1m. Planning Commission Minutes Dated February 1, 19951
C IANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' FEBRUARY 1, 1995
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT. Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts and Jeff
Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvma and Ron Nutting
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE
' 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD;
PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (46 UNITS - 13 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5
FOURPLEX BUILDINGS), AND 2 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
' CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN
RIDGE. GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY).
Scott: Prior to the staff report the applicant would like to make a brief set of comments so he
can get to a previous commitment, so sir.
' John Peterson: Thank you very much Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission.
John Peterson. I'm the President of Good Value Homes. Just for your, well I guess ... I have a
conflict, I have with me Derrick Passe, our engineer who works very closely with us on a
good share on this project and he knows the in's and out's of this better than I do so he will
be staying and representing our company's interest. Just a couple things. The reason I took
the liberty to ask for this early appearance is that we agree with the staff report in it's entirety.
' No. We agree with the staff report with one exception, and I don't know that it really is to
directly. I don't think it does. The Park Board recommended that we pay a park fee, a trail
fee and build the trail with no reimbursement from the city, and it is my plan to contest that
at the City Council level, and I don't believe that's... beyond what would be normal.
Otherwise the staff report, this is the result of a lot of time. Over a long period of time
between us, our engineers and surveyors and your staff and we are prepared to move forward
' with all the recommendations. Just one brief comment, the units, if you wanted to see a
similar type development. You can go to Eagan at the intersection of 35E and Pilot Knob
Road. South on Pilot Knob. It winds around a lake and then there's a lake on the left as
you're going south and there's a pond on your right and we have 29 units. Our model has
been constructed and we sold our first unit last night in that development and they are a
t similar situation in that we have a substantial number of walkout townhomes, in that case to a
pond. In this case to a wetland. But it would be virtually the same type of units. Have an
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
opportunity to stop and visit our model and you will get a good idea of what we've proposed.
The one unit we sold last night, the unit was sold for $169,000.00. There were some
additional optional features added on so that's going to be in the $170 range. We're
suggesting, we don't know all the costs involved in the construction of a collector street and
so on with this project, but we think we'll be offering a product between $120,000.00 to
$200,000.00. And the reason there's quite a wide range is some of these homes will have
basements in the walkouts to the wet lowland and some will be on grade and there's just a
natural difference there. And the values will also be quite different with a unit near the
collector street as opposed to looking out over the wetland area. So we're estimating at this
time $120,000.00. The square footage on the units is between 1,270 square feet and almost
1,900 square feet. I think it's 1,896. Each of the units will have a master bedroom on the
main level... So with that little bit, Derrick Passe from Passe Engineering can answer other
questions that you may have, unless you have one for me quickly. I mean not quickly but at
this point.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant?
Mancino: I do. On the recommendations, recommendation number 16. Do you have the
report in front of you John? Where it talks about your waiving all due process for special
assessments.
John Peterson: Yes. That's a question at this point inasmuch as the city does not have the
bonding capacity to do this as a city project. If we're going to do this project, we will be, we
and Betty O'Shaughnessy will be responsible for 100% of the cost for a very expensive
collector road that qualifies for MSA. Frankly it's going to weigh heavily on the feasibility of
this project but the bottom line is we, the city doesn't have the bonding capacity so there will
be no assessments for the construction of it.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Anything else? Okay, thank you sir.
John Peterson: Thank you very much.
Scott: Bob, staff report.
Bob Generous pmsented the staff mport at this point.
Scott: Any other questions or any comments from staff? Questions from commissioners.
2
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Harberts: I have one. Or two. I don't know who the appropriate person is to speak to. They
' spoke in the staff report about the frontage road and it's going to be some kind of a ... road or
something for the Opus, future Opus development or collector or something. Given the
density, considering the frontage road and the proposed future development of Opus, what
' considerations or were there considerations with regards to the traffic?
Hempel: This alignment for the frontage road is on the city's comprehensive plan. It's also
' been documented in the city's traffic study that was done. The Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. It has designated the type of road and the width of street to be built to
' accommodate the land use proposed. We feel that it's adequate to serve this neighborhood
and also the industrial park to the west. Opus Corporation will also have a right -in /right -out
onto Trunk Highway 5 which will alleviate some of the traffic from cutting through.
' Harberts: And that right -in \right -out was confirmed by MnDot then as allowable?
' Aanenson: They wanted, if I could just comment. They wanted a full access with a signal
and we said at a minimum, we didn't want, at a minimum it should be a right -in /right -out to
allow for those turning movements. But just to go back to comment, since it is a collector
there's no direct access from the individual units, which is feeder streets going onto that, right.
And then this alignment has been tied down based on the fact that the city is working in
trying to assemble a large passive park right through here so we did do some work to try to
' find the best alignment for this road based on the wetlands and the sensitivity. To try to get
it through the most, where there's the most upland and the less impact to the wetland but it's
designated, as Dave indicated, as a collector street and we believe that it will function to
' carry the traffic for both uses.
Scott: You know Bob with that, you mentioned the comment about, because of the density
' transfer that there's going to have to be a city ordinance change but I think I remember from
the, comprehensive plan change.
' Aanenson: Right.
Scott: How do you think that process is going to affect the timing of this development?
' Generous: The way he code's set u you can o forward, as long as the city says that they'll
Y p, Y g g
come back and make that amendment, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scott: Okay. Whenever I see amendment to the comprehensive plan I always go well.
' 3
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Generous: They're actually under the low density residential density. It's just procedurally it
has to go through that way and I don't believe the Met Council will put up a fight over that.
Aanenson: We've done one or two of these minor amendments for the Met Council.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah, I guess that may have just cleared it up. We're amending the comprehensive
plan? Normally when we do a PUD the point is to take a look at the entire site and we're
really only looking at a portion of the site.
Aanenson: Originally this came in as one big piece and then it got to be too complex so Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy, the underlying owner, is going to be coming in forward shortly with the
development, plan to the north. What we did under this PUD, why we recommended the
PUD, as Bob indicated, we're trying to get some area that, what we consider choice passive
park area to be left undeveloped so we're taking that density and transferring, which is the
only mechanism we can make that happen under is the PUD. So what we're doing is
clustering some of those units that would be in another area where we want to preserve trees
and interesting topography and putting those units over here. As Bob indicated, we're still
way under the density requirements at less than 4 units an acre so we feel it fits with that.
With the comprehensive plan.
Mancino: Well not only transferring for that but you can't get to that other upland area
anyway. There's no way for the developer to have access to that area, is there?
Aanenson: Well that was an issue. As far as.
Generous: They'd probably need a wetland alteration permit but if we left it in there, the
contention could be that they do have developable land and they have to, the city would have
to provide, allow them some type of a reasonable access.
Mancino: Or they could sell that piece of land to another developer west of them and add it
onto their parcel.
Generous: Well that's possible but there's still wetland fingers over there and there's a
wetland alteration permit.
Scott: The soils are pretty bad too.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Generous: Yeah, through some of the wetland area. But this is actually a nice upland
portion.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Conrad: So you're both very confident that Outlot A can develop, even though it's part of the
PUD, it can develop separately and what we do right now is not going to be impacted by?
Aanenson: We've seen a tentative layout in that area so we want to make sure that we're
consistent with the Highway 5 standards and we looked at that when this originally came in,
if you recall. The orientation of the buildings and again, the look from Highway 5 and Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy, who will be developing that, has been working with the staff. And actually,
as the applicant indicated, it kind of ties back together because they're going to have to do the
road together because as it appears now, the city won't be in a position to do this as an
improvement project. So actually what's going to happen is they're going to end up being
built together because of the timing of the road. So he can't go forward until the road is built
so, in effect it probably will be going together.
Mancino: But I have a feeling Ladd you're thinking conceptually, that you'd just like to see
the entire PUD and how it lays out.
Conrad: Typically that's what we like to see, yeah.
