Loading...
2j. MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCH, REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Dave Hempel, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments under Council Presentations: deleting the discussion regarding milfoil and adding an item on conflict of interest. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Amendment to Section 19 -28 of City Code Regarding Sprinkling Restrictions, Final Reading. c. City Code Section 18 -57, Streets, by Amending (n) and (o) to include Standards for Private Driveways Serving R4, R8, R12, R16 and Non - Residential Uses, Final Reading; Approval of Ordinance Summary for Publication Purposes. d. Approval of Liquor License for Rotary Club, Fourth of July Celebration. e. Approval of Bills. f. City Council Minutes dated June 13, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 24, 1994 g. Landscape Easement Request, City of Chaska, Lyman Boulevard and County Road 17. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES (SONG PROPERTY). LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Mayor Chmiel: I pulled the Longacres for two things, and Kate I think you want to address some of that at this particular time as well. Kate Aanenson: Good evening. There are a couple of modifications to the recommendations for the conditions of approval. I handed you a copy of that. Condition number 1. It should read Lots 1 and 8 thru 10 as opposed to Lots 8 thru 11. Condition number 4, for trails. It was intended that the Galpin trail will be constructed in the street right -of -way except with 100 feet of the intersection. And condition number 8. Just a modification, for the first 100 feet from the center line of Hunters Drive. And we just had one other issue that we wanted to raise... There was a lot of discussion on the Song driveway. We are saying that we should modify the condition... access out onto Galpin Blvd. Access would have to be through, between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The other thing that, prior to making this as an acceptance, I'd also like one more condition put on this. Is that the certification by the PE be noted on all drawings that are required to go through. Have you received any of those as yet? Dave Hempel: These are not the final drawings Mr. Mayor ...work with the applicant's engineer... Mayor Chmiel: Alright. If we don't receive those, I don't want us to proceed on that until once those are signed because I would not accept them unless that's indicated. So with that, any other discussions on item 2(a), 1 and 2? Seeing none, I'll make the motion to approve it. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for The Woods at Longacres (Song Property), as amended by the City Planner. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Huntington: Good evening. My name's Tom Huntington and I live at 6300 Dogwood Avenue. The north side of Lake Minnewashta. I'm representing the Minnewashta Heights Association, which I am President of that organization. The matter has to deal with is Eurasian Water Milfoil on Lake Minnewashta lake and this past annual meeting that we had within and amongst our members, the matter came up as a site of concern about whether or not we should continue to have our raft out on the Lake Minnewashta area due to the fact that there were so many weeds. The motion was actually made to get rid of the raft and just sell it off because the weeds were so bad out by our property and so that got many of us thinking and a lot of discussion going on and we decided, let's just table that motion altogether and deal with the real problem and that is milfoil on the lake. A member, Randy Schwoers and myself had gotten together with Diane Desotelle last week. We had a meeting of homeowners and associations in the area and there were about 40 of here last Thursday. What we'd like to do is get the city involved in helping out with this matter and helping to maintain and eventually come up with a solution for the milfoil on Lake Minnewashta. I know it's a concern for other lakes in the area of Chanhassen too. It's time to do something with one of our most precious resources, the lakes around the area and what we'd like to do is, it seemed to be a consensus of the members that were present, the 40 people or so, that 24D would be the best solution to handle and maintain the weed... Does everybody have a copy of this? Councilman Wing: I'll explain it. We just received it. Tom Huntington: Anyway, we understand there are some city funds that are available to be matched I guess by the DNR. Some of the things that we thought needed to be done was not only to help maintain the lakes but do a better, deal with controlling the public access too that's going into Lake Minnewashta. I know if you get in there early in the morning, there's nobody there. There's launching of boats coming into the lake and out and I think it's, the source of milfoil I think has from public transmission from other lakes and we need to do a better job of controlling that... Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if I may. And Tom, if you want to just remain. This was on the Council portion later in the evening and perhaps it'd be appropriate right now, just to go over very quickly and perhaps get this on the next agenda. Diane would be prepared to formally address this at this time. Minnewashta has reached the point, a survey was done this week that I participated in was found that the total area, which is from 2 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 15 feet into shore, which is the main blem for the milfoil and Lake Minnewashta is approximately 75% ' Pro PPro Y saturated at this time and the band runs anywhere from 100 to 300 feet wide around the entire lake. And in fact on the east side, it is in fact choking off the entire eastern quarter of the lake. When I say choke it off, it's ' unsuitable for sailboats or any motor boats or any type of motorized navigation of any kind. And they feel it's going to continue to get worse and the neighbors can no longer get in and out of their docks, in and out of their beaches. Their swimming rafts are no longer usable. The water ski course is infested to the point where the , skiers are falling as they come into the course because they get caught up in the weeds. And the consensus was that they'd like to see it sprayed. The issue was, we can only do 15% of the total area. which isn't much because I want in front of my house done and so on and so forth. And anybody that's pulled a permit this year, you have to do that, takes that 15 %. So what we don't know is what the solution is. The chemical 24D ' apparently does work. There are some people very concerned about the chemical versus the weed. And the green pages, pretty well spell it out. What it is. What we can do. What the options are. So what Diane would like to do is, with the DNR present, and Minnewashta Heights and the lake associations present, and remember I ' state only for Minnewashta but we have Riley, Lotus, and all the other city lakes that would be included in the program and Diane's thinking and also money. A full explanation of the problems and solutions are the green pages and Diane had requested that this be formally placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting where it could be discussed a little more formally and the solutions discussed. Tom Huntington: One of the activities that's going on right now too is we are going out and asking homeowners in the area would they be willing to get involved in helping to treat and provide funding to help fund the program. Obviously it doesn't get done for free and we know there's some city money out there but... get the job done, we have 4 different people on different parts of the lake going to homeowners on the lake to see who wants to participate. ' Councilman Wing: This treatment will run $300.00 an acre and there's very few homeowners that haven't stated that they would pay for the 100, 600 foot section in front of their house. It's the other areas that the city would become involved in. So money might be in good shape. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. As Richard has indicated, it will be on the next agenda and discussions can be done at that particular time. Thanks for coming in. Milfoil is no fun item. I know that much of what's , being done, even in Minnetonka and even harvesting or trying to harvest it is presenting more of a problem in itself because you don't get it all and it starts growing right back. Each little piece that goes grows unfortunately. So something has to be done but what's the solution, we'll find out. Thanks. Anyone else for I visitor presentations? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REQUEST, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. ' Steve Kern: Good evening. My name is Steve Kern, I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen and ...given 2 weeks ago of our concern about the assessments for Bluff Creek trunk sewer system ... on May 21st. I did get a copy of the attorney's final review and thoughts of the situation as it took place legally, etc and even though the letter sounded awfully definite with their rough figure saying this amounts to roughly $7,760.00 and $10,200.00. The word roughly turned into an additional $10,000.00. But we feel for the future, for the people who come in interested in buying land in Chanhassen, and approach one of your officials upstairs, that there shouldn't be any—or include a sheet of paper to talk about the variables in the process, the developers in the assessment area, x amount of control and so on. But in the presentation we made 2 weeks ago, at a visitor presentation, what we were hoping for some discussion by Council, potential resolution to assist us through next year because it was such a shocker and myself as being accountable for it, I presented it to the congregation. J 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 The numbers are dramatically different and so we tried to illustrate a new number ... but a $10,000.00 figure for a small group is going to be a tough one and ... make it happen. So we're asking for a little relief in the interest in ' the next year... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess as Roger has indicated, I don't know the process that we've gone through in ' creating relief on those kinds of situations. I think it's something that will have to be taken under advisement. I think basically the Council is provided the information technically by law as to what we can or we can't do. I don't believe there's anything at this particular time, Don unless you have something. Don Ashworth: I think Roger would have to address that. Roger Knutson: It's your ... revised by the city an estimated assessment of $17,000.00 was correctly given. The developer came in as part of the platting process and said we want a portion of the assessments... and the developer, at that time, or the owner of the property had the right to do so... Steve Kern: We understand..thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Conrad Fiskness: Conrad Fiskness, President of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. I'll try to be very brief. I think you have in your packet two pages of information regarding Bluff Creek land acquisition. As you may recall early in 1994 we became aware of the fact that there was a very strong possibility that some land at the very lower extremity of Bluff Creek was going to be sold as a private development. We felt that there was great concern for what that might have impact on for the future and that the ideas that we've had and the city has had for doing some further studies and planning for that area, we as a Board stepped in and purchased that land to hold it in reserve for the future. I have with me tonight Cynthia Clish who has been a member of the advisory committee for the watershed district. She has helped us in many ways in terms of the public information requirements that we need as a Board and also as community relations and she has prepared things like the video that you probably have seen with regard to our watershed district... She also prepared for the Minnesota State... We had been talking about this and we wanted to, as a Board we wanted to make it clear to the city that we weren't trying to become land barons or any such thing. That's not our intent. Our intent is to cooperate with the city and at such a time as the plans get going for Bluff Creek, this would become park and parcel of whatever is done. I know that you weren't successful with LCMR grant and we have been talking to your staff people in regards to the possibility of using the basic water management capabilities that we have available... What we are here for tonight is the idea that if it's the Council wish, we would hold some sort of a press conference jointly to let the public know, let agencies know, that we do have this intent to work together and that that land has been purchased for that purpose. I guess I have four questions. Number one, you either agree with that idea in concept. Maybe you don't want any part of it. That's fine. We just wanted to be available ... if you're interested. If so, the date at which you might want to do that. There is a, in your packet we suggested a date for July 21. The agenda There was a proposed agenda there and then the last question would be, if we were to go ahead, are there officials from other agencies, the County Commissioners, legislative people that you would want to see included. So that's the extent of what I have to present. If you would like to ask questions... happy to answer any of them for you. And I'd think you would be simply waiting for your response as to whether or not to proceed in this... Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're saying is a combined effort between the city and the Riley - Purgatory, and I think it's great that you at least were able to come up with the money because it's about the only way we could 4 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 preserve that particular piece of property, and as you say, you don't want to become land barons and we realize that. That maybe at some time you may be weak and very ready to turn that back over to the city or something. Conrad Fiskness: Well that is the ultimate intent. Mayor Chmiel: It will be. Conrad Fiskness: When this plan goes through. We don't plan to hold it for... Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I realize that. But as what we had here, I was just reading that your request, your participation and the joint press conference, blah, blah, blah. Public demonstration of our cooperative efforts to preserve the pristine part of Bluff Creek watershed district. I think we left out one word, pristine because I think it is worth while for us to have that in there because it is one of the areas that we have that we have to preserve and we do have to take care of it. As far as speaking as the mayor, I would agree with it. I'm not sure what the Council members positions are but I would be more than happy to just go down the line and see if they would so be desirous to go through that process. But I do think too, that having the County Commissioner here as well as local representatives, to take part in this type of ceremony and I think it will be well worth while. Does Council have any position on that? Councilman Wing: I support. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Mason: Likewise. Councilman Senn: 100 %. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Cynthia Clish: I just want to make sure we check that date. Mayor Chmiel: 21st. Cynthia Clish: Neither Todd nor Diane can be there ... if that's okay with your calendars. Mayor Chmiel: I have that on mine. Councilman Mason: Is that a Wednesday or Thursday? Mayor Chmiel: It would be a Thursday. Prior to the HRA. Conrad Fiskness: Well we'll proceed and we'll ... thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES W , City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. Public Present: Name Address Jim Paulette DataSery Corporation Chris Dietz Mills Fleet Farm Stuart Mills Mills Fleet Farm Kate Aanenson: The background is on March 28th you looked at the EA document and the Highway 5 corridor. At that time we recommended that you adopt the overlay standards... public hearing on January 19th. I think you felt uncomfortable with that. Subsequent to that we've had numerous work sessions and I think that we feel like, based on the fact that you probably won't any ... until August and you have development occurring along the corridor, that we would recommend adoption of the overlay standards. We did notify those along the corridor that have interest. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 13th ... and January 28th. I didn't, I wasn't prepared to go through specifically the ordinance itself. If there are questions... Mayor Chmiel: Great. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to come forward if you have some concerns regarding the Highway 5 overlay district. And if you do, please indicate your name and your address and what those concerns may be. And who you're also representing. Chris Dietz: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Chris Dietz and I'm representing Mills Fleet Farm. Also with me are the board of representatives from Mills Fleet Farm, including Stuart Mills. We didn't find out about this public hearing until, they found out about it late Friday. I found out about it this afternoon. And it was, we were notified that it was a public hearing for Highway 5 corridor study and the EAW for the north access boulevard alignment analysis and review of Highway 5 overlay ordinance. When I met with my clients, the fast concern was, this is an important, these are all important issues to us. Can the city hold a public hearing essentially on 72 hours notice? And attached to what we received was a document that's entitled notice of public meeting. And then at the bottom it says published in Chanhassen Villager on June 23, 1994. When we contacted the Chanhassen Villager to see if notice had been published as a public hearing, found out, at least I had the individual check the newspaper for the last several publications. No notification had been given. I looked at the Statute, Minnesota Statute 426.357 Subd.3 which states that before a city council can adopt or amend an ordinance, they must hold a public hearing. And they must give at least 10 days published notice before the hearing. Based on that, it's our interpretation of the statute that you can't hold a public hearing without 10 days published notice. The City Council adopted an agenda and the public hearing was opened, we think that going forward is in violation of the statute. We would oppose that. Beyond that, what our concern is, is that we have serious concerns about the overlay ordinance. The corridor issues. The access issues and I'm sure that there are other members of the public that have concerns over those issues. We found out late this afternoon that what was going to be discussed at this public hearing was going to be Highway 5 only. We didn't know, nor could we know, until we came to the hearing today, what exactly was going to happen or what the City Council was going to consider. We're not prepared to respond to the issues at this point. We would request that the City Council reschedule the public hearing. Give the 10 days published notice so the public can participate and if the intent is only to consider the overlay, the Highway 5 overlay ordinance, then fine. So be it. We can come prepared for that and narrow our comments on that particular issue. At this point, not knowing what was going to happen, we're not in a position to comment on this. We would then request that the notice be published and that we be given an opportunity then to make our remarks. Thank you. R1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to respond and I'd like our attorney to address the issues that you brought up. Roger Knutson: The Statute 462.357 Subd 3 and it states that no zoning ordinance amendment thereto shall be adopted until public hearing has been held on by the Planning Commission or by the governing body. Or. It doesn't require both. You already had the hearing before the Planning Commission back in January. The notice is of a public meeting. This is certainly a public meeting. The public hearing... In addition, this is the first reading of the ordinance. You have the right to come back in 2 weeks... First and second reading is not required by State law. By your own general procedures. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Chris Dietz: Roger, I agree with the reading which should, of the ordinance. Or of the statute. I'm not aware of whether there was proper notice given of the January 23rd public hearing or what that was. All I know is that we received a document which says this is a notice of public hearing and gave the date and indicated that there were going to be four topics that were going to be discussed. We didn't find out until this afternoon that staff's interpretation and I would add the staff was very cooperative. Staff said it's our understanding that only one of those four was going to be discussed. It puts us in a very difficult position and that's why now we think that once the City Council adopted it as an agenda item, this was a public hearing. It needs to be a public hearing and it needs to meet the statutory requirements. Roger Knutson: ...notice, if you read, said a public meeting. Chris Dietz: I understand that. The agenda that we were given says public hearing. The agenda that this Council adopted said public hearing. Roger Knutson: ...the argument. Chris Dietz: Roger, I'm sorry Mr. Mayor. I don't mean to belabor this point. All I want is an opportunity in a public hearing to present my client's views on these issues which are important to them ... the City Council acts on the overlay ordinance. If the Council is not going to vote on the ordinance tonight, then that's helpful. We'll be back in 2 weeks but as a matter of procedure I think I have to make, state our position clearly so that it's understood Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You'll have the opportunity within 2 weeks to come back. Hopefully that will give you enough time to review your concerns and bring them back to Council at that time. Chris Dietz: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Jim Paulette: Honorable Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Paulette. I represent DataSery at 19011 Lake Drive East. After reviewing the Highway corridor overlay zone ordinance. I had a meeting with city staff. We concluded that we have a concern about the parking restrictions within the required minimum front yard setback. Especially, well as it relates to Highway 5 frontage but also, especially as it relates to the access road. Along Highway 5 we would like to see some front yard parking to allow better access to what probably will be the entry doors of whatever buildings are developed there. Along Lake Drive East, which will 7 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 more than likely be DataServ's development site, we would like to see unlimited front yard parking if we deem that it is the most functional design for DataServ. At the very least we'd like to see at least minimal front yard ' parking to provide our employees. We're going to a lot of second and third shift and we would like our second and third shift employees to be able to do the parking in front of the building rather than at the end of a dark parking lot. That's one concern that we have. But also we don't want the parking restrictions to determine how ' we configure our buildings. We'd like our buildings to be facing the street but we don't want our parking to be on the side of the building. Have all of the parking be limited to the side of the building. These are just a few of the concerns that we have. We'd like the Council to take some of those things into consideration when voting on this ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? This is your opportunity to address the issues on the overlay district. This is a public hearing. Hearing none, I would then Roger. If we're going to be carrying this over, I don't think we close the public hearing at this time to be closed? Roger Knutson: Yeah, it's just fast reading. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, fast reading and the second it comes back, okay. Good. So with that then I would request a closing of public hearing. ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any discussion? Councilman Wing: My only comment Mr. Mayor is just, having been on the ground floor of this and the issues discussed tonight discussed at length. In terms of design and quality and the direction we'd like to go, and then ' discussing the document in it's entirety, I don't have any changes or comments to make on it. I would tend to vote for first reading. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's extremely thorough and I'm happy with the level of quality that it insists on. ' There's a typo on page 14. Section 20 -1462, item b. It's just very, very minor. Where we spell out fifty but we put 5 in parenthesis. Other than that, I like what it does. I think we are going to probably, unfortunately, run into some conflicts with how we make it work logistically but that's the reason we're talking tonight. And this is the opportunity for any future developers to come in and state their concerns so. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael. Councilman Mason: I too was on the ground floor of just about all of this. I don't have a whole lot of questions. I do, I'm not sure if this is a fair statement for all of Council to make but on the background information, the front page it says that the only action taken by Council was a resolution supporting the southern alignment for the northern frontage road I'm not sure that that's a done deal and I don't want people to read ' that and assume that that is exactly the way it will appear. I think there will be a fair amount of discussion before that comes back. This parking restriction and safety issues, I think is something that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure I agree necessarily with Mr. Paulette but if there are some safety concerns, I think we at least need to take a look at that and lighting or sight lines or what not for how people and where people park. 1 a City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Kate, on page 7, number 1. It says each building shall contain 1 or more pitched roof elements. It won't bother , me if we don't have every building in this city have a pitched roof on it. Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time discussing that. , Councilman Mason: I know. ' Kate Aanenson: As you recall, we came up with the Target we had a parapet walls instead of the pitched roof. The Byerly's has a different treatment as opposed to Market Square. So what we ... basically the side of the building. Structurally we can't always put a pitched roof on so we ... pitched roof element. What we try to do is look at the different treatments and try to get that effect. So that was the intent of putting some ... and architectural features. Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. One other quick comment on page 9, H. It talks about colors shall be ' harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors, sharply contrasting colors may only be as for accent purposes. That was a tough one for me at the time and it still is. That's so dog gone subjective. Who will be the people that decides whether? I mean maybe a bright color might look nice. ' Mayor Chmiel: Bright purple? ' Councilman Mason: Well there were some people in town a few years ago that thought that was a pretty good deal. I mean what. Kate Aanenson: Ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council will review the site plan... ' Councilman Mason: Okay. I don't know, I don't think we need buzzard puke green and chartreuse and this, that and the other thing but things get kind of gray all the time and I don't think there's, you know I think that's , just something we all need to be aware of. I just throw that out. I'm not going to say I'm fond of this document but a lot of people spent a lot of time on it and I think it has the potential of making Highway 5 look pretty nice. I like it. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I had three specific elements that I'm still uncomfortable with. I think Michael's already hit ' all 3 of them. Likewise I'm not real comfortable with the subjective element of the color components. I'm not comfortable with the parking elements. I see that as really, I'm going to say, I see that as a conflict creator in the future. Hard and fast rule that I think is going to create some conflicts because when we end up with land ' uses on the other sides of the service roads, especially ones that are going to be residential and if those residential areas then come in especially before say commercial development on the other side, I think there's going to be some real conflict issues and considerations relating to the fact that this may say that parking should be on the highway side, but I think they're going to have quite the contrary opinion, and maybe not wrongfully ' so. I just, the way this is worded I think it is far too definite and it's far too restrictive. I think it can be worded in a fashion that it could better serve a goal that we're trying to reach but not just simply be a hard and fast requirement which doesn't leave a whole lot of leeway. The same comment applies as it relates to the , pitched roofs. Like Michael I believe that, I don't think every building in town has to have a pitched roof and there are a lot of very nice architectural styles which don't have pitched elements on them. And again, the language should maybe be, may contain rather than shall. And shall again just kind of, to me seems very I 9 � 1.1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 definite. Leaves no room for anything else and specifically those are the 3 I continue to have a problem with. From an overall standpoint. There's been something really bothering me on this overlay for some time and I honestly have to say I haven't figured out what it was until just last week and the thing that really bothers me about it is, is that there's a lot of really good points in this overlay. But if we think that then, I think this is a standard that we should address, set up and apply city wide. I don't think it's something that should be built just for Highway 5. And here's why. I think in effect what we're doing then, is we're as a Council basically kind ' of trying to legislate competition and I think that's unfair. I don't think we should be holding any business who locates on Highway 5 to a different standard than any other business who locates in Chanhassen. They should all be operating from an equal plane as far as I'm concerned Through the numerous businesses I own, ' sometimes it becomes very convoluted in the sense that you're trying to compete with somebody but then well geez, somebody allows them to do it with cyclone fence or a metal building and you have to do it with brick and fancy fencing. Well I mean hey, I can't compete on that basis because I have to charge a lot more rent or I have to charge a lot more money for the services or the products that my business are putting out because those ' overhead costs are all overhead costs that come back to business. And I don't really, you know as one person on this Council I'm going to say I don't agree with that and I don't think that's something we should be doing. And I think when we take this and say that Highway 5, whatever's along it you have to meet this standard and everybody else in the city can operate under a different standard, I think again that's wrong and I again, if the concept is good, if the things we've stuck in the overlay interest design wise and stuff makes sense, then I think it should make sense city wide and should apply city wide and not just be limited to Highway 5. And I'd like to ' see that really receive some more consideration and discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I agree to some extent. There are certain, definitely certain parts of this document that I would like to see apply city wide but other ones are not necessary to be applied city wide and I think if you're located along Highway 5 you have the one upmanship over your competition just by the fact that ' you get increased exposure. I mean so nothing's equal in business. There are lots of factors that go into determining how competitive you are, including building restrictions. But I would be, so I'd like to see this document approved and I agree with you, we should also look at certain parts of it that should apply city wide. But I don't want to throw away the document saying if it doesn't apply to everyone, it shouldn't apply just to them. Councilman Senn: I'm not saying throw the document away, and don't get me wrong. I really don't you know ' even like that as an inference. I think the document also makes sense and I think there's a lot of things in it that do. But I think if they make sense, then we should apply them city wide and I don't agree with you on your statement that just because you're on Highway 5 you have a competitive advantage. That's not true. Especially ' if you look at all the land uses along Highway 5. Some admitted will be a deterrent. I mean come on. How many people would just as soon live on a residential complex on Highway 5 versus off Highway 5? So I mean it's real hard to take blanket statements and say that just because you're on Highway 5 you're going to be able to demand a higher dollar. That's not true. But at the same time we're legislating in effect rules and procedures here that are going to require substantial dollars to be spent on facilities that a couple blocks away somebody doesn't have to spend the same dollars, and I don't think that's fair. ' Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point I don't disagree but again, I keep going back to my statement, which I always say, we have one time to do this right along Highway 5. And in and adjacent to it. If we don't do it right the fast time, of which some of the items contained within this document I think are going in that right direction, ' we're never going to get that opportunity again. And if it's a developer who's coming in who wants to do 10 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 those kinds of things, that's u to that developer. Of whether he wants to be within the community or not. I , g P Pte' h' mean that's your choice. Councilman Senn: Well Don, I can't see. Mayor Chmiel: And I can't see lowering the standards for a developer to from what we want or what we should ' see. What we want envisioned for the city. Councilman Senn: Again I'm not saying lower the standard. I'm saying what we should do is we should set the ' standard on a city wide basis rather than simply set it for Highway 5, okay? And I'm not talking about developers. I'm talking about the ultimate person who pays and it's not the developer. The ultimate person who pays is the business. Or the person who lives or works there or whatever, okay? And the ultimate person who pays is also the consumer, okay. And I don't think we should create a situation where we put ourselves in effect , or create an artificial marketplace and I think we can do that because if you look at these rules and apply them only in a specific area, they're going to create substantial costs over what are going to be applied in the other areas. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Listening to what Mark is saying here and Colleen's comments, it seems to me the ' thing to do would be to adopt this and then take a look at the other standards of development in the city, which I'm all for that. I don't think that we have, and I don't think any city has the same standards for everything in the city. I mean the standards for development in medium density are different than they are in low density. , Standards for PUD residential is different and I think that even the standards for the business district in downtown are different than standards elsewhere. So I see what Mark is saying and I think it's something we need to take a look at but I guess I would beg to different about the same standard approach. But yeah, if it means raising standards for development in the city, I guess I'm all for that. Well no. I want to take a look at it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I think this is an early argument and I think if we wanted to talk about this, I'd want ' my position represented with Bill Morrish and Barry and Hoisington because they had talked about this and this is the corridor study. The intent was to elevate as high as possible the quality and the performance of this ' corridor and to do it city wide, again I would agree with Mike and I'd agree with Mark. Take this document and spread it border to border. But the focus tonight and the focus in this is the Highway 5 corridor and there's no question that my expectations were higher quality and front line buildings and my expectations for buildings ' one half block away from this frontage is different than the ones that are on it. So I think we are setting a separate standard and I intend to do that from the beginning and I don't apologize for that at all. I don't think we're doing a thing to do with the competition. That's premium corners. That's like Wendy's wanting to be in the middle of a shopping center downtown. That's a premier comer. They're willing to pay to be there and ' they're willing to build a building they've never built before to be there. If we destroy competition, no. If we've got competition and we've got quality to boot so I don't, again I was part of this discussion so much earlier. I think the people that are there that can intellectually represent my position and opposition, I'd like to ' have speak at the next meeting if they're available. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Seeing none, then we'll carry this back over for July 11th. In 2 weeks at our next hearing that we'll have on it at the second reading. ' 11 1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 ' Councilman Wing: You're going to move on a first reading this evening? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: I would move the first reading. ' Councilman Mason: I will second that. Mayor Chmiel: A motion with a second. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the fast reading of the Highway 5 Overlay District Ordinance as shown in Attachment N. All voted in favor and the motion carried ' unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: As I had said the next meeting, this will be held at the July 11th here in the Council Chambers. ' AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM, PROJECT 94 -8. Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Wednesday, June 22, 1994 bids were received and opened for the 1994 ' Street Repair Program. A total of two bids were received with the low base bid being received from Allied Blacktop Company at $138,557.50. The bid package included two alternatives for consideration. However, due to the prices received, Alternative A will not fit within the budget limitations. Alternate B consisted of sealcoating and bituminous overlay repair work to the Kerber Boulevard trail. This work will be paid through park funds. It is therefore recommended that the 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94 -8 be awarded to Allied Blacktop Company with a base bid contract amount of $138,557.50 and the Alternate B trail work at $7,804.00. Allied Blacktop has previously worked within the city and performed satisfactorily. ' Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that sort of amazed me Dave, with all the companies that we sent out to, that we only got 2 back. Is that because the others are really busy? Or is there some reason why we didn't get ' additional bids back? Dave Hempel: I think the time of year and probably a little bit busier this year. In the past we have generally only received 2 or 3 bids. These two contractors are the two that we generally receive bids back from. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Ali yeah. Dave, I understand that part of this is for the trail. Is the other part to redo Kerber Boulevard? I don't know what the street repair program is. I mean is it for Kerber specifically? Dave Hempel: No. The other base bid is for numerous streets we have laid out across the city as part of the specifications. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. Or can I have a motion please? Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion. To award bid to, it's Allied right? Allied Blacktop for 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94 -8. 12 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second. Resolution #94.63: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the 1994 Street Repair Program Project No. 94 -8 be awarded to Allied Blacktop Company with a base bid contract amount of $138,557.50 and the Alternate B trail work at $7,804.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL ' OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION. Sharmin Al -Jaffa Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. This applicant appeared before you on June 13, ' 1994. You gave it conceptual approval. We requested that the applicant address the issues raised at the meeting. Several alternatives for traffic circulation were raised and studied by staff. As well as by the applicants. Based on the alternative that the applicant prepared, there are some conditions that we need to be deleted from the staff report. If you would kindly turn to page 7. Condition 4(b). Would need to be deleted ' regarding the turning radius ... According to the new plan, the applicants will be able to have a truck turn along, through the parking lot and onto Dell Road as well as a school bus. The second condition would be number 18. It would be deleting the first two sentences which would be adopting RSF designs and eliminating the access ' onto Dell Road to a right out only. Eliminate that portion of the condition but keep the maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. The third condition is number 20. This one, the City Council direct staff to investigate an east/west access point onto Dell Road. Engineering staff believes that this access is a better solution for this subdivision as a whole. However, if that option was implemented, it would extend the road ' through the todot and playground area of Kindercare which would potentially eliminate the project altogether. And then condition number 22, which would require the applicant move the building 40 feet to the north would also be eliminated because again, the turning movements have been adjusted to where a school bus as well as fire truck could go through. The aerial won't be able to go through but a fire truck would be able to go through. With those changes staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. If there any questions, we'll be able to answer. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything that you wish to address that we haven't already discussed? , John Dietrich: I'd just like to personally point out a few of the changes that we have gone through and some of the changes that we've addressed with the site plan and the revised site plan package that was submitted to staff with your staff report. The applicant, the Kindercare and the Press have put together this joint application and ' some of the major changes that we have done to the site plan have come through the comments and concerns from both the Planning Commission and City Council and we're very pleased to have tried to built in as many of those as we can so we feel this site and location is good for the applicant and will be good for the city. Ideally the change that we had talked about last time about closing off the southwest corner of the access to the , parking lot between the Kindercare and Press, with that we've increased the impervious area, green space on the site and feel we have eliminated that issue of the cut thru traffic so that access to the Kindercare will come down this central road and into the Kindercare itself whereas access and parking for the Press facility will be more self contained. We feel it's better, that was a solution that the traffic patterns are more clearly defined and that we agreed to put those in. In terms of other access points we taken and made the 30 foot radius corners and we'll put those according to the city standards and we've discussed the access with the city Fire Marshal in terms of 13 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 the type of vehicles that they will need to have coming through the site for emergency access and vehicle servicing. And we've also included that pedestrian access with a landscaped walkway and the designated ' crosswalks all the way through the entry access in the parking lot. The parking drive has been widened to 26 feet according to the staff report. In terms of landscaping, we have added additional plant material along this central island between the Press and the Kindercare and have made sure that we could incorporate that landscape buffer area of 30 feet behind the property line and to a distance back 75 feet so that the corner will have the ' opportunity to incorporate the landscape enhancement that is required by the city or staff and when the overlay district would occur. We have provided a landscape plan that we will be happy to modify in order to make this work with the entry ... chosen as an area. The landscape area down in the corner has incorporated a berm. ' Approximately 3 1/2 foot berm above the grade of the parking lot and it is up about 6 feet from the center line grade of...so essentially the parking facility will be screened from view as will the majority of the parking in the Press parking lot from the berm that is existing long the southern area of the Press parking area today. The berm will be extended to the east so that it will incorporate and that undulating area will be landscaped and.. irrigated. In terms of signage. Signage will be within the setback and will be at a point of setback and will have a brick face according to and matching the building. The building will be a complete brick structure along with accents, ceramic tiles and a pitched roof. John Finnemore from Kindercare will address the issues of the architecture in a little more detail and I would like to just put the, go through a couple of the staff conditions that we have issue with in terms of how we have arranged the site plan so that we may address those as your comments come forward. In terms of the staff recommendations and the items listed under number one, site ' plan review. The trash enclosure will be constructed of brick so that it will match the building and we will submit plans and details of that. The trash location is set back from the facade of the building so that it will be tucked up next to the western side of the building. Items 2, 3 and 4, we will fully comply with. Item (b) has already been complied with under 4(b). Items 5 and 6 we will comply with and condition and we submit the 10 year storm calculations to the City Engineer identifying the capacity of the storm sewer and the catch basin system that has been revised and submitted. Items 7, 8, 9 and 10, we will also comply with. Number 11, turn radii have been completed. Items number 12 and 13, we will definitely comply with. Items 16. We will submit the plans showing the current Press building at scale so that the Fire Marshal will be able to make their calculations for the fine hydrants and floorplans as necessary. Parking, item (b). Handicapped parking stalls have been provided on the site plan. At the Press, the handicap parking are located in the southwest corner with a sidewalk directly off of the stalls coming up the main entrance. At the Press, or excuse me, Kindercare. The two handicap stalls are located directly in front of the building. Item number 17. Rooftop equipment will not be visible. Item number 18. The number of parking stalls. Based on Kindercare's experience in developing this facility across the country, they have the opportunity to handle anywhere from 175 to 200 children and their ' parking demands are greater than the requirement as established by the city of 33 parking stalls. Where they have can, they have built up to 50 -55 parking stalls. They feel the number that they need to effectively operate is in the range of 44 parking stalls and that is the number that we have put on the plan based on the city, based ' on Kindercare's experience with this facility and having to work safely and effectively. Item 19 will be complied with. Item number 20. The access road, as Sharmin had indicated, would cut through the play area if it was to line up with the access to the Press. We feel the access modifications that have been made in the southwest corner and allowing the turning movements to come into Dell Road so that it would be a right -in and a right -out only, will adequately service this Kindercare site while keeping the Press facility separated. Then would allow this northern area, future potential for use of the Press without having a roadway cut thru and disrupting the central portion of the site. We are looking to maintain this site plan as it is being presented. Item ' number 21, I'd like John Finnemore to address. Item number 22. The building to be moved, will not be moved 40 feet. Again, we're proposing that it be approved in it's current location so that it would allow this corner lot to function as designed with the ability to accommodate the emergency vehicles. And lastly, item number 23. The access between the Press and Kindercare. Staff had talked about closing off this access point here. We feel 1 14 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any questions? 1 Councilman Wing: Kate, or Sharmin? Can we go back to page 5, item number 22. It talks about the landscaping easement of 30 feet and the 75 feet to Dell and it states this condition has been met. So accordingly , you transferred it over to the approval. One thing I wanted to clarify is that because we don't know what the gateway areas are or how they're defined or even designed yet, I'm concerned that we have the ability to revise and set designs and obviously if it happens before the permit, I guess it's the developer's problem. If it happened after that case, I'd certainly consider it the city's problem but regardless, as a condition, and I'm not I 15 1 for the Press release and effective use of the parking lot, both these access points should remain along the central 26 foot wide roadway system. Once at this point it definitely comes into the Kindercare facility, whereas from here to the north and allows the circulation through the parking lot without taking everything through this northern parking lot into one road. And lastly on item number 2, Preliminary Plat. Item number 2(b). ' Dedication of public right -of -way. Based on the plat that is existing for the Press today, we are looking to re- organize and replat that existing property without going through and having the need for any dedication of public right -of -way. All access that would come down the central road would be tied into agreement between the , different parcels so they would have access rights pertaining to that central road but we do not see any dedication of public right -of -way for this site plan, or preliminary plat approval. John. ' John Finnemore: John's handing out some photos of a similar facility that we built in Texas. I don't know if they've made, if you've seen them before or not but ... I wanted to address the issue of the appearance of the building. Earlier in the meeting you were discussing your Highway 5 corridor study and one of the issues that you discussed was that you wanted all the buildings to have a peaked roof, which we, that's what we're , proposing. That is a peaked roof. And also, there was some discussion that the roof seemed a little too high maybe compared to the front of the buildings. We do have that roof at 4/12 pitch which is the least steep pitch that you can have a roof in the Minnesota area by code that can handle the snow load so we've got it basically as the least steep as possible. Also too, part of the reason why we have a pitched roof is that front entrance, the main multi- purpose room as you walk into the building has a cathedral ceiling and you notice on these photos with the skylights and the ceiling area. I think the photos may help in comparison to like an elevation drawing ' to show that the roof, when you look at an elevation you have a two dimensional photo or a drawing that doesn't show you the difference between that top ridge line and the front of the building ... set back a little more. We went and looked at the building down the road, that was mentioned, that had a pitched roof that was a little more attractive. I think that we basically, our roof accommodates a lot of those similar designs. We have a double facia along the building which is more attractive. We've got double hips on the building instead of one just large building and then inbetween those double hips we have the entrance area of the building which kind of breaks up at this point also. Additionally, we will not have any rooftop equipment. The other thing that's ' shown on those plans would be the vents which are not required by building codes, that they be there and we'll locate those to match the roof. And the shingles that we use are not just average... shingles. They are high quality, what's known as a dimensional shingle. It gives it a textured look and the color would be like a weathered wood so it wouldn't just be the real reasonable black roof. Finally, I think we're proposing a real attractive building for Chanhassen. This, of the 4 or 5 basic building designs that Kindercare has, this is our most expensive, our most attractive building. We feel we are going to be the entrance to your community so it's the most attractive building we have to offer and that's why we're proposing to go in your town. Additionally, ' at the request of the Planning Commission we did upgrade from our original design which was half stucco, half brick building to an all brick building. We've made that change. There are stucco columns around the building that have some color accents and there are some color tiles that have some accents and in all and all I just feel , we would make a very good addition... Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any questions? 1 Councilman Wing: Kate, or Sharmin? Can we go back to page 5, item number 22. It talks about the landscaping easement of 30 feet and the 75 feet to Dell and it states this condition has been met. So accordingly , you transferred it over to the approval. One thing I wanted to clarify is that because we don't know what the gateway areas are or how they're defined or even designed yet, I'm concerned that we have the ability to revise and set designs and obviously if it happens before the permit, I guess it's the developer's problem. If it happened after that case, I'd certainly consider it the city's problem but regardless, as a condition, and I'm not I 15 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 sure where to put this in here, I'd like to make sure that, if you are suggesting this may be a good idea. That we have the right to change the landscape being designed or make revisions as the Highway 5 corridor develops. Again, it may become our liability but I think we ought to have that ability to revise that plan. I think that's all I had Don, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm confused about well, a reckon understanding of what the difference is in the parking stalls. Why is there an issue with that? Where do we get our numbers from and where do they get their numbers from? Sharmin Al -Jaffa There is a ..that site. Our ordinance requires 1 stall per 6 children. The maximum number of children they can have is 200 and then we would require a maximum of 33 stalls. They're providing 44 stalls. The Planning Commission recommended that the number of stalls be reduced down to that 11 extra. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And I would suppose taking away the extra 11 would somehow provide some more green area? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. However, Kindercare states that they need 44 stalls. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What else did I have? Councilman Mason: May I, it's a question that pertains to that. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Sure. Councilman Mason: With the percentages of impervious surfaces and what not, do they still meet the requirements with the 44 stalls? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Kindercare does meet it. Councilman Mason: Thanks. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think that's the other, besides saying that I really do like the revised circulation. I think that works much better. Much, much better. I'm glad we worked on that. And I guess I have to make a point in saying we did, in talking earlier about the overlay district, before we even pass it we're already running into a conflict with it in terns of parking in front but there's an ample amount of green space in front and with the addition of the, I think it was the 6 foot berm and the landscaping treatment, it works so maybe we do have to go back and look at our overlay district and make exception because I think on this corner, it works nicely with the parking out in front. That's the only comment I have. Mayor Chmiel: Good, Michael. Councilman Mason: Kindercare's set back what, about 250 feet? From Highway 5, give or take. Sharmin Al -Jaffa Actually 190 feet. 16 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Councilman Mason: I was close. And there's going to be a 6 foot berm did you say? I Shanmin Al -Jaffa It's a 4 feet meandering berm. ' John Dietrich: Above the parking lot but the elevation of Highway 5 is down lower a little bit and the parking lot will be appearing. ' Councilman Mason: It will look ... sure. John Dietrich: ...berm from Highway 5. ' Mayor Chmiel: How much lower is Highway 5 in comparison to where this berm's going to be? John Dietrich: In terms of elevations, Kindercare is supposed to be at 926 floor elevation. The parking lot is , approximately 926. The top of berm, about 930. And then the Highway 5 is approximately a 925 -924 +. Mayor Chmiel: I was just thinking sight line as you're sitting in a car as you're going by. , John Dietrich: So the sight line from a car you will be looking at the berm and not visible... Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry Mike. r Councilman Mason: No, no. You know this has gone through a whole lot of permutations and a whole lot of ' convolutions and this, that and the other thing. Quite honestly I'm impressed with what I'm looking at here. I like the way parking issue was resolved. I think the berm with the landscaping with still the city to have the opportunity to put more landscaping in front there if we so desire. It looks nice. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? Councilman Mason: No. ' Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Mark. Councilman Senn: Just one follow -up question on Richards. The easement out there pretty much allows ' anything in terms of the future, as far as the landscaping goes, right? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. It's giving the city the right to go in there. ' Councilman Senn: Go into the easement and effectuate whatever it wants then, okay. Councilman Mason: I guess there is one issue we should maybe chat about, is the parking. I'm a little, I mean city staff is saying 33. Kindercare is saying 44. What are we going to do about that? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the only issue that really stands open for discussion. ' Councilman Wing: That is preliminary hearing. I � 17 1 � I � I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, this is still strictly preliminary but it still can be addressed at this particular time. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaffa But it's not going to go. I mean we ran into the same issue last time. It's not preliminary necessarily. This is pretty much going to determine what it looks like, and I don't see it being resolved. I mean they've discussed it back and forth for a couple of months now. We're saying 33. They're saying 44 and that's where it stands. Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah but if they still meet the impervious... Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I. Mayor Chmiel: If it wasn't for that and the only thing I can see the additional parking for is for additional kids ' coming into that center. You can accommodate up to how many, 200? John Finnemore: Up to 200. One real quick thing on the parking lot. The way it was configured with the 33 stalls, it actually was just as much pavement. They were designed on a 45 degree angles and they did a one way ' circulation so there's no more asphalt with the 44 than there is with the 33. With the way the configuration is. So the impervious would stay the same. Mayor Chmiel: How many numbers or what is the number, 6 children per person? Is that what it is? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Per stall. ' John Finnemore: For teacher, for the ratios? Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 John Finnemore: It varies. Like the infants are 4 to 1 and then that gets up to, the after to school kids are like a 20 to 1 so the overall average is somewhere between 6 to 8 per you know, which on the center of 175 to 200 ' people. Mayor Chmiel: Total staff. Total staff and maximum of 200. John Finnemore: About 25. About 25 total staff. So you can see where if you've got 44 stalls, 25 of them are taken up by staff, that leaves what, 17 for parents. That's not a real over abundance of parking. ' Councilman Mason: Well I guess I understand where staff is coming from. I think in this instance I'm a little low to tell Kindercare they don't know how many parking stalls they need. And with this impervious figure thing, I'm okay with 44. 1 mean with 25 staff, although I'd assume they're probably not there all the time. I mean even if you assume you have 20 stalls taken up with employees, that could get crowded I don't have any trouble with the 44. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, you were going to, you wanted to say something. ' Kate Aanenson: Well I was going to make two clarifications on the parking lot where we the overlay district require parking in front. What it says specifically in the ordinance, parking shall not be located within the required minimum front yard setback. We're going to have instances where it's on the side. It's not in the 1 18 D4 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 minimum front yard. Obviously the desire is not to look at parking lots and try to put them on the side. However... instances where we're going to have some in front of buildings, just to make sure that was clear. Councilman Mason: That's a good point. r Kate Aanenson: And where we can put them to the side or screen them behind a building, but when you have ' double fronted lots when you have a frontage road, it's going to be on one side or the other. Where this is in front of the building, it's not in the front yard setback so it's not inconsistent with the overlay district ...and that was the same question that DataSery had and I'll address that specifically in a letter. And the other thing too is just that staff, the ordinance requires a minimum. Again, if that's what they feel like they need for their , marketing, we're not sure that that's... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks for that clarification. I Councilman Wing: I want to be sure we, in the Highway S issues, study that at length because Bill Morrish and Barry and the group talked at length, what are we trying to accomplish. We want the buildings forward. We I want the quality forward. We want all other, and I'm going to use the word debris but, because I consider cars in the parking lot and whatever, on the other side and there are going to be variances. Kate Aanenson: Right. Well and if you look at the specific charette design that went into each of those and ' specifically in the DataSery across the street from this, we looked at there's a narrow parcel between the frontage road. We looked at the parking between the buildings ... it will be close to the road... Councilman Wing: There is an intent not to have your building facing front and the parking lot and the entry , doors on the highway necessarily. And that was part of the design. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I guess all the questions I was concerned too with the ratio of 33 to 44. But if ' they have met the impervious space there, or they meet that, it's not a concern. I can see if they look at that total number, they may need those additional spaces. But I guess I just don't, often times we don't have enough spaces in many of the facilities that we put in and we have to make them comply with the minimum , requirements. Here we're exceeding so I guess I don't have any concern with that. Again with the difference in the topos that are from the highway coming up towards the building, that should adequately screen it. And if you were to even just move that, we say 3 or 4. I'd like to just have us put 4 within it because I think that would take care of much of the concerns. But other than that, I guess I don't have any other questions. Any other discussion? We're going to need 3 different motions and I think we should go to the first. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I, with pleasure, would like to move that we approve the Site Plan Review for the , Press and the Kindercare, deleting items 4(b). Item 18 in it's entirety, including the parking. Item 20 and item 22. Councilman Mason: Second. , Mayor Chmiel: It's moved and seconded. Any discussion? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received June 22, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 19 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 4. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. a. Submit utility plans showing existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. A determination will then be made if additional hydrants will be needed. b. Deleted. c. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 6. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm even shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 7. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 8. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 9. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercane site off of Dell Road. 10. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 11. The turning radiuses still need to be increased on 77th Street West and no parking signs posted along the main thoroughfare (drive aisle). 12. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 13. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 20 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 14. Deleted. 15. Deleted. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. a. Submit a 1/8 " =1'0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces and all floors. b. Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. 17. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. The applicant is working on the design of the roof and will have a new rendering at the City Council meeting. 18. Deleted. 19. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. 20. Deleted. 21. Proportion of the roof size to the building wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. The applicant is working on the design of the roof and will have a new rendering at the City Council meeting. 22. Deleted. 23. The access between the Press and Kindercare via a curb cut on the center island running north and south shall be closed off and made into green space. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: I'll move preliminary plat for both Press and Kindercare, items 1 thru 6. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Kate Aanenson: Can we make clarification on that? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: Do you... preliminary ... final at the same time? Mayor Chmiel: No, these are strictly all preliminary. As to what are these. 1 21 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Just the preliminary plat. The rest of them you're not going to see. The only thing we're going to see again is for the subdivision and we put that on consent... Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Council indicated at the time it would come back to Council as well. Roger Knutson: ...mentioned and the preliminary plat's not mentioned here on the agenda item, is what Kate is saying. I don't see it. Councilman Senn: So it could be both you mean, or what? Kate Aanenson: No, it wasn't even noticed on here. Roger Knutson: It's not recorded, the preliminary plat is not recorded .. excuse me, was that approved at your last meeting? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think so. Kate Aanenson: We did conceptual. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it was conceptual. That's what it reads within. Councilwoman Dockendorf. It was that funny one that really was a table. Roger Knutson: Well even though it's not on your agenda, you really can still act on it. It's not a public hearing. So if you want to act on the preliminary plat... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's contained within the information that we have here. Well alright, I guess you can move on it. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll move the preliminary plat. Councilman Mason: I already did that. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, all those in favor say aye. Councihnan Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on the plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 and 3, Block 1. b. Dedication of public right -of -way. 22 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west o 1 g h' P $ property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. ' 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the city. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type 1) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed , along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: And the final and the last. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll move the conditional use permit for the Kindercare site. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Sure. Yes. Second. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Moved and seconded. And where on there are we making sure that we get that 4 foot ' berming? Kate, are you sure that we're going to get that 4 foot berming? Kate Aanenson said something that was not heard on the tape. _ Councilman Senn: Change that one from 3 to 4 meandering to 4? Is that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's not an item. Mayor Chmiel: No. Kate Aanenson: It's been done on the plan. It's shown on the plan that way so it looks the same... Mayor Chmiel: I just want to make sure it's at 4 feet. Kate Aanenson: You're accepting the plans with this being done. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #94.1 subject to the following conditions: 23 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, one other thing too. Make sure that when we get these back, the architect's signature is contained on there. They are not on there now. Kate Aanenson: The only thing you'll see again is the final plat of the subdivision. Mayor Chmiel: Well I want to make sure that what we approve now is consistent, okay? Alright. MISSION HILLS, LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, TANDEM PROPERTIES: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (4656 ACRES). B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 25 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S). C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS. Sharmin Al -Jaffa This application is for a total of 208 units ... single family units. There is an outlot located to the west of the site. This outlot is slated for neighborhood related commercial. You reviewed this application last year and you approved it conceptually. It appeared before the Planning Commission for approval, preliminary plat and PUD approval. The Planning Commission approved it with conditions outlined in the staff ' report. There were some issues that were raised and would...mass grading is always an issue. Mass grading of the site. With the type of units that we have, the grading, the mass grading is inevitable. However, what the applicant has proposed to do is create new grade berms on this site to make up for the rolling hills that we will be losing. Design elevations of the units on Block 4 was an issue was an issue that was ... with the applicant. The majority of the elevations are identical and what we refer to, to the applicant of the proposed ... The applicant indicated that he was going to meet with his architect and prepare new design elevations. Designs for the elevations on Block 4 so that would be the one story building only. Another issue that was raised was the size of the lot that immediately abuts ... The applicant has, he meets the minimum area of each one of those lots for the 20,000 square feet. They also reduced the number from 8 to 7 lots abutting that subdivision. One of the issues that were raised at the meeting, at the Planning Commission meeting was a request to increase the rear yard setback to ... on those parcels. Staff doesn't believe that there is a need for such an excessive setback between one single family to another and we are recommending that the rear yard setback between the single family remain at 30 feet. Landscaping. The Planning Commission requested that staff review the landscaping plan to make sure that it meets the standards set in the new landscaping ordinance. According to the landscaping ordinance, the multi - family section of the site would need .9 trees per unit. The single family would need 5 trees per unit. The applicant is providing 3 trees per unit for the multi - family and 3 for the single family so there is a transfer... exceeds the minimum required by ordinance required landscaping and we are recommending that that transfer of landscaping from the single family to the multi - family be approved Parking setback was another issue that was raised at the Planning Commission for the neighborhood commercial section of the site. Mr. Klingelhutz indicated that a 50 foot parking setback is excessive and would prevent them from utilizing the site to it's maximum potential. Staff is recommending that we use the underlying setbacks for the zoning district 1 24 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 for neighborhood commercial business, which is 35 feet. That would still allow for a berm as well as landscaping and the parking area would be screened. One last issue that ... is the totlot size. Totlot area. Originally when the plan appeared, and even now we find that—and it truly was an honest misunderstanding. Very justifiable. The applicant showed the topped part as 1.3 or at least we read it as 1.3. Actually it is a parenthesis and the applicant has indicated that it is a .3, one -third of an acre is what the totlot site is. Todd Hoffman is here to address this issue. It will appear before the Park Commission so I'll turn it over to Todd and have him address the park issue. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Sharmin. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Conceptual site plan was reviewed by the Park Commission about last August and I should make it clear that it is throughout this entire time been the recommendation that full park and trail fees be required as a part of this development for use elsewhere in the city for acquisition and development. What we are encouraging the applicant to do is to increase the amount of open space within the development for use on site during those times when the residents residing... other locations for their recreation use. Last year when I had the opportunity to speak to the applicant prior to the commission meeting that evening and they thought ... the plan showed a todot structure. Upon the conclusion of that meeting, at which they talked about whether or not that met the needs of this little private association totlot if you will, they put forth a recommendation that approving the conceptual site plan, asking the applicant shall provide additional park space and what has been proposed to accommodate the ... needs of the residents of this development. Since that time the applicant has moved forward with their plans and we had scheduled this tentatively for review by the preliminary plat stage. At the May meeting that did not occur so it will now go back to the Park Commission...tomorrow night. I believe it was their June 1st Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission took it upon themselves to respond and in some occasions to talk about parks and the totlot issue at length. What they came out with was they would like to see it increased as well but they'd leave it up to the Park Commission to decide on the acreage. Thus is this is one item you're going to review tonight which has not been fully closed as the Park Commission won't look at it again until tomorrow evening. Review for the applicant, they have created some other open areas which they will be explaining to you this evening and ..which they feel meet the type of recreational needs of this development would be creating on site. With , that I'll answer any questions the Council would have in that regard. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anything more Sharmin? ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has met basically the majority of these conditions. All the issues that were raised at the conceptual stage, we feel have been answered. Other than the conditions outlined in the staff report, we're recommending approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That 186 dwelling units, mixed high density. That's all in compliance with our requirements as well, is that correct? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant care to approach the Council? j Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. My name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of the partners in Tandem ' Properties, which is the purchaser of the property from Mr. Barts and Mr. Klingelhutz. Jim Ostenson, who is in the front row, is my partner. We've developed, well quite a bit of property in the southwest portions of the Twin Cities, Eden Prairie, Plymouth. We have a project in Chanhassen currently called Trotters Ridge which is a single family parcel on Jerome Carlson's, right across on Galpin Boulevard Also here this evening is Dennis 25 1 !J i City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Marhula, who's in the second row, is one of the artners in Westwood Planning and Engineering who was P 8 $ B responsible for the project. And Ed Hawk, who is in the front row, will be presenting the, and we'll try to make ' it brief, changes that have been made and the improvements to the project to you this evening. I think as the staff has pointed out, the project has been around longer than maybe we all would like. And part of that is no fault of anyone's. Initially we thought we would be under construction August of last year and when the project ' was submitted in the spring, the problem was TH 101. And Fred Hoisington's study and determining the new alignment and working with the neighbors, that you've done here over the last few months. So we kind of get caught in a catch 22 on that issue. Also just getting the public improvements, the watermain and sewer and those improvements that you're dealing with have helped it out so planning has sort of been going and coming and stopping and going based on those issues. I think as the staff mentioned, we went through the Planning Commission for the last time a few weeks ago and they reviewed the project in substantial detail and made recommendations that we believe we can live with and are improvements in some cases to the project. At this 1 point I think I'd like to ask Ed to maybe briefly point out to you the changes between the concept plan, which you approved last year and the final plan that you have this evening. They're almost identical. You'll see that we've got a couple little paste on's that show some of the issues related to ponds or the play space, the open space areas that we've tried to address and hopefully that will address what Todd and Sharmin were talking about, particularly on the park issues. And we'll be happy to answer any questions. Ed. Ed Hasek: Good evening. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. Our offices are just down the road here in Eden Prairie, Minnesota and I recognize a few faces. I once served on the park board out here in Chanhassen when I lived in the city so hello to those of you I recognize. Just a general orientation of where we're talking about. The Missions Hills project is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed Highway 101 realignment and proposed Highway 212. It's generally between Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Susan and Lake Riley. The plan which you saw earlier and approved in conceptual form is located on the right side here on the plan that we're proposing this evening is located on the left and I think the reason why we put both of them up for you is just to see how close they really are to the same plan. We've got 16 single family units shown. 16 single family units shown. 56 garden units with a single private drive. 16 garden family units with a single drive. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned 86th Street. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned 86th Street. A 200 foot easement for the proposed upgrading of Highway 101. The commercial area The neighborhood commercial area in the lower left hand comer and 136 units of villa townhomes on the south side with basically a single private drive through. Again, berming on the commercial side along the proposed 212 and where possible, along 86th as well. Berming again is shown along, and I'll take these out of here so you can see where it came from. Councilman Mason: Rubber cement is a marvelous thing. Ed Hasek: Spray glue. Berming along 86th, along the commercial area and again along Highway, proposed Highway 212. The totlot in the center and the totlot or the play tot area in the center here. One difference that you may notice between the two plans is a blue areas. When the plan was put together originally we took a cursory look at what we thought we would need for storm water ponding. The more we got into the plan, the more we realized we were going to need more area and that's why some of these additional ponds have shown up on the plan. This one and this one are generally in the same location, although a little bit larger in size. To i respond to the request by the parks department to increase the open space, we have worked a little bit with and we still have some issues to resolve with the engineering department. Those related to water quality and quantity ponding. Your engineering department's putting together a plan this week to address area storm water ponding issues and this project will be feeding into those ponds at a future date. What we are anticipating is that several of these ponds may not in fact have to be used for more than a few years or until that plan gets in place. 1 26 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 One of those is this pond to the north. ...will be discharged from the site to a pond to be located a little bit closer to the creek that connects Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. And in response to that, when that pond disappears, we are advocating adding an additional half acre of open space on the north side of the property to , respond to some of the issues that the Planning Commission and the staff had. And that would be an addition of .5 of an acre of open space. Also, in talking with the parks department, an additional change has been made and that change would look something like this. We would remove the berm that we had intended to put in this area and create .2 of an acre of just open space. We would also, when this pond is eliminated and the downstream , ponding is provided, create an additional .8 of an acre of open space there with the trail linkage that could ultimately connect to some potential acquisition of the parkland to the east of the property. What that does for us is gives us overall between 2 1/2 or between 1 1/2 and 2 acres of open space and play area within the project, which I believe is more in keeping with what the park staff and city staff had in mind when they were reviewing this project in the fast place. And I think with that, unless Dick or Jim or Dennis have any additional comments, we would just like to open it up to issues that you have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Council? Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't really have a lot of problems with what the applicant's proposing. I think they've done a nice job. I don't have a problem with the solutions now in terms of the open space either. I think that seems to make sense versus clustering it altogether in the middle. I like spreading it out a little bit and I like in particular the potential for the trail access and stuff there. Plus I think in my mind it's a little hard just to kind of separate the totlot because you've got a fairly substantial open area that's really with it there in terms of the ponding area and all that sort of thing so you will probably kind of get used that way anyway. At least my kids are drawn to water a lot. So I don't have any real big problems or questions. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Dave. Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, if I could just interject at this time with regards to storm water ponding on the site. The applicant has been in to meet with us. If you read the previous staff report, staff was concerned with the number of storm ponds proposed on the site. Seven specifically. We felt that those ponds were in excess. That they were essentially being plopped in wherever they could fit and we ' wanted to see more of a regional approach on the storm water management plan. We're still working with the applicant to determine appropriate ponding areas. We do show some areas that discusses removing eventually, we tried, we did have concems ... those ponds in their backyards... amenity to some people ... for a park or a totlot. ...similar to what we do when we say this road's to be extended in the future. A future homeowner on notice that there's a change coming. Again we are still working with the ponding situation and the overall servicing water management plan. We'd like to do some regional ... ponding. However, that probably will not occur for some time due to funding and development proposals in the area so these ponding areas could be around for quite some time... Councilman Senn: David, just clarify something though. But doesn't what they're suggesting down there in the southeast corner kind of go a long way to accommodating that? I mean in terms of that becomes a fairly, it seemed like a fairly significant ponding area that gets converted later with the development of the rest of the system. Dave Hempel: The one located in the southeast corner? Councilman Senn: Yeah. I 27 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Dave Hempel: That was actually a very small pond considering the area contributing to it. There are two large wetlands, or one large wetland and a smaller one just to the east that will be taking runoff from this development. Per our standards, they all have to be pre - treated to Walker standards for discharging into their development to serve what we call a 100 year storm event for potential flooding downstream so since we don't have a downstream 100 year flood protection in place yet ...provide that storage on site through the use of these ' Walker ponds and also some use of some existing wetlands. So it's kind of a detailed plan that we're trying to work on here. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Todd, can you review what you're trying to accomplish? I look at this and I see somebody has come in and drawn as many squares as they can possibly get in there and for the number of people this represents, and the density it represents, there seems to be no place to go to bar -be -que, to play. There's no recreational area. What are you trying to accomplish and are we, to accomplish what you maybe would like to, they'd have to lose a building or two but I think we've got the future to think about here. Is this hurting for public recreational area and what are you trying to accomplish again? 1 Todd Hoffman: Again, as I prefaced my other comments, we're not attempting to create a public open space here. Simply to ... accommodate those short trips to the open space or to walk around the development and just stop and experience the quality which an open space park area would own. So at .3 acres, that's a very small area ... Not a very large area. The Park Commission, that type of an area was displayed to the Park Commission last time, I believe it was August, and they asked for additional land. Now what that is, I picked out an arbitrary number at an acre and a half for presentation to the Park Commission last time. And whether or not they're willing to see that acre and a half be centrally located at the totlot location and yes, you would have the ability to do that, is yet unseen. Councilman Wing: Have you looked at a small recreation area north and a small recreational south, so that each complex would have it's own little park area to go to? Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission has not considered a park, a formalized park setting to the north but the Planning Commission asked that that be considered. Councilman Wing: I guess just my opinion is that with those densities and the two separate areas, both should have a bar -be-que area, a meeting place, todot, whatever the case is. I'm not sure I would define it but some type of recreational open space in both of those areas. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, just to tack onto what Richard said. I agree that the open space seems to be wholly inadequate for the amount of homes we're looking at there. In addition I think we've attempted to give a good transition to the Rice Lake Manor but I don't think we're accomplishing it yet. We've still got, looking in these plans, we've still got 3 lots abutting one piece of property. Or 2 1/2 lots abutting one piece of property and I'd be hypocritical if I said it's okay in one part of the city and not in another and I don't think it works here but I still think we need a little work on that eastern side with the number or with the size of those lots in the single family. I'm also concerned about the traffic that this will generate and is this too soon in terms of it F City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 t being built and then TH 101 coming later with the construction concerns and the current amount of traffic that TH 101 can handle. I do have a question for the developer. What price ranges are we looking at for these? Dick Putnam: They're really three distinct type of units. Should I go up here? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please. , Dick Putnam: There are three distinct type of units. On the north side of the road is the atrium unit which is really designed for the retired or empty nester person. They're one level, a townhouse type unit with their own patio and 2 car garage. It's really for someone selling their house and moving in. Those units are probably priced, and it depends on options. I mean 2 fireplaces, 1, that kind of thing. I believe they go in the $80,000.00 - $90,000.00 price bracket. On the south side of the road, there are two types of units. You'll notice the single or longer, the 4 and 6 unit buildings and then the wider buildings that are the back to back. Either an 8 or a 12 unit building. Those are called villa units. Those are very similar to the units in Eden Prairie. As you drive on Highway 5 just before you get to Dell Road on the south side. The gray buildings that you see... Those units will be priced in the probably mid 70's up to maybe the mid 80's, depending upon the units. They have either a 2 or 1 car garage on 1,400 square feet, two level unit and they're really set up very well for young couples. Retired people by and large, if they have a choice, would take the single level units. Young couples, single individuals, single parents, these are ownership units so they aren't rental units and really, particularly in the southwest part of the metropolitan area, we haven't been able to build them fast enough. The projects, the ones that we were associated with in Eden Prairie, they never did get a model built. It was about 100 units. They used a trailer as a sales center and all of the units were sold before construction began so they would expect, and Centex has had the same experience in Eden Prairie with a similar type of project. There's a real , crying need in the marketplace for ownership below $100,000.00 home. Councilwoman Dockendorf: How about single family? What price range? Dick Putnam: Single family, with the almost half acre lot size, the 20,000 foot lots, those are going to be custom builders. Maybe of the same builders that are in the Trotters Ridge, Jim is really the intent at this point, and... Price range there will be. , Jim Ostenson: Probably from $200,000.00 to $275,000.00. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you find that that works abutting next to the villa homes and the patio homes? That works? Jim Ostenson: We didn't have any problems with it when we've done it... I Dick Putnam: If you drive... projects that we did, 65 single family project and a townhouse project in the villas, and single family lots, the entrance is right across the street from the villas and ... It's worked. And we did the villa project before the single family. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Ed Hasek: Just a quick comment if I might on the ... staff s comments. It's our understanding that, and perhaps Dave can help me with this, that the potential for this project to be served by existing TH 101 is there. The 29 I J City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 capacity is already existing on the existing Highway 101. So it's not as though we're going to overload the existing system... Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would beg to differ with that but if that's what the traffic studies say. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: The play lot issue I'm going to let rest with Park and Rec. I'll go with their recommendation on that. However that washes out. I believe Councilwoman Dockendorf and I disagreed on the single family issue where they abut before and I suspect we'll continue to. They're 20,000 square foot lots and they're going to be nice homes. That's, land gets developed and that's what happens. I see that as being okay. I'm fine with you know, depending on what Park and Rec decides and where the storm ponds go, I'm fine. i Mayor Chmiel: I would like to just mention something. I think that this particular project should be tabled, even though Council's reviewing it right now. It seems to be a little bit out of sequence. It has not gone to the Park Commission as yet. I would think with some of the wordage within, there's some changes that should be done. Kate, are you listening to what I'm saying? This would be my suggestion at this particular time. Until it's completely through Park and Rec, then it should be back to us to look at. But I think you've got kind of a feel from Council as to what we're looking at. And once we get some recommendation back from them as well, we should be able to address that at that time. Is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes Mr. Mayor. t Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, so I would motion to table. Councilman Senn: I'd like to ask a question if I could. Mayor Chmiel: I've got a motion on the table. I just made it. ' Councilman Senn: Oh! I thought you asked for a motion. Mayor Chmiel: No, I said I would motion to table this project and have it go back to the Park and Rec Commission. Councilman Wing: If I second that, does he get to ask his question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Discussion. We always have discussion. Councilman Senn: Todd what, if you go with the larger park areas, how is that going to turn around and affect the overall plan as it relates to the trail and the dedication saw. Todd Hoffman: It will have no effect on it. 1 30 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: None at all? I Todd Hoffman: .3 to an acre and a half is insignificant in the realm of our overall comprehensive park plan. I Councilman Senn: In terms of the plan correct, but how about in terms of the financial contribution and that sort of thing back to us that you were anticipating? , Todd Hoffman: We're still asking that this be a product of an association facility so we're not going to give them credit for the facility you see here or any expansion of it. Similar to the multi- family developments at the Oak Ponds or Oak Hill, they're putting in a private association facility as a part of their development. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well then I guess I have a question for Roger. Roger, can we still do that in light of what the Supreme Court decided last week? Roger Knutson: The decision is right here. Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand that we haven't seen any feedback on it yet. Roger Knutson: I've read it. This applicant started back in, this doesn't affect it, to answer that question. Because it fast, I'll brief you on that. It's long and boring. The upshot of it is, there's a lot of noise about this but it doesn't make all that much difference. Actually since you asked, I enjoy this subject. It starts with approval of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that we've been following for the last 20 years. Many communities do give credit. In this situation, many communities do not. You're not asking, this is not asking for an exaction from the developer. You're not taking something from him. It would remain in private ownership so it's not a park and trail dedication. It's just an acknowledgement that when you come in and ask for a planned unit development, in return for getting densities and other things, you're required to give something. Create other amenities. Off setting amenities. Balance densities and things like that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Wing: And as we're going on a PUD on this, I think when we look at, and my views on it are strictly my opinion but when we look at this type of density, it takes a lot from the city in terms of services and the traffic impacts and the stop lights that are going to be coming in, etc, etc, etc. So when we start asking for a little open space or parkland, I think it's a real minimum, minimal request for what this really generates in a negative sense for the city, at least in my opinion. I have to, I just hope when all our projects are done and the Highway 5 study is done and all these things we've got on our agenda are done, we can sit down and concentrate with Mike and ask us, how much of this high density do we want? How much of this high density do we need? But more important, can we transition from this high density into some affordable single family housing. I'd just as soon, I wish we were looking at a single family affordable housing right now. Councilman Senn: So to make sure you get into subsidy or something, that's real tough. Councilman Mason: We should take a look at it. Mr. Mayor, with this motion to table, Park and Rec's meeting on it tomorrow night so I'm assuming this would be on our agenda in 2 weeks. Is that a safe assumption? Mayor Chmiel: It will be on your agenda tomorrow? 31 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 I Todd Hoffman: It's on the agenda. Mayor Chmiel: It is? Alright. Okay,_ motion's on the floor with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on Mission Hills Planned Unit Development until the Park and Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. BUDGET AMENDMENT, PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LRT TRAIL CONSTRUCTION. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. As I hope most of you are aware, Hennepin Parks is in the final stage of completing... improvements on two different railroad segments which affect the city of Chanhassen. The north corridor which runs from Hopkins through Minnetonka, Shorewood, to Victoria to Carver Park. And the south corridor starting again in Hopkins, running through Minnetonka, Eden Prairie into Chanhassen and then concluding hopefully at Chaska. Hennepin Parks looked at this and it's not that they don't do work in other counties. They operate many parks in other counties, Carver and Scott among them. But once they get out of Hennepin County, they get a little bit nervous in spending money. They wanted to find a suitable terminus however so they could head south to Shakopee. A regional trail is going to be designed to reach Murphy Hannering Park which they operate in Scott County ... Park they operate there as well. They decided upon Bluff Creek. Throughout their entire negotiation, or planning process, we encouraged them to keep the segment all the way through Chanhassen to Chaska. They came up ... so they're quitting at Bluff Creek. What we'd like to do is participate with the City of Chaska to complete that, the next mile from Bluff ' Creek to Highway 212... cities of Chaska and Chanhassen lies solely within the city of Chanhassen but Chaska's agreed to pay approximately 50% of the cost. At their last City Council meeting they approved the expenditure up to $9,000.00 for that purpose. Thus we had Veit Construction Company on site. They work for Hennepin Parks. They will complete the next segment. The City of Chanhassen as the principle on the project. For $3.50 a foot, and that's putting down 10 feet of limestone rock and shoulders. In trusting that, and doing some miscellaneous work on the far south side—access to this site. Briefly I can show you ... so you can get an idea. You get to the Chanhassen border at Pioneer Trail. So the trail segment comes out of Eden Prairie, then it crosses underneath Pioneer Trail and heads down opening out onto the bluffs in this vicinity where you can see the Shakopee river valley. Highway 101, they took the bridge out. The single concrete bridge. That will be replaced this fall under separate contract by Hennepin Parks. So Hennepin Parks will be paying for that bridge overpass. And then they will conclude at Bluff Creek here with a trail head of sorts. A parking lot. The lighted way widens up in that location so they can allow for some parking. We would like to complete the segment from Bluff Creek to the city of Chaska. It would dead end at this point for a short period of time. Short being 1 year, 2 years, until the City of Chaska can come back from the west and make a connection at that point. So that is what I'm asking for this evening. A budget amendment amending the 410 budget, Park Acquisition and Development to approve an additional expenditure not to exceed $12,000.00. We are far exceeding our to date anticipated revenues from park and trail funds so there's at least a desperate shortage of revenues for this type of expenditure to occur. Mayor Chmiel: Todd, in discussion with what you were just saying that point to Chaska, is there a letter of commitment that Chaska would give to us assuring that they will continue that trail? Todd Hoffman: Certainly. Absolutely. They're going to come to this thing with $9,000.00 to finish it. We'll get the letter of transfer of dollars as to the extension... 