Loading...
1fCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1916 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE, TORY WALTON. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Thank you. Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. What I'm struggling with, besides the subdivision potentially, two lots whiCh I really don't think is really realistic considering the grade and everything, is the access point. It seems like the logical access point, and the way the neighborhood is built would be from Crestview Circle. And that would have the least environmental impact also. Now that would require an easement and that would go over the land of the current owner? Hoium: To the north, that is correct. Sacchet: To the north? Has that been explored? Hoium: Well we could recommend that but we couldn't require that as it would possibly be a taking if this land was sold. And the rezoning is a stipulation of this land being sold to another party. We can recommend it. Sacchet: But we can't require it. Hoium: But we can't require. Whether it was rezoned or if it got a variance. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Okay. This is not, well I don't think there will be many comments. Anybody in the audience, well first of all. Do you guys want comments? Let's just see, does anybody here want to comment on this? Okay. So we won't open it for a public hearing. Do you guys have comments on it then? Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have been thinking about this a little bit and I really don't like the idea of potential subdivision of that place. It doesn't make sense. The topography is relatively steep. There is an old creek on one side and there's wetland on the other side. I think it'd be very hard to reasonably, or should I say environmentally sensitive to put one house there. And to do that it would need access from Crestview Circle and not from Galpin because if you do it from Galpin you have to go across the ravine basically. So I'm a little bit in a quandary because if we could require that the access is from Crestview Circle, I would be inclined to rezone it to single family residential. Make it consistent with all the other aspects. But in the absence of having foundation to ask that the access is from Crestview and have some assurance that that's going to go that way, I start wondering again whethe) it's better to leave it rural because the possibility to have some animals on that property to me is less threatening than the possibility of having access from Galpin and having a potential subdivision. That's my comment. Burton: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Kind: Mi'. Chair, I'm wondering if the applicant's here and can address where they are planning on accessing the site from. Applicant #1: There is no plan as to where the site's going to be accessed at this point. Applicant #2: The builder who is, has purchased the lot is planning to build one home on it, if that makes a difference at all. His plan is one single family home. Applicant #1: His single family home. Sacchet: But you wouldn't know where the access will be? Applicant #2: Not exactly, no. Kind: Well ~vith that Mr. Chair I'll add just to my comments. I'm convinced that the topography limits this to one home and I'm comfortable rezoning it since it is guided for Iow density residential and our comp plan is consistent with that. I live on a one acre lot that technically could be subdivided and there's just no way it could be done because of the topography so I can relate to this particular lot and so I would agree with the staff report. Burton: Anybody else comment? Sidney: Well I guess I'd just like to add very thorough staff report. All my questions were answered, thank you. Burton: Yep, I agree. And I would just add that I agree with Deb. I'm convinced that with the change that's not practical to build more than one home on this lot so I agree with the planning department's recommendation. So if there's not any more comments, does somebody want to make a motion? Sidney: I'I1 make a motion. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 CresWiew Circle from Rural Residential, RR to Residential Single Family, RSF. Kind: I'll second that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 Crestview Circle from Rural Residential, RR to Residential Single Family, RSF. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND HWY. 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Farrell James Haugen Dennis R. Griswold Mark Guenther Dan Cook Tom & Kay Faust Bill Coffinan Tom Furlong Linda Bergan Pat J. Connolly Leah Hawke Steven Berquist Karen Weathers Jerry and Jan Paulsen Deb Lloyd Dan Shoemaker Mel Kurvers Anne Ryan Mike Zumwinkle 7336 Fawn Hill Road 7800 Bavaria Road, Victoria Pulte Homes Pulte Homes Pemtom 541 Mission Hills Drive 600 West 78th Street 1841 Ringneck Drive 3241 Tanadoona Drive 2008 Grand Avenue, St. Paul 7444 Moccasin Trail 7207 Frontier Trail 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7380 Kurvers Point Road 7240 Kurvers Point Road 2595 Southern Court 7250 Hillsdale Court Kate Aanenson and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions for staff. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Ijust have one, I think a simple one. Page 34, site plan review, condition 2(b). Talking about the dedication of the north wetland trail alignment. Do you have a preference or what is the difference between the public outlot or easement route for that dedication? Aanenson: I believe the applicant does as far as extraction. Certainly they're willing to build the trail. I think the park commission wanted everything on the other side of the trail as dedication. But I think the applicant's position would be that they'd want to be compensated because it's beyond the normal trail easement. So standard language would be, you can ask the applicant about that. Standard language would be a trail easement which is 20 feet wide. And that's going to follo'w the sewer line predominantly. We're meeting with that and now trying to preserve the trees. Meeting with the developer, or excuse me the engineer that's proposing the sewer. Trying to resolve the tree losses. Uli's walked up in that area. There's some tree losses as you get closet' to the McAllister property that we're trying to, maybe you might have a double easement with the sewer and then the trail. Trying to preserve tree loss in that area. Blackoxviak: Okay, so did you have a preference? Aanenson: What I'm saying is, this may be something Roger's going to have to clarify. The City Attorney as far as the legality of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Burton: Ult. Sacchet: Yeah I've got a lot of questions and tonight we need to answer them because we owe these people a decision. First of all, just to start where you left off Kate. There's definition of the primary zone of the Bluff Creek. I didn't really fully understand. Can you explain that a little bit? Aanenson: Sure. We're going through this area right here. That map that I gave you...out the overlay on this so it's not, the alignment is not the engineer's alignment. Sacchet: Correct. Aanenson: The alignment I'm showing you that follows through here is the 984 contour. It's just in this area. Otherwise everything else through here where it appears that it falls out, the primary zone there but it indeed follows this 984 contour right here... Sacchet: So basically what you're confirming is that none of these duplexes reaches into the primary zone. Is that what you're saying? Aanenson: Correct. What I want to make clear is the city's sewer and water project will be in the primary zone. Sacchet: Yeah, that's unfortunate. Aanenson: That's what we're trying to minimize. Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, but you answered my question. None of the duplexes in the primary zone. That's important to me. Now there was some shifting around going on with some of the village homes on the southeast corner. That from a 4 unit, that became a 6 unit. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: What's the rationale behind it because it does certainly hit a lot more trees there? Aanenson: Yes. They took out those units to open up that area for the tot]ot and that's where they placed them. Sacchet: So it was a trade off?. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: There was a request for more space for recreation. Aanenson: Visibility into that space I guess I'd qualify that. Sacchet: So do xve owe them that extra two things even though they cut into the trees quite a bit? Aanenson: That's that fine line of they're paying full park and trail fees and as far as the responsibility the PUD provides some open space xvith park dedication. That's what they were wrestling with. They're paying full park and trail fees but yet under the PUD they're-trying to balance what are the needs for being responsible to say. Sacchet: It has to be fair to them, I understand. Aanenson: Right, exactly and I did pass out for you, because they shared it with the park commission, I passed that out for you tonight what the other project, similar type projects have been required for totlot open space. And that would be Walnut Grove, Mission Hills. You can kind of give a comparison. Certainly this has more acreage and again we try to relate it back to demographics. If it was going to be younger people it'd probably be down in that area so that's what they struggled with. Trying to find that line of meeting the needs under the PUD but not going beyond what they have the authority to do. Sacchet: Now you mentioned that the applicant would be held to his full park and rec fee. How do we justify when they do all these trails and open spaces? I mean to me I'm wondering whether protecting a couple more trees would be worth it and I also seem to recall that in the comprehensive plan there's a statement that we try to minimize fees. So it looks like in this case you're actually hitting them pretty hard, aren't we? Aanenson: Well I think when they first came in my recollection was you wanted to see some continuity between the different projects. I think something certainly you can look at and the park commission looked at too, that you have the ease to go between them. If some people walking can stay within the complex. If they want to walk up to the bus. That was one of the other loose ends. I did pass that out to you. We're looking at Southwest Metro providing a shelter closer to the wetland on the south side of that frontage road. Just a slip in lane with a shelter. Providing access with a sidewalks on that side, either internal paths to get you up to that so it's a trade off. Could you eliminate some of those and still have convenience of walking the streets? Certainly. I think that's something. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Well I'm not necessarily trying to eli~ninate some of these amenities. What I'm trying to eliminate is these extra 2 units that were added and encroach onto the trees. And I think it might be more appropriate to decrease the fees a little bit for that. But moving on, the McAllister property. So the issue we have there is that we have this 300 foot setback requirement based on the ordinance for petting farms. We're saying that at this point we want to address that and possibly alter that at our next meeting? Aanenson: In looking at the interim use, correct. Right. Sacchet: Because my concern is that if we approve this PUD, we basically declare the petting farm non- conforming use. Aanenson: If the council approves it with this... Sacchet: If the council approves it. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Because if nothing is done about it that could potentially be a death sentence what they're undertaking which is, I don't think will be fair because we just approved to let that petting farm exist. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Okay. So you're confident that we can put that into a way that it's not hurtful. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Ah'ight. Now with the density transfer we clarified that the density transfer from the west side of 41 is added up to the north side of the frontage street. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And on the south side we add in the density credit for the street. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And we do not add any affordable housing bonus an?~,here? Aanenson: No. Sacchet: Okay. Now do you know hoxv much that affordable housing bonus could potentially be? Would be requested or. Aanenson: We have it in the ordinance. We haven't to my knowledge haven't applied it at any project. Maybe Ladd knows. Been there quite a while but the density bonus for affordability. Sacchet: One place where I saw it said it can be up to 25%. Is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. So we're actually pretty clear about the density here. About the designation, what will be included in the preservation easements. You mentioned that it will be more specific. It would include Outlot E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, the stand of trees on the south side, west from the NURP pond, and would it make sense to possibly also include some of those trees that we declared special interest for. I think there's about a half dozen of those trees. Aanenson: Right. Those are the significant stands. Certainly any tree that's a significant portion, 30 plus inches, we try to save certainly. We know there are some that are oui there 60. Jill's looked at it. Again we met with the engineers running to the north side because there's also significant trees as you cross through this area here. I know there's this 60 inch oak in this area. We've spoken to the developer. We've looked at overlay with the grading plan. As a general policy before our project, again before they're given the order to proceed we walk every project to check the erosion control and the tree fencing so they're on notice that anything significant that we can work to massage grading and they're willing to look at that. So we're going to walk the site, as we always do and try to save those individual trees. Sacchet: See my concern is particularly with that stand of trees on the southern side because I've seen this project three times and each time that stand has shrunk. Aanenson: You're talking about this one? Sacchet: Yes. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Each time, I mean each time it's smaller and there's always some reason that, I mean there's some justification to it. But that's why I think it's very important that we very clearly define what that is because it seems to.be melting awaY. Aanenson: Yeah, I agree. Sacchet: Alright. Yeah I think that's my questions for right now. Burton: Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. One quick question. We're talking a lot about housing obviously but we do have a commercial component in this PUD. And I'm wondering if there's a discussion about that that I missed or where that is because I'm thinking back to the Gateway development. You know in our Arboretum Business Park where we looked at the commercial component and defined what we wanted in terms of the uses at that... Aanenson: It is in the staff report. If you go to page 9, the PUD standards. We talked about under permitted uses. It's on page 9. Neighborhood style as far as pitched roof, orientation and we listed there the types of uses. No drive thru windows. We don't want fast food. This is a neighborhood oriented retail. We also said no use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. We suspect there may be a gas station or convenience or something of that size. If someone wanted to put in office, daycare. Again those would be appropriate but we tried to look at this, the scale and the appropriateness to the neighborhood. Then also under the design standards on page 10, we talked about this. It's still under the curtain wall as far as acceptable materials. We didn't want a standing seam siding curtain wall but the standards are in there Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 too. So with the adoption of this, you have the design standards in place. It's an outlot. It will have to come back and plat it but first they'll have to come back to you with a site plan because it would require a site plan review so you'd review it at that time. Sidney: Okay. I guess I just thought maybe that would have been a separate section in the staff report. Aanenson: It's all wrapped into the design standards and again we adopted all those with this so when they come in, this will be what we'll measure that against. Those standards. Burton: Any other questions? Kind: I've got a question. But they're much less now after Uli went. Speaking of design standards, residential. On page 10 of the staff report. Kate you briefly mentioned something and I didn't catch it. Something about we'll accept shakes as an acceptable material on all buildings now and then what were you saying about brick? Aanenson: Oh, we did put a percentage of brick and there's some ambiguity with that because we said vinyl and brick. That just to make sure that we quantify it. We're approving the design that they represented here and they'll be included in the packet but just for clarity purposes, if we put that percentage in so as that moves through the process we want to put a percentage in so we're held to that. Kind: Okay. I think that makes sense. And then, how about shingles? My concern the last time we gathered was I don't want flat shingles that ripple in the summer time. I want this to have a quality look about it. Did you find anything out about that? Aanenson: Yes. What xve did is pulled a couple other projects and got their standards. Actually it would be a similar to what we did at Lake Susan which is the Class A which is the fiberglass asphalt shingle again. What you're looking at is wind resistant, fire resistant so they don't ripple. But what we required there was the 230 pound per square and that's what they said is their standard too so if you want to be specific and put that in as a condition, that'd be appropriate too. Kind: That's 230 pound? Aanenson: Right. Per square inch. Kind: It's like a weight. And then is it fiberglass/asphalt combination thing? Aanenson: Right. And the specific one that we looked at for the apartment was, it has a called out brand, XT25, Certainteed and in reviewing it with the developer, that's the same one that they would use SOl Kind: Okay. I don't know if we need to get that specific but kind of the gist that we want that or better. Aanenson: Exactly. Kind: Good deal. I just need a note here. Just a minute, I've got more questions. On page 12 of the staff report, we mentioned Outlot F and I just want to make sure I heard you correctly when you were going over this earlier that all the outlots and the treed areas and things will be part of Phase I. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Aanenson: As far as dedication with the conservation easement so there's no slippage factor, yes. Those will be required with the final plat. It may be phased. The first one that comes through we record it as dedication of a conservation easement. Kind: Good. And then the only other questions I have were related to things that were brought up in the public hearing last time around and that you did not include in your memo and I was hoping that you could speak to them. The first one being, what's your point of view about the western gateway? Aanenson: I did meet with Peter Olin. You may not be able to see this bdt they're in, the Arboretum's in the process of doing a large upgrade. They've got some significant money to do a new interpretative center and then a big crystal greenhouse. And I wanted him to review this project and then also he wanted to share with me what they're looking at as far as their plan. And as far as the gateway treatment, if you can see what they're looking at. This would be Highway 5. This is the two corners that they own. They talked about possibly doing some sort of fountain. We talked about that too as far as the, if you remember when this first came in everybody was spending a lot of time designing what that intersection could be and we were kind of losing track of the design of the rest of the project. I'm confident that the developer will be willing to do the kind of treatment we'd like there. We talked, I know you have talked about water and we got into the discussion of when Bill Morrish looked at this. We specified different types of trees at intersections. Maples, oaks, kind of signature intersections instead of trying to make something artificial. Make it more natural and if you wanted to put a condition in to that effect, I'm confident they'd come back with a landscaping plan that would reflect what the Arboretum's doing and kind of compliment that. But the actual entrance to the city is not at this point. It's further south on 82nd and then actually further west on Highway 5 but ! think if we want to try to mirror what they're doing on those two intersections. This again is kind of in their plans as they go through their upgrading of their project so I'm confident if you want to put something in that they'd be willing to do that as part of their landscaping. It does drop off which is what we talked about when we talked about the water component. If you look at the topography in this corner here. This wetland is dropping off pretty quickly. This is dropping off pretty quickly. This is 5 and 41. These are the two other intersections from the Arboretum. This is dropping off pretty quickly. So we talk about height and what we can do. But if you want to leave that in. If they want to come back with something to show you to work through the process, I think that'd be appropriate. But we were getting so hung up on that. Kind: And then one of the other things that was brought up at the public hearing was taxes. Could you speak to that relative to multi family? Aanenson: Well I think I'd still stand by my original, what we put in the original concept as far as tax capacity. Looking at the commercial versus residential and as far as if this was low density residential, some industrial... Kind: As far as the tax benefit for the city are you talking about it being a wash? Aanenson: Well yeah. As far as yeah. As far as what you would get as far as taxes generated. Would there be more if it's all single family? No. Kind: And how about putting stress on the city services, that sort of thing as far as tax burden goes? Aanenson: It's hard to gauge exactly. You know if somebody was to come in with low density. Until somebody comes in with a project but if they were to maximize it, it'd probably be equal number of school aged children based on you have a higher ratio of single family per household. Where this has Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 more product, you have less children. The other would have less product but more children so they'd probably pretty much equal out. Kind: Good. And then the final thing that was I think one of the more fun questions brought up by the public hearing was, what about the turkeys? Aanenson: Well that's the purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay district. That was one of the main criteria that we put in place. Not only the water movement but the study also contemplated the creature movement and that was the reason for the preservation of the corridor to allow for the deer movement and the migrations and all the other little creatures. Was to provide that opportunity. That's why we felt from the very beginning so strongly about preserving that property to provide that habitat area and as they move through this larger wetland.., moving down, going underneath Highway 5. Continuing along down the con'idor to get to the Minnesota River. Kind: That's all I have for now. Burton: Questions? Conrad: Yeah one. Matt, tell me what Grade C and D really means in terms of traffic. Saam: Well I thought you might ask that so I pulled out my traffic manual and give me just a moment. As I said, level of services range from A to F. They do include E. Not to be confused with the education grade scales. I'll just read from, right from here. Level C, as I said is in the middle. Stable operation. Longer cues at signals result in average travel speeds of about 50% of free flow speed. Motorist will experience appreciable tension. D. Approaching unstable flow. Average travel speeds down to 40% of free flow speed. Delays at intersection may become extension. There are two other levels below D and those are both unstable flow. Longer delay times. If there is an accident, the intersections will be shut down. So as I said, these are mid-grade levels of service. They're not the best. Sure we'd like that A-B everywhere in town but when you're that close to Highway 41, Highway 5, some overflow traffic is going to spill over to the adjoining intersections. Conrad: So explain it to me on West 78th Street as it intersects to 41. What, is that a C or D or do we know what that is? Saam: Yeah I do. Let me just pull out the EAW. The EAW took a look at three different scenarios. The existing one in 2000. For Highway 41 and 78th Street, of course it's not applicable. It isn't built yet. They took a look at 5 years out, 2005 with no build. So in other words this project not going. That would be a level, they've estimated it would be a level of service of C. At 2005 if this project goes they estimate it will go down one level to D. That's the only change in the three intersections. Highway 5 and 41 and Highway 5 and Century Boulevard both will not change. They're not dependent on this project. Conrad: So what do you expect with a level D service at that intersection? What literally could we expect during rush hour? Saam: Sure. During rush hour, motorists who are backed up from 5, from the intersection of 5 and 41 may be waiting to go east or west on 5. They may back up and cause a longer delay for those motorists coming from West 78th who would be turning south on 41. I don't think there'd be much delay of any 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 kind for those motorists turning right or going north on 41. I don't see that as being an issue so it would only be those going south in my estimation. Conrad: So when you start at a level D, where do you go from there? Saam: You go to a traffic signal is what. Conrad: That is the next level? Saam: Yeah. And as I said, if that intersection would become a four way, then that's something we would definitely want to look at but right now, neither us or MnDot who are putting together plans for West 78th Street, have programmed a signal at that intersection. Conrad: Thanks. Burton: Other questions? Alison? No? Sacchet: I have one more question. It specifies that we need to make the totlots be accommodating for 40 children. Where does that come from? Aanenson: That was the park and rec commission's recommendation. Sacchet: Do you know what their rationale is or what they're thinking behind it is? Aanenson: I couldn't speak to that. Sacchet: And the three totlots and 40 kids, that 120 kids. That's quite a lot. Okay. Burton: I guess that was a question I had also. Maybe I'm just missing it but where is it specified what a totlot is actually going to be? Or do we know? Aanenson: The developer may be able to speak to that as far as what he represented to the park commission. The components. I believe in the site plan they've identified some of the components. A basketball court. Open play field area. That sort of thing. Burton: Yeah I guess, just from the drawings, the site plan. Okay. Any other questions for staff'?. Well this is not a public hearing but I think what we'll do is allow the developer a short period of time. Maybe up to 5-10 minutes to discuss, if the developer would like to and then we'll open up some time for the public also to make comments and, but try to limit it so we're not all here all night long because as I said, this is not actually technically a public hearing so I'll let the developer come forward if you would. If you want to make comments and take a few questions perhaps. Could you state your name and address please? Dennis Griswold: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Dennis Griswold, the Director of Land for Pulte Home. There were a lot of questions and comments so I won't remember all them but I would like to just say that I appreciate the interaction that we have had with staff and the commission and the parks commission through this process. Sometimes it's a long, difficult process. Sometimes it's a real rewarding process and I think this is very rewarding in this particular case. The comments that we had made in terms of site plan revisions that staffhad made I think were very thorough. There were just a 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 couple minor comments that I wanted to elaborate on and then think there were several questions that you had brought up that you may want to restate. The comment, the various site plan changes. The one change that wasn't hit was that we did change the phasing line in this area and in this area. Maybe I can give you sort of a reduced plan. It won't read as well as that but it should show it I should think. The idea is to, if that can zoom in. There we go. The idea was to get the phasing adjusted so that the recreation facilities will all be in Phase I. There was a question, the timing of those so that would coincide with Phase I. The other point is that within the village home area and the coach home area we did add considerable guest parking so we are meeting the code requirement for off street guest parking. There would be of course on street parking on the public street in additiofi to that. The definition of a totlot. Right now it's defined as a 50 foot square on the plan and I guess further definition is what we would want to do is work with staff when we get to the point of actually picking out equipment and exact details for those. We are in agreement that the south portion of the site is going to be a younger aged group. I believe 3 to 5 is the range and then the older kids would be north of 78th Street. So we are willing to work very closely with staff in that regard. The comment about, and the request that park and rec made in dealing with the access into the public green space through here, which caused the 4 units to be relocated in this, those 2 areas. It was felt, as I understand, and I'm not in agreement with it but I went along with the request. It was felt that the 70 feet approximate width of the open space between buildings, which is over the xvidth of a normal street right-of-way, was not adequate for the paths to connect into the green space so we widened those to over 100 feet in both locations and relocated the units down by the treed area. So that was in response to Park and Rec. I would like to clarify one point relative to our position on the northerly path and what is actually the easement and what is outlot. Our preference and our proposal is to provide the 20 foot path easement that would roughly align with the sewer easement but would be centered on the pathway. That would not necessarily include all the land from the path to the wetland. It would include the path and a few feet on both sides of it. Our position is that we're more than happy to have the public trail through the property but beyond that function we would like to have that be association land that would be maintained by the association and would not be for full public use beyond that 20 foot area. That also includes the wooded slope that extends up from the wetland up to this area. Again that is an area that we would like to maintain as a very nice natural buffer. Part of the overlay district. We don't feel that the public needs to have full access to that and so we'd like it maintained as part of the association space and remain natural under the conservation easement. Our proposal is also that the wetlands would be under public easement so that if there is need for maintenance or whatever in that area, that would be possible. With that, if there are other specifics. I know I'm, there were a lot of questions asked. I'd be happy to respond to those questions. Also Mark Guenther, our construction manager is here if you would like to see the respective detail of the revised village plan. We do have that in perspective. Burton: Any questions for the applicant? Alison. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question. You said that the wetland would be under public easement. Could you explain that to me. Where exactly you mean. Do you mean by the sewer lines or what do you? Dennis Griswold: Essentially the delineated wetlands on site which would be from the delineation line out to the north which I guess may be on this one you can see better. The kind of blue line area is roughly where the delineation line is. Blackowiak: So explain to me then, so the trail itself. There would be a 20 foot easement over the trail. So assuming an 8 foot trail. You can go 6 feet on each side of the trail and that's technically where the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 trail easement is. Then there would be an area between the trail easement and the delineation of the wetland, is that correct? Dennis Griswold: Yes. That's association land. Blackowiak: So that's association. So why would the city want to take responsibility for the wetland if we can't technically get there? Aanenson: Well there is a buffer there. Let me just add a little bit more tb try to clarify this issue. Meeting today with the engineer on this site, the trail easement's going to be 20 feet. In order to preserve the trees and Jill and Lori, the Forester and Water Resource Specialist have looked at this and what's going to happen is the trail has to be upland. You can't put the trail in a wetland, or you do a wetland alteration permit. We tried to get the sewer into the wetland but when they do the sewer project they compact and we put the easement over it with the manhole so they can get in and do their maintenance. Under this project, just to be clear, the trail is represented in an upland area to meet the 20 foot trail easement but in reviewing it, this trail is probably going to move. This is the representation of the public...because there's going to be areas where actually we're going to have a double easement. Where we're trying to save trees that we're going to bump out. The manholes will be in the upland area but the sewer will be right through the wetland in order to preserve some trees. We're working on that right now so I don't want anybody to get hung up at this point that that's the exactly representation of the trail but a condition is that there will be a public trail and half of the 20 foot easement. His concern is that upland area, what happens and I think there's some concern with the petting farm. I haven't spoken to you about this but I'm anticipating that this may be your question. People walking through that to get up to the petting farm or somebody up in the areas. If it's not under, if it's a public ownership. The wetlands are always dedicated as far as, as a general rule, on the other side they're not but I believe the city has a maintenance anyways to go in there but, that. I just want to make sure that that's not the exact, made up of the exact location of the trail. Blackowiak: Well I was just worried about having the public expense °fmaintaining wetlands if you technically can't get to them. Aanenson: The buffer is their responsibility. He has to maintain that wetland buffer and it's still their responsibility, concern of the homeowners association. Blackowiak: What kind of maintenance then would potentially be in the wetlands itselff? Because that's what he was talking about. This wetlands would be in the public easement in case of maintenance. What would. Aanenson: That's standard that the city does though. If it's filled with silt, whatever. You have a heavy runoff, sediment, then we go in there periodically. Blackowiak: So it's something, it's not that the city's being asked to incur any additional expenses? Aanenson: No, it's a standard. Right. You want the control if there's an issue going down there. We don't have to contact 50 owners to get permission to clean out the silt problem. That's generally how they like to do it. Blackowiak: Great. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16,2001 Dennis Griswold: If I could expand on just one point. There's a differentiation between what I'm thinking of as a public access easement and what I'm thinking of as a public maintenance easement. We are used to, and very happy to grant essentially a blanket public maintenance easement over the association area so if a sewer line that happens to be coming up from the main up into the public right-of- way, or storm sewer pipe or you name it happens, the public needs to get there for the maintenance to deal with that but it's not the general public to just be strolling out in that yard and that's what I'm talking about. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: I have a few questions for the applicant too. You mentioned that you had the elevation changes in the village homes and I have a specific question there. On the ends of it, you have part of the gable filled with like a shingle type material. Which kind of, if you look at it from the right angle, looks like it xvould be slanted. Why wouldn't it, would it be much more expensive to actually angle it instead of just having the triangle filled? Dennis Griswold: It's a horizontal line. Sacchet: Right. Dennis Griswold: Mark Guenther could maybe address the specifics on that. Sacchet: Okay. Mark Guenther: I believe Kate has also handed you some additional smaller copies of this as well but yes. We added with the gables up on the roof here. You see the cedar shake detailing here and on the end of the building as you mentioned there's a trim board with the same cedar shake detailing there. It's still horizontal cedar shake look. It's all vinyl, cedar shake look. Sacchet: I really like the changes you made. My question is, whether it xvould be within reach, instead of having cedar shakes on that 2/3 or ¼ of the gable, to actually angle the roof instead. Dennis Griswold: Oh, a hip roof?. Sacchet: Yeah. Dennis Griswold: Do you want to address that Mark? Mark Guenther: We'd have to take a look at it but I believe that would be possible to add a hip roof onto that. Sacchet: So that's my first question. And that's probably more a question for Mr. Griswold. I mentioned that before about how these village homes on the southeast corner changed from a 4 unit to 6 unit and therefore encroach quite a bit more into the trees. To take those out and we would have to give you something in exchange like what ! could see potentially a reduction on the park and trail fees or something like that. Is that something worth considering? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Dennis Griswold: It could be accommodated by a cash rebate if you will. Or it could be accommodated by putting them back into the original position which would still leave the width of a right-of-way for the trail there. Sacchet: Now you said there were actually 4 units moved? Dennis Griswold: 2 and 2 so there were a total of 4. If you look at, the 2 were here and here. This is where they have relocated to. Sacchet: Okay. Dennis Griswold: And they came off of this building and this building. Sacchet: Okay. Got it. Then another question I have for you is, there has been some discussion off and on about moving the north cul-de-sac a little further away from the wetland. Do you have any comment to make about that? Dennis Griswold: You're talking about this area here? Sacchet: Right, exactly. Dennis Griswold: What I'm trying to do is balance off the cul-de-sac at that point and still having the units within the setback area there. Sacchet: And you do apparently still have an issue with that building 17 1 believe. Dennis Griswold: There might be a comer. I think we're doing some setback averaging in some areas to accommodate the overall. Sacchet: So you're saying that you don't see an easy way that that cul-de-sac could be moved a little bit away from the wetland border? Dennis Griswold: One way we could do it is leave the building 17 and 18 where they're at and reduce the front yard setback on those 2 buildings by moving the cul-de-sac 10 feet over. You would still have the two driveways that go directly onto the street would still have more than adequate parking. So I don't think, and it is at the end of a cul-de-sac. I don't think it would be noticeable at all there. Sacchet: So it could be done that way. Dennis Griswold: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. In terms of putting conservation easements over E, F, the trees on the north side of McAllister property, the south side and potentially some of those specific trees that we expressed interest in, do you have an issue with that? Dennis Griswold: Not a conservation easement, no. Sacchet: Yeah, I'm not talking dedication. I'm talking conservation easement. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Dennis Griswold: Correct. And we're not talking public access to it. Sacchet: No. Just preservation. Protection. Dennis Griswold: Correct. No, I have no problem with that. Sacchet: And you're fine with the level of park and trail dedication fees that are in the context of how the plat is right now? Dennis Griswold: The way I understand them to be, that we would be paying full fees and being rebated the value of the trail that would be put in along the wetland. And I'm okay with that. I understand the PUD concept where there is a little give and take if you will and I would, I have pointed out several times that that is a great public benefit in this particular case. Sacchet: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? Deb. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. You heard our discussion about building materials. Do you have any issues with shingle quality or using shakes on any of the homes? What else did we talk about? Or and brick percentage. Any problems with any of that discussion? Mark Guenther: Forgive me, I'm not up to speed on the brick percentage overall but from what we've heard on what was specified on the shingle quality is not an issue. What you've seen in the rendering and what you've seen in the drawings is what was submitted for the products that we're putting on and the amount that we're putting on. So we're using a vinyl shake look. In these areas we're using a lap siding here. A vinyl lap siding here and then brick in this area on the village homes. And then the other products we have mentioned was brick and stone as well. Kind: I think the discussion was to calculate xvhat the percentage of the brick that was shown on the elevations and just kind of put a number to that so that we're all in agreement. Dennis Griswold: We're happy to do that. It does vary from product to product and we didn't know that exact percentage right now but we can figure that. Kind: And then the elevation that you presented for the back of the village homes that was presented last time we met. What did that look like? We did not actually have a copy of that in our. Mark Guenther: The last time the changes that we made to the elevations since then obviously were the end ends, they're visible. Then we added the gables. Kind: You don't happen to have the drawing of what it looked like before so I could see the before and after. Mark Guenther: The drawing before. That I don't have. But the drawing before, ifI can just explain on the back side. On the twvo levels what we've added were the gables up on the roof to break up the roof and the shakes. The vinyl shakes... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Kind: And then the gable over the door on the side, which I like. And just for the record, I disagree with Uli about hipped roofs. I hate them. So for what it's worth. You can't please us all. Mark Guenther: ... here was more consistency because there is no other hip in this... Kind: Right. I'm with you on that. I agree. No offense Uli. Sacchet: It's alright. Kind: I'm very pleased with the improvements to the village home. I think it looks much better than what we originally looked at. Anything else for the applicant? I guess not. Burton: Questions? Okay. Alright, thanks. And we'll open it up for some public comments and please limit the comments and keep things moving so we can be done at a reasonable time here. But if anyone would like to approach, just come up to the microphone, state your name and address and provide us xvith your comments. Anyone? Sue are you making your way? Susan McAllister: Yes, I'm making my way. Burton: Can you state your name and address too. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard and I'm Pulte's neighbor officially I guess if they get permission so. I want to just give you a really quick handout for, well that outlines some of the important features of this PUD because it sits on the Bluff Creek watershed so I'll just do that real quick. And do I have to bring my little egg timer? Am I being timed or do I have to go quickly or? Burton: Keep going. Susan McAllister: Okay. Here's a matrix that I did and then I will be talking about... Okay. I've taken a lot of photographs. Actually they're panoramic views of the different areas that are being saved in the, with this PUD. Proposed being saved. And I'm just going to go through some of the bullets. In December, 1998 Chanhassen passed the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan and incorporated into our city's ordinance as the Bluff Creek overlay district. I was part of that. You know defining where the primary zone was. I was a landowner and I'm very excited about it and I'm wanting... Bluff Creek is part of a regional ecosystem and essential link to recreational parkways and wildlife preserves from Lake Minnetonka, White Bear Lake to valleys of St. Croix, Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. As a wild sanctuary the Bluff Creek provides a vital wildlife habitat and refuge from surrounding urbanization. Bluff Creek is a model. It's goal can meet the needs of both natural systems and people through integration of Chanhassen's more populated areas while maintaining Bluff Creek's natural conditions. Future generations will be able to enjoy and appreciate the trees, wildlife and nature in the Bluff Creek. To preserve the Bluff Creek area the city's goal is to acquire lands adjacent to the stream as opportunities arise and funding permits. Development in Bluff Creek needs to be ecologically designed by being built around natural features allowing for continuous greenway along the creeks of Minnesota River to Lake Minnewashta. To be effective wildlife corridors and greenways need to be connected to larger reserves such as farmland and woodlands. Open space needs to be preserved for ecological protection through development options such as mixed or cluster development such as this, easements and alternative zoning. This is taken from the President's, this statement is taken from the President's Commission on American Outdoors 1987. "We have a vision for allowing every American 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 easy access to the natural world. Greenways. Greenways are fingers of green that reach out from, around and through communities all across America created by local action. They will connect parks and forests and scenic countrysides, public and private, in recreation corridors for hiking, jogging, wildlife movement, horse and bicycle riding." So I'm listing now the benefits to the city of the Arboretum PUD are as follows. Number 1. This preserves a primary zone in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Number 2. It saves the mature trees north of Highway 5 and west of Highway 41. Number 3. More efficient and effective use of land which is density transfer. Number 4. Design compatible with surrounding land uses to future residential and church uses planned near it. Number 5. Development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Number 6. Park and open space preserved, 44 plus hcres of open space including 26 acre wetland plus full park and trail fees and totlot equipment totaling $595,200. Number 7. 41% will be affordable housing. Number 8. Energy conservation through the use of efficient building designs and clustering of buildings. My last point is, is planning commissioners it is up to you to continue to uphold the goals of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. And I just want to show you real quick the photographs. This right here is, I'm looking south around Camp Tanadoona Drive actually looking south. To the north wooded area on the left, and this is Bud Olson's property right here but this tree line goes way out there. On the left and the 11 acres that we're talking about on the right, and this is where that mitigated wetland area will be behind these trees. Okay, then I'm standing in my driveway taking a photograph of the length of this 11 acres which is really this part right here as it's coming up 41 so. That's very beautiful trees. This next is the new wetland area west of Highway 41 which is actually right in front of here. This is it in the winter time. I just happened to have a photograph of the summer. I was standing in the field looking to the east to Highway 41, sort of by the south side of, you know south of corner of 5 and 41. Looking to the east and I took my panoramic camera and pieced these pictures together but I took it from the way north side, which is really these trees are connected to my property but the trees behind here are you know, would be their trees. And here's my farm house right here. You can't see it fi'om there but it just continues on. This is a fence row of trees which means it's not very wide and was put there probably from the agricultural purposes. You know to what the different fields want so it just keeps continuing down to the stand of trees that's going to be partially removed and then here's Highway 5. Next we have the, I'm kind of like by Bud Olson's property looking to the south. Actually I'm probably in the middle of this wetland and that's not easy to do I can tell you. I've got to take a nap...anj~-way. It's comfortable to roll around in long grass. We'll keep going. Anyway, this is the whole northern part of the trees on the wetland. And okay, now I'm in Longacres trail area down here and here's I believe, Dennis is this 2 ½ acres that's going to be preserved? Dennis Griswold: 2 ½ to 3. Susan McAllister: 2 ½ to 3 acres, okay. So this is looking across from Longacres trail to that, what outlot is that? Is that an outlot? Aanenson: E. Susan McAllister: Okay. And then lastly I'm on Highway 5 looking at the other side of the stand of trees going from the east going west and that's that. So I just... Anyway I just wanted to go through really quickly some of the points that I happened to come by with the comprehensive plan. Page number 25 talks about one of the most difficult impediments to providing one facet of life cycle housing and/or affordable housing is land cost. Developers must be brought in as partners in providing life cycle housing. Finally land development costs must be brought down. To do this the review process must be streamlined. Local, regional and state fees must be reduced and development must utilize existing infrastructure investments more efficiently. In addition the city will provide density bonuses in order to promote the provision of affordable housing opportunities that may otherwise not occur. Number 28, I 18 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 outlined something per city ordinance. See here's some of the actions the city should undertake to pursue life cycle affordable housing. One of them happens to be pursue the upper limits of zoning on new proposals where there is a density range. On page 30. In order to encourage the development of affordable housing the City of Chanhassen may increase the permitted net density of a project by 25%. The bonus units must meet affordable housing criteria as defined by the City. And the City is working on affordable housing strategy on several fronts. We are working to encourage development of the properties that are currently zoned for medium or high density to provide a variety of housing opportunities. Burton: Sue, can you wrap it up. Susan McAllister: I'm wrapping it up. Okay. Okay, I'll skip that one. I did give you a matrix that shows the different comparisons for affordable housing with PUD's. The PUD's with affordable housing and the percentages on it and it shows the comparisons in it's, and it's really, you know there's nothing really to co~npare it to because actually when you look at Pulte, what they're doing for us. I'm just trying to get you to understand how much they're giving us and they're still being asked to pay full park and trail fees. The comprehensive plan says they were supposed to give possibly a reduction and I just want you to know how important that is. I just also wanted to mention that, well I just wanted to ask Kate. You recommended approval of this Kate so you feel this development, I presume, fulfills the vision for the City at this comer of Highway 5 and 41. Is that what we're getting at here? Aanenson: We're recommending approval with the conditions, correct. Susan McAllister: Okay. My last little supplement there happens to be trying to work this, you know motion out and I did give it to you and I know you had it last time but I'm just goingto for the record say this very quickly. I appeared before you on December 5th of this year and presented my motion. Everybody nodded their heads. Nobody spoke against it but there was no motion made to include this condition because .everything was tabled that evening. Here I am again and I would like to have you discuss it and include it in your final motion. As an adjacent landowner I am supportive of the proposed PUD as long as the resolution approving it includes this one additional condition. Also I want you to know that Mr. Griswold and I have discussed it and he is in support of it. And you know if you want him to speak to that you can but I just didn't know if you had any more questions of me because I'm done. Is that it? Thank you. Burton: Thank you. If anybody else would like to address us, please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Leah Hawke: Leah Hawke, 7444 Moccasin Trail. I'm going to be real brief. I don't have pictures. I don't have handouts. Mine are more questions that I'm not sure have been answered here this evening, but I was late so help me out. Last time I raised the issue of the 30% affordable in new developments. Has that been resolved? Sacchet: I would think so. Leah Hawke: What was the result? Because it's my understanding that there's going to be a meeting clarifying that the intent of the council to limit 30% affordable in new development. Sacchet: Let me regurgitate what my understanding is and then Kate can comment whether this is correct, if that's alright with you Mr. Chair. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Burton: That's fine. Sacchet: Alright, it's my understanding is that the City has a goal of 30% affordable and it's obvious that you can't do that per project. I mean you have one family house development going in, there's nothing going to be affordable. So therefore it's necessary that in developments that include more life cycle type housing, that there's a higher percentage of affordable in there because in comparison to other cities we are actually lacking behind. We have about a 25% affordable rate at this point in the city versus the goal of 30. And I believe that, for me puts it into a workable context. Leah Hawke: Okay. So the council says 30% but we can't achieve that so, I mean when we go to the council then, they're not going to kick it back to you and say wait a second, we said 30%? Sacchet: It's not a ceiling, the way I understand it. Leah Hawke: So Kate, just to clarify. It's not 30%. That's not what the council, the intent of the council is at this time. Aanenson: i can only speak for the question that was asked to me and the question that was asked to me, and I clearly put it in my report on page 6, the third paragraph. I was asked whether or not we had a goal of 30%. I was asked if it was for all new development. My answer is yes. To get it in all developments. It is not, ~ve cannot, we have a project coming forward tonight that does not have 30%. If it's the city council's goal to put it in every project, I'd be happy to try and achieve that. I've made it clear since 1995, actually it was read in something that Mrs. McAllisterjust put. The only way to achieve that is in a different type of product. We do not have a single family detached affordable housing. The only way to achieve it is through different types of housing projects. Every project that we've done to date that's been affordable has exceeded 30%. If the question was to try to get every project 30%, then we have to start looking at that. That's not what I understood the question to do and if the council changes that or what's further clarity then I need better direction on that. - Leah Hawke: Okay. That's fine. So there is no meeting that you're aware of Kate where that issue's going to be clarified? Aanenson: The Mayor may have on it on the agenda. I haven't been apprised of that, no. Leah Hawke: Well I just want to raise that I think that issue is still outstanding with the council and the council has indicated a 30% maximum affordable housing in new developments so I just don't want to be back here because it got kicked back to the commission again. Sacchet: I mean I can only speak for myself, ifI may make a comment but I think it'd be highly impractical to require 30% affordable in every development. Actually I would take that a good step further. I think it's impossible. Leah Hawke: Did anybody follow up with the council to ask that question? Anybody on the commission given that I raised it? Sacchet: No. Leah Hawke: Because I did and I'm still confused but we'll let it rest. 20 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I think it's a math thing. I mean you can't reach a city wide goal of 30% if we're at 25% right now. You cannot reach a city wide goal of 30% unless some exceed 30%. It's simple math so it's going to have to happen and if this is one place where we can make some up, then so be it. Leah Hawke: And I'~n not trying to be disrespectful to the commission. However I did sit on the meeting on the Livable Communities Act when it was passed by this, by the former council and I heard 30%. I spoke to this commission the last time I was here saying I'm a homeowner in Longacres. I heard 30%. Explain to me why it's not 30%. I've also followed up on that and it's my understanding that if this commission needs clarification, they'll get it but it's 30%. And so you know I don't know where I go with my comment. I'm just telling you for the record that's what I'm hearing. Audience: 30% max correct, is what you're saying? Leah Hawke: In new development. So I'll leave that as a comment. The second comment I had is, at the parks and rec commission it was my understanding that this property, they only approved it contingent on it not being homeowners property. Is that correct? So does that mean parks and rec did not approve this or they did approve it? Aanenson: Their recommendation is being forwarded to the City Council. The Planning Commission wanted to see what that was. The Planning Commission is going to make their own recommendation and ultimately the City Council will decide whether or not there's concurrence on that. Whether they want it modified, add to it but ultimately it's a recommendation only and the council will ultimately make the decision. Leah Hawke: Okay. And then as far as the comprehensive plan and the parks due this development. Again it's my understanding that there are requirements that there be a park within halfa mile of this development and there isn't one. We're also not putting a whole lot of recreational area in here and I know that our goal is to put more affordable housing in the city. However I do think, and I'll say it again that they are due the same park and recreational areas as any other development. And I'm confused a little bit with density transfer. Help me understand this. They're moving the density from this area up here, is that correct down to here? Aanenson: No. Leah Hawke: No. From here to where? Aanenson: North of... Leah Hawke: Now can they then count that Outlot E as recreational area? Isn't that part of the number? They're moving the density, isn't that just a wash? So then the amount of recreational area that goes in there is still the required amount. Aanenson: The park and recreation commission looked at this project to decide what they wanted. They chose to take park and trail fees and compensate for the construction of the trail. They also in reviewing it, it's my understanding to strike a balance with the PUD to say what, under a PUD should be some sort of play area for the residents in that unit. If they wanted a large community park, they can't get full park and trail fees in the park so that was their decision is my understanding. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Leah Hawke: So how does that work out for the City? It is a benefit to us to take that trail fee? I mean has anybody looked at the amount then that Pulte's paying per acre not to put a park in there? Because it seems to me that it's more beneficial for a developer to give that fee versus putting the park in there. Has that math been done? Are we getting a good deal here? Aanenson: That's something that the Park and Recreation Commission looks at. That's their decision whether they want to take a park there or not but certainly there's value in building the home. That's the other cost. It's not just a land cost and the trade off. There's also value in constructing a home and selling it so. Leah Hawke: So you're encouraging me to ask that question back to the parks and rec? This is not the, this is not something that this commission should consider? Sacchet: May I make a comment Mr. Chair? It's my understanding from some of the data that we actually looked at for this meeting that Pulte is relatively hard hit. Much harder than any other somewhat comparable development has happened in recent history in this city in that they are requested to pay full park and rec fee, and at the same time we have trails. We have open space. We have totlots. We have all this recreation stuff. So I would actually lean the other way from where you're going with this. I actually wonder whether it's fair to them to hit them xvith all that. And that's why I specifically asked the applicant before whether this was, whether he was okay with paying this full fee and have all this other stuff and he affirmed that so it seems like they're really extremely cooperative. Leah Hawke: Okay. So there would be somewhere for me to go to get the cost analysis of who's getting what out of this deal, as far as the parks and rec portion of this goes. Who has the financials behind putting in the park or keeping the fees? I mean I think that's my only question. Where do I get a hold of that? Aanenson: I xvould assume Park and Recreation went through that exercise. Leah Haw'ke: So they would have that? They would have that? That's been done? Aanenson: ! can't answer that question. I'm not sure how they made the decision. I don't supervise the Park and Recreation Commission. Their recommendation goes to the council and ultimately they're going to be the ones to say whether they concur or not. Leah Hawke: Okay. Alrighty. I think that will be it for now. Thanks. Burton: Anybody else like to address the commission? If nobody else would like to then we're going to move onto our comments and our motion. This is going once. Okay. Alright commissioners, it's to us so why don't we have our discussion and then move along here. Anybody want to share their comments? Uli, do you want to go first? Sacchet: Yeah. I'll start with my comments. As I mentioned before I do believe we owe Pulte a decision here or recommendation. I do feel that this is a very good project in terms of the city overall and I would like to fine tune some of the conditions but basically move ahead and give, pass that onto the council. The things I'd like to fine tune are the following. Do we want to do them one at a time or should I go through all, because we really have a whole collection of recommendations in front of us? Burton: I'm not opposed to taking then one at a time if you guys aren't. 22 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Kind: The suggestion I would make is to maybe get all of our comments and then take, revise the conditions when we make the motions. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of my comments to the motion. I do believe that we should include something about the McAllister property with that 300 foot setback. And I'm not quite sure where the balance point of that is because as of right now we have the 300 foot setback requirement. If we take that literally we would have to disallow Outlot C, Unit 24. That duplex that is next to, but I don't want to go to that extent. If since Ms. McAllister said that the applicant was in agreement With that condition that she submitted last time, I would recommend that we include that in our conclusion. I'm happy to hear that the applicant is willing to include in a conservation easement all the wetlands and tree stands so I'd like to make sure we're very clear what those stands are. I would like to address at least those two village homes that were moved there in the southeast corner. I don't like them there. I'd rather would direct staff to negotiate a rebate on the park and trail fee. That would seem to be appropriate to me. And then I do have some condition I'd like to add to the recommendation for approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. I believe there's some things that are not accurate in there. Currently it says in the findings, that is in the Findings of Fact that only few if any trees get impacted. That's not true. The current proposal calls for removal of approximately half of the significant trees and I would consider that a significant environmental impact. And then with the recommendation about the Bluff Creek overlay. I'd like to spell out that really no construction is going to take place in the primary zone. That's the main comments I have. Burton: Okay, thank you. Anybody else want to comment? LuAnn. Sidney: I do think this is a good use for this piece of property. This land and we certainly need affordable housing in Chanhassen. I think it's a good development for that purpose. And for a PUD this is really the perfect location. I know Ladd had said that before. I'm pleased with the buffer to the north. Not too many PUD's have that opportunity to have such a wide buffer inbetween land uses. I guess the one concern I had, and certainly we've addressed the McAllister property at length before and it sounds like we're going to have maybe an ordinance revision or amendment to the ordinance coming up to address the 300 foot setback issue and I think that's where we'll be talking about that. So I'm wondering whether a condition is necessary about that. But the one thing that I would like to comment about is the village homes. I think Pulte has made significant improvements in the appearance. I am still concerned, as ! said when the concept plan came before us that the buildings will look massive. I do think they will be very tall and have the appearance more, I want to say like an apartment building and I would really like to see a lower profile product I guess would be more appealing to me but I understand the need for the affordability of the village homes and probably the location for those. So I guess just that comment. I do think you know if that could be soften in some way with buffering or landscaping, I'd really like that so, that's it. Burton: Thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I agree with LuAnn's comments about the location of this PUD. I think it is a good location. That high end residential would not be appropriate on such a prominent, high traffic intersection of Highway 5 and 41 and the buffer to the neighbors is good. I agree with LuAnn on that. I have the same concerns about the village homes as far as the height goes but I'm very happy with the revisions that were made to the design. The architectural design. I'm pleased with how that's looking and of course would like to add some specifics with the design standards regarding quality of material that we discussed with staff. The concern about the western gateway. I agree with Kate about the 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Arboretum being the true gateway to Chanhassen on the western side and that with the impressive upgrades that they're planning on doing in the coming years, I think that will be our first positive impression of the city of Chanhassen, not this Pulte development. So I'm confident that our western gateway is covered by the Arboretum's plan. Last time this was before us I had the quandary between have the expectations been changed for the neighborhood versus what are the advantages of saving the trees by clustering the homes and we didn't really hear from any of the neighbors talking about that today. Whether it was worth it to save the trees or not. I kind of hoped somebody would come up and say that it was worth it in addition to Sue who did come up and say that so I appreciate that. And I tend to agree with Sue. That the trees are worth saving and that we will not end up with any more units than would otherwise be there if it was a standard subdivision and that it's worth it to cluster the homes together to save the trees in the primary zone. And so the notion of changing the rules on the neighbors I think really, this project isn't doing that because if the neighbors really did check with the city code book they would know that twin homes were allowed in Iow density. And a reasonable assumption would be made that that would be happening there. That there would be twin homes because on the south side of West 78th Street it is zoned for town homes and that would be a normal transition would be townhomes, then twin homes and then regular single family residential. So I think as far as expectations, that would be a reasonable thing to assume and that this plan does a nice job of keeping the twin homes along the perimeter of the wetland so the view for the neighboring Longacres development really is no different than it would be if it was regular, standard subdivision. The idea of a PUD is good planning and I like the idea of saving the trees. My favorite neighborhoods are PUD's. My neighborhood's a PUD. Longacres is a PUD. Some of the nicest areas in town are PUD's. And this clearly meets our PUD requirements and criteria. I'm not sure ifI want to read them all at this point. I think that staff, if anybody in the audience is interested in seeing what the PUD requirements are, it's clear there's 8 requirements criteria to measure whether it's a good PUD and you have to answer yes to every one of them that's in our code book. It's consistent with our comp plan. The parcel is guided for housing and the overall density is less than if it was developed as a standard subdivision and that is really the key question and it's listed on page 7 of the staff report. The issue for the city to resolve is if this plan makes good use of the PUD principles and my answer is yes. With the conditions, some changes to the conditions which we'll discuss if this goes to a motion. Burton: Comments? Ladd. Conrad: Just quick. I think the neighbors, the residents, the people that are here expect us to challenge staff and the applicant to make sure that the rules are followed. That's typically what we have to do. StaffI thought did a very good job of following up on the rules. Probably one of the better jobs. Making me feel comfortable that we're on target with the rules that we do have. So from my perspective of being around a few years, I think we are. Some issues were brought up that, how do we interpret the 30% affordable. I think that's really a community deal and should be followed up. I think we're interpreting that properly based on what I know. Parkland within a half mile. That's a good point. I think we should challenge the Park and Rec Committee. I don't want to send it back but I think I'd like to have them give the City Council a comment on that .... attached and negotiated it. That's an interesting point. We always wrestle with that. Unfortunately because we're not the Park and Rec Commission we don't always get to see how that happens and they don't report to us. They report to the City Council. So that's an interesting point to pursue. I think you should. The only thing I didn't see in the staff report was a tree preservation. We talked about it but we really didn't delineate it. Aanenson: That discussion was in the report in the cover memo. The significant areas that we would require as preservation on. These are the significant areas at a minimum that you're require a preservation over and again that would be initially right up front. It'd be part of the conservation act. I 24 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 put a sample into the ordinance. Again that would be under the homeowners association. The other goal is, we mentioned, I know Uli's walked the site. I know some of you have, I mean it's been over a year, walking it different times but there's some other significant trees on that property that we also want to work to preserve. 60 inch plus. We're aware of those. Some of those are also the city's project. That's why I was saying that the trail, we're looking at trying to move the trail. We're trying to minimize the tree loss so there's other trees, while they won't be in a specific conservation easement because we've had problems with that, we are going to work to preserve individual trees that are significant. And we've identified those. We've already talked to the developer about modifying some grading and overlay of depth of grading plan and to work to preserve as many as we can. Sacchet: If I may comment on that. What I did identified a most significant trees between 30 inch and 60 inch caliper. And we were locating where they are and we found that we can actually, and it is in the conditions, I think it's 5 out of the 8 or something like that, can actually reasonably be saved. Attempt to be saved and the applicant was affirmative when I asked whether we could also include them in the conservation easement. Conrad: Okay, thanks Uli. Bottom line, I think it's a good project. I think the developer came back with some better designs, or at least a better design that makes me feel comfortable. All my comments from last meeting were answered and resolved. I think we haven't done anything with the turkey population there but I think we should notify the DNR and see what they would suggest so I think in one of the motions we should actually do that. Aanenson: That was in the EA findings but I can make sure that's clarified as it goes to the council. Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to move that forward so, I like the density transfer. I really do like the project in general. The traffic is still an issue but I'm okay with that. Burton: Alison. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of comments. I can't speak for park and rec. I don't know why they haven't worried about a neighborhood park, because I agree with Ladd that we should probably have something in that area and I'm not sure what that is. I do disagree with Uli though. ! do not think the trail, park and trail fees are excessive. It's a big chunk of land and park and rec does have a formula I know and I'm assuming that they applied it consistently and properly and I'm not even going to, I don't even worry about that. They make their recommendations separately. We review them or read them periodically but how they got there is really their business. I agree that Bluff Creek, we should have no construction of primary zone. I think that's very important to emphasize that that is our intent and we'll achieve that through the conservation easement, etc but just make sure that that's understood. I do believe we have to address the McAllister property and put something in the conditions regarding this 300 foot separation and be proactive instead of reactive and make sure that that's included. And finally, I still have major concerns about West 78~ Street and Highway 41. I believe that we're going to need a signal there sooner than later and I'm pretty worried about that. But again, I'm just going to have to have confidence that that can be resolved positively. Overall, I do support the project. It's a little big but it does meet the intent of the PUD ordinance and I guess that's all I need to say right now. Burton: Okay, thanks. My comments are pretty similar. I'd like to thank the staff for it's hard work on this project. It's been a long project with a lot of modifications and I also think the applicant's done a nice job working with the staff and addressing the issues as they've come up. I guess I'm generally pleased with the project and it's appearance. I think it's a creative and sensitive way to attempt to 25 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 preserve the natural resources to balance neighbors concerns and to meet the city's goals with respect to housing. And it also allows development of this, it's been a historically troubled lot. I think this is the, different people have taken runs at doing things here and nothing's ever worked and it's been kind of tied up for a long time so it's nice to actually have something happen there. With respect to the McAllister property, I personally think that we can address her concerns by bringing up her conditions at the next meeting and modifying those, but in the interim I don't have a problem with adding the conditions that were suggested by I think her attorney drafted those and then presented to us at the last meeting but I think what we'll probably do, we'll take care of her concerns. I agree with Uli on perhaps trading some fees for a tree. Some preservation of trees. I would like to see the resources that we have preserved rather than I think take the money and try to do something else with it. I think that's an area I'd like to see explored and the council can decide what they want to do with that. I don't think that this property is the gateway to Chanhassen. I still think the corner should be nice and I think it will be nice but it isn't the gateway. I guess that's about it. I think that the project shows a lot of effort on a lot of people's parts and I would note that we did receive some correspondence from neighbors that maybe people in the audience don't know that we have. We have a letter from Mr. Robert, or excuse me, Bill Naegele in support of the project. We also received a petition from residents on Dogwood, is it Road? Yeah, Dogwood Road. Residents that were in favor of the project. And we also had a letter from Mr. Steve Berquist, former City Councilmember in favor of the project and I just wanted to note that. And with that we can move on to entertaining motions. Conrad: Mr. Chair, just some clarification. Do you instruct staff to negotiate on reduced park and trail fees for reduced home units? Let's say the developer can make a profit of $20,000 per home times 4. Is that something that you want staff to pursue? Burton: Yeah. Conrad: So you would reduce park and trail fees by that so it's worthwhile, okay. Burton: That's just my opinion. Conrad: If somebody makes the motion, ! think you've got to know what they're, and I'm making that number up. I don't know how we can make some motions tonight without talking about the McAllister properb,. Because once you put the plat in effect or the site plan you are saying, you can put a house here. Aanenson: Well I think what you could say is, unless that gets removed you can't put a house there. It's going to forward to the City Council and by the time they do final plat, you're 2 months out. But what my recommendation would be is that, unless the conditions on the interim use permit are modified, that those tTvo units would not be able to be placed there. Unless the conditions are modified. Blackowiak: Are you talking about 23 and 24? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, the 2 units in 24 or, I'm sorry. I just need to clarify that. Is there 2 units in 24, 1 and 2 and then there's Building 23, 1 and 2. Aanenson: Those are going to be within 300 feet of the barn. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Blackowiak: So which 2 units are we talking about? Aanenson: 24. Blackowiak: So it's Lots 1 and 2 and 24, okay. I didn't know if you, you said 2 buildings so I didn't know if you meant. Aanenson: I'm sorry, 2 units. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: IfI may add. I believe it also affects actually that manor home on the south side. That's only minimal impact but it's really that. Aanenson: From the barn? Sacchet: Yeah. I'm not sure, can anybody find that? Aanenson: 250, yeah it'd be the first 2 units. Sacchet: The first 2 units. Aanenson: It'd be Lots 4 and 5 in that Block. Sacchet: And it would not touch on 237 On the north? Aanenson: Those would be eliminated unless the other plan is modified. That would resolve that i}sue. Sacchet: I believe that if we include the proposed language that was brought to us last time that they'd be comfortable. So are we ready to make a motion? Burton: Yep. Sacchet: I would like to make a motion for the first piece here. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the resolution for a comprehensive plan use amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial and approve the ordinance for a planned unit development rezoning property from agricultural estate, A2 and rural residential, RR, to planned unit development residential PUD-R subject to the following conditions. 1. Contingent upon review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Compliance with the development standards stated January 16, 2001 and site plan dated October 23, 2000, and revised January 16, 2001. And I'd like to add a third condition on it which is basically language that's submitted by Ms. McAllister. Let's see if we can do this literally. This resolution shall not entitle the owner of any land adjacent to the new development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the development of the new planned unit development in accordance with it's approved conditions. And b, shall not entitle the owner of any land located in the new planned unit development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the construction, maintenance and use of any adjacent land of buildings and structures that now are or would be currently allowed by the zoning code as it now exists. The way I understand this third condition, it basically means that the McAllister property couldn't enforce the 300 foot setback on 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Pulte and Pulte, or whoever would be the residents of all the adjacent units could not enforce it on the petting farm and I think that would settle the issue. So that's my motion. Burton: Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it and offer a friendly amendment. I think it's Kate's condition that she would like added that it's contingent upon the approval of the other requests. A. The subdivision request. B. The site plan review. C. The Wetland Alteration Permit. D. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet. E. The Conditional Use Permit for subdivision in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Sacchet: That's great. Burton: Do you accept the amendment? Sacchet: Accept it. Burton: Any discussion on this? Conrad: Yeah. Kate, are you comfortable with Uli's? Aanenson: Yes. It accomplishes the same thing. That was drafted by her attorney. I understand what the condition is. I'm going to forward that to the council that they understand that. Meanwhile we're going to track the other process through. The concern is that there's a 300 foot separation and that's one way to, one mechanism to resolve it. And that was the other issue that we discussed here making sure that it's in the restrictive covenants. That they understand that there's a group home in the area and that there's also a petting farm. And xve'll make sure that's in the covenants. And we'll forward that onto the council. Conrad: And what motion, xve xvant those there. And what motion should somebody. Aanenson: The... That would actually be in the subdivision requirements. That's coming up. Sacchet: That's the next one. Conrad: Okay. Burton: Any other discussion on this one? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the resolution for a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial; and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property from Agricultural Estate, A2, and Rural Residential, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R, subject to the following conditions: 1. Contingent upon review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Compliance with the Development Standards (dated January 16, 2001) and site plan dated October 23, 2000, revised January 16, 2001. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 . This resolution shall not entitle the owner of any land adjacent to the new development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the development of the new planned unit development in accordance with it's approved conditions. And b, shall not entitle the owner of any land located in the new planned unit development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the construction, maintenance and use of any adjacent land of buildings and structures that now are or would be currently allowed by the zoning code as it now exists. 4. Contingent upon the following approvals: A. The subdivision request. B. The site plan review. C. The Wetland Alteration Permit. D. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet. E. The Conditional Use Permit for subdivision in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Who wants to make the next motion? Kind: Mr. Chair I move the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the subdivision of a 120.93 acres into 2 additions: 1st addition has 26 blocks including 199 units and Outlots A-F, and the 2nd addition has 24 blocks including 180 units and Outlots A-C, subject to the following conditions, 1 through how many do we have here. 29. With the following changes. See.if you can stay with me guys. Number 4, just as a typo error. Remove the words, staff recommends. Number 22 be reworded to say, a conservation easement shall be created to preserve Outlots E and F and the treed areas shown as preserved on the plans. The conservation easement shall be dedicated in Phase I. And then I would like to add a number 30. Before the final plat the restrictive covenants shall be approved by staff. Number 31. The outlot west of Highway 41 shall be consistently referred to as Phase I, Outlot F on all plans. I don't know if you recall from a couple of meetings ago it was sometimes called Outlot E. Sometimes F and I just want to make sure that that's the same on all the plans. Number 32. the applicant shall post a sign at the end of dead end streets that say, there's only one street but, that say this road may be extended in the future. Number 33. To insure clear communication the applicant shall have all homebuyers sign a disclosure statement that would be part of their restrictive covenants. The statement shall include information about Miss Rosie's Petting Farm, Gateway Group Home and the potential future road extension. Signed statements shall be submitted to the City. 34. Remove units that encroach in Highway 5 setback. And then you'll have to help me with the language on these maybe. Number 35. Staff should consult with DNR regarding the necessity to relocate turkeys. Number 36. Staff shall prepare a report regarding trees for fees options. I think that's everything. Sacchet: May I do a friendly? Kind: You can second it and then. Sacchet: Okay, second. Friendly amendments. In the motion itselfI like to be specific. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat dated October 23, 2000, revised January 16, 2001. Then I like in condition 22 that you propose to modify. Besides Outlots E and F and treed areas, I'd like to be more specific. I'd like to include the large wetland to the north and to the east, 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Basin 3 and 5. And I like to mention the trees, the stands. I'd like to say the significant stands of trees to the north of the McAllister property and on the south side of the development, west of the NURP pond. And I would also like to add, include those trees that are specifically mentioned to be preserved under the tree preservation list which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 5 out of the 8 large trees. Kind: The wetland part I think would be more appropriate in the wetland motion. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Then condition 27 needs to be edited. It should read, the buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the 'building official. The condition the way it's in there is garbled. Then instead of your 36 condition I would like to actually go a step further and say that the Phase I, Block 1, Lot 2 building shall be a 4 unit building. Basically be reduced from 6 back to the 4 and ask staff to look into how the applicant could be compensated through a rebate. I don't know whether I would need to include the park and rec people. I would like that up to staff but basically ask staff to work on an acceptable agreement through a rebate on the park and trail fee. Kind: That one I'm not sure ifI would accept. I would rather have staff research it before we decide whether the 4 units should be eliminated or not. What the cost would be involved. Aanenson: I guess what I was thinking is, give them the options of, what I heard the developer say is one option was let's put them back where they were. So I guess I'd give them a couple different scenarios of, based on what I've heard you say tonight. Conrad: Yeah, you don't have my vote on that. Sacchet: Alright, I pull back on that one. I ah'eady pulled back on the angled roof. ! would like to add, let's see do we need to add anything else. Burton: Excuse me, so far you've accepted the. Kind: Yes so far. So far I'm accepting. Burton: Go ahead Uli. Sacchet: Actually you added the other ones that were mentioned before. I think that's what I have for this motion. Burton: Any other discussion on this? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat dated October 23, 2000, revised January 16m 2001 for the Subdivision of 120.93 acres into 2 additions; 1st addition has 26 Blocks including 199 units and Outlots A- F and the 2nd addition has 24 blocks including 180 units and Outlots A-C subject to the following conditions: Final platting for the commercial area located in Outlot D shall include a site plan review and approval. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This shall be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 o . o o o o 10. 