1f. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15, 1995Er a
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 1995
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy
Mancino, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; John
Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING 20.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.11
ACRES INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50' STREET
AND 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD JUST WEST OF
WILLOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TED COEY PROPERTY, MASON HOMES, POIN T
LAKE LUCY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Shunk
1350 Heather Court
Randy Travalia
1420 Excelsior Blvd.
Gayle Morin
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Alan Thometz
6690 Mulberry Circle
Bill Coffman
5151 Edina Industrial, Edina
Ted R. Coey
1381 Lake Lucy Road
Tom Kelly
6714 Mulberry Circle
Mike Byrne
5428 Kimberly Road, Minnetonka
Ron Roeser
222 Chan View
Greg Carter
6600 Charing Bend
Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Dave do you have any comments you'd like to make?
Hempel: No further comments at this time Mr. Chairman, thank you.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: Okay. Any questions for staff, or comments?
Mancino: Mr. Chair, I would just like to ask if after the applicant has presented, if I could
then ask staff some questions.
Scott: Oh sure. Sure.
Farmakes: I have a question. If you're looking for approval of the issue, on the dock issue
and access to the lake. Do you envision that as being a condition of the permit or do you
envision that as being a part of the covenants...?
Al -Jaffa Currently under our ordinances they would be able to have one dock on each parcel.
Aanenson: That's predicated on the fact that there's wetland mitigation. If they have to get a
wetland alteration permit, as Diane put in the staff report on page 9, where we talk about the
docking issues. They're only allowed to take out 400 square feet. Anything beyond that
they'd have to go through the wetland alteration permit. We believe that some may be in
excess of that, and one way when they go through the wetland alteration permit, where we
have the controls to attach conditions, at that point we would say that they should probably
have one dock between the property lines. But there are riparian rights that come with being
on the lake that are not our jurisdiction but on the DNR's. The control we would have is
when they come in for the wetland alteration permit. At that point we would maybe impose a
condition that says, to lessen the impact of the wetland, you should have common docks.
That's where the control would come in.
Farmakes: Has your experience been then that the DNR would go with the most restrictive.
So if you were more restrictive than the DNR, do you.
Aanenson: We can be more restrictive than the DNR, certainly. In the wetland.
Farmakes: If the DNR typically will, if there is substantial amount of block between the
shoreline and access to the lake, do they usually typically at least a 50 foot dredge to get
through the muskeg to the water, to a depth of 4 feet or whatever it takes. I believe they
even allow, without a permit, if you hand remove such vegetation and if you could remove a
certain amount of square yardage of that, which isn't very practical because if anyone's ever
removed that from the lake, it's...
Aanenson: Well we only have jurisdiction of what's above the ordinary high water mark. So
that would be the wetland portion that we would have. Anything, we couldn't.
2
C
Planning ommission Meeting - February 15, 1995
g g ry
Farmakes: Okay but again, getting to the issue on that particular wetland. Being that that
lake has a problem already, are we potentially looking at we cannot conform or that is part of
the covenants of the builder or that's not a rule in place by the DNR, we could potentially
bore through 6. If we have 5 lots there that could have 50 foot channels through each one of
' them, which would essentially sort of destroy that section of wetland there.
Aanenson: Again, that goes back to the DNR's jurisdiction. We cannot impose something on
the DNR. The only way we could is when it needs a wetland alteration permit, which they
would still on the upland above the ordinary high water mark, at that time we could impose a
' condition that says now they have to be combined.
Farmakes: Alright. If we're looking at the development that took place over by, across from
the Arboretum there on Lake Minnewashta or on the northeast side of Minnewashta that we
looked at where we had multiple properties adjacent and going up to the lake but we sort of
funneled access to the lake to one area. I know that that was a beachlot but is there not any
' type of precedent for insisting that that be part of the covenant of the development?
Aanenson: I don't believe we can do that.
' Mancino: Require a beachlot.
I Aanenson: No.
Farmakes: Even to save a wetland?
Aanenson: No.
' Farmakes: Because what you're saying is that you can ask them to do that but there's no
condition or requirement that they do that from the State or the City.
' Al -Jaff: You might want to ask the developer to put it in a covenants. However, staff won't,
the city would not be able to require them. We can't enforce a covenants. I mean you could
ask the developer to do so but the city won't be able to enforce that.
Farmakes: Thank Y ou.
Mancino: Sharmin, what's there that's already existing? There's a dock there. Has that been
DNR approved?
Farmakes: It's a couple of 2 x 4's nailed to...
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: But it's a dock that goes way out.
Al -Jaf. . Yes. I don't believe it required a permit. It's a boardwalk.
Farmakes: I think it's posted on top of, yeah boardwalk on top.
Mancino: Yeah, but somebody has made a pathway through the wetland to get to that dock.
I mean they can walk out through the wetland area and then through the wetland vegetation to
get to the dock. So I'm wondering if that needed approval. It's there. It's existing.
Al -Jaffa It's grandfathered in.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Randy Travalia: Thank you. I'm Randy Travalia. I'm President of Robert Mason Homes.
As Sharmin has indicated, we have been before you about a month ago and there were a
number of issues that we worked our way through. Sharmin kind of litinized the list of them.
I'll just kind of run through them again very quickly. I'll be happy to answer any questions
on what we did as we went through it. We worked closely with Sharmin and with Dave in
terms of the grading and the site planning issues and got very good input from them and
we're going to utilize quite a few of their comments. We did remove the eyebrow from the
easterly side that touched on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. That allowed us to pull the building pads up
the side of the hill and allowed us to more sensitively use the grading in that area. We are
looking at the 20 foot front setbacks... again. As you look at the property, there's basically a
ridge that runs kind of down the center of it so the further from the center of that ridge we
go, the further off the grade we go. So that being able to move a little bit closer, it allows us
to save the grade in those areas. We moved the NURP pond to Lot 13. That allowed us to
minimize a significant amount of grading area and at the same time we reconfigured the
utility connections in and out of that NURP pond. The original plan indicated that the access
out of the original wetland, which is on Lots 13 through 18, was to outlet along our easterly
property border. So you come, the border... To do that we had to go through a 4 to 5 foot
high bank and we would be injuring some of the existing vegetation that's there. Dave
suggested that we review the way that that grading works through there and review the way
the utility connections work. If you look on your grading sheet, you'll see that we've been
able to reroute the utility pipe in such a fashion that we stay completely away from that
easterly boundary, and in fact actually drain that NURP pond out on the lot lines down
between 11 and 12. And again that gives us a chance to do less grading and less tree
removal. We reconfigured the lot I guess four different times and came up with a series of
grading plans that worked with them and again I'd like to publically now thank the staff for
their input. It's been very helpful for us and we appreciate it. The tree loss on our previous
4
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
plan, although close to being in compliance with the ordinance, is now less. We originally
were going to lose about 2 3/4 acres of tree canopy. We will now lose about 2 1/4 acre of
tree canopy. Effectively below the threshold of the ordinance. We looked at an idea that
staff had advanced with the longer private drive. Had some concerns about the number of
' homes that were serviced by the private drive, and had some concerns for the grade that was
set in that private driveway. Going over 10% at some points. The plan that we have now
satisfies the ideas of less grading, less tree loss but it does not have the long private drive,
' which from our vantage point, is a preferable situation to have less ... private drive the grades
are more comfortable. Effectively what we have is a good compromise or a good balance
between staffs suggestion. The idea of saving the trees and saving the grading issues, and
yet still not having to have the private drive with the steeper grades in it. Last Wednesday,
February the 8th we had a neighborhood meeting. We invited to that meeting all of the
' people that are on the list that are on the public hearing list. So there was 56 or 65, whatever
the names was. We had 12 to 14 people in attendance. Spoke with, covered most of the
issues to the plat and ultimately one of the ideas that we had is to plant, transplant some of
' the existing evergreens on the site to our easterly boundary on Lot 12, and some of the
neighbors in the Willow Ridge neighborhood, to our east raised the question of whether or
not we could in fact, instead of planting those kind of in a straight line fashion right along
' our property line, could we stagger them both inside our property line and outside. In other
words, on the Willow Ridge side and do it in a more natural kind of configuration instead of
just a straight line with evergreen trees. We spoke with staff and both Kate and Sharmin said
that it's fine with them but their concern was to make sure that they planted trees in areas
where the soil conditions were appropriate so that they would properly thrive. And in
speaking with Mark Shunk, one of the Willow Ridge neighbors tonight, our intention is to
just kind of coordinate that with them in the spring when we actually do a little more careful
analysis of what those soils conditions are so we can know where most effectively plant those
trees. I don't want to take any more time. I know you've all seen the plan before but if you
' have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Scott: Good, thank you. Questions? Well I just have one about the trees. So basically you'll
be pulling them up and in effect storing them or banking them somehow.
Randy Travalia: Our intention is to spade them and move them to areas where we're not
going to, where we're going to be able to transplant them immediately. We wouldn't, with
trees of that size, it's best if you don't toe them in and let them sit. It's better to pick them
up, put them in their ultimate destination.
' Scott: Okay.
Y
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: When you're marketing these properties, do you anticipate from a reality
standpoint, that we're looking at access on each one of these lots to the lake? Will you be
marketing them that way?
Randy Travalia: Access to the lake in terms of being able to boat on the lake?
Farmakes: That's correct. In some cases you have 400 feet of wetland.
Randy Travalia: I think the wetland ranges from about 160 feet to about 350 feet. It is our
intention to demonstrate that the lake is there. I suspect getting to your ultimate question of
dockage. It's not our intention to say that docks are available in any fashion other than
through the city ordinance. We're not planning on putting a common dock down. I don't
believe this is the kind of area that a common beachlot is appropriate. There's not enough
critical mass in the neighborhood to do that. We would not be interested in doing that.
Farmakes: Okay.
Scott: Any other comments or questions? Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to open
the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Scott: If anybody from the general public wishes to speak at this time, please step up to the
microphone and give us your name and your address and let us know what's on your mind.
Alan Thometz: Good evening. I'm Alan Thometz and I live in Willow Ridge. My address
is 6690 Mulberry Circle. As Randy mentioned, on February 8th there was a meeting between
Mason Homes and residents of Willow Ridge and there was a concern about how to screen
our lots from the house on Lot 12—and there was an agreement that was reached about the
trees, that Randy referred to. All I would like to suggest or ask, is it possible. I understand
that there's a development contract being negotiated between the city and the developer and a
bond posted to effectively provide enforcement for that development contract. What I'd like
to propose is that this agreement that was made between the developer and the residents of
Willow Ridge concerning trees along that property line, that that be incorporated in the
development contract and a bond provide protection for the Willow Ridge residents on that
happening with those trees.
Scott: Okay. I think we could also, that could be a condition that we could add to the
existing ones that we have here too so, yeah. We can do that.
' Planning ommission Meeting - February 15, 1995
g g rY
Alan Thometz: I just had a question, really for my own education. What's proposed here
tonight is the preliminary plat. What's the difference between preliminary and final? What
changes could occur between what we see tonight and what actually happens?
' Scott: Well a preliminary plat is basically a, it becomes a really good outline of knowing
where the house pads are going to be. Where the streets are. The utilities. The major
features such as what the property's going to look like after it's been graded. The plans that
we get involve showing how the lots are going to be situated and their size and their
configuration. Where the street's going. It's width and then there's also a tree sheet. I call it
' a tree sheet, that just shows the position of the canopy, the size and the trunk diameter and
the type of the trees. So then we can envision what is going to be lost due to housing pads
and so forth. From preliminary plat to final plat, there usually isn't very much variation but I
' know the planning staff has seen a lot more of these things than I have. What kinds of
variations do you see from a preliminary to final plat?
' Aanenson: I'm just going to explain the process first. The Planning Commission makes a
recommendation on the preliminary plat. Then it goes to City Council. Public hearing is
held here. The City Council also reviews the preliminary plat and they either add to the
' conditions or embrace them the way they are. Then when it goes for final plat, at that point
basically a lot of it is just details that the engineering department will review street plans...
storm water calculations and all that sort of stuff to make sure that the ponds are sized
' correctly and the street plans are approved. Specific design work. When that's all done and it
meets the satisfaction of the city standards, the Council, on a consent, approves the final plat.
