Loading...
3r. Planning Commission Meeting Dated May 3, 1995Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 2 ' Commission and the City has seen before, I'll attempt as much as possible to short circuit the presentation. I think the quality of the units is well known. The sizing is going to be ' consistent with what you've seen before. Retail price point, probably between $175,000.00 I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 4 , A .— -++ ---+-A *.. ..AA - --, EL... ---A ...1.,.. _-- .. XTTT77T) Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 6 Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: The public hearing is open and anyone like to come up and address the Planning Commission. Please do. Come up. State your name and address. Kirby Paulson: My name's Kirby Paulson. I reside at 8410 West Lake Drive. There have been some concerns through the neighbors. The first one is the street, and the mess left on it. When they first built the addition on the other side, on the north side of West Lake Drive, or Lake Susan Hills Drive, they told us, the neighborhood, that they'd keep it clean and ever since they started there, I don't think there's been a day gone by it has been clean. We had a neighborhood meeting here a couple weeks ago, as they brought in this plat and they said +1—, -- __;_ e 4- Loan 4 n1— of fl—f tuna 1--- fl—, I—A .not A— mnl inn Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 8 Kirby Paulson: ...so I had a question about it. And also, one other question that was brought up. Is there any way a temporary entrance could be put in off of County Road 17 so we don't get any construction traffic on Lake Susan Hills Drive, or not? I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 9 Hempel: Adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive. The first unit in. Kelly Schulte: The first unit in. Could you go in further? Hempel: No. u n 7 Cl Kelly Schulte: Okay. How many trees will be built inbetween the townhomes and the homes ... border and how much of those... Al -Jaff: This is the landscaping plan. Berming will be put in along the easterly portion of the site as well as along CR 17. We also have some along Lake Susan Hills. Kelly Schulte: What kind of trees will they put in? Al -Jaff: We have a mixture of evergreens, basically deciduous and I think those will... Kelly Schulte: ...they plant them and then they die ... some of them are dead. If the neighbors don't take care of them, they're... Marty Campion: This is an irrigated site so as far as plants and... Kelly Schulte: Yeah. I guess I'm a little concerned because that ... sewage drainage, there's a lot of drainage there and ... make sure that the berm is high enough... Hempel: It will continue to do that. Their drainage... Mancino: Thank you. If you could continue that after the meeting and meet with staff. Thank you. Anyone else like to come up? Don Ketcham: Could you put that overhead up? My name's Don Ketcham. I live at 8380 West Lake Drive, which is about the fourth lot from Lake Susan Hills Drive. My only concern about this, when we attended the meeting 2 weeks ago, two concerns. Number one, they did talk to us about cleaning the streets and I've not seen any progress in that whatsoever and as Kirby said, we feel lucky we haven't had a lot of rain. When it does rain, it's a mess there. And we've seen no progress to take care of that. The other thing, I wasn't aware that there was going to be a couple of small drainage spots within there and my only question is on the one right off Lake Susan Hills Drive, if that is a shallow pond, that's going to be, I'm just wondering if there's any plans to landscape or use rock around that. Otherwise it's just going to be a mud hole and all of our traffic, all of us who live there, come in that road. We'd like to have that looking as nice as we can without having to have an eyesore and just a swamp there. A little pond is very nice. But my concern is a very small drainage pond like that, if it dries up and... wondering if there's going to be rocks around it or any kind of an attempt to keep it being other than a mud hole? Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 10 , Mancino: Dave. Marty Campion: ...proposed landscaping between it and Lake Susan Hills Drive. There's tree planting... Hempel: On storm water ponds we do... Mancino: And we can ask for vegetation around the pond to be planted. Hempel: We usually have grass... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Now that the public hearing is closed, please there will be no comments from your chairs. If one of the commissioners or if the staff wish to address you, they will address me and then I will address you so with that, I'd like to hear comments from the commissioners. Mike. Meyer: Dave, there's going to be a berm along the southerly side as well as the easterly side of that development? Hempel: No. There will be berms eventually along Powers Boulevard, which is the west side and some berming along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The easterly... site does slope off from the site there. Meyer: I had my directions mixed up. Mancino: Any more questions? Meyer: That's all I had. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no questions with regards to the development itself or the staff recommendations. The one question I do have, the comment I do have is that the issue of site clean -up should be addressed at this point. But I, for the life of me cannot remember what our standards are for that issue. If we have established standards, which I believe we do. But I can't. 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 11 Mancino: Do we have standards for site clean -up for the streets? ' Hempel: We do require rock construction entrances to minimize tracking onto city streets. But weather conditions... in the city, we've had problems this spring with dirty streets ... hire ' somebody to do it, to clean the streets unless the private developers can find a way to do it... The city does require the developer to clean up storm sewer lines and storm sewer ponds... ' Farmakes: I'm going to support staffs issues on the issue of the drainage and the NURP pond and code issue, number 26. I'm okay with the grading issue as described by our engineer and no further comments. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: There is not a sidewalk on Lake Susan Hills. Mancino: Is there on the north side? Conrad: Is there on the north side? I think other than the resident issue with the maintenance of the streets, I think I'll support the staff report. Ask the applicant to work with the staff on the issues that they had concerns with but I'll let the staff report go through pretty much as worded, unless staff would like any changes based on what they've heard tonight to the report. I'm comfortable with the impervious surface going up to 35 %. 1 think that makes sense. I don't think we're gaining anything by holding the developers to less than that. My only other issue is the back of the building. Design wise. It is real routine. Real, and I thought we asked to change that. So that's the only issue that I see that's real straight forward. I just think we need some, I'm not sure that color. I think they solved the street side. I'm pleased with the street side. That was a good job. I'm not pleased with the back side. At least from the elevations that I've been given, no one tried. Mancino: Ron. Nutting: In general I'm also in support of staff recommendations. You know I guess a few issues. The impervious surface. Again, I'm okay with the 35 %. The sump pump drainage. Having some experience myself with that, I agree with staff that resident re- direct is a very strong possibility there and I think there needs to be some consideration given for that. It sounds like the applicant is in some agreement in working with an engineering staff to accommodate that. Maybe with drain tile and with the art situation. The grading does not sound like there is an issue anymore from the staff perspective and the ponding system looks like it will need some work in the direction of staff recommendation right now. And I also support the lot line issue for the reasons that staff is, what they're trying to avoid. It looks like that issue should be worked out with the applicant as well so aside from staff working with the applicant there as well as good faith efforts of the party in tenns of addressing the 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 12 neighbor's concerns and keeping the area as reasonably clean as they can during the construction period, which is sometimes difficult. That would be my main concern. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I'm in agreement with the other commissioners regarding the impervious, 35% impervious surface requirement and the grading. I'd just like to reiterate that I also agree with engineering regarding the sump pump alterations. I agree that something will have to be done that is agreeable to staff... Mancino: Thank you. I would just like to add a couple comments. One is that, which has nothing to do with mine but simply the paper and the debris all over. That that be, we have in our conditions and that that be picked up on a weekly basis, whatever and that area be maintained from that debris. Secondly, when I saw your townhomes on the north side of Lake Susan Hills, I liked them. They looked great. One of the variations that you did there that I don't see here was what you did with the brick. On some of the townhomes the brick went up. It didn't stop halfway but it went up all the way at the front of the townhome. I mean there was just a variation in the use of brick and how much of it was used and I thought that that helped quite a bit to show, have a difference in the townhome look so I would like to see that also happen across the street. Marty Campion: Can I just answer that? We're working with stone, variations of stone... We're not going to have the brick, brick, brick. We're going to have different kinds of stone. I think you'll see more variation in unit to unit already. We just thought that there needed to be differences from across the street and more variation than just colors of brick and heights so we make the stone. I think that that will accomplish that. Mancino: Okay, thank you. And lastly, I would just like staff to make sure on the landscaping that the, that they are consistent with our tree preservation ordinance as far as average. What the average height of coniferous trees at 7 feet and the average caliper is 2 1/2 inches so we get some varying in the landscaping too, which I think will also help to break up the monotony of the townhomes. That's it. Do I have a motion? Hear a motion Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for 7.29 acres into 34 lots and an outlot, PUD #87 -3 and Site Plan Review #95 -7, approval of 34 units in 9 structures as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995 and subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 27 and I believe, and staff can correct me on this but I believe (b) covers the issue of grading. On 23. Al -Jaffa Yes. Hempel: We can modify it to the applicant shall work with staff at minimizing site grading. 