1g. Planning Commission Munutes Dated August 16, 1995CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1995
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m and gave a brief introduction of
t how a Planning Commission is conducted.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Craig Peterson, Nancy Mancino, and
' Mike Meyer
MEMBERS ABSENT; Jeff Farmakes and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT:, Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and John Rask, Planner I
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9.161 SOUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON,
A 1.57 ACRE LOT. PROPERTY ZONED PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
INDUSTRIAL, LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER
2ND ADDITION. 1- 11GHLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
' Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions of staff at this point? I have one Bob on the additional landscaping
in that northwestern corner. I thought that you had recommended 7, or 6 additional trees.
Generous: We gave a range of 5 to 7 and they provided a plan that allows them to do future
expansion without getting into that area. And so we believe that with discussions with the
landscaper, the forestry intern, that this would serve as an adequate area that allows a tree to
' grow and it will stop future damage when and if they come to expand in that direction.
Mancino: Weren't we also concerned with the height of the elevation of the whole area.
Meaning that you could see the back of this from Highway 5 or from quite a distance.
Generous: Right, and we believe by doing this in conjunction with additional landscaping,
that the developer would provide that. While it won't block the view, it will soften the view
of the building.
' Mancino: And this is a mixture of deciduous and coniferous?
' Generous: Correct.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else have a question of staff? Does the designee wish
to address the Pla►uiing Commission? Are they here tonight?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Bernard Herman: Madam Chairman, members of the Commission.
Mancino: Please come forward and state your name
Bernard Herman: My name is Bernard Herman, the architect of the project. We brought
along the color board that illustrated the landscaping. I don't know if that adds anything more
to what you've already seen... submitted but you might get a better impact of the density of it
as it's shown in color. The darker greens than what was previously indicated, illustrate the
landscaping that have been added. Two trees here, 6 here and 5 here. Mixtures of deciduous
and coniferous. Totally in accordance with staff recommendations.
Mancino: Thank you.
Bernard Herman: Is there any value in leaving this up?
Mancino: No, I don't think so. Any questions? Thank you very much. We don't need to
open this for a public hearing, do we? Let's go ahead and get comments from commissioners
Mike.
Meyer: I don't have any comments at this time.
Mancino: Okay, Craig?
Peterson: No comments.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I do have a question to this acrylic coating. Is that a painted material?
Generous: It would be applied like a paint is. It's sort of like an epoxy finish but different.
Skubic: More durable?
Aanenson: More durable. That was the intent is to get something durable and we believe
this accomplishes that condition.
Skubic: I have nothing else.
Mancino: Ladd.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: Nothing.
Mancino: My only comment is you, staff believes it satisfies number 2 on page 5 which is
color should be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. And how
does it satisfy that?
Generous: I take that to mean if it was a block building, that they wouldn't be painting the
block. This is the, the next one or one of the other ones talks about coating material for tilt
up's and I believe this satisfies the intent that it is a coating for that portion of it. They're
going to coat the rest of it in the sealant but this part will be a color added to it.
Mancino: I mean I just want to make sure that we're clear.
Aanenson: Yeah, to separate between the painted block, for example on Target you've got cut
faced block that has color and on the back side where there's no exposure, it's just painted
block. And that we didn't want in this so this is just the accent band and that's why we had
them re- examine that because we didn't want something that's going to be a maintenance or
the color would be deteriorating. So there is some other alternatives, doing tiles or something
like that but we believe this meets the intent of having something durable. Obviously we
don't want to see all the buildings up there similarly designed with painted or epoxy. We're
hoping to get some variety and we believe the next couple of projects that are coming in are
going to introduce some other creative designs. We don't want them all looking the same and
we already are in the process of reviewing some other ones and we believe there will be a lot
of variety at the next park.
Mancino: Because I notice that the two are standing are brick and there's a huge.
Aanenson: They had similar architects on that so yeah.
Mancino: Thant: you. I'd like to entertain a motion.
Conrad: I'd make the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approval of Site Plan 995 -11 for Highland Development for plans dated 6/19/95
prepared by Bernard Herman Architects, Inc. subject to the conditions listed in the staff report
with no changes.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Meyer: I'll second that.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Com,ld moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Site Plan #95 -11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 prepared by
Beniaixl Heiinvr Architects, Inc., subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Submit technical data to Fire Marshal which spells out processes, product commodity
manufactured and warehoused. This is used to determine fire sprinkler design
density.
b. Add one fire hydrant on the east corner of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location.
C. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy 904 -1991. Copy enclosed. "Notes
on site plan ".
d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy 907 -1991. "Pre -Fire Plan ". Copy
enclosed.
e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29 -1992. "Premise
Identification ". Copy enclosed.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #36 -1994. "Combination Fire
Sprinkler/Domestic Supply Pipe ". Copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #40 -1995. "Fire Sprinkler
Systems ". Copy enclosed.
2. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater runoff calculation for a 10
year storm event.
3. The applicant sliall enter into an encroachment for the landscape plantings within the
utility and drainage easement along the east property line prior to issuance of a building
permit. No landscape plantings shall be placed over the city's utility lines.
4. The plans shall include a rock filter construction entrance with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
E
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc.
are to be frilly screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can
use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the
building materials.
7. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height.
The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the
quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's
entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one
monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign
must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent
in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a
sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site.
8. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a
square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than
1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting
equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be used in
the private areas. Wall pac units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off -
site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
All voted in faN'or 1 the motion canied unviimously.
PUBLIC HEARING{
JAMES AND KAREN MEYER FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
6.55 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND VARIANCE REOUEST TO SECTION,
18 -57(0) WHICH ALLOWS UP TO FOUR LOTS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE
DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6225 RIDGE ROAD, NORTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD, JAMES AND KAREN MEYER.,
Public Present:
Name
Jim R Karen Meyer
Jack Fess
Address
6225 Ridge Road
6280 Ridge Road
5
Planning COmmission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Colleen Rosenberg
Jon & Irene Joseph
Dean Wetzel
Carl Zinn
6175 Ridge Road
6290 Ridge Road
6260 Ridge Road
5820 Ridge Road
John Raul: presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Is it a private road now? When the Cunningham Addition went through, what did
we change the status of that road in any way?
Rask: No.
Conrad: It's still private?
Rask: Yes, it's still private. A variance was granted at that time.
Conrad: What's our obligation to that road?
Hempel: Nothing from a street maintenance standpoint. We do have utilities, sanitary sewer
and water lines within a public easement that we do maintain.
Mancino: John, I have a question on your conditions of approval. Number 10 says obtain a
permit and install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat. Where's that coming from?
Rask: Okay, that was pointed out by the building official. The city has an ordinance that
requires all pools to have a fence around it and it appears that, well with the subdivision, this
one will not have a fence around it so that's kind of
Mancino: And this is on the Meyer property?
Rask: Yes it is and it will remain with that existing home.
Mancino: Okay. Okay. And the cabin right now, does it have a driveway off the private
road?
Rask: No it does not.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Okay, so there's no access in and out of the cabin at this point. Thank you. Any
other?
Peterson: Currently as I read this, it's 12 feet in width. The road itself now.
Mancino: 12 to 16. It kind of fluctuates. I have one other question and I don't know if it's
for Dave or for John but, and that is that I noticed that there was a chain and two poles and
past that is what, the city of Shorewood, correct? And there's a turn around there. I mean it
looks like a big turn around. Fairly good sized one. Can't cities share turn arounds? I mean
in the day of our economic situation, can't we.
Hempel: I guess if push came to shove, I guess the public safety vehicle had to use it instead
of backing all the way down or backing into somebody's driveway, they probably would just
simply cut the chain or whatever. I don't know. That's something that probably could be
discussed with the city of Shorewood.
Mancino: Okay, so we could put that aside and look at that.
Hempel: Still maintain some sort of gate structure up there though to avoid the thru traffic
that would occur without that gate.
Mancino: Understand. Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission?
If so, please cone up. State your name and address.
Jim Meyer: Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, and members of the
staff, my name is Jim Meyer and I live at 6225 Ridge Road. I want to thank the members of
the staff and the people that have been willing to talk to me on the phone and come out and
walk the property and so on. It's really been very helpful and it's made it kind of a pleasant
experience. I'd just like to bring up with just a little personal history and then I'll get right to
the point and try to make this brief. I bought that property in 1973. I don't think anybody
loves it any more than I and I've been there obviously for a long time. Things have happened
in my personal life. My wife dies of cancer 6 -7 years ago and I've now just remarried and
I'm starting a new family. I kind of have to make a move here and so I'm going to move
across the street on Mr. Cunningham's property. So I'm not really leaving this place. I still
like it as much as I always did and I respect my neighbors and of course their wishes. And
I've had them all over to the house. We've really tried to talk about what the sensitive issues
are here. As you pointed out very clearly, there is two different parcels divided, we're adding
two more lots. And we're sort of, I don't know, not benefitting from the fact that we're the
last people requested in terms of the road. I can certainly live with a lot of the things that
have been mentioned. I'm sure we all can because I think they've been very fair, and I'm sure
7
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
we can wort: around some of these tree conservation. We're as interested in that as anybody.
As a matter of fact, and not to jump the gun. In fact I wonder, could I use your first visual
aid, because it's better than what I have. You know, trees are an issue and your forester made
a significant point about trees being conservatory, and I might add that right along here, right
next to the road there are a lot, this is all heavily wooded and we walk along here and
counted, I mean there's a lot of trees. There's 39 to 43 of them, something like that going all
the up that are 8 to 10. There's huge evergreens that would literally have to go because I
can't take somebody else's property to make this land bigger. And along here it's the same
thing. There is a shoulder here that's kind of a packed gravel and of course trucks do meet
on that. Right now my home is being built over there and we've had huge, you know the D8
Cats coming up oil flatbeds and there's been building on Ridge Road over in Shorewood have
used the road over the years. What I'm saying is huge vehicles have gotten through there and
have the 23 years I've lived there. We've not had a fire and we've not had any accidents on
the road. There has never been a safety problem, but that I understand doesn't mean that
there couldn't be one and that we can't make some sort of access or some sort of something to
help this out. Basically then we don't have a lot of major issues with this. It would appear to
me that the road is a very sensitive issue. It's a very sensitive issue to my neighbors. They
would like it to be the kind of country road that it is. The fire and safety commissioner or
what have you, came out to our house and we walked the road and he has some
recommendations to make about cutting the trees, the brush back so that it wouldn't interfere.
Maybe putting no parking signs along the road so that the vehicle, if public safety needed to
come up, there wouldn't be any cars parked there so that would mean they'd have to park in
their driveways. I would point out as you have already mentioned that this is a thru street.
This is not a dead end. There's a gate there and we want to, and are going to, bring that gate
up to code. And what I mean by that is right now it's just a chain with a paddalock ... get a
gate that's going to be approved by the... so this gate can be dealt with in two ways. It can
either be just drive through by a big vehicle or it will have a lock on it and we will make the
keys available to police and fire and both communities, Shorewood and Chanhassen, which
we do at this time. So at this time they can go through and they go right through the gate
and there is a turn around there and I would agree with you Madam Chairman that, in
actuality, when that event would occur. It hasn't occurred in the last 22 years that I've been
there but that they could go through that gate one of two ways. They could just drive
through it and turn around there and come back out. So in reality then, this is not a dead end
and I know that there are other streets in Chanhassen that you've had to deal with that have a
dead end, private roads. You can exit this two ways. You can enter it two ways. I would
also point out from a safety standpoint in terms of fire, there are two fire hydrants on this
road and I would point out that in a very short distance here, there's a fire hydrant right by
the Wetzel's and there's another one right up by here. So for these homes there's a fire
hydrant and for these homes there's a fire hydrant and I think that's significant. If you don't
have a pumping truck and all that kind of thing, you know if there should be a fire. So we
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
are considering the trees and I think that we're making a real move. I think if we're so
interested in that tree conservation, that we should... preserving the trees along the road...
Another point, Mr. Cunningham did his subdivision and was approved in March. The staff
notes read that there was a precedent made. Now I can understand that from a legal
standpoint that that precedent is probably not legal binding. But I do think that there's a
sense of fairness. A sense of ethics. A sense of logic that would say you know what, we did
it there. These people, and the 14 or 15 neighbors who have written letters to you are saying
that they're willing to take that, while they want to keep it the way it is, that's what they
want. I've not seen any opposition to this subdivision. I mean I live there. I want it to be
just like you do. We will maintain it. We do plow it. We do pave it. And so in reality
here, there's one other thing that's not mentioned in the staff report but I'm sure they're aware
of it. That another thing with extending a road. On the east side of the road right here, there
is a gas line. The gas line is not under the road. It's right adjacent to it and I would assume
of course that that gas line would have to be torn up. I put that gas line in there. I paid for
that gas line for that whole piece of road some time back. It wasn't cheap then. I'm sure
replacing it is, to me represents a hardship. I guess that individuals who have already wanted
to purchase on m property, have looked at the road and they aren't bothered by the fact that
it's narrow. The road is paved. There is a shoulder there right now that's a heavy gravel that
you can meet a large vehicle on it. It's not ideal. But I'll tell you this. It works. It has
worked for a long time. I have one neighbor that's lived there for 43 years and I'm not sure,
but anyway I'll let any other people address that. Bottom line is, we're asking the Planning
Commission to make a recommendation for the variance to the road to leave it as is. And
basically I think that that's going to save trees. We still have the safety with the fire. We're
going to improve the gate. We have a turn around area that has been addressed and I think
that will be a very suitable neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing?
N[eyer moved, Peterson seconded to open fora public healing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up now State
your name and address and please give us any comments you have on this.
Jack Fess: Hi, good evening. My name is Jack Fess ... neighbor. Second house on the left
hand side going up to the Shorewood chain. I'm also the designated neighbor fellow that tries
to take care of the road from a maintenance standpoint. I've got a couple comments. The
first one is, on the same side of the road there that Jim and Karen are trying to subdivide, my
house was the last house that was subdivided along that road back in 1982 where we had to
get a variance also and for a number of years, for 12 years I looked across and I had nothing
9
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
but beautiful trees and then Mr. and Mrs. Joseph next door to me developed that large corner
lot on the corner of Pleasant View and built that pretty home there last year. One of the
concerns that I had was me losing the trees across the street from me where the first house
was built on the east side of Ridge Road in that corner, 2 acre lot. If you walk down my
driveway today and look up to the front of my house, you would notice in the summertime,
because those trees were not cut. Jim at one time owned that property and there was a gate
in there which those people were still using that gate and they actually their driveway right
through that gate where the tractor used to go through to cut the grass and that property is
now trying to subdivide. And I can't even see that house across from there. Now my feeling
is, as far as the road's concerned, the trees that Jim has in front of that property, since there's
only going to be one driveway cutting into that large parcel for both of those homes, we're
only going to have one more driveway on the south side of Jim's current house. And none of
those trees really would probably be touched, which means that all of us on the west side of
the road would probably not even see these homes because we cannot see that property
currently because that's all in grass down there. The other thing is, I think significant is that I
have the plans. I wish I had them with me of the Department of Transportation new gate that
we want to put in up there and that gate would border Jim's property and the Shorewood
house on the county line and would bring it up to Department of Transportation standards,
which are very similar at our city and county parks where we have where the gates open. In
fact it's the same drawing. One of the questions we have right now, since we all need a
variance to go across that road, anyone who lives on Ridge Road, we only have 12 or 13
houses on the Chanhassen side. The rest of those homes are controlled by the Shorewood
side. So my counterpart on the other side of the chain, we're trying to work this out and
move that actually down where it'd be more feasible for the safety vehicles to come in there.