Mancino: Because it's very hard to see pieces and how it's all going to fit.
Aanenson: Well you have two things going on here. You have two different zones. Two
different land use densities for the comprehensive plan. So in that fact they could be
separate. And then the other thing is, we have been looking at it as a whole because we've
been working on the park issue and looking at the park issue, we've taken this as a larger
piece. Now it just so happens that you've got two separate owners that have different market
niches that they're going for. But we've looked at this in a comprehensive fashion. One, to
get the road through. And secondly, for the park issue. Trying to find what would be the
park design and what areas we would want to preserve. The tree preservation areas and
wetland enhancements. So that has been done in a comprehensive perspective for both
parcels and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy's aware of that. As well as Mr. Peterson. What areas we
want so some of those overriding things I feel like we have looked at. Yeah, you're going to
see two different products but they're both going for different market niches.
Generous: That's also why our recommendation is that the rezoning be only, to PUD be only
for this section. The remainder would remain A -2.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: I'd like to ask one last question on that, to make sure that I'm understanding it and
that is that what we're going to see next that comes in is Outlot A.
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: This is wetland. This is Outlot B, but is buildable too, correct?
Generous: Yeah, it's upland but there's some very severe soil problems on that.
Mancino: So when we see the rest of this PUD coming in, it will be for this and for this
area, correct?
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Okay, it's not just here.
Generous: And at that time I believe we'll go in. We're trying to negotiate the purchase of
that middle portion right now.
Mancino: Right here?
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: The city is?
Aanenson: Right, for the park. Right.
Mancino: I'm making it very clear.
Harberts: Could you again explain regarding the ... index in the comprehensive plan. This is
PUD division is subject to that approval by the Met Council? Did I understand that?
Generous: Yes, the land use map amendment would be subject to their approval.
Aanenson: Originally the break of the zoning fell in where the road, and we had to move the
road so it makes sense to make this and not break the project by artificial lines. When the
road moved up, or moved around based on the fact that we had to for the wetland, we felt
that was a natural break in the product, or the market. So we felt comfortable. And again,
looking at the densities, we think it's consistent. We're under the 4, which is low density. 1
to 4 units an acre.
0
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: Mr. Chair, is it okay? I'd like to ask Dave some questions but I can wait until we
have the presentation.
Scott: If you'd like to continue the applicant presentation sir. Go ahead.
Derrick Passe: The plan that I just put up on the board is the original plan that we brought to
you about 3 -4 months ago and it does show what was proposed for the other side of, we
prefer to call it a parkway rather than a frontage road.
Harberts: So do we.
Derrick Passe: We have been meeting with Betty O'Shaughnessy because she is interested in
developing the other part of her property and she agrees that she wants that to be a product
which is not the same as this but does blend in with this product of Good Value Homes ... and
we look at it as being a complimentary situation rather than a competitive situation because
they are looking for... As far as the parkway construction, we are putting together some costs
in here and we have a meeting scheduled with Mrs. O'Shaughnessy next week to go over the
costs for that parkway. One thing, the construction of the parkway will ... There's nothing that
we have done which makes it more difficult to develop the other side of her property there.
One roadway access which roughly corresponds to this access here. We are also working
with Betty in regards to construction of the ... for the overall project rather than one... I'm here
to answer any questions that you may have or questions that staff may...
Scott: Okay. Did you have some questions?
Mancino: May I see your drawing please of the. Can you tell us a little bit about them as
far as variations, what you can do architecturally and if you have samples of brick and siding,
etc.
Derrick Passe: Okay, the siding is all maintenance free siding. The colors are generally earth
tones. The three different units are, the end unit is, there are generally 3 different units. This
is the ... unit. It's a 2 story unit and it is one of the end units that is situated, it's approximately
60 feet deep, 2 car garage. It has a loft overlooking the, I take that back. It has a great room
at the rear. Optional 3 season porch and...
Mancino: And there are 13 of these townhomes, correct?
Derrick Passe: 13 buildings?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: 13 of the twin home or the townhome and is there any difference in their, you said
that there were 3 versions people could buy.
Derrick Passe: There's 3 floor plans. There are, the only unit that has to be one of the units
is the middle unit has to be a, what's called a Prescott and that is a two story unit and it has a
basement. A basement walkout. The other units are the Sterling, which is an end unit. It's
a two story unit with a basement. The first, the one I showed you is a rambler unit and
what's shown here has a basement or a walkout ... from the road, it has what we're proposing is
to use the rambler unit on the ends. The Prescott is just a two story in the middle. A
Sterling on the end. So there are three different types of units.
Mancino: Okay, but they're being sold as just two together, correct?
Derrick Passe: No. They're combinations of 4 and 2.
Mancino: But there's only 5 that are fourplexes, correct?
Derrick Passe: Right.
Mancino: And 13 that are twin units.
Generous: Twin units.
Derrick Passe: And that's because the middle unit is not generally the one that's sold. The
end units are the preferable. Everybody wants to have an end unit.
Mancino: Not a middle unit. Okay. And who are the demographics for this?
Derrick Passe: The demographics, usually it really varies. Most of the units will probably be
sold to empty nesters. People who have sold... The other type of...especially in this market
area would be young couples that are just beginning. Not a whole lot of families. There may
be some single parents. The rambler unit does...
Mancino: Can you kind of help me visualize, to the east here there are 3 or 4 homes that are
parallel to the development and then I see, it says retaining wall. What is that going to look
like? The back of these homes and then down in the development. How high is the retaining
wall? What's kind of happening in that area?
8
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
1
Derrick Passe: What happens on the site is the site slopes away from Galpin Boulevard all
the way down to the wetland. The reason there's a retaining wall, it's a narrow area and to
put the road in ... and what happened is, this site, the retaining wall in that area...
Mancino: Bob, have we heard anything from those neighbors that are abutting this property?
Generous: No.
Mancino: I know I stopped by ... and they didn't seem too concerned but I just wondered.
Aanenson: This is an area that Dave spent a lot of time reworking the grading. This is why
it got tabled a couple times. This was a sensitive area that we felt we could get a little bit
better on.
Hempel: We've gone back and moved the road actually further away from the property line
to get some buffer between this driveway and the existing homes and try to flatten the topo
out so that the retaining walls weren't going to be as high then. Plus retaining walls are about
10 feet off the property line. Before they were right adjacent to the property line so we tried
to soften that area a little bit better.
Mancino: Another question. As you so well described the retaining wall to me, can you tell
me a little bit about the feel, the berming and the planting along the frontage road because I
know that you're probably very concerned with the people who are going to be living here.
Can you tell me a little bit about how you see the berming happening there and what kind of
year round buffering those residents will have.
Derrick Passe: The berming is curving along the frontage road, or parkway. The end of the
units are all set back from the parkway at least 50 feet ... 2 to 3 feet above the rear of the...
parkway will be going down all the way from Galpin Boulevard to the north, to the west side
of this plat to the wetlands. The idea is to put in a berm there ... what's needed between to
shield most of the tire noise from the cars going by. As far as a year round screening, there
is a fairly substantial planting of both of balsam fir along that berm which will keep the
green ... year round. And if you're looking at the landscape plan ... visual .barrier through there 2
to 3 trees deep...
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Good, thank you very much. This is a public
hearing and can I have a motion please to open the public hearing?
Fe
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Comad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to
speak at this public hearing. So may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Diane, do you have any additional comments?
Harberts: No.
Scott: Okay, Ladd?
Conrad: I'm okay with it. Just one, for the engineer. One quick question I should have
asked when he was standing up but the exterior colors. What are the choices? You had three
designs to choose from but how many colors do they have to choose from? It was a siding,
was it a metal siding? Is that what you said?
Derrick Passe: I believe it's vinyl siding.
Conrad: Vinyl siding. And the colors offered are?