12 7 1 7 I 7 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1995 Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II, Bob Generous, Planner Il, Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 7.29 ACRES INTO 34 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 9 BUILDINGS OF 3 AND FOUR PLEXES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, LAKE SUSAN TOWNHOMES 1ST ADDITION JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address ' Kelly Schulte Doug & Jackie Jacobson Anne Graupmann Don Ketcham Kirby Paulson Marty Campion t Jim Jasper Jay Jasper 8420 West Lake Drive 1121 Dove Court 8400 West Lake Drive 8380 West Lake Drive 8410 West Lake Drive Otto Associates Waconia, MN Waconia, MN Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Larry Harris: My name's Larry Harris. I'm Jasper Development's attorney. I know some of you and some not. There are some new faces since the last proposal was before you. This development has been nominated the Lake Susan Hills Townhomes. By and large it's identical in terms of...market and interior features to the Prairie Creek Townhomes, which Jasper also developed and built. Those units are the units that are on the north side of Lake Susan Hills Boulevard. Obviously Jasper's also the developer for the third medium density parcel situated in the Lake Susan PUD which is the twinhomes known as Power Place on the west side of County Road 17... Because this is essentially a repeat of a project the Planning Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 2 Commission and the City has seen before, I'll attempt as much as possible to short circuit the presentation. I think the quality of the units is well known. The sizing is going to be consistent with what you've seen before. Retail price point, probably between $175,000.00 and $225,000.00, depending on how the units are finished. My client has met with the staff on several occasions and has, by and large agrees with the staffs recommendations. I'd like to highlight just some areas for consideration and then I'll turn the presentation over to Marty Campion, Jasper's engineer for the project. First of all Jasper does agree with staff. We think the 35% impervious surface is achievable and based on the calculations, we find that reasonable for this project. There are, at least from the developer's point of view, four issues which we think need to be addressed with the Planning Commission. Marty Campion will deal with all of those because they're really engineering issues. Staff raises a legitimate concern. It's also a concern that was raised on the Power Place development on the west side of CR 17 concerning having sump pumps discharge directly into the storm sewer. It creates icing problems on the street and legitimately we'd like to avoid that. Jasper acknowledges that that is a concern. However they don't, Jasper doesn't necessarily see the need to install drain tile beyond curb cuts. But my approach, what our review will show you is that sump pumps for these units are all going to discharge out the rear. Not out the front. So these units, the drainage and flow will naturally come down, and there are some changes Marty Campion will explain, with all of these units here, the discharge is going to be away from the streets anyways. It will be the same on this property where it will come away from the street and what the developer is proposing is that the site grading plan will show swales through this property, taking the drainage up to a catch basin not located in the street, but located internally, to deal with that situation. We would also propose as a means of dealing with that, of course the City wants assurances that sump pumps aren't running out the front yards into the streets. It seems to be an issue that we can pretty easily deal with first of all in the developer's agreement, but we would also incorporate it in the restrictive covenants that we're going to have to put in ... such as this indicated that the requirement that all sumps discharge out the rear. What we're suggesting, if the developer is sensitive to the problem but has another solution. The location of the storm water pond is an issue that Marty Campion will deal with in greater issue and the storm water pond is a great issue. It's more the NURP pond, the creek before it reaches the water the storm water pond, and a primary issue is the need to provide increased treatment of drainage for the old Lake Susan Hills 2nd Subdivision. Mr. Campion will talk about that and we'll explain how the model has been reconfigured slightly since it was ... excuse me. How the development's been reconfigured slightly... Staff raises some site grading concerns that the developer does have a significant problem with. There is a rise that exists in this part of the property. It's going to have to be removed for access. Staff has concerns that the developer will be grading back in this area to create additional walkouts. That's not really the case. Mr. Campion will explain, which goes through, the plans show that we're not grading, the developer's not grading to create walkouts. They're following the natural topography. There's a significant amount of grading, the grading that occurs right along the interest of the development at Lake Susan Hills. That area is going to have to be reduced probably 5 to 6 feet so it is not going to create walkouts in that area anyway... The last issue is number 26 in the recommendations. Staff has indicated 2 ' Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 3 that they have an objection to the lot lines for the individual lots extending into, essentially extending into what I'll call the rear yard setbacks. This is an issue that is, it came up in both Powers Place and also in the development for Prairie Creek. The issue becomes, in order to address concerns of the city's zoning ordinance, the city's inspection department, that ' overhangs are all within lot lines. That is that certain windows have to be, cannot extend any closer than 3 feet to a lot line. And garage overhangs, the eaves off of a garage, according to your city inspection department, must exist within lot lines. The lot lines get expanded but obviously the developer is not building within the setback. It's nothing more of an issue than extending lot lines into the setback. It's no different than, when a single family development comes in, the lot lines run to the rear of the property. There are setbacks that can't be built into and that's the exact situation here. The developer will covenant both in the plat and the development agreement, that there is not going to be any building in the setbacks but in order to deal with code interpretation issues, we need the flexibility to have lot lines extend within the setback and we would submit that that is really no different than any single family development. The other I think 22 points that staff has raised, the developer is in agreement with. The developer has worked with staff pretty intensively on this project and I think it shows in the fact that there are, what we perceive are relatively few issues to discuss with the Planning Commission. At this point I'll turn it over to Marty Campion. ' Mancino: Thank you. Marty Campion: Good evening. My name is Marty Campion. I'm an engineer with Otto ' Associates, the project engineer for Jasper. As mentioned earlier there have been some revisions to the site plan. I reduced a copy of the revised site plan, revised preliminary plat ' and that's the same plat that Sharmin has shown on the overhead. What I would like to discuss are some of the engineering concerns that staff had raised. In particular concerns with the grading. Generally the site is accessed from two points, here and here. As Larry had mentioned, there's a significant elevation difference between this area right in here and the perimeter of the site back along here. What we're proposing, in order to access the site from both points, is to cut the knob off and we're proposing that dust to provide safe access. ' There's approximately a 10 to 12 feet difference in elevation from the street to the top of the knob, so to provide access to the units, we have to shave the top of the hill off. And what we're proposing to do with that material is grading off of that, is to fill in the front sides of these pads along here. And in doing so we create walkouts along the back. Along these two sides. The walkout elevations, the walkouts, all walk out to the existing elevations so we aren't filling the pads just in order to create walkouts. What we're trying to do is to balance ' the material on the site as much as possible. We still have some access material that's going to have to be removed, which we'll address some of that in berms along Lake Susan Hills Drive and berms along County Road 17. The other concern that we have, if we can't build up this area, is we end up putting the, we end up getting the basements deeper than what we're proposing and we have a 100 year water elevation that's a concern of our's with the pond. We have to keep ourselves or keep the basements at least 3 feet above the 100 year elevation and we're doing that with the walkouts. Another concern that staff had mentioned Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 4 and we attempted to address in the revised plan was a NURP pond or a treatment pond to treat the runoff that's coming from the 2nd Addition here. So what we're proposing is a NURP pond that is shaped something like this that would address the runoff coming from off site and treat it prior to discharge into this wetland. Again the grades are such that all our grades are going downhill from a high point here and we're grading along like that. It's impossible without considerably cost to run storm sewer through that point and still provide a pond that can outlet into the existing wetland. So what we're proposing in addition to that pond, which the sole purpose of this pond is to treat runoff from that area, is a smaller, revised pond than what was shown originally in this area to treat the runoff from the townhomes. There was some concern with the safety and the location of that pond. What we're doing is, we've modified it somewhat. The grades for the first 25 feet off the property line aren't proposing to change at all. So if there was a concern, it should exist today. I don't know that it is a concern given those modifications. So the current plan shows two ponds. One in this location to treat the runoff from the proposed development, and a second pond in this location which will treat the runoff from the 2nd Addition there. The other item that Larry had touched on was the drain tile, and given that these units are all walkouts, we're proposing to outlet the drain tile into the swales to grade or at existing grade and it will run, in these cases, it will run to the pond. In this case it will run south. Where we have the interior units that aren't walkouts, this unit, this unit and this unit, they aren't walkouts. What we're proposing to do is provide overland drainage through these units to a catch basin down here. So these units would outlet their drain tile to the rear of the building. It would flow overland to a catch basin here and that catch basin would be graded in such a manner that it wouldn't allow for drainage to get into either Lake Susan Hills Drive or the private streets. Thus eliminating the concern of icing of either of the roads. I think we've touched on the issues, or attempted to address the issues that were a concern of staffs based on our initial meeting. If there are any questions either from staff or the commission, we'd be more than willing to address them. Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Campion? Thank you. I think Dave we'll ask you to respond to the drain tile relocation and the grading and also the two sediment ponds. Hempel: Thank you. Four issues that were brought up... Sump pump discharge. The city is more concerned about the draining of sump pumps and the sanitary sewer line which would cause additional sanitary sewer water to be treated. Typically what happens with sump pump discharge, it is discharged in the back yard. The neighbor downstream gets the water ... pretty soon has a wet back yard... That's the primary reason for a drain tile system. We've also incorporated in the street systems to help with the street drainage... These streets are proposed to be private. Not maintained or owned by the city. Our concern though is ... There may be an alternative to run one single drain tile from the back yard and these sump pumps to tie into... As far as the site grading goes, my initial concerns is with regards to the previous... This proposal here before you tonight does reduce the grading... So I am comfortable that these lots can be graded with walkout type homes... One of the concerns I do have however is with the storm ponding on a two pond system. I believe that the storm ponds could be 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 5 relocated to the southerly portion of the wetland as shown on the sanitary storm sewer pipe... An opportunity for the city to pre -treat some more storm water that currently goes into the wetland... In regards to, he covered 26. I guess I can't address that point in regards to lot line encroachment... Al -Jaff: We basically tried to avoid a situation that took place with Prairie Creek townhouses and what had happened as the applicant mentioned was a deck or porch encroached into a setback. If we do not allow any of the lot lines to encroach into the required setback and if the building code required an additional 3 foot setback from the property lines to a building, a structure, then you're guaranteed that those buildings will not encroach into a required, we're not going to create an variances in the future. Aanenson: Let me just maybe make it a little bit more simplified. The issue we had with ' Prairie Creek is there was never an expectation that there would be three season porches on there. There was enough setback that they could put them on there so because the ordinance allowed them to put a porch on and still meet the setbacks, the developer did. I think the expectations from the neighbors was what was represented to show a certain facia and then all of a sudden the three season porches went on so what we're saying is we want to make sure that they are going to put them on. That the setback is known now so people understand what they will be seeing from the backs of their homes. So we just want to make sure that that's clear now and not have that same issue arise. J 7 Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners to either Dave or Sharmin? Thank you. Farmakes: I have one question. Do you feel that you've had sufficient amount of time and notification of what these questions were tonight? Hempel: We've met with the applicant previously to go over these matters... Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Mancino: So you feel comfortable being on the spot, as it were, tonight in dealing with it? Anyone else from the applicant that would, are you finished? Okay. Larry Harris: Oh I think just on the setback issue. I think I hear what staff is saying. That issue we can deal with. It may have to be... if the concern is making sure that we know exactly where porch lines are going to be and that, that's a plat issue that I think we can work out without any difficulties now that we understand that. And in terms of the tiling issue, it just sounds to me like that's an engineering issue that we can work out. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open a public hearing. E Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 6 Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: The public hearing is open and anyone like to come up and address the Planning Commission. Please do. Come up. State your name and address. Kirby Paulson: My name's Kirby Paulson. I reside at 8410 West Lake Drive. There have been some concerns through the neighbors. The first one is the street, and the mess left on it. When they first built the addition on the other side, on the north side of West Lake Drive, or Lake Susan Hills Drive, they told us, the neighborhood, that they'd keep it clean and ever since they started there, I don't think there's been a day gone by it has been clean. We had a neighborhood meeting here a couple weeks ago, as they brought in this plat and they said they were going to keep it clean at that time because they had just gotten done making a mess and it still hasn't been cleaned up from two weeks ago. If you go there right now, it looks like a mess. If it rains, it's even worse. I guess at the time of the neighborhood meeting people were concerned then and Jasper said that they would keep it clean and they haven't. That was one of the concerns that we're afraid if they start building on the south side of Lake Susan, it's going to get worse. To deal with that, there's two pictures here that deal with also the mess of construction material. And I came home today and I looked out my back door to this open field that they were going to develop and all there was was paper and debris from everywhere. That's not really nice to look at and I'm not real pleased about going in my back yard every other day and picking up building materials. I don't think that's fair to any of the other neighbors around there and the person, the other person that lives behind this first development that had the big deal about the variance, he couldn't make it but he had the same problem and those were the pictures he took. The mess that's being left. I did have a question about the slope from being in the back. Would you turn that on please? They had said there was going to be a 3:1 slope. I guess they changed the roadway here. It used to come here and they said it was going to be a 3:1 slope. I guess the question I have now is just how close to the property line they are going to be. This is a natural drain in here that goes into the pond and I've lived here for 4 years and we haven't had a problem yet. I guess ... townhomes that have a walkout there, I just want to make sure that they're not going to be that close to the right -of -way and have to go into a variance like they did on the other one and was such a big hassle about it. Mancino: Can Dave, can you answer that? Hempel: As far as building setbacks for the site, they're 25 feet from the rear property line ... there is a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the back yard here for drainage. Mancino: And that will stay and nothing will be destroyed? Hempel: That's in the general vicinity where the pond in the plat will be placed... 6 d n r Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 7 Kirby Paulson: Okay. And also they're backed up on the south side of that, right up to the park. We want to make sure that there's no way they're going to destroy the park. The Cub Scouts were in there last weekend and planted over 100 trees. We want to make sure they're not destroyed. And I guess I had another question. When we first moved into that development. Mancino: Can you tell us where the 100 trees are? Which end of the park? Kirby Paulson: Okay. Joe Miller, when he bought part of this property he donated park property. I think there's 5 acres which sits right here. Prairie Knoll Park. And the Boy Scouts were in there and they planted over 100 trees in that area. I just want to make sure that it's not going to get destroyed. They were just done last weekend. Mancino: They were getting destroyed? Al -Jaff: I don't think they will be impacted. Mancino: Okay. There won't be any construction equipment. Nothing will be in that park area. Kirby Paulson: Make sure they put up some kind of silt fence to make sure that it doesn't get destroyed. And then also I know if, since Jasper's going to finish developing that, if they're going to do anything within that park, it was donated and we were told at the time that when everything was developed that someone somehow that park would be developed. Whether it was going to be both developments were going to take on that or that had to go right to the Park Department and go through that. Mancino: Park and Recreation Commission. Kirby Paulson: Okay. We just don't want to lose the park or we want to see it developed and the other half of Joe Miller development... One other question I had. On the south end of Lake Susan, which is here. I guess this is also for the Planning Commission. They had a sign put up, Joe Miller put up a nice sign and I want to know if Jasper's going to do anything for the other, on the north entrance since it is pretty much one development, or they're... Mancino: Sharmin, is there going to be any sort of a monument sign? Kirby Paulson: Do they have anything proposed for that? Al -Jaff: Nothing was proposed. 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 8 Kirby Paulson: ...so I had a question about it. And also, one other question that was brought up. Is there any way a temporary entrance could be put in off of County Road 17 so we don't get any construction traffic on Lake Susan Hills Drive, or not? Marty Campion: Sometimes going through the County is very hard. Hempel: On Powers Boulevard there is County Road 17 which is under the jurisdiction ... as you know on Powers Boulevard, the speed limit exceeds 50 mph. Kirby Paulson: Not right now. Hempel: Well, Kirby Paulson: Not yet anyways. Hempel: Well the hazard... Kirby Paulson: That's all I had. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to come up? Kelly Schulte: Hi. My name is Kelly Schulte. I'm at 8420 West Lake Drive and I was concerned with on the Jasper Development. If they could put their road in before they build because of the mud and the construction and the mess and the crews standing out in the middle of the road when we're going to work and not ... and being that we moved into that development with the road finished until ... is it possible that Jasper could put the roads in before they're built? Hempel: One of the requirements is from a public safety standpoint to have a hard surface or to serve for a 7 ton design for emergency vehicles to access the site should ... or fire or whatever. The city's policy has been in the past that we allow one model home to go in adjacent to a hard surface. The remaining buildings have to wait for the 7 ton blacktop. Mancino: So they will be put in. Kelly Schulte. The roads will be put in then before the buildings are in? Hempel: There will be one building. One model home. Mancino: There will be one model home. Kelly Schulte: And the model home will be where? ' Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 9 Hempel: Adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive. The first unit in. I Kelly Schulte: The first unit in. Could you go in further? ' Hempel: No. Kelly Schulte: Okay. How many trees will be built inbetween the townhomes and the ' homes ... border and how much of those... Al -Jaff: This is the landscaping plan. Berming will be put in along the easterly portion of the site as well as along CR 17. We also have some along Lake Susan Hills. Kelly Schulte: What kind of trees will they put in? ' Al -Jaff: We have a mixture of evergreens, basically deciduous and I think those will... Kelly Schulte: ...they plant them and then they die ... some of them are dead. If the neighbors don't take care of them, they're... Marty Campion: This is an irrigated site so as far as plants and... Kelly Schulte: Yeah. I guess I'm a little concerned because that ... sewage drainage, there's a ' lot of drainage there and ... make sure that the berm is high enough... Hempel: It will continue to do that. Their drainage... Mancmo: Thank you. If you could continue that after the meeting and meet with staff. ' Thank you. Anyone else like to come up? Don Ketcham: Could you put that overhead up? My name's Don Ketcham. I live at 8380 ' West Lake Drive, which is about the fourth lot from Lake Susan Hills Drive. My only concern about this, when we attended the meeting 2 weeks ago, two concerns. Number one, they did talk to us about cleaning the streets and I've not seen any progress in that whatsoever ' and as Kirby said, we feel lucky we haven't had a lot of rain. When it does rain, it's a mess there. And we've seen no progress to take care of that. The other thing, I wasn't aware that there was going to be a couple of small drainage spots within there and my only question is on the one right off Lake Susan Hills Drive, if that is a shallow pond, that's going to be, I'm just wondering if there's any plans to landscape or use rock around that. Otherwise it's just going to be a mud hole and all of our traffic, all of us who live there, come in that road. We'd like to have that looking as nice as we can without having to have an eyesore and just a swamp there. A little pond is very nice. But my concern is a very small drainage pond like that, if it dries up and... wondering if there's going to be rocks around it or any kind of an attempt to keep it being other than a mud hole? 