Plus I also want you to know that on the Shorewood side of that chain, a lot of folks don't
know that. They don't have city water period over there so we did have a fire there about 19,
I think you were out of town Jim. We had a fire when a new house was being built on Ridge
Road about 10 years ago. It burned to the ground. It was 2 weeks before there was to be
occupancy and we think it was a sabotage deal. A new one went up on top of it but it did
burn to the ground and the Chanhassen fire department came to the aid of that fire and they
just tool: that chain with those big cutters they have. Cut that chain off and that fire truck
actually went through there. No problem whatsoever. To show you how ridiculous it was, I
was sleeping all night and I didn't hear that fire truck. When I got up the next morning and
jogged around the lake, the house was literally burned to the ground. It was a brand new
house so they can get through there and, we'd like to repave the road when all this
construction is finished. It's quite an expense and do what we need to but I don't think any of
US would be against cutting back the brush and possibly maybe build the side of that road up
a little bit with some more gravel and maybe put some more asphalt on there so. So far it's
worked out pretty good. Thank you.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission tonight?
Colleen Rosenberg: Hi. I'm Colleen Rosenberg and I am the property just north of the
Meyer's so I'm on the Shorewood side and just a couple of things that I want to bring up.
We're, if anyone, myself and my husband would be the first ones to say we don't anyone
there. Get them out of there and we sent a letter in and the only issues that the Meyer's very
graciously have agreed to is that the proposed building site on the north side be very far back
so that it's not in our sight line. I think that also deals with the sight line of the existing
home as well. And I just forgot the second issue. Oh well. Oh, the gate. The gate and I do
have a copy of what Jack was talking about with me if you want to see the gate that was
proposed. I am also one -half owner of the turn around so my husband and I own the entire
turn around on the other side so I guess if it's an issue of sharing or whatever, I guess we're
the people to tall: to. That is entirely our property over there. I can assure you that ... that we
plan to get that gate upgraded and move to the exact county line. Right now it's about 3/4 on
our property and a little bit on either their property or the Cramer's property and I don't
remember but it's just 1/4 on the other side and what we want to do is set it right on the
county line and upgrade to a standard gate as well... And the other issue about no passing,
and I guess that was one of the things. It was kind of hard for me to hear. I can tell you've
got 30 plus houses on the other side and I drive, I'm the furthest house on my end of Ridge
Road so I've got to pass more people on that road and it has not been a problem. I don't
know of any accidents. I've only been there, going back and forth now for about a year and a
half, two years since I've been building plus living there. It seems to function. I believe our
road is the same width oil that side. I haven't measured it. Another issue. We had our side
of the road tested when the Larson's built and I can't think who did it but we had a big fancy
company come in for several thousand dollars and test it and it seemed to be in tremendous
shape. Just needed a little repaving, and our side of the road is in much worse pothole shape
than the south side is so I don't see that as being an issue on their side, although I'm not a
Chanhassen property owner and I don't own on that side so that may not be my decision or
whatever. But I'm just telling you from my side, it seems to work just fine. That's all I
remember. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you. Please come up. Both of you.
Irene Joseph: Good evening, my name is Irene Joseph and I live at 6290 Ridge Road in
Chanhassen. I would just like to approach this from a quality of life perspective. I do not
believe that widening the road would enhance the quality of life on Ridge Road. I think it's
perfect as it is and as we have discussed, there have been no major problems with utility
vehicles and the safety vehicles. I believe that in the interest of all the neighbors and the
quality of life, I would like for you to very seriously consider leaving the road as it is. Thank
You.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Thank you.
Jon Joseph: My name is Jon Joseph. I'm at 6290 Ridge Road, and that lady was my wife.
When we built our house over this last year, one of the things that we were lucky enough to
do was to be able to sell some trees that we had to take down... This area is, when people
speak to you about trees, they're not just saying trees as in scrub brush. This is a very old,
mature area that is just lovely. It serves as a recreational area, not only for the people who
live on Ridge but the people across the street who come from Fox Chase subdivision and
there's a constant stream of people going up and down this street. These people are not
threatened in any way by motor vehicles or we would know it by now. I think the other
issue brought into the record is that everybody on Ridge Road has written the City Council in
support of leaving the street the way it is. I think that's a very important point and I know
for myself, I have really very little use for Ridge Road beyond where my house come in,
which is about 30 feet into the road. In fact when I built my driveway, I built it in such a
way that it would be almost impossible for me to go up Ridge Road. I think that the City
Council needs to look at this as a very unique place. One that's already been given a number
of variances because of it's uniqueness and one that can tolerate some more variances.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment or approach the Planning Commission?
Please come up.
Dean Wetzel: My name is Dean Wetzel and I live on 6260 Ridge road. I guess I'm kind of
the senior member there. I'm in my 43rd year. I'd also like to mention that since I moved in,
my taxes have gone tip 6,000 %. Not 600. Not 1,000. 6,000 %. Now I realize that doesn't
buy me anything except equal time up here. But I just thought it was worth mentioning it.
We have some of us that have been there that long, I guess I'm the only one down there.
We're paying our dues and we'd kind of like to be part of our own destiny. I said I would
speak to this point, which I have been in this room many, many times over these years and
I've spoken to many issues and I said that I would limit my comments to under an hour and a
half. It will be more like 10 minutes. Do you have a pointer up there? I'd kind of like to
find a couple of things that might be of interest. Well actually I can do it on there. My
property is right here, off of this kind of little bend in the road and when I moved in there 43
years ago, this was a dirt trail. There were three homes on the road. Here, here and here and
all the rest of this was open space, as it was up above. So I've seen a lot of change and I
moved out here from Minneapolis to enjoy the beauty of this area. I did come down and talk
to the planners to get some idea of what the concerns were and share with them a little bit of
what my experience has been and in the 43 years that I've lived there, I'm not aware of any
accident oil that road. It's a narrow road. It winds a little. It's quaint. It has trees on it.
People take it easy. Not only that, there are walkers and joggers and bikers up and down the
road all day long. They go around Christmas Lake. It's a 4 mile jog around the lake and for
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
the mile plus from Pleasant View Road up to Covington Road, I guess it's a private road and
I say it's cherished by all these people that walk their dogs and their kids and so it's a neat
place and I've enjoyed it all these years. We raised a family there and feel that it really has a
lot of offer. O« the emergency side, yeah there's been emergencies up there in all those
years. Fire that some of you referred to up in the Shorewood area. The trucks went through.
They went straight through and they don't have to turn around. They can go up to Covington
Road and come back or they can come in from the other way. So it's not a hazard. It's an
inconvenience. But the inconvenience ... an awful lot of pleasure and an awful lot of beauty
for a number of people. And as earlier mentioned, thanks to the earlier planners and
engineers and Council, we have water and sewer down here. They put in sewer on the north
side when the laws went through to shield Christmas Lake but they didn't put water in up
there so we're sitting down there with the fire hydrants with the availability to service the
north side, which is Hennepin County, again which we're glad to do and which has been done
and successfully. So again we don't need pumper trucks or tank trucks to come up our road
to take care of the problems we might have. Now the tree issue is big. It's big on the
property that's being developed, and it's especially big right along the road. All the way up
from Pleasant View. And there are reasons why there are such beautiful trees right up next to
the road. There's a fence about 4 feet from the road and as Dr. Meyer mentioned, there's a
gas line between the road and the fence and when ... built this home, about 1956 or so, a few
years after I'd been there, he pastured this with horses. He actually had horses out here and
they kept it all ... and chewed down to where the only trees that really had a chance to grow
were on this little wedge which runs along the road. In addition to that, over the years with
Dr. Meyer's permission, I had nurtured the trees either way from my home along the road
here, where there haven't been any homes and in the 70's when we had that drought, I
actually watered from my property the trees along that side of the road. So there are big,
beautiful trees there. Pine trees. Maple trees. Ash. Hackberry. All natural. So expanding
the road to the right, to the east would be devastating to that coverage of trees. Expanding to
the right, to the west is practically impossible. Jack Fess is, as he mentioned, lives right here.
His driveway starts on a steep hill right up to the road. My driveway, my home is only 30
feet from the edge of the road as it stands today. Susan Price's home is up here and the
architect that built that, and he was an architect that lived there, made a mistake or two and
her bedroom's about 15 feet away from this road right here, right now, just across from the
driveway of Dr. Meyer's. So on a practical basis, you really can't expand that road without
some devastating effects, and I don't know how you do it frankly again without tremendous
cost. So again, adding all this background and sentiment, etc, I think that it's also important
to know that because of the configuration of the lake, is why the road went where it did.
Like I said, that was a dirt trail when I moved in. The lake being to the left so the road
wound up the hill there ... indian trail and the homes were built right up tight against the road
because obviously there was never going to be any more development. We were the only
ones there. \ \'e wanted to live on a dirt road this far from Minneapolis. And times do
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
change. So we've maintained this road with diligence all these years. The ones of us that
live there, finally graveled the road and graded it and then a number of years ago, paid for the
paving of that road and we've maintained it with a lot of pride and we keep it clean. We
keep it picked up. So I guess I'll get down to the point that this location would be a problem
and I would hope that we aren't going to injure a neighborhood in order to protect. Getting
back to the baby and the bath water. Just wash the little kid and throw the water out and
keep the baby. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Carl Zinn: I'm Carl Zinn. I live at 5820 Ridge Road and I'd like to just address the safety
issue for a second because I travel several times a day along the busiest part of Ridge Road,
the 2 /10ths with the egress and ingress on the north end and it's far curvier. It has much
more slope. The sight lines are more restricted by a great deal than they are on the south end
and we don't have a problem. More cars. It services over 30 homes and people go slow.
There's walkers there. People understand that. We don't have thru traffic and so for the
benefit of my experience to you hopefully is ... safety issue is something that the residents of
the road control and respect and we're able to use that side of the road without a safety
problem. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to approach? Well come up again.
Jack Fess: Okay. Jack Fess again at 6280 Ridge Road. I forgot to mention that a number of
years ago, in 1982 or 1983 when I moved here from the East Coast, I wasn't familiar with a
private road but was familiar with lawsuits back in the East... I said to my neighbors, one of
the things that we need to really watch is getting the Department of Transportation legitimate
road signs saying Chanhassen, State of Minnesota so we took our road fund budget and...
those folks of you who have been down here to look at this property will notice that we do
have a 5 mph speed limit posted as you enter Ridge Road. It's been there for 12 years now
and it says no thru street. These are the same signs that work in Chanhassen. So we want to
let you know that we do have a speed limit and maybe that's one of the reasons that we don't
have problems. That we would also like to upgrade a few things once some of this gets
finished because we want to do some more signing on there also. I think that one
recommendation is that no parking, to be very honest with you, we don't have any parking on
the street. I think when some of you folks might have been out looking at the property, we've
had two things going on. We had Jon Joseph having a driveway installed 2 weeks ago. At
the same time, Jim and Karen were having trees removed on the Cunningham property. And
last, if not least, Jerry Schneider who lives next door to me is having an addition right now, a
four season porch put on the house next to me so we've had 3 out of 9 homes, some
construction going on that day so I do know it was congested there for a few days.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Mr. Fess, I have a question. Just a point of interest. I also live on a private drive.
Not as many homes but what's it like in the winter. I mean because that's obviously the
hardest because of snow plowing and it doesn't allow you any sides at all to park or to pass
each other.
Jack Fess: Well, since 1982, we had that two monstrous snows if you recall in December a
number of years back. Larry Kerber, who I think ... out here on County Road 17. Larry
comes in with his Bobcat and his truck and we actually pay him to haul the snow right out of
there. Now we normally can plow it on the right and the left hand side of it. It actually does
go through the fence that Jim has there. It just literally goes right through the fence and we
have all that extra road there. But we have really only had one time since 1982 that I've been
involved with the road that we had to haul snow out. It's not a problem. The one nice thing
about our side of the road compared to Carl's side, the north side of Christmas Lake Road
gets no sun. It's all shade. And we have a private person that plows it and it sands it and
salts it. And to give you an idea for that road, we have 20 houses on that road. Our
snowplow removal budget, we just paid that bill here in April, was $4,400.00 for that road. I
mean it is very expensive just for snowplowing and I kind of get upset because we'd like to
put 2 inches of blacktop on that road but we looked at an estimate. We did one -third of the
north side of that road last year, it was $18,000.00. It's $50,000.00 to put on 2 inch asphalt
from the corner of Covington to the corner of Pleasant View. So you know, we leave that
road open for all the kids that jog. I mean we have people going by there constantly. It's
like the hot spot in Chanhassen. We ought to make it a designated area for the parks
commission. The fact of the matter is, I'm out there today sweeping the road myself. I'm
sweeping it. The city of Chanhassen has never come up that road. I've seen one policemen
up there in 13 years I've lived there and I called. So I mean we really, the road thing is
getting to be, it's tough for us to maintain it but we really are dedicated to maintaining this
and keeping it this way and it's getting expensive, there's no doubt about it.
Mancino: Thant: you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Cowed moved, Nleyer seconded to close the public hearing. Tlie public heming was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: I think staffs report is very appropriate. I think they did a good job on the analysis.
There's really nothing wrong with the recommendation. I think the only issue that I'll focus
on in my comments, and I'll make them brief is number 7. The road. Like I do so many
times, I plead guilty for making previous decisions and I think when the Cunningham
subdivision came in, we all knew, at least those of us who voted for it, knew what we were
doing. There's just no doubt. You don't allow that subdivision without knowing what's going
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
across the street so when we set the precedent, we really did know that the Meyer's were
going to divide someday. Had no idea when so, and at that time I don't think we really had a
real concern. I think we understood that it's a unique ar,;a. The neighbors, like they did
tonight, were here for the Cunningham's. I think they're a very responsible group. I think it's
a unique area in the city. I think there's some, it's just tough to apply city standards to this.
It's just plain tough and I'm probably, I'm not going to be the one to enforce them here. It's
just, we'd be destroying some things to protect some, or to maybe help some other areas but
again, I think as long as our legal advice says that we're really not opening ourselves to
lawsuits, for allowing something like this to happen. As long as the legal advice says that,
then I'm really very much in favor of letting this go through. I think some of the things that
the Meyer's have volunteered are real important. I think we need that gate structure to be
upgraded. I think they have volunteered that. I think that's important. I think they
volunteered to restrict further subdivision. I think that's important. I think I've heard that we
may want to loot; at some brush and whatever. Those are temporary things. Those things
drive staff wild. That solves it today and what happens later on. Staff doesn't want to hear...