Derrick Passe: ...one building will be one color. The buildings will vary
Conrad: Based on the buyer's preference? I guess the only question I have would make sure,
and I don't dictate colors at all. I just want to make sure that colors are available. More than
one.
Aanenson: Well I think you should make that a condition. That there's a variety of colors.
That you want to leave it neutral but there's a mix of colors. We should probably add that as
a condition.
Conrad: That's all.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Dave, I have some questions for you on the frontage road and that is, I'm looking
at this from a taxpayer point of view. And I look at the frontage road and I say that the
10
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
developer is paying for or is funding the frontage road up to the wetland. Once it gets to the
wetland, the city, it's the city's because there was no benefit to the developer. Once it gets to
the wetland... state funding or different mechanisms which we pay for anyway. At that point,
and if we also buy parkland, it is for the city to fund, correct?
Hempel: There's other funding mechanisms out there I believe. With the industrial park to
the west, there may be capabilities including this area into a TIF district. By the time the
road is extended, there may be MSA funds available for it's construction. Those types of
funding.
Mancino: Well I guess my thought is, or my concept is, is that I would like to be darn sure,
if I were on City Council that, to know how much it would cost and how much it's going to
cost the city to go from where the wetland starts to where the developer on the west starts
paying again. You know how much that is and maybe it would be better to stop the road at
the wetland. Have that part of the whole park area and not continue it through the wetland
where it will be more expensive because of the unstable soils, etc, etc. So this just opens up
my questions of continuing the frontage road through, I would think a fairly expensive way to
do it. And I just throw that out to, I think it's something that needs to be thought through and
how much and.
Hempel: I can respond to that a little bit. The roadway alignment chosen there is the least
impact. The soil borings actually did show better soils in this area. Instead of 20 feet of
excavation, or soil corrections, I believe there's 10 feet so half the amount. I believe it's
pretty critical that the continuity of this frontage road be maintained to connect these two
areas for traffic patterns in the area.
Mancino: You don't think there could be, once you get to the western part, the right -in, right-
' out will do the trick? For that area over there and this area on the east side. Just use this
roadway.
Aanenson: Can I comment on that too? I think it goes back to the same discussion we had
on the north and that's the continuity of those local trips. We don't know when Highway 5 is
going to be upgraded. They say post 2000, and depending on what the Opus Gateway piece
does. We see this having the same connections. For those people that don't want to get on
TH 5, that just want to make a local trip, to go to the school, the residential area, or people
working in there, that they don't have to go back out onto TH 5 to make that connection.
Part of this, when we looked at it for park too, the Park and Recreation Director looked at
this road coming through as also an area where we see some of the marginal soils as an area
to put a parking lot area too. This would give us access into some of that area. Open it up
as a trailhead area too. I understand the sensitivity of the question that you raise but we feel
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
the continuity, just like on the north side for the local trips for people can take that traffic off
Highway 5 is very important when you look at this scale of development. And that would be
for mass transit, you know school buses, everything else to avoid that Highway 5 route so.
Mancino: And how does the Park and Rec feel about having a frontage road through a
passive park?
Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying. They want the trailhead that they've designed a
parking lot off of this road. So as Dave indicated, we had someone look at soil borings to try
to pick the best window to come through with that road and we feel like we've got that.
Mancino: Okay. Well I still would raise the question financially.
Aanenson: That's a legitimate question, sure.
Mancino: I just had a couple other questions. Bob, in recommendation number 2. You had
given how much the water quantity and quality fees would be. Of $21,997.00, $10,517.00.
When I look on page 8 under water quality, and water quantity on page 9, there are different
figures there. So I'm not sure which ones are correct or if I am reading them incorrectly but
on page 8 it says that the water quality charge is approximately $14,119.00 and on page 9,
the water quantity charge, connection charge is approximately $29,430.00. And those are not
the same that are in number 2.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, maybe I can address that. You're correct, there is an error
there. I believe the condition number 2 is the accurate figure but we can certainly verify that
to the text of the report and make sure there's a conflict.
Mancino: And there's also a conflict about developable acres. It says 9.2 whereas the, on the
other preceding pages it's 12.2. It's based on 12.2. The 6.9 is the duplex acres and the 5.3 is
the townhome acres. So that should be corrected. And I just had a procedure question on 18.
Recommendation 18. Is it true, I mean I hadn't realized this. That the applicant, the
developer provide sanitary sewer services for those three homes. It's not the city?
Hempel: That's correct. The developer will be installing the improvements in the site and
with each site we require the developer to extend the utilities to the next property line so the
property owner needs to extend that service to their property.
Aanenson: It's to the property line.
12
t Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: Okay, got it. Thank you. Because it says to the existing three homes and I
' thought, wow. Okay, so it's actually to the existing three property lines. Thank you. Part of
the Highway 5 architectural guidelines that I think we passed into an ordinance was that we
do request for those developers on Highway 5 to bring with them actual samples of
' construction materials and we'd like to see them and feel them and touch them and do all
those kind of things. I just kind of wondered where they were.
' Generous: I can tell you what John told me when he came in. He forgot them in his office
in his rush to come here tonight.
' Mancino: Okay. I would ask that they certainly be brought to the City Council so the City
Council can look at them and also with Ladd's comment, showing the actual different color
' feeling that you were going to be offering would be very helpful to the City Council. I have
one more question from staff and that is, the other suggestion or the, I don't know if it was
part of the ordinance on the Highway 5 corridor was asking for sight lines. Views from
' Highway 5 and we were going to ask for that for each development that comes on Highway 5
and we don't have that here again.
Aanenson: Well I guess we felt that, because the other one's probably going to block most
of this, but we certainly will with the next project. When this originally came in, we did
have all those perspectives.
Generous: We do have that under condition 20 that they provide that.
Mancino: Thank you. That's all.
Scott: Good, Jeff.
Farmakes: My apology. I came at the old time. I've got a couple of comments. There's an
awful lot of outlot space here compared to what the development is. I see we're being asked
two things. One is to look at this as it is rezoned to PUD. And this is a conceptual issue.
Not only are we looking at the spaces being planned for PUD ... in all practicality looking at
the entire issue as being PUD by the time it comes in here. I'm guessing. I don't have
anything to back that up but I'm assuming that's what's going to happen.
Aanenson: You mean the piece to the north being a PUD?
Farmakes: Yes.
Aanenson: There's a possibility, sure.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: Yeah. Anyway, I'm looking at this. Didn't we see this, we saw this once before.
Aanenson: Correct.
Farmakes: In various guises. I believe at one time it was a PUD in it's entirety, was it not?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: I believe we got hung up on the issue of what the development was like next to
the highway and we had some conceptual drawings... If I was looking at this as a PUD, for
it's entirety issue so we're talking about the highway and then we have several other issues on
how it fits into the criteria of what the city gets in return for the PUD. It's much harder to
see what that is now when they're taking a slice of that. What you're looking at is a piece of
it now. It's much harder conceptually for me to look at that and see what we're really looking
at here on that entire piece of property because only a slice of it is being applied for now. So
if we're looking where it says the use of a PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of
uses. Internal transfer of density, construction phasing and the potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectations
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and for more sensitive
proposal than would have been the case with another more standard zoning district. It's hard
to see that in relationship to the big picture with this small piece. So it's hard to see how that
relates to whatever else is going to be going around it. I don't particularly see within that
small piece exactly what the necessity of the PUD is from a design standpoint. Or what more
we're getting versus a traditional development there. Although is someone spell it out, I don't
see that there but it bothers me that we're looking at an overall large development that borders
the highway and then we have problems with that. I think actually when we set this corridor,
did we not, and the city put a hold on it.
Aanenson: No.
Generous: The developer did.
Farmakes: Okay. But anyway, if I was to bring this back, and we were having trouble with
that, well we'll just take a piece of that. We'll take a piece away from the highway and get
that going.