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 10 Mancino: Dave. Marty Campion: ...proposed landscaping between it and Lake Susan Hills Drive. There's tree planting... Hempel: On storm water ponds we do... Mancino: And we can ask for vegetation around the pond to be planted. Hempel: We usually have grass... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Now that the public hearing is closed, please there will be no comments from your chairs. If one of the commissioners or if the staff wish to address you, they will address me and then I will address you so with that, I'd like to hear comments from the commissioners. Mike. Meyer: Dave, there's going to be a berm along the southerly side as well as the easterly side of that development? Hempel: No. There will be berms eventually along Powers Boulevard, which is the west side and some berming along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The easterly... site does slope off from the site there. Meyer: I had my directions mixed up. Mancino: Any more questions? Meyer: That's all I had. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no questions with regards to the development itself or the staff recommendations. The one question I do have, the comment I do have is that the issue of site clean -up should be addressed at this point. But I, for the life of me cannot remember what our standards are for that issue. If we have established standards, which I believe we do. But I can't. 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 11 Mancino: Do we have standards for site clean -up for the streets? Hempel: We do require rock construction entrances to minimize tracking onto city streets. But weather conditions... in the city, we've had problems this spring with dirty streets ... hire somebody to do it, to clean the streets unless the private developers can find a way to do it... The city does require the developer to clean up storm sewer lines and storm sewer ponds... ' Farmakes: I'm going to support staffs issues on the issue of the drainage and the NURP pond and code issue, number 26. I'm okay with the grading issue as described by our engineer and no further comments. ' Mancino: Okay, Ladd. ' Conrad: There is not a sidewalk on Lake Susan Hills. Mancino: Is there on the north side? Conrad: Is there on the north side? I think other than the resident issue with the maintenance of the streets, I think I'll support the staff report. Ask the applicant to work with the staff on the issues that they had concerns with but I'll let the staff report go through pretty much as worded, unless staff would like any changes based on what they've heard tonight to the report. I'm comfortable with the impervious surface going up to 35 %. I think that makes ' sense. I don't think we're gaining anything by holding the developers to less than that. My only other issue is the back of the building. Design wise. It is real routine. Real, and I thought we asked to change that. So that's the only issue that I see that's real straight forward. I just think we need some, I'm not sure that color. I think they solved the street side. I'm pleased with the street side. That was a good job. I'm not pleased with the back side. At least from the elevations that I've been given, no one tried. Mancino: Ron. ' Nutting: In general I'm also in support of staff recommendations. You know I guess a few issues. The impervious surface. Again, I'm okay with the 35 %. The sump pump drainage. Having some experience myself with that, I agree with staff that resident re- direct is a very strong possibility there and I think there needs to be some consideration given for that. It sounds like the applicant is in some agreement in working with an engineering staff to accommodate that. Maybe with drain tile and with the art situation. The grading does not ' sound like there is an issue anymore from the staff perspective and the ponding system looks like it will need some work in the direction of staff recommendation right now. And I also support the lot line issue for the reasons that staff is, what they're trying to avoid. It looks like that issue should be worked out with the applicant as well so aside from staff working with the applicant there as well as good faith efforts of the party in terms of addressing the 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 12 neighbor's concerns and keeping the area as reasonably clean as they can during the construction period, which is sometimes difficult. That would be my main concern. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I'm in agreement with the other commissioners regarding the impervious, 35% impervious surface requirement and the grading. I'd just like to reiterate that I also agree with engineering regarding the sump pump alterations. I agree that something will have to be done that is agreeable to staff,.. Mancino: Thank you. I would just like to add a couple comments. One is that, which has nothing to do with mine but simply the paper and the debris all over. That that be, we have in our conditions and that that be picked up on a weekly basis, whatever and that area be maintained from that debris. Secondly, when I saw your townhomes on the north side of Lake Susan Hills, I liked them. They looked great. One of the variations that you did there that I don't see here was what you did with the brick. On some of the townhomes the brick went up. It didn't stop halfway but it went up all the way at the front of the townhome. I mean there was just a variation in the use of brick and how much of it was used and I thought that that helped quite a bit to show, have a difference in the townhome look so I would like to see that also happen across the street. Marty Campion: Can I just answer that? We're working with stone, variations of stone... We're not going to have the brick, brick, brick. We're going to have different kinds of stone. I think you'll see more variation in unit to unit already. We just thought that there needed to be differences from across the street and more variation than just colors of brick and heights so we make the stone. I think that that will accomplish that. Mancino: Okay, thank you. And lastly, I would just like staff to make sure on the landscaping that the, that they are consistent with our tree preservation ordinance as far as average. What the average height of coniferous trees at 7 feet and the average caliper is 2 1/2 inches so we get some varying in the landscaping too, which I think will also help to break up the monotony of the townhomes. That's it. Do I have a motion? Hear a motion. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for 7.29 acres into 34 lots and an outlot, PUD #87 -3 and Site Plan Review #95 -7, approval of 34 units in 9 structures as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995 and subject to the following conditions. I thru 27 and I believe, and staff can correct me on this but I believe (b) covers the issue of grading. On 23. Al -Jaffa Yes. Hempel: We can modify it to the applicant shall work with staff at minimizing site grading. 12 I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 13 Farmakes: So be it. The applicant shall minimize site grading to minimize the amount of earthwork to create building pads. This may result in limited type of dwellings to ramblers and /or lookouts on the east and south ends of the project. I'd like to add 28. That the applicant shall work with city staff in establishing criteria for site clean -up and that some sort of system be worked out to insure that that clean -up is complied with. Meyer: Second. ' Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 34 lots and one outlot (PUD #87 -3) and Site Plan Review #95 -7 for approval of 34 units (9 structures) as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995, ' and subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot ' exceed 35 %. 2. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among the rear of buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. 3. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 4. A cross access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 5. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees. 6. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. ' 7. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted which provides berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 1 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" sign on all private roads in compliance with Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. i 13 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 14 b. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. c. Fire hydrant changes - contact Fire Marshal for additional fire hydrants and their specific locations. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall re relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 9. Building Official conditions: a. Submit soil reports to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. b. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details must be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 10. 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 Handbook. 11. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and approval. The streets shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for multi- family zoning (Ordinance No. 209). Radii at all intersections shall be 20 feet. The street width shall be widened to 26 feet from back of curb to back of curb. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. The streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The applicant will need to incorporate cross access and maintenance agreements in the homeowners covenants to provide access to all the parcels. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 14 7 J Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 15 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storms ewer 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 and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 14. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units which are not adjacent to a storm pond or wetland. 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. 18. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for the ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 19. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 20. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. The proposed stormwater treatment pond shall be relocated to the south end of the wetland. 21. The proposed storm water ponds 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 15 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 16 purposes. The pond shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition which drains into the wetland from the south. 22. Water quantity and quality connection fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. Credit for SWMP fees will be evaluated at the time of final construction plan review. 23. The final grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following: a. Relocation of the stormwater treatment pond to the south end of the wetlands. The stormwater treatment pond shall be expanded to accommodate runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The applicant shall be credited against the storm fees for the over sizing of the stormwater pond. b. The applicant shall work with the staff on the site grading to minimize the amount of earthwork to create the building pads. This may result in limiting the type of dwellings to ramblers and /or lookouts on the east and south ends of the project. c. The drainage pattern and site grades adjacent to Powers Boulevard shall be compatible with the future upgrading plans for Powers Boulevard. d. Berms shall be incorporated around the perimeter of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. e. Grading shall be eliminated within the wetland buffer strip areas. Erosion control fence shall be placed outside of the buffer strip. 24. The street pavement design shall be reviewed and, if necessary, redesigned by a professional soils engineer after review of the subgrade. The applicant shall submit to the City written documentations from the soils engineer that the street design will meet or exceed a 7 ton design. 25. The utility construction plans shall be designed to extend sanitary sewer for the entire site from the existing stub provided in Lake Susan Hills Drive. 26. Many of the proposed lot lines encroach upon the building setback line. The lot lines should be modified to avoid encroaching into the building setback areas. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the City's drainage and utility easements 27. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the city with as- built construction plans. I 16 r I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 17 28. The applicant shall work with city staff in establishing criteria for site clean -up and ' some sort of system to insure clean -up is complied with. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Insert Lake Lucy Estates portion of Minutes here.) Lake Lucy Estates final discussion begins at this point. Al -Jaffa Can you give us some direction as to how do you feel about 5 homes being served via a private drive? Is it something that should be incorporated into the plat? Conrad: Yeah. I'm going to talk I guess for a second. I think if it can environmentally work with this property, I think we're going to bend to make it environmentally happen. So I don't care if it's 3, 4, 5, 6. I really don't. If we can make this, if we can preserve something of what's there, then we do. If we can't, then we don't. Then we apply the ordinance. So that's ' you guys. Mancino: Ron, do you have a comment on that? Nutting: I was going to go along the same lines. To me I guess the answer is, put it on paper. If we think it's going to make this site work better than it is right now for consideration, I will look at it. Mancino: I would also endorse the elimination of as many 20 foot variances to front yard setbacks. That was one of the things that I supported the staff sketch on that one. The reduction of those. Otherwise I have no new comments. May I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, Preliminary Plat #95 -3 to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and three outlots with variances, as ' designated in the staff report. ' Conrad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? ' Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family ' (REZ #95 -1), and Preliminary Plat #95 -3 to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots 17 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 18 with three outlots, for further review. All voted in favor, except Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: When can we bring this back? Al -Jaff: On the 17th and hopefully we will get revised plans by Monday. That would give us a week of working on those plans. Mancino: So Mike needs to get you revised plans on Monday, okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING -OLD BUSINESS: REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50- FOOT WIDE RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD (1471), LAKE LUCY ESTATES, MICHAEL BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address Alan Weingart Joe & Gayle Morin Nancy Tichy Mary Knudten Ed Jannusch Bill & Joanne Lambrecht Dale Carlson Michael J. Byrne Robert R. Christensen 5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood (Lake Lucy Peninsula) 1441 Lake Lucy Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road 6850 Utica Terrace 6831 Utica Terrace 6990 Utica Lane 6900 Utica Lane 5428 Kimberly Road, Minnetonka 1511 Lake Lucy Road Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Are there any questions of staff? Meyer: Sharmin, the conditions as they are outlined here, do they correspond to your plan? Al -Jaff: Mainly yes, they do. Meyer: So what this is translating into is what you have laid out here? 18 ' Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 19 Al -Jaff: Correct. There are a few conditions that address the applicant's plan; however, what we are trying to achieve here is to incorporate staffs plan because is significantly reduces grading on the site. There are details that need to be worked out. ' Meyer: OK. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Can you talk a little bit about the entry into the western ' property, how that changes? And the retaining walls that I saw on the preliminary plat from the applicant? And is there a difference between what staff proposed versus that one? ' Al -Jaff: The difference between the property to the east and the property to the west is the property to the east actually had a surveyor go out there, look at potential sites that could be located on their parcel and we know exactly how many homesites they could get. ' Mancino: OK. Al -Jaff: We have not been able to get that from the applicant to the west. The more staff looked at the Willis property, the more we believed that you could get maybe more than four homes on the site. If we allowed a private drive to access the Willis property which is what ' was shown previously on the previous plat, that would have limited the number of homes to four unless the City grants a variance. We didn't want to put ourselves in that predicament; therefore, what we are recommending is a 50 -foot right -of -way through the Willis property that would service the entire site now. The Willis property will continue to gain access off of Lake Lucy until such time when she decides to subdivide. Mancino: And you want to close that access off of Lake Lucy when the Willis property is subdivided? Because I go down Lake Lucy quite a bit and there is no other way to access the Willis property because isn't, it doesn't go, its a wetland or, I'm not sure what it is on that... Al -Jaff: It is a wetland... Mancino: Through the whole length of that property that abuts Lake Lucy, is that correct? Hempel: The driveway basically follows the ridge line that bisects the parcel... further review after you extend sewer and water to the parcel... Staff felt that right now we have to ... 4.5 o n tape ... Mancino: Would there be significant retaining walls with this... Hempel: There would be retaining walls at the intersection of the public street there as proposed on the grading plans where you can see ... 5.5 on the tape 19 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 20 Mancino: Sure. Hempel: I would like to just touch on one other point ... about private driveways. You may recall the previous submittal, the initial submittal, showed the private driveway going off to the east of the Morin's property similar to what is seen here in staffs layout. ...there is two groups of significant trees right in the area where the private driveway comes out on the public street. In this proposal, as with the other ones, it is kind of a trade -off. Do we lose one group of trees and save the other group or vice versa? Looking at this scenario I felt that this would allow the sewer lines also to go under the private driveway... While the value of saving trees is about equal in both scenarios, but this had greater benefit because it had run the utility lines through the rear yards... Mancino: Aren't you on more level ground, too? Hempel: You're following the grade of the hillside versus going up the hill. Mancino: With a 3% to 7% difference in grade. I just have one more question and that is Lots 9 and 10 again on the applicant's plat were walkouts. Now that has changed to lookouts. Does that mean that it requires less fill in that area because it is a lookout versus a walkout? Hempel: Yes, about a foot or two less fill in that area. The only other concern we had was the sanitary sewer elevation is very shallow and in a lookout -type home the lower level... Mancino: Any other questions of staff? Nutting: Sharmin, I guess, just to help me kind of bring things together. The applicant has submitted a revised plan attempting to incorporate various changes that came through staff and the Planning Commission at the initial meeting. Staff has concluded that there are good efforts towards obtaining the goals but haven't quite met the spirit and so staff has come up with an alternate layout. Is it the assumption that the developer has embraced staffs plan? Al -Jaff: We'll let the applicant answer that. Dave met with the applicant this afternoon briefly around 5:00 today and he agreed to incorporate some of the suggestions that we had; however, there were others that he didn't believe they would work out, so... Nutting: So the applicant is not putting forth this plan for approval. Staff is putting forth this plan for approval. OK. Meyer: Sharmin, could you clarify that street grade of 10 %, is that Lakeway Drive from the cul -de -sac? Al -Jaff: Correct. 