They can't deal with it. I would, but I also heard the neighborhood say that they may be
upgrading the street a little bit, whether that be surface or expansion of the pavement or
whatever. So other than making some comments that kind of, I really want to make sure that
the city is protected from any kind of potential lawsuits by not enforcing some of our
standards. As long as that's the case, I really feel that the subdivision is appropriate and we
should grant a variance. I think again the staff report is appropriate from their standpoint.
They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. I would stick something in, a
recommendation that really talks about working with the neighbors as they upgrade their
paving and I don't know what the words are. Nothing's very enforceable and nothing really
probably meaningful but I guess if they do that, my recommendation would be if we could
somehow incorporate the city into that process where we're either widening the curves or the
gravel on either side of the paved lot or somehow giving some future thought into
maintaining the width of the street. That's all I have.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: I share Ladd's feelings regarding the safety and liabilities of the street. There seems
to be some latitude regarding, on the part of the Fire Marshal regarding what is required for
that street. There is no mention in there of the street needing to comply with the driveway
ordinance. I don't know if you assume that would happen on top of the three
recommendations that lie made. So there seems to be some latitude there and he also makes
mention that a suitable sprinkler system might provide some room for compromise there. But
I favor this plan with some additional comments regarding item number 7. Recommendation
number 7 that perhaps staff and the applicant can work together to do something there. And
one more thing is item 6. It seems to be related to item 7. Maybe we're deferring the issue
16
Planning Conlillission Meeting - August 16, 1995
here a little bit because item 6 requests dedication on the westerly edge of three or four of the
lots for a public street, which means that the street would be widened and the trees would be
taken out I assume. And I also wonder if there's a complication there, if I read the drawing
here correctly. There's a gas line running along the easterly, westerly side. Easterly side on
the road which seems to be the side that would be widened. Maybe Dave perhaps can shed
some light oil that. Is that a complication that the gas line would underneath the side of the
road that would be widened?
Mancino: Yeah, excuse nle. Could both you and John talk a little bit about that item number
6.
Hempel: Madam Chairman, commissioners. Item number 6 relates to future widening,
upgrading of Ridge Road at some future date, 50, 100 years whatever. It gives us the
opportunity to obtain the necessary easements, right -of -way to do that at no cost. Typically
when a subdivision like this comes forward, we require the applicant dedicate the necessary
street right -of -way with the final plat at that time. With this instance, we're recommending
that they dedicate the permanent easement at the time that the City Council authorizes the
project to upgrade that road. So we would obtain it at that time at no cost to the property
owners. Otherwise the city would have to purchase the right -of -way at that time in the future.
Conrad: Dave, that's exactly what you worded in the Cunningham agreement.
Mancino: That's exactly what I was going to ask.
Hempel: The final condition of the Cunningham Addition and we thought it would be
appropriate in this development as well.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Skubic: That's all.
Mancino: Okay, Craig.
Peterson: Well illy thoughts are similar to my two predecessors in the fact that I think we do
have to maintain what is legally, what we are legally responsible to do. I guess I ask staff,
has that been formally reviewed or not by Council?
Rask: No it has not. We have not approached it with the City Attorney yet but it's certainly
something we can check prior to Council.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Peterson: I guess number one, I would like to see that formally done. And number two. If
we were to go ahead and approve this, I would like to integrate in as one of the
recommendations that the sign be up, I don't see that formally, the gate be formally upgraded
to what has been discussed by the residents this evening. So other than those two, I have no
other comments.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: I don't have any additional comments besides something that we've talked about
before Nancy and that was they've said that there's no further subdivision of the lots but I
don't see it as a point in here and maybe that's something we could add in.
Aanenson: I don't think legally we can do that. If somebody wants to ... a piece of property,
they have a right, if it meets the ordinance, to go through the process. I don't think that the
City Attorney would say that we could prohibit that. If someone wants to assemble property,
they certainly the right to try to get a subdivision so, it's something we couldn't enforce.
Mancino: Can we say something to the, add to the recommendations about the street. The
Ridge Road. Maybe it being modified if there are additional homes. 13 homes. Or does that
just, will that just automatically come up again?
Aanenson: No matter what, everytime one comes back, we're going to bring that before you.
That's certainly an issue of health, safety and welfare issue that would be...
Mancino: Will keep coming back up, okay. Are you done? I have no new comments. I
agree. I think that the subdivision is compatible with the area. The existing area and I think
it's well done. Well thought out. I appreciate staff looking at the pad placement and moving
some of that to turn out beyond the slope section of Lots, I think it's 3 and 4. Removing
those to the west a bit. And I also agree with keeping the driveway, the private drive as it is
and not widening it at this point. And those are all my comments. Can I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat and variance request from Section 18 -57 permitting up
to 13 homes on private street for Subdivision 495 -16, Meyer's 2nd Addition, subject to the
plans dated July 14th and the following conditions as stated in the staff report with an
exception to item number 7. I will eliminate the first se itence. The balance of 7 stands. I
would add a point 14. That the City Attorney review th.s proposal to ensure or to make a
recommendation or report as to the city's liability in not bringing the road up to a minimum
standard as described by ordinance. Number 15 would be that the Meyer's supply, number 15
would be that the Meyer's are obligated to bring the break away fence or gate up to a
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
standard that's maybe set by the State parks. Number 16 would be that the Meyer's, and this
might sound ridiculous but that the Meyer's would present to the city staff... present to the city
staff some brush removal plan to clear as much of that road and give the staff and the City
Council.
Mancino: A comfort level?
Conrad: Yeah, these are the most soft words. Some kind of assurances that this can be
maintained in the future. And then I won't include, and that's the end of my motion but again
I think I'd really like the neighborhood to work with the city when you're doing your
upgrading and get their input. And who knows what's going to happen to this motion but
again, from a very personal, I think the neighbors treat this very personally. They're very
involved. They're very responsible and I guess I'd ask them very much to incorporate the city
as they upgrade themselves, the asphalt. Preferably to get city input and that's what staff is
really good at doing. They really do work very well with neighborhoods. So anyway, that's
the end of my motion.
Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment?
Conrad: N/laybe.
Mancino: The friendly amendment has to do with the turn around. An acceptable turn
around to city staff that works at the end of, and I think that you had asked, staff had asked
on 7 that the roadway be to a 7 ton and a turn around to accommodate public safety vehicles.
If there is a way for staff and the applicant, and maybe the City of Shorewood, to ascertain
whether that one turn around can serve both ends of the private road.
Conrad: That's a good one. For city staff to review the use of the turn around on the
Shorewood side to see if it meets the needs of Chanhassen.
Mancino: And if it doesn't, then another resolution has to take place on the Chanhassen side.
Do I hear a second for the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion on the motion?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conind moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission itecommend that the City
Council approve the pi - elinii imy plat and the vadance request from Section 18 -57(o)
penuitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private st»eet for Subdivision 95 -16, Meyeias 2nd
Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions:
Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be
submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to
issuance of building permits on the lots.
2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage
plans. 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 construction
Of the new houses. The applicant will be charged ';20.00 per sign. A qualified wetland
biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the
existence or non- existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site.
3. The proposed single family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be
responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969.00 and
$5,240.00 respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording.
4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and
staked or restored with wood fiber blanket.
5. The grading plan shall include the following items:
a. Erosion control fencing.
b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway
grade and minimize tree removal aril grading.
c. Access Lot I from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal.
d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right -of -way easement over the
westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall
become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge
Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private
right -of -way and not maintained by the city. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross
access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge
Road.
l►0
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
7. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide and install the
necessary traffic signs.
8. A tree conservation area shall be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the
easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff
recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a
driveway which does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade and for tree protection.
9. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days
after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary
demolition permits.
10. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat.
11. Full parr: and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the
amount in force at the time of building permit application.
12. Tree and branch overgrowth along Ridge Road shall be trimmed to the satisfaction of
the Fire Marshal.
13. A thirty (30) foot front yard setback shall be maintained from the dedicated right -of-
way.
14. The City Attomey review this proposal to and prepalre a report as to the city's liability in
not Winging the road up to a minimum standa,xl as described by ordinance.
15. The Meyer's air obligated to bring the break away fence or gate up to a standard that's
' ulaybe set by the State pari<s.
16. The 1\leyer's present to the city staff some bnrsh removal plan to clem• as much of that
' road ,uul give the staff and the City Council some kind of assuninces that this can be
maintained in the future
17. City staff review the use of the tuns around on the Shorewood side to see if it meets the
needs of Chanhassen.
' All voted in favor wid the motion canied.
1 21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
HOLASEK GREENHOUSE FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT REOUEST FOR AN
"AFTER THE FACT" GRADING /EARTHWORK FOR 36,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MATERIAL LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD (CO. RD. 18) AND WEST
OF GALPIN BLVD. (CO. RD. 19).
Mike Meyer stepped off from the Planning Commission for this item due to a conflict of
interest.
Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff? Okay. Does the applicant or their designee wish to
address the Planning Commission?
Earl Holasek: No, we do not.
Mancino: Not at all, okay. This is open for, or may I have a motion to open this for a
public hearing please.
Peterson mON ed, Conrad seconded to open the public hewing. The public hewing was
opened.
Mancino: Thant: you. This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to address the
Planning Commission on this issue, as in the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a
motion to close the public hearing? ,
Peterson uroN'ed, Conrad seconded to close the public he uing. The public hewing was
closed.
Mancino: Thant: you. Craig. Any comments? Questions.
Peterson: No. I think it's pretty straight forward. I don't see any major issues
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: No, I don't have an issue with it. I took a drive by it and I didn't see anything out
of the ordinary. I don't know what 36,000 cubic yards of fill really looks like but on that site '
it didn't loot: offensive at all.
Mancino: Okay, Ladd.
77
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: I'd just like to ask the applicant why, knowing that you needed a permit, why you
went ahead without the permit.
Earl Holasek: Tile opportunity for receiving the type of fill that we were able to get came
and went so fast that we did not have time to address the 45 day permitting process. So we
went ahead with it anyway to get the...
Mancino: Okay? A couple of questions that I have. Dave, on number 4. On page 5 of
your conditions. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all costs incurred for the
enforcement of this permit, including engineering and the attorney's fees. Do you have an
idea what those, how much those costs total?
' Hempel: Not at tills point, no I do not.
Mancino: Okay. I would just, I think that that would b, a suggestion for City Council to
' kind of pull those costs together to see what those are. Is there anything that the city has,
and I had highlighted the 45 days to receive approval. Is there any process that we have
when something like this comes up to do it more quickly and legally, in less than 45 days? I
mean Mr. Holasek had said, I've got a problem. It's right now. I can get it. Is there anyway
that this can be shortcut? And was that asked?
' Hempel: Mr. Holasek did indicate, was there a way around the permitting process as well as
the contractor did and based on the city ordinance, the way it's set up, there was no provision
to expedite or waive the permitting process on this amount of earthwork.
Aanenson: But there is different amounts that you can do administratively.
' Hempel: We're allowed to issue a permit administratively for filling up to 1,000 cubic yards
of material. We can issue that basically within a day. When it exceeds 1,000 cubic yards,
the interim use permit ordinance takes hold requiring the necessary Planning Commission
approval and City Council.
Aanenson: Can 1 just add to that? The reason for that is one, we want to know trucking
' routes and want to know if there's wetlands. Making sui e that those are, and that was our
concern with tills one too. There was a wetland there and we weren't sure of the status of
' that and what the impacts were and that's why when there's over a certain quantity, then we
start looking at the bigger picture. Where it's going. Where it's coming from and making
sure that there's erosion control. That's why there's the administrative one and when it's over
a certain amount, that we do want to have control and go through the permitting process
where you pllt till conditions oil there, where there is some standards or conditions.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Thant: you, that's helpful.
Peterson: Give me a sense of a 1,000 cubic yards. Size of this room?
Hempel: Approximately a tandem load dump truck carries approximately 10 to 12 cubic
yards. So 1,000 yards would be just about 75 to 100 truck loads. In this case here, they used
a belly dump.
Mancino: It's 40,000 wasn't it?
Hempel: Pardon me?
Mancino: Wasn't it 40,000 in this case?
Hempel: In this case it's 36,000 cubic yards but they did use larger trucks or the belly dump
type. The haul route was actually pretty close. Most of the fill material did come from the
city of Chaska, right there on the Jonathan Park I believe it was. It was a relatively short
haul so they're able to really move it in a hurry.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please?
Skubic: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim '
Use Permit 495 -3 for Holasek Greenhouses for the material that has been hauled in as shown
on the plans prepared by William Engelhardt & Associates dated May 31, 1995, and subject
to the following conditions 1 thru 5.
Peterson: Second
Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ,
Inteiiin Use Penuit 495 -3 for Holasek Greenhouses for the material that has been hauled in as
shown on the pl.uws prepared by William Engelhardt & Associates dated May 31, 1995, and
subject to the following conditions: '
The applicant shall pay a grading permit fee in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code, Appendix 70 -13, based on the amount of earthwork hauled into the site (36,000 ,
cubic yards). The applicant shall be responsible for a grading permit fee of $319.50.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
2. The applicant shall complete and resubmit the signed Wetland Conservation Act
certificate of exemption.
3. The interim use permit shall expire on October 15, 1995. All disturbed areas as a result
of the filing shall be reseeded and mulched or employed in crops. The applicant shall
supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $2,500. to guarantee restoration
and compliance with conditions of this permit.
4. The applicant shall reimburse the City far all costs incurred for the enforcement of this
' permit including engineering and attorney fees.
5. The applicant shall hold the City and it's officers and employees harmless from claims
made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from
permit approval or work done in conjunction with it. The applicant shall indemnify the
city and it's officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses that the city may
' pay or incur in consequence with such claims, including attorney fees.
All voted in favor .uid the motion carried. (Mike Meyer did not vote on this item.)
' PUBLIC HEARING:,
PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4,
ACRES FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 79 LOTS,,
3 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 76,
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.64 ACRES; AND A
WETLAND AIA'ERATION PERMIT AND WETLAND SETBACK ON PROPERTY,
' LOCATED ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY,,
NORTH BAY. ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.,
Public Prese,it:
' Name
Craig Schmidt
Address
William R. Engelhardt Associates
Bob Generous presented the staff repoit on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Skubic: Yes, I have one. Bob, was the applicant able to retain the same number of units
with the revised plans from the original?
Generous: There were 75 originally so they picked up a unit.
Skubic: Thank you.
Mancino: Bob, on condition number 2 where you have Lot 57, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2
are unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space. They're
not on my plans so I assume that that's already been done.
Generous: Well they show them. It's the large open area on both blocks.
Mancino: Oh! That's what that means. I Botch ya.
Generous: All the land that's not platted for the dwellings and Lot 21 is the wetland and all
the common land on the south side.
Aanenson: If it was platted as a lot, it could be buildable so as long as it's in the outlot ,
status, it's non - buildable.
Generous: So they could either call it an outlot or plat it as a lot and in here specify that it's ,
undevelopable for dwellings.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: So somebody else doesn't it and try to build something on it
Mancino: Thant: you. Any other questions for staff? Does the applicant or their designee ■
wish to approach the Planning Commission?