Aanenson: I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here Jeff, I think because you
came in late. There's two separate market niches that are happening here. That's why they've
broken it out. Now the city's not in the position to do the road so both developments are
going to end up going together because of the cost of putting the road in. One project really
14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
can't bear the burden without the other project going so in effect what it's doing, both projects
are going to end up going in together. But they're both addressing different markets so you
have two different developers. Two different markets that they're going for so they both are
coming in with different proposals so you're reviewing them separately.
Farmakes: But if it's the conceptual review, why would one go forward without having the
other one?
Aanenson: They just learned this in the last week or two. And he was supposed to be in a
couple of months ago. We tried to rework, tried to resolve some of the grading issues. That
was one reason. Then the last time he was one, actually over a month ago, he didn't show
up. Then last time the agenda was full so we bumped him off so now things has happened
and the city has gotten projects lined up, we realize that they're probably going to have to put
the road in themselves. So that time came together by forces outside of their own. So there
wasn't a hidden agenda to try to separate these.
Farmakes: No, I wasn't saying there was a hidden agenda. What I'm saying is for a practical
standpoint, without knowing what else is going to go around it, it's difficult to assess what the
city is looking at here for a PUD development. In other words, what are we getting in return.
This is maybe.
Generous: Well 10% of the entire chunk.
Farmakes: 10 %, so it's difficult to see the big picture is what I'm saying. It would be helpful
' if both, if there's another proposal out there for the rest of some of this property, it would be
helpful.
Aanenson: But that would have to go on it's merits itself. I mean you would have to review
that one separately on it's own merits, just like you would if we had two separate
subdivisions. You weigh them on their own merits.
Farmakes: I understand that, but this is probably the smallest PUD we've seen in here in the
last 4 years.
Aanenson: I don't think it's any different than you've seen on Lake Susan, Prairie Creek.
Farmakes: The Lake Susan issue was an older PUD and again that was a section, was it not,
but additional development section of some development that took place earlier. Or a second
phase ... but again, what I'm saying is, in looking at that just as a development by itself, it's
difficult to see what the city is gaining from a PUD. Going to line 6. I'm trying to
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
understand that provision. I understand the provision in there but when I read it, it doesn't
say much.
Mancino: What page are you on?
Farmakes: Page 5. The provision of housing affordable to all income groups is appropriate
with the PUD. Finding. The price of the for sale units that has not yet been determined.
Staff believes that these properties will be sold at market rate. How does that relate to 6?
Generous: This isn't affordable housing.
Aanenson: Exactly. It's one of the things under the PUD that may be affordable housing.
We're saying this one isn't affordable housing. We believe it's going to be sold at market
rate.
Generous: It's market rate and the developer presented that he's looking at $120,000.00 to
$200,000.00 a unit.
Farmakes: Is line 6 saying that we, every time we have a PUD we are looking at.
Aanenson: There's a laundry list of things and some of those are going to apply and some
aren't. And so what we do is we go through all of them and tell you which ones. I don't
think on every project you're going to get all of these issues. I mean some are and some
aren't.
Farmakes: But the revision that we did on the PUD requirement is not required there,
correct? That's what you're saying, a laundry list.
Aanenson: Not every project is going to have energy conservation on the units. Not every
project's going to be affordable housing, no. Not every project's going to meet all of these 8
items. So what we've done is the ones, we've gone through and put findings on the ones that
you meet that. Again, one we felt on this one was the parks and open space. The transfer of
density. We think that this is going to enhance this project.
Farmakes: The proposal is looking at coming in down the line would be how much
remainder of this property? What percentage?
Generous: I think it's like 13 to 15 acres of upland on the north side of the road and then the
outlot which the city is in the process of negotiating the purchase for. The wetland area. The
uplands west of the wetland.
16
i
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: So if you just took a rough guess on the percentage, if this is 10 %, what would
the remaining building...
Generous: 15% to 20% of the total land area.
Scott: You know if you look at this we're about, you say there's 90 acres we're talking about.
About half of that is non - buildable anyway because it's wetland so we're down to 45. Then
we've got 12, roughly 12 acres here. And we've got roughly another 12 over there so it's kind
of like, yeah the whole project is not a lot. I think of what's buildable it's 25% maybe.
Something like that maybe. Because I was looking at that too and I thought, well that's pretty
significant and then I think how much of it's actually buildable and then you're talking about
the city negotiating the purchase of some of the other area for a passive park. It starts to
whittle it down to really not a whole lot of property. But I share your point because
whenever I see PUD I always think of the same thing. What are we getting out of here?
We're giving someone the ability to transfer density. What's the flip side?
Generous: We're getting that permanent open space of that 2 acres and the parks department
is requiring them to build the trail without credit. Or that's their recommendation.
Farmakes: How many acres are yet to be developable on the remainder of that property?
Generous: Let's see, I have that. Well it's all of the rest of the outlots would be technically
looked at for development but it's only the portion in the northeast corner of the site that will
be developed, and that's between 13 and 15 acres. I don't remember the exact number.
Scott: So basically 50% of the non - wetland property. You start with 90. Cut it in half
because of wetland and then figure that we've got a 12 acre parcel and a 14 acre parcel, that's
basically all that's left to develop. So really we're only talking about between a third to a half
of what's actually going to be developed. It's going to be a PUD. Then shouldn't there be a
stipulation in there that somehow limits the amount of area that should be considered for
development?
Farmakes: No, I'm not saying that. First of all, I'm not against having this be a PUD. I'm
not against what the display is here or the applicant's proposal. All I'm suggesting is that
under the way that this is being brought forward, and the fact that the adjacent development
next to it and how it first came forward.
Mancino: They're splitting it in half.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: Correct. It would be preferable if we were looking at this from a planning
standpoint, to see all of it together. I realize there's a technical application. Having two
different applicants here but from a reality standpoint, if it's all under PUD, and we don't
know if that's going to happen but that's my guess.
Aanenson: It doesn't have to be a PUD. They can come in and do a straight subdivision to
the north. We can't force them. I mean I guess you can say, it has to be rezoned, or the
guide has to be rezoned. It's at A -2 right now. I guess you could deny it and say we feel it
needs to be a PUD but they could come under our straight subdivision up to the north.
Generous: R -8.
Conrad: Yeah we're not giving, Mr. Chairman, we're not giving up anything here. I think
we're splitting hairs. I'm not sure we're talking about anything that's real relevant. If we're
worried that the other land that's going to be developed has some missed opportunities
because it's not tied together, then there's some valid points. I think we raised these issues
earlier, or at least I did. Concerned with coming in with a small parcel when there's more
land but the Planning staff has said they're pretty comfortable with that. That's their job.
They've been looking at all of the parcels. The road alignment is pretty well set. So when
you take a look at the elements that we try to control under a PUD, it's looking pretty good
We still have the control on the Highway 5. Yeah, this is a little bit different but from my
standpoint, this doesn't bother me because again, if we're looking for what are we getting.
Well what are we giving. We haven't given anything, a great deal here in my mind. It's
zoned 4 to 8 units. We're not giving up anything. Staff feels it's administratively the smart
thing to do to put it under a PUD. I'm real comfortable with it.
Mancino: It's guided low density.
Farmakes: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about this particular
development. I'm talking about if we, in the future, get applications for conceptual review
and we deny them for whatever reason and those applications come back where 10% now of
that property conceptually has been redeveloped away from the problem area. Are we
creating?
Conrad: I don't think we're setting a precedent. I think we have, you have total control right
now.
Farmakes: ...something we haven't seen yet.
Aanenson: This project's never been denied by the Planning Commission though.
18
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: It wasn't part of the packet and to be honest with you I can't remember. I
remember that it came forward and there were some problems on TH 5 with this particular
piece of property.