These condition in the development contract would be approved. If you're interested in
' making sure conditions are as you want in there, you can get a copy of the development
contract when it's on. Normally it's on consent but if you are interested, you can get a copy
of that when it's on. They are published in the paper when they'll be on for final plat and you
' can review that and if you have issues with that, then you can let the Council know.
Alan Thometz: Yeah. I'm sort of new to the process. I was wondering how much material
' change would take place between the preliminary and the final.
Aanenson: Sometimes in the grading there might be a little bit of tweaking as you actually
' design the street profile or something but it's pretty minor of a change.
' Alan Thometz: So substantially what we're seeing here tonight in terms of plans...
Aanenson: Correct. Anything beyond a minor change we would have to bring back through
the process.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: And then if you happen to see, let's say something when you get a copy of the
development agreement prior to the City Council meeting. If you happen to see something on
there that you see as an issue, what the consent agenda is, and you may know this already but
I'll just for the record. A number of items that have been discussed and really are approved
as a block but my guess is, if you had a particular issue, you could contact the city and let
them know that you'd like to have that taken out of the consent agenda. Or if you happen to
know someone on the City Council, just call them directly and they'd be willing to at least go
another round. They like to get it through if they can, but if there's a glaring omission or
something, you need to call it to their attention. Does that kind of help you out?
Alan Thometz: That's all...
Scott: Great. Well thank you. Anybody else like to speak?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
Hempel: If I could just address what the resident brought up about transplanting trees and
putting a condition in the development contract. I guess I'd like to address that question
maybe to the developer as well because the development contract is more for public
improvements and conditions of approval within the plat. Now we're talking a technicality
outside the plat. Do we guarantee these trees for a year? Those kinds of items so maybe if
the developer could address that if he'd be comfortable in leaving that in.
Aanenson: I guess that's the way we'd look at it. If it's mutually acceptable between the
parties, then we'd put it in. As Dave indicated, that's something outside of the plat. I think
we did talk to the developer about that. When it's outside the plat it's a little bit harder to
enforce sometimes.
Scott: Okay. Yes sir.
Joe Cook: My name's Joe Cook and I'm on 1340 Heather Court. I guess I just, I got here
just a little bit late and I was given this drawing showing Lot 12 and then the trees and stuff
that you'll be planting there. I guess that looks good on paper but I'm a little concerned, I'd
like to have something a little more concrete and definite in terms of being, is this, we've got
9 trees. Tree locations here. To me that's a little bit vague in terms of I would assume this
number... corresponded with certain trees.
8
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Randy Travalia: What they are Joe, the Planning Commission hasn't seen that. I just gave
that to Mark a few minutes ago. That's a proposed discussion between your neighborhood
and us. It would be our intention to first off, investigate the soil conditions to make sure that
the trees are going to viable in those locations. And we can't do that until spring until we can
really get into the soil. The second thing is, we intend to transplant trees within the
neighborhood. The trees that are numbered there on our key to the ones on the original plan.
So it shows what they are exactly but they're all spruce or pine trees. They range anywhere
in diameter from 4 to 8 inches. That piece of paper alone without the master...
' Joe Cook: Yeah. Well, and I guess that helps a bit but I guess, again I just want to get, I
don't know how you generally deal with this situation but just to make sure there's something
documented that says there will be a certain number of trees. Minimum number of trees... I
' was concerned too about, is there like a guarantee of those trees. If they die in 6 months, is
there typically the responsibility of the builder to come back and replace those trees? And I'd
like to see something like that... possible.
' Scott: I think what we could do, from a condition at least to maybe add a condition to that
effect when we send it on. At least that will be an item that will be up for discussion with
' the City Council. But as far as liability for replacement and so forth, if the trees are, and I'm
not going to get into a big discussion of it but I'm thinking if the trees are on either side of
the property line between the two developments, I think that might be a factor as well but
' that's something that I would think you guys could work out. It seems like the developer has
been quite willing to work on some things. I would suggest working it that way but we can
add a condition that just brings up the fact that the details of where the trees are going to go
' relative to screening the two developments is something that's going to be worked out
between the developer and the residents and then that we'd like to have something more
specific perhaps when it goes to City Council. Something like that. Okay. Would anyone
' else wish to speak? Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: I had a a uestion for Sharmin on e 3 of the staff report. Right toward the
q page P
bottom you talk about the zoning ordinance states that the side yard setback for lots served by
' private driveways or flag lots 20 feet, okay. That wasn't my specific question. I'm sorry. I
was trying to get at the point where we talked about the width of the lot at the 35 foot
setback. I think you had mentioned that there's a variance that we're requesting or they're
requesting as it relates to the 20 foot setback for the width of the lot at the 20 foot setback. I
9
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
think you were looking at like on Lots like 2, 3, 4, 5. Those lots where we pulled the house
pad, or the setback closer to the road. Now I know we're looking at a variance because of
that condition. But if we have the standard setback at 35 feet, would those lots meet the 90
foot requirement?
Al -Jaff: Our recommendation is that they meet that 90 foot width because we believe that
this is, the 90 foot allows for a reasonable house pad. If you go less than that, then it ... future
variances and we want to avoid that from happening.
Ledvina: So in your conditions you're stating that they should adjust the lot lines to meet that
requirement?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay.
Al -Jaff: We're recommending approval on front yard setback variances so that some of the
homes would have a 20 foot front yard setback but as far as the width of the parcel, we're
recommending that they adjust the site property line so that they meet the 90 foot setback.
Ledvina: Okay. Can you point out which condition that was? I didn't find it.
Al -Jaff: 25.
Ledvina: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Here it is, the last one. I stopped
at 24. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Bear with me on that one. I guess I had a question on the
situation with Lot 12 and I went out to the site and I took a look at that lot and the vegetation
and I guess it seemed to me that the houses that were closest to that Lot 12 house pad would
be quite screened. You know it seemed pretty good and I think with the developer bringing
in those additional trees, I guess I'm fairly well convinced that the screening can be
adequately achieved. The one thing that I am concerned about relates to the wetland, and I
know the developer is proposing to mitigate the filling of that small wetland but I think there
might be a point, a philosophical point as it relates to wetlands and how we treat wetlands. I
know in many other plats we do allow developers to fill with mitigation when we're looking
at putting in roads, and that type of thing and in some critical type areas as it relates to the
infrastructure of the plat. But in this case, what we're doing is we're allowing a developer to
fill this wetland to add another lot to the plat, and I think that's an issue. It's a small wetland
but I think the wetland has significance in the overall drainage of the larger wetland to the
north and also how it fits into the overall drainage pattern for Lake Lucy.
10
0
n
C
0
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: Can we respond to that Matt?
Ledvina: Sure.
Aanenson: I can give you some clarification on that.
Al -Jaff: The applicant could access the site if he moves the NURP pond further to the north,
and basically brought the driveway around to access Lot 12. We just believe that it will
provide for a better buildable site if that wetland was filled. Also, we believe that by
mitigating in this area, the quality of the wetland will be improved from what it is at right
now.
Ledvina: Okay, the mitigation area. You're thinking there's a real substantial impact that you
could make there.
Mancino: Could you say that one more time? You would move the NURP pond to the
north.
Ledvina: Around the east side essentially of that wetland?
Al -Jaff: You could potentially get a driveway through to access.
Al -Jaff: Correct. What would happen is potentially get a cross access easement over Lot 13.
It would be clunky but doable.
Ledvina: Right.
Mancino: Then where would you put the NURP pond?
Ledvina: It would have to get narrowed or you might wipe out some trees.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could give some insight here. Part of the grading plan to
develop Lot 12, they will need to fill the wetland at approximately ... it would be very difficult
to avoid impacting that wetland. The only way to avoid it would be not to build on that lot
essentially.
Ledvina: Okay. So that's an issue that it's just a basic thing about some criteria about when
you fill in a wetland and when don't you fill in a wetland. I know there's probably been some
other instances where we have allowed a lot.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: We've done it in a lot of instances where you have fingers or just strange
anomalies where it just doesn't lay right into the subdivision. Again, this isn't any different
than the Willow Ridge where we did a number of subdivisions that were allowed to be filled.
I guess we felt, based on the quality of this wetland, we felt it could be enhanced. After
physically walking it and going on Diane's recommendation, tying it back into our storm
water management plan and our wetlands, we felt that instead of leaving this isolated one, it
could probably better enhance by moving it and that's just I guess the perspective we took.
Ledvina: Right. I can see those opinions and I guess I would certainly defer to Diane in this
instance. I think I don't know that we do have a criteria though for evaluating when we
would allow a wetland to be filled or when we wouldn't.
Aanenson: Well we do in a sense and that's based on our classification. Our ag urban. With
some we do and don't and those that have already been degregated or are of less quality and
then we make that and then tie it back into the storm water management plan. Those that we
want to improve the quality of, or use for the function of, treatment of storm water. That's
kind of, and again we tied that back into that criteria and based on that, we felt this was one
that we could enhance the quality of the wetland adjacent to the lake.
Ledvina: Okay. That seems like a reasonable approach. I had a couple of questions. Some
of them were answered by the developer as it relates to the trees and I think that's a good
proposal to stagger the trees or whatever's the appropriate thing to do there. To improve the
look. I think that's real helpful. I had a condition, or a question on condition number 10.
We stated here that no berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way and I
think I asked this question the last time. Does that mean that the landscape island in the cul-
de -sac is not allowed, or at the entrance way?
Hempel: Yeah, that's a good point. We refer this condition to the right -of -way along Lake
Lucy Road... We are comfortable with the amount of landscaping around the median and
center island as long as it's maintained by the homeowners association.
Ledvina: Okay. So how can we change that to make that a little more specific?
Aanenson: Just say on Lake Lucy Road.
Ledvina: Well but then we have this, the Lake Lucy right -of -way includes that initial
entrance monument, right?
Hempel: That's actually just outside of the right -of -way.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Ledvina: It is? Okay. We just say the Lake Lucy Road right -of -way, right?
Aanenson: Yep.
Ledvina: Okay. Talking about the right -of -way and the landscaping. Now you're
recommending that the developer put together a plan for that landscaping and what progress
has been made on that?
Al -Jaff: There should have been a landscaping plan.
Ledvina: Yes. I think there was but, I believe there is in our packet here. Is this?
Al -Jaff: That looks like it, yes.
Ledvina: Okay. I don't know that it has specific landscaping for Lake Lucy Road. Am I
missing it?
Al -Jaff: I need to look at it. I'm sorry.
Ledvina: We're talking about this area here.
Al -Jaff: There is additional vegetation in the area. The applicant will have to revise the plan
to...
Ledvina: Okay. Are you requesting specific landscaping there or do you want him to
propose additional work in that area?
Al -Jaff: There is existing vegetation at this point.
Ledvina: Are you saying that's adequate?
Al -Jaff: It's substantial vegetation.
Ledvina: Okay. Does condition number 20 meet our requirements there? I mean does that
get across what we really want to do? It says the applicant shall work with the city to
develop a plan. Are you saying that our plan, that the plan that's developed is adequate?
Al -Jaff: Yes it is, especially after he revises it to include existing vegetation. Not all existing
vegetation has been shown on this plan.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Ledvina: Okay. And then I had a question about the conservation easement. Sometimes we
have, at this point we have a description of where we're going to do that. Do we have an
idea? Can you work.
Al -Jaff: We can work with the applicant.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess the one area that I'd like to see, and it relates to Lot 12 are the, and
I guess also Lot 13 on the east side of the pond. I want to try to make sure that those large
evergreens are protected. And I think that's significant toward the screening that will occur in
that area. So I would like to see those items included in the, or those trees in that area
included in the conservation easement. I imagine that you assume that.
Al -Jaff: We would take it on the Lake Lucy Point portion of the site but we won't be able to
get it on the Willow Ridge.
Ledvina: Right. I understand that. But that's, the conservation easement is a work item
essentially to resolve.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: And I had a suggestion for item 13. We talk about the wells and septic systems
being, that they will have to be properly abandoned. I would like to suggest that we specify
that a little more. A little more detailed and identify that they should be abandoned according
to the Department of Health Water Well Code. You can abandon them properly but there's
ways of...
