I agree with you that when Mr. Donovan passes on, that's going to be developed but why it can't be developed from Lilac Lane, because you're not adding, what are you adding potentially? 12 lots there at the most. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: 12 to 15. Jim Emmer: On Mr. Donovan's property? Mancino: That is what has been stated earlier. It has the potential. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know what's going to happen but it has the potential to add 15 more lots. Tom Wilder: Hi. I'm Tom Wilder. I'm from Shorewood so maybe you don't have to listen to me but he's talking about his living room. I'm talking about my bedroom. I live right at the L of Lilac. My house was built a year ago and it happens to be, what you can't see from the drawing here is this, the house is about 20 feet down from the grade of the street so every, you know we're talking about a year, a couple years ... stop sign being right here, you know the headlights would be shining right in my bedroom and I wouldn't like that. It just seems to me, I hate to keep talking about if Jim's alive but you know, maybe he'll sell his one parcel. You know maybe it never will be developed. Maybe he'll sell his beautiful estate as it is right now. So that should be considered. It's my understanding the reason why it was put on the books in Chanhassen as well as ... protecting the current virgin row of trees and a lot of big trees, including 4 very large ones on my property would have to come out if you upgraded to what is a very pretty Lilac Lane into a quote, perfectly plowable city street. When Chan developed, or when Chan improved Lilac Lane a couple years ago you know they took the lilacs down. There are no more lilacs except for on my property and if you improved it, you'd get them all. I have some wetland concerns. There's, you know it's a dead end. A lot of children there. I would think that would be a concern to the Planning Commission. And to upgrade Lilac Lane would, you'd have to take out what's about, it's 2/3 of Shorewood's street so you'd probably have a fight there as well but 17 feet is what I consider a wildlife corridor. Beautiful sumac. Very large oaks. I mean you know, you've destroyed it. And it seems to me, and somebody has already pointed this out, that people move out to Chanhassen, Shorewood area and some of the other surrounding suburbs to live on cul -de -sacs, to live on dead ends and I think it's you know, the proof is in the putting. I did a little, I'm kind of a numbers guy. I went through the Planning Commission, you know the members and I went through the City Council and 86% of you who are thinking about extending our street, live on dead ends, non -thru streets or cul -de -sacs. Only two, Nancy you don't. But you have a nice driveway. Mancino: Thank you. Tom Wilder: And Mike Mason, I'm not sure where he lives. I can't find Woodhill Road. But the rest of you live on dead -ends or cul -de -sacs so. Farmakes: I live on Utica which is a thru street. M, Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Tom Wilder: Utica, Utica is not exactly a dead end but it's kind of just goes around in circles. You know it's not a thru. Farmakes: It is a thru street. It comes down from the highway, it goes down along the lake and goes back up to the highway. If you enter it on one end, you come out on the other. Tom Wilder: Okay well, maybe I'm wrong there so let's make it 83 %. Skubic: I live on a thru street also. Tom Wilder: Yeah I know you do. I didn't say you all did. I said 87% of you don't and so you should maybe have a basic understanding of what we're talking about here. That's all I've got to say. Mancino: Okay. I'm going to discontinue the public hearing until January 3rd. Jim Donovan: ...make a comment. Mr. Hempel made a comment here before about my easement being a private easement. What would it take on my part to make it a, if I dedicated that easement to the city of Chanhassen in return for the Knoblauch project being a circle rather than an abutted street into my property? Would that help? Mancino: I think that you can certainly negotiate with the staff at a private time. Call up Bob Generous and ask to get an appointment with him and talk about that. Jim Donovan: I mean is that a concern of the city, since there's, I mean I don't see how you say that this is a private easement. How did you come to that determination? Hempel: Grantor to grantee. It's not to the city of Chanhassen. Jim Donovan: Oh I see. Okay. I'm not legally, but if I did, am I able to dedicate it to the city of Chanhassen? Hempel: With the underlying property owner's consent I suppose. You could ask him. Mancino: I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But there is a willingness to talk to you about that. Jim Donovan: Thank you. 40 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay, so we will close the public hearing. Not close but continue it on January ' 3rd at 7:00. Can they be first Bob or do you have an agenda already? Generous: DeLancy was tabled too. Aanenson: And we've got 4 other subdivisions on that night. I'm not sure how... We'll have to check. Mancino: We will check. We can't promise you that right now but we will check and let you know. Thank you. Thank you for coming. ' NEW BUSINESS: ' Aanenson: Under new business, I apologize for the timeliness of this but this was a direction given from the City Attorney regarding a park dedication that's on for the City Council on Monday night. Betty O'Shaughnessy, as part of the Autumn Ridge plat and that large outlot, ' you should have received a copy of this. When we looked at the Gateway West property and the Autumn Ridge property, when we talked about the city requiring 4 lots. This map it's ' shown as Outlot, or Lot C and D. Approximately 60 acres. The city, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy will be dedicating that property to the city. It has a value of approximately a little over a half million dollars and the cost to the city would be the assessed levied amount which is about ' $40,000.00. The City Attorney's position is that the Planning Commission should formally act on recommending acceptance of the dedication of the park property so you need to make a motion. ' Mancino: And it doesn't have to go through a public hearing or anything? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Any discussion from commissioners on this? Commissioner Peterson. I Peterson: Go for it. I Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes ' 41 1 Farmakes: I think she should get a monument sign. ' Aanenson: I think she will get some recognition. ' Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. ' 41 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Skubic: No, nothing. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer anything? Nothing from me either. May I have a motion. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council accept Betty O'Shaughnessy's donation of approximately 60 acres of land located southwest of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Said land is described as Exhibit A and the date of December 6, 1995. Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept from Betty O'Shaughnessy the donation of approximately 60 acmes of land located southwest of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Said land is described on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: Kate, anything else? Aanenson: Yes. I'll do the Director's Report, just another little piece of information I want to give to you. At the last Council meeting, on November 27th, the Council terminated the action of acquiring 2.35 acres on the Creekside Addition, to our chagrin. That was the property on the plat east of Timberwood where we looked at buying the treed areas. As it turned out the appraisal cost came up significantly higher than we originally estimated and it's really too bad. It's a nice area of trees so it will probably be platted into four lots. I think... wiser. We learned some things on that plat that we'd certainly do differently. The other action was they did approve the addition to the Microvision building on the Quattro Drive. The office warehouse. That's just a small addition. And then also CSM on Dell and Highway 5 was given preliminary plat approval for their two buildings. I also included in here an interesting article I hope you have a chance to read from the APA. ...talking about different types of developments. Kind of exciting concept. Maybe we'll see some, just some thought about villages. Trying to keep looking at different ways to approach traditional subdivisions. The other thing I just wanted to talk to you about, and I don't know if you're aware of this or not but Chaska did put a moratorium on commercial development. There's a move to move some grocery stores and they're concerned about their viability of their downtown. They put a 3 month moratorium on. I talked to their Planning Director and what they're looking at, they've hired a consultant. Not what you'd consider a professional that does market analysis but what they did is hired somebody that specifically does market studies for retail trade and what they're looking at is what type of mix of uses. What's their 42 u L r Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 market area. What kind of things they can expect as far as big boxes and square footage and ' that sort of thing. They're hoping this recommendation, the findings that come back will provide some information as far as should they provide more commercial zoning. Is what they have significant? And the right amount. And what are the implications to the ' downtown so it is a three month moratorium, so I've asked to get updates on what their study says. It's kind of interesting they're facing some of the same sort of struggles as some of the development, residential has occurred to the north. It's kind of drawing some of the commercial to that way too. They're concerned about the viability of their downtown, just like, the same struggle that we're going through with some of the commercial. Mancino: And it's only commercial? It's not industrial? 71 1 I� Aanenson: Correct. It's just commercial. Kind of following. Actually they don't have much industrial, many industrial land but it's kind of commercial... We do have some big items on at the next Planning Commission so, I apologize. I didn't realize I guess that we'd get bumped out at 10:00... Mancino: I'd just like to add to your report. Bob and I were at that City Council... City Council moved to table the Village... and actually just wanted to talk about it more. Will they have a work session on that? Aanenson: No, actually it's scheduled again Monday. They brought back in revised plans. We've got some good direction. Bob and I feel, Bob's been working on that. I believe, again it's conceptually. What we're really trying to decide is what the appropriate mix should be. They've come back with what we feel is a better mix and we're going to, as it evolves, try to put some more specific parameters on what types of commercial should be under the square footages and also it looks like now the church may still be a factor in that property too. Mancino: Did they lower it or ... commercial use? Aanenson: What they showed is a mix. What we're looking at is calling it a percentage of support. So if they do the residential component and the office component, then we would give them some retail support. Then we would articulate what that should be as a part of this process. That's kind of the way it follows. Farmakes: Did they respond to the issue of street parking? Aanenson: There were some that were opposed to that. I'm not sure that, I guess we'd still like to leave that open and study it. 43 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: That would be resolved as part of their traffic study. Aanenson: The EA document. I think you want to leave that open and why not study it. Maybe come back and say it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: The reason I ask is that ... street parking in that situation and you're talking about a percentage... Aanenson: Well that's why we're looking at, the exciting thing is if the church does go there, we're looking at, that does give us now another opportunity for that parking. To provide a park and ride facility and mix uses. So I think it creates a lot of different energy and it may even be a more exciting project based on that. Farmakes: I had one question for anybody who ever asks. What happens when that's full? ...what happens in 5 years from now when it's full? Does somebody come forward and say we're running out of that? Aanenson: Commercial? To me I think you just have to go back to the highest and best use. What's going to happen to those properties that are under utilized will come back in and it just creates energy for people to keep their property at the highest and best use because if there is a piece that's under utilized, and there's a demand for commercial and nowhere else to go, then you're going to take the piece that has less value and try to make it better. Sometimes that's good. Instead of going out, you keep the ... push the level up. Farmakes: So eventually in this community... saying this is as far as we're going to go and that's it? Aanenson: Just say no, yeah. Mancino: The other comment that came up at the City Council meeting was not using the TIF funding in that area for commercial. Only using it for affordable housing. Farmakes: It will be interesting to see how that affects the growth. Mancino: It will be very interesting. And by the way Kate, Bob asked me and I think it'd be a good idea at some planning commission meeting when we don't have a lot or else do a separate work session, or whatever everyone would like to do. Is to have Todd Gerhardt or Don to come in front of the Planning Commission to talk to us about TIF funding and the TIF district. How it operates because so many times when it gets into land use and planning and... 44 1 7 L �I ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Aanenson: We do it February 7th. That's blocked out as a workshop so we're not putting any items on the agenda so that may be, maybe we can talk about at the next meeting. What things you'd like to talk about so we'll keep that in mind. ' Mancino: Any other ongoing items? Aanenson: No. Actually we're seeing a lot of pressure for pieces like you're seeing tonight because there aren't a lot of large pieces so some of those smaller ones are being... continually working with commercial and industrial. Bob is working with Applebee's. That will probably be on your next agenda. Commercial /industrial is going to... ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to note the Minutes of the ' Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 1995 as presented. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the ' motion carded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson ' Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 45