Scott: Well there was also a problem because the first applicant that we saw here was
planning, for them to make the project work financially, they had to put some buildings on
that high land that we're now leaving open for density transfer. I think they were talking
about putting more units on and then there was a question of how do we build the road from
this section through the wetlands to access the other piece and I think there were some other
issues that the developer actually...
Farmakes: Well I don't think the issue that we were talking about at that point in time was
even an issue... talking at that time about how the issue was related to Highway 5. But
again... I just want to make sure when we run into these type of things that we don't get into
that because it seems to me ... the overall picture in relationship to those developments were
because often an applicant may have several developers within an area ... It's hard to see the
overall picture. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. In the motion, just as long as we agree
upon how many acres we're actually dealing with, I really don't have any comments.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, I just have one last one and this is one I just want to put on public
record I guess. And that is that I have no problems with this development but I do think that
it is one of these wonderful little areas that would be great for an area for the city to have
considered for affordable single detached housing. That it is across from the school that we
have. There are several demographics show there are a lot of people out there that would,
and need, affordable single family housing and I think this would have been a perfect spot for
it. So that is not what's being presented tonight. I'm just saying that.
Harberts: I could comment on that one.
Conrad: I might too. Go ahead.
' Harberts: I think we have to keep in mind that when you think about affordable housing, it's
not just a matter of putting in a cluster or collection of x number of buildings, detached,
attached, whatever and zero them in or identify them as affordable housing. I mean we don't
even know what that means. But I think there's opportunities within any subdivision to come
up with strategies to make housing affordable, even if it's a $200,000.00 average pricing.
You can buy down. You can finance or whatever. If there's different financing opportunities
that the city or someone. I don't know maybe the developer. I don't know. May be able to
L
19
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
look at. It's not just, I just want to make certain that you have to have a cluster of homes. It
could be 1% of the entire subdivision is targeted at whatever is termed affordable housing so
I think we need to keep our minds open. I don't know what the answer is, or what the
mechanism and how to achieve it but it's not just a matter of putting a collection of houses or
apartments or whatever and saying this is our affordable housing area. It deals with more
financing than it is the type of building.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with most of what Diane said. We don't know what affordable housing is.
Affordable housing is a $70,000.00 house and we ain't going to do it here until we figure out
how to do it here and that's why we asked staff last week, or a couple weeks ago to take us
through an exercise so we can know what it is. And I think some of Diane's points are real
valid. We really do have to figure out if we mix them in or if it's a zone. If it's going back
to houses with allies on 8,000 foot lots. Those are the options to bring. You've got to bring
the land costs down first and then the housing costs will follow. But you know the real
questions are, do we mix them? Do we separate them? What do we do?
Harberts: Excuse me Ladd. It might even be a matter of, and again I have no idea exactly
what the answers are. That perhaps the city's involvement may be the forgiveness or lesser
consideration of fees or whatever. Again I don't know what the mechanism is. I think the
opportunities are there but it's going to take, well it's going to take leadership from the
Council as well as some innovative staff ideas in terms of how we do it. So again it's not
just clusters. It's not areas. It's something, it's goals to be achieved not through areas but
more I think through the financing techniques.
Scott: Well before I ask for a motion on this particular item, what I'd like to suggest is, I
think we can make the assumption that there will be a mandate, an unfunded mandate of
some sort from the Met Council to do this so I think we can assume that. Number two, we
have the PUD process which allows us to get and give relationship with the developer so
perhaps this creative means of introducing affordable housing as part of a PUD could be that
what we do is we allow the developer density, increased density in exchange for affordable
housing. That allows the developer to help, obviously more density equals more money.
And then perhaps we could negotiate some other units and I also subscribe to the belief that
Diane has, that you don't cluster them together. It's something that needs to be spread out.
But anyway, could I have a motion please.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion with Bob's help. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development to rezone 11.4 acres
20
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Bob, you've got a
' sentence that you wanted to put in after PUD I believe.
Generous: For that property south of McGlynn Drive which is shown as Block 1 and open
' space.
Conrad: And the balance of the staff motion stands with all the staff reported motions, 1 thru
17 with an addition to 18 where it reads the applicant shall provide sanitary services to the
existing property lines of the three homes and the balance of the point of the staff report.
' From 19 thru 28, those items are the same in the staff report. Point number 29, a variety of
neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City Council along with the
proposed building materials for the construction of this complex.
' Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment and that is that staff review recommendation
number 2 to make sure that the costs are correct.
' Scott: Would you accept that amendment?
' Conrad: Yeah I would and I guess I'm just, not only cost but numbers in there. There were
some disparities in numbers. Costs and numbers but I don't want to make a motion. Well I
don't know. They'll fix it.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a second to the motion as amended.
' Mancino: Second.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Harberts: I do. I'd like the, and I don't know what the proper way to forward this to the
Council. If it's another motion or if it's just comments. That before any PUD comes before
' us, I'd like staff to be able to look at the PUD and be able to maybe identify some
opportunity for whatever affordable housing means. In terms of a trade -off. In terms of
maybe some forgiveness or lesser fees collected, I don't know but I'd like to send that
' message to the City Council. I think our opportunities are becoming slimmer folks and I'm
not, I don't have the magic answer but I'd like to see the next PUD with some type of options
or something, a demonstration in terms of what's going on.
Mancino: And that would include a definition of affordable housing.
' 21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Harberts: Yeah, I think we can certainly come up. I mean you've got the, you've got poverty
guidelines. You have the working poor guidelines. We know what the average wage in
Chanhassen, a majority of the industries can be. I think we can pull some type of general
understanding here. You know and I guess the real challenge is going to be to insure that
there's a mechanism in which that type of population that's being targeted really has the
opportunity to participate so. You know I don't think you can just finance. I think it's just
insuring that the opportunities exist for a good share of the people.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Is this an add on to the amendment or is this.
Scott: Well this is a discussion.
Conrad: I think that was a discussion item and I think that carried it's, made it's point.
Harberts: Yeah, I don't know how it should be carried forward to the Council, but I see Mr
Mayor's out there.
Farmakes: It's certainly a form of entitlement. Without knowing what that entitlement is or
how it's brought across, without defining that, how could anyone address the issue. It has yet
to be defined from the State level. Not from any want of anyone asking.
Harberts: Well but here's an opportunity that we can maybe suggest parameters in terms of
what affordable housing is just within our community because of what's here. In terms of the
environment. In terms of the wage scale. In terms of the land costs. Things like that. It's a
complicated issue I know but at least let's start looking. I know there's things happening in
Eden Prairie as part of a housing subcommittee so I'm just looking for I guess some way to
get the ball rolling because the opportunities are going to become a lot slimmer as these
developments move forward.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 11.4 acres from Agricultural
Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, for that property south of McGlynn Drive
which is shown as Block 1 and open space, and preliminary plat creating one Block with 47
lots, and two oudots and associated right-of-way for a residential low density development
consisting of 46 dwelling units consisting of 13 twin homes and 5 fourplex buildings subject
to the plans dated December 20, 1994, and the following conditions:
22
L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Depending on scheduling of the frontage road, the applicant may incorporate
construction of the retention pond into the overall development plans and receive credits
towards their SWMP fees. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event
along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with
pre and post runoff conditions shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval
prior to final plat consideration.
2. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity and quality fees
based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed
development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity and quality fee of
$21,997.00 and $10,517.00 assuming 9.2 acres of developable land. The applicant may
be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system or water quality
improvements they install as a part of the overall development in accordance to the
City's SWMP. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the
applicable credits, if any.
3. The applicant shall petition the city to construction the frontage road within the
development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site
improvements. The frontage road shall be constructed in accordance to State Aid
standards. Plans and specifications will be submit to review and approval by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid office. The applicant shall dedicate
to the city at no cost the frontage road right -of -way.
4. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the city receiving the necessary permits and
' approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for
extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel and awarding a bid.
' 5. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval.
' 6. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
' Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be
submitted to city staff for review and approval.
7. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City
and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents.
' 23
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
8. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house
pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. I
9. The applicant shall apply for an obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps
of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver County Highway Department.
10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far
as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile.
11. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing
will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion
control fence on the slopes and /or temporary sediment basins.
12. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within
the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and
subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in
conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
13. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street
alignment for the east /west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised
accordingly as a result of the State Aid review process.
14. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated.
15. The applicant must meet City, State, and Federal permitted requirements for wetland
alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed
project and the frontage road as one project.
16. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public improvement project
for construction of the frontage road including but not limited to hearing requirements
and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
17. The private streets /driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private
driveway ordinance for low and/or medium density zoning.
24
' Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
18. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer services to the existing property lines of the
' three homes on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall be reimbursed
their fair share of the cost to extend service to these homes when the parcels hook up to
the sewer system.
19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops/
' shelters within the development.
20. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
' preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway
5 towards the development and building materials, textures, roofing treatment, and color
schemes.
' 21. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
I 22. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot easement for tail purposes as identified on the
preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
23. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within
the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street
construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved
' by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
24. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
' and approval prior to final plat approval.
25. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that
' no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat
approval.
' 26. A ten foot clear space shall 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. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
' Ordinance Sec. 9.1. Fire hydrant placement shall be submit to review by the Fire
Marshal.
27. The canopy coverage calculation needs to be verified by the applicant in order to
determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan. The tree preservation plan
must be revised to accurately reflect existing tree canopy and proposed tree removal.
' 25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
28. A legal document shall be recorded combining the proposed 2.19 acres of dedicated
open space to Block 1 of the development. This document shall also specify that all
development rights for the dedicated open space have been transferred to Block 1 and
that no future development of the dedicated open space area, with the exception of
public trails, shall be permitted.
29. A variety of neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City
Council along with the proposed building materials for the construction of this complex.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mancino: Before Bob goes, I have a question.
Scott: Is this new business?
Mancino: Yes. Is now the time to speak?
Scott: Yes, this is the new business portion of the agenda.
Mancino: One of the questions I had tonight, and Bob you worked so much on the tree
preservation ordinance, is how long ago did we pass that? Has that been a year?
Generous: May.
Mancino: Just May of '94?
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Okay. At some point I would like to see the results of it. You know we pass
ordinances and we want to see what's the result of them. I haven't seen a woodland
management plan at all. I haven't seen, I mean it doesn't have to be where I go out to a
subdivision but I'd like to see what we are getting. What kind of woodland management
plans we are getting as a result of this ordinance.
Generous: I can show it. The Minger Addition does have one and you missed it. When we
did that presentation on transitions. The next set of slides was on tree protection.
26
Planning ommission Meeting - February 1 1995
g g ry
Aanenson: We were running late.
Mancino: Well I was there durin g the transition.
Aanenson: Yeah, but we ran late. But I think that's one of the things that we can maybe do
in our work session that we talked about maybe going out and looking at some projects.
' Looking at some of the management plans and then going out in the field and looking at them
to see how they worked.
' Mancino: Yeah, because I'd like to see those. If they're working or not.
Generous: The Minger Addition I believe is the only big one. Yeah, Coffman but those were
more written right into the development contract.
Mancino: But they're things that we never see here as a Planning Commission.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think we were talking about going out and looking at projects. Things
that we're doing, are they working? Are we spending a lot of time on something that we're
' not getting enough results out of so I think that was.
Mancino: Or does the ordinance need to be changed.
Aanenson: Sure.
Mancino: Changed, sure. I think the year anniversary date might be a good to look at it
because we have no idea what's going on.
Aanenson: Just on that same line. We are putting, Bob's working on the transition zone
based on the slides that we talked about and I think as we've gone through this, what we've
found out, if it's going to further define, and we say streetscape, and this goes back to what's
' excessive grading. What's excessive protection of slopes so we're coming up based on those
ordinances that we looked at as part of the transition. We're putting that together and that's
going to help further define. When we say streetscape, this is going to give a percentage and
' quantify that as well as those buffer areas. So we're planning on putting that on the next
Planning Commission.
' Mancino: On some of these things that we're looking at for the first time, we're going to
have some time review them? Come and ask you?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Aanenson: Right. We should have asked for a work session first. It was noticed but I don't
think we're going to get through it in one meeting. We don't expect you to. To take
comments and redirect us and that sort of thing. So yeah.
Mancino: I just wanted to get you before you left.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Scott: Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting.
Harberts: I thought we were noting them.
Aanenson: Roger's opinion was that it has the same bearing. You can always go in court
and say, but what I really meant was.
Harberts: Who said that?
Aanenson: The City Attorney's position
Scott: Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting.
Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 1995 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carved.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: On January 9th the City Council had the following actions. They approved the
extension of the preliminary plat for the Hiscox Addition. That's on Lotus Lake. They're
trying to get title cleared to go on that. They selected the southern alignment for the access
boulevard on Highway 5.
Mancino: I have some questions on that.
Aanenson: Sure. Let me go through the rest of them and let's go back to that. Okay, the
approval of the preliminary and final for the Cunningham Addition. I had preliminary in here
but it was preliminary and final plat. They approved the interim use permit for the
excavating of wetlands. Those are the ones that Diane had brought in. Those were further
clarified as far as, I think she did a good job explaining the smell and that sort of thing so I
think that Council has a good understanding of the scope of the issue there. And they
28
1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
approved the first reading of the amendment regarding the erosion control and grading. That
was to put the escrow, additional escrow in place.
Conrad: Oh they did?
Aanenson: Yeah. There was quite a bit of discussion about the financial but again, we feel
strongly as far as trying to get that resolved so.
Mancino: You know it was very odd, and I was at that meeting because you know how we're
all assigned to a specific meeting. Council meeting and I think a lot of the discussions on all
the points at that Council meeting, that particular Council meeting, were ones that we had
brought up as Planning Commissioners too. Well, now wait a minute. Sometimes people
come from different perspectives and it was very interesting to me that that's the tone of the
questions were exactly the same questions that we asked. You know I kind of thought, did
they read the Minutes but anyway. And it tells me sometimes how our thinking is and
whether we are in alignment at all or if they think things the same way. And I was just
surprised that it took very much on a lot of things that came up were the same discussions
that we had. And I don't think the answers were any different.
Aanenson: Now that the alignment's been selected, then we'll go forward with some of the
zone. There were some recommendations for modifications to the zoning ordinance on some
of those land use parcels and the 1995 study area. So the comprehensive plan will be
amended. So that will be the next phase to go through that process. You know we did adopt
an overlay standards but this would be another element to that document.
Farmakes: What mechanisms are available, they decided to go with the southerly alignment
once they go from Galpin to TH 41. From a practical standpoint, do you think that that may
come up again for discussion?
Aanenson: I kind of thought so. I think it's still a strong possibility. There seemed to be a
lot of movement to push it to the north. Again, staffs position has always been that if it's
been to the north, you're going to be able to get development to pay for it. Such as Lake
Ann Highlands. They're willing to build it. If it goes to the south, I'm not sure what the
' timing is going to be as far as that goes but.
' Farmakes: Well you know that I lobbied for the southerly alignment.
Mancino: You did?
' Aanenson: Yes.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: Well, just let me qualify that. Half. The other half I do believe should be to the
north so the reason I'm asking is.
Aanenson: It could still be brought up.
Farmakes: If that could still be brought up.
Aanenson: Yeah, at the next meeting. I think that was the issue too, and I believe that was
the Mayor that brought up that issue as far as when it gets to Galpin, staying north. On the
northern alignment over to TH 41 and that avoids Swings because right now you do go
through a significant portion of the Swings.
Farmakes: Okay, and there was some topographical reasons for doing that I think that weren't
in the first section.