Mancino: According to health?
Ledvina: Department of Health Water Well Code. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: The staff and the applicant responded to my concerns from the last meeting. I agree
with, I thought some of the Matt's questions regarding the filling of the wetland were real
appropriate. I have two, the only two comments that I have are not really within the, one
comment is not within our jurisdiction but I know the DNR does react to public comments.
So when this issue does go to the DNR for access to the lake, I would like the staff to draft a
fairly strong letter, short letter, requesting that shared docks be highly recommended by the
Planning Commission and hopefully the City Council. My second point relates to what Matt
brought up and that's, I would like Diane to, when this goes to the City Council, to justify the
14
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
filling of the wetland on Lot 12 and document the mitigation benefits for their understanding
' and then maybe mine. I think it's appropriate but I'd like to see the trade offs. Matt, I
appreciate your comments and that's all.
Scott: Good, thanks.
Harberts: I noted in the staff report that staff was convinced to retain the monument. Can
you share some insight in terms of what convinced you to leave it in.
Hempel: On what...
Harberts: In the staff report I think it was under streets. It said that at the entrance to the
development, wait a minute. Okay. An 80 foot wide right -of -way is proposed to
accommodate a center median which staff has been convinced to retain and I'm understanding
that that includes that monument?
Aanenson: The gateway?
Harberts: Yeah. The gateway or whatever.
Hempel: What we are allowing is the center median. Monument, I'm not sure if there's a
monument or landscaping.
Harberts: Or landscaping, or whatever.
Hempel: My initial response was, we're trying to save the grading of the site. They had this
wide right -of -way. Wide street entrance. They're putting the house further down the hill
creating more grading. With this new alignment, reshape the road a little bit. It didn't make
a difference whether the island was there or not.
Harberts: So what about from a city perspective in terms of public safety or public
maintenance? Are you doing traffic control? Is it an issue?
Hempel: We don't believe it will be an issue from the site distance perspective.
Harberts: Would it make a difference in terms of the vegetation. The type of vegetation
' that's there and I'm just reflecting back on some of the challenges that they had on West 78th
Street. This site, and depending on what kind of planning for this.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Hempel: Sure. This is a relatively small median area. There would be small plants... We've
allowed similar types of median plantings... Meadows at Longacres out on TH 41. That's
pretty substantial... It really has not impeded vision... for the neighborhood coming out onto
TH 41. We don't believe it will be a problem. As far as maintenance goes of it, we can put
in the development contract that if these islands are not maintained by the homeowners
association, the city reserves the right to remove at any time.
Harberts: And who pays?
Hempel: It would be at city expense or we could bill back to the homeowners association
Harberts: With regards to the waiver in terms of the 50 foot wide street... would it have been
a challenge, a great challenge Dave in other areas where this type of street or size of street
has been allowed. Are you aware of any issues or challenges that the city may have had one
way or the other? Have you had comments from residents?
Hempel: Sure. We've allowed similar right -of -way in certain instances such as this where
we're trying to preserve trees... topography of the site is comparable... We've done this in the
Lundgren development... Song parcel it was, which hasn't been constructed yet but will be...
We've got previous subdivisions ... The previous ordinance was 50 feet actually. We've
increased it to 60... There are a number of neighborhoods...
Harberts: With little concern, or repercussions to the city or to the residents? I mean the city
for some reason, which I'm not aware of, went from 50 to 60 for some reason. I don't know
if it's utilities or what.
Hempel: It's a combination of utilities and snow storage. Future sidewalks... More green
space.
Harberts: It's my understanding, from Matt's questions that the lots will have to meet the,
would it be the width? What is it called?
Al -Jaff: Correct. The width of the lot has to be 90 feet at the setback.
Harberts: And all of the lots would have to reflect that?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Harberts: Isn't that going to cause a shift...
1L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Al -Jaffa We believe that the change is going to be minor. You have in excess of 160 feet on
' this lot. So it's truly a minor change and each lot needs approximately 4 or 5 feet. It's a very
minor change that it could be accommodated before final plat approval.
Harberts: I guess overall, you know I certainly recognize the effort by the developer and
staff. I guess I've always been uncomfortable with setbacks that are less than 30 feet and I
certainly recognize what we're trying to accomplish, or trying to preserve. And I also
recognize in this report that a person or whatever has the right and the opportunity to develop
the land in the way that we want but I guess I'm uncomfortable with reflecting the 30 foot...
That's it.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: Most of the items have been talked about. Just a general sense... elevation
situation. I don't have a problem with 12. I certainly support Ladd's comments in regards to
the areas that we don't have jurisdiction. Lake Lucy's not a well lake. The 5 sites that are
there, I believe the applicant mentioned is between 100 and 350 feet of the wetland to the
water line. If given a 50 foot channel, and we're talking those distances, if you add those
together, I believe it probably comes up to the second largest wetland, square footage in the
development. And that would not be replaced. That potentially, conceivably could be
removed, although I think it's improbable because of the cost. If under those circumstances
they were removed, it would not be replaced, which is different than the wetland situations
that are farther up on the property. It seems to be maybe a bit of a loophole with problematic
lakes that have large pieces of wetlands to the water line on these long narrow lots. Might
substantially devastate that particular area of the wetland, although... below the high water
mark is not our jurisdiction. It still kind of defeats the purpose of some of the other things
that we're talking about here. And if a letter helps, I certainly support that as a solution. I
have nothing further.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Well that just makes us need to look to the west of this development too because
is that all the way down to the lake? To the west of this property. Do we have the same
wetlands?
Farmakes: No ... potentially one other and then a little peninsula comes out there. They call it
' an island. And the other homes are already there. I don't think, one took the city to task on
the issue and I think decided in the end not to build that.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: I have a couple of questions Sharmin. On the recommendation, number 25. You
have Lots 3, 4 and 5 and earlier in our report on page 2 and on page 3 you have included two
other lots. Number 2 and number 9 and I think 9 was eliminated because it's on a cul -de -sac
and therefore would have different requirements. And why was 2 eliminated?
Al -Jaff: Because it actually does meet the requirement and it was, I took it out on the
conditions but I didn't within the body of the report. So the conditions of approval are
accurate.
Mancino: Correct. Tell me what your thinking was, I have some concern as Diane does,
about the 20 foot yard setbacks. You did not in the recommendations pull those out, exactly
which lots. Is that for a reason that you did not want to be specific about which lots would
have a variance?
Al -Jaff: I quoted the standards. The compliance with ordinance as what will be followed as
far as setbacks. If you would rather we call out those lots specifically, we could do that.
Mancino: Okay, I think that would be a good idea. Could you tell me why Lot 19 would
require that 20 foot variance. As I look at it, on Block 1. I want to say, can't you skew the
house pad and not that have be a 20 foot variance on Lot 19? And maybe that's a question I
should ask the applicant. I don't understand the reason for it there.
Al -Jaff: All of them are basically to minimize grading, minimize impact on vegetation and
maximize the distance from the edge of the wetland.
Mancino: And so you feel that that one is quite a ways away from the wetland needs to be
located to have a variance there too?
Hempel: ...house pad, I think we could get that to fit the 30 foot setback and not require a
variance.
Ledvina: For Lot 19?
Mancino: Lot 19. So it looks like there's working room to do that and I would like to see
that one stay with those standards of 30 feet. If we can do that. If the applicant work with
staff to do that. Another kind of big question I have as I look at this property, which is
absolutely gorgeous. I walked it. It's wonderful. It will make a beautiful development. My
concern is, as we develop the property, the Morin property to the west and as we go down
Lake Lucy Road and I see that there is another property up for sale. For sale sign. My
concern has to do with public safety. Lake Lucy Road right now is a very wide road which
18
u
0
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
has it's trail as part of the street. It encourages, I use it all the time. I live very close to it.
At one end of it, and it encourages speeding. I am concerned about kids with bikes on the
trail that is part of the street. I'm concerned with runners with pedestrians, etc. and we are
going to have all these developments that are going to end in cul -de -sacs on the south side of
Lake Lucy Road. Is there not a way that we can look at this so that the neighborhoods hook
up to each other and so that there are streets on that south side that don't have to use Lake
Lucy Road so that pedestrians, kids can go from east to west.
Hempel: We've sat and looked at the site for intersecting the parcels with streets ... The
topographic variation... that could be very difficult. Although on the other hand, maybe a trail
that meanders through the woods closer to the lake ... that hasn't been thoroughly explored.
Maybe that would be a possibility. You would have a couple of home sites though ... Park and
Rec.
Aanenson: They looked at that. I think their position is there was a trail on the other side of
the street. Todd's comment also too is access between the two subdivisions, we're kind of
back to the old neighborly thing where you kind of, there's an existing path where people get
around the wetland now. It's the old you cut through your neighbor's yard sort of thing. If
the children are playing with each other between the two subdivisions. But their position on
this was that the existing trail is on Lake Lucy Road and didn't foresee another one on the
south side here.
Scott: You're right. I mean the topography is very extreme. I think when you get next door,
there's that property that's for sale that I think is the one that's next door to the Morin parcel.
It's a 2 story structure and the roof line, the top, the peak of the roof of that house is below
grade for Lake Lucy so I mean it's pretty scary.
Mancino: Well it's very steep but I'm saying, is there going to be houses there? Are we
going to say yes, you can put houses on the property but you can't put a street. I mean if
we're going to grade, do mass grading for a housing development.
Aanenson: I guess we're saying the east /west connector is a difficult one to make. If you
look at the wetlands in the area, by the time you do the avoidance of the wetlands and the
grading. Our first choice is always to try to link of neighborhoods if you can, and we did, as
Dave indicated, we did look at this because we believe this whole superblock is going to
develop at some time and that would be our first choice. It really is. And we looked at that
and we just didn't feel like, to make the east /west connectors, with all the natural features
there, the impact would be too great. And the depth of these developments are such that it
works just to take a perpendicular street down into the subdivision to subdivide. It would be
nice if we could have an east /west connector though.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: That could even be a small... That's the extent of my questions. Just something for
staff to check. When I walked it, and the wetland delineation markers were up, it seemed to
me that they were in the middle of some of the wetland area and that was only through my
looking at vegetation. I have no idea but there were some, I want to say Peterson markers up
with tags.
Al -Jaff: There were two sets of wetland markers. One of them is, was done previously by a
different delineator but there is an accurate set and Diane actually went out there with the
surveyor and they agreed on all the locations.
Mancino: Okay. My last comment is that I think it is very generous and very gracious of the
applicant to work with the neighbors in transplanting trees. I don't think it's something that I
would put in the recommendation because there is no ordinance. There is no precedence that
between single family developments that a developer must put in trees or in a buffer. I would
hope that his or her word is good enough and I think that there have been several meetings on
this and I'm, as I said, I think it is most gracious of the developer to do this. Usually the
homeowners on the other side, if they do want a buffer, they are the ones that put in the
buffer.
Scott: Good, thank you.
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. You started talking about the trails and
I know at our last meeting I remember that there were some suggestions from the neighboring
resident of a possible trail connection to Mulberry Circle. Was that investigated?
Al -Jaff: Yes it was. The location of the wetland would not allow that trail to go through.
What would potentially happen is the trail would go very close to Lake Lucy Road and the
Park Director felt that it's not warranted when it's so close to Lake Lucy Road and you would
have an existing trail out there.
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning
of 18.5 acres of property currently zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family.
Preliminary Plat subdividing 18.15 acres into 20 single family lots and the one outlot and a
variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot wide right -of -way and a Wetland
Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate and ag urban wetland (WAP #95 -1), subject to the
conditions in the staff report with the following modifications. Modifying condition number
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
10 to state that no berming or landscaping will be allowed within the Lake Lucy Road right -
of -way. Modifying condition number 13 to read, existing wells and /or septic systems on site
will have to be properly abandoned according to the Minnesota Department of Health Water
Well Code. Modifying condition number 20 to read, the applicant shall develop a
landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right -of -way acceptable
to the city staff. And the rest of the conditions reading as is stated in the report. Adding
condition number 26. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the
affected residents of the Willow Ridge subdivision. Just a little bit of a technical problem
here. Condition number 23, it's labeled twice actually so relabel conditions, the second
condition number 23, full park and trail fees to 24. Number 24 to 25. Number 25 to number
26 and condition number 27 to read, screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated
with the affected residents of Willow Ridge subdivision to insure a natural appearance. And
adding condition number 28. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be allowed for
Lots 4, 5, 13, 17 and 18.