32 1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: 9 or 12? Todd Hoffman: Originally we looked at the aggregate amount, which was $18,000.00 and that's the information they reviewed at City Council. And then after further discussions with Veit, they have to do some excavation there at the south end to get a construction access so I had to speak with the city of Chaska They'll split this thing even/even. If it goes up to $22,000.00, or $20,000.00, they're committed to $9,000.00. Nevertheless, the , difference is insignificant... Councilman Senn: Well in here you say you have a total cost of $24,000.00? Todd Hoffman: Not to exceed $24,000.00. ...costs are unknown at this time. Councilman Senn: Okay. But basically then they could pay 9 and we'd pay the balance on it. I Todd Hoffman: Or they might ... Again, it's all within the city of Chanhassen... Councilman Senn: What falls by the wayside? , Todd Hoffman: Excuse me? Councilman Senn: Taking the money and using it for this. What out of this year's priorities falls by the wayside? Todd Hoffman: Nothing. Again we're asking for additional monies to be documented or to be allocated so there's, this is a high priority in the city. It's something which we can do now at a...cost which is very low. It's opportunity knocking. If we would bid this out, it would obviously be much more expensive. If other opportunities such as this one would present themselves throughout the year, we would do the same type of... City Council asking for additional funding. Councilman Senn: Where is it coming from then Don? Don Ashworth: Well as Todd mentioned, we are receiving revenue monies far in excess of what we originally anticipated in the year. So what you in fact are doing is amending the budget to increase park revenues and at the same point in time amending the budget to allocate those for this particular project. Mayor Chmiel: Don told me actually he'd take a dollar and buy a lottery ticket and hopefully he'd win it. He'd make that contribution. Councilman Senn: I thought we were already short, that's why I was asking. Don Ashworth: Well, the park acquisition, that's a dedicated fund so the monies are ahead of where we thought they were going to be, so. Councilman Senn: Okay, and the Parks Commission didn't care about working that into their priorities or? Todd Hoffman: No. They were all enthusiastically in favor of this. They asked why did you even call. 33 1 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 I Councilman Senn: Because it's new money, right? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I would like to make a motion that we amend the 1994 Park Acquisition and Development CIP to include costs, etc, etc, as stated in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Resolution #94 -64: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to amend the 1994 Park Acquisition and Development CIP to include costs not to exceed $12,000.00 to pay -%% share of costs to construct a 10 foot wide aggregate trail along the HCRRA Southwest LRT Corridor from Bluff' Creek Drive to Highway 212, authorizing staff to administer this project at unit prices with Veit Construction of Rogers, Minnesota. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENTS: A. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Mayor Chmiel: As Don's note indicates, that under Minnesota Statute, the Mayor solely has the responsibility to make the nomination for BRA appointments. I've had many discussions with many people. There's a lot of pros and cons to the issue of having Council on as fully members of the HRA and I believe that it was basically in the minority more so than being a majority. And so therefore I am going to recommend that we reappoint Jim Bohn. ' Councilman Wing: I'll move that recommendation. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, same old, same old I guess is all I have to say. Hopefully I'm wrong. Mayor Chmiel: Me too. Councilwoman Dockendorf. As I stated before, I'd just like to see increased communication. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that whole thing that you indicated before Colleen, is that we do get the Minutes of the meeting. And if Council has that desire, it's an open meeting for everybody to be there. And my suggestion is that if Council has opinions of what the agenda is, is to come to those meetings and express those opinions. And we're going to be sitting still with 2 members on HRA and hopefully they'll do a good job. I Resolution #94.65: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Jim Bohn to the 1 34 l City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Housing nd Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and g P h' P the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. B. YOUTH COMMISSION APPOINTMENT. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Youth Commission appointments. I suggest that we don't take any action on it this ' evening because we're still lacking 2 of the contestants for this and there were only 2 of the Council people there. Even though we won't be able to bring back the 3, at least Colleen and I can tell you about those 3. But at least get the other 2 back in and Todd indicated that 1 could not be here this evening and wanted to do this so maybe we could have this put on, right prior to the next Council meeting and have that at 7:00, which was this evening's one. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Youth Commission appointment until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE REGARDING CABLE TV RATE REGULATION, FIRST READING. Don Ashworth: City Council previously authorized staff to file for re- regulation. We in fact did that. We set up the ... before our regulatory power actually starts. Anticipation of having that approved and obtaining the authority to regulate, we're recommending that the Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance that would actually carry out that regulation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Senn: Don, when you talked about, all the way through the ordinance you refer to the city. Can ' you define that more? Don Ashworth: Well, in this instance it would represent the City Council. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the City Council in effect is the Cable Commission then? ' Don Ashworth: Right. Any ... that need to be made... Councilman Senn: Alright. Just a clarification. Don Ashworth: I would assume that the Mayor and I would continue to meet with the cable company and talk about providing better services but if we were to, if we saw any form of enforcement, we would have to come back to you to provide recommendation and you would have to take the action. Mayor Chmiel: By the way, according to the cable company, the rate for outlets is going to be dropped as of August but I have asked staff to do some checking in regards to some of the calls that were being made to the city. And I oppose vehemently of their and the way they were selling their cable system. That they discontinued calling residents within the community. This is where they gave you Encore for an additional $3.99 and you would get a credit of z number of cents off your next bill, which would be about 96 cents or somewhere in that neighborhood And they had a calling campaign coming out from Illinois in regard to this. But the question was asked of them, of whether or not, if you chose not to take Encore, would that $4.95 charge 35 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 ' still be on your bill, and the answer was yes. And I asked it 5 times just to make sure that was clarification. So I didn't like their way of selling their program and they did stop it. And so consequently I've had some discussion with staff, just to make sure that what they're doing is proper and if they have discontinued some of those, all the charges and providing them with Encore, there may be some, hopefully some rebates coming back. Whether it's possible or not, that's another question. Okay. Did I get a motion for the fast reading? ' Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the rust reading of the Ordinance Amending City Code regarding Cable TV Rate Regulation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Council Presentation, Richard. Councilman Wing: It's been taken care of. Mayor Chmiel: You took care of your Eurasian Water Milfoil and you mentioned something about conflict of interest. Councilman Wing: Editorially in the newspaper, a couple things that the Editor had to say in recent papers. It hit home to me personally and I speak solely for myself. And I just want to state to staff and each member of Council and anybody else that ever chooses to bring this up. That any time that I'm involved in a, personally involved in a street that affects me, a tree, a dock, a piece of fire equipment, fine pay. Any perception at level ' of conflict, I'd like to be, have it mentioned and I will gladly and respectfully step down and not question that issue at all. Several years ago I got caught up in an issue with a councilmember. He was determined to have an issue, or they were determined to have an issue and we were kind of pressured into making a decision I thought 1 was wrong. And the editorial on conflict of interest kind of hit home to me a little bit and maybe we need to get our house rules in order a little bit. I know you were going to bring it up but that's almost a separate issue. I just want to state for myself, any time anybody senses that I might have a conflict of interest or a perception of it, nothing is that critical that I have to sit here and put anybody under stress and I would willingly and very respectfully remove myself from that conversation. Or that issue. That's all I wanted to say. Mayor Chmiel: Same thing that I was looking at too is establishing some kind of ethics for Council, and I don't know if any other cities have those kinds of things in relationship to some of the things Richard's talking about or even with developments. Roger Knutson: Some cities have ethic code... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We don't. I would suggest maybe that we look at that. Roger Knutson: I'll give you some examples. 1 36 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Item number 11. I Councilman Senn: Don, just a question. I wasn't here at the beginning but has anybody asked about, what's the deal with all the junk cars down on Highway 5? Mayor Chmiel: Oh I've already addressed that with Todd last week. ' Todd Gerhardt: They're temporarily stored there so we can put the parking lot in for the Hanus building. There was no space left on site to put the parked cars. Councilman Senn: So those are like cars that people drive? I mean no. You're going to really surprise me with , this answer I'm sure but I can't imagine anybody drives any of those but go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: An auto repair person, those are his projects that he's going to work on whenever he gets the time type of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Todd and I already had discussions regarding that. Councilman Senn: When are they going to be gone? Todd Gerhardt: I would say within the next 2 to 3 weeks the blacktop will be put down. Mayor Chmiel: Can we build a berm? I Councilman Senn: Isn't there a more appropriate place we could put them? Todd Gerhardt: Well, I don't think they're ready to go that far. Like I said, within the next 2 to 3 weeks they I will be moved out of there. Don Ashworth: Any time there's an accident, that's one of the spots that they can go until the car can actually I be restored. Todd Gerhardt: Not that particular spot. Don Ashworth: Not where we currently have it but where they used to be. Todd Gerhardt: Right. In order to get grading and dirt being moved in, we took advantage of the lot between Brown and the Car Wash and that was even full and these were the ones that don't run. So they will be moved back as soon as the blacktop goes down. Mayor Chmiel: And also in between Riveria and. (There were a couple different conversations going on simultaneously at this point.) Mayor Chmiel: Even discussions that the HRA were the fact that we clean up the site right on 78th Street. Hopefully that's going to be taken care of within a very short period of time, is that right? 37 1 11 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: I called the engineers and asked them that there should be no reason for the signs and ...any more. Mayor Chmiel: And all the materials and equipment within that particular location. Good, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: I think you've got 4 or 5 more days left. ADMIMSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: POLL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RE: WORK SESSION DATE IN AUGUST, SENIOR HOUSING, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: The Mayor relayed no July so but on the other side of the coin, the seniors are anxious to take and see us grapple with the issue of senior housing so I was wondering what the Council would be looking at for August. I don't know, your off Mondays are not good. I know that they're not good for Councilman Wing. And I think you've got what, 1 or 2 soccer coaches. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but that's all over. Councilman Mason: Soccer's done then. Don Ashworth: Oh, it's all done? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And you're out of town. Councilman Mason: I will be out of town the last week of July and the first 2 weeks of August. Councilman Wing: Me too. Councilman Mason: Well, where are you going? Councilman Wing: Fishing. Councilman Mason: Me too. Mayor Chmiel: How about the 16th of August? Councilman Wing: What day is that? Mayor Chmiel: Tuesday. Councilman Mason: I can be there. Don Ashworth: Do another early one then? The 5:30 time frame? 38 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Councilman Mason: I'll be a hungry boy coming back from vacation. Mayor Chmiel: Any other business? If not, can I have a motion to adjourn? Councilman Senn: Don, one thing on administrative. That letter that was in there on the school use in a downtown zone. The school use, the thing related to church and the school district. You know the letter that went back to them really kind of implied that everybody thought it was okay and maybe everybody else here did and I thought it was fine too but I really wanted some type of caveat on it that made it temporary. So it was not a long term decision at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think they're going to be coming back. Kate Aanenson: It's going through the formal process so you will see it at a formal hearing. It's before the Planning Commission. It's been noticed for a public hearing before the Planning Commission... Councilman Senn: But did we get an answer to the question, is there a way for us to do it on a timeframe that's controllable rather than permanent? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if they can give you a real answer yet but hopefully they can give us an answer when they come in. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I had asked it before the letter was written but that's what I was curious. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, motion for adjournment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39 1 I I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING JUNE .15; 1994 r t 1 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino. Diane Harberts was present for part of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20- 904(C) REGARDING A TIME LIMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED AFTER THE PRIMARY . STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED. Public Present: Name Address Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane M. Happy 495 Lakota Lane Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Laverne Wheeler 445 Lakota Lane Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff. Harberts: I have one. Is there a current issue pending? Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: Is the owner aware of this? Al -Jaff: ...if we go through the city there would be numerous.. Harberts: But there is one currently that's at our door knocking? Or we're knocking on their door. 1 Al -Jaff: It's more of, there are numerous docks on the lakes or boat houses and ... and those are accessory structures where the house was remodeled. Harberts: And they're still standing. Al -Jaff: ...and the lots are just being used for picnic areas. ' Harberts: Are these accessory structures, are they being maintained? Or is the majority of them not being maintained well? ' Al -Jaff: Well if it's a dock, then it's a seasonal structure that is ... and removed at the end of the summer. If it's a boat house, then it's there year round. Boat lifts. ' Harberts: But this doesn't apply to like a boat house or a. Al -Jaff: That would be considered an accessory structure. Harberts: It would be? ' Mancino: So you couldn't just own some property and have your boat there and have a boat house and not even live there? Let's say I just bought 2 acres to come and maybe put a tent ' on on the weekends. Aanenson: No, that's what the ordinance is for. ' Harberts: And why is that so bad? Well I'm just trying to understand. ' Aanenson: In some of the neighborhoods, they bought a lot and was going to build on it in 5 years. In the meantime they wanted to let their church group use it every weekend. That may be a problem. Then we have a different set of...conditional use. We've had that in the ' past where people have bought large lots and used them as recreational—and if you look at the integrity of the neighborhood, that was not the intent... That's why you have conditional use permits... Mancino: I was going to say, they may build an accessory structure before they build the main one and live on it for many years and never get around to building the main structure. 1 Aanenson: Yeah, that happens too so... Harberts: And this only applies to like shoreline or lake lots or something? This is city wide? 1 Mancino: Less than 3 acres. I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Al -Jaff: Oh yes. Less than 3 acres. ' Mancino: Less than 3 acres so if it's. Harberts: So if it's farmland. , Mancino: There's a barn there. ' Scott: Any other? Harberts: It could be a historical site too. , Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for staff? This is a public hearing so if I I could have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and I the public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to speak, please step up to the podium. Identify yourselves with ' your name and your address and let us hear what you have to say. Is there anyone here for this item? For this public hearing. Yes sir. Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I live next to one of these cases ' and I'm going to keep this real brief. I think the intent of your ordinance is that you don't have a lot and then use it for a lot of other things. And those ordinances are already in place. ' You can't just buy a lot or develop it or dock or boat houses. Camp on it every weekend, etc. In this situation is where a house has been removed. There's no deadline to bring it under the same ordinances that are across the rest of the city. I think the amendment to the ' ordinance is just to bring these lots in line with the rest of the ordinances and have a deadline. So when they remove a house, there is some sort of deadline that will end the ' stuff. We happen to live next to one that the house was removed 6 years ago. And it starts out with a dock and then it's a boat and then pretty soon they've got a picnic grounds and they've got all their friends coming for every weekend and it finally ended up where they ' were camping on the property. No toilet facilities or whatever and it's caused a lot of problems. So I'm in favor of the amendment to the ordinance. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? ' Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 3 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Scott: Ms. Harberts. Harberts: Come on. Give me a break. Go ahead Matt. I Ledvina: I don't have any comments. ' Scott: Ladd? Nancy? Jeff? Farmakes: No. Harberts: Well I have a little problem with it but. Scott: And that is? Harberts: Well I understand what the gentleman has said and I certainly support what the intent here is. I guess it just adds to some of my concern with regard to controls. The amount of controls that the city chooses to place on it's residents and I'll just leave it at that. I Mancino: Do you think it's too restrictive? Harberts: I think it is too restrictive. But I understand what they're trying to do and it's probably perhaps a few bad apples that ruins it for everyone yeah because I don't, I personally don't see anything wrong with if a person owns a piece of property, a building is there and they want to come out there on the weekends to do their boating and they use their house, or that storage building to store boats or whatever. But when it come abusive, I can understand that because then it starts, infringes on the neighbors. When Kate talked about the integrity of the area and things like that. And it's just too bad that a few make it abusive for everyone. You know that's why some of my questions earlier about, is there an issue right now that prompted this amendment? And I can understand with a community that's growing like this, we certainly want to be responsive to the residents that are here, to protect those. So it's really too bad that it becomes abusive and the city has to control it. ' Mancino: Now can someone come in and ask for a variance? Al -Jaff: Yes. Mancino: And say I'm going to buy this property. I bought it and yet we're living out of town. We want to keep our boat docked or I don't know what but we never know ever single person who would come with a different request. But they can ask for a variance. Or they would have to prove a hardship. 4 I Planning ommission Meeting - June 15 1994 ' g g Scott: Can I have a motion please? ' Ledvma: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20- 904(c) as shown in Amendment #1. ' Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. , Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval , of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20- 904(c) as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ' A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT (SECTION 20 -902) IN A PUD DISTRICT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ' FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT TELEPHONE SWITCHING BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA. ' Public Present: Name Address , Philip Briggs 1000 W. Franklin #305, Mpls. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff P resented the staff report on this item. , Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? ' Harberts: How many employees? ' Al -Jaff: None. Harberts: Come on. They're not just going to build a building and have it empty. Al -Jaff: For maintenance possibly they will come in. .' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Harberts: There won't be any staff there during the day at all? It's just a matter for storage? ' Scott: Well it's a telephone. I think it's a telephone switch, data switch for the NWS station. Any other comments or questions? Harberts: I'll believe you. ' Scott: Would the applicant like to, or their representative like to make a presentation at this time? A brief presentation. ' Philip Briggs: My name's Philip Briggs. I represent... and this building is quite simply being built in order to facilitate the National Weather facility that's being built there. And as shown on the drawings, it's a very small building. It exists just off of what would be the ' entrance drive to the facility. As Sharmin stated, it's our intention to use matching material, matching color bricks and whatever kind of metal detailing... And at the request of the city in discussions with Ms. Al -Jaff, we agreed to enhance the landscaping in order to match the ' parking spaces of those buildings so. Scott: Do you know specifically what type of equipment is going to be in that? ' Philip It's a telephone switch facility basically. P P Y . Y ' Scott: Okay. And is the, do you happen to know what the number of lines? The reason why I'm asking this question is that I was just kind of interested as to why this was not the ' equipment that is in that particular building, why that wasn't proposed as being included in the original structure. And also, if this switch is specifically for the use of that weather station, handling data switching or if it is something that would also be used to serve other ' United Telephone, Sprint customers in that area. So this is kind of a multi- purpose. Philip Briggs: It's intended only for the National Weather Service facility, right. The reason it's not part of the building is that, this is going to be owned and operated by Sprint and United Telephone. And we're receiving a conditional use permit because we are getting an easement by the owners of the property to build a structure on the site. Harberts: How many lines will there be then? ' Philip Briggs: Pardon me? Harberts: How many lines will there be out of this building over to the Weather Station? 1 F Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Philip Briggs: I'm not certain of the exact number. It's all going to be underground as far as I have been made aware. , Harberts: It's interesting that they're putting up a different building .like that for the communications rather than what Joe said, incorporating it into the facility. ' Scott: Well, I think it's probably a lot like what U.S. West does. Is that they put their switches. , Harberts: Yeah, but for one client like that? Wait a minute, it's government isn't it? Scott: Any other questions? Mancino: I have a question for you. I see that on the west elevation, the HVAC units are on ' the outside. Why couldn't those be placed on the top of the building so that the parapet walls screen them so we don't need to have landscaping do it? ' Philip Briggs: That's a good question. The building being used is a building by Sprint, UTS. It's a...exterior material. We assume that, and Sprint and UTS assumes that the use of ' landscaping and berms would be... Mancino: I'd really like to recommend that they be placed on the roof of the building and , have the parapet wall screen it completely. Because I think one of the pitfalls that happens is when you put a little utility building like this all your city, I mean they show up that way. It's a box. It has nothing architecturally. It's usually not landscaped ... so I would like to see ' those units placed on the top. Sharmin, how compatible is this landscaping, from what I can see, with the landscaping at the center? I mean I felt that there was a lot more landscaping done at the weather center. Around the building itself. Around the parking, interior, etc. It I doesn't seem to reflect that feel. Al -Jaff: Well, with the recommendation that staff is making with additional landscaping, it would be compatible. Mancino: Okay. Are you recommending boulevard trees or lining of trees into the driveway , area or anything like that? Al -Jaff: This is their site. ' Mancino: And that's kind of the entrance to the National Weather Service, right? ' . 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Al -Jaff: Correct. Well this would be the entrance into the National Weather Service. So ' we're asking for additional trees around this ... That they have to have, and this will be green. We're also asking for a meandering... along the north elevation as well as additional landscaping. Additional trees. What we recommended was, and when we spoke to the ' applicant, we suggested a mix of evergreens as well as overstory and he would be able to pick out the species from the approved city landscaping trees. I Mancino: What are your thoughts on moving the HVAC up on top, on the roof versus on the side of the building? ' Aanenson: That's sitting so low right now, the Weather Service is, you're not going to see it from any direction. Even coming off of Lake Drive, it's sitting high. The Weather Service is sitting low. ' Mancino: But you have lots of people that work in the Weather Service too coming down the road and I just wondered, if it's an easy, doable thing, why not. ' Al -Jaff: Are the units removed? I mean do the have to have them separate? Y P ' Philip Briggs: That's basically the design of the facility. It would require that we redesign the facility ... if we were to do that. I've been told that would be ... but I'm not certain. ' Mancino: Maybe we can check that. ' Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Thank you. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please. ' Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. ' Scott: If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this particular issue, please step forward. Is there anyone here who would like to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? ' Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Scott: Jeff. I Farmakes: I only have—one comment. In issues where we cannot see the building... overhead 1 8 Plannin g Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 view. When you're referring to the flashing and the metal flashing and parapet and the brick and so on are going to match, I'm assuming that the effort is to match the existing structure ' of the other service building. I cannot remember the roofline or the parapet or the metal flashing of that building. But this is a very small structure. It's ... 24 or something like that. I think all of the work that's been done ... Even the drive in area where it's being landscaped is ' pretty insignificant. We should make sure that the materials and the roof...are an enhancement rather than just a utility building, especially since it's out in front by the entrance. That's it. ' Scott: Nancy? , Mancino: I have nothing new to add. Scott: Okay, Matt. ' Ledvina: I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the air conditioning units but , at the same time I'm reluctant to suggest that the applicant redesign the entire building for that purpose. I guess I'm wondering, maybe I don't have a clear understanding as to where the air conditioning units are. Are they on the ground or are they on the side of the building ' or? Al -Jaff: They are on the side of the building. The western wall. And these are the units I right here. Ledvina: Okay. And which direction does that face? I mean relative to the site plan here? I So towards the street essentially, right? Al -Jaff: Correct. And with the berm right here that we are recommending, is an additional ' screen. It should be screened completely from here. Mancino: But my only question is, it's probably goes like 8 feet tall and it depends if you ' have deciduous trees. If you have coniferous trees around it and I think that that will probably work. I'm just asking that staff and the applicant go back and see if it can be done without a lot of. Ledvina: Okay, okay. I would support that. Yeah maybe perhaps on the other side of the ' building you know because if you're looking at Lake Drive West and there is a potential for viewing that as you're driving by and I know those things can be unsightly if it's not done right. I would agree with you 100% there but I don't know that I'd be. I 9 ' I .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Well you have this great looking, the weather building which is very good looking and you're coming in and then you, you know you kind of have this box with HVAC on the outside of it as you drive by. ' Ledvina: What would you think if it was on the other side of the building? Mancino: Much better. ' Ledvina: Okay. Is that doable? To do a mirror image of that building? ' Philip Briggs: Possibly. You might have to change the wiring. Ledvina: Okay. Well I don't know. But if we can leave it a little bit, I don't want to, I'm ' nervous about if you have a condition like that, doing it in an absolute term because I know that it appears that the applicant has been willing to look at the options with landscaping and I think that will be fine. That's it, thank you. Scott: Ladd. ' Conrad: Nothing more. Scott: Diane. ' Harberts: Nothing. g ' Scott: Thank you. Can I have a motion please? ' Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #94 -3 as shown on the site plan received May 5th subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2, number 3, and number 4 is that the applicant work with staff to either flip flop the building ' and move the HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening. And that starts at year one. Not year 10. For year round screening. We don't want to wait for years. Anybody want to second that? ' Ledvina: I'll second that motion. ' Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #94 -3 as shown on the site plan received May 5, 1994 subject to the following 1 10 I. Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping to screen the HVAC and cross connect box. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of , landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide ' the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 3. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall ' be submitted. 4. The applicant will work with staff to either flip flop the building and move the , HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening immediately. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit #94 -3 ' subject to the following condition. Number 1. Compliance with the conditions of site plan and plat approval. Scott: Is there a second? , Conrad: Sure. , Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval , of Conditional Use Permit #94 -3 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 11 1 •' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND ' REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT NIINNEWASHTA, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Public Present: Name Address ' Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge ' Paul Harstad Steve Johnston 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton Loucks and Assoc, 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road ' Lynda Scott 4031 Kings Road Karen DeMun 6930 Minnewashta Parkway ' Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners for staff? ' Mancino: Kate, just one question. Is Kings Road a collector street? It says here in the staff report, page 4, at this time Kings Road is proposed to be extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as a local collector street for the subdivision. ' Aanenson: ...at some future date with the more properties subdividing in that area. When sewer becomes available, that may be an issue. ' Mancino: I thought we didn't want any more curb cuts on collector streets? And we weren't allowing. ' 12 I. Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: Well we're getting direct access onto, they're all getting access off Country Oaks. ' The 4 lots in Block 1 are being platted as, excuse me. The 3 lots. The first lot ...access off Country Oaks. Those other lots will be platted as an outlot until such time as Country Oaks, excuse me, Kings Road is developed to city standards. So those 3 lots. This lot will get ' access off of Country Oaks. These lots will be platted in an outlot until such time as Kings Road is developed to city standards. Mancino: When Kings Road is developed to city standards, it will be a collector? ' Aanenson: A minor collector. I Scott: So it's not like Kerber Blvd. Aanenson: Not like Minnewashta Parkway is a collector. It's a feeder street. It will ... out of Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: Okay. Like Lake Lucy Road? ' Aanenson: No. Not to that ... of traffic. I Mancino: So that when Kings Road is developed westward, you can access individual properties off Kings Road? I thought we kind of stopped that. ' Scott: But because it's a minor. Mancino: Is that because it's a minor collector? ' Aanenson: There are existing conditions... ' Mancino: But they're already existing. They're already there. They're grandfathered, , grandmothered in. Aanenson: Yeah, and we're not allowing it with the subdivision. Is that your question? Those lots will have access, those two. Oh excuse me, at a future date, correct. Those 4 lots. Mancino: But we are saying those lots can have individual access, curb cuts on the minor I collector. I thought that in previous subdivisions we could not, you've been against it. Hempel: One clarification Commission Mancino. This street is going to act like, similar to Lake Susan Hills Drive where you have all the other neighborhoods feeding onto this 13 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 neighborhood collector if you will. There is driveways up and down that street that access ' this type of street... Ideally it's, if you can get them off ...but all those parcels to the south, or I should say a majority of them, will have access directly off of Kings Road. There's not enough right -of -way or not enough land to subdivide and put a cul -de -sac street in and so ' forth. These are very large lots... Mancino: I just wondered if we were being inconsistent at all. ' Hempel: No, we don't believe so. ' Scott: Would the applicant and /or their representative like to make a brief presentation? ' Steve Johnston: Good evening ... also with me tonight is Paul Harstad with Harstad Companies. Paul will be available to answer any questions you might have ... The plat that you see before you is the results of staff's comments and the original proposal. We had a ' meeting with the owners adjacent to the project...As Kate mentioned, specifically we tried to addressed staff's concerns with the private drive ... the extension to the east ... rather than continuing to Stratford... The other modification that you'll see is that we have shifted Country Oaks Road to the east so it aligns up with the eastern property line with the Borris property. That was a request of the committee meeting in trying to avoid ... so we have been trying to be as responsive to the ... I'm happy to say that we have come up with the street profile for Kings ' Road that will save all of the trees on the south side of the road. All of the trees that are on other people's property. The unfortunate thing is, by virtue of widening the road, all the homes and all the trees on the north side of the building will be lost. That's because of the ... fairly close to the existing road surface and it was requested to widened that road out... That will take filling along our south property line ... north line of the existing Kings Road... There was some discussion at the previous meeting ... north line or south line. Our surveyors ' staked it and we went over that with them. There was some, they felt ... the line to be staked was correct and a correct south property line which would be the new south line, south right - of -way for Kings Road... As you mentioned, that's one of the biggest concerns at the previous meeting had to do with the ... sewer installation on Kings Road and that may require work outside of the 50 foot right -of -way. The proposal that we had made was ... the sanitary sewer through a portion of the park property allowing us to avoid putting ... As a result of that though ' and in looking at a lift station at the western most extension of Kings Road, that lift station will be sized to handle flow from this project and other properties in Chanhassen...That lift station is being installed as part of the first phase of the project... There is one item in the ' staff report that we just want to comment on for the record. And that is that they are concerned with the... distribution being proposed in the staff report... Ledvina: What condition is that? 14 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Number 7. Aanenson: That was regarding the park. The city will be taking, or purchasing the park property. Who's responsible for those improvements in front of the park. ...the city will be responsible for... Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Is there any streetscaping on Kings Road at this point? Aanenson: That's what we're recommending as part of the woodland management plan. That those trees they'll be taking out, that they come back and look at ... That was one of our recommendations ... come back with streetscape plan now for Kings Road. But also... Mancino: Okay, so that's to make sure that the tree preservation and the woodland management plan is that the percentage does not include all the streetscaping... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Alright, thank you very much. Steve Johnston: I guess I would like to request the ability to respond to any of the questions that are... Scott: Yeah, I think if there's during the public hearing, certainly if there's a question that staff can't answer. Steve Johnston: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If you'd like to speak on this particular issue, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and your address. Margie Borris: I'm Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. I want to thank you for moving that road. There are, on that first spot I believe... Number one where there were 12 cedar trees on the ridge there... According to the University of Minnesota Arboretum, some of those trees can be moved. So they do not have to be destroyed. Red cedar trees are very rare in Minnesota but I'd like to ... that the neighbors around us do want to keep as many of I. n 15 1 .' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 those as we can. The next question is, I couldn't read with our eyes because the writing is so ' small. The questions on the, since the sewer's now going to go down the center of the property, how, with the new grading, and the roads putting in, are we going to keep from getting water washed into Kings Road, specifically my property. Because it sounded like we ' would be lowering, we were changing the grades ... like it could drain into our property. But if there's a sewer there, that wouldn't be a problem but now there's no sewer there. ' Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr Chairman. Kings Road is proposed to be fully upgraded to the intersection of ' Country Oaks Drive. From that point west and it will ... street. Some portion of the street, the upgrade will have curb and gutter and storm sewer in place to collect drainage. Margie Borris: Okay. Another thing that was brought up ... is that we have underground electricity which is hooked up right at the corner of our lot across Kings Road to our property. If that's going to be disrupted or not, what are we going to do for electricity? ' Hempel: Mr. Chairman, those kind of conflicts are dealt with in eve construction project. P every P J ' Modifications are made in the field to provide temporary service to each individual home site... Those are all factors taken into consideration during construction. ' Margie Borris: Did you come up with a plan while this under construction so that persons living on Kings Road that have no other way or entering and exiting their home, they can get to and from work? ' Hempel: That would be addressed as well. Emergency services to deal with each home as well. ' Margie Borris: Okay. Well we went through the Minnewashta Parkway debacle for a couple years and we're real concerned. I was wondering too if there could be a stop sign placed at ' the, I can't read the name of that. Something Oaks Drive and ... for the people exiting that development, would this be... I Scott: That's pretty much standard procedure, isn't it Dave? Margie Borris: Okay, well it wasn't on here so I didn't know. ' Scott: Good question though. Okay thank you ma'am. Anyone else please. Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have several issues 16 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 that I'd like to address. Several which I've already addressed to the commission and Kate through letters and I haven't really received a response so I'd like to talk about them for a little. One is that, I know we talked here about taking the cedar trees on the south side of Kings Road and—This kind of gives you some idea the cedar trees we're talking about. They're these trees right here. As I said, this is Kings Road right here and my house is on the other side of the street up in here. It's been said that the trees will be spared. We know that accidents happen in construction and we know that there aren't any guarantees ... in construction so we'd like to have something in writing that kind of acknowledges to us that these will be saved. Is that possible? Scott: I know standard procedure is to put snow fence. There's an area, and I believe it coincides with the drip area. The outside of the canopy of the tree and that is denoted as a no tread zone if you will. That's a typical situation. Now when we're talking about a road Dave, we would use that same sort of a scenario to keep construction equipment off of that drip zone? Hempel: That is one method, sure. During construction you do have numerous subcontractors and so forth that do prelim the site... Occasionally accidents will happen ... but these trees are all within your property and so if there is damage done to them, the contractor does have insurance and is available to file claims against. That's one thing—certainly could put up construction fencing around each tree... Mancino: Dave, don't they have to, prior to them getting any sort of roadway improvements, doesn't someone go out from the city. Maybe our intern, our tree intern and inspects the site to make sure that there is that protected fence up before anybody is allowed to start doing the work? Hempel: Yes, that's correct. We do go out and inspect those areas. Sometimes some of the tree removal is done though actually before some of that stuff is put in because vegetation is so dense but in this situation, it's more sparse where it's easy to be put up prior to construction. Mancino: So we can actually write that down as part of the recommendation. That snow fencing must be put up and approved by city staff before any of the road construction begins. Hempel: We certainly can. I guess we'll know more of the impacts of these trees I guess know the final design of the street grades. I'm not on a comfort level yet with the applicant's construction plans to see the full impact of the street grades and that—upgrade of Kings Road will be a cooperative project between the city and the applicant. Most likely will be a 429 project or an assessable project... During the design we'll see the full impacts on the trees as 17 1 I� n L Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' we've done in other areas, we've—we can to preserve them. ' Sue Morgan: So basically you're saying that there's still... basically you just said you haven't really seen the final grading. Whereas prior to this time you said, you mentioned that final ' grading had been done on the street...Kate said the same thing. What you're saying is now is you still don't know. ' Hempel: I have not seen a final set of construction drawings which you don't develop until you're getting close to the final plat stage. But the preliminary grading, the contour lines will indicate the construction limits. I have not seen those newly revised street grades. I've seen the street profile but not a cross section. Sue Morgan: So basically the problem is that we really don't know who's responsible for ' what. It hasn't been decided if the city is ... so right now nobody's taking responsibility for it is basically what you're saying because you haven't seen the grading. He doesn't know what you're doing so it goes back and forth, back and forth. We're still in the same situation we ' were before is that no one will give us an answer and I want someone to say the answer. When... ' Hempel: We will have an answer when a feasibility study is done as part of the city project to upgrade this road. ' Sue Morgan: When is that, a month? Two months? Hempel: That would be once the applicant petitions the city to see ... this type of project. Sue Morgan: Is that after the City Council has approved this? Is that before the City Council approves it? ' Hempel: This preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the applicant petitioning the city to upgrade Kings Road. So this will not happen unless, this develop will not happen without ' Kings Road being upgraded. Sue Morgan: Okay, so right now he's just getting his development approved. He's not ' getting the upgrading of Kings Road approved, is that what you're saying? ' Hempel: It's kind of a package deal where his development is contingent upon him working with the city. The city developing Kings Road so. ' Sue Morgan: So basically right now... ' 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Hempel: I'm relying on the engineer for this development has done some preliminary identification but ... impact of the trees but I don't know if he'd like to address it further. Sue Morgan: Okay. Something else that kind of impacts that is that in contacting our attorney and also we started some proceedings with our title company, Kings Road, there's always been some question as to who owns Kings Road. About right -of -way. About easement and that still hasn't been resolved. There's nothing in our abstract, in our surveys that shows that the City of Chanhassen owns Kings Road. It has rights to it. I don't know if you or the City Attorney can give me the specific statute or I don't know what you'd call it. If your book of procedures that says what the standard is for obtaining an easement or right - of -way for this property for a road but that is still not clear to us and I don't know if it's going to be ... proceeding on Kings Road or what. We're in the process of...and maybe that would help clarify or help you guys decide whether ... right to that easement then... Aanenson: Can I address that? We looked at that several months ago and the opinion from the attorney's office is that we have a right based on the fact the city's been maintaining that road for 7 to 10 years so that we have a right of use. Based on that, where we've been plowing, that's why this plat went back. We had to go back and determine where exactly the southerly property is. Where we've been maintaining that road. That's why it's so far to the north. And they had to give up additional property. Push the road further to the north ... the southerly property line for Kings Road now is the most southerly portion that the city has been maintaining and plowing. That's our interpretation based on the City Attorney's opinion of our use. Sue Morgan: Right. That's your city... Aanenson: That's why this plat is moving forward. Sue Morgan: ...there is not a statute or anything on the books that says Chanhassen, what procedure goes through to obtain an easement other than the fact that you plow that road, therefore you own that road. Lowell Carlson's been plowing that road more than the City of Chanhassen so as far as I'm concerned, he owns that road. So what I'm saying is, that we're going through an investigation... That is the city of Chanhassen's interpretation. But we want to make sure. Maybe that is the way it is. Maybe that is the way it is. But we need for our peace of mind to find out that that is the way. But moving on. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that one point. Maybe for clarification. The new road will actually be north of that. We're not even going to be using the existing Kings Road. 1 r 19 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Right, but have you seen the stakes? We went out with the engineer to see the ' stakes. We know where the stakes are going and the finished road, you're right. Is going to be north of where the gravel stops now. So it will be a little north of our property. Maybe about 2 -2 1/2 feet. What we're concerned with is the actual construction of that road because ' usually, if you notice the construction around here, you have to go wider than the finished product in order to get the finished product. So that's what we're concerned with because you're saying that you've got right -of -way. You've got easements which means, if you've ' got as much right -of -way easement as you say you do, you're coming right into our driveway. Right into our front door practically. So what we're trying to do is to find out what the parameters are. We're not saying that you're wrong but what we want is to make sure you're ' right. Okay. Make sure you're right so you're not just blowing smoke... Scott: So you basically would like to have some sort of a line so it's kind of like this is your's and this is our's and you're not going to be over here. ' Sue Morgan: And that's fine. You can do what you want with it and we'll do our thing and ... so we keep going back and forth and nothing is resolved... Also, the next item is the drainage... ' Mancino: Excuse me Sue. Are those trees in the easement? The way it is right now. ' Sue Morgan: Yes. Mancino: They are in the easement. Margie Borris: Those 12 trees that I was talking about are actually on the north side of Kings Road and it's always been interpreted to be as our property because the fence line had ' been the property line for, since anybody could remember and that's a disputed area and on that right of use that you were talking about, if you maintain that area. So if you went over there and you mowed the lawn, we pick the weeds—then we have maintained the north side ' of Kings Road as well. Sue Morgan: So I guess the thing is, we just need to get it resolved you know. And this ' seems like the opportune time because development is coming in. You guys are going to be working on it so... But the next item I wanted to discuss is the drainage on Kings Road... There is this one holding pond that is going to be off the park there and kind of down ... and ' I'm not, I don't really understand how that works. Scott: I think there's another overhead that shows that outlot that's south of Kings Road. Is ' that what you're talking about? 1 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Scott: Okay. You're saying across and I didn't. I Hempel: Underneath the road. So the water will be pre - treated prior to be discharging to Lake St. Joe. I 21 1 Sue Morgan: Well it's kind of a combination of the two because the, if there's going to be a holding pond that's here, then there's got to be some way to get the drainage from there into ' Lake St. Joe which is, I'm assuming is here. Right now this field drains right across our property into Lake St. Joe and what we requested is the city has no easement on the property. To make sure that this pass thru is closed off before construction begins because we really ' don't want any of the runoff from this construction to ... property. Also we have some concerns because the elevation here. If you look at some of the schematics they've drawn, it goes uphill and then it goes downhill so if they're going to put a pond here, how are they ' going to get the water to naturally drain from this pond, underneath the road and through here to Lake St. Joe. ' Scott: Dave. Hempel: This latest proposal shows the storm water pond located in this area here, which will take the development's storm water and treat it in here. Then a storm sewer pipe is proposed to discharge in this area here. Continue across underneath Kings Road. As a part ' of the park development and the upgrade of Kings Road, we're going to need another small ponding area down in this area here due to the elevation change as mentioned. We'll probably have some storm sewer in Kings Road which outlets into this pond area. It's our ' thought to bring the storm sewer down to this area here and have an outlet into the same storm sewer system and have it then discharge across the street through the outlots within the development. Sharmin, do you have a little... , Scott: So you're talking, the water's going to be draining over the surface of the street and not underneath it? ' Hempel: No. We're going to pipe it from the proposed pond here down to, it'd be almost like a trunk storm sewer in a way. I'll give you a relation here. This is the proposed pond here on the new development. Pipe it down to a location where we have another pond. Take the storm runoff from Kings Road. Than pipe it across into this outlot which. ' Scott: This would go under the road? Hempel: Underneath the road. ' Scott: Okay. You're saying across and I didn't. I Hempel: Underneath the road. So the water will be pre - treated prior to be discharging to Lake St. Joe. I 21 1 G t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: But you still mentioned that there would be some runoff underneath Lake St. Joe when it comes from that. Scott: Well isn't that road going to effectively stop any runoff that's going through the north, with the new urban street section that you're going to be. Hempel: This is the high point. This is draining in each direction. All this water that comes down here will be collected by storm sewers, put into the storm, proposed storm pond and then routed into the storm sewer that comes from this pond and taken underneath the street through a storm sewer pipe and discharged to Lake St. Joe after it's all been pre - treated. Scott: So basically that. Hempel: That will eliminate your current drainage situation that you have right through your property. Sue Morgan: Okay. So will that be closed off prior to construction? ' Hempel: In conjunction with construction, yes. Scott: My guess would be that there'd be a construction fence placed in that 4 x 4 feet of ' black plastic. I don't know what you can call it. That entire development is going to have to be ringed by the construction fence which is to keep runoff and so forth from washing onto adjacent parcels. Good. Thanks Dave. J Sue Morgan: Again, then I have one other issue that came up at the last meeting and that was on water impacted. I'm not clear as to what's happening with the utilities along Kings Road. If the utilities for the development are going to move any further north ... along Kings Road. Is the city going to be putting in a city owned sewer on that land then along Kings Road? Hempel: For the upgrade of Kings Road, it only makes sense that we extend sanitary sewer and water under the new street section so we don't have to go back and tear it up 5 or 6 years down the road when these property owners subdivide or want to hook up to city sewer so as a part of the upgrading we will provide sewer and water extension of Kings Road to service these properties to the south whenever they desire to connect up to it. But again, the issue comes up about hooking up to the sewer line and so forth. The current ordinance requires the properties that ... sewer line hook up to within 12 months after it becomes operational. As mentioned in the staff report, the City Council is the body that has the power to grant variances to that ordinance. 22 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Who is the body that decides...? 1 Hempel: That will be addressed with the feasibility study. The upgrade of Kings Road. Scott: So that's calculated by the city engineering staff and any consultants that might be involved with it. ' Sue Morgan: Okay ... to make a decision as to whether to request a variance, if I had ... and so you kind of put us a little dilemma here because we're... We need to know before we request a variance how much it's going to cost. Maybe it's within our budget to do it... But until you tell us how much it costs, we don't know that. We need to... Scott: Yeah, when do you think those numbers are going to be available? Hempel: With the project for the upgrade of Kings Road, there will be informational ' meetings held on that once we get the information and have it to pass along to the homeowners what the costs will be at that time. Sue Morgan: Also, is the city, the utilities going off of Kings Road can we request that they ' go on the north side of the road and not down the center line? Scott: Is that where g Y o they're slated to anyway? On the north. Hempel: The utility lines do follow what they call a 10 feet standard where they have to ' have certain separation of like the sanitary sewer and the watermain. If the sanitary sewer runs down the center of the street, the watermain is on the north side of the road and the storm sewer is on the south side of the road at 10 foot intervals. Sue Morgan: ...that falls into the situation with the street... 1 Hempel: Those are going to be actually under the surface of the road. Sue Morgan: We were told that they have to make the road wider in order to put the utilities , in and they normally go underneath the roadway if possible... Hempel: For the installation of utilities, when they dig out their trench, it is a little bit wider trench... With storm sewer generally they can be pretty shallow ... less than 10 feet. The watermain has to be at least 7 1/2 feet deep... 23 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Within the 60 foot right -of- way... Hempel: That I can't answer at this point. ' Sue Morgan: So we're still talking about ... You said the trees will be saved but you really don't know. Why... Hempel: I did not say he trees will be saved. That's the engineer. The applicant's engineer Y g PP g indicated that. I have not seen the full documentation of that yet. Margie Borris: If I guess just while we're on the trees. I forgot gentleman's name in g g � ees o got the ge tle an s a e the striped shirt Steve, okay. He talked, if we're getting variances, why can't we get variances on the street alignment. Basically Country Lane. Keep it pretty much like it is instead of changing it into this super modern, meets the city codes and all this kind of stuff and keep a little peace and quiet in Chanhassen. Scott: Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately. ' Harberts: I think we'd have about 3,000 other families. Scott: Yeah, that's not, I don't think that's, you know it's nice but it's something that's not feasible. ' Margie Borris: Why? Scott: The reason being is that based upon the type of development that's slated to go in and ' the city standards for roads that are needed to handle that kind of proposed traffic, also with the utilities needed to support the development, it's not possible to leave things the way they are. That particular road was constructed, it's almost like, well from my experience from being down there. Margie Borris: It was never constructed. It was just a cow path that they widened out. Scott: Right, right. But that's not an issue. That's not anything that's going to be changed. Y g g $ There is a road going to go in there and it's going to have a certain urban standard. Margie Borris: ...I think we've re much all accepted the fact that 'r in h g pretty p at they ego g to change the road. What we would like to do is keep it as much the feel of it as possible. Keep ... why did we buy our property to move out there. A nice tree lined street. Okay. Now they're 1 24 I Planning ommission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' g g talking about widening out the north side... Scott: You know what I think we should do here. Excuse me ma'am. If we could maybe ' finish. Sue Morgan: I just have one more item. Also I'd like to suggest that for I know we talked , S g J gg about assessments for the road and who's paying what percentage of it, but for the 50% or ' whatever percent the city will be taking care of or absorbing the construction of the road, that perhaps the assessment order can be distributed like the Minnewashta Parkway project. Whereas everyone that accesses that road, or has access to it, pays for it. This road will be fronting a park. A neighborhood park and I would like to suggest that all the neighborhoods, the other neighbors in that neighborhood pay for the road. So if you take into consideration that there's going to be like 44 households that they're putting in. There's going to be the 4 ' of us. 4 households there. It'd be nice to kind of distribute that assessment a little further to those people who are going to be driving up and down... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe just to add onto that. At this point we're not looking at ' assessing the properties to the south of Kings Road. At some future time when they hook up to the sewer and water, then they would pay their fair share of connection hook -up charges at ' that time. But we're not proposing any street or storm drainage assessments to those individuals on the south side of Kings Road. Scott: Okay. What we like to tell everybody too is that we make recommendations and the City Council, you know. You've heard that story but it's important that you follow the issue because that's where the decisions get made. ' Sue Morgan: I very much appreciate your time and your attention to this and I guess the bottom line is that we've been there for a while and the road and the new development is ' coming in. Maybe if we could get the road to go a little further north, that would be helpful... Scott: Well thank u. Those are good questions. Would anyone else like to speak at the ' Y g public hearing? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? n M ino moved Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' ac p g the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: I think the neighbors brought up some real good questions. They'd be the same ' 25 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 questions that I'd ask. But at this point in time I think, from what I've seen the developer do and staff do, I think they've worked out something that I'm pretty comfortable with. It's the, some of the guarantees that the neighbors are asking for, you know you're out of the system basically and what's happened once we say something and once the City Council does it, you're sort of hoping that staff monitors the developers properly. And I think, that's just tough to bring them back into the loop once it goes through this. I really appreciate what they're saying. I think Dave, there are several questions or concerns. I don't know that we ' can solve them. The big concern still remains with the trees in terms of have we engineered to save the south trees. What would you recommend the, what's the process? I guess right now I would have to go along with the case in front of us in terms of the recommendations ' but let us say that you found out that the trees could not be saved. Or all of them. Or Kate, what's the process to review that? Because by the time this gets to City Council, you're not going to know any more than you do tonight. ' Aanenson: Well not the relimin plans. What Dave is indicating, before we et the final P �' P g� g ' plat they have to do some... Conrad: And let's say that they find. ' Aanenson: As the ... has indicated, the possibility of maybe transplanting these trees on the north. That's certainly... ' Conrad: I like that. Aanenson: ...but we have a woodland management plan. The applicants are going to respond ... and slightly to the north. I mean that solves his problem with the tree preservation. ' Conrad: But I really want to tackle, the residents are saying hey, you know it looks kind of good. Aanenson: We understand the condition and ... was certainly our goal to preserve the integrity of that area. ' Conrad: Okay Kate then let's say that Dave takes a look at the final plans and says that half of those trees are going to die because we do have to put utilities that close to that. So what happens at that point? ' Mancino: Can't we make a recommendation that the be saved? That the would be moved. Y Y Conrad: Well I don't know the process. You know I think the process would be, Kate 1 26 I Planning ommission Meeting - June 15, 1994 g g would say well they're going to die so we're going to, she's going to administratively deal with it in terms of the replacing trees and I don't think that the neighbors say that's fine but we'd rather save them in the first place. Aanenson: We've dealt with this in other utili ty P projects improvement 'ects in the city where we ' had to go in and ... upgrade the sewer and we had to take out trees. The Council's dealt with this issue before and if this is a 429 project, there's a possibility of that being ... we certainly ' understand the concern and the Council does too. The city looked at other utility projects... Scott: What we have I think is the applicant saying the trees would be saved, and I think ' from a condition standpoint, I think we can put something in where a licensed arborist or someone, independent party can, based upon a final survey of where the road's going to go. When you get that information, then I think at that point in time someone who is a registered, , I don't know what you'd call it. I'll say arborist. Can then take a look at, look at the species of trees and say fine. No, they're going to die and then we have another issue. I think what , you want to do is, since it's so iffy right now, we don't want to make a decision to send it ahead and then have the neighbors thinking one thing and then all of a sudden they get the other and you're just trying to figure out how to protect them. Conrad: Well yeah, it's a frustration from anybody that has something impacting them. Then a city coming in and kind of saying, well that kind of looks okay. And in 2 weeks from now ' the City Council's going to say, well that kind of looks okay. And then the real engineering reports might come in later on when you see the elevations or whatever, and then it doesn't look so hot but everybody's out of the loop at that point. And there's not, I think we're ' probably stuck with, in terms of how we deal with this, a best effort scenario but the only thing that bothers me is really the applicant saying well we think we have a solution and Dave's not able to say it's pretty good. And that's really what I want to hear from Dave is ' saying, I think it's a pretty good shot and until I hear him say that, I'm uncomfortable. Mancino: I don't think it should go out of the loop. I think it should come back in if, it's ' to City Council. If he finds out when he does his real evaluation. The real thing. If he feels comfortable saying yeah or nay. That at that point, if it's yeah, everybody goes great. The people who live near it. If it says nay, then it comes back to City Council to review it and ' what do we do then? Conrad: I think that's appropriate because I think of all the issues, and there are a lot of ' issues that the neighbors have brought in and unfortunately this is progress and that's what's happening and the best we can do is minimize the impact. I know your lifestyle's going to change a tad and it's changed for most of us who have lived here for 20 years. And there ' 27 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' aren't any guarantees but I guess the only thing I'd like is to have our staff being able to say, it's a good shot and again, there aren't any guarantees. You're probably not going to get anything in writing to say that the city of Chanhassen guarantees 100% of the trees on the ' south side are going to be saved. I don't think we'd do that because it's just too many. We just wouldn't do that. But I think again, what I do want to hear is feedback from our engineering staff saying that the design is, meets his specifications so I think we do want that ' loop. The only other thing I like is the idea of transplanting trees. If that works. I think that's sort of a neat deal and maybe, if these trees, I don't see that as, given the reforestation or whatever we need under the tree management plan, I think moving some of these trees ' might be a good solution. Everything else, I'm in agreement with in the staff report. Scott: So your overall opinion on the staff recommendation is positive? Conrad: Right. ' Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I'd like to give Dave a chance to comment on this. ' Hempel: If I could just comment a little ... Kings Road. City Council still has another opportunity. They have to approve the construction plans for the upgrade of Kings Road so the issue about the trees I'm sure is going to be relayed to the City Council. They're going to follow that item. They're going to want to see that in the construction plans of the upgrade. That these trees are being addressed. Are they being saved? Are there retaining walls out there saving these trees or can't we save these trees? That's the time that the City Council's going to say yeah or nay on the construction plans of Kings Road. So there is more opportunity to hold back this development, if you will because of the tree issue. I just wanted to point that out. Scott: Okay, good. Conrad: Joe, one more question. The variance that we grant in terms of the 20,000 square foot lot sizes, Kate. That doesn't set a precedent for any lots built closer? Aanenson: These are the lots on the most northern lots of the plat. Again, they all averaged ' over the 20,000 square foot minimum and the same for the lot width and the DNR supports the variance based on the location and the overall lot being over 20,000 square feet. Conrad: So when the neighbors that will build to the east, this variance will not set any kind of, it's a totally independent issue, right? 