Don Jensen: Yes. Good evening. My name is Don Jensen. I'm the Land Development '
Manager with the Rottlund Company, 2681 Round Lake Road, Roseville, MN 55113. We're
here tonight to bring back the development in it's revised form and we are pleased we've been ,
able to resolve most of the conditions that thy; Planning Commission and Council as well as
staff set forth for us in the redesign effort. I have a number of graphics with me tonight that
you also have in your packets. The ones I have tonight are colored, versus the black lined '
and reduced copies that you have. So I'd be happy to go through them as we speak tonight in
greater clarity or perhaps highlight those at issue for yourselves. I won't go through a
presentation as in full depth as I did that last time around but what we have tonight is we '
26
Planning Conunission Meeting - August 16, 1995
have the overstory plan rendered, which is on the board here to my left, which highlights the
existing trees in the very dark green towards Lake Riley and on the wetland. The balance is
our proposed landscaping plan. It shows all the dwellings units in the lighter color that you
see around each dwelling unit where all the shrub that we have as foundation planting plans
for each dwelling unit. Central common space and entry monumentation. Additional plantings
are shown on this plan and then in your packet were highlighted on separate sheets. We also
have those at a larger scale, as were in your plans, submitted for review tonight. We have the
landscape plans, foundation planting detail renderings. We also have some improved
renderings of the buildings for the cottages. The furthest step in our RV if you will. So
we're able to show what those particular elevations look like in our final working drawings
step. The village homes, which are the smaller dwellings up through here, in terms of the
sizing on the ground. At least their footprint impact are still in the design development phase
and are unchanged from whet we last brought before you. We have an improved buildings
and colors and pallet of materials. The board in front of you we've changed recently been
able to comply and improve our bricl: selection through a consolidation of one particular
supplier. We have those in front tonight as well. And we also have the architectural floor
plans again for your view at the large size tonight. And that's what we have. We'll go
through a couple of them as you wish. We would like to thank the staff for their support and
recommendation for approval. We do have a key difference, as we had at our previous
application with the parks recommendation. We'll go over that in a little bit of detail. That
does involve the Lakeshore and we would like to be able to describe that a little bit more. We
would like to recap that the Rottlund Company will be both the developer of this land and the
builder, and that's a little bit different from oar relationship with the Mission Hills project and
we would like to be able to clarify and at least for the moment, provide a chance to say that
we can only do so much when you're the builder and the developer is obligated to do most of
the things on the site. Our previous project most recently in Chanhassen, Windmill Run,
which is a single family subdivision. We were both the developer and the builder and I think
that the concerns expressed by residents or the city staff were far less than those which had
been voiced Ile,•e on the Mission Hills development, and I think that that goes to illustrate
what we call accomplish at the North Bay development. What we did accomplish at the
Windmill Run development. We'd like to again highlight what we believe the strengths of the
development are. We have a strong pedestrian circulation system. Based on the comments
when the Planning Commission at a previous meeting had approved and refined the design for
our central commons area is .65 acres in size. Throughout the center area we have a pathway
system that links it down to the Lake Riley Road east, as is recommended by staff. That has
a sidewalk. Again, it connects it all the way down to Lyman Boulevard and then as well to
the property to the east where there's a future park proposed at some place within the next
subdivision. That again connects to the trail system on Lyman so we've got the ability for all
of these folks in this neighborhood to circulate out literally without a car, walking and
bicycling in a fairly safe environment. We have a, I might as well touch on that quickly. We
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
have an aerial, in case you're interesting in some context, we can pass that around... That was
shot very recently but shows all of the action going on next door at Bearpath, in Eden Prairie,
as well as Mission Hills and other locations. What we have going on within the central space
and on the grading plan it becomes a little bit clearer, there's really two tiers that are
accomplished. Each one of these dwelling units step up the hill, or in this case, down, left to
right, approximately a foot to a foot and a half. So what we've done is, as these buildings are
stepping down, as they're stepping down in this location, they continue to step down along the
street. The whole site, as you recall from our last presentation, has about 40 feet of change
from Lyman Boulevard as you go up towards the easterly boundary and to the, what we'll
Klingelhutz development. What we've able to do with the center space then is flatten out and
create more of a useful upper tier. This does not step down as fast as the buildings are and
what we've been able to provide then is a ridge and that's what these plantings are located on
so that cascades down and you have a situation unlike what you have outside of city hall.
Not quite as dramatic from your upper parking lot to your lower parking lot. That area then
defines what might be ... child's play area down below and the upper area that's larger is more
of a consolidated area for viewing or we view it as an adult opportunity. What we've shown
Oil this plan is that we surrounded the area with permanent planting beds so that we've got a
private space, public space. The public space as defined on these plans again was .65 acres,
so it's a fairly large piece of land for all the residents' use. And we've shown that there's an
Opportunity that they can decide whether they like gardening. Whether they want to have
flowering gardens, active gardens, or if they just want it for open passive get togethers. It
could be big enough for volleyball games for example. Big enough for throwing frisbee.
And then down in through this smaller area we've got an opportunity and to be able to
incorporate on site ... pea gravel and create a container. Once we really see what the mix is.
The real opportunity here is to let these folks design the space that they're going to have to
pay their insurance over and they're going to have to maintain and take care of based on their
mix. And so that's what we're providing in this particular enhanced plan. Our entry areas
down at the development's front doors and also on the waterfront area, we have increased
planting areas. We have a rock element which is very similar to our Mission Hills signs...
So that's located through the main entryway with Lyman Boulevard that's pulling back to
make sure that we've got the appropriate sight visibility. Immediately to the west of that our
detention facilities begin. Likewise there are enhanced plantings at North Bay Drive, as we
go into the neighborhood of village homes. Out onto thy; lakefront area and this is what we
were discussing with staff. Clarifications as to what is going on. This particular area on your
plan you have a proposed outlot to the east and what we were discussing with staff is
Improving the existing gravel access road that's being used today. Staff informs us if you
improve it, it becomes a new use and it can't be there but if you just have a curb cut and
leave it gravel, it's an existing non - conforming use and it can stay so, there will be a curb cut.
This impro\•ement as it's shown here won't occur so that the access is still preserved as an
existing non - conforming use. What we were showing here, we were asked to show what
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
could happen down there at the beachfront. The possibility of a small shelter for the residents
who have the lakefront rights and the lakefront docking rights. The design of that and the
ability to actually construct something is subject to further review and that's the reason that it
was as a lot. Staff has suggested that that remain an outlot until it is solved and that would
be fine. Tile third outlot that is shown farther to the west was described as requested by the
parks commission as the possibility for a public park area. We're not interested in having the
development pay full park fees and be required to dedicate as private park for public purposes
and not be reasonably compensated. That's a separate issue and we think that that's, it
certainly doesn't get at trying to provide affordability. You're in essence paying
approximately 1.75 times the going park rate when you're doing that particular action. The
PUD status, as we understand, we're creating a neighborhood such as this, is a mandatory
category designation for the city of Chanhassen. It's not optional as some of the parks
commissioners may have thought. So we have a separat,- issue. We understand when we
make our point known that it's an issue with the Council and it's not really something the
Planning Commission... in any great detail tonight and we'll leave it at that. On the
landscaping plan, what you see and really as the neighborhood becomes completed, represents
a little over 3.1 new trees, whether they're ornamental, evergreen, or street tree categories, per
dwelling unit. And a representative plan ... oil the plans that we've submitted approximately 30
shrubs and perennials... that's a substantial investment in the quality of this particular
neighborhood, we think in comparison to...this city or any in the western suburbs. Another
issue that the Planning Commission had asked us to address the last time is what can we do
to reasonably assure that there's some interesting looking facades and that there's some
differences in building materials. Differences in building colors. What we've submitted to
staff and what we have here tonight are some improved building plans where we've got some
different roof lines going on from what was previously submitted. We're breaking that up.
We're adding some dormers. We're adding some greater eaves. It doesn't show up
necessarily as well in this stage or at this size but you have a longer and greater overhang
over the garages. You have a break -up of what's occurring over into the garage, in some
cases it doesn't extend over the entire garage. We did have a chance on the site plan to turn
re the
several garages as we had in the previous concept stage so that not all of the views a
same from the street and that helps to minimize the concern about the garage door. You can
see on the board below me, and I don't know if, I'll move it up so the camera at home.
You'll notice this is sturdy metal here. What I have on the upper right hand corner of the
board are all of the current accent colors that we have. I'll put the other board down below.
That's consistent with what we have on the front doors and on all the shutters which is similar
to what we've done in Mission Hills development and we have a few more shutters
throughout this particular plan. We have a series of three different brick colors. We have a
common thread of a sin roofing product for the 76 dwelling units. And then what you
see is the second color and then a faux cedar shake that goes typically above the garage
elevation so we can adapt the roof line above the garage door. You have this particular
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
garage so you can get different... through here. Similar to single family subdivisions. The
architectural control over this neighborhood would be, you can't have the same color
immediately adjacent to any given lot, which means if you've got this color on one side of the
street, you can't have it immediately next door or immediately across the street. It could be
angular and so it can go in a triangulated pattern or it could be missing and you would have a
different pattern showing up. We think with the modest changes in the elevations and in the
building next to you, if you've got 26 of the cottages, which is this particular building. And
then we have approximately 50 of the village homes. Those again have slightly different
elevations and the color path really gives you the assurance that you're not going to have
sameness. And that you have a really good variety of building patterns going on.
Mancino: Don, right now on Mission Hills you use the same brick everywhere, from what I
could, as I drove around.
Don Jensen: That's correct.
Mancino: Okay. And this would be the three different.
Don Jensen: Correct. They have the different accent colors. Minimum of two per
subdivision, and then we also had I believe two different building colors, none of which were
the same so there's actually four different accent colors, if my memory serves me correct.
With that we did get a chance to meet with staff and go over the conditions of approval. Bob
highlighted... There were a couple of minor issues with engineering that were also something
that we wanted to touch on and just make sure we understood out of the meeting where we
were headed. And those conditions are 21, 25, 27(f) and 31, 32, and 33 we've already
touched oil a little bit. Our issues with those particular conditions are, with number 21 we
had discussed with staff that at the final plat time, the amount of developable acreage is
determined and that this condition merely represents a cap number. And so the 47,808, if the
plan—what we are asking is that recognition be granted. That number of that could drop. If
line up changes or some other things change in how we calculate things, we just want to be
able to check the math and staff was comfortable with that this afternoon and we just wanted
to double check that this evening. Regarding condition number 25. This was something we
did .not discuss this afternoon and adding the possibility of adding two words. Final plat
approval shall be contingent upon the Council awarding the bid for the first phase of the
Lyman Boulevard /Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement project. We've understood with staff
that a utility portion and not the actual bituminous street portion would be on the docket for
this fall. And you really can't build a street from there anyway so that's why they're intended
that way but we would presume that that condition would apply if a partial ordering of the
project.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Excuse me, Dave does that meet with your approval?
Hempel: Yes, that amendment would be acceptable.
Don Jensen: Item number 27(f) we also went over with staff and 27(f) as it stands says
revise grading plan to have the rear lots drain through to the front yard. Because these are
slab on grade products we, at the moment have designed the grading plan with the high point
as a front door entry and that it pitches back. Front door entry is typically behind the garage.
...building plan here. This is the landscaping plan but for example our garage is located up
front. Our front door entry then is approximately 20 feet back from the garage, set back from
the roadway. That means we're going to have about 40 feet back. Then there's an additional,
approximately 25 to 35 feet, depending on the product that's selected for the front or the back
of the building and thell out in the back yard. We're trying to make sure that we don't have a
problem with ... heat, which is a real popular mode of heating. Slab on grade structures these
days where the heat ducts are in the slab or just below the slab. We're not convinced yet of
trying to move all the water from the back through to the front would create either a desirable
grading situation in the front or if you have the narrower distance between structures. Or that
it would really solve our problem with water. What we agreed with staff today is that we
would wort: with them to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the fine grading, as it dealt with
those lots 4, through 31, Block 1. And that wasn't mentioned today, or at least this evening
so presumably that's, I mean that's a very fine detail issue. I'm just uncomfortable agreeing to
push the water all the way through to the front at this time. I don't want to appear that we're
not doing what staff has asked for. Item number 31. We also agreed with staff this afternoon
that we would arrive at some acceptable language regarding the waiver of procedural or what
they would call minor substantive objections to the assessments as they occur. This issue
deals, and it's our Understanding with whether or not the title company will withhold for
pending assessments and how do you really warrant or guarantee that we convey this home or
any given home in this particular development, that they're going to get the proper legal
notification v hen the city actually comes to the hearing for the Lyman Boulevard project. So
we understand their issue and we don't really object to what they're trying to accomplish but
right now the way this condition is worded, it says we're going to give up a lot of rights and
we just want to be able to be comfortable with what that says so, in principle we're
comfortable with the condition. We just want to revise the language so it will go forward
kind of gray. 32 and 33 we already discussed. Dealing with parks and we just want to be
able to accomplish a reasonable neighborhood that provides really very little up for
maintenance for the residents. We'd like them to be in full control of what their immediate
outdoor surroundings are and we're wanting the lakefront to be, at a minimum, for their use
and really concerned a point of the public that the residents that are going to be living here
get their full dock slip rights as they are entitled to by the amount of frontage of lakeshore
that we currently halve 111 this particular property. That's at least 5, if not 6 overnight dock
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
slips based on the front footage on the lake so that's a minor issue and again that's for the
Council. Outside of that, all of these 36 conditions, many are standard. We're very
comfortable with and we'd like to thank the staff for the diligence on this plan. In working
with us. We're looking forward to getting it approved so we can wait and see that the project
for Lyman Boulevard is awarded tliis fall. If there's any questions that you have about the
building product, about how we redesigned the development and what we are trying to
accomplish here, I'd be happy to answer your questions. I don't know that there's a
representative from the adjacent property to the... There is from Lakeview Hills Apartments.
I don't know that there's a representative here. We have had discussions with them. They
have had discussions with staff regarding a pending plat but they are comfortable, and spoken
so at the Council meeting in the past about having a single right -of -way for public access on
the east side of the property so this plan in fact can be accomplished. We do not have a
hostile situation occurring for access purposes. And we're also working with staff on the road
alignment for Lake Riley Boulevard. There was a concern, and I'll close with this, that staff
would like Lake Riley moved back to it's original location. This is a compromise location
which met the design guidelines. What we're not clear on is when that mooshing and
smooshing of that final design occurs, there's the possibility that this dwelling unit, if it were
to stay exactly as computed here, might be 45 feet away from the right -of -way line as it
might be versus the 50 feet that we have today. We wanted to breach that subject now is that
this is not reasonable if we're clipping a small corner of this building, that it could be allowed
to remain at a 45 distance away from right -oi =way. There's really no other impacts around it
other than the lakeshore so that the dwelling unit would be able to preserve. That's all that I
have at the moment.
Mancino: Thant: you. Any questions at this point? We may have some later but thank you
very much.
Don Jensen: Thank you.
Mancino: May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing?
Peterson inoved, Slwbic seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please come up now. State your name and your address.