Scott: Can I have a second please?
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staffs recommendation with the
conditions as modified. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah. Was there concurrence on the letter from staff to the DNR? Was there
concurrence that the staff justify the wetland alteration filling to the City Council? I don't
need that in the motion. I do need it, I'm just curious whether the Planning Commission has
cared about that and staff can carry that out without.
Aanenson: It's in the report but we can expand upon that.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think that's appropriate. Just for a point of clarification. I didn't identify
the specific cases and we have case number, Subdivision Case 994 -13. The rezoning, Case
#94 -6 and the Wetland Alteration, Case 995 -1.
Mancino: I have one other discussion item that I forgot to bring up, and that is something I
wanted to ask Sharmin. On the west side of the road, the cul -de -sac that goes in, I noticed
that there is a lot of vegetation in that area. Small saplings, which is our next generation of
trees. Will that be custom graded?
1 21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Al -Jaff: That is our recommendation. That they do custom grade that portion of the site.
We're also going to preserve a large number of the trees that are out there, basically because
the applicant has moved some of the utility lines.
Mancino: That were proposed to.
Al -Jaff: On the original plans some of the utility lines were going to go through those trees
and all that will be preserved.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
Udvina moved, Harlberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Rezoning of 18.5 acres of property currently zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single
Family, ( #94 -6 REZ), Preliminary Plat subdividing 18.15 acres into 20 single family lots and
the one outlot and a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot wide right -
of -way ( 194 -13 SUB), and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate and ag mban
wetland (WAP #95 -1), subject to the conditions:
1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands.
2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbooks
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
22
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
I ,
l_
5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post
' developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
' determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
' 6. 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.
7. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers,
Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer
' installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan
application.
8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
' 9. 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 width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the Lake Lucy Road right -of -way.
' 11. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands
shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
12. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter, or 4:1 throughout for safety
23
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
13. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned
according to the Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Code.
14. The proposed single family residential development of 12.11 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $23,978. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
15. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
16. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road.
17. The traffic lanes adjacent to the entrance median shall be 18 feet wide.
18. A catch basin shall be installed on the west radius of the proposed street at the '
intersection of Lake Lucy Road to maintain the drainage pattern and help prevent an icy
intersection.
19. The easterly half of Lot 12 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. I
20. The applicant shall develop a landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake
Lucy Road right -of -way acceptable to the city staff. The vegetated areas which will not
be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The
conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and ,
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be
removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation
easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
21. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to
grading. '
22. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
24 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
' issuance of any building permits.
C. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for
review prior to final plat approval.
d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the
property.
' 23. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 6 and 7 and one at the end of the
private driveway or have the homes constructed with built -in, automatic residential
fire sprinkling systems. The hydrant between Lots 4 and 5 shall be relocated
between Lots 3 and 4.
' b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable television, transformer boxes. This is
' to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
'
C. Submit street name for approval.
d. Due to the close proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods, any trees,
' shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation will either have to be chipped, shredded or
removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued.
I e. A turn around for personal vehicles is recommended at a minimum at the end of
the private driveway.
' 24. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
25. The private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to
the City's private street ordinance to serve the four lots in the southeast corner of the
site. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family homes.
' 26. The applicant shall adjust the frontage on Lots 3 4 and 5 to meet the Zoning Ordinance
PP J g g
frontage requirements of 90 feet.
1 25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
27. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of
the Willow Ridge subdivision.
28. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of
Willow Ridge subdivision to insure a natural appearance.
29. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be allowed for Lots 4, 5, 13, 17 and 18.
All voted in favor, except Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
KKCM RADIO FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 12'X 20' TRANSMITTER BUILDING. THE NEW BUILDING IS
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED 5' FROM THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 50' FRONT YARD AND 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1451 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE AND ZONED A2
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: How far is this from the residence? That first residence.
Rask: The first one to the west?
Scott: Yes.
Rask: I would say well over 500 feet. It's quite, I drove down that access road and it's quite
a ways. It's hardly visible from that residence.
Scott: Yeah, okay. Questions or comments.
Conrad: We don't have, what are the standards that guide the materials for a project like this?
Rask: The only ones I am aware of I guess at this point would be the ones by the FCC as far
as regulations of the transmitter tower and equipment use.
Scott: But in A2 it's pretty open.
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: Well it did require a conditional use and I guess we felt this was consistent with
that. And ultimately our first question was, they are outside of the MUSA. Is this going to
become another use? Is there a higher and better use of the property? And in looking at it,
John and I determined there really isn't much buildable area. This may be the highest and
' best use of this piece of property. I guess we felt comfortable based on the ... building that it
probably is the only use that may be out there.
Conrad: When I see cedar plywood siding, you know that's really where I'm going. Then I'll
state my question. What standards do we have that regulate that? Do we have any? Do we
' have any role in that?
Rask: It certainly would be covered in the site plan review and generally, I think the way our
site plan standards read are more for commercial properties and commercial areas. However,
this is a natural area for the most part so I guess what staff was most concerned with is that
the building didn't stick out. That there was some intent to use more earth tone colors to get
' it to blend and not stick out. The existing building there now is just a plywood building so I
guess we're hoping to get something that's above that but that would blend in and preserve the
natural vegetation. I guess not stick out.
' Conrad: So we don't have standards?
' Rask: Well I think our standards say that it's compatible with the surround area. And again,
that would primarily apply to commercial areas. That's the way our standards are written for
site plan or industrial parks or that sort of thing but the surrounding area here is a natural
' environment so I guess we're trying to have as little impact on it as possible.
Conrad: That's all.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments?
Mancino: Well I would just like to say that I think that we should put that in the
recommendations. That if this is a natural area, that we should have earth tones and that the,
that you don't have an aluminum roof or whatever. That it be the shakes and the wood tones
' that would kind of blend in with the wetland.
Conrad: Thatched roof would be kind of nice.
Scott: Are there an other comments? Jeff, can you save us from this?
Y Y
1 27
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: No. I have nothing further... at this point. They were going to modify... strange
that we don't have standards for that...
Scott: Well that's what I was thinking. Because usually what happens, if someone takes
property that's A2, and they're going to use it for commercial use, it gets rezoned. And then
our existing standards cover it but when we have a non - conforming use in an A2 district
without a rezoning, it doesn't really give us.
Farmakes: ...wetland. Conceivably how many of those are we going to come up with and...
Scott: Well, that's what I was going to say.
Farmakes: So those are the extent of my comments...
Scott: I think what I'm going to do is ask the applicant if they'd like to make a presentation.
John Hull: My name is John Hull. I'm the General Manager at KKCM. The gentleman here
is Ray Foslid, the former Mayor of Shakopee and Scott County Commissioner who is with
our new ownership... Broadcasting. I do have some photographs Mr. Foslid took of the area
that I can pass around.
Scott: Sure.
John Hull: I think that they pretty well show the existing building and with the site plans that
we provided you, you can pretty well see the area that we would like to put up our new
transmitter building on it. The reason we requested... was that it's about the only area within
that parcel at least that is out of the wetlands. In more recent years the current building has
had trouble with standing water and many times when we went out there to maintain our
transmitter, we'll walk in and there will be trickles of water going through and it's in fact
almost a dangerous situation for us at times. This new transmitter building, with our state of
the art transmitter that our company has purchased, would insure that we would be able to be
on the highest ground possible and at the same time... accessible for us to maintain our
transmitter. The pictures I think show that it's also, the reason we wanted it 5 feet from the
north boundary line was such that as you can see on one of those photographs, you can see
a ... area that gives us access into that. It would allow us to be able to put the new building
right off of that gravel road. We would not be disturbing any of the natural vegetation. We
would not be out on the wetland at all. Staff has recommended in their report that it be back
an additional 15 feet I believe. Well if that's the case, we would have to knock out some of
those small trees and shrubs that are on the property. And so that's why we were, and...
engineering recommended to us that we put it in that corner of the lease. In that photograph
28
' Plannin g g Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
you can see a large stake. That gives you the northwest corner of our lot. And so it would
' be just right inside of that staked area. I really don't know what all you need to know ... I
don't know how else to present this, except that like I say, we have spent a considerable sum
of money in buying a new, state of the art transmitter and the old building has been there 28
' years? 28 years and it's just time to upgrade our facility that we store our transmitter in.
And so that's the purpose for us being here tonight.
' Scott: Okay, good. Thank you.
' Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I had a question. One of the conditions relates to the existing
transmitter building to be removed from the property. What would you consider a reasonable
time from the completion of the new building? How much time would you like to have
' before the old building gets taken out of there?
John Hull: 30 to 60 days. We do have a buyer for our old transmitter that's currently in that
' building. Plus there's also a secondary transmitter, back -up transmitter that we would be
needing to move out of the old building into the new building. There's also, we hope to
make the switch from old transmitter to new transmitter in literally 12 hours. Sign off the air
at 6:00 p.m. one evening and come on the air at 6:00 a.m. the next morning with our new
transmitter. However, realistically we have to give this fellow time to come in and take our
old transmitter out. Then we would go in and take out the back -up, the secondary transmitter.
' Move that into the new building and thus we feel realistically in 30 to 60 days after we go on
the air with our new transmitter, we'll be...
Scott: Okay. So 60 days would work?
John Hull: Yeah, that would be a maximum. I'm sure that would work.
Scott: Okay, good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you. This is
a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on behalf of this issue?
Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to speak. So
may I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was closed.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on this. You may want to look at that problem. If you
envision it coming up in the future. I'm not sure...
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: My only comment is just a little nit and that would be, John. Are there going to
be outside utility boxes, etc, on this building?
Rask: There will be power to it. I'm not sure of the location of that. Maybe the applicant
Mancino: Will there be outside utility boxes on this building?
John Hull: As far as I know, no. U.S. West will put a phone box. We use a direct
telephone link from our studios to this site and they will need to move that box. Right now
it's on the north side of our current building. It could ... put over. And outside of the usual
meters that are run into our building, you know that whole side of the building. Everything
else will be inside.
Mancino: Alright. And my suggestion would just be that if they are going to be outside, that
they be on the, not the street side but on the other side. As long as you can place them either
or, let's choose the one that's not on the street side.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: This is a small item. I would like to see a condition number 5 kind of restated it
and I would like to say the only signage allowed would be the caution signs required by FCC
regulations. There could be other types of signs so, if we can state it that way. And other
than that, I would support the staff in terms of the...
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: Nothing.
Scott: I don't have any comments. Could I have a motion please?
30
' Planning ommission Meeting - February 15, 1995
g g rY
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95-
' 1, subject to the staff conditions with the following changes. Condition number 4 to read, the
existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property within 60 days of completion
of the new transmitter building. And number 5 change to read, the only signage allowed
would be the caution signs required by FCC regulations.
' Scott: Can I have a second?
Conrad: Second.
Udvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan Review #95 -1, subject to the following conditions:
' 1. The applicant shall obtain all required permit or approvals from the FCC and the Army
Corps of Engineers.
' 2. A wetland exemption form shall be obtained from the city.
3. Plans submitted for the building permit should include an engineered foundation or slab.
4. The existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property within 60 days of
completion of the new transmitter building.
5. The only signage allowed on the property will be the caution signs required by FCC
Regulations.
and recommend approval of a five (5) foot side yard and a thirty-five (35) foot front yard
' setback variance for the construction of a 12 x 20 foot shed at fifteen feet from the north
property line and five (5) feet from the west property line based on the following findings:
' 1. The wetland on the property prevents the placement of the shed at 50 feet or more from
the front lot line and 10 feet or more from the side lot line.
' 2. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
' 3. This petition for a variance is based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the
property while minimizing the impacts on the wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Li
31
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK
COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN
BOULEVARD, BLUFF CREEK ADDITION, CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Scott: This is basically a technical matter, especially since the building is about 3/4
completed but staff report.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions for staff?