1 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ,, Conrad: If I thought there was some real drainage issues between there and the lake, that ' would be a trigger and I think to solve the, I just don't want the developer to the east saying well, we've had the variance here. So now I can do that and we'll average and I don't think it's a precedent. I think it's still, I don't think it is. I think it's simply a straight variance ' and we figure in this case that it makes sense. So that was my comment Kate ... she agreed. Ledvina: Well I would agree with the staff report. I think there has been some good changes. I know we've worked, and the developer has worked to show as little destruction with the installation of Kings Road as possible. I guess I would support an additional condition to make the construction plans for Kings Road contingent upon the tree ' preservation. I think that should be part of it. Scott: You'll have an opportunity to add that condition when you make the motion. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. 29 1 Aanenson: I think so. Mancino: Only that, I don't think that we allowed Lundgren, on the other side of Lake St. Joe. ' Aanenson: We gave them variances on the front yard lot line. Mancino: But now on the 20,000 square foot. ' Scott: It wasn't averaged. , Mancino: It wasn't an average. It was per lot. g P Conrad: I'm pretty comfortable with how close. ' Mancino: Are you pretty comfortable with the average? , Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Some of the lots are dissected. Some of the lots have less than, just a portion of , the lot falls within that shoreland district. When this plat originally came back through, there were 57 lots. We looked at giving some variances and whether, not the entire lot fell within the... ' Conrad: If I thought there was some real drainage issues between there and the lake, that ' would be a trigger and I think to solve the, I just don't want the developer to the east saying well, we've had the variance here. So now I can do that and we'll average and I don't think it's a precedent. I think it's still, I don't think it is. I think it's simply a straight variance ' and we figure in this case that it makes sense. So that was my comment Kate ... she agreed. Ledvina: Well I would agree with the staff report. I think there has been some good changes. I know we've worked, and the developer has worked to show as little destruction with the installation of Kings Road as possible. I guess I would support an additional condition to make the construction plans for Kings Road contingent upon the tree ' preservation. I think that should be part of it. Scott: You'll have an opportunity to add that condition when you make the motion. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. 29 1 Planning ommission Meeting - Jun 1 19 g g e 5, 4 9 ' Mancino: And add to that something about moving the trees because the trees are red cedars. I know that just 3 years ago we had, we moved 3 big, well 25 foot tall spruce onto our property and they're alive and they're doing well. They need to be babied and watered and ' all that good stuff when they are moved but I think we got Big Joe, the big shovel, the earth mover or tree mover and it's great. It works and I think we can do that. ' Conrad: How much did you pay for that? Mancino: How much did I pay? Two bucks. Two bucks a tree. It was great. I Scott: Any other comments germane to this issue? Mancino: Ah no. I have none. I think that they've been reviewed very well and I'm glad that—participating to this degree and care about what's going on around them. ' Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: Actually in this case I think the system has been working pretty well. I really didn't like this development when I first saw it. In fact I put it in the top 5 of the last 4 years, I thought it'd be a real detriment the way it was laid out. I like what staff has done. They did a good job in revising the whole concept of how it lays out. I have no arguments ' of the city's concerns in regards to who's going to pay for what ... affect their property. Every time you get this type of development, adjacent to large lots, we have this problem. The problem is of course that when they put in road and figure out how they're going to do this, ' we think in terms of 50 years. It's been said that nobody owns property. You just rent it for a while. You have to figure that someday these large lots are going to be developed and we have to develop accordingly. I know that's not what you want to hear but nonetheless as ' Chanhassen grows, that's what's happening. I would support the adjacent property owners... on the trees. I have no argument with that and I have no further comments. ' Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #93 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the staff conditions listed in their report and 2 additional ' conditions. Number 27 to read, the developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part of the woodland management plan. Number 28. Approval of the construction plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation on the south side of the road. Scott: Is there a second? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Second. Scott: Motion on the floor has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? ' Conrad: I saw Dave grimace. What did you think was wrong with that motion? I Hempel: If there's to be one tree removed and the rest are saved, I guess there's. If you could say if feasible. ' Conrad: I don't know and I can't speak for Matt. I think we're looking for a feeling that you feel that this is the best possible plan to protect as many trees as you can. I don't think , there's expectations here that gee, that everyone will live. Aanenson: ...tree preservation. i Ledvina: Ah yes. Well how about significant tree preservation? Meaning, I guess that's not a very good word either. Let's say, to the maximum extent feasible. Mancino: Just let us know what it is. How wide is the road? 32? Hempel: 31 back to back. That's curb to curb. Ledvina: And again, what I'm thinking about is the use of additional engineering techniques , like retaining walls or locating other utilities in other areas that are feasible but will result in the tree preservation. Those types of things. Maybe taking an extra step to make that tree ' preservation occur. Mancino: Making sure that staff is there and... ' Scott: Is there any more discussion? (Diane Harberts had left the meeting prior to voting on this item.) ' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval , of Preliminary Plat #93 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. ' 31 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ' 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All ' areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. ' 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies ' (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their conditions of approval. ' S. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development ' contract. 6. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 ands 4, Block -2 1 (phase II) until the full 60 -foot wide right -of -way on Kings Road 8IFa&fd Lane is dedicated to the City and the street is constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an outlot until the full street is dedicated and built. 7. The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be ' responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. 8. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm ' event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading and drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. ' 11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase H. 12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat , for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. , 13. . A temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at the ' end of White Oak Lane east of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround ' outside the right -of -way. 14. A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners , south of Kings Road mil- may be refunded to the applicant. The exact Mhand reimbursement will be determined based on actual construction costs for the installation of the utilities. ' 15. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree , removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27 -2-9 dweag# 24 Block 1. disruption 16. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree ' removal. Gensidefafien should be given to Kings Read street gr-ades iR an effe easements wiI4 be neeessaFy ffem the pfepeffies te e seeth. A 5 foot wide concrete , sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements. , 17. a tF j ess b use e f a pf d& eway at the ead a s ,en a Fe de s i gn i ng t he saflitffy se . The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall ' be designed and constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance (20 ft. wide, 7 ton design and 30 foot wide easement). ' 33 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 18. 19. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water ' quantity fees. These - quantity fees should be applied to this development as. outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. 20. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and ' utility construction. 21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. ' 22. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). 23. The stefm watef pead shag be plaeed in an eu The intersection of Country ' Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to MnDOT's design criteria. 34 24. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission. 25. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January ' 21, 1994. 26. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between ' Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards whether done by the applicant or city improvement project. 27. The developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part of the woodland management plan. ' 28. Approval of the construction plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation to the maximum extent possible on the south side of the road. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: And it goes to City Council? 34 Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. I Scott: In your opinion, how responsive has the applicant been to, I mean I read the staff report and it seems like there's, the city of Chanhassen is kind of chasing these people and ' spending a lot of time trying to get them to conform existing agreements. Have they been somewhat uncooperative? Very uncooperative? I'm trying to get a sense for what the relationship is because, the reason why I'm asking the question is I recall last year we had a ' contractor's yard situation where it was pretty much a mess and there was a lot of legal time spent on both sides. The intent that I perceived on behalf of the applicant was that they had no intention of conforming to anything and I'm trying to separate these two issues. Hoping ' that we're not running into the same thing again. Al -Jaff: Yes. We spent some time working on this. I think that the applicants had some ' 35 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: It goes to City Council on July 11th. , Conrad: It's real important that you stay there. Scott: Don't be on vacation. Good. , Conrad: Go to the City Council meeting. ' Scott: Yeah Jul 11th. And check the agenda to make sure it's actually on too. Good. Y g Y Thank you all for coming. ' PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN ' THE BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Public Present: , Name Address , Laverne Wheeler 445 Lakota Lane Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane M. Happy 495 Lakota Lane ' L.M. Campbell 415 Lakota Lane Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. I Scott: In your opinion, how responsive has the applicant been to, I mean I read the staff report and it seems like there's, the city of Chanhassen is kind of chasing these people and ' spending a lot of time trying to get them to conform existing agreements. Have they been somewhat uncooperative? Very uncooperative? I'm trying to get a sense for what the relationship is because, the reason why I'm asking the question is I recall last year we had a ' contractor's yard situation where it was pretty much a mess and there was a lot of legal time spent on both sides. The intent that I perceived on behalf of the applicant was that they had no intention of conforming to anything and I'm trying to separate these two issues. Hoping ' that we're not running into the same thing again. Al -Jaff: Yes. We spent some time working on this. I think that the applicants had some ' 35 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 personal, I think a member of their family was taken ill and they had to leave town for a ' while so a lot of the meetings were postponed that were scheduled and some of the reasons were legitimate. It took us a while to reach an agreement but we did reach an agreement. Scott: Okay, enough said. Questions. Comments from commissioners for staff? None? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative like to speak? Is there anyone here? ' Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I don't know where to start and I don't want to get long winded. We are, and always have been in the past, 100% cooperative. I think for anybody ... I don't know if any of you received the letter that I had sent as a back- up to...If you looked at the ... We did not build anything on the property ... It was brought to our attention ... and if you notice the dates ... We want to be as cooperative as we can. We thought ' we were alright in having our containers on the property. In the letters ... We want to do a lot more with the land. We did have conditions... was denied, even though at the ... wrote a nasty letter and told we had to get them off right away. We contacted the city to see what could be ' done. We are, we worked with the city right away. The first meeting was with their attorney ... Those pictures, I'm not aware what you're looking at. I know I had taken pictures earlier... ' Conrad: Is there ever any refuse in the containers when they're on site? ' Nancy Lee: No. They're construction containers that we take to the sites but we don't fill them with garbage. ' Conrad: And is the 58 number that staff has proposed acceptable? Nancy Lee: No it's not... ' Conrad: I guess I'm not sure why, when did you start storing these there and under what? ' Nancy Lee: They've been there since we had the conditional use permit. Conrad: And the conditional use allowed this? ' Nancy Lee: Yes it did. We have a letter from. Conrad: Allowed dumpsters? It said that we allow dumpsters? Nancy Lee: I have a letter from Barb Dacy, the previous city planner, and she had a limit on what... ' 36 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Conrad: You're aware of what our, this business district is all about? Do you know what we're trying to do down there and what we're not trying to do? Have you talked to staff ' about the intent of the. Nancy Lee: ...I know we haven't had a lot of direct answers. ' Conrad: Well it's in print. It's in print so you can always go and ask staff to say, what are they trying to do in that fringe business district. You should do that just so you know how ' we react when we look at an application. Thank you for your comments. Nancy Lee: Well actually on that, I don't know if you'll remember or not, we have been ' trying to find out from you... Conrad: You know and I'll fill in and maybe because you may not get to the report but that ' area is a pretty area. And the intent typically has been down there that we don't want to intensify. Yet there were businesses there and we didn't want to harm their right because they had that business. And so under that, we have a very natural looking area. We have an area that's not serviced with Chanhassen services. In terms of water, sewer. We're trying to maintain that area in terms of it's natural appearance but give business an opportunity to survive. But really not to grow because it's not serviced and we have these other conflicts. ' So I think if you had looked at the intent, and the intent has been there for quite a while. Since I've been around, for that particular district, I think that would tell you what you can and can't do and maybe might tell you why staff might react to some of the things you do the ' way they do. But again, thanks for your comments. Mancino: I have a question for Ladd I guess. In Barbara Dacy's conditional use permit that ' was given, there was a limit of 50 dumpsters when the conditional use permit was granted. Is that correct? ' Al -Jaff: With that conditional use permit, they were going to have a building actually. There was supposed to be a garage and an office. Mancino: Oh, and the dumpsters were supposed to be in the building. , Al -Jaff: They were going to have vehicles stored in that area and it was ... I mean it was indoor, enclosed storage and. ' Mancino: It w was just never done? � Al -Jaff: Nancy, do you want to elaborate? ' 37 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Nancy Lee: Yeah. It was going to be ... It was a garage ... and outdoor storage. It was ... That's not true ... We would like to build on it. A building would be wonderful but there... I Scott: Are there any services to that site? Electricity, water, sewer. Al -Jaff: Definitely not sewer and water. No. It's outside the MUSA area. ' Scott: But electricity though. They could get electricity. ' Nancy Lee made a statement that was not picked up on the tape. Scott: Okay. So this was originally a conditional use permit. It was a lot like the ' contractors yard where 12 months you have to have substantial construction, etc, etc. Okay. Nancy Lee: We were originally told that garbage companies don't fit anywhere ... we were ' told that we would be under a contractors yard and we also applied for ... so we did that and that's how they granted... Then when we had that change so that we would fit in that ' category, according to what they wanted us to do, then ... So we don't fit anywhere in an area with contractors yards and everything else. ' Mancino: Sharmin, tell me about the operation hours and days. I see 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night. ' Al -Jaff: On weekdays. Assuming that ... or to take a dumpster. Mancino: But I see that's Monday thru Saturday. Aren't there homes in that area? 1 Al -Jaff: There is one part of the site. There are two... ' Mancino: Do we usually in the business fringe allow the Saturday, the 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 p.m.? And is there a need? ' Nancy Lee: There's quite a distance—property but I think people would have to come to the very edge of their property to even see on our land. We're down by 212. And they're up over the railroad tracks and they have to go ... There's not a lot of activity... Mancino: Would you support keeping those hours as the area gets developed? Around it. And is there a way to change those if you get more development around? Aanenson: Sharmin has indicated that there are, the neighbor ... has complained but the 38 39 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 recommendation... ' Mancino: Well I would certainly, I don't care whether it's one house or 10 houses. Saturday at 7:00 in the morning would not, I would change those hours on Saturday to 9:00 to 5:00 as reasonable for people living in that area. No other questions at this time. ' Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Do you have any other comments like to make? ' you'd Nancy Lee: No. ' Would anyone else like to speak at the public ? Yes sir. Please hearing? Scott: Okay, thanks. Wo y p p g identify yourself and give us your address. ' Verne Severson: I'm Verne Severson and I'm the property owner who's directly north of the lot in question. So I have a few thoughts that I guess I'd like you to think about and then I have a list of problems... First, I guess living in the south end, and having to pay what we ' feel are very high property taxes and we don't get the same benefit or advantages that other residents of Chanhassen have, we don't have the, like in city parks, we don't get playgrounds. We're forced to use a Chaska address and we're living in Chanhassen. And it's always been ' a safety issue. We don't have sewer and water. We have difficulty getting our local street paved or properly maintained and we get no help in our request for, to make Highway 101 safer for walking and biking and jogging. And then our desire to work on taking advantage ' of the abandoned rail corridor, which was met with great disinterest by the city. So overall we feel that we're somewhat ignored by the city and so when something like this comes up, it ' peaks our interest. The problems we have, these are I think quite simple. One is we have high expectations of our quality of life in Chanhassen. It's a prestigious city and we want to be part of that but we feel that the noise and smells and the views of dumpsters aren't really consistent with that. I don't know, I guess it's been commented that the site is presentable but I tend to disagree with that. I think it is quite ugly really. We can't see it from our house but people who walk on the trail along there can see it ... And number two I think, and , those are selfish reasons of course. Number two, I think Chanhassen should be concerned... This is the southern entrance to Chanhassen. State Highway 101, people come up there. I know that that area's been called ugly town and it has been quite ugly and is still quite ugly ' but I think that you as city planners should be trying to be considering that. Trying to at least improve that ... and do it quickly and rapidly but maybe you should just be concerned with Chanhassen and start working on that... Like I mentioned, it is the southern entrance to ' Chanhassen and also there's the biking and hiking trail to be developed along there so you'll have more people to have a view of that area. It's a very pretty area and I guess I'd like to see it kept for... And third, we're being asked to make some sacrifices. Especially the ' 39 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 concern of the preservation of the bluff area. There's some restrictions being put on us ' because of that. And I guess I feel our neighbors should also help preserve the area and keep it looking nice. The report, the staff report says they didn't feel the property value would be decreased by that. Well, I guess I'd dispute that. A dumpster is a dumpster and a dumpster ' really is a garbage, it's associated with garbage and that's not good for your property value. And I guess my last point is that, approving this area for storage of dumpsters is one thing and maybe something can be worked out where that can be allowed but what happens is that ' leads to something else. And we're afraid that if that's allowed, that something else is going to be ... and uglier and it will be difficult to stop so it comes back to my first point I guess. I guess I feel that you should be paying a little more attention to the area at the south end of ' Chanhassen and try to pay as much attention to us I guess as you do to the Kings Road area. Thanks. ' Scott: Good, thank you sir. Anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Laverne Wheeler: My name's Laverne Wheeler. I live at 445 Lakota Lane. Just down the ' block to the east. I just second what Verne had said and I just had a couple questions that people might answer for me. A commercial dumpster. I have an image of what it is but, and ' what it might contain but maybe if I was informed a little more on the type of materials that these things contain and if there are any refuse left in them at the point when they're stored at all. Conrad: They said no. ' Laverne Wheeler: They're ... and cleaned out. Scott: Has the applicant seen those pictures? I don't think she has. ' Laverne Wheeler: I would just, in talking about making that area more presentable, I think this abandoned railway and improvements that are happening there is just an outstanding ' thing to improve that area for both the residents of Chanhassen and people who might enter and leave through that gateway. And if the storage site can be screened from those people adequately, with something that's attractive. The dumpsters are clean and neat dumpsters. I ' mean something that we ... other things, I don't object to dumpsters. I've got one in my driveway right now because I've been improving but I think if we can find a way to either collect them in an area where they could be screened entirely from view of the people who ' are around there. If they don't provide an odor or don't support animals or anything like that, I wouldn't have a problem. But I would encourage some dramatic screening so that the items themselves can't be viewed. Fi .o I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please. ' Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Farmakes: I'd agree with the residents. For Chan's future, I think that those type of uses ' along that area have got to go. For some reason along that road just seems to be a magnet to that type of use. I guess I wasn't back here in the 50's and 40's and. ' r long. ' Conrad: No, I haven't been on here that . g Farmakes: I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know if waiting until the MUSA expands there ' is necessarily criteria that we should use for that. Mancino: Well then what would be it based on? , Farmakes: Well for instance, we have some developments, large lot developments that ' squeezed into those areas before we get MUSA and it increases the population. I think the criteria being that there's going to be enough people to object to that type of usage. Kind of does the trees fall until you hear it. We're talking about an area that not only us but the ' federal government are looking at trying to enhance and I'm not against approving this permit but I'm wondering if we should entertain a time limit for review or if we're just going to leave it open ended criteria for it. I'm not sure how you do that with an existing use that is ' incompatible, or you think is incompatible long term with the goals of the area. How is the position that we take to nudge that out and allow the person a reasonable amount of time to make arrangements elsewhere. ' Conrad: See we don't have a master plan for this area. If Tim Erhart was here, he'd love this conversation because he's always been real concerned with that corridor. And we don't ' have a plan and the only thing that's going to force the plan is city services down there and then you can start doing something but nobody's really said let's turn it into a preserve because you'd have to buy it. There's no money to do a natural thing down there so ' therefore we've always taken the easy. Well I don't know if it's the easy way out but nobody's had a vision Jeff to really do something that might be quite different. So therefore status quo has been. ' Farmakes: And I'm not talking about initiating this now. I'm just talking about in the future. ' Whether that 10 years from now. It seems to me that a master plan will be done for that area 41 1 -' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 prior to sewer and water going there. And I'm just, they're talking about fringe businesses ' and some of the other ones that we see along that road. Either mining operations or the type of thing that you would not expect out here. The reason that they haven't been objectionable is it is an isolated area. But long term, and in particular. Not just ... federal government is becoming more involved in that area. We may be thinking about what we should do long term planning with that area and again allow some reasonable time for the business owners of that area to. Conrad: You're thinking right but we don't know so it's hard to tell. We shouldn't really make up something out of the clear blue. Aanenson: Can I just make a comment? When we went through the goals with the City Council, we promised them that we'd start working on the, we had the 1995 study area south ' of Lyman and as you know we put together what we're doing in the agenda ... but we've committed to the Council that we were going to try to wrap in the BF district in the 1995 study area and start working on that this fall. So in short ... we also have to start looking at the BF district ... so we have committed to the Council that we'll do the 1995 study area ... It is a priority. ' Mancino: So are you saying you would feel comfortable with a recommendation that not only, you whichever is less then, the use shall be terminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Municipal Service or conditions of the permit have been violated, whichever comes first. Or the Highway 1995 study is concluded and passed or? ' Aanenson: That might be a good way to wrap it into. To do an evaluation of that as we review the study area... ' Conrad: Can't we put terms on conditional uses though? Can't we put. Aanenson: You can bring it back every year if you want. ' Conrad: But your trade off is, the applicant is only willing to put in so much money into the site given the fact they may lose. Mancino: Every year they may lose it. Conrad: Right. So you've got to say, what do you want them to do right now and to prorate that over a life of, if it's only one year. If we give them one year, they don't want to do it and that's one way to defeat their proposal. But there's a lot of stuff I think coming in down i t here. I guess you just have to weigh. 42 n Meeting - June 15 ' Planning Commission eeri g , 1994 Aanenson: That's why we're going to be looking at these issues ... and we'll also be looking at a Bluff Creek study area which we talked about earlier tonight working with the watershed ' district and ... that was part of this charette we had recently. Trying to get some additional funding for Bluff Creek and is ... enhance Bluff Creek and the surrounding watershed area. So ' there are a couple things happening with that study that will... Mancino: I guess I want to ask Ladd. Do you have a vision for that area? I Conrad: Long term, that whole area? It's a tough one. It should be natural. Absolutely. It should be, but the fact of the matter is, nobody's going to. There's not going to be a government body that comes forth with a lot of money to buy it. But it is, it's beautiful ' territory. Should be connected to Eden Prairie is I think a preserve or I don't know what it's called to the northeast of it so we should be connected there. It's pretty stuff. But remember we've got a dump down there and auto graveyard and it's, there's a lot of poor uses that are ' ecologically just horrendous. Just horrendous so, a vision for the area, I don't know what it's going to be. It's also on a highway. It's a great highway. If I were a business person in the ' highway business area, I'd just love to have a gas station down there if it has the right road access and what have you. It's just, it's 15,000 cars or big numbers. Big enough to really develop a commercial deal but the right use is natural park or passive. In terms of tonight, ' and I'm going to ask staff but I really think we should be tabling this tonight because the real issue. Well, the real issue, I guess there are other deeper issues but the only way you can look at this is if it's screened. That's the only way. They're coming in for a conditional use and they've got something that's less intensive than what they were planning before with building something and fencing something and putting trucks in there and so really I don't mind the use if you can handle it. If you can screen. So screening is the major issue and if you can't screen it, I don't want to take a look at it. Mancino: So you want to see the landscape plan and see what they can do. ' Conrad: Absolutely. Point number one, we'd recommend that it's approved, that the. Well if the applicant can't furnish us a landscape plan that we think is acceptable to us, then in my ' mind this doesn't fly at all. So I think it should be tabled. If staff feels that's the right thing to do. Because I think there's been some communications back and forth and I don't know, is here some of the, all the background to why this tonight. Farmakes: You're making my comments shorter. ' Mancino: I'd support tabling it. Ledvina: Likewise. 