017 I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 21 Meyer: Do I understand correctly that you said there are only three lots that require a 20 -foot ' front yard setback? Al -Jaffa We haven't worked out the details. The plans that staff put together need to be fine- tuned and we believe the applicant should be doing that. From the layout that was put together, yes, we believe only two or three of the units will require a variance, a front -yard setback variance and not ten. ' Meyer: OK. Thank you. F J Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michael Byrne and I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Could not hear tape at this point. The question was asked, "Does the developer approve of staffs ... your last location on ... The cul -de -sac going north ... from staff in that area. As a matter of fact, the southerly alignment of Lakeway Court was a part of our proposal at one time or another. They have implied there was a decision that we had to work with staff ...Tape was not clear. If you look at your copies of the plan, the grading plan and ... tape was not clear. Mark Gronberg conducted the redesign... If you will note ... we submitted 14... If you will note on version 14 Mark accomplished the process of rearranging the lot line to grade. The three -level road was the major reason for the improvement working from tree loss, major tree loss... Subsequently, with the reshowing of the grading lines... Mr. Gronberg, as you will note on your grading plan, tried to design a 30 -foot northerly as recommended at that time to avoid alot of trees. Obviously, with the straight line road we're going to lose some trees. Another question was asked if the staff designed the project. No, staff does not design the project. They have taken at least 13 different versions and is trying to take the best of each to accomplish their goals and maintain as much tree coverage as you can. I have to bring this conversation to a real sharp point right away. Both the staffs goals and ours are quite similar in the sense that you are trying to save as much trees as you can and still maintain financial... We're working and will work... There is a concept plan in the sense that I am going to develop the site to be sold to builders who build with custom homes. Families that wish to have their homes in the woods. That's why I purchased the site. Once you are in the woods you are going to cut trees down but the concept of being in the woods also includes having trees behind the house, in front of the house, and on the sides of the house, ideally. As I spoke with Mr. Conrad, your ordinances are not really designed for that purpose. The new ordinance, for example, six months ago calls for tree conservation. As staff tries to make this tree conservation easement as large as possible, this tends to move the house toward the street and create a little townhome and that's not what I'm trying to do. The process we are going through is to find a balance of what I hope to be in the woods and the staffs focusing to create as large a tree conservation easement as possible. I think we are able to work with that. I haven't seen anything yet that tells me otherwise. I have one question and brings up my point very clearly. If you look at your color diagrams, there is two of them, one showing the grading on 21 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 22 the lake. If you look at the first one which is Lake Lucy Estates you will note the building pads are as far apart as we could get them. The easterly one is as far east as we can get it and the westerly one is as far west as we can get it. Lot 8 had to an approximately 180 -foot area where you can move the house back and forth to balance. That was done for two reasons. Number one, the neighbors had indicated that they wished to see less intense use of their shorelines. These are going to be large homes. There's no question about that. Building pads of 80 feet to 85 feet by 50 are not going to be uncommon. With staffs proposal, which is the second one, you'll see two building pads approximately 20 feet apart. While it does in fact save some of the tree plantings, we've got 7 over lots that are deep in the... Their pads are totally surrounded. That's what we're trying to do is we're trying to put house pads in trees. It irritates people, some, it irritates the neighbors. I can understand that, but what we are trying to do is create in the woods a process here with... putting two vaulted homes 20 feet apart, I don't think it will detract. It will create a mass on the... I could only ask that you look at provision 27... I'm asking you confirm... Two reports that are on ... tape was not clear at this point... That's the other part of ... As we work with custom homeowners, these are the people that are going to try to place their home in the site given the limitations of sideyard, frontyard and rearyard, etc. We try to reinforce with them saving the best of the site. The tree can't be... We wish to do those after we sit down with staff.. each individual lot. We've done this before and its not... If you read the entire package you will notice the difference on lot widths. I believe that's page 3. Staff has ... tape was not clear at this point... I placed Exhibit A in there. There was some question in the staff report about the sewer easement... I would welcome any questions from you now. Mancino: Excuse me. Mike, I just have a question. This was prepared yesterday for us? Michael Byrne: Yes. Mancino: I appreciate it. Michael Byrne: We received staffs revision on Friday Mancino: Are there any questions for Mr. Byrnes? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up and address the Planning Commission may. Alan Weingart: Madam Chair. Commissioners. My name is Alan Weingart and I own the peninsula on Lake Lucy and will be buying 1695 Steller Court in September and currently reside at 5330 St. Albans Bay Road in Shorewood and we have a group of us here tonight 22 I 7 I I �I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 23 that have obviously some strong feelings about what's being proposed. Did everyone of you get a copy of Eric Rivkin's letter that he faxed to you yesterday or today? I just wanted to be sure that you received it from him and, if not, let us know and we will get you a copy. We've chosen someone to speak to some of the things that are in there. I guess I have a, I question I have is what was just given to you? Is something new? Al -Jaffa I haven't seen it. I don't know. Mancino: This is what Mike delivered to our homes. Alan Weingart: OK. So you have not seen that? Mancino: Staff has not seen it. Alan Weingart: Well, we're sort of segregating the various things that we want to talk about here tonight amongst a few of us and I probably have the most tedious and boring aspect of this to talk about because as Mike was saying, he started to quote ordinances and basically it sounded like we have a case of martyrdom here where the ordinances are forcing him to tear down trees and make small lots. What he's getting to is a situation where we have to look at this thing on a very technical ordinance basis and technical analysis of what the ordinances will allow or won't allow and it is unfortunate that we have been pushed to the situation where everything is coming down to what are technicalities of the ordinance. Usually, it is my understanding the process between Planning Commission, staff, residents and applicant is typically one of give and take and we haven't seen a whole lot of give and take in this particular situation. So, if the applicant in this case wishes to push things to the technical aspects of what the ordinance says or doesn't say, then I guess I would like to look at what those technical rights, or what the technical obligations are under the ordinance relative to what you guys have received and kind of go through this. It sounds like Mike is seeking to have his application approved subject to the conditions that are laid out in the staff report except for lots along the lake and we're asking for it to be tabled because, from an ordinance standpoint, we don't think that what you have in front of you right now constitutes what the ordinance calls a preliminary plat. The ordinance basically says that the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on the preliminary plat which assumes that the preliminary plat is in existence, that there is one and right now, based upon various conditions in the staff report, it doesn't appear to us that there is any kind of preliminary plat on this to make a recommendation and, therefore, I think the applicant deserves the opportunity to go back and incorporate the various comments that staff has made, also hopefully some of them that we have made and that you will make and come back with a plat, a preliminary plat that qualifies underneath the technical provisions of the ordinance so that you guys can have something to recommend, approve, deny, or whatever and you have ample time to do that. To support that intention I guess is... I'd like to have Sharmin put this up on the overhead. I have copies of this too that I can give to you. This basically, uh, oh boy. Do you want copies? Let me get you copies. Basically what we're saying here is that you don't have a 23 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 24 preliminary plat. Therefore, we can't really make a decision one way or another. That's our contention, anyway. The reason that we can't because basically the various things I have listed here, No. 1 - Lot dimensions and revised layout. Well, Sharmin mentioned that she doesn't have the lot dimensions and revised layout because it hasn't been drawn yet. She has a sketch of what it would, should look like and according to the technical verse of the ordinance you got to have a plat that has lot dimensions and revised layout. You have to show location and width of right -of -way to the Willis property and Lakeway Court. It doesn't appear that we have that now. We have a private drive as opposed to a 50 -foot street. Not to bore you with all these but basically the name of Outlot A isn't mentioned. I mean, we're talking technicalities here and if that's the game that's going to be played, that's the game unfortunately we have to play. Accurate soil reports, compliance with minimum setbacks on revised plan... There is no revised grading plan because of the grades that are coming off of Lakeway Court. We don't know what that looks like and how the sewer goes underneath it or not. We just don't know that. The reforestation plan, I'll get to that in a minute and, of course, the replatting with the, and the reassessment of the requested variances. We don't know how those variances are going to be impacted on the property because we haven't seen a drawing of what the impact of that is. So these are the kinds of things that we don't think we have complete preliminary plat similar to the ordinance. Therefore, I don't think we can make a decision to approve something that we don't have enough information about. Now what Sharmin is saying is it's merely a matter of degree, too. There are conditions that can be approved if you in fact have a preliminary plat. But what we have here, in my opinion, are a lot of requirements that are not met. There is a difference between conditions and requirements and that is the distinction I think is important in this particular case. Changed tape at this point. Alan Weingart: ...is the tree canopy and we don't have a reforestation plan. Mike even admitted that he doesn't know what kind of trees are going to be taken down and there's no way to know without having a new plan drawn relative to reforestation. In this particular case based upon the staff reports, there's a total acreage of 14.5 acres plus the wetlands gives us the buildable acreage and roads and the canopy ordinance requires 46% of that to be maintained allowing 5.2 acres in this case. The required canopy to be maintained has been reduced by what staff feels is the applicant's additional canopy that he is going to remove... So now we're down to the canopy that's being maintained as 4.34 acres on 11.37 buildable acres. Therefore, he is removing a little over 7 acres of trees. Now I don't know, it just sounds a bit unreasonable. Maybe the applicant should take a look at the site and figure out that, it doesn't take alot to figure out, that maybe this isn't the kind of site to put that much density of ... homes into having to remove 62% of the trees which he's acknowledged and it just frustrates me I guess because it just seems obvious and even the staff note at the bottom where they indicated in the staff report that "realistically, more trees may ultimately be removed than is shown on the grading and tree inventory survey ". So, I think 62% is probably the minimum here and its... from there. Anyway, if any of you have any questions on the technical aspects of this stuff I would be happy to attempt to address them. This may 24 LJ G Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 25 not be the case but we have plenty of time between now and May 17 to discuss whether or not these various things are being met or are not being met and I think the Planning Commission has asked for time to allow the applicant to come back with plans that, in our opinion, constitute a preliminary plat and also give us time to respond to those. Maybe not through a public hearing but through correspondence and I think that's only fair to both sides to do that. So, any questions for me? OK. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Joe Morin: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe Morin and I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I own the parcel immediately to the west of the, to the east of the proposed development taking place. At the last hearing of this proposal the proposal was so far off that the applicant did not make an attempt to present it for consideration and during that discussion Mr. Conrad detailed 5 major points which were not adequately addressed by the applicant's initial submittal. These were the water quality pond, sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the site, storm damage, environmental damage and variances. Nancy Mancino cited ordinances about preserving and protecting natural amenities on the site such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and other members of the Planning Commission were in agreement that these issues were not adequately addressed. What I want to do tonight is to kind of outline or use Mr. Conrad's 5 major points as a guide to quickly highlight as many specific areas as I can where these concerns are still not adequately addressed. The first area, water quality pond. This is an improvement to what was originally submitted since there is a water quality pond; however, there are numerous springs that Eric Rivkin spoke of at his last meeting that are in this general location pretty close to where this water quality pond is being proposed. All I can say is pretty close because Eric spoke of them as bubbling out of ground when he was cross - country skiing through there and he spoke of them as being right in this general area near Lot 6 and near the area where the proposed pond is going in. These springs have not been located, they have not been identified and they have not even been addressed at all by the applicant and I don't what impact to put in a holding pond near a natural spring is going to have or, for that matter, trying to install a building pad. So I think that is something that is significantly missing. The second item related to the water quality pond is a matter of personal interest to me. I need to understand... staff has managed to take this time to speak to many of us and members of the Planning Commission which also have this concern but the ponding area is located to the west of the proposed road but there's a pipe going under the road back into the existing pond on the site and the overflow water from the holding pond is being dumped into the larger or bigger pond which has a direct flow right into Lake Lucy and my questions here is why not have the overflow go into the large vegetation acreage to the east and allow a better sense of filtration... OK. Major point No. 2 relates to sensitivities to the physical characteristics of the site. I am very happy to see a cul -de -sac and the road realigned. I think that was a bit of a no- brainer to move the cul -de -sac over and not within the middle of a grove of trees and that was a good thing to do. The realignment of the road also compensated significant trees. I acknowledge that. But there are still significant problems 25 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 26 remaining. In the applicant's proposal, and I couldn't tell from the staffs proposal, but in the applicant's proposal there are three 15,000 square foot lots on very steep terrain. If you have your maps in front of you or if Sharmin could put a map up on the overhead you could see that in Block 1, Lots 3 and 4 are 15,000 square feet and located in extremely, that's Block 2, Lots 5, right? That also is in a very extremely sensitive terrain area. In Block 1 if Sharmin could show Lots 3 and 4 right where all those high- density contour lines come together and also they are very heavily wooded as well. I guess I have a question, Sharmin. In your experience, has anyone ever submitted a plan showing 15,000 square -foot lots on this kind of terrain with this kind of tree cover. Al -Jaffa I haven't reviewed a plan with that type of terrain and a 15,000 square -foot lot. I personally have not. Joe Morin: OK. The other area I want to point out is right near Lot 4 and between Lots 4 and 5 there's a 14 -foot elevation difference between the two sites. In fact, Lot 4 is surrounded on three sides with retaining walls 14 to 17 feet high. We're talking about sensitivity to physical characteristics of the site. The private drive going into the Willis property that was shown here and I think that's going to be changed but that shows 13 to 14- foot retaining walls on either side of that private drive and, of course, more important, inadequate access to her property. Now, I'm pleased that the developer, or the applicant is wanting to accept the changes that staff has made. I don't know if the changes that staff has made are an improvement. I can't tell from the layout. But I do have some grave concerns about the way that the terrain, the natural terrain and steep slopes are being torn up in this area. Sharmin, if you could show the drawing that you had before showing the point of setbacks. The point I'm trying to make here and that staff recognizes is that when you have 20 -foot setbacks and you have houses that close to the road on either side you have kind of a tunnel effect. Now, Mike is trying to create an environment that's in the woods. I would expect an in- the -woods kind of environment would put homes in the woods you would have some with trees in the front and some forward. Obviously you would have few lots if you wanted an in -th -woods kind of environment. This submittal by the way does not in any way to me show an in- the -woods kind of consideration. What I'm showing here is part of the plan the applicant submitted at the request of staff to show what could be accomplished if no variances were granted. The lot shown to the top of the page, Lot 9, has no access to it. There is no access there. There is also grading and fill right up to the edge of the wetland here all along the wetland in fact. But there is no access to that point... The applicant can't get to that site without a variance. Now, how many houses he could get on without variances is still a matter of dispute. I understand from the staff report they said probably 4 less than what is submitted. Certainly, if you can't access to a site you can't build. What this one shows is the applicant's current design for Lot 10. I'm going to point out a few things here related to sensitivity and physical characteristics. You'll notice right along the wetland area all along in here there's 10 feet of fill right up to the edge of the wetland. You'll notice that right in the center of this driveway is the loss of that 24" oak that we spoke of. We've been out to the site many times. This is a tree that could easily be saved with just a minimum 26 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 ' Page 27 amount of consideration for this area. With respect to this site there is an ironwood, 12" ' ironwood here that's not identified on the applicant's plan. We were out there with Jill, the City Forester and the DNR Forester whose had 40 years of experience in this, in forestry and he said this is a very tree. An ironwood doesn't usually get to be that big. It's a very old tree. He also identified another oak in here. He said that was a 12" oak. All along here are 10 ", 11 ", 9" oaks. There's a whole grove of oak trees in this area. Many of them are on my property right in here. And these oaks will be damaged with this kind of a plan that the applicant has submitted. The applicant is filling 9 feet of fill on this site. 9 feet of fill going right up to my property line here. But 9 feet of fill more importantly between this pond and this lake. He's also showing... a 10 -foot setback from the property line. ...asking for a variance? If the ordinance is 20. I'm gravely upset by this. Putting 9 feet of dirt and then a house on top of that in an area that's this sensitive to the environment I think is a desecration. The basements of all of those sites located in that southern area are at a elevation of 972 roughly and the natural contour's at 964. This could require 8 feet of fill for Lots 7 and 8, 8% feet of fill for Lot 9 and 10 feet of fill for Lot 10. I think that staffs plan is alot better in that these work in this area. It's a heck of a lot, a huge improvement over what the applicant proposed. I don't believe that, I think a sensitive plan of these lower sites would have one or two houses there, one or two houses and homes without basements so that no fill at all would be required. I don't believe that this plan adequately addresses the Planning Commission's concerns about sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the site. The third major point is with storm drainage. Now the applicant's proposal, Sharmin mentioned a 10% grade in part of the areas 14% grade. Sharmin, if you could put the applicant's sketch up there again. I don't know if 14% is even reasonable whether it meets the City standards or not. I'll let you be the judge of that. My concern with this kind of a layout is the flow of uncontrolled and untreated runoff coming from the street coming from the properties north of that road that's Lakeway Court flowing at a 10% to 14% grade straight into my property in an area that is already low and takes a certain amount of time in the spring to dry up I think I don't need anymore water from... and this is not addressed. The impact of flowing into our properties is not addressed in this plan. The applicant has still not submitted a plan showing storm sewer calculations. He has still not addressed the concern expressed by Mr. Conrad about erosion control on the southern part of the site which he is still showing as 8 to 9 feet of fill such as ' previously mentioned. He has not addressed how the lake and pond will be protected either before construction, during construction or after construction. I don't think the applicant has adequately addressed this point either. The fourth major point, environmental damage, who ' knows what the impact of 8 to 9 feet of fill and dirt will be on the pond and the lake. We don't know that. But the impact of a big house out there after you level all the forest on 9 feet of dirt in the middle of