Ledvina: I have just one question. Why does the city need, why would the city need an
easement on their own property?
Aanenson: For the road?
Hempel: For utilities.
Ledvina: Even if there was a wetland there though, would they.
Hempel: You've got other areas draining into it. We're looking at some of the area in Outlot
B, I believe it is, as part of that regional storm water pond. Take runoff from the school site
and...
Aanenson: The development to the east, yeah.
Ledvina: Okay,
Scott: Good. Any other?
Mancino: When was the road named McGlynn Drive?
Aanenson: Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, that segment was
named McGlynn Drive adjacent to Audubon Road so the die was sort of cast and this ties
into that street. So since that segment had already been named, the continuity just carried
through.
Mancino: Can't the city rename it?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: That's a public safety deal.
Mancino: I mean that's my question. What's the process of naming a road like that? Who
names these roads?
Hempel: The name was already there.
Mancino: So the frontage road on the north side of Highway 5.
Aanenson: Has not been named.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Because there's nobody addressed off that.
Mancino: Okay. But who actually names these roads?
Hempel: Typically it's done with the final plat ... the developer as they develop their parcel,
the city wants to designate kind of a grid of a street corridor system. Like we have Lake
Drive East. Lake Drive West.
Aanenson: So when you see a plat, certainly you can comment on the name. Like I'm saying
this one, because McGlynn Drive was developed with that plat, they named that segment of
street and because this ties into, the continuity carried forward.
Mancino: But it's very important to know that now. I mean McGlynn's not here. I mean
why did we name it.
Hempel: The thought is took as the frontage road continues westerly.
Scott: Well it can be changed once that crosses Galpin.
Hempel: It would be changed.
Mancino: Well that's kind of dumb though because it's all a continuation of the same road,
isn't it?
Scott: I'm not going to talk about roads.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: Well, I just wanted to know how it got there? I hadn't seen it and so if that's,
who's responsibility is it to start.
Aanenson: Maybe McGlynn's would be willing to, Pillsbury. Willing to change it to
Pillsbury Drive.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Okay, Any other comments for staff? Questions. Since we're the applicant, we're not
going to talk, It's a public hearing, so can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on this particular issue?
Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to speak. May
I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Haii)eits seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: I'll take, are there any comments from commissioners? Seeing none, may I have a
motion please?
Mancino: I move that we approve the preliminary plat for the Chaska School District #112,
City of Chanhassen recreation complex subject to the following conditions, which are outlined
in the staff report and there is one condition.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a second?
Farmakes: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation on this
matter. Is there any discussion?
34
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino moved, Faimakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
preliminary plat for the Chaska School Dishict 4112 /City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex,
subject to the following conditions:
' 1. The wetland and drainage easement indicated on the easterly portion of Lot 2, Block 1
should be deleted from the final plat document.
All voted in favor and the motion caned.
i PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 49 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND 5 OUTLOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND
WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA, HARSTAD
COMPANIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road
Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road
Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway
Paul Harstad 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Are there any questions for staff? With that.
' Scott: Keep going. You're going a good job.
Mancino: Would the applicant like to speak?
' Paul Harstad: My name is Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. We've been here before.
Sorry to have to submit yet another plat. I guess to make a long story short. Again, because
' there were some misunderstandings between us and staff over various issues... and frankly if
this project is voted on and approved, we'd love to see that and go ahead with it but I'm not
going to take any more time. If anyone has questions, you're welcome to ask me. Otherwise
' I'll sit back down and go ahead with...
1 35
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant?
Ledvina: Madam Chairman. I'd just like to ask the applicant why the plat was changed from
the approved preliminary plat to what we're looking at now. You cited some
misunderstandings. I don't know if you want to add anything more.
Paul Harstad: Well, as you can see the park is located in a new area. New position on the
southwest corner of the plat. Before it was over kind of in the southeast side of the plat. The
reason it was previously located there was because we had discussions over the allocation of
cost of constructing Kings Road and the underlying improvements. And there was some
misunderstandings as to who would pay for what portion of those ... and that's why we have
resubmitted.
Ledvina: Thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harbetts seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating was opened.
Scott: Anyone from the general public who wishes to speak is free to do so.
Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which
is 8 acres on the south side of Kings Road. I talked to Paul Harstad ... and I'm very
disappointed. I guess we've all been... Mostly disappointed in the park area ... It's more
accessible. It's more visible. It's tied to the trailway and the walkway along Minnewashta
Parkway. I think it just makes more sense. Also there are several other things. I have
problems with ... there are 12 homes now accessing directly off of Kings Road ... Also I guess
the construction ... Another issue that Paul Harstad just brought up that concerns me is the cost
of that road, and I know that that's what all this is coming down to. And right now the area
of Kings Road that would be constructed for the development runs across our property ... I
don't know what the costs would be but we need to talk about it. I don't know if it gets
passed onto us as residents ... it seems prohibitable.
Scott: Dave, could you shed some light on that?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We've had some discussions
with the applicant, Mr. Harstad regarding the plat and you'll see shortly I'm sure another plat
kind of reverting back to the old, or the previous location of the park and we've had
36
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
discussions on upgrading Kings Road. We're unsure at this time whether we'll do an
assessable project or if we'll work something out with the applicant to essentially... somebody
here for our share of the improvements with a payback period of approximately 2 to 4 years.
So we're still working out finance details of the property at this time.
Aanenson: As far as assessments, if we can just add to what Dave is saying. The city has a
lot of people trying to go through that public process and as far as timing, if the applicant
were to choose that mechanism, it may not happen this year. It looks like our bonding
capacity is out. It may not happen until next year or, depending on who else is in front or
ready to go on a project so if the developer desires to go ahead with this project, more than
likely they'd have to do it without doing an assessment project and I believe that's the method
we looked at before. Where there wouldn't be an assessment 429 project on this road. It
wouldn't be assessable. The city was looking at paying for their portion adjacent to the park.
This is where there was some misunderstanding and the developer paying for the rest of that
portion for the road. And not doing an assessment project.
Scott: Okay, which would be preferable.
Aanenson: Right. But the applicant still has the right to petition but what we're saying is
that the timing of that would be such that it probably, if he was to ask the city to do that, it
wouldn't be built this year.
Scott: Because of the bonding situation?
Aanenson: Correct.
Scott: Okay. Does that answer your question? Okay, good.
Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I just had a thought tonight and
I'll throw it out. I have no idea if there's any possibility of this or not but with the new
positioning of Kings Road, can I come and draw on that?
Aanenson: Sure.
Linda Scott: I believe that this property here is for sale. And I was just thinking that perhaps
if the park went like this, so that this road could stay kind of as it is, you'd still have a park
on Minnewashta Parkway. It takes less lots away from Harstad. Just a thought.
Aanenson: I can respond to that. What we believe the edge of the wetland, you can see right
here where the edge of the wetland is. Most of that area is wetland and what the Park
37
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Commission is looking for is more an area for active park. A play structure. That's really
what's wanted or desired in that neighborhood. A place where the children can have the play
structures alike. And because that's a wetland, it doesn't meet the need. I mean it would be a
preservation area, which would be nice, but what they're looking for is more an active area
so, because it's wetland, that didn't meet their needs.
Linda Scott: Okay. Well I thought, on the corner there, there was a house that was put in at
one point...
Aanenson: I think they had some soil problems there with the foundation and such. So it's a
little bit poor soils there.
Scott: Thank you. Yes sir.
Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live at 7161 Minnewashta Parkway. This park, the
proposed park's already been approved earlier. It was very important to all the residents
along Minnewashta Parkway and I think the way it has been recommended, city staff is
recommending this is the best location. We need land for balltields there. Park. The trail's
already there to make it accessible and adjacent to the lake is very desirable. I appreciate that
the city is taking a strong stance on this. That that's the spot for the park because really it's
the best spot.
Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else, I should say would the remaining member of the
general public wish to speak at this public hearing. You're under no obligation to do so, but
if you'd like to, we'd certainly be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Jerry Kortgard: Well being that I'm here. My name is Jerry Kortgard. I live in Pleasant
Acres but I also own a parcel just off of Kings Road. My concern is for the park ... little kids
going to Cathcart. Crossing Highway 7. I see a definite need for a park off the trail system..
The other part that concerns me is the density of the houses. This area has been, St. Joe is
really close by. This is an environmental lake. I wonder what the effects would be with too
many houses in a certain area of land. If you hold the density down a little bit, it might help
with the lake. That's all I have. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Well I know, as I recall, I think Dave, we had spoken about this once
before where there is this, any development in that area, and also the type of surface water
ponding that we would have to do which would allow pre- treatment, as I recall, is quite
superior to the way the water's just running right off of there in an untreated state so.
Basically any sort of development that would happen in that area, which would require water
38
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
treatment ponding, would basically generate a situation that would be superior to the way that
untreated water is running into Lake St. Joe right now.
Hempel: That's correct Mr. Chairman. Right now it's prone to erosion from the gravel road
and the field across the street. With any type of development, the plans do provide for a
storm water quality treatment pond on the site, and then pipe the water across Kings Road
down to Lake St. Joe.
Scott: Okay, great. Seeing that no else wishes to speak at the public hearing, may I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was closed.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: Very short. I do support the Park and Recreation's recommendation for where the
park should go. The last time that I saw this plat, and I would support it again. So that
means basically that I am not approving this revised plat.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: No comment.
Scott: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: I support the staff recommendation.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I totally agree with Nancy.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I'm sitting on the fence, and it really stems more from the process. You know I
guess at this point we certainly defer to staff. They would remember the plat on July 11th
and I'm not saying that I support it or not support it. Where the park is or whatever but I
guess I'm just a little uncomfortable with the process. It seems so government heavy perhaps.
And I guess I'm just, this is the first time something like this has come before us ... and I
would just hope that there would be a more positive approach to dealing with an issue like
39
Planning Commission Meeting e February 15, 1995
this and again, I'm certainly not aware of all the issues or misunderstandings or whatever on
that so those are just kind of comments.
Aanenson: Can I comment on that Diane? We had a meeting with the applicant last week to
inform them that we would be recommending denial. To see if there was room for movement
to, instead of going forward with the plat, that we'd recommend denial. If we couldn't come
to some compromise. We're moving in a direction where I think we're going to, as Dave
indicated, maybe see a plat but it was the applicant's desire to go forward with this plat
knowing that we would not review it. Knowing that we would recommend denial but we still
are having dialogue and we hope we can come to a conclusion.
Harberts: I would hope that you would add that to somewhere in this report as a summary or
analysis or whatever, because I think it is important that, since this is a public record, that
type of process be noted. Especially with the fact that there is continued dialogue. Because
this seems so black and white and one thing I've learned from this process is, there's not
much black and white. So I guess I would just, I think that's very, I appreciate those
comments Kate and I really would recommend that they be included in here and I hope that
there is a meeting of the minds for both the neighbors, the city and the developer.
Scott: Do you, the commissioners think that perhaps or consider tabling this issue and wait
for another plat to come back instead of sending it on to the City Council and then having it
come back?
Conrad: It's a low maintenance item.
Scott: Okay.
Harberts: I guess I was thinking too, would it be better to table it again because of the
process but you know, with staffs comment that the dialogue is continuing. The applicant
was aware of staffs condition and from what I understand from the staff, that it is their desire
to move forward in the process so I would be comfortable with continuing through that, since
everyone is in agreement.
Scott: Could I have a motion please? Unless there are more comments of course.
Mancino: I move that we deny the preliminary plat to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single
family lots, 5 outlots and a neighborhood park.
Scott: Could I have a second?
Cfl7
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staffs recommendation on this item.
Is there any discussion?
' Harberts: Again, J I would just reiterate that staff include those comments...
g
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
Preliminary Plat 1493 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single family lots, 5 oudots and a
neighboibood part. All voted in favor and the motion canied.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF
CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: But if you're looking at how many problems you can solve with the least amount
' of ..isn't the majority of times this issue comes up is the transition to single family detached
housing adjacent to either single family, higher amount of use or ... You don't see a lot of
industrial people coming in here and complaining about the poor quality building next to
' them.
Aanenson: Right, but I think it's ironic that we're seeing a lot more of single family adjacent
' to single family that want to see buffering.