Craig Schmidt: Good evening Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is
Craig Schmidt. I'm a civil engineer with William R. Engelhardt Associates, 1107 Hazeltine
Boulevard ill Chaska. I'm here tonight representing John Klingelhutz. He's the property
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
owner to the west of this development. Mr. Klingelhutz is out of town. He asked me to
come and go over a couple of issues he has regarding this plat. As a brief introduce, back in
September of 1992, John Klingelhutz received preliminary plat approval for 68 lot residential
development known as Lake Riley Hills. In March of this year Mr. Klingelhutz that approval
' of his plat had expired and it was no longer valid. As a result of this, two major changes
would have to occur on this plat. First was a development of a 5 acre neighborhood park on
his parcel. And the second was a realignment of Lyman Boulevard. Since that time we've
been in the process of developing new plans for Mr. Klingelhutz. At this time what Mr.
Klingelhutz is requesting is that a portion of the land required for the, that would be requtred
by the Rottlund development for park dedication, be dedicated in the northeast corner of their
development. And that in the future then, Mr. Klingelhutz will dedicate the remaining land to
equal the 5 acre lot requirement. Thus, developing a neighborhood park which would serve
' both of these developments. That's what he would really like to see happen but he has agreed
to a compromise if you will. He would like to see Lake Riley Road, as it comes into his plat.
Relocated approximately 170 feet south of it's current location. If that were to occur, that
' would enable him to more easily fit the 5 acre park in this portion of the development. Of
his development and so.
' Mancino: So it would be contiguous there?
Craig Schmidt: So it would be contiguous. And that's really all the concerns that he has. I
i took a loot: at the Rottlund plan, based on that realignment and what would occur would be,
based on my initial loot: was actually the addition of two units. 8 large units would be
eliminated and 4 would be put back and also 6 of the smaller units so there'd actually be a 2
' unit increase, or a possible. One other thing that that could do would be to increase the
overall area of this townhome space as this would be realigned.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. And I guess how we'd like to, Bob how would you like to deal
with that?
Aanenson: Well he's kind of caught up at a loss because right now we're just responding to
this plan. The departure, you know the recommendation would really have to come from the
Park and Rec Department. They tool: at each plat individually. Now I'm not sure if he's
talked to Todd about that but the recommendation for the park issue and the compensation
obviously has to be worked through, actually through that whole process. And to now to say
well that's how we're going to proceed, the Park Commission's already given their
recommendation on this plat. It's kind of an I lth hour sort of thing. We have no chance to
respond and Todd's not here to respond on that so I guess we have to respond to this at this
' point and then take it Up at the Collllcll as a suggestion. We can certainly do that.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Craig Schmidt: That, if I could just as a moment. That portion of it was kind of his
Optimum case. I mean that's what he would like to see because he really feels that that park
is intended to serve a wider area than just his development and he has a similar piece of
property in that there's a lot of wetlands and so forth and a lot of steep slopes that are
difficult to use so. Actually he has much less density allowable in his parcel. What he really
wants to see happen most of all would be the realignment of that street and we think that that
can be accomplished relatively simply and wouldn't really decrease the number of units that
are out there.
Aanenson: Again, the Park and Recreation Commission looks at you know access and where.
As Mr. Jensen's indicated, he already feels like he's being punitively punished to have public
parks so lie's already feeling like lie's already being asked to donate public property so to say
the first recommendation, to give additional, I'm not sure—because they've already asked for
public. And as far as relocating it in that area, I think certainly that's something that would
have to be the recommendation from the Park Commission before this went to Council.
Mancino: So you would suggest that Mr. Schmidt should call Todd?
Aanenson: Certainly.
Mancino: Okay, and discuss that with him. And then I think at that point you might want to
tall: with Kate and Bob and also Rottlund.
Craig Schmidt: I apologize for the lateness of it. I wasn't made aware of it until late
Monday. I was unable to get a hold of Mr. Jensen.
Mancino: \Fell we appreciate your coming. Anyone else like to address the Planning
Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Nleye,• uio\ ed, PeteiNon seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Mike.
Meyer: I don't think I really have anything in particular to say. It's a lot to take in. Overall
I like the plan as set forth. Really nothing in particular at this point.
Mancino: Okay, Craig.
Peterson: I think the staff certainly did a thorough job after spending an hour and a half
reading the dOCUlllentatlOn involved. I think that it does go a long way in addressing the
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
issues of a project the size of this. Not having been here for the preliminary review, it seems
as though the issues that were addressed then have been duly noted and realigned to address
those needs so in looking at it generally, I think it is a development that does have some
creativity and is, I think they've strived to make it a little bit more unique and different than
some of the typical ones you may see so other than the issue that was just brought up that
raises concern, I would like to get your feedback at least on that. Your initial one regarding
the changing of the road as it stands, for my own edification if nothing else.
Don Jensen: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any additional questions.
Staff made us aware of tills possibility that this would come up this evening. We have been
working with staff for tills alignment and that was based on the previous plat. Presume that
that circulation system would occur. What staff asked us if you can have known that loss in
dwelling units and you can make this road work down here at the time of the final plat, if
you call do that, and we at tills time don't see a reason why not. Now that doesn't necessarily
mean that there might not be some other issue that won't show up and create some practical
difficulty. And I guess what we would say right now is we'd like this approved as is with the
understanding that as with all projects, things possibly change as it goes to final plat and if
there were a change, that would be viewed as being a substantial conformance to the
blic
preliminary plat. We're not at all interested in giving up more land through here for pu
park purpose. We ... full park dedication fees were being used to develop and /or acquire
parkland and that the provision of the lakeshore was a reasonable amount of private park. So
I think staff, as well as yourselves, understand where we're headed. That that would be a
departure for us and this given plan and would certainly change some of the economics. So I
guess that's our, initially we don't believe that it would have any significant impacts to the
wetlands area down through here. There was some concern probably in this area so when we
start to plat ... the road too far back, we start to push these buildings towards the wetland areas
that we worked so hard to stay away from. There is a concern about setback against the
adjacent property... And if there's a change in the ... single level rambler style plans. We start
to drop a little too maily of those, it starts to become a little bit difficult to have enough to
really improve the market to a certain price and that's really the goal is to be able to
accomplish that. So ... answer your question here. We're open to it but I guess we're pretty far
along right now We've spent a lot of time and energy and it would be the second phase of
utilities. There is no work that would happen on this until spring, in all likelihood and so the
ability to make a second phase adjustment is feasible.
Conrad: Will you plan your road into the development to the west? No? You structured this
to tie into a plan that had been previously approved I assume.
Don Jensen. That is correct. Although it's expired, it certainly was a previous approval with
an alignment that made an original amount of sense.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Peterson: No other questions.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I like it. It's a novel plan to the city. It has a number of benefits. It offers lower
priced housing and it's a good buffer between different land uses. And I'm anxious to see
these issues be worked out. Nothing else.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: For staff, a quick comment. Tell me, 32 and 33. Payment of park, I did see the
Park and Rec report but it says full payment, payment of full park and trail fees. And then
dedication of Dutlot C. Is that, how come it's both? Is that because this is a PUD?
Aanenson: That's the position the Park Commission is taking. And they similarly took that
one on Autumn Ridge. That because it's a PUD, they felt that in order to get the PUD they
Should be given something for that. I guess the Planning staffs proposal was, it could have
been higher density but we liked this product. It's a different nitch. We didn't take that kind,
we felt that preserving the open space really was the issue. Similarly we did look at the
conditional use, as Bob pointed out in his staff report. Until this issue is resolved, they really
can't go forward with the conditional use. They don't know how much frontage they have at
this point so that's a separate issue. That's still going to have to come back before you.
Conrad: So say it again. Staffs position, your, the planning position.
Aanenson: We felt, the only way Ile can accomplish this, as Mr. Jensen indicated, to do this
zero lot line is a PUD. In the zoning that's in place right now, you can't do this type of
product so lie's forced in order to do this project, which we support, it could be a lot of other
things. We support this type of product as far as the housing type and nitch. We support the
PUD. But the Park Commission is saying that now that you're doing a PUD, therefore you're
obligated to give something up. It's an issue. We don't want to split the departments. It's an
issue that the City Council is going to have to address. There's certainly some substantial
issues...
Conrad: This is a neat project.
Don Jensen: Thank you.
Conrad: It brings a, and I really don't have any. I have nothing further to add other than the
recommendations already been made before me but, here we go again. It's taking a high
36
Planning ColllllllsslOil Meeting - August 16, 1995
density and now 4ve're down zoll►►lg, in essence. Even though this is kind of dense. It's down
zoning. It is. And I tell you, we'll get burned and we've got to force the issue. We've got to
force it fast with the City Council because the neat thing about what we've done, regardless of
how hostile the residents get when they come in here, we have forecasts where we're going.
We have forecasts before they moved in what was going to be there after they built. We
continue to talk about high density. We continue to talk about this but it's really comfortable
to eat it up. I really like this. I think this should be in here but the issue is our's and the
issue is every time we start down zoning, we'd better challenge somebody. That's probably
the city staff, to say what are we going about this because we just ate up more high density
and we're going to have a real tough tinge putting it anyplace else because people are already
there and they don't want it and we will back down. So again the challenge is to figure that
out right now. Every time we do something like this, I think we really, it's just so easy to let
it slide and wait for the neat 3 or 4 plans to come in, in two weeks and just sort of take a
look at it but I thing; we really have to challenge what we're doing in terms of the zoning
impact of what we're doing with the planning impact. So again, this looks real good. Like it.
I thing: you guys will figure the few problems out. But in terms of where we go, I think we
have some work to do in terms of how we manage our zoning.
Mancino: �Vell you know, I was thinking about that too and I thought this is a different
housing type. \Ve don't have.
Conrad: Oh absolutely.
Mancino: It's, the other part about it is it goes from the high density, the apartments and it's
going to transition nicely into single family, which is on the west of it and I like to see a
transition. And 1 thing: people feel much better, more comfortable with it. At least those who
conle to the plalllllll Commission meetings do. So I like it. I think it's a different product
and I thing: because of that, and where it's located, I like the amenities.
Conrad: But what are you going to do Madam Chairman? What do you want us to do in
terms of other high density in the area? We have not forecast in our comprehensive plan that
many high density areas in this city and we love to give them up. And so they're being
chewed up and we don't, we're not going to find other places for them unless we put them
down in the soutil. So the challenge there is to challenge ourselves. Everytime we do this, I
think immediately we have to say, do we need the high density in town. Do we need, you
know what was the last one where we went single family instead of commercial? Well we
haven't done that yet.
Mancino: But it was tabled.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: Yeah. But again that's, and it's not that changing the direction is bad. It's just that
we, something has to, we can't wait for the next comprehensive plan update in 5 years. We
can't, because it will be too late. We won't have the opportunity to rethink where those,
where that retail space is going to come from or where that high density space is going to
come from because we won't be able to defend our position against the residents.
Mancino: Do we have land that we're going to be looking at, study areas along 212 that we
haven't designed yet?
Aanenson: Yes. We're working on that right now that might be high density but Ladd's
right. He brings up an issue that if you look at what the Park Commission is, we're kind of
digressing here but what the Park Commission is doing in their study and you look at what
land's available, you're right. There's not a lot. What it means is the density that we've taken
away from under, coming in under the zoning would be a significant increase in some of
those areas that are vacant.
Mancino: Where else do have high density? We have it on Highway 5. We have it
designated for the Eckankar, part of the Eckankar property.
Aanenson: Which will probably never be. May never be built on.
Generous: \yard property.
Aanenson: Yeah, and the Ward property.
Mancino: And the Ward property, and that's it at this point. And then we also have it
designated as some mixed use areas.
Aanenson: Correct. The one at Mission Hills. I think that's where we'll probably see some
Of that. In the pods around the 212, 101 area. And similar, the new 212 and the existing,
169/212.
Conrad: But if you don't replace it riglit away, it's going to be real tough to talk to the
residents who moved in there before this goes in, and we won't do it. Not that we have to
have it. it's just that 1 think we need some kind of a system to make sure that we challenge
the planning staff to tell us if we need it and. If we need it. If we need more high density
because in their wisdom they're knowing where the city's going.
Aanenson: I think the Met Council says we do.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: How important it is to have affordable housing.
Mancino: I like the project. I have a, I want to tell you what I like Don and what, some
concerns that I have and that was, I was here for the preliminary when we saw the
conceptual One of the things that we were concerned about were the common areas and the
access to it and 1 think you've done a good job on getting access to those. The only one that
I would like to see included would be, and I don't know how you include it because you've
got a lot goil1g oli there, but between in Block 1 between Lot 56 and 32, it certainly doesn't
have to be a trail that connects up to the other trail but I would like to see some sort of
pedestrian access there so that the people who live in Block 2, can come in
through that
southern way and get to that common area in the middle. Have an accessway...
Don Jenson: If I could respond to that. I'll hold up another drawing here. If you look at the
regular plan, there is an access off of Lake Riley Road a little bit farther to the west. One of
the two lines that are drawn tlu here indicate overland drainage, which is in fact storm
sewers that are back there get plugged or covered with leaves, those types of things, that
there's some overflow that have to ... two structures. Now, in the summertime people certainly
can wall: through there with the opening on the grass without a pathway for access purposes
into this zone, and in the wintertime they'll be able to come overland through snow just as
they would on a regular pathway. ...sort of fit all of those elements in there. Here we
provide another access to these dwelling units farther to the east. If we can accomplish it, I'm
pretty sure that we'll put a spur in but I want to be sure that the detailing engineering gets
worked out so I can fit all those things. Have a drainage Swale and a retaining wall and a
sidewalk and trying to provide that defensible space that we're shooting for behind each home
before we get to that private area.
Mancino: Well I would like to put it in a condition to see if the applicant and staff can work
With putting something in there. Some sort of an access and as I said, it doesn't have to
connect up to any of the other trails that you did put in but it's just some sort of an opening
so people know they can access it that way. You don't have to cut through people's yards or
in between houses. The other, the second comments that were made were on architectural
features and 1 think you did a very good, excellent job on showing to us on sheet 3 and sheet
4 the different facades for the cottage. The one story and the two story. I would like to
change the recommendation 34 to be a just a little more specific and say that prior to final
plat approval, the applicant shall wort: with staff to develop a project design plan which
specifies how the variation in architectural details incorporating the seven building elevations
shown on Sheets A3 and A4 of the plans prepared by Winton Associates Inc, as well as the
variation of building material as shown to the Planning Commission on 8 -16 are to be
accomplished. 1 don't think you have any concerns with that.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Don Jensen: No. What we're really doing is just reviewing the covenants that we have and
the architectural control and the color of materials.
Mancino: Good. My only, I have two other concerns and one of them is a much broader
concern for the, for Dave and engineering. Is the level of, do we have adequate infrastructure
in the area? As I drove over there, got on Lyman and I stopped at TH 101 and the way TH
101 is and trying to negotiate going forward on Lyman east coming from Galpin. There's a
lot of traffic, at about 5:30 and you just stopped and waited. And by the time this
development goes in, if it goes in next spring, you're going to have another 200 cars trying to
get on TH 101. TH 101 is a mess right now. It just seems to me that are we building up too
quickly for our infrastructure and our service level? And when will TH 101 be upgraded and
all those things because it's extremely frustrating now. There isn't a light at that jog and I'm
concerned for public safety there. In that whole area.