a wildlife migration area which is a travel zone for the entire area, not just our area but the broad areas I spoke of this last time surrounding us, I think its still abusive to the environment. I talked about cutting into the slopes pretty severely. I'm not sure if staffs plan will minimize that or not. I don't believe that the... calculations have been done correctly or are missing. I think there's an issue there. Certainly there is significant tree loss removing 7 acres of trees. Speak of being sensitive to environmental damage I think that's horrible. I still believe there is excessive density for the site. There 27 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 28 ought to be 4 to 6 less homes. If you want an in- the -woods kind of environment you have to have fewer homes. With the density that he has, he has to chop down all the trees. I believe that this is a very rare and very unique site. The man from the DNR with 40 years of experience, those are his words. He said this is... We don't see... like this. We don't see oaks like this. Gayle and I took a bike ride out to Eden Prairie around Rice Marsh Lake and we looked at the big woods that they have there that they've been struggling so hard to preserve. This is something like we already have right here in Chanhassen. I think that this is such a unique site that it needs special considerations in its development and that significant pieces ought to be left alone and the design ought to be sensitive to that. Eric spoke of the other environmental issues. He did send a letter to the members of the Planning Commission but you haven't received that yet. I hope that you do take what he says under consideration. He's talking about destruction of valuable natural habitat necessary to support abundant wildlife. He speaks of a beaver lodge newly constructed this year 150 feet from where the applicant wants to level the woods. He talks about the beaver depending on small caliper trees and not being afraid to take the landscape trees that Mike plants. He talked about many too -tall houses close to the lake referring to aesthetics and so on. Natural, year - around springs. He address that. And the storm pond's relationship to the spring and the stormwater flows on the site and he speaks to the developer that the applicant not be unresponsive to staffs and resident's input. I know, I've seen the wildlife there. The fox, mink, deer, beaver. These are the large mammals. Eric spoke of 14 different species of mammals. The red -tail fox, great - horned owls on the property. I saw them there just a few days ago. ... woodpecker, a dozen great blue herons underneath the large canopy trees where they're nesting. Migrating water fowl such as loons. We've heard loons this spring. We've seen pelicans out on the lake. Other waterfowl basically too numerous to mention that nest here and make their homes. This is what Eric spoke of and this is part of the aesthetic enjoyment that the entire community sees for this property. The lack of erosion control and drainage pipes. I have serious concerns for this. This is a very important watershed area. This is the headwaters of Lake Lucy which is the headwaters of the entire chain of lakes, the Riley chain of lakes. And so pollution into this area not only affects Lake Lucy but everything downstream. The development that's occurring here is in a natural basin. The Mason homes development is high on a ridge where they have pulled their homes away from this natural basin. They left it natural. My home is high on the basin. The Tichy home is also high on the basin. Christensen's and the Willis property are also high up on the basin but now we're taking about developing down into this basin and Lake Lucy gets most of its flow from groundwater seepage and runoff from this area and we better be real careful about what we do there. I don't think that, I believe that a much higher standard of care must be exercised in this area and I don't believe the expectations of the Planning Commission have been met yet with this plan or with staffs plan either for that matter. The fifth major point was variances. I'm going to go over that very quickly because Al talked about them. There are several variances that area being requested. The question is has the applicant earned the right to these variances? Has the applicant earned the right to private driveways and so on? I really worry about the history of this applicant. I don't know that he has experience with this size of a development, let alone a development that requires this degree of sensitivity. I NM Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 29 have very grave concerns about the wherewithall to complete the development which is sensitive to the area. Even this could be mitigated if he at least was cooperative with the planning staff. But I'm worried about the history of him using variances simply to cram in more lots and not preserving the environment. So, I'm worried about that and I'm worried about his lack of cooperation. There are numerous citations that we have in the letter that was sent to each of you showing his unwillingness to work with the concerns of the staff, the concerns of the Planning Commission and the concerns of the neighbors and local residents. He didn't even take notes at our neighborhood meeting. Sharmin, have you ever in your experience encountered a more uncooperative residential developer? Mancino: Mr. Morin, all those... Joe Morin: Is that a fair question? Mancino: No. That is not a fair question. Any questions should be directed towards me. Thank you. Joe Morin: I would ask you the same question... If you think it's inappropriate I'll... Mancino: It's inappropriate. Thank you. Joe Morin: I think that staffs layout has some improvements. I think the applicant's reaction to it is very disappointing but not unexpected. I appreciate the long hours and hard work that staff has put in and overtime to try to get to an acceptable plan. Unfortunately, I don't think we're there. What we have here is a layout and a sketch. We have the document that was submitted to Planning Commission members but not the staff. I have no... We have kind of a hybrid between a sketch and recommendations of staff and the applicant's choosing not to accept so I'm really not sure what we have. I want to conclude with just making two points here. Number 1: As I tried to show I don't think your concerns have been adequately addressed by the applicant. I think that staffs layout is better but undefined. I'm still confused by this hybrid of the south and north and the unknown document. Number 2: The applicant, I'm upset by his not agreeing to the changes recommended by staff. I think its still a plan even in its hybrid form that's unacceptable to staff. I think its unacceptable to the Planning Commission. I hope it is. Its unacceptable to the residents and will most certainly be sent back by the City Council. This forum is here to stay. Gayle and I just... that anything looking like this request that a preservation easement be placed over all the property outside all of the grading limits. We request that Lot 10 be eliminated. We request that homes without basements be placed in southern area if any homes are put down there at all. We request that Lakeway Court be realigned the way staff has proposed and the rest of the project be re- engineered as shown in the staff layout. Finally, Gayle and I can accept the development next door. We'll even profit from the development next door. But we don't want it rushed into the City Council in this form. We believe that the site deserves a better effort. A much better effort. We believe that the City Council should be presented a clean W Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 30 plan. A complete plan. A plan that is much more responsive to all of our concerns and we request that this application be tabled. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else like to approach the Planning Commission? Jill Willis: Hi. My name is Jill Willis. I'm the property that's to the west. I have a couple of questions I would like to just coincide on Al's and Joe's comments. Sharmin, could you put up the... Tape ended at this point. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 1995 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on actions taken at the last City Council meeting and stated that she had included a copy of the draft on the ethics proposal. Farmakes: I have a question for you on that. Mancino: I have a couple too. Farmakes: Under the issue of interest. I don't see the word good will used anywhere. Did I miss it? Or would we interpret that as being a benefit? Aanenson: What do you mean good will? Farmakes: Good will, I believe it's defined where you act for the benefit of someone else without pay or any type. Aanenson: If you look under Section 13. Special treatment. It may fall under that category there. Farmakes: Special consideration or treatment. Aanenson: Right. Farmakes: The issue of good will I believe, there is a legal definition for it in the ... of business. That it is not a tangible, defined piece of property. However, they do come up with defining financial compensation for it so the question is, is it a property and the issue of, 30 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 31 if you do something for the good will of the business and even though you don't benefit financially directly from it. One could assume that it is a benefit. Aanenson: Right. I guess that's how I would look at 13. To say you could give special consideration of treatment... and that you would benefit from that. Good will or whatever. Farmakes: Could you check with the attorney on that issue and look at the definition? Aanenson: But I don't know how that fits into the Council's drafting of this ordinance but I can certainly pass that on to... Farmakes: Yeah, it's just a matter because I think that is something that comes up in business quite often. Nutting: I'm agreeing with where Jeffs going and under Section A, official acts and number 2. It is real vague when you're trying to define that. Mancino: Under conflict of interest? Nutting: Yeah. Mancino: Well that's the part I have too. Tell me what this really means. Nutting: An interest in the affairs of any person and without getting specific and I think it hits on the point Jeffs making too. Farmakes: Are you talking about 2? Nutting: Yeah. Mancino: Section 3. Farmakes: Section 3, line 2? Mancino: Yeah. Well and it's also in the present sense because it says, if they have an interest. Aanenson: Then you have to look up the definition of interest. Mancino: But it's present. It's not past. It's current. Farmakes: But going back to my comment that if there is a legal, accepted legal definition of good will, maybe that should be considered as a word that turns into... 31 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1995 Page 32 Mancino: And at what point is this an ordinance? Aanenson: They've reviewed one draft. I'm not, it hasn't been adopted. They've reviewed one draft and... Mancino: Do the elected officials of Chanhassen have to make public all their donations? People who contribute to their election? Aanenson: I don't know. We could check on that. Mancino: I just, out of the blue. I mean you talk about conflict of interest and other areas. I just wondered... The regular portion of the meeting was closed and the Planning Commission continued with a work session on the buffer yard /transition zone ordinance and code revisions. Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 32