Mancino: Well single family detached... it's like, wait a minute. It's just because one
subdivision got there first, so then they want to be buffered to the same exact reflection of
them on the other side.
' Farmakes: But you have a targeted customer. If you have an environmental development
where people are paying $2- 300,000.00. They're moving out to be on a wetland. Looking
out the back of their vista they're looking at, not only their property but someone else's
' property. Kind of after a while, since there's nothing there, being that that's their view and
when somebody comes in and puts in a house there ... it's not their view.
' Scott: Yeah. I don't think the issue is, you're right. The issue is not buffering between exact
housing types but I think once you, I mean low density, the classic example is the Windmill
' development. I was at the Council meeting on Monday night and the issue is not low density
from low density but it's low density single family detached versus low density single family
41
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
attached. So I think perhaps in this area low density and low density might need to be split
into attached and detached. Because I think what people object to are differences in housing
types.
Aanenson: Well I don't know. I think that was proven tonight.
Harberts: Or is it just perception problems?
Mancino: Well the one thing about the, and I'll be specific, the Windmill Run and the
detached and the attached, is the attached is 92 units of the same looking style that you're
looking onto all the time. That that single family, whether you think Rottlund is, that
particular development has enough diversity going on in that neighborhood. You know that's
everybody's different perspective. But they're sitting there looking at kind of a company town
development where all 92 attached, whether it's attached, detached housing, does look similar
and the developer has said that there's only one color there and that's a gray tone. They don't
have any other tones. They don't do different earth tones, so I'm getting even more particular
about the low density and the differences.
Farmakes: I think that's a very valid comment based on the simple fact that people who live,
who purchase and invest in these homes have a perceived loss of value in their home. Now
we can have Council in here recommending that it doesn't make any difference but I would
submit that if these are the customers, and if they say that, if that's their perceived loss, then
it does affect the market. And it does lessen the value of their home. Now, you don't
understand what I'm saying?
Aanenson: No. I'm just wondering when we went through that same issue on the Oak Ponds.
When you have, I mean throughout this whole city we've got multi- family that's going to be
adjacent to something else.
Farmakes: But that's true. But the question then becomes, who absorbs the loss? Does the
multiple family adjacent to their ... or is there a buffer?
Aanenson: Where have we ever had somebody lose value in this city?
Farmakes: Well let's look at what we did down where 212 is going to crossect where that
little shopping center is there. The Klingelhutz property.
Aanenson: Mission Hills.
42
u
u
0
u
I I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Mission Hills I think it was. There were larger lots and they came by and they
created the buffer, that there was some transition. And the question here is I think from
people who are in the existing development, you're dealing with humans here, they just don't
trust that explanation that it doesn't make any difference. What they want to see when they
look out the back yard is the same type of home that they're living in. And the question is,
who absorbs what they see as a loss in value to their real estate. They want to see, if they're
in single family detached housing, they want to look out on that. They don't want to see...
connected homes and be told well it's the same zoning, and therefore it's the same thing. And
I wonder, even just two rows of housing or something like that is always required as a
buffer...
Aanenson: But the issue there is, it's okay for somebody else to live next to those two
homes. They still have single family adjacent to it.
Farmakes: There's a significant difference though Kate. The issue is that when a consumer
comes in and they purchase that, they purchase knowing that. And the people who are in an
established home, they're looking out on a farm field and they don't perceive that. They're
not making that decision and you saw several of them come in here and they were under the
understanding otherwise. That that wasn't going to be there. That they were going to have a
like home and I certainly think that the burden for that is on the developer who's bringing in
good development to smooth that problem over. Again, what the perceived issue of a buffer,
even behind Byerly's here. We're talking about there's a dip coming down and a wetland and
then coming up to a bunch of trees. Even though that was several hundred feet there, it was
hard to sell that to them that that was a buffer. And I don't know if each case that we come
up with here, that you're going to solve a problem by coming up with a long drawn out
ordinance. I'm not sure if you can qualify each particular topographic situation that's going to
come up and say, well if there's 6 trees in the way here, then that counts. I don't know.
That's going to be a real challenge.
Scott: I think too that with the Windmill Run and that particular thing, the thing that really
generated the interest was their, as Diane was saying, is that however it was communicated to
them and I've got my own theory where when you read the language verbatim, that our staff
member probably did. The way it is written, it would lead you toward the impression that it
was going to be single family. But when you say single family to us, we know it can be
attached or detached. You say single family to somebody else and most people will think
that it's detached. But anyway, on this particular thing. If we have, I think that if we have
two different low density housing types, such as detached and attached, I think we need to
buffer those. That's my opinion, and it sounds real similar to what you were saying.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Well yeah, and I'm not sure if you take the tact that what exactly constitutes a
buffer other than perhaps consumer choice is a buffer. That it's then left up to the people
who are going to buy those detached housing next to the attached, and it's reflected in the
price that they pay for the home based on consumer demand. It's believable to me that there
would be less of a consumer demand for those units. That they would be less in price than a
housing that was surrounded by detached.
Ledvina: Well what one community might call a buffer, like 50 feet or something like that,
between two different housing types, when we had, what was it. 60 to 100 feet or something
like that with Windmill Run. I mean, there was quite a bit of separation distance there and
other communities would have said, yes. That's fine. That's more than what we...
Farmakes: The word transition too may be part of the equation other than the term buffer. It
depends on what you're looking for ... not necessarily. It's not necessarily talking distance or
obstruction. Sometimes it's a couple of rows of houses. It changes the make -up. Even on
PUD's, you have the transitions within your own development.
Ledvina: Okay. I can see that, yeah.
Scott: Yeah. So I mean in that situation the transition would be single family detached
above the road and then the attached stuff starts on the other site. It seems like people, and
this is just from the last couple of years. People seem to look at a street as a sign that says
now you can do something really different. But when there's property that's touching, people
tend to think that it's transition. It's buffer or something like that.
Farmakes: New Horizons even has it, and that's what? That's 15 years, 10 years. Was it 15,
16 years old? I mean it's single family wrapped by attached housing.
Harberts: Well and I think one of the broader questions too. You know what is our role
here. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to protect the value of a perceived problem?
What's prohibiting a property owner to, in a sense provide their own type of buffer or
enhancement if they feel their property value's being devalued. You know I guess is it, you
know I've had discussions with some people that, you know as it deals with LRT or whatever
The perception that it's going to devalue their homes when we put an LRT station, and it did
exactly the opposite. So unless you know, what fact are you really dealing with at that
perception... the customer, and I think the comments that Jeff has said, I think they have a lot
of validity and I think that one of the real questions here is what are we trying to accomplish
and what is our role. It's almost on, well I don't want to say on a project by project basis but
otherwise how do you take into consideration all the possibilities that may exist in terms of
what's included in a buffer. What is buffer?
44
1
L
u
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: I guess what we're saying right now is, really we don't have anything that's
quantitative, and so this was an attempt, and that's why I think we just want to get some
feedback from you. Are we going down the right path? It is a hard thing and if we don't
have something in place, how do you tell somebody to do it?
Farmakes: Yeah. Well is there a way to do it as something that's desired without
quantitativeness? State how many feet...
Aanenson: Well we do right now for industrial. We say 100 feet. You have to buffer 100
feet but there's no qualification as to how much landscaping has to be in there. We say you
have to, and so what we're saying is, maybe we should have something in there that says, this
should at least be the density of the vegetation after the screen and then we also put in here
criteria for a wall, fence or berm so there is some more qualitative sort of thing in there.
Again, this is kind of a jumping off point. This came out of the discussion, I'd hate to have
this whole ordinance developed around this one issue. We're trying to look at the broader
picture. This kind of kicked off a discussion about transition. I guess our perspective, single
family is single family. I don't know if we want to buffer people from themselves and that's
kind of always been our staff position. But we started talking about the different types and
attached versus detached, and that makes sense and take it from there.
Farmakes: I don't think socially that buffers anybody. Having a transition of housing types.
It's just like Joe said, I think the problem that has occurred with that is just that people think
of single family. They think of detached housing. The consumer situation. We do not. The
city does not follow that.
Scott: Did you rework that description? I think it was in the comprehensive plan that talks
about low density. Because that's something that we need to make sure that in that definition
that single family attached is.
Aanenson: Oh, that we list the gambit of things that could be low density.
Mancino: Well in the comprehensive plan it says that low density in our city is
predominantly detached single family.
Aanenson: Right. And that's a true statement though.
Scott: It is a true statement but I'm thinking.
Mancino: But it's changing. I'm saying it's changing now. We're seeing it right now, and it's
going to come up more.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: I think it's ripe for misinterpretation.
Scott: But can also include.
Aanenson: It always will be because the only place we have, the only thing we have
townhouses in right now is in medium density.
Scott: I don't have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that next time somebody
calls in and says, oh I see the property next door to me is blah, blah, blah. What is that?
And you want to be able to say, it's predominantly single family detached. However, it can
also include the following housing types and that's something that needs to be changed
yesterday.
Aanenson: That was changed quite a while ago. We try to tell people, this is the
possibilities. The range of possibilities.
Farmakes: From what I hear, it's not necessarily an issue of city staff or somebody
miscommunicating. A lot of times people who are trying to get a corn field off the ground as
a development are kind of elaborating as to what goes next door. And the information that
they pass on is not necessarily factual either.
Aanenson: And frankly we haven't had an R -4 come through. I mean it's been, Ladd do you
remember the last time we did an R -4? I mean it just caught us off guard. I mean certainly
it's going through the process. It's meets the criteria but when you give some people the
realm of possibilities, R -4 wasn't one that we had envisioned. Something certainly the
applicant figured out he could apply for.
Scott: When you're buying real estate it's... we've seen legions of well educated adults come
in here and start their sentence with, but the realtor said. But that really focused my attention
on what was that real definition and I sat down with Bob Generous and I read through that
thing word for word and I went, man. If I didn't know what I know about planning, and
heard somebody read that to me over the phone in the frame of mind of someone who's trying
to make a decision, I could see where I would misinterpret that. So there's, I'm 100% behind
city staff on that. As a matter of fact, I did talk with the neighbors and I said, when you
bring this up at the next meeting, don't mention any staff member's name because I said that's
ridiculous.
Aanenson: Well we all know what happened and certainly there was no intent to mislead
anybody and again.
46
I
fl
r-
h
u
L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: No. I agree with you 100% and we know how it happened. However, getting back to
this issue.
Mancino: Kate, I am in support of the buffer yard and what you're doing here. The direction
you're going and that is, having it a little more quantifiable as a baseline where you want, not
only buffer yards but what needs to go in there, as a direction. As a guideline for
development.
Aanenson: I think even on streetscape. I think we have not got enough on streetscape where
we thought we were getting something better and it really didn't provide the screening.
Mancino: I think Joan Ahrens brought that up in the Lundgren development on Willow
Ridge.
Aanenson: We went out and checked it. We counted all the bushes and trees and they were
all there. Again, it wasn't really what our expectations were. I think we didn't press harder
for that.
Mancino: And I talked about Windmill Run on Galpin. There is supposed to be a berm and
a buffer for those homes since they're on a collector road and it's not working. So they've
had to put up a big fence there, which I think is visually, the natural buffering of plant
materials would have been so much better if it would work.
Farmakes: Would this be better to handle a specific guideline or as an ordinance? I mean
like a PUD or like guidelines we use in PUD or a specific ordinance.
Mancino: Because we always say...
Aanenson: Well I mean, the diagrams and stuff is what makes the lengthy portion. Again, if
you want the ability to enforce it, you've got to have it in ordinance form. Certainly someone
that comes in, just like they would in any other case, could ask for a variance. Maybe they
want to reduce the density because they've already got a significantly wooded area and you
say, that makes sense. Okay. Or there's another natural feature that creates a break and in
this application it really would take away from that natural feature. Certainly I think those
are things we want to look at. We can build it into the ordinance that the Planning
Commission may consider other alternatives based on topography, natural features. We can
put some of those ordinances down. Or you could just give a variance.
Scott: You know what, since this is a public hearing, could I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
47
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Well, that wasn't Kate's intent.
Scott: Well it's published that way. I figure we can open it. Close it. Get through it now.