Hempel: Very valid points Madam Chair. I'll just give you an update of what's occurring
down in that end of town. With this Lyman Boulevard utility project, we will be upgrading
Lyman Boulevard to 36 foot wide at least, if not maybe even wider. That is designated as a
collector street on the city's comprehensive plan. It should be completed in the fall of '96 to
help transportation needs in this area. We do anticipate other developments occurring here as
well as the Rottlund North Bay development. John Klingelhutz' parcel will be back in before
YOU I'm sure with a development proposal. Lundgren also has a preliminary plat approval on
the south side of Lyman Boulevard, just west of Lake Riley with quite a few homes there as
well. So with the Lyman Boulevard upgrade, that will go out to TH 101. From that part on,
the rest of Lyman Boulevard is a county road and under the jurisdiction of Carver County. I
do believe that they have in their capital improvement program in the next few years to
upgrade that section of roadway as well. On through Powers Boulevard down to Audubon
Road. The city will be upgrading Powers Boulevard next year to 4 lane divided highway
from Lyman Boulevard up to Trunk Highway 5 which would be an avenue for the
transportation from this area to take should TH 101 not be satisfactory, or at least a second
alternative. Unfortunately roads, the way we're growing in the community here, our collector
roads may be slightly behind development needs but they are on our 5 year capital
improvement program, as far as upgrading our major collector streets in concert with the
county road. TfUllk Highway 101 oil the other hand is under the jurisdiction of MnDot. It's,
I think still this week classified as a temporary trunk highway, which means that.
Mancino: It's not permanent yet.
Hempel: Not yet, but there is talks of turn backs to the county and /or city for their
upgrading. As you might have noticed out there it's been recently overlayed. It's real nice
this year. And next year after the spring thaw, it will probably be broke up again but. We
40
Planning Conlnllsston Meeting - August 16, 1995
have no plans for upgrading that section of TH 101. Not at least until the TH 212 corridor
would core through and that would be part of the MnDot interchange. There is some talk of
upgrading TH 101 up further to the north on the Mission Hills subdivision. From there up to
what's been currently upgraded by the Rosemount facility and just south of TH 5, to make
that all 4 lane. That will probably be occurring in the next 3 years. So there are some plans
for roadway improvements out there. I guess not being a traffic engineer, I couldn't give you
a concrete answer that yes, the current road situation out there will be adequate handled but I
suspect with the proposed improvements coaling on line in the next few years, that there
would be adequate level of service for the proposed developments.
Mancino: You didn't say anything about a light or anything.
Hempel: The traffic signals and four way stops, they're all require traffic levels to be a
certain level to tlleet warrants to bring on those types of safety improvements.
Mancino: I have not been able to turn off of Galpin onto Highway 5 for two years now
Hempel: You may after this weekend.
Mancino: It took an elementary school to do it.
Don Jensen: Madan Chair, if I might get a chance to respond quickly what my traffic
engineers have. The requirement of Chanhassen to have roads in place prior to getting
building per restricts to a great degree the true ability for a neighborhood to be absorbed
prior to the traffic improvements that are there to be served. With the Lyman Boulevard
project being a pre - requisite for final plat of Lundgren and Klingelhutz, Rottlund, you're really
saying that all of the collector roads in Chanhassen will in fact be in place to places where
they have jurisdiction. What only gets left out is that we look at this as a tree area, as do the
people that live there ... There is a secondary access that's recently being improved and there's
just a very short link left in Eden Prairie and that's Lake Riley Boulevard as it goes ... Bearpath
dust to the east and that's all in place. Dell Road is all in place. I mean you have-just on
the border of Chanhassen and certainly a fair amount of these people are going to work in
Eden Prairie or possibly even in Chaska so we balance ... and try to find housing opportunities
where the jobs are. We're also looking to make sure the infrastructure exists not only in
Chanhassen but surrounding areas...
Mancino: I understand. I would still like part of this to be reviewed by City Council so that
they have some sort of report on the infrastructure and the service area and what it will be
like. Because I think it's, I'rll not thinking about development at all. I'm thinking about
public safety for our community. My last concern is, I'd like to hear from other
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
commissioners on it a little bit, is that on the front page of the proposal it talks about that the
applicant is proposing a standard setback of 20 feet from Lake Riley Road East and North
Bay Drive. The standard is a 30 foot setback and the reason why they're asking, and I
understand is to save the trees and the wetlands, etc. My just very practical concern, and
question that I have and 1'd just like to hear some discussion is, 20 feet from the garage to the
street. Now when I went out to Mission Hills and I measured from the apron of the garage to
the street curb was 23 feet and those were pretty close to the street and I measured my car.
My car is like 17 feet. So I am somewhat concerned about, and every one of these
developments, the villa developments, there are cars in the driveway. I hardly went by one
where there wasn't a car parked in the driveway. So again I have a little bit of a safety
concern about people getting out of their front door. Walking around to the garage and
getting into the car, etc and having to go into the street. And I understand the environmental
side of it too but I have some just very practical concerns and I don't have a station wagon. I
don't have a big camper so 20 feet is, I just want to tell you is very, very little space. Bob do
you, I don't know if you want to comment on that or anyone else.
Generous: Well just a quick one. Within the property that are fronting on the public right -
of -way there's actually another 14 or 15 feet before the edge of pavement.
Mancino: But on that private drive, on North Bay Drive. That's where it's 20 feet.
Generous: That will be 20 feet, yes.
Mancino: And there are 50 houses on that. Right? And I'm looking at that right so you
have 2/3 of the houses at 20 feet. Very close to the street. I didn't see, yes I did. I did see
in the villa development off of Dell Road. They had for each set of, I think it was 12, they
had 4 or 5 extra parking spaces that were kind of segregated, and there were you know a
couple boats there. So I just, I don't know how to deal with it. But it is a concern I have.
Any discussion'?
Peterson: Well you're presenting something that doesn't have a lot of options. We're dealing
With a wetland issue. That's obviously one of them is get rid of the wetlands but that's not an
option.
Mancino: Bob, what is the buffer right now in the wetlands? I mean is there a way.
Generous: What is the buffer? Do you mean what the code requires?
Mancino: Yeall.
42
Planning Conl►llission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Generous: It's a 10 foot average. 0 to 20 feet.
Mancino: And that's what we've got right now?
Generous: Yes.
Don Jensen: Plus the 40 foot setback.
Generous: Plus the 40 foot setback. From your edge of your buffer.
Doti Jensen: Nladanl Chair if I could cotllnient.
Mancino: No ... Any comments?
Meyer: 1. think it is a valid concern. I haven't given it a lot of thought. I'll go measure my
truck.
Peterson: W 1 totally agree. I lived in an area that was about probably 20 feet and getting
something OUT of my trunk of my car, I was going over the edge of the, going onto the road
regularly. But I didn't part: right up against the front of the garage.
Mancino: Don.
Don Jensen: In comparing this to Mission Hills, which you gave as an example. Two key
differences occur. One of which is the Mission Hills development has many buildings located
90 degrees or perpendicular to the roadway. And we tried throughout this plan to have most
of the buildings skewed so the 20 foot setback really runs to the angle point of the front of
the structure. Given that you've got at least 18 inches to possibly 2 feet of a kind of wall
return before the door, you are picking up a couple of extra feet of true driveway dimension if
this structure is positioned at the minimum setback. The minimum setback is what allows us
to at least design that already fits. So from a pure dimensional standpoint, throughout a lot of
these dwelling units the way they're positioned on the preliminary plat, we have an angle
which means that we've got a long side and short side but that the setback is to the front of
the structure. Not necessarily in front of the garage door, which means you've got a little bit
more room to wall: if it's at the 20 foot setback. And a little bit more room for a vehicle to
occur. Now that's the villa dwelling unit, as Bob pointed out. All of the dwelling units on
Lake Riley Road East are angled even more severely. They're at 30 degree angles so you're
picking up an additional long side, short side with the setback is to the front of the structure.
Plus you have a public right -of -way distance. Then a key difference between what's going on
at the Mission Hills development and the villa neighborhood in here are the street width and
43
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
the quantity of two cars versus one car garages. You have one car garages... marketplace.
You have a higher likelihood that you might have one in and one out if you have two
occupants. You're going to see a few more. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a traffic
problem. It just means you might see a few more cars and... Most of the roadway is in
private driveways that are within the Mission Hills development are approximately 24 feet
back to back or... In this case what we have is a road that is throughout the development is
a...allowing parking on one side which means that there's a greater distance for circulation and
a greater distance for public safety. So hopefully that helps. And as a final follow -up, all of
these dwelling units have 2 car garages enclosed as well as 2 spaces out so you've got places
for people to get inside of their home without really having an impact on either the public or
private streets out through here.
Mancino: Fin not convinced. I would like staff to work with the applicant and maybe even
look at the setback on the east property line and on the north property line. I see right now
they're 35 feet and 50 feet and maybe there could be some giving there to pick up another 10
feet. And I'd like you to maybe present both ways to the City Council. Because I did find
that whether it was a 2 car or 1 car garage, there were still cars in the driveway, in every
single place so I would like the City Council to look at that and put that in as a condition. I
think that's it on my concerns and I think it's a good project. I'd like to entertain a motion.
Meyer: I will make a motion, with a little help. I make a motion that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council grant preliminary plat approval for PUD #95-
1 for preliminary planned unit development approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R -12, high
density residential to PUD, planned unit development. Preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1
acres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and associated right -of -way. Site Plan review for 76 single family
detached zero lot line homes on 19.95 acres. A variance for wetland setbacks for Lots 12
thru 16, Block I and Lots 16 thru 19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown on the
plans and a wetland alteration permit for North Bay plans dated 4/17/95, revised 5/4/95 and
7/17/95. Prepared by Pioneer Engineering, subject to the following conditions I thru 36.
There a number of revisions that need to be. Deleting number 6. Changing, revising number
29 to replacing temporary cul -de -sac to temporary barricade. Revising number 27(f).
Aanenson: No, that was the applicants. I think if you wanted something, they just want to
be able to work with staff to revise the grading plans. Similarly that would be with 31.
Work with staff on that.
Mancino: Work with staff to resolve the language.
Meyer Okay, so if we make the.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: And 1 think on 25 the applicant also wanted to make sure that the awarding of bid
was for the first phase. To insert that. Of the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley.
Peterson: And on number 21.
Mancino: The applicant wanted to make sure that on 21, that the amount charged was for the
developable acres. It may change from 16.07 so.
Meyer: Okay, so we should direct staff to review that 16.07 acres. Alright. I have a note.
Mancino: Read my 34
Meyer: 34. I'm going to let you read that one.
Mancino: 34 %\ould read, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall work with staff to
develop a project design plan which specifies how the variation in architectural details,
incorporating the 7 building elevations shown on Sheet A3 and A4 of the plans prepared by
Whitman Associates Inc., as well as the variation in building materials as shown to the
' Planning Commission on 8 -26 are to accomplished.
Meyer: Okay. I'd like to add number 37 and this is one of your's too Nancy. About trying
i to, the applicant would work with staff to get an entrance along, which direction would that
be. The southeast corner of the park. To try to get a.
Aanenson: Yeah, between Lots 32, or building 32 and 56
Mancino: Pedestrian access.
Meyer: Okay. Let's try to integrate Klingelhutz development road access.
Mancino: The applicant wort: with staff.
Meyer: Okay. The applicant wort: with staff to consider the Klingelhutz alterations or
request for alteration of the road alignment. The applicant has made a request to revise the
wording of number 31. I think it's, I don't know if this would be Dave. Could you provide
some wording for that?
Aanenson: Just work with staff.
I Hempel: Just \pork with staff, yeah.
45
1
Plannlns Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Meyer: Okay. To revise the wording on that. And number 32.
Aanenson: Those are really the jurisdiction of the City Council. He's just raising them as an
issue.
Don Jensen: You can strike that if you'd like.
Mancino: And mine was to add that the applicant work with staff to look at changing the
setbacks on the east side of the property, on the north side of the property to allow for 30
foot setbacks on Lake Riley Road East. I'm sorry, not on Lake Riley Road East. Yes, on
Lake Riley Road East and North Bay Drive.
Meyer: Number 39. Okay. Anything else?
Mancino: Is them a second to the motion?
Skubic: I'll second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Peterson: Nly only discussion is the more I sit here, the more I can relate to Ladd's
comments regarding down the road. I mean I think it's clearly something we as a group and
staff have to wort: together on. I mean you think about it, it's scary. We're just asking for
1:00 in the morning meetings in the next year or two. To that end of my discussion.
Aleyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council g,.ult plelinlinaty apprvv, of PUD 1495 -1: Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) appruval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned
Unit Development; preliminaly plat to subdivide 52.1 nacres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and
associated right -of -gray; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero lot line homes on
19.95 acres; a va,i :uice for wetland setbacks for Lots 12 -16, Block 1 and Lots 16 -19, Block 2
to permit the house placement as shown on the plans; and a wetland alteration permit for
North Bay (pl :uls dated 4 /17/95, revised 5 /4/95 and 7/17/95, p►epaed by Pioneer Engineer),
subject to the following conditions:
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
Shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance 99 -1.
46
Planning Colllilllssioll Meeting - August 16, 1995
2. Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3 as an outlot. Lot 57, Block I and Lot 21, Block 2 are
unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space.
3. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings, provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for
Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2; increase the number of evergreens to a minimum of 20
percent of the tree plantings as required by ordinance; and incorporate additional
evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor.
4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory
installation of the landscaping.
5. Revise grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage
floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
�j 6. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should
be dons prior to Issuance of any building permits.
7. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East.
8. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before
beginning their construction.
9. The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary sediment
basins, Type III erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site restoration. The
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion
control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
10. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in
accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and
City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat approval.
11. 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 per sign.
12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance \\Iith the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
47
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD /development agreement with the City and provide
the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the PUD/
development agreenlent.
14. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commisslofl, Health Department, Nlinnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities alld po►lding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be
a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right -of -way.
18. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands
shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
19. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
proposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. The proposed IllUlti- fallllly residential development of 16.07 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $47,808.00. The staff will review
the uuulbe►• of developable acres. These fees are payable to the City prior to City filing
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
the final plat. Credits will be applied to these fees after final review of the construction
plans.
21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
22. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. The
applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary easements for grading outside
the plat. All site grading must be Completed prior to street construction.
23. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be relocated
in Conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to vacate the
existing utility easement once the line has been relocated.
24. Final p ll plat approval shall be Contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the first
phase of Lyman Boulevard /Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project 93 -32B and
r MnDot approval of the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall also
dedicate the required 80 foot wide right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard prior to the
finalizat of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and horizontal
alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to City and MnDot -State Aid approval.
25. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading
with seed and disc- mulclied or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be
completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one
model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored
in accordance with the wetland restoration /alteration permit.
26. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes:
a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A.
b. Provide Outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman Boulevard
to the wetland mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and from the mitigation
area to %Wetland Basin A.
c. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all wetlands
anti mitigation areas.