43 ' 0 t F Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Scott: Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I move that we, hold on. I move that we table Planning Case #94 -1, IUP. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table case #94 -1 IUP. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCKS AND 3 OUTLOTS FOR A 166 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 34 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 2, 3, 4, 6 OR 8 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Public Present: Name Address Jim & Sue Avis Chuck Gabrielson 8190 Galpin Blvd. 2600 Arboretum Blvd. Howard Dahlgren 1786 Irving Avenue So, Mpls. Derrick Passe 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 John Peterson 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, can you please show me where the 4 or 5 single family homes are. I've never seen them on any of their drawings. On Galpin east of the development? And how many are there? Can you draw that in? v 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Resident: There's 3 there. Mancino: There's more than that, isn't there? Resident: Where it says retaining wall is where I live. Yeah, one right there. Scott: We just had that development in here last. Resident: One on the other side of the easement. Yeah, right there. That's the 3 right there. Mancino: There's only 3? Resident: Yeah. Generous: And then the existing farm is up there. Mancino: And where does Trotters Ridge begin? Aanenson: They're south of the wetland. Generous: They're down on this end. Mancino: So between Trotters and then it's wetland. Okay, thanks. Generous: And this trail system will actually connect into that. Mancino: But there is land between Galpin and the wetland on that west side between. Aanenson: There's some upland area that will. Resident: Yeah, that's real wetland. There's a ... creek that runs through there. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Resident: And it's about 40 feet... Scott: Bob, since we're talking conceptually here, the reason for having a PUD is to gain, have some gain, preservation, enhancement, environmental enhancement for the city of Chanhassen. It wasn't real obvious to me what the city of Chanhassen is getting out of this development as it sits right now. I mean I see a trail going around the western edge of the 45 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 development. But what are we getting out of this? Is it strictly "affordable housing" or what ' am I missing here? I'm looking for something significant which would say to me, this warrants a PUD. Generous: I believe it's probably most likely going to be the preservation of these areas west, on the western edge. I L II J iJ �l Scott: But didn't a previous applicant drop this property because they couldn't build there? What I'm trying to get to is that if they can't build there, we can't hold that up and say they're preserving it if it's unbuildable. Or if it's too expensive to build on. Aanenson: I think what you're saying is correct. I mean there's certain things that they have to do based on the fact that there's a wetland but the reason the staff would support a PUD is we allowed on other PUD's to help with the design framework which we wouldn't if this was a straight site plan review. So what we're looking at here is the architectural standards and some of those issues. Scott: But aren't the architectural standards covered by the Highway 5? They'd have to have that anyway. Aanenson: Yeah, but they're not officially adopted yet. We're trying to do those. With a PUD we definitely can put that in a development contract and hold them to that Scott: So the major advantage then is to stop using the PUD as a design stop gap because the Highway 5 ordinance hasn't passed yet. Scott: What are the other major benefits? Aanenson: Yeah... Generous: Efficiency on the site. Use of the site and development of the site. They're clustering their development in the eastern pocket of this wetland complex that they're looking to preserve. Scott: But aren't they just, but once again, is that the only, that's the only area that they can build on. I mean what it sounds like is if you can't build on it, you're. Generous: This is developable down here. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Scott: Is it? Can they get a street to it or something? Generous: They could have gotten to it. They could come from the west. They looked at coming from the south. While it might be more expensive, it's possible to develop that area. I don't believe they're interested in doing that and one of the things that we can tie them to is, the Comp Plan actually says that south of the road is single family. They meet the density by averaging it out over all the upland area south of that road. Mancino: But it's not single family. Aanenson: If you spread those units across the entire... Generous: Yeah, they clustered it. They transferred the density. Aanenson: So you take the entire package, that's how many units they can have. They pushed it into one area. Generous: When I made my calculations to determine the density south of the road, I didn't even look at the upland area here because I wasn't exactly sure right now what that acreage was. I was able to calculate back and they were under about 3 units per acre. Scott: Okay. You've been grilled enough. Anybody else? Conrad: But just real quickly, we've transferred densities from north of the road to south of the road? Generous: No. On the south side of the road you clustered all your densities up in the northeast corner. That gives the possibility of development on this site ... they technically meet for this area, they're a medium density development. If you look at the developable upland area south of the road, they meet the densities that could be done in single family. But by putting them all up in this area. Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff? Mancino: Do you get that? Am I seeing that right? Conrad: Do I understand what I was just told? Mancino: Yeah. 1 L� 1 47 , I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Conrad: I'm going to think about it, and let you know. ' Farmakes: Can you clarify again the reasoning that you used ... follow the Comp Plan? Generous: Okay. The Comp Plan says that on the north side of the collector, the future collector road it's medium density residential. It's 4 to 8 units. On the south side of this road, all the developable land could have single family residential. Up to 4 units per acre. Instead of putting in single family homes over here and trying to develop these even though they might be tougher single family, they transferred all the density up here to meet with the low density. ' Farmakes: Are you saying that all the property you're showing there is unbuildable? fl P � Ledvina: Outlot C? Farmakes: Where you're drawing arrows. Aanenson: No, it's buildable. Generous: This area up here is developable. This is the wetland complex in the middle. Mancino: So they couldn't develop. How could they use that to get density? Generous: But this area is upland. It's possible they could develop this. Put units there. This is upland. It's possible they could develop that. But instead of doing all the—to get their access there, all the density is concentrated in this area where we can provide the services. Where the sewer line can be brought in. Where the access can be provided. Scott: So basically what you're saying is that we've got 166 units and for density calculations purposes, we have "buildable ", two areas of buildable land that there won't be any building on and that because that space is available. Mancino: It's calculated in the density. Scott: Yeah. You're using the net buildable land for density calculations, even though it is pretty tight in there. Generous: Right. They've clustered it all. Mancino: Is that compatible with what's south? South is Trotters Ridge, which is single 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 family and west is Timberwood, which is large lot. East, excuse me. Scott: And the elementary school site. Generous: Well the school... Mancino: No, the school site is just north of the collector. Timberwood is directly east of that south park. There's not, the school site. According to what's shown here. Generous: This does connect further to the east on that site. Mancino: So it is surrounded by single family on the south and on the east and then you've got on the west, it's surrounded by wetlands. Generous: Yes, and to the south. Timberwood is down here. The wetland complex is this, basically the whole middle of this proposal. Scott: Did you have any discussions with the applicant regarding some community type open space, because this looks like it's pretty dense? Kind of like we were talking about Mission Hills. Totlot or something like that. Or is it because of the wetland. Aanenson: Well there is some upland area that's adjacent to Trotters Ridge. As you know when we looked at the Opus property, we were preserving all that upland area that's nicely wooded and there's trails going through that ... Access through Trotters Ridge and Opus development. Mancino: But there's nothing right in sight here. If somebody wants to have, I think Ladd you brought it up with Mission Hills a couple weeks ago. What if I had some people over and I want to go outside and bar- be -que or have a group of people, where do I go in this dense of an area? There's nothing... Conrad: Yeah, I get real frustrated. I really like, every time we see something dense we always react to it. We want, you know we've zoned it for density but then once we see it, those questions come up. Or let me give you another one. How do these people move around? And it's not that it's bad it's just that because we don't have it in Chanhassen, I'm not familiar with it being here. We just don't have high density areas. It seems to me, in high density areas, we should have sidewalks everyplace. Although you'll ask a developer, they'll say people don't want sidewalks. Mancino: Because people don't want to keep them up. 49 n 1 n C 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Conrad: Well it's maintenance. Yeah, it's all that plus there's a privacy type deal too. ' People who exist in suburbs don't want sidewalks but when I see more density than we normally have, I think well. Now we've crammed more people, twice as many people. Maybe 3 times as many people in the same space and I say well, we don't know, I don't ' know what things should be. I don't know what the park requirements should be for, you know how close should they be. Is there a park within 3 blocks, 4 blocks of here that somebody can walk over to? And what we're doing here is we do have a sidewalk going ' through on the main street but that's the only one and I think geez, they've got a lot of density there and saying boy, how do people move around in higher density areas? The statement is I'm very naive as we get into some of these. It's appropriate for the site. It's ' been zoned or it's been planned this way. I just get uncomfortable thinking we're applying our same single family, low density residential standards to a site like that. ' Mancino: It may be the other point of view is, multi- family is just fine but shouldn't we have some common area for those people in that? It's more important than even in a single family where you have large lots. It's more important that they some space and it doesn't have to be huge but some area within it. Conrad: Maybe. And maybe that's sort of a joke. You know maybe, how many units do we have here, 160? Generous: 166. ' Conrad: So ou know if we have a totlot that's the size of this room is that a joke in Y � J relationship to 166 units? Does that count? Mancino: Well a lot of these multi, and I don't know why they're not coming in this way but when I go around town and I see some of these multi - family units, they have them as part ' of the development. There is this place, whether it's a tennis court. Whether it's whatever it is, a little park area. You hardly see them without it so it surprises me that we're getting them in without any of that. Aanenson: I think it might be appropriate to have the applicant talk about who their market ' age is, just so they can give you some comparisons. Eden Prairie Rottlund one's ... When we looked at this, it's got the school across the street. They're looking at passive park, nature trails going into Opus ... and then just south of this is the park in Stone Creek and has access ' to the Minger subdivision which is across the street. That also has a passive area and an active area. So we feel there is... Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Would the applicant or their 1 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 representative like to speak? Please give us your name and your address. John Peterson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Peterson. I'm President of Good Value Homes and our address is 9445 East River Road, Minneapolis, 55433. Good evening. As you probably know... experience in the city of Chanhassen. We're a 25 year old development company. We've built over 6,000 homes in the metropolitan area. We currently have a development involved in various kinds of...in cities throughout the metropolitan area. This is a rather complex staff report and situation development and there are an awful lot of issues as you know. I brought the staff report with me on a weekend trip and there's a lot there and I don't know how many of those issues we can actually address tonight. I don't know exactly how much time or how much you want to hear from me but let me give it a start and if it gets too long, in too much detail, Mr. Chairman if you would just advise me and I'll sit down and listen. One of the early issues on this plat was the possible construction of what has been called in your staff report as a frontage road and as a collector in the east/west street south of Highway 5. We would like to call it a parkway. We think that frontage, neither of those two terms do justice to the kind of neighborhood that we'd like to put in. But in any case, what the major issue was, who's going to pay and how it's going to be built and I think while this is not a ... planning issue. It's maybe something that the City Council may get more involved in, and I think it's important to know that this parcel cannot support the, and pay for the construction of that parkway through it's, the entire length of the property. That is down to the wetlands to the west part of our parcel. That just is not feasible. We have a difference with staff on several issues. One of which is we're not 100% sure that it's going to be real easy to get a DNR permit to cross that beautiful wetland. We deal with wetlands all around the area and our policy as a company has become to, whenever we possibly can to stay away from them but this is the kind of thing that a private developer would never dare try to do. And while I understand there's some larger public issues here, where we get caught in the conflicts involved in trying to preserve wetlands and they come quite often but a condition that's in the staff report that's somewhat troublesome is that all of the permits for that crossing have to be obtained before we can do our development. And you know and we know that that means that this project is frankly out there a ways and that's a burden I think that we would not like to be involved with. We would prefer to not build that. Not only not pay for that road but also not have that road built across that wetland. We think it's possible to serve this site with a much less road that would be designed to carried must less traffic and just hook up to the north and have a right - in/right -out intersection on TH 5. I don't know how that would be resolved but I think that's one overall planning issue. On the question of density that you've been discussing, I think it's important to note that north of the parkway we're proposing that the density that is significantly less than the maximum density allowed, or planned in your comprehensive plan. You're talking between 4 and 8 and we're at 5.86 units per acre. The landscape plan frankly, in our 25 year experience, is the most generous landscape plan we've 51 1 L _J 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ever put together but we turned it over to our landscape architect and I said go to it. I said 1 here's your proposed ordinance. There were about 3 ordinances that we're working under that are not adopted by your city but have been proposed that we're trying to comply with. One of which is the tree ordinance. The tree preservation plan. Maybe that has been adopted. Okay, it had not been when we started the process but we asked our landscape architect to prepare a plan that met your ordinance and we'll be happy to hear—that he did, and it does and it's very, very generous by any standard in our standard of experience. It's ' troublesome that we are, I don't mind shifting the trees around on that site. Frankly I certainly didn't realize that we had more trees on one side of the parkway than on the other side but we can shift those trees. To be asked to add a significant screening along Highway 5 ' I think is troublesome. That is a problem for us. On the existing screen on Highway 5, and I'm ... but there is a nice row of evergreens along Highway 5 now and there's also a significant berm, natural berm and we'd like to leave that there and have that serve. Now I understand ' the MnDot plans, we have had access to MnDot plans for Highway 5 and we understand that it's, that those trees are within the right -of -way. And here again, MnDot has no trouble. I would think that it might be possible to encourage MnDot to leave those trees there. I don't know if we can get a commitment at this point from them but I think that would be a reasonable request to ask them to do with ... trees that do form a nice, natural berm or ' screening there. I'm wondering if you could, would it be possible, well before we do that. I have a few renderings and I'll go just a little bit into the kind of units that we're proposing. North of the parkway, and south of TH 5, we're proposing to build units in 4, 6 and 8 unit buildings. I'm wondering would this work for everybody or no? It doesn't work for you, does it? Oh great. Scott: You can put it facing over here and then the camera will pick it up for anybody who ' wants to see it on the monitor. John Peterson: Okay, great. These are, this is a rendering of the 8 unit version of this building. One correction in the staff report, it talks about that we have in the opening paragraph that we have 1 or 2 single or double garages in these units. One of the differences between this proposal and some of the proposals, or any proposals that you've seen on this ' site in the past, is that all of our garages are double garages. We do not have any single car garages proposed on this site. Where you see an 8 unit building on your plan, this is what you would see. This would be a 4 unit version of that same, the ones that are north of the ' parkway. The units are 1,400 square feet plus. They have a bath and a half. Two bedrooms, fireplace is standard. Air conditioning is standard. It's really hard for me to tell you price ranges and we developers hate to get pinned down to price ranges because we obviously ' don't know all the costs and we won't know exactly where they're going to end up. It would be my best guess today, on June 15th, that the pricing would be between, I'm going to make it a fairly wide range here. Between $85,000.00 and $105,000.00. Maintenance free siding. Double garage. The units have on the lower level a living room, dining area. I have the 52 ri Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 sketches but I won't show you all that right now—We have an upstairs. There are 2 bedrooms plus a loft area. The targeted market surprises us a little bit. We have this product approved in the cities of St. Louis Park, in Roseville and Champlin. This would be the fourth site on which we would like to put this project. St. Louis Park we have not begun construction. Roseville we have our model nearly built. And in Champlin also we have the model underway. We are in those two, the two locations that we're really actively marketing right now we're finding it becoming to more over 50 and above people than we thought we would. We thought this would be for the young people, possibly coming out of apartments but we're not talking to those people so we don't know where the market's going to settle in but I think it would be young professionals, empty nesters. The empty nesters like that single level. That's a disadvantage of this. They really want to be on one level but they're still talking to us about this project. We think those are the two markets that we would experience. Now south of the parkway, we're proposing in twos, threes and four configurations of 2, 3 and 4. The rendering that I have here is a 3 unit building. It's a more expensive product. These will be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00 and they are all double garages. They're up to 1,800 feet. They're between about 1,600 and 1,800 square feet. And this is going to be, we think, predominantly people 50's and above who have lived in this area and would now want to be ... and they want a nice townhome. The entire landscaping plan will be irrigated, of course. Underground sprinkling. And in the south of the parkway, of the 52 units, I think it's 18 will be, would back up to the open space, the wetland and we expect this to be just a really highly desirable, beautiful. I guess that's relative and... developer on it but really a nice townhome development. It would be a real positive addition to your city. We have the capability in our company to do 3 dimensional renderings and I didn't get every 3 dimensional rendering that you want. We guessed at what angle we should do it and we did it at that angle. It turns out that the staff report is asking for one from Highway 5. I don't have that but I do have this. That's going to be kind of small. Maybe you can see it okay... We have here a 3 dimensional rendering. The aerial view of what we expect the neighborhood to look like if it were developed and completed... I'll address a couple issues. I talked about the landscape plan. I talked about, or no. I didn't talk about tree protection. We think that the staff had a good idea. Maybe more than one good idea. Several good ideas but one of the ideas that they had that we think we could work into the scheme is moving the retaining wall that is adjacent to the single family homes somewhat closer to the single family homes and we can save a few more trees. However, it is really difficult for us to save trees, very many trees, a significant number of trees, in the parcel that would be right behind the people that are here in their single family homes and south of the parkway. I think we're replacing with our generous landscape plan, according to your ordinance, those trees and we think we can do a little better, not a lot. The truth of the matter is, that that site which slopes down towards the wetland, takes some grading and it takes some, a little bit of... takes the planting back in of some trees to replace what we take out. I have with me tonight Derrick Passe, who's a principle of Passe Engineering and he's 0 u 53 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 our engineer for many years and he's prepared to address issues, specific issues that you may ' have on the grading plan and we'll talk about that at this time. I guess there are several other things but maybe I should just leave it at that and see what other concerns you may have and I would be happy to be available to answer any questions. ' Ledvina: Mr. Chair? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: I had a question for the applicant. What are your specific thoughts as it relates to ' open space that people are looking for in these types of developments and what provisions have you here for that type of situation? 1 7 - 71 I r n 1 John Peterson: Okay, that's a good question. I did have it on my notes based on the comments that had been made. Your Parks Director I believe it is, has assured, has commented to me that the land that we will be giving to the city as part of this wetland which is substantial, 43 acres. And the trail system around the site and some additional land that will probably be taken as part of the Opus development to the west, that that whole system is probably, will probably be the largest public open space area than anywhere in the city of Chanhassen, and you know that better than I. I think I'm quoting him accurately. My comment would be that this site, even though the density is normal for us. It appears to be high, is immediately adjacent to a tremendous resource that is open space. There is a lot of open space. The question of totlots for these people, there are at least two problems. Well, I'll start this way. In two of the developments that we did many years ago where we used to put totlots in, the homeowners associations, when the Board of Directors was formed and the people started paying the insurance, the developments with the totlot, which is tremendous. The insurance costs are very, very high and the association has a very high level of liability with totlots. And the lack of use, two Board of Directors said, of course those are the ones that I'm aware of have acted, in our developments, have taken the totlots out and they've been able to do that. I mean they voted and gone to the city and taken them back out. We have not done one development in the last several years where we have built a private totlot amenity. Scott: But you're talking about like a playground with playground equipment, right? John Peterson: That's what I'm talking about. Scott: Not just more of a passive, open area. John Peterson: Okay. Now in terms of this particular site. One of the comments that your 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 staff made is along Galpin Avenue, the 4 and 8 unit buildings that we have there, are somewhat lined up. I'd like to explain why we did that. We left a rather large space, I'm going to step over here. Here's Galpin right over here. And we discussed this at length with your staff. The entire site, the farm buildings that are there and the out buildings and the large trees that are a part of that will all be left. I mean the buildings won't be left but that is a significant open area that we, that will be available to the residents and that would be potentially, put park benches in there. But I would not want to put a swing set in there, and that's not the right location anyway. But the combination of this plus the large open space. And that reminds me of one other issue that I need to just mention. We've been in contact with your staff of course and also with the property owners to the west, the Opus parcel I believe it's called. And there is some question on the alignment. I'm wondering if you could put up on the screen for me the layout. This, how this road would cross the wetland, the exact location of that road is undetermined right now but it's the view of the property owners to the west, and I think the staff is concurring with this. That this probably has to be tilted slightly to the north. And we've agreed to do that but we didn't redo all of our drawings because we don't know exactly where that should go. They've identified where they would like it. Oh yeah, okay. Good. This is not exactly accurate. The people, the Opus people to the west would like it slightly north of this but it would take a rather minor. I just want for the record say, that we're willing to do that and we feel it can be accommodated and I think staff agrees that that is not a major problem. Are there any other questions? Scott: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Do you have any questions for the applicant? Farmakes: I have no questions for the applicant, if you're asking me directly. Mancino: And I have no questions. Scott: Thank you. Thanks very much sir. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anybody who wishes to speak, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself and give us your address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Excuse me, sir. Please do. Howard Dahlgren: I wanted to give the others a chance to speak first but my name is Howard Dahlgren. I live at 1786 Irving Avenue South. I'm one of the partners in the Opus 7 I� I 0 55 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 land to the west. We've been working with the city, as you folks know, for almost 3 years 1 now developing plans ... and trying to do it carefully and—the development of this property with Good Value Homes of course is the vehicle for getting utilities to the Opus property. So we support the development in the sense that we must have utilities in order to develop the ' land. And this development provides the vehicle to get utilities to the site. That's been planned with your engineering folks, with your staff and with the consultants. We've met with all those folks again and again trying to work all this out so it will work well for 1 everyone. Mr. Peterson mentioned our problem with respect to the—that east/west road. If it lines up with where we have it planned on our preliminary plan that you have given concept approval to about a year and a half ago, it will save the site south of that road. If you draw it ' where they have it, it will run right through the highland and we lose a site so that's one of our problems. We went over that directly with the staff and I think we all concluded in the meeting we had here recently that if we bend the road slightly to the north, it will line up ' where we have ... all along and will give us the site to the south and there will be a wetland to the north. So in summary, we support the development. We feel it fits with the ' comprehensive plan. The land that we have of course, as you noticed, is planned for industrial. We want to do a very nice industrial park there. That's our objective. We support it. We do need the utilities and we would like adjustment on that roadway so that it can meet what we had proposed and save us ... We appreciate the opportunity to... Scott: Thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? May I have a ' motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public bearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: Okay, I'm going to bring up some topics and I'd like everybody to respond. First of all Kate or Bob, can you respond to the applicant's concern about the parkway and ' whether it can end at the wetland and go north and have a right- in/right -out on Highway 5. Aanenson: Staff has always supported this and it's on the comprehensive plan as a southern 1 frontage road... parkway. We feel it needs to go through. There's going to be people living here. The purpose of those frontage roads is to keep people off of Highway 5. The ... to get people over to the school. People working at the Opus project without going onto Highway 5. Not only that but the utilities will be going across this section anyways. We certainly believe that based on, as Mr. Dahlgren indicated, we've got a touch down point on the Opus site that we feel is the most sensitive to get it across there on their property. We certainly ' feel like this is a wetland that we want to work to enhance with no development on the 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 western portion of that. We feel like we can do a lot. There is a wetland north on the Opus site and then another upland area where we're going to preserve the integrity by keeping it park and natural area so we feel like even though the road's going across, that's going to be very nominal as far as the overall impact so we'd certainly support the decision made a while ago about the integrity of having that road go across. We feel like it can be minimized through the wetland. As far as the ... when we first met with Mr. Peterson that the city would support the application process as far as the permitting process. There are also ... as far as how that road gets paid for with this development... if the road stops at this end of the development, how that road gets paid for. So there's several options that can happen there. But as far as the road going through, we would certainly support the road to go through and we would not recommend that it be stopped at the end of this development. That would just force more traffic onto Highway 5. Mancino: Okay. Conceptually land use, and I'm looking at, I feel very comfortable with the north side of the frontage road being multi - family and medium density as it is. I would like to suggest not a line up of the units as they are. I'd like to see them more creatively placed. I mean those are pretty good sized units. Each unit building is what, 11,200 feet. That's a fairly good sized footprint. So I would like to see them adjusted so they're all not lined up. I would also like to see, Jeff brought this up last time on Mission Hills, some variation in the architectural detail upon them and the color of them. Whether that's paint. Whether that's aluminum siding. But I would not like to see them all being exactly the same. South of the frontage road, land use. I still support, in a little different fashion, the comprehensive plan guided use for single family, low density south. And the reason why I say that is because of the, where it is adjacent to a wetland. A wonderful, gorgeous place for single family. It could be low income housing. Whatever. It has single family to the south. It has single family to the west. Or to the east. And also the other feeling that I get is that these places where we have designated for multi- family, that the footprint of that multi- family doesn't get too big so it's a sea of roofs as far as you can see. And I'm a little concerned about that. The view from Highway 5 south into seeing a sea of roof tops. Since I don't have a perspective from that, I can't tell you exactly what that will look like but that's my concern. That talks about my land use issues. On the Highway 5 where it buffers Highway 5, I would definitely want to see more screening, more buffering from the roadway. I'm not sure if the existing pines