Aanenson: It was published as a public hearing. It wasn't our intent.
Scott: So I guess it's a technicality but.
Harberts: But what does it do to the process?
Conrad: Boy, but we still can have a real public hearing when we want to though?
Aanenson: Exactly. When we're ready to have one. We're not ready to have one yet.
Scott: Well.
Aanenson: I don't know. Technically because it was published, maybe you should open it.
Scott: Yeah.
Habeas moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Scott: Let the record show that there are no members of the public here, so may I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating was closed.
Scott: We've had a lot of discussion so can I have a motion?
Harberts: Are we tabling it?
Scott: That would be a motion.
Aanenson: Yeah. If you had specific comments. Good, bad.
Conrad: Are you leaving?
Harberts: I am.
48
Planning ommission Meeting - February 15 1995
g g ry ,
' Conrad: I move that we excuse Diane. Good -bye. I guess I don't agree with many of the
things I heard, especially within a residential area. Buffering different things. I've been
around so long. I'll gust guarantee you that everybody, any new development that comes in
doesn't want, the old one doesn't want the new one there. Regardless. I don't think we'll
figure it out. I just don't. I'm real sensitive to old, the old neighborhood having priority in
terms of they've been here. They've been paying taxes and we don't need to put in something
' that's really dissimilar next to them, and that's why we have zones. But I'm not sure, we're
getting so fine on some of this. So the housing types are different. Then where do we go
from there? I guess I'm just not sure, the people are different.
' Mancino: Say that again.
' Conrad: The people are different. Seniors versus yuppies versus whatever. So again, I guess
I understand, these people that they heard something that wasn't right and their recourse is
maybe a different way but to develop an ordinance to separate R -4, I don't know.
Mancino: But I don't think that's what this does. The buffer yards.
' Conrad: Okay. Let me continue. I don't mind what I see here. I'd like to understand a little
bit more. I like, it appears simple but maybe the simplicity might not work. So I guess I
need to do, I think Kate you said a couple things. There has to be a credit for existing
' buffers. So if there is one there, you know. But I like this as a, this could be a nice standard
for what is required. But I also would like to see the cost implications of this.
Aanenson: I did put that together and we'll put that in for the next one. We did look at some
costs.
Conrad: And I'd like to be able to compare it what we require. So I just need to know if
we're costing somebody a whole lot of money. Fencing, I really just hate fences as a buffer.
They are not a buffer. They are an eyesore and I tell you, anything where we say fence in
here, I don't like that. But I guess my gut feel is there's something good about this that I'd
like to keep pursuing and see, it seems like a standard that the staff can fall back on but I
think we've got to put it through some tests. We've got to go through some, I think there's a
lot of work in here. It looks so simple but I think there's work for us to go through the
exercise of okay. So now here this comes and this is sitting there so what are we going
between the two, and does that really make sense? Is that all there is? Is that all there is and
then we write the ordinance. Maybe that's not all there is. Maybe there's still more that
should be done.
Mancino: You want a reality check.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Aanenson: Well that's what we were proposing to do. I think Bob put that in his report here
too. We've got the cost estimates which he just finished tonight before he left and what we
were planning to do for the next go around of this is actually show you, like you said Ladd,
visually what does this mean. What is the spacing? Does this add anything to it or not?
And maybe if we can find some areas where we could take some slides too and show you.
Conrad: So my last question is just to understand. What is a plant unit multiplier? So under
A it says .4. What does that mean?
Aanenson: If you take that .4 and you multiply it by the number of trees that would be
required. So if you need 100 foot, you need 60 trees. Or excuse me, if you need 30 foot. 30
x .6 and that tells you how many trees and you select from that. Plant units per 100. Too
complex?
Conrad: Maybe not but I don't get it. Tell me a different way. Start from the beginning.
Aanenson: Okay. We're on buffer yard A.
Conrad: Buffer yard A and so now the transition between two things required between one
park property and one public property requires buffer yard A, and so.
Aanenson: So if you go with at least 100 foot, excuse me, a 20 foot wide buffer.
Conrad: And why, if you width.
Aanenson: If you go wider, you need less trees for the buffer yard. If you go narrower, then
you've got to put more density in there.
Conrad: So any of these are acceptable?
Aanenson: Right. Right. You can go wider. Put a wider space in there. A berm. A wider
berm.
Conrad: Okay. So developer pick A, B, C.
Aanenson: Yeah. If they want to put more, if space is an issue to them, they've got a narrow
strip, they can crunch it in and so it gives some flexibility. But then that means the penalty
for that is, then you'd better, you've got...
Conrad: Okay, I get it. Thank you. That's all I need.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Ledvina: I guess I would agree with Ladd's comments. I think expanding on the fence thing.
I think berm walls are inappropriate. I wouldn't want to see that being constructed. When
you have those types of retaining walls, you're going to have maintenance issues, etc. Safety.
' I don't think it's appropriate. I guess what I'd like to see is a map. Just kind of, where are
the areas that this is going to be, or come into play. I don't think it's going to happen at all.
I Mancino: You don't think it's going to, pardon?
Ledvina: I don't think it's going to happen all that often.
I Aanenson: That's a good thought.
' Ledvina: I don't know. Generally I don't like the idea of generating new ordinances if we
don't have to. I think that the situation with the Windmill Run, Lake, what was it? Lake
Susan Hills?
Aanenson: Lake Ann Highlands.
Ledvina: Lake Ann Highlands, okay. I think that was kind of blown out of proportion. I
thought that, when I looked at that situation, I thought that wasn't that bad.
Farmakes: You're going to see that all the way to TH 41.
Mancino: All the way down Highway 5.
Farmakes: There will be a connection to single family detached all the way down.
Mancino: And they're going to be twin homes. They're selling right now. They're hot.
Ledvina: 41? Oh, to TH 41. Okay.
Mancino: So this is going to keep coming back.
Farmakes: 90% of this is going to be where it's been single family detached housing.
Mancino: And big developments of twin homes.
Ledvina: Well, they were talking about doing berming and landscaping and that kind of thing
' but, and then maybe this is entirely appropriate but I don't know, I guess I didn't see all the,
or wasn't present for all the discussion on that so I have to kind of back down on that a little
51
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
bit, but in general I thought that what was laid out seemed pretty reasonable in terms of the
transition and buffering and I could be wrong about that but that's my feeling on it. But if, I
think if it's felt this is needed, I think we need to look at where it's going to be applying
and...
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a couple of comments. I think it will come back. I think that Jeff and
I, from being on the Highway 5 task force know that it will come back and it will depend
which goes in first. If the twin home goes in first, and everybody then and the single family
that builds around that twin home already knows it's there.
Ledvina: A quick question then. Are those going to be PUD's though, and then we're going
to have the control there?
Mancino: We can't force PUD's...you can't force a PUD because in this situation.
Aanenson: I think they'll be looking at a PUD for the piece that's adjacent to Highway 5 is
what they've indicated to us.
Mancino: But not the piece north of that.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Which they're looking at right now.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Which they're pursuing right now. So there is no way, I don't know if there...
Aanenson: Unless as they agree to, they have another neighborhood meeting set up and.
Mancino: And so just west of Galpin, that will come up again. How far south we go to
single family.
Aanenson: Well first we've got to bring that into the MUSA area so that's going to be a
while. Again, some of this is market driven which we don't have a lot of control over. How
we respond to what comes in. Like I say, I guess we hadn't thought of that type of product
coming in. Although we did try to, Boyer's did try to do it on Highway 7. That same
52
u
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
upscale, but you still have all the Gorra piece which has got high density and medium density
adjacent to Highway 5. So there will be some transition zoning through there.
Mancino: And it's interesting what Eden Prairie has done, as everybody knows on Highway
' 5. I mean it has, near Chanhassen it has both single family abutting Highway 5 and the
multi - family, what I call multi - family. What I think is interesting there in buffer yards is,
they have the big berms. The big slopes and they didn't plant them. I mean they just, you
know. They didn't do anything with it which is, I think too bad. So then we have these
buffer yards on each side of the berm. Do you plant it on the side where the house is going
' to be or do you plant it on the side where the streets are or do you have to plant them both?
So that's kind of open when it abuts an arterial or collector. And I think we need to look at
that.
Conrad: So what's your thought. ...buffering twins from single family. And pretend you're a
pure planner and don't think about any specific project but, now you can design a buffer
' between zones. So you would, is it your thought that. On the one hand you're saying, hey if
the twins come in first, we don't have a problem but as a pure planner, we're hearing the staff
say, they really don't, I won't put words in your mouth Kate but there really aren't that many
cities that really buffer the different types. So why are we different? What do we see?
What are we trying to do? Are we trying to segment the different quality neighborhoods with
little mounds of trees or what? Here we're going to try to appease some people probably.
' That's the biggest issue to appease something because they probably did their homework and
heard some miscommunication before hand. So we'll appease them but now we're talking
about the next couple of projects. What are we trying to do?
' Mancino: ...and my concern is, how... I mean the footprint is 92 units that all look the same.
And instead of, let's saying buffering it to single family. Within that 92 units, should we go a
step further and have some more open space or ask for open space.
Conrad: And what does that do? What does that open space do?
' Mancino: It creates what I call the company town effect or something. Having it all look
exactly alike. Row houses down Highway 5.
Ledvina: But that's looking at it from an airplane or driving through the subdivision. How
about from the people that are living right there.
' Mancino: Yeah, I'm just throwing it out. When you look down Highway 5, you're going to
see all these. They all look the same and it's going to be segregated and look different.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Farmakes: Why would you see that and create some sort of berm or fort around each
development? What you're saying, if there's an existing twin home area, and you have a
cornfield next to it and all of a sudden they're going to come in and put in single family.
You're not going to get any people from twin homes coming over because it probably adds to
the value of their property as they abut single family detached. Or if you reverse that. Who
absorbs the difference there? To me the perception would be that the people who abut
housing that per square foot costs less than that conceivably.
Conrad: I'll just make a point. There will be no diminished value in homes. I'll almost
assure you that there will not be a loss.
Farmakes: I would say that it's pretty, if that's the case then, why the perceived value
difference between detached housing and attached housing?
Conrad: Well different people. These are different people moving in.
Farmakes: The square footage of it is cheaper. It's a cheaper house.
Conrad: Cheaper.
Farmakes: Now you can find with Boyer's or something, you can find examples that are
exceptions to the rule but as...
Scott: Well Lake Ann Highlands, they're talking about anywhere from $200,000.00 to
$350,000.00 a side.
Farmakes: But you're not going to find that next to Highway 5. You aren't going to find
Boyer coming in and building a half million dollar twin homes. You're not going to have
that. So the question then becomes is, who has, now if you solve that problem by having,
here's detached housing and instead of having the new development come up to twin homes
so you have another two rows. A transition of the like housing, detached housing, and that's
part of their development. So that they incur, it's easier for them to sell that, so be it. But
it's not. It's harder to sell with single family detached homes that are adjacent then, that's that
developer's problem.
Conrad: But realistically that's not what developers do. They have a product and they bring
it in. They don't bring in, have you seen any developer come in with a whole bunch of
different products?
Farmakes: New Horizon. Goes, it was just like that.
54
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Scott: But Mission Hills.
Conrad: They're all the same stuff, aren't they?
' Scott: No, there's single family detached.
Conrad: Okay, Centex but that was a huge. They're bringing that thing in piece at a time.
Scott: Yeah, they have all those 8- plexes.
' Mancino: ...all different levels which I think is even better. They had single family. They
had fourplexes. They had 8- plexes and it was more of a planned development versus these
' that had 92 of the same ones. I mean let's get some different kinds of multi - family within
that space.
' Conrad: Okay, that's a valid point.
Ledvina: Well that's variety within a development. It's not necessarily transition from single
' family detached to the attached.
Scott: But that was what we encouraged them to do. Where transition needed to be made. It
' was residential single. It was large lot. Transitioning. But initially it was proposed going
large lot to fourplexes or something like that and then it went from large lot to 15,000 square
foot lots and then large lots to maybe 23,000 square foot lots.