49
Planning Coll missl011 Meeting - August 16, 1995
d. Provide a temporary sedinlent basin on Lot 57, Block 1 in or near the proposed
irrigation house between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1.
e. All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and /or silt fence until
the streets are paved and the site fully revegetated.
f. Revise grading plan to have rear lots drain through to front yard areas on Lots 4
through 31, Bloch I inclusive versus the swale along the rear lot line.
g. Add catch basins on new driveway access to apartments.
h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets.
i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west property
line.
J. Include a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots that are not adjacent to a
stormwater pond or wetland.
k. Use city standard detail plates.
1. Pruvide utility stub to vacant parcel which lies south of the apartments.
27. The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and drainage
easement over the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel lying north of
Lyman Boulevard and ternllnating where the full 60 foot wide right -of -way begins in the
plat of North Bay.
28. The applicant shall provide a temporary barricade at the end of Lake Riley Road and
include a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future ". A condition
shall also be placed in the PUD /development agreement acknowledging the intent to
extend Lake Riley Road ill the future.
29. Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The
applicant may choose which side of the street to restrict parking. The city will adopt
the appropriate resolution prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory signs.
30. Starr :uul the ahpawit sh,l11 woit together on the appropriate woix1ing regaixiing the
applicant and /or property owner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessments associated with city public improvement Project
50
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
93 -32B including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the
assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
31. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
32. Dedication of Outlot C for park purposes. This dedication to be a condition of the
granting of planned unit development status.
33. Piio►• to iil►al plat app►oval the applicant shall wont with staff to develop a project
design pkul %Which specities how the variation in architectuinl details, ineolpotafing the 7
building e1r�'Atiuus shown on Sheet A3 And A4 of the plans prepared by Whitman
Associates Inc., as well as the variation in building materials as shown to the Planning
Couuuissiun on 8 -26 are to accomplished.
34. The applicant shall install a waterniain along Lake Riley Road in accordance with the
city's feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Project 93 -32B. The city
shall credit the oversizing cost back to the applicant by means of a reduction in their
assessments for project 93 -32B. The oversizing cost shall be the difference between an
8 inch line and the proposed 12 inch line based on fair market value.
35. No improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a
conditional use permit for a beachlot is approved by the city.
36. The applic :wt shat look at putting a pedest,ian access to the southeast corner of the pant
bets %'een building's 32 and 56.
37. The :tpplic.ult N oiii with staff to consider the Klingelhutz alterations or request for
allenition of the road Alignment.
38. The applic :wt ��'ui1: with the staff to look at ch:utging the 20 foot front y�trti setbacks to
30 foot i'runt yard setbacks on Lake Riley Road East and Noith Bay Diive.
All voted in fa%'ur, except for Con,ad Nrho opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5
to 1.
Mancino: Reasons for.
Conrad: I want to make it real clear that 1 can't vote for any project that down zones until
staff analyzes the ullpact on the need for the land as it was previous zoned or guided.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
(Cr-,%g Peterson left the urcetiug at this point and was not available to vote on the remaining
items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN AMENDNIEN`I" I'O THE CITY CODE REGARDING SEASONAUTEMPORARY
SALES.
Public Prtseut:
Nance Address
Vernelle Clayton
Cathy Gatlin
John Rask pivsented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Th:u1k you John. Any questions for staff?
Conrad: Where did the 5=100.00 permit fee come from?
Rask: I don't know.
Conrad: Does it co\ administrative costs?
Rask: It seems like a good way of discouraging temporary sales. It think too that is guided
for longer term uses. \Ve're not proposing on eliminating that. If somebody wanted to have
temporary sales or outdoor storage, that would be something that would take review by the
Planning Commission so that would still be left in there. You know for lawn and garden for
example. If they wanted to display things outdoor, they certainly could provide that type of
use. But those are the kinds of things we don't want in the temporary sales ordinance. We
want to review those separately.
Aanenson: Again, the way this was set up and the way John tried to do it is we're trying to
separate the temporary sales from outdoor display and that's kind of where it got gray. It's
something that's ongoing all the time. I mean there's certain things that have a longer life and
it just needs, John had put in here the 60 days. There's certain things that have longer
seasons. Christmas tree sales you know, 30 -45 days. But some things, just your sidewalk
sale on a weekend. That's the intent. That they be shorter and temporary.
Mancino: \V11y do we have it OI?
52
Planning Coil"" sslOil Meeting - August 16, 1995
Rask: That is schools, churches.
Aanenson: If a certain church would have a festival.
Mancino: Gotch ya. I know one that's in OI. Okay.
Aanenson: Well a lot of churches do that too. They have... and it's important to keep.
Mancino: Good. Do I have a motion to open this for a public hearing?
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. The public hewing was opened.
Mancino: I see people here wllo I'nl sure have something to say. You're here a lot this
week.
i Vernelle Clayton: ...dissertation on that subject. The subject of down zoning just two nights
ago so I'm glad to hear you tall: about it. And although I have to say..I think staff does need
some direction more than just requests because at the point that some of you have ... now
they're forced to spend 100 hours on it and bring it to you and the developers spends
$10,000.00 to $50,000.00 on it and everybody falls in love. I think something needs to be
done before the staff starts on it. And the Council, a couple of the members suggested that
they weren't really inclined to do any more down zoning of any type unless there was equal...
on some other piece that was presented to them at the same time. And I don't think, I
think ... idea. 1 thing: you have to ask Council for direction. Because your job is just to review
does it fit. We caul say...
Mancino: But the other part of that is, when somebody brings in something to the staff, staff
can say no. We don't want to do this and they can still force the staff to go through the
process. So that's the other side of it.
Vernelle Clayton: ...every time something's down zoned, something has to be up zoned. That
means before you start the process, everybody would know that.
Mancino: It would be so nice if life were that clean and I think that's why we also brought
up tonight that we'd be looking at some 1995 study areas in the south and some mixed use in
the other but it's a good.
Vernelle Clayton: ...to look at and right now there's nothing in place that says that she
doesn't have to spend all her tinge and everybody on here to spend a lot of time on it. It's just
an unfortunate situation that... Well anyway, that issue was brought up the other night... I just
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
wanted to say briefly on this subject that Cathy and I had so much fun working with the sign
ordinance that we did some more. This one has taken as long but speaking of fun, I think
that's kind of what we have in mind. We want to make it a simple, uncomplicated for
retailers as well as the staff. Not something that would waste a whole lot of everyone's time.
Not every retailer plans a long time in advance when they're going to have something fun.
This doesn't seem like it Would ... every other week. ...retail special promotions. A retail
center promotion and Cathy and I keep our...get something city wide going from time to time
so we'd like to encourage that—and John, thank you.
Mancino: Anyone else?
Cathy Gatlin: I think how it's outlined, I'm Cathy Gatlin, Chamber of Commerce.
Mancino: And your address.
Cathy Gatlin: 5036... Road, Minnetonka. The only thing I wanted to add, because I think it's
fairly clearly spelled out and it's just that this actually ties in with what the city's looking for
and that's to increase foot traffic and that was something that was discussed... earlier. The city
is planning and setting up walkways and purchasing things for foot traffic...
Mancino: Thant: you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Slcubic moved, Couiad seconded to close the public lieaiing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Ladd,
Conrad: It looks just fine to me. To go back to something I raised before, and it will
probably be out of context but under 6. Page 6. Temporary food and beverage sales, under
(b). And I go back to one thing I really like and that's something that Cub does and it's the
charity grilling. And they do it almost every weekend. And it's not obtrusive and it's really
kind of a neat little deal so what does our ordinance tell you about what we can, what they
can do if Festival or Byerly's wants to start the same thing.
Aanenson: Fell Vernelle is certainly very cognizant of this. When they came in for a PUD,
they weren't allowed to do that sort of thing and this is one of the areas that the Council also
had a problem with is having those things on every weekend. They, from my recollection
there seemed to be some support but it was for non- profit. But then they're marketing a
certain brand. Also a gray area. I guess we were trying to attempt with the Council's issue,
that wasn't a significant issue with the Council last time of having that sort of thing. Whether
54
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
they needed Girl Scouts selling cookies out there or as you say, somebody grilling every
weekend for charity. So we tried to temper the standard by making something the Council
would still consider this. If it's every weekend, I'm not sure it's a big issue but the Council
seemed to think so. But if you wanted to give a recommendation. Your recommendation
different than that, then we'll pass that on.
Conrad: I don't know. I'm not sure I have a real good. I think the intent of the ordinance is
pretty good. 1 think there just needs a little, I wrote on this thing. That was the only one of
the few things that just sort of stuck out. And I can't take it anyplace. I'm not sure so I'm
talking for nothing. Backing up one page. Required information and plans. Under (b). 3(b).
A copy of the approved site plan drawn to scale. So we'll accept a hand written. What will
we accept?
Aanenson: For the most part we have site plans on file.
Rask: Sure. Yeah, we'd be certainly willing to pull those up but I think for just about every
downtown establishment, we'd have a site plan and we have a reduced site plan for most of
them which ��e could copy and give to them. Otherwise, I mean if they want to go out and
count parkin,, spots, I nlean we I think have a fairly clear idea of how many are there.
Conrad: Okay, so N/larket Square conies in and we're going to have a sidewalk sale. What
do they have to do?
Rask: Provide the plan. We'd certainly, if it's going to be just immediately in front of their
store, and it's not going to obstruct the walkway, they're not going to take up any parking
spots. But say... Bicycle wants to sell, take up 4 or 5 parking spots to put out some bikes on
display on the weekend. I think we'd have enough of a feel of Market Square, and there are
some additional parking spots there anyway because Festival had put some in for their
expansion area. So we know there's extra spots out there. 5 isn't going to create a traffic
hazard at Nlarket Square so. But if they wanted to put up a tent and have a huge bike sale
with 200 bikes and they were occupying a large area, we'd certainly have to look at it closer
and see what the, llow malty they're occupying and what's required and go from there.
Conrad: So ul Sorlle c ases you won't require anything and then in some cases.
Aanenson: It depends on the scale. You know if someone's going to block off the sidewalk,
there is for example at Market Square there is an adjacent property where they're going to
expand where the remaining area is and that's an appropriate place for some of these things
like Christmas tree sales because there is a large. But if you're going to put it in the middle
of the parking lot, then we have a bigger concern so again it depends on the scope of what it
55
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
is. And the longevity. If it's Christmas trees, you're going to have a lot longer but that tends
to be more weekends and nights. A bike sale may be more concentrated so it just depends.
You have to kind Of be flexible on these things and I guess that's what we're trying to build
in here is a little bit of flexibility.
Conrad: The wording didn't seem flexible. And I looked at this thing...
Aanenson: Right, what we do is we loot: at Market Square and we say please draw in here
where you're Intending to be so we have some idea what we can hold you to. You know how
big is it. How big is the use going to be. What kind of additional parking that would
demand.
Mancino: That's what it said to me.
Conrad: Flexible?
Mancino: 1'es.
Aanenson: Try to get an idea of the scope.
Mancino: I mean just the feel...
Conrad: A copy of the approved site plan drawn to scale for the property. That doesn't
sound real flexible to me so if you had a different. If you all read it a different way, that's
fine. Kate's interpretation is real good. That's absolutely where we want it to be.
Mancino: We can put in parenthesis, pick up from City Hall or.
Aanenson: Sure, and that's the intent. We do have most of them. And the ones we don't, we
would scale off. If you're going into a vacant piece but it has acceptable curb cuts. For
example the Legion site. I'm not sure that we've got a scale building there but if they were to
draw S011lethlllg up shoXwing we're going to be back 200 feet, just so we know for the safety
items.
Conrad: I'm not picking.
Aanenson: We don't want the registered land surveyor to come out.
Meyer: I think what lie's saying though is it's saying that it is required and that maybe it
should say that it may be required.
56
Planning C01111111sslon Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: It could say. It could say, staff may require.
Aanenson: Okay, that'd be fine.
Conrad: Based on scale.
Aanenson: Sure.
Conrad: That's it. That's a good ordinance. I like it.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Looks fine to nle. I don't have any conlnlents.
Mancino: Do we have to put in anything about non - alcoholic beverage sales? Or is that just
given?
Rask: I think that's covered in, I don't know what Chapter it is but the chapter that deals with
liquor licenses and so forth.
Mancino: A question about you know Holiday and those stations right now that have all their
stuff outside. I Mean-
Aanenson: That falls into display.
Mancino: Display? I saw a car just rant into those salt packs and all the salt's all over and I
said to the person, you know \vho was managing the Holiday store. I said you know you
may want to move those. Maybe that's trying to show you that they're not in the right place.
Aanenson: That really goes back to our ordinance about outdoor display and that's something
that's more a code enforcement issue. We have certain businesses that by nature tend to do
those sort of things. 1 think gas stations are one of them. When they put the windshield
washer fluid cut and stack it or salt or something. But that doesn't fall into here. That's
really outdoor display which is an enforcement issue. It's a well taken comment.
Mancino: The only comment, I think this is fine. The only comment that I have that I would
like to pass on to Cathy and Vernelle is that, I would love to see the city of Chanhassen
either retail center or as a city do something. I could care less about individual retailers. I'd
like to see it done Where you put up the banner and you say, September 15th through the 17th
57
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
is Octoberfest Days and you know, you close one end of Market Square and the another one
and you tell people where to park and it's open and you can walk and it's everybody because
we don't do anything as a whole city and I would dearly love to see that a few times a
summer.
Cathy Gatlin: We're working on that committee.
Mancino: And so people know and that you get the city, the community together because I
don't think, I mean to me that's the intent of this. To get the whole community out. The
individual retailer. That's not the same community feeling. So I would really support that
and put that in here somewhere. That you do want it.
Vernelle Clayton: ...February Fest. Do something and like we have banners down at Market
Square and everywhere else where there are banners. All over town the same banners go up
and they ... but they should be all over.
Mancino: %V(:Il and it's, I mean obviously it's like I'm using the example of an Excelsior.
You get people once these trails are in and we vote for the park referendum to come down
their trails and come to the city and come in. Don't bring your cars. You don't need to bring
Your vehicles so there's not a parking problem and you know, get on your bike or walk,
whatever. Anyway, so I don't have any other comments. Mike.
Meyer: Either do I.
Mancino: Nlay 1 have a motion please.
Conrad: SUre. I'll make a recommendation that the Planning Commission approves,
recommends approval to the City Council. Do we have any numbers in here?
Aanenson: No.
Conrad: I'll just make it real, the Temporary Sales Ordinance.
Mancino: As it stands?
Conrad: As recommended and dated something or something. That we see here tonight.
This one's a tough one to pin down but as presented to the Planning Commission on, what's
the date? August.
Anenson' 16th.
W
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: 16th. \With one slight minor revision and that is on 3(b). That the copy of changed,
and I really listen to what staff would like to word it but to work in some flexibility in that so
that maybe, staff may require based on the scale of the event and the rest of the copy but I'll,
and the rest of the copy as already presented in 3(b).
Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment to that. It's something I forgot and it's on
6(i). It says no public address system shall be audible from any residential property. Why
don't we just say there shall be no public address system? Do we really need one for this?