can be saved but I would like to see more actually south of the pines. Some of them are in good condition. Some of them are not. I live on Galpin so I see them quite a bit. Bob, you talked a little bit about the massive grading and what were your concerns and what are some of your solutions for that? Generous: Both Dave and I went back and forth on this one. It just seemed that there was excessive grading on this site. You couldn't really tell based on the plans we have but it looks like there were things they could do such as moving an 8 unit and replacing those with 1 1 u 57 1 F Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 smaller units that might not need as much grading. There's a, we realized from the elevations that there's a knoll on the eastern edge and it sort of goes down from that so we're going to have to bring the development down a little bit. Mancino: Oh, right where that cul -de -sac is? Generous: Just northwest of the first intersection of the private road and the collector street in there and there's a Y. That's one of the high points on the site. And they're right. It does slope down to the wetland area. There's a big question, when you get to the far western edge of the development, it looks like they have those at a 14 foot elevation change and the small little ... at the ends, how are they handling that? Is that all fill? Could they step this development more? And those are some of the issues we wanted the applicants engineer to bring out. We also had a tough, like I said, with the scale of the grading plans, it was really hard for us to decipher all the changes that were being proposed so one of the recommendations is to come in with a larger scale so we can evaluate in more detail. Mancino: I know one of the things we discussed on Highway 5 guidelines was having a much more natural topography as much as we possibly can so I'd like to see that worked on in this concept. And in the Opus too. We talked about that. The rollingness. Not the steep ' retaining walls all the time. To keep some of the rolling hills still there. Not to level them off and have nothing and have just cut off retaining walls. I love the parkway with the, I ' think the ... effect is good. Could be beautiful there. The boulevard trees. I don't know what they are. Do you know what they are? I Generous: Lindens. Mancino: And that's on both sides? ' Generous: Yes. Mancino: Up and down. That's great. Those are my comments for right now. Scott: Okay, Jeff. ' F • I h comment about the or excuse me. The comment's already been made armakes. heard a co bo y ' about the density. I guess in looking at the overall path, it's kind of clustering, although they won't be able to build on it, it's still philosophically what they're doing is in a way clustering to move it up. It is creating barriers between other usages. Significant barriers so we don't get into the situation where we're building a fourplex and then a duplex and then a single family home. So I guess I'm, with this particular development I'm comfortable with how 1 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 that's laid out. The grading may reduce some of that. I would also back up the grading ' issue. I think we should follow that on everything, particularly these higher medium density developments where, and including the industrial development next to it where it's simply easier to ,get more on when you level it out. I really would like to see more massing of trees. I realize that there's a limited amount of space for your right -of -way but maybe the city can get involved in what's sitting up on Highway 5 there because some of those trees are not in great condition. The clustering that you have on the northeast corner there, where you see ' that clump of trees up in the corner. I'd like to see more of that, which is more of Morrish had on his drawings. Where you get more of a natural... clustering look rather than rows of trees all in a row. And even on the west side also where the ponding is, the trees sort of stop ' there and don't go into that corner. Where you would get a view on that angle from TH 5. Are we going to see actual materials that are being used when this comes back? Aanenson: That's why we're just recommending concept at this point... ' Farmakes: Okay. But we will sometimes we get a brick and sometimes we get actual materials or we get a concept of what is going up. In particular, the reason I ask is with these no maintenance materials, and we were discussing issues of where you see a large grouping of homes where they're all the same color. The idea being is that we maybe should ' look into this on a recommendation of how we deal with that on our PUD. You don't want to create a company town or look where you get all these neutral taupes where you get 500 buildings all in the same color. And one of the builders that I think did a good job with it is ' Centex over in Eden Prairie. They used neutral coloring but they have subtle changes in color of these no maintenance materials. And it makes it look more like a, more random like people's homes rather than a big company look to it. I just talked about Highway 5. Mancino: ...concerned about some of these details... ' Farmakes: The issue of distance on this plan, as I look at it, it's really not that bad as I'm measuring it out. Maybe it's the same as it was before but I ... on the previous plan. Aanenson: 75. Mancino: It is 75? And that's minimum. 75 is the minimum and 150 is the maximum. , Farmakes: Let me just jump back into, before we start talking feet here. The intent with this , particular development, and you add it to the other developments as talk about it. I might as well use this as an example. When we get that medium or high density corridor, which is what it's going to wind up being, up and down TH 5 between Lake Ann and TH 41, with the exception of a couple of business developments. 59 1 F1 1 J Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Aanenson: You keep telling us that but we're not going to see it. We already know what's happening on either side of that. Farmakes: Okay but I disagree with that. I disagree with that it isn't going to happen but it is. That's what we're seeing up and down the highway. ' Aanenson: This is the only one on the south side. Farmakes: On the south side, that's correct. Mancino: East of the school. Farmakes: You have the school and then you have the previous development that we saw from the blond fellow, what's his name? 1 Scott: Heritage. Aanenson: And we're not sure... ' Mancino: Well we talked about zero lot lines. Farmakes: ...north side of the highway. I'm talking about conceptual here when we're talking about up and down the highway. Both north and south side. When we're talking about this type of development. What we're doing is we're grouping all the density homes, and it's in our plan. It's in our comp plan. It's not a surprise to anybody. But when we're talking about, when we're talking about alternate siting, and we were talking about this type ' of grouping of density, what we're doing is we're going to create, we're shoving all these buildings right up against TH 5. This type of housing and I'm wondering if somewhere, either in the north side or in the south side they're not connected. She's right. They are ' broken up by industrial use and they're broken up by the school. But we might want to consider somewhere along TH 5 the breaking up of this group. Now they went with the alternate site where, if they go with one and it runs all the way down to the highway. There's going to be a significant corridor of housing similar to this. And I'm just wondering if bring it up, you may want to consider that maybe even altering the comp plan to break up some of that or to at least be cognizant of the fact that we may wind up with a corridor of ' that visual. Not necessarily all connected but visually as you drive down. You get the type of density that you see on 169 and some of the areas in Minnetonka. Some of the ones farther north up on 494 and 100 where literally you can drive for 10 minutes and see nothing 1 but high density. But this is small. It's on a small scale. Actually this is, for this type of housing, this is what I like to see. I like to see a smaller scale and it does utilize the i 60 Commission Meeting Planning Co g - June 15, 1994 clustering well with the existing property. On the setback on TH 5, if we can get more trees in there, with this particular slice, I'd be fine with that. If we can get more trees along that , Highway 5 corridor area. I'll leave it at that. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well I would support the other comments that the other commissioners have made. As far as the land use south of the parkway, I don't know. I think Nancy you're thinking that that should be single family residential? Mancino: I can see single family. Actually almost mixed use. I can see single family along ' the wetlands area going north and then maybe the two unit areas in the middle there and doing a nice kind of a mixed use south of it. Because I think that they are nice amenities for single family and I do also think that we need some moderate priced homes in the area. Single family. Not just multi - family. I mean whenever we talk about affordable housing or moderate priced homes, it's always got to do with multi- family. I would like to see some single family too. Farmakes: Now that's not going to run up. This isn't affordable housing. This is not... , affordable. Ledvina: Well I can understand your desire to mix the housing and, but I don't know about specifying that to that level for the developer, you know I think we can say maybe the density should be decreased down there or maybe try some 2 units or something in there or I don't know. I don't know that. ' Aanenson: We looked at that ...the way we looked at it is, you can have 4 to 8 on the north side. He's indicated he's got 5. He's at the low end. So if he comes back with a different , product, as you indicated Matt, and you come in with single family here, then we come back with something completely different on the north end. ...see that the north end is kind of palatable the way it's laid out. The—orientation of the buildings... but when you start messing 1 with the bottom end, and then what does that do to the upper, to the northern... Ledvina: Yeah, and I'm sensitive to that. So I guess I don't know. That's a real tough issue. But I don't know. Aanenson: ...mix them up more. Like you said, maybe do the duplexes throughout and that's , what Bob is saying with the grading plan it maybe is appropriate where you mix them... Ledvina: Right. Where you can use the larger, or I'm sorry, the smaller building footprint in 61 1 F �I i u I� r, Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 a sensitive area to reduce the grading. That you know, that seems to be a good idea. Mancino: Well and there are all sorts of trees in that area. Ledvina: Right, exactly. Mancino: That's where a lot of. Ledvina: So maybe some variation can be done in that speck area without you know messing too much with their density that they're looking for. In terms of units per acre. I don't know. I'm interested in what Ladd may have to say on that. I think some of the other things, that open area where the abandoned house is, I think that's a nice opportunity for the developer. I think he had a good idea that I hadn't seen in here before as it relates to the passive use of that area as park or open space or whatever. I guess maybe if that could be a little bit more inviting and I don't know how that's done. With maybe just a small trail segment into that, I don't know but something on that nature. I had a question for staff on the trail along the edge of the wetland. I presume that we're going to be maintaining our setbacks and does the trail, as it's drawn, do that? I suppose we don't have to specifically worry about that now but. Generous: Well I believe the way Todd is proposing this whole thing, that we would maintain that buffer strip outside of the trail...the trail wider than it actually is. Ledvina: So you're saying that the trail will not be built within the. Generous: Within the buffer. Ledvina: Within the buffer strip, okay. Generous: Yeah, it would be within the 50 foot setback or 40 foot actually... Aanenson: It is classified as an ag urban wetland... Ledvina: Okay. Within the setback or outside of the buffer, okay. Alright. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Bob the, do you like the density transfer? Has there been something that you think is neat over there and what you're giving up is, you know the reason this was single family 62 1 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 was because it was next to our favorite Timberwood, right? So you're comfortable that Timberwood's protected in terms of transition? Kate you too? You're comfortable with their. Aanenson: Well we have a concern with the, as indicated the grading and the tree loss... 1 Conrad: The issue's not density down there per se. The issue is buffer. Aanenson: It's a transition. If you look at how much open space is left on the other side, I mean it's just pushed in this corner. But again, I think if we looked at a different product, as I indicated, and you put more on this, I'm not sure that would make it, more on the north ' side, I'm not sure that would make it a better product either. But I think we're on a good start. We need to look in a little bit more detail... • I ' need you know you guys are planners and Conrad. dust , you have to assure us that we're y y g y p Y doing the right thing for Timberwood. I love density transfer. It's a good use. It's neat to do. It looks like we can do it here. But I also have to be, I need your best guess that it's doing what we want it to do, or I want your best guess that we're buffering Timberwood too. I just want to reinforce some quick thoughts. What Jeff said, the building designs. We need a little variety in here and I think what Jeff's comments were real valid. I just don't want the same color, same thing, every building over there. There has to be some architectural or some color modifications. I would like Kate or Bob, if you could bring back, when this comes back in a preliminary mode, I'd just like your recommendations in internal sidewalks for high density areas. I'd just like you to think about it and tell me what you think. Okay. And then at the same time when this comes back in a preliminary stage I need, and you could probably do it now. I don't want to do it. I need to know the impact of the parkway on the ' wetland that it's going through. I just have to feel comfortable again that the impact on the wetland as the road goes over it, is not just killing the wetland. I don't think it is but I need to know that before I can approve this. And the grading. All the things that have been said about grading I really believe in. That just has to happen. So again, I really like what staff said. I like what Bob said when he kicked this off and the things that he wanted to look at. ' Overall I think it's fairly decent. But I would hope that the developer could start reducing some of these points. I pretty much agree with what the staff has there and I guess I'd like to see fewer items coming back next time and not just leave them 3 -4 pages long. I'd like to see some movement on that because I don't think we're that far off. That's all. Scott: Okay, thanks. ' Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd like to follow up. On the situation with the permits for the wetland alteration. The developer has stated that they want to disconnect the approval with those 63 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 requirements. What are your thoughts on that and I guess my initial thought is that, we want to have this thing together as one project and I don't think we can separate those things but. Aanenson: Plus as a part of this, we're transferring some of that density. We're looking at ' the whole property and putting it on one side. I mean yes, the development's heavy on one side but we're looking at the whole gross acreage. We can't just wash our hands of the road 1 because the development stops there. The utilities are going through that segment. This is a wetland. We've certainly identified that we want to locate ... and we will work to secure the... Ledvina: Well one thing that the applicant mentioned that this would slow them down potentially. Do you see that? I mean is this going to be a long, drawn out process? Aanenson: Well that—one condition in the staff report by engineering that the condition 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the necessary permits. Ledvina: Right, I saw that. Aanenson: I guess part of that too is we want to locate, we want to tie down the alignment of the road. They're kind of tied together. We know the touchdown, we have an approximate idea of the touchdown on the Opus site but where it crosses the wetland, it's my understanding the DNR... Maybe that can be modified as we move along to the next... Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Good. I don't have anything to add. Mancino: I have one question. Bob, you've got on 31 that the grading has to stop within 10 feet of the natural wetland. 10 feet? They can get within 10 feet? Generous: Well that's the minimum buffer strip. Mancino: What's the maximum? I mean isn't there a max and a min? Generous: Well actually it's 0 to 20 with a 10 foot average. Mancino: Okay. I just, I was surprised that the natural wetland, that you can get machinery within 10 feet. Aanenson: It's not a natural wetland. It's an ag urban. -1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Hempel: Diane has classified certain portions of the wetland south could be considered natural. Aanenson: But generally it is classified as an ag urban. Mancino: But you can get within 10 feet of a wetland? ' Aanenson: This land up here is all ag urban. What she's saying and this comes out of Diane's report, the southern end where they're not doing anything, where we've got a passive area. There's a ... that are pretty high quality. Portions of this whole wetland. That's the part we would look at—that natural. That's why we're saying, our intent for this development is ' to upgrade that wetland. We think it can be made into something very nice. Ledvina: We'll maybe even want to have staff take another look at that specific element and potentially increasing that to protect those southern areas of that wetland, if it is in a more natural state. Whatever. I guess we, in the preliminary, we'll see that again and maybe we can revisit that. Mancino: Thank you. I Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: Well I would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93 -5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat. Whoops. No. Excuse me. That's it. Subject to the conditions in the staff report. And I don't have any changes. Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment? ' Ledvina: Do you want to second it? Mancino: Second. Scott: Is there any discussion? I Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment and that has to do with, let's see. I think the 3 of us talked about and that is we'd like it to come back to the preliminary plat to see ' some variations and architectural details and colors so they're not all the same. That there is some diversity in that look. And Bob, a question for you. I would specifically like to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in that southeast corner. Is that specific in here? 65 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Generous: Not specifically. I want them to come with a tree protection plan. Mancino: Okay. And I will say that 37 has to do with, well is that okay Matt? ' Ledvina: Sure, that's fine. Mancino: Adding the architectural and color as an amendment and the 38 would be, for staff and the applicant to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the southeast corner of the development south of the parkway. And 39, and I think you may have this in here. Talking about increasing the landscaping parallel to Highway 5. Generous: Yes, number 5. Under 12 I mean... Mancino: Okay. And I would also, you know as you look at that, if we need to add more to the setback on Highway 5, I would be in favor of that to give more screening. Ledvina: That's acceptable. Scott: Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93 -5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). 5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). .. I 67 t Planning ommission Meeting - June 15, 1994 g g 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29 -1992 (copy enclosed). ' 7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). 8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 9. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. bus ' 11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of stops /shelters within the development. 12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a more equitable distribution of trees throughout the site. Additional groupings of evergreens shall be planted along the northern project boundary to provide additional screening , and to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens in the right -of -way with the widening of Highway 5. 13. 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 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be altered to minimize grading (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc. ' 14. Staff recommends that the applicant alternate building orientations along the eastern and western perimeter of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the applicant , 67 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 should exchange one or two six unit structures along Galpin Boulevard (e.g., exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. 15. Pay park and trail fees as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the ' construction of the trail segment within the development and or the dedication of park land. 16. If feasible, two water retention ponds should be combined to one large water retention pond located in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as ' either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to ' City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 17. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity assessment fee of $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the overall development. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the applicable credits, if any. The SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval process will be adjusted accordingly. 18. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. 19. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The street shall be constructed in accordance to State -Aid standards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State -Aid office. 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR Arm Corps of Engineers for PP g g � Y rP g extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel. 21. 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. .: 28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best Management Practice Handbook. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around all natural wetlands. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wetlands. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflect this requirement. I I 69 Planning ommission Meeting - June 15, 1994 g g 1 22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private 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 formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. , 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days after the final plat is approved. 24. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City. 25. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house , pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 26. The applicant shall apply for and 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. 27. 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. 28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best Management Practice Handbook. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around all natural wetlands. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wetlands. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflect this requirement. I I 69 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: We didn't put one in the packet because City Council met Monday night... Kindercare was given conceptual approval. The list that the staff had put in with all the i conditions ... it was either table it or give it conceptual. Mancino: 26 but. Aanenson: Well there was more than that. There was a conditional use. There were conditions under the site plan so all those had to be incorporated into a new site plan and brought back. 1 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 32. The applicant shall provide a full-time, on -site construction inspector for the 1 construction of the frontage road. The inspector will need to be State - certified. 33. A driveway or cross- access easements including maintenance agreements will be ' needed for the private drives throughout the development. 1 34. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated. 35. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland PP tY� P g � alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed and the frontage road as one project. project 36. The City requires detailed storm water quantity and quality calculations from the ' applicant prior to final plat (stormwater system should meet the City's SWMP requirements)." 37. The applicant shall incorporate architectural and color variations to the housing styles. 38. Staff and the applicant shall look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the southeast corner of the development south of the parkway. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: We didn't put one in the packet because City Council met Monday night... Kindercare was given conceptual approval. The list that the staff had put in with all the i conditions ... it was either table it or give it conceptual. Mancino: 26 but. Aanenson: Well there was more than that. There was a conditional use. There were conditions under the site plan so all those had to be incorporated into a new site plan and brought back. 1 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ann g g Conrad: To who? n• The City Council. There's some thins , Aanenson: ty things can't do. I mean obtain a permit Y from MnDot, that's not. Anything architectural or that we need to see additional... 'd that the weren't going to change an ' Farmakes: I thought that the applicant said y g g g anything, ever. Aanenson: Well, if they don't want to, then I guess... ' Scott: Tell them that it will come back here. I bet it will flip flop the parking lot if you say it's going to come back here. Thank you very much. Do we have any ongoing items? ONGOING ITEMS: I Aanenson: ...shoreland regs and the storm water. See how you would like to handle next week. Since you tabled two items tonight. The Coffman plat... recommended eliminating 5 lots and. Generous: Potentially. I Aanenson: That we felt the integrity wasn't there so they're going to wait and come in with ... so that will be back on. Ledvina: Are they receptive to doing that? Generous: Not all 5. ' Aanenson: I think they're receptive to the issues that were raised though. 1 Generous: They're going to show how they're going to address it. Aanenson: going n: And Admiral Waste is oin to be back on. We tabled that and then Roman Roos will be back on. That means we have 3 items right there. Plus we have quite a few other items that we need back on. Scott: This is our July 6th? I Aanenson: Yeah, Triple C. That's the big one that has single family, apartments... Mancino: Where is this? r 71 1 I J 1 I fl Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: This is for the 6th. Generous: That's if they get their packets in tomorrow. Aanenson: Plus we have Heritage, the single family ... I want to talk about that again after I get done with the agenda. Anyway, we wanted to open the public hearings. We've got the work sessions going to finish up the sign ordinance. We've got the work session that we didn't quite get over to do the shoreland regs and the SWMP. Farmakes: Could I just interject, as long as you're on the sign ordinance and I saw that Perkins was going to be an applicant... Do we review limitation on height of a flag pole? Aanenson: I've already indicated to them that it's a PUD and it wouldn't be allowed... Farmakes: I was just wondering if legally we could not keep that size reasonable. Aanenson: ...so what would you like. Would you like to discuss the shoreland, the regs? I apologize for rushing... Ledvina: Well I'm okay if I can just give you a call, well I can call you and we can talk about it. Aanenson: ...I'd appreciate that. Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know that there's changes that I'm going to want or whatever. Maybe it's real simple. Aanenson: Clarifications. Ledvina: Yeah, I just want to try to understand what some of that criteria are as it relates to the water levels and such and how those are going to be enforced. I see a few problems with enforceability in some of that stuff and I'm almost to the point where if you can't enforce it, leave it out and put it in the intent statement. But don't make it an ordinance requirement then. So there's one or two spots that I'd like to just talk to you about. Aanenson: Okay. How about the, do you want to discuss the storm water... Ledvina: It's huge. Scott: Can I ask just a quick question? Who all's going to be here on the 6th of July? 72 t Planning ommission Meeting - June 15 1994 g g Ledvina: I will be here. Conrad: I hadn't thought about it. I assume I will be. Scott: Jeff, you going to be here on the 6th? r Farmakes: I've not planned that far in advance. Scott: Oh yeah, I'm not going to be there and Nancy, you're not going to be here? Mancino: I don't know. , Scott: So we're going to have to have somebody take that meeting. Mancino: Okay, if I'm not, I'll call. Who would like to? Otherwise I'll take it. Scott: Yeah, I won't be reachable. ' Ledvina: Good for you. I Aanenson: We're going to have a workshop on the...SWMP plan so what I'm saying is the 6th is full and it gets hard... I Ledvina: Well, what do we need to do with this SWMP plan administratively? Aanenson: What you need to do is recommend adoption to the City Council to hold a public hearing. It's really a mini comprehensive plan amendment so the procedure to go through is you hold a public hearing and take comments. Recommend to the City Council. After the City Council adopts it, then we send it up to Met Council for their approval. It's a comprehensive plan. It's really a sewer and water... Mancino: I don't know enough to do that at this point. Scott: And you've got to read it. I Conrad: Yeah, it took a long time developing it. It's sort of like Tim Erhart should come in. Did he come in tonight? Aanenson: ...Diane was here and we kind of went... I 73 1 L 1I n Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: We could do 2 hours on Saturday morning or something like that Conrad: It's sort of like when you presented the tree ordinance. It's like oh geez, if I try to understand that, I've got to do as much work as you did to develop it. Ledvina: That's what I'm thinking too. I don't like to shove off the work but in doing it, but in reviewing it in detail and going through it page by page but that's going to be a tremendous task. Aanenson: No, I think you have to have an understanding of how it works and what the—and we'll certainly have the people here to answer the questions for the public... Scott: Basically what you really need to do is that we need to be spoon fed on these huge things like that and then we also have, I think we were probably more trusting of the commissions and task forces. More so than the City Council is but I think there's a certain level, I mean I take a look at this. It's a pretty impressive document and I mean I went through and looked at the first couple of pages and you know, I'm sure everybody else did more than that but in my mind I go, you know. We've had x number of people spending x number of years doing this thing. They obviously know what they're doing so what am I going to add to the process. The executive summary is good because we're going to have to have rudimentary knowledge of the document to be able to comment on developments and so forth but personally I don't really see a need to spend a tremendous amount of time. Maybe spoon feed us. Get our reactions and maybe, we may come up with something significant like aw man, we didn't think of it. The chance of that is probably pretty low. Not taking anything away from how intelligent we all are but I think you know what I'm saying. Ledvina: Oh yeah. Well would you recommend one more work session and then a hearing? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: A public hearing. Okay. Aanenson: We did start getting into the slides and then we want to get back to the document where we... Ledvina: Well if we could start on time, we'd be in good shape. I don't know if people can give an hour and a half or whatever before the meeting. Conrad: It's tough. When you're here from 5:30 until 1:00. 74 Meeting - June 15 1994 Planning Commission g , Aanenson: How about if we could start at 7:00. If we start at 7:00 and not put any of the development issues on until maybe 8:00. Give yourself an hour from 7:00 to 8:00. ' Mancino: That's a good idea. ' Ledvina: This is like to discuss the document. Aanenson: Right. And maybe try to just make a work session or... Ledvina: Why don't we start at 7:00 every time? I wish we would. ' Aanenson: We'll see what we get. Some of these things may not come in ... they may fall off... ' Scott: Okay. Farmakes: Is it still your intent to give visuals to that? ' Aanenson: We showed the slides for the sign ordinance. That's all the further we got the last time. Farmakes: To integrate it into pamphlets of some sort for those people who were applying... I Aanenson: ...all the definitions in the back. Yeah, I think that's important that we should have to work... , Mancino: ...cul -de -sac length. Are we going to revisit that? Scott: That was like our bi g watershed ordinance, the first meeting we were here. I was all ' excited. Of course I was all excited about Highway 5 and where the heck is that? I'm kind of partial to the non-conforming recreational beachlots self. m Farmakes. p g Y Scott: I do have a fondness for contractors yards too. Anyway. This is open discussion now. Mancino: We talked about that as 600 and we never did anything about it so. , Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. 75 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Submitted by Kate Aanenson ' Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 76