' Farmakes: And we're looking on the other end of the spectrum. There's another end of the
spectrum like when that Song property goes up. Where you have half a million, $750,000.00
' houses and then you have a cornfield next to them and somebody's coming in and putting in
$350,000.00 house. I don't think that that's probably going to happen but the market has it's
own way of creating the value to the adjacent property of the development.
' Scott: Your comment about fences. About the only time I can think of an example where I
think a fence made sense is that if we're going to be going from like single family to attached
' single family to multi - family, and then we've got this neighborhood commercial thing, which
we probably will see some of those cropping up down Highway 5. I think about Brook's and
all that and then this residential single family right there and they have that fence across
there. That to me makes sense but that's about the only time I think it makes sense. Because
you don't want to be, from your back window you don't want to be looking into the gas
station or the backs of a strip mall. And that's about the, I mean your comment I thought,
maybe they don't make sense and that's the only time.
' 55
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Conrad: Yeah. There could be some validity.
Scott: Yeah, that's the only time I can think of it but I agree with you.
Conrad: See I guess I'd rather, there's a case where I'd rather berm it than fence it.
Scott: If you can do it. But it was like lot line to lot line.
Conrad: Hey, that's fine. If they have to put a berm in, then I'm not sure really what I mean
but.
Scott: There's something else too. Then we have the gated community, which we, I mean
Bearpath obviously is a gated community. We don't have any here. Down the road, I think
that's an extreme transaction. Or excuse me, an extreme transition but I mean that's, when I
think of fences and what we're trying to accomplish. When you talk about hooking
neighborhoods together, having the streets and stuff. Something that just popped into my
mind is that, we're talking about connecting neighborhoods and encouraging this kind of back
and forth, and then here we are talking about.
Conrad: If you read any of the planning books, boy you just, they just constantly harp on
connecting neighborhoods. They don't like cul -de -sacs. At all.
Aanenson: We put in the administrative section. Did you read the article I put in there about
new urbanism? The things that, and that's exactly.
Scott: About the guy's who, actually Kate you should probably—that guy as the expert. You
just need to write a book.
Farmakes: Just don't live in college subsidized housing.
Mancino: Have we given you any direction?
Aanenson: Yeah, I think Ladd had some good comments, which we're going to follow up on.
We'll bring back some costs and then try to visually show it and then map, show you on the
map and try to get a better understanding what this means and how it would be applied and
just have another work session on it and then fine tune it a little bit more and get some more
comments. So yeah, I think we got direction.
Scott: So, can I have a motion?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
fl
r
Conrad: To leave?
Scott: Can I have a motion on this so we can handle this public hearing thing? We already
got the public hearing taken care of Do we have a motion to do something with this? Like
table it. Give staff direction and then have them bring it back. I can't make that motion, by
the way. I can second it though.
Mancino: I move that we continue this discussion to our next Planning Commission and have
staff give us some new input from all the commissioners suggestions.
Scott: Good. I'll second that.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission table the Zoning Ordinance
amendment to the landscaping section of Chapter 20 of the City Code to create buffer yard
requirements until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mancino: Oh, I just have one question Kate. ...detached and attached. It's obviously
happening in other cities. And it's obviously happening in other cities near us. I mean is
there any.
' Aanenson: We can do that with the last one too.
Mancino: What is Eden Prairie doing? Are they having the same kind of property owners
' come in with the concerns that we're hearing?
Ledvina: Maybe just survey some of the Planning Directors and say, what are your thoughts
' on this.
Aanenson: That's a good suggestion.
' Farmakes: And the majority of time that we have seen this, has been in those attached,
detached and large lot to, and we're going to see a lot of..
Mancino: Well and I think it's going to happen, you know when we get down to 212. I
mean it's going to happen everywhere.
' Aanenson: It's going to happen everywhere now because we're getting infill. There's not a
lot of space between developments. I think you're going to see more and more single family
and single family. When you've got an existing neighborhood.
' 57
PJ
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: Well it's an end product right now and realtors or real estate people aren't long
range planners so in 10 years nobody may like this product because it all looks alike or
whatever. But right now it's selling and that's all they care about. So I'm concerned what
we're going to be left with as a community in 10 or 15 years when the baby boomers really
get to that age, and are they going to want this product?
Ledvina: Yeah. We're discriminate.
Mancino: Yeah. I think we are more discriminate than maybe those now. Are we going to
want those areas where you have this footprint of everything looking alike. That's my
concern...
OLD BUSINESS.
Conrad: This is either new or old. But thinking about this tonight. After all these years I've
been around Kate, we opened up a public hearing again. Tonight on, let's see. For Lake
Lucy. We opened up a second public hearing. We had already conducted one. We got
citizen input and we opened it up again. Why would we do that? And then the City
Council's going to open it up again. I bring this up because Joe, it's entirely your call
whether you want to do that or not, I think. There's no requirement to open. Once you have
a public hearing, you don't need to open it up for anything else. You can say, what do you
guys think but we didn't need to go through that public hearing, to my knowledge.
Scott: Well what if it's, I'm thinking but what if it's noticed?
Aanenson: I'll check on that.
Scott: Yeah, because that's.
Conrad: Well if it's noticed, you should do it. And this is not a big deal but.
Aanenson: What he's saying is we didn't have to notice it as a public hearing.
Conrad: I think we can manage, you know they're going to say exactly the same thing they
said to us before. And I think it's fine to open it up, if you think that you want to.
Scott: Well you know what, why can't we have a consent agenda?
Aanenson: Yes, and this has been on before. Sure. We could. We talked about that. Like
when Todd had something for HRA but I think there was an issue, there were things we
58
Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
wanted to tell you about that have been brought up to date. I guess we could. I'll check on
' that.
Conrad: And tonight is just fine. And again, I don't know that there's a, I'm not making a
' point one way or another other than saying, Mr. Chairman, you have a lot of power in terms
of, you didn't need to have a public hearing on this item. Had you talked to Kate 2 weeks
' earlier before she published it. If she says we're going to have one and they show up, you'd
better have one. Yet on the other hand, there's just no reason why we need a second public
hearing. Because we're reviewing it for the second time.
' Aanenson: You're right though, it should be under Old Business.
' Conrad: Yeah. That's the way I thought we used to handle it.
Scott: And I noticed when I looked at the Council, when I was at the Council meeting on
' Monday night, I mean that was kind of the thing. Where there's stuff that we pretty much
had beaten to death shows up as new business, or old business. Or new business but it's not
a public hearing. So maybe what we should do, and we can make this decision as a
' commission. If something's coming back, maybe what we should decide is just to say, let's
say it's tabled or whatever but just say, should we have a public hearing next time. No.
Great. It's old business.
' Aanenson: That would help me so I would know whether or not you want it...
' Scott: That's a good idea because then we can just decide, cut it down and we can all get
home at midnight.
' Conrad: But the other thing, you can open it up and let people talk. But then we don't need
to go through the mumbo jumbo of opening the public hearing.
' Aanenson: Or ask to have a spokesmen.
Conrad: Right. Does somebody want to respond to this, and it's not a public hearing. But
anyway.
Scott: So, do we have old business? New business? We've already had our open discussion
' so we can forego that.
' 59
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: Yeah, I've got ongoing items. I was just going to update you on Bluff. Diane
did go meet with the Watershed, did I tell you that? Mike Mason went with and it ended up
being a little bit longer than she thought. To have them understand that we're trying to do a
study before we actually do the implementation. They kind of wanted to see the whole
package so it looks like we're going to get an additional $20,000.00. So we are going to go
ahead with the Bluff Creek study. We're putting together a contract to get somebody hired.
We hope by mid - summer we'll have a plan in place of Bluff Creek and I think that's real
exciting.
Conrad: Didn't she want $50,000.00?
Aanenson: Yeah. We got $20,000.00 from the DNR and 10 from us ... so I think that's going
to be a great project. And again, to decide how we want to develop. What we should
preserve. What areas we want to enhance. That will help with development in that area...
Mancino: I'd like to make a comment about the ongoing issues. One of them was, I went to
the Park and Recreation, what was it? For citizens to come.
Scott: The pre- referendum.
Mancino: Well whether to buy park space and whether to put it out there for everyone to
vote on as a referendum and I think people felt, it was a very good meeting. One of the
things that I suggested at the Planning Commission, I called up Kate and said, as a Planning
Commission that we could look at with the Park and Recreation, is the land use planning. As
you heard on MPR about Marine on the St. Croix, which went into there and just the top line.
I don't know Kate, if you heard anything more but they have, if you want to develop in
Marine on the St. Croix now, they spent 6 months going to other, looking at other city
ordinances around the country. You have to allow 50% of the land, developable land to be
open space. The other 50% is developable and they're doing some sort of clustering. I mean
it's smaller lot sizes. So one of the light bulbs that went off in my head, at the Park and
Recreation meeting was, in some of the areas where the Park and Recreation sees ... land that
we want to maybe keep some of it as open space, look at it as a zoning opportunity for more
clustering and 50% open space...
Aanenson: A way to preserve natural features, right.
Mancino: To preserve. Because right now our PUD so many times, we're saying what are
we getting out of it. Well maybe if the PUD were smaller lot sizes, 10,000 and even 9,000,
.E
' Planning ommission Meeting - February 15, 1995
g g rS'
and 50% of it is open space. Or 40 %. I mean I don't know what the percentage is. I
' certainly don't have the answers but the concept was very interesting to me about doing it and
looking at some of the 1995 study areas and in that Bluff Creek area, which could be a very
' interesting way to look at it. Any reaction?
Ledvina: Well my reaction is that, the lot size issue has been a very contentious thing among
the City Council ... and even when we come to PUD's, we can't pare down the lot sizes which,
I agree with you. I think that number's got to go down. We've got to force that number
down but I don't know. There's a stigma as it relates to lot sizes and cracker boxes and this
' kind of thing. And I don't know. I don't know how we beat that. Change that.
Conrad: I look forward to talking about affordable housing. I don't get a lot of the rationale
' for it but that will be a fun exercise. But back to, Nancy your point on open space. Are you
assuming the bond referendum, or they won't be able to get that?
' Mancino: Well I would say in conjunction to almost. And I think it would be very specific.
I mean I don't think that it's opened up to the whole area.
Aanenson: Yeah, the comprehensive plan you'd have to tie it into because there's trees in this
area we want to preserve. So therefore this is an area where we would give a PUD
consideration. Identified on the comp plan.
' Mancino: Do an overlay zoning over it or something for an open space preservation. When
you do an overlay and it is very specific and it has to make sense and it has to be
' quantifiable and all that kind of stuff because I just think the problem I have always had with
PUD's, with some of the PUD's that we're seeing is, we don't feel what are we getting back at
all. I don't think we're getting back any open space. I don't think we're getting back.
Farmakes: But how do you absorb the loss of the property owner?
Mancino: You don't have a loss hopefully because of the clustering will allow the developer
to.
' Farmakes: That may be true but the topographic part of the property may not allow 50% or
how do they pick half, because you lose half the value, developable value of your property. I
' think it's a great idea but it's not my property.
Mancino: Well I think we would have to, I agree.
' Conrad: It would be just terrific if we could do this but I don't know how to do that.
1 61
Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995
Mancino: And what I'm saying is, maybe we could investigate what, I mean this city took 6
months. They had a moratorium. What happened was, from what I listened to. A developer
came in. Was going to develop 175 acres, and the grass root citizenry were very concerned
about it. The Planning Commission. City Council said what do we want to do. Do we just
want to have Marine on the St. Croix just like every other subdivision? ... kind of town. Let's
do something about it. So number one, they took and had the courage to do a moratorium
and say, let's go out and investigate what else is happening around the U.S. These citizens
went to different cities and investigated this and the moratorium was supposed to be done
January 1st. They extended it I think for a month as they wrote their ordinance. And so...
you know they did the due diligence. I mean they really took some time in saying, how do
we want this to work. And they have other property owners, and they interviewed some other
property owners that have 200 acres, etc, who were supportive of it. Very supportive of it.
Conrad: What are land prices per acre out there?
Mancino: It's got to be high.
Farmakes: They're pretty high. I have a friend that purchased a lot out there. It's not cheap.
Aanenson: Well we'll get a copy of the ordinance and see what it says.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Scott: How about these nasty Minutes from the last meeting? So can I have a motion to...
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated February 1, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
62