And just put there shall be no. I mean what would do a public address system?
Conrad: Oh you've g if you've got an event, you could have a speech.
Aanellsonl Cllr lStlll:lS 111USIC.
Conrad: YOU Could have a stage.
Mancino: \Well that's not a band. A band isn't a public address system. It's a speaker system.
Conrad: 1Vell literally it's the satlle thlllg.
Mancino: Is it?
Conrad: Yeah. And typically they're smaller units. You're not setting up for a real rock
concert but if you're on stage, you cannot tall: unless you have a PA. You can't. So even a
minor event. N'linor you know, you do need something.
Mancino: And then we have hours in here then? Then we limit the hours that people can
hear?
Aanenson: That's (g). Hours of operation compatible with adjacent uses so. If there's
residential next door, you ]chow. Evening. Sunset. Whatever, depending on the time of the
year. Maybe 10:00 Sllllllllers. 6:00, 7:00, 8:00 in the winter.
Mancino: Okay, cross out illy friendly amendment. Let it stand as it does. Do I hear a
second?
Meyer: Second.
Coin.,(! nlo% Nle er seconded tll :lt the pl.ulning Commission neconunend that the City
Council adupt the T S :des ordin.uue amended on item 3(b) to ►-ead that the staff
59
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
may request a copy of :ui approved site phis is the scale of the event warit-wits one. All voted
in favor of the notion wid the motion canied.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated August 2, 1995.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: Nothing was in your packet on the City Council update, being as they met on the
14th. I think I'd just as soon wait until I can articulate it a little bit better. I don't have
anything in front of me to go through all those and there's some, I think I wouldn't do justice
if I prepared something for you to review such as Southern Oaks and Gestach and those
subdivisions. Vernelle hind of spoke to one of those. I think I'd just as soon wait for your
next meeting. Bob was there, unless he wants to update.
Skubic: Well as you mentioned, I think Southern Oaks was one of the topics and that was
tabled. And the City Council brought up one of the same points that we did, and staff did
previously and \drat the domino effect of changing the zoning and the fact that these
highways are in fact more suited for industrial uses. Buffer areas and so forth. So they were,
it was quits consistent with what we had discussed at the planning meeting.
Mancino: City Council also approved, or told the park referendum task force to go ahead
With purchase agreements. Trying to get purchase agreements on some property for park
acquisition. And what else?
Aanenson: The one on Dogwood was on. They approved that. They did allow them to
delay the ill1provements to the street until the first building permit is pulled.
Mancino: If there was an intensity increase. I
Aanenson: . -I'll certainly put all the updates in. '
Mancino: Okay. Any ongoing items?
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: Yes. I did put in your packet the State Planning Conference and I was hoping
that maybe Craig or Bob or Mike would have an opportunity to go to these. There's
Thursday and Friday there's the opening. Excuse me, planning foundation ones by the DSU.
I think those will be very informative and give the Planning Commission the opportunity to
60
Planning Colllllllsslon Meeting - August 16, 1995
maybe go one day or the other one...I hope one or two of you can go. Please let me know
and we'll male arrangements for that because there's a deadline on the back for reservations.
August 24th.
Conrad: So the city would pay for what?
Aanenson: The city would pay for that, yeah. Diane's speaking on, Diane Desotelle, our
Water Resource Coordinator is speaking on, the next level of our storm water plan. The next
level of \- vatershed, or water planning is the watershed and that's what we're doing with the
Bluff Creel: so she'll be speaking on the watershed Bluff Creek plan with someone from
Bonestroo. "That's on Friday. But let tile know if one of you can go within the next.
Conrad: The city ��Ill pay...
Aanenson: Yes. Yes, there is money in the planning budget. Yes, I think it's important so if
you do have the opportunity. It's another way to meet other planning commissioners and talk
on very specific things...
Mancino: Is there a linlit on how many people can go? You'd like a couple.
Aanenson: Yes. 1'd like at least a couple. Let me know. We'll work something out. We'll
see what we can do with some transfers. And then the other thing I put in the packet is from
the Metropolitan Council updating the livable communities. I'll be going to that at
Minnetonka City Hall next Wednesday and getting an update on what the implications are as
far as that. On Wednesday, we are a member of the Southwest Coalition. There's a group of
Committees In tile southwest and we're meeting on this bill, they preliminarily put together a
list of committees that are not rneetlllg the goals such as diversity of rental. Affordable single
family lot size. They've taken all off the 1990 census which really, since 1992 is when we've
seen a lot of these other projects come in so I think we're looking in better shape that what
they put us. \ \'e're not needing anywhere except for, actually our lot sizes, density
requirements \ \'e are sleeting the goal there.
Mancino: Say that again. %Ve are meeting our lot size and density?
Aanenson: Yes. In our sector. In our sector. The ones are Minnetonka, Shorewood,
Greenwood. Those have larger lots and they don't have the waters and those situations so
that's the one area we are sleeting so we'll look at the implications as far as that goes and I'll
get back to you on that after the sleeting and see. Then we are plugging away on just as far
as ongoing penis. Tilt', watershed and park task force. Nancy brought you up to date on that.
That has been back to the Council and they're going forward with that. We had a first
61
Planning Commission Nleeting - August 16, 1995
meeting on the watershed. Bluff Creek watershed and the next meeting on that, if anybody is
interested is September.
Mancino: September 24th. Something like that. Or l4th.
Aanenson: 14th, correct. September 14th. Yes, on a Thursday and so we're getting that
kicked off. And so there's some exciting long term planning going. We did get back the
rough draft with all the changes to the Highway 5. We'll take that to the printers and
hopefully in your next packet you'll get the final document of the Highway 5 that the Council
adopted with all the changes incorporated in that. Then that will be going up to the Met
Council. We're not bringing that area in the MUSA but all those zoning changes, the land
use designations have been made so we'll be sending that up. Just to let you know of some
other projects that are coming, that we've been working on. You're aware maybe, maybe not.
Vernelle land of spoke to this, that someone has purchased the Gateway East property and
they're looking at turning that from industrial to a mixed use. They have an idea and they're
coming forward to meet with you. I've given them my recommendation and they want to
hear from you what your feelings are so they're going to come on in just an open discussion.
Conrad: Whst was }'Our reconunendation?
Aanenson: To leave it industrial. They want to do a multi- family project I believe. The
person who bought it does multi- family. Then there's interest in the Ward property you'll also
be seeim shortly, under the concept phase. You had the open discussion on that and I think
we're moving rn the right direction on that. And also the Legion site. We met with them and
they've kind Of put together, just tentative kind of layout as far as size of the buildings. Not
necessarily uses but parking and buildings. Sizes to get an idea of the density on that. On
both the Ward property and the Legion property, based on I believe the complexity and really
to make sure we do a good job and have Fred Hoisington give us some additional input on
those, just to make sure we're doing a good job on design. Those are two critical, last key
commercial projects in the city. We want to make sure we do a good job and I think if we
have an additional oversight on that one, it would be very helpful so I've asked Fred to give
us some support on that. So he'll be assisting on those. And I believe both of those will be
coming in. The Ward one probably in September and possibly the Legion, if not September,
October. Those are two, our last big commercial pieces downtown so it's going to be some
good reviews for the Planning Commission.
Mancino: I would like to see for us, and I don't know if it's a little work session or
something talking about the down grading or down zoning, etc. And everybody's so
concerned obviousl)' about property taxes and what's going to happen because of the lower
bond rating and everythinvty and 1 think that had a lot to do with it. I mean it's really perked ,
62
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
people's ears up, etc. But one of the things that we don't know in planning and that I thought
was interestin with the City Council packet, and I obviously didn't read or look at the whole
thing. Bob had it and I sat with beside him for a little bit and then saw the presentation, or
part of it, was that we were never presented the numbers. I mean how does it really affect
the city as far as tax base, etc. And yet when it's brought up here, it's brought up not only
different kinds of housing but also as a tax base. So maybe we need some, a work session on
that too. I mean how does it affect it? I mean the developer got up in front and gave a
presentation and showed how there really wouldn't be a difference in taxes compared from the
industrial site and how many square footage of industrial you can get on there versus
' $300,000.00 homes that they built. So what is it?
Aanenson: Yeah, but conversely what we raise in our report, which was asked by one of the
councilmenlbers too, is fiscal comparison. You would also look at the cost and cost for
single family is, there's other expenditures besides what the city's portion of it and then you
also have the school district. The implications of that. Just the general service level. Fire
protection. Police protection. All those costs raised. Those we didn't look at. I mean if you
look at just strictly taxes, there's no guarantee you can't hold someone to say, I'm going to
build a certain value. That that's what you're going to ge because we don't do that in our
ordinance to say you have to build a 5350,000.00 home. So there is ways you can do fiscal
impact analysis and to do a true One, you'd have to loot: at both sides and that was strictly
just looking at the revenues being generated. But that's something certainly we can look at
' and have someone come and tall:...
Mancino: Yeah, I mean I think it would be worth it. That part of it and just the planning
part.
Aanenson: I'd also like to tak all Opl)Ol'tlllllty to may be, we talked about this before. Maybe
meet with another conimrulity and just look at some other, maybe it's Plymouth. Just drive
around and see X,hat kild Of C0111mullity, what they're doing and what their vision is and just
kind of give ourselves a comparison. Sometimes it helps to check yourself against somebody
else to see what we're doing and it'd be an opportunity to get some there.
Conrad: On that dow zoning issue. I'm not really all that interested in the tax base. School
district affects my taxes immensely but.
Mancino: Two - thirds isn't it?
Conrad: It's just Ili.We. But you know, I'nl not looking, that's just one really. In fact we
would, as long as I've been here, I don't think we've ever talked about tax revenue for any
project on the Pl alllllnV� Commission or, and maybe that's an over statement but very seldom
63
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
do we really talk about revenue for the city. It's typically, and we've typically left ... on the
plan was, and this doesn't have to be real complex. I can see some real, there's no magic goal
out there but there are, we may feel that we do need 5% devoted for some use and every time
we take 1 %, Or you take a few percent away from that, maybe we've changing the mix and
maybe there is some impact and maybe, and that's really what I want to challenge staff to do,
make Lis to do. It's really, they've got to do it to make sure that we're doing our job because I
just, what I said tonight is really true. We ain't going to find. You know we're hitting a new
stage in Chanhassen. \Ve've never been there before. It's always easy when we only
occupying a quarter of the land use, geez. It didn't matter. We can always zone, you know
we can always find more of it. Well, it ain't there anymore. So now there is the mix really
becomes real valid now. The market has been driving it for a long time but now we have to
kind of say, well. We're limiting out and in the final way we want to look, how do we want
to look becaUSe we are, we're out. And that's why I'm raising the issue real strongly right 01
now. Wei LlSt ha% to say, well do we want any more industrial? Do we want, and I'm really �
concerned more about retail than anything else right now. You know do we want more
retail? Are we happy with where it is? Maybe we are. But it is gone and when it's gone, _
Your retail segment stops because it needs extra space to put that new growth part in and then '
the old part gets refurbished 10 -15 -20 years later. You know there's a little bit of a cycle in
there and we've got a lot of different little zones like that. Different uses where we've got to
say, especially on high density. Once we use it all up for lower density stuff, there ain't none
of us are going to be sitting here telling the neighborhood that we're going to start putting in
some low income, high density high rises across the street. That's just real clear. We won't
do it. So it's not as easy a decision as we make it because sooner or later it's going to come
back at us. Then it will be a real tough decision.
Mancino: Well I agree. I think that that opens it up every more. I mean that's, whether
You're down zoning or up zoning, we need to look at every spot. Every land that's guided for
soillethin and it may need to be changed from when the comprehensive plan was created in
1989. I mean things have changed in 6 years. Do we want to look at it and do a review of it
and say does it need to be changed in certain areas? I mean we haven't done that as a whole
exercise either. Because some of the foundations or assumptions that were made then, may
have changed and the community values may have changed.
Conrad: That's true. And there really wasn't any real ultimate magic in the beginning. I
know that for a fact because I kept saying why do we want this much space for that and
typically there wasn't a real good answer other than maybe, well it's on a collector. There
were other reasons that we put something there. It wasn't like we had set this terrific standard
for 70% residential because that's really what made a lot of sense. I never heard that. There
were obviously scarf at the time were looking at those but there wasn't really, you know, we
never had a real assurance that having 5% industrial was the right number. And maybe that's
64
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
not the right nUnlbzr. I don't know what it is but, and Kate's never going to come back and
tell us that either. she doesn't know but on the other hand, there are some really financial
implications for that and the other thing that really is sort of a revelation to me is, the
diversity is not bad. The diversity in this community is pretty good and boy, you wouldn't
have heard nee say that a while back. To Have people be able to work here in town is not all
that bad. To have commercial and retail here is really kind of neat. It makes for a neater
place, other than a residential bedroom con1111unity. That's sort of boring. And I don't know
how many people subscribe to that. I have no idea.
Mancino: It depends if it's next to them or not.
Conrad: Right. That's the truth.
Mancino: But it's hard for nee to tool: at every single piece. I mean I need to look at it as a
whole and say, do we need to loot: at some of these areas and as they come in, as you said,
look at others that will take it's place... going back and taking a fresh look.
Aanenson: Well 1 guess the approach we've taken is, if we take that out, where do you put
it? It goes back to Lacid's premise. There isn't a lot of opportunities.
Mancino: And do \\ really need to put it somewhere?
Conrad: Well, �\e had it there because maybe a Minnetonka or Eden Prairie kind of had the
same percentage of land use devoted that way. Maybe.
Aanenson: \Fell, if )'ou go through the comp plan, there was some rationale. Whether you
buy it or not bUt the consultant that was, I mean there is some rationale for that mix and the
appropriate, ih you loot: at different mixed communities.
Mancino: But m,iybe our valUeS have changed and we want more of a use so let's try and do.
Aanenson: Agreed. \Vell that's the purpose of doing, the Met Council's or the legislature's
mandated that we update our comp plan.
Mancino: But you know mixed isn't just through high density or medium density. Mixed is
through different housing types too. I mean w hich takes precedent. Okay.
Conrad: When do We update the comp plan again?
I
65
7—
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Aanenson: Well, we have to have it updated again by 1998. What we're waiting for now is
the park referendum, to see what they're going to do and they're getting options on property.
Then we have some property left. We've committed to work on the business fringe, which
we're trying to do too. We've got the big chunk, which was the 1995 study area north of
Highway 5. That was accomplished with the Highway 5...
Conrad: Well 1 think our big decision will be when the former Opus project comes in and we
decide what we want to use out there.
Mancino: Well you get diversity also depending on which companies come in. I mean it
depends on what kind of company.
Conrad: Oh yeah. And you find that the other thing you find out is, a good company just
makes all the difference in the world. I'd change a lot of stuff for a good company coming
into town.
Mancino: Is there anything else we have to do tonight?
Aanenson: That's all I had.
Mancino: Adjourn. Anybody want to call for an adjournment?
Conrad nnoved, Meyer seconded to adjouni (lie meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15
P.111.
Submitted by Katz Aanenson, Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
66