Aanenson: Right. And there was the perception that those development parcels aren't big
enough to do anything but a lot of those are 40 acres and plus. We're seeing a PUD tonight
on 11 acres. That's plenty of room to do something creative in those development parcels I'm
talking on the west side of Galpin so. Just so you know, Lake Ann Highlands is going to the
City Council on the 13th. They're leaving their plat the way it is and they're just saying,
we're willing to dedicate the corridor to the south if that's where you've chosen it but our plat
still, that's still the project we want to go forward with.
Scott: How are they going to trans, because I think when we saw it it had the access
boulevard to the north.
Aanenson: Right. That would just become a local street.
Scott: So they're going to put it in anyway?
Aanenson: Well yeah. That was my point. So now we're going to have two streets.
Farmakes: Was there any discussion?
Mancino: There was no discussion.
Farmakes: About the issue of the development that was proposed by Mills?
Aanenson: They got up and spoke, sure.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: But the comment I read in the papers is that they're still envisioning taking a
position of some sort with development out that far to the west. As far as I know, up until
now there has been no vote. In fact the votes have all been whatever to zero that
contemplating any commercial development out there.
Aanenson: Correct. The land uses that we were looking at don't include large commercial
development. That's what I was saying. That would be the next component now is to go
back and implement the comprehensive plan. Or amend the comprehensive plan to show
those land uses that we looked at as part of that document. And we looked at, well you know
that was the other reason that Lundgren wanted the road. Lundgren Bros got up and spoke.
They wanted the road to the north too because that worked for their development because it
provides a nice transition between what they're trying to do with the continuation of the
Meadows at Longacres and the Woods at Longacres. The continuation of that. Then the
frontage road made a nice break and transition for a different product again between those
two frontage roads. So, I tried.
Scott: Okay. Any other City Council update items?
Aanenson: No.
Scott: How about Ongoing Items?
Aanenson: Okay. We did have our meeting with the Park Commission. I think that was
kind of exciting to see what they're doing. Again they're having their town meeting on
February 7th and you're all invited to go. They put ads in the paper.
Mancino: I didn't get to the Park meeting and I just.
Aanenson: What we did is we rolled out the aerial map.
Mancino: Oh, I saw that at the other meeting.
Aanenson: Maybe Joe, you were there or Ladd, you can tell them.
Farmakes: I had wanted to bring up a point and I was not able to get to that meeting but I
wanted to badly. I've been talking about this before. I had seen the surveyors going through
the property to the north and to the northwest, which is Prince's property. Going through
there. I'm wondering if what plans they're looking at or what at various times has been
shown as a park addition and preserving what is probably, as far as I know, one of the larger
stands of red oaks in Chanhassen.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Aanenson: I believe that was part of their, wasn't that part of their plans? I mean if they
could ever get it, they want to have the park go all the way around that lake.
Conrad: Right.
Farmakes: And currently there's a property inbetween the two lakes, at least a significant part
of it is not developable anyway but once you get to the other side it certainly is. It's premium
land.
Aanenson: Well that continues all the way down to Lake Ann. They want to get that portion
of, so the park goes around that side.
Farmakes: And then I think the last concept plan that I saw for it did show there was a
greenery element there that shot up towards Minnewashta Park and I'm wondering how much
of the, if that maintains as a passive preservation of that forest area. Or if that's seen as an
80 foot setback from the lake or something like that.
Aanenson: Well let me just tell you what they're looking at doing is they're trying to map all
the parcels. Put a wish list together of everything that they'd like to acquire or be interested
in and then they go down and they put a value to that and they come up with what they feel
like they can actually bond for and then they put a priority to those and try to purchase those.
Maybe the ones that are under the most pressure for development or most significant
environmentally or whatever and put that together. That would kind of be the priority for
acquisition. So they're not even to that point yet. Right now they're just going to go and see
if there's momentum to do this. Get a group that would kind of put that list together. So this
map was kind of just to walk and talk about areas that the Planning Commission may be
interested or just show kind of what we were doing.
Farmakes: Currently there are, and have been for decades, trails through that property. It's
not posted. Prince has not posted and if you walk around the lake, which currently the city
owns connecting to Greenwood Shores Park, those trails continue to the west to be unpaved.
But they continue through that forest area and then go back down to I think, is it Gorra?
Aanenson: Yeah, that would be Mike Gorra's property.
Farmakes: Yeah. It goes around the west and actually the city actually has in place. Well I
shouldn't say the city because it's private property but it's never been developed. It looks to
be in a pristine state except for where, I think it's Larsen who was the previous developer or
owner that owned the property back in the 60's, cut trails through there. Had a couple cut
trails through there and it's really premium, flat forested land. It's quite beautiful. But it is
32
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
pretty much left as it was. The mature trees in there. And it must be at least 50 -60 acres
worth of forest in there.
Conrad: I think the Park, they raised...
Farmakes: ...to the future, Lake of the Isles.
Conrad: Their point was, if they don't do anything now, then the opportunities are gone.
Farmakes: Well I saw surveyors in there. That's why I brought it up because once that's
gone, if the city envisions 10 -15 years the thought of having a walkway around that lake like
they do at Lake Calhoun or Harriet or whatever, it's not as if it was for taking I guess at this
point being that there are no homes within blocks of shoreline.
Mancino: What...?
Farmakes: Well, a wish list.
Aanenson: Just a couple other update items. Diane, tonight met with the Watershed District
to try and leverage them for more money for our Bluff Creek study. As we indicated, we've
got some from the DNR so we're really actively working on getting that. So I think that's an
exciting project and she's got a tight window on that. We hope to have something in place by
July. Actually have someone working to get a development plan so that's exciting. And that
really dovetails back into what the Park and Recreation is looking at too and maybe identify
some areas for acquisition and that sort of thing so that's exciting. I mentioned where they
had that transition zone to you. Next Planning Commission meeting and then just on
affordable housing. We are working, staff is working in conjunction with the City Manager,
working on a couple of sites that we've identified and meeting with potential people to put
some things together. I think that's exciting. The next step is, Diane will be presenting these
ideas to City Council to get some direction first so where the staff should be taking it and as
soon as we get that, then we'll be back to tell you some more information about that but we
are looking at it. I think Diane raises the point, kind of the direction we're looking at. There
are opportunities in every project that comes in and there's different ways to make it happen
instead of one big project. I think part of it too is when we do see a PUD, to try to
encourage some different types of products and that's again one of the thing of the PUD is
we're getting a lot of the similar product. It would be nice to have some variations.
Farmakes: I talked with our State Senator and he says that there's confusion as to what the
definition is. If we sit back and allow the State to decide that through the HUD funds that
they get from the Federal government, how or why or what.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Aanenson: We're not doing anything like that Jeff.
Farmakes: I know that but in the meantime, if in their wisdom they decide that they will do
a mandate as to what that will be, either funded or unfunded, what will that do to our own
initiated program?
Aanenson: Well I have to go back kind of what Diane was saying. We've always identified
housing to meet our needs. We've got 7,000 employees in this city. I mean there's a
different cross section of people here that work here and it provides an opportunity for some
of those people to live here and that's what we're looking at. What are those income stratus.
Working with the people that own businesses here in town to work with us to provide that
opportunity. To set up a Housing Board. There's some real exciting opportunities that you
don't have to get all these other jurisdictions involved in it. That we can be creative and do it
ourselves, but that's always been our goal and yes, there may be some pressure outside
making us do some of these things but I think a lot of it too is that we're trying to meet a
goal that's in our comprehensive plan.
Farmakes: So these would be privately funded then?
Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: So any issues of equity transfer then would be at the risk of the private institution
then?
Aanenson: There might be some city involvement as far as tax increment. Some of those
sort of things, sure. Or the County HRA, sure. And similarly like we're doing with senior
housing.
Farmakes: Well the humanity organization I know deals with the issue of the equity transfer
in subsidizing the mortgage on the house because that's the touchy issue that you come up
against. If it's an entitlement based on a monthly payment where the city remains in
ownership of the home, that gets to be quite an issue. Currently right now the money comes
from the County, which gets it from the State, which gets it from the Federal government.
But the issue of transfer of equity, if you're taking tax dollars and you're handing it out to
somebody, that becomes a real hornet's nest. Whereas the issue of the humanity, as a private
fund and they hold the mortgage. If they go sour on the payments, they're holding the bag
for them. That's a fundamental issue I think once they define what it is that the customer that
they're serving is. What that income is.
Scott: Okay, thank you very much. How about Lake Management Plan.
34
0
Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
LAKE MANAGEMENT PLANS.
' Kimsal: I'm Jill Kimsal, the Forestry Intern. Hi, thank you Mr. Chairman. As she said,
Diane Desotelle is at a Watershed meeting tonight. In the memo Diane put in your packet
' she kind of gave you a little background and update on the lake management plans we're
working on. Currently there's actually about three aspects to this. The newsletters, the
management plan and then we're planning to hold workshops on each lake. The most
currently update on all those things are, first the newsletter. Officially today we finished the
Lotus Lake newsletter. That was in your packet. We filled in all the blank spaces and had
' the final proof reading and stuff like that. So that's on it's way to the printers. We hope to
get that out in the mail sometime this month because that will also have on it the invitation
for the workshop to be held for Lotus Lake.
Mancino: Do you have to live on Lotus Lake to go?
' Kimsal: No.
Mancino: Are other people, who gets this?
Kimsal: Well right now on the mailing list for that are people who live on Lotus Lake or
have access to the lake. But we've continuously invited people to join on the mailing list in
all the city newsletters that go out each season.
Mancino: I think that's good because you send out a lot of general information here. What is
a watershed? A little bit about wetlands too that I think would help.
Kimsal: Right, right. So no, it's open to the public. We send them to the people that we
' think would be most interested at this point, and anybody else too.
Conrad: The purpose of the work session with the lakeshore owners is what?
Kimsal: Do you want to wait? I'll get to that.
Conrad: Oh, sure.
Kimsal: So the newsletter's going to be mailed at the end of this month. For all three lakes
' and on there we'll have the workshop date for each lake. And Diane and I had talked and
we'd like to suggest to you or encourage that maybe each of you could take an interest in one
of the lakes. Maybe one that's near to you and get on the mailing list so you can get this and
t the management plan and stuff like that. So if we could have all three lakes represented here,
35
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
that'd be great. And also tonight in front of you, you have the lake, Lotus Lake Management
Plan. This is the technical report that takes in all the data and the surveys we sent out and
kind of puts it all together. Talks about it a little bit and then suggests possible plans. Water
quality improvements and such that could be done on the lake. Either by homeowners or by
the city. It kind of incorporates everything into it. And along with the suggestions for
getting on the mailing list. If you choose Lotus Lake as the lake you want to be interested in,
or whatever, you can keep these managements. Otherwise I have to ask for them back. So
we have to still do a few things with those. The workshops are scheduled for March 20th,
21st and 22nd. For Lotus, Riley and Minnewashta respectively. They're going to start at
7:00 p.m. They're going to be held here in the Council chambers and we are going to go
over basically kind of a lot of stuff that's in the management plans right now. Just give
people a little background data on their lake. What's happening with it. What state is it in.
Go into more detail than the articles and the newsletter are in and bring up some lake
projects. We plan to invite people either, or, and from the Watershed District and the DNR.
Give them a little update and any relevant information that they're working on with our lakes.
And basically kind of just have an open forum after that for people's concerns, questions and
things like that. So that's where we're at right now.
Conrad: So how are they invited to that?
Kimsal: There's on the newsletter is a little blurb about when the workshop will be held. We
also plan to put things in the paper.
Conrad: And it says why you should attend?
Kimsal: It just says, on the newsletter all it says is that there's going to be a lake workshop
and to call the city for details. We figure either people will come or they'll call us and ask us
questions about it. We plan to put an article in the newspaper informing everybody.
Conrad: Yeah, they won't come. I live on Lotus Lake so, the best way to do it is to get a
hold of the President of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and get a calling tree
working. And the other thing is, if the smart thing for their association to do is make that an
evening. They've gone through some of these things so they know some of this stuff but
even when we talk about milfoil, some people aren't attending anymore because they say,
well it's done. It's in. Can't do anything about it. So more information probably is not what
they want to hear. But if the homeowners association makes this like their, they always have
a spring meeting, then you'll get a lot of attendance. So I'll take that one. Are other lakes
meeting that same night or is it just for one lake at a time?
Kimsal: One night.
9M
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Conrad: So the right thing to do, and I'll try to help a little bit, is make sure that the
homeowners associations get their calling tree going because they really won't attend a
workshop. They just, they won't do that. But if we also hold a homeowners association
meeting that night, then you'll get 30 -40 people here.
Aanenson: I think too what we're trying to look at is the bigger picture as far as the
watershed and talk about a storm water management plan. What things we're doing as a city
to try to improve that so we're looking at the bigger picture. But yeah, I think your
comments.
Conrad: You're selling but they're looking at what's in it for me.
Aanenson: Oh absolutely. It's an education thing...
Conrad: You've got to give them the benefits. You've got to sell them and hey, I've got
something for you kids.
Mancino: The teasers with the benefits.
Conrad: That's right. You know balloons. Magnets.
Mancino: A little packet of fertilizer.
Scott: Okay, we got that settled.
Farmakes: I have one question about the management plan. In the past our consultants told
us that the chemical runoff from lawn fertilizer was negligible to this problem. That seems to
be changing, or at least some of the things I'm reading...Is that in academia that's changing, or
what is it?
Kimsal: I believe so.
Aanenson: That's one of the things Diane probably, you might want to address to Diane.
Kimsal: In our surveys you know we ask people if they used lawn fertilizer and we only got
a 30% response from the entire lake but it was, you know the responses were scattered and
that was the highest response rate we got for any of the three lakes. But yeah, out of all the
people that responded, like 80% use lawn fertilizers and herbicides on our lakes.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: What I meant was, is that our original consultants that were working on water
issues on the stuff that I saw or when they came in for their presentation, and the question
was directly asked.
Mancino: When was this?
Farmakes: Oh this was 2 or 3 years ago. And they were asked directly what were the results
of bagging of leaves and what was the result of putting lawn fertilizer on because I'd assume
that that would be a big contributor and they said that it wasn't. It was a negligible issue.
Kimsal: That's what I'm trying to get at. Is that there are a lot of people using it and it is
changing. The attitudes about that are changing. You know your pollution in the lake, your
runoff, there's fertilizer, there's sediments from the bottom. There's development contributions
and those are kind of the big ones so yeah. It is changing a lot. We are concerned about that
and that's part of the one of the workshops is teaching people that this really does affect your
lake and think of it in the big picture rather than just your yard and what you put on it.
Farmakes: The reason that I got confused is that I understood that they had worked in inner
suburbs that are already mature communities so that lawn care would have been an
established situation. And if these are water engineers, I'm assuming that when they
discussed the issue, they were talking about percentages of contributions. When they're
talking, this would be prior to us doing the storm water tax situation. And it wasn't just that
we were an immature community and how much we were putting on but just the category
itself. And are you saying that that consideration is changing, whether it's here or Edina or
that category itself is being rethought out?
Kimsal: I believe so but that's one of those things where you might want to ask somebody
like Diane or somebody in the Watershed or the DNR. I'm just familiar with this community
basically.
Farmakes: Okay. Well it's interesting because we purposely did not address that issue. We
dropped it. We dropped putting any type of regulations or pursuing that in the discussion.
Mancino: I thought that was a given.
Scott: Do you have a motion sir?
Conrad: I move that we go home.
38
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
' carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
u
L
1
39