11. 12. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. An erosion control plan shall be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan shall include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-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 review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant shall prOvide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or Creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Stormwater 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. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access and/or maintenance of the ponding areas. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant shall supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans 'for review and approval. Also, any off-site grading will require temporary easements. The cul-de-sac in the northeast comer of the site shall be revised to meet the minimum street grade requirement of 0.75%. Staff also recommends that the cul-de-sac be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minimize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent ~vetlands. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Boulevard and a full-shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. A cross access agreement will be required at the time of final platting. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Boulevard, Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted xvithin the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. A 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be added along the south side of the public street in the northwest comer of the site. A Conservation Easement shall be created to preserve Outlots E and F, the significant stands of trees to the north of the McAllister property and on the south side of the development, west of the NURP pond, and to specifically mention the tree preservation list which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 5 out of the 8 large trees. The conservation easement shall be dedicated in Phase I. Accessibility shall be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines shall be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy ( a building containing three or more dwelling units on the same property ) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area shall be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 26. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 27. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the building official. 28. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 29. Landscaping and tree preservation: a. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation. b. All evergreens used as overstory trees in buffer yard areas shall be increased to a minimum height of 8 feet. The plant schedule on the landscape plan shall be changed to reflect this requirement. c. The minimum number of shrubs shall be required in buffer yard areas along Highways 5 and 41. Applicant shall work with staff to meet minimum requirements for shrubs along W. 78th Street. d. Boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be spaced 55 feet apart. e. All Colorado spruce specified in landscape plans shall be replaced by a new selection of evergreen. f. Revise plant schedule to show seven-foot evergreens for understory trees. g. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be added to each of the tot lot areas. h. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. i. The applicant shall work with city staff to preserve any or all of the following trees: #1369 (52" oak), #1743 (60" oak), #1742 (48" oak), #2173 (42" oak), and #1881 (36" maple). j. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction." 30. Before the final plat the restrictive covenants shall be approved by staff. 31. The outlot west of Highsvay 41 shall be consistently referred to as Outlot F on all plans. 32. The applicant shall post a sign at the end of dead end street that say this road may be extended in the future. 33. To insure clear communication the applicant shall have all homebuyers sign a disclosure statement that would be part of their restrictive covenants. The statement shall include information about Miss Rosie's Petting Farm, Gateway Group Home and the potential future road extension. Signed statements shall be submitted to the City. 34. Remove units that encroach in Highway 5 setback. 35. Staff should consult with DNR regarding the necessity to relocate turkeys. 36. Staff shall prepare a report regarding trees for fees options. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16,2001 Burton: Okay, that one moves along. May I have the next motion please. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #99-21 for 32 club homes, 105 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 village homes subject to the following conditions, 1 through 2 1 guess, with the following changes. Number 2(b). Dedication of the north wetland trail alignment shall be as a trail easement. And then I'm proposing that we eliminate 2(e) because I think that was covered in the previous motion, but I'm open to discussion on that. I'll keep going. And then I would like to add number 3 which says residential design standards shall, (a). Include vinyl shakes as an acceptable material on all home styles. (b). Prohibit ship lap siding. (c). Specify that all buildings use a UL Class A asphalt/fiberglass shingle, 230 pounds or better. Did I get that right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: Okay. (d). Specify that all foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. (e). Specify that central air conditioning shall be included in the base price of all homes per the EAW noise abatement recommendation. (f). Specify the percent of brick for each building style. And then number 4. Commercial design standards shall prohibit standing seam siding as a curtain wall. Number 5. This is my mother's condition. Applicant shall consider providing benches in the totlot area. Burton: Any discussion on that? Sacchet: Yeah, I would like to keep some form of the 2(e) in there. If we consider Outlots E and F and the trees already covered, we didn't cover the wetlands so I would like to mention the wetland, the two large wetlands. Kind: The wetland xvould be covered in the Wetland Alteration Permit. Sacchet: Oh, that's still coming? Kind: Still coming... I was just trying to clean it up but it doesn't matter. Burton: I'd rather, I'd personally leave that. Sacchet: I would leave it. But I would like to say specifically include wetlands to the north and wetlands to the east. Or we could even specify basin, I think it's 3 and 5. Kind: Sure. I'll accept that. Did you second my motion? Sacchet: Well, if you want to make it all inclusive I'd also like to really be complete then. Burton: Why don't we second it and then. Sacchet: Okay, second. Burton: Okay, go ahead. Sacchet: I would like to make it inclusive. I mean somewhere I'd like to see the whole list. I'd like to see Outlot E, F, forested area to the north of McAllister, forested area on the south side, west of the 34 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 NURP pond, the specific trees, the significant trees that we're preserving plus the two big, large wetlands. I'd like to see that complete list somewhere and this seems a good place to put it because most of it is already there. Kind: I accept that amendment. Sacchet: Thank you. Burton: Any other discussion? Ladd. Conrad: Kate, did you understand everything that was? Aanenson: Yeah. Uli's right, it's in a couple different places that's why I gave the attachment too. To show that. I mean I was thinking in my head you could use that as the exhibit, as shown in exhibit, but as this goes forward, before it goes to final plat I understand what you're. The other point is, if this is a park and rec coinmission motion so I would leave it as it is but say the Planning Commission has the following additions to it, just so you know I'm not going to completely modify that. Just so they can see what the park commission put in there distinctly. What their commission. Kind: So it would be best to have Uli's addition be, let's see. Where did I leave off?. On 5. Have Uli's be number 6? Aanenson: That's fine...we'll just put in italics because I'm going to do a Planning Commission update and say your concern is that you make sure it's clear that these areas are all to be in easement. Burton: I think our opinion should be expressed. Sacchet: Mr. Chair I do have a question actually in this context. I mean the condition number 2 says upon conclusion of the discussion Tuesday of the Park and Rec Commission-and so on. So you're saying that this is actually their recommendation that's going to the council? That's why it's identified that way. Because I felt a little awkward having it in this way but that explains why it's in that way. Aanenson: It's the mechanism to carry it forward and for you to see it and to carry it forward. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. Conrad: Continuing on Mr. Chair, and Deb's specifications for building materials you understood what she said? Aanenson: Yes. I'm in concurrence, yes. Conrad: And those are not? Aanenson: Right. The EAW clearly states that the air condition, that's for noise attenuation. That's in there. I think for clarity to make sure that's in the conditions and that's what I'm hearing. That's all in one spot. Same with the conservation easements. It's not only trees but the wetlands. That's all one... Burton: Okay, any other discussion on this one? Okay, it's been moved and seconded. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #99-21 for 32 club homes, 105 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 village homes, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the Arboretum Village Development Design Standards. 2. Upon conclusion of the discussion on Tuesday, January 9, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Arboretum Village PUD as depicted in the aftached plan and the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails: a. Full park and trail dedication fees be collected. b. Dedication of the north wetland trail alignment as a trail easement. c. Pulte Homes shall construct the north wetland as a public amenity with reimbursement from the trail's dedication fund. d. All totlots shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. e. Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, the Basins 3 and 5 be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these places remain intact. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the following design standards be incorporated in the development: (a). Include vinyl shakes as an acceptable material on all home styles. (b). Prohibit ship lap siding. (c). Specify that all buildings use a UL Class A asphalt/fiberglass shingle, 230 pounds or better. (d). Specify that all foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. (e). Specify that central air conditioning shall be included in the base price of all homes per the EAW noise abatement recommendation. (f). Specify the percent of brick for each building style. 4. Commercial design standards shall prohibit standing seam siding as a curtain wall. 5. Applicant shall consider providing benches in the totlot area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Burton: Okay, that one moves along. Next motion please. Sacchet: Okay Mr. Chair. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approve of the Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4 to fill .54 acres of wetlands in two separate basins subject to the following conditions. 1, 2, let's see. That goes through 13. And I believe they can actually stand as they are. Kind: I'll second that with one friendly amendment. I just can't leave it alone you know. Number 10. I would like to add wetland easement shall be dedicated to the city as part of Phase I. Burton: Do you accept that amendment? Sacchet: Wetland easement. Well weren't we talking that it's a dedication that we don't want. Yes, easement. Kind: Wetlands are going to be dedicated. Aanenson: Right. The easement is the mechanism to get in equipment. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, accepted. Burton: Any other discussion? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, excuse me. Kate, didn't you talk about a 984 foot contour or something? Was that in this context? _ Aanenson: I think what Uli's saying is outside the primary zone and we clarified that so that's. Blackowiak: So you don't need to say that? Okay. Aanenson: If you want to put it in there, that's fine. It's outside the primary. I just want to know if you wanted a specific number in that area because... Sacchet: I was thinking to add that into the Bluff Creek motion. Aanenson: No. Yes. Number 6. The last motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Right. Burton: Any other discussion? And it was seconded I recall. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit//00-4 to fill .54 acres of wetlands in two separate basins subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall resolve the encroachment of the following structures into the wetland buffer setback: 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 e e , . o 10. 11. 12. 13. Phase I: Outlot A, ½ Court Basketball Outlot B, Lots 16 and 17 Outlot C, Lot 19 Phase II: Outlot B, Lots 7 and 9 Outlot C, Lot 19 The applicant shall provide an invert elevation for the proposed storm server inlet on the upstream side of Drainageway 1 to ensure that wetland loss will not occur due to excessive drainage of the drainageway and to ensure that the drainageway will not become wetter. Wetland buffers of 0-20 feet ~vith a minimum average width of 10 feet shall be provided around Basins B and C. Wetland mitigation areas must be constructed prior to wetland impacts occurring. Wetland mitigation must occur in a manner that is consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall provide proof of property ownership for Outtot F, as xvell as a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall submit a wetland banking application. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. The wetland easement shall be dedicated as a part of Phase I. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide vegetative barriers to define buffer edges. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. NURP ponds shall be constructed/expanded in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are $192,363.50. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Current information indicates that the project proposes water quality ponding for approximately 44 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $67,320.00. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $221,473.30. This amount will be finalized prior to final plat approval. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay that one moves along to the council. Next motion please. Sacchet: IfI may. Burton: Sure. Sacchet: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of, and I would like to specify the Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet of July, 2000 and approval of the Findings of Fact and Negative Declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement dated November 14, 2000 with the following note. With the exception of IV/D/8 and V/A because those two state that only few, if any trees are being cut and that it is no significant environmental impact. This is not true because the current proposal calls for the removal of approximately half of the significant trees and that is in my book significant environmental impact. That's my motion. Burton: Okay. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second that. Burton: Any discussion on the motion? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet dated July, 2000 and approval of the Findings of Fact and Negative Declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement dated November 14, 2000 with the exception of items IV(d)(8) and V(a). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay, that one moves to the council. And we have one more motion. Somebody. Sacchet: Alright. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with the condition that all disturbed areas shall be reseeded immediately following construction. And I'd like to add, no construction will take place in the primary zone... Burton: Is there a second to that motion? Conrad: Second. Burton: Any discussion? Aanenson: I need to just qualify that. I need to get some opinion from the attorney because our sewer project is in the primary zone. And it's all laid services so I guess I would say except for utility, required utilities or something like that. I'd put a qualifier in that. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah. I mean I think ultimately it's really bad. I mean we don't allow anybody else to build there then we go build there ourselves. But unfortunately that sewer has to be somewhere. Aanenson: And it has to be in the lowest area. So I just want to make sure that that's clear that that's where it's going. Burton: Do you want to amend your? Sacchet: Yes. I'm fine if you say no construction shall take place in the primary zone, except for sewer line. Aanenson: Can we just put utilities? Sacchet: Utilities as needed. Because I really think we should explore every possible alternative there to at least minimize that. Burton: Second anyone? Conrad: Yeah, I seconded that. Burton: Any discussion? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to permit for a subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with the condition that all disturbed areas shall be reseeded immediately following construction. And that no construction shall take place in the primary zone, except for city utilities as needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay that does it and that moves, the whole thing moves to the council. Is that February 12th? Aanenson: Correct. Burton: And before we, I think we'll have people moving around and before we start the next one maybe we'll take like a few minute break here and we'll go on. Thanks. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) Burton: Back on now with a public hearing. Oh, before we do that the next on the agenda, we had some discussion here at the break about the agenda tonight and I think we were too optimistic about how much we could get, plow through and it seems to be the consensus that the last item is not going to be started in time for it to be reasonably considered tonight so I think what we've discussed is moving it to the, I talked to Kate and the next commission meeting schedule that it could be on would be February 20th. So I think what we're going to end up doing is moving item 5 to the February 20th meeting. My understanding is that it then comes on first. Is that right Ladd, from experience do you know? Conrad: We can move it, yeah. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Burton: Yeah, it will be first on the agenda on that meeting and, but instead of making people wait around until later in the evening, we want to let everybody know now. Now that we can see where we're at. And we apologize. It's hard to know where you're heading. Well okay, we can move on then. REOUEST FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON. Public Present: Name Address Wally & Cheryl Schwab Matt Jacobs Dennis Schilling Keith Peterson Bob Nelson Kermit Austad Joe & Lori Harrington Jerry & Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd 950 Carver Beach Road 921 Western Drive 941 Western Drive 921 Hiawatha Drive 970 Carver Beach Road 980 Carver Beach Road 901 Carver Beach Road 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff'?. COnrad: Bob, Mr. Chairman. Bob, if we did not put any sewer stubs of water connections to this property, what was our thinking back then? What were we thinking of?. It was a lot of record so why didn't we do that? Generous: I don't know. I looked. They just thought it would never develop. No one would want that small a lot. Of course other areas of Carver Beach we have 2 lot sites and 3 lot sites that have developed. However they did make them pay the area charge for those improvements but not the lateral charges. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify a few things. One thing is, it's a lot of record. That means the owner has the right to build on it? Generous: The City has to permit a reasonable use of the property. Sacchet: A reasonable use. So that's the right. Now in terms of how this proposed house fits into the neighborhood, I mean it fits on the lot somewhat. But considering it's a tuck under garage and then a two story, actually almost a 3 story house. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Most houses in that neighborhood are ramblers. So how do you conclude it fits into the neighborhood? Could you elaborate on that a little bit. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16,2001 Generous: Well I went out to the neighborhood and just on that street I tried to take some pictures of the different house styles that are there and up the street to the east there was a split entry home and several to the west. Down the hill there are tuck under homes that were, well they looked like one story because they had more hill but they are a tuck under which is similar to this design. Property immediately to the northeast was a story and a half. So while it may be a little higher than the other houses in the immediate vicinity. You have a mix you know. Sacchet: Okay. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. On page 6 of the staff report there is discussion on the second paragraph about granting the impervious surface relief would not significantly alter drainage patterns or increase storm water runoff. And that would be the 36% impervious. If we go with the minimum which is 30% impervious, would there be any benefit in that 6%? Are we really gaining much by holding the house size down to the absolute minimum that could be on this small lot? Saam: Not very much. 6% impervious area, you're not going to see much additional runoff in 6% or much less. Kind: Okay. The house pad size could, xve could compel the applicant to make it smaller to meet that 600 square foot plus the garage size which makes it 384 square feet smaller and then that would be the 30% coverage. I guess I'll have to think about that and discuss it a little bit more with you all later. What else? I guess that's it. Burton: Okay, any other questions for staff?. Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Last page of the staff report includes this letter from Roger Knutson. I'm xvondering if you could summarize that and simply the last two sentences there. Generous: Basically the lot area and lot width variances aren't enough. We have to provide additional relief to permit development of this property. Then the options he gave were for her to construct a smaller house or to grant a coverage variance. And he says you can, it's up to the City which they want to do. Grant the variance for a smaller house, a one car garage or the impervious surface. Which would be the least impact to the neighborhood, to the community. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Okay. If not, would the applicant or their designee like to address the commission? Is there somebody here? Generous: I haven't seen them, no. Burton: Okay. Let's have a motion to open the public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: If anybody would like to address the commission please approach the podium and state your name and address. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Wally Schwab: Good evening. I'm Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road. Directly adjacent to the proposed site. Last hearing you heard me talk about what I and others haVe been told about the buildability or non-buildability of the property. We won't go into that again considering the time. I would like to address a little bit of a proportionate error on the plan view of the proposed site. IfI may. I have here the submitted drawing showing a large area between the property line and my house when in reality it is a 10 foot and I do have the 20 foot setback as opposed to the lesser setback that the original drawing shows. Given the proximity I'm sure that you can understand that I'm not real excited about having a skyscraper 20 feet from my house. The entire upper Carver Beach area has been, as I alluded to last time, laid out with spacious lots. This right here is my lot and this is my neighbor's lot right here who does own the property. This is the mini lot that is in question. When you look at that area of Carver Beach Road you are aware that the houses are, as was alluded to, basically rather tight. Some of them do have a lower garage area but they're basically all wrapper types. I don't believe that the proposed structure fits into that area. What we are doing is disrupting the continuity of that area of Carver Beach Road, in my opinion. Part of the paperwork here involving this refers to the fact that there are no incentives for the properties on either side of this parcel to be purchased these lots. I take exception to that. It says since they are currently developed. They have enjoyed this private open space for at least 34 to 44 years. I have lived in my place for 19 years. In those 19 years my enjoyment of that property has been mowing it. When the property was sold as a result of my getting tired of mowing it, and not doing so, and this is fact, and the City called the original owner, Mr. Osmundson, and he at that time was no longer interested in keeping it. That led to the property getting sold. After it was sold in 1997-98, the first year after it had been sold it turned back into a weed lot. Last summer about midway through the summer I once again got tired of it being a weed lot and started mowing it. Which I didn't mind doing. What I'~n getting at here is, there are no incentives for the propertieS on either side of the parcel to purchase these lots. That is incorrect. Myself, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Peterson would be very interested in purchasing these lots, incorporating them into our properties and thereby preserve the continuity of Carver Beach Road. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. State your name and address please. Keith Peterson: Keith Peterson, 921 Hiawatha Drive. Some of the stuffI stated last time but I feel like it needs to be brought up again so I apologize because you probably know what I'm going to say but anyway. Section 20-58 of the general conditions of granting. A variance may be granted only if the following are met. The purpose of this variation is not based upon the desire to increase the value or income potential of a parcel of land. In the findings of Mr. Generous' report it does say the ability to develop the site will increase the value of the property. Anita Benson is not building this house to live in so the only purpose is to create a profit. She bought this property for $4,200 and at the last meeting if the variances would have been approved, her selling price for just the lot would have been $27,200. What concerns us is the lot. The seller of this lot, who was a realtor and Mr. Schwab, were told that, by the City of Chanhassen that it was a non-buildable lot. When the City Engineer of Chanhassen buys it and then it's a buildable lot. So we see a little problem with that. And then number 4 alleges difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. Anita Benson was the City Engineer of Chanhassen and she was well aware of the codes before she bought this lot. Therefore we agree that it is a self created hardship. Then I was reading the zoning. To a division of for the non-conforming uses part and I forget, to me I understood this to mean you guys are supposed to kind of do. And number 3 says the purpose of this division is to encourage and eliminate a non-conforming uses, lots and structures or reduce or impact on adjacent properties. If the code states to encourage elimination of a non-conforming lot, should the City Engineer of Chanhassen purchase it and try to develop a lot that needs a 9,000 square foot variance, variance for lot size and variance for lot width and variance for lot coverage. Then in Mr. Generous' report too he states there is two lots within 500 feet that needed a variance. The first one, number 94-9 43 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 required a 5,000 square foot lot size variance and a 20 foot front setback variance on the east side of the house. Because of a rule that was in the plat book that was never built and had 20 year old trees on it, it required that 20 foot setback. And the road is now vacated which actually makes this lot and Mr. Schwab's lot 12,000 square feet so. And I'd also like to note that even though this house needed a variance, it's still 80 feet from Mr. Schwab's house, 114 feet from Mr. Nelson's house and 510 feet from the closest house to the east. Then the other variance, number 85-5 required a 17 foot rear yard setback variance and the nearest house to the rear yard is 380 feet so I don't think they mind it too much. But then the last thing is, I look at the picture of this house. Take away the tall trees and imagine a rambler sitting 20 feet next to it. This house will be way over 2 times taller and it doesn't look like any of the houses in the neighborhood so thank you very much. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Sir. Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road, which is the property that is directly west and north of this mini lot as Wally called it, and I guess we all call it that. I just wanted to point a couple of things out. With the staff report that we received, it was dated 1/11 which was last Thursday. We received it on 1/12 which was last Friday. That's only 5 days and part of it's a weekend so we haven't had a lot of time to prepare, even though we've been here before and I'm sure you guys received it probably after we did. So that doesn't give us a lot of time to prepare and as you'll see down the road, I may be a little short on some of the support that I've garnered here but actually the Vikings helped me out a little bit. I had some time on Sunday to get out and do that. But as Ladd brought up, the non stubbing of the water and sewer. That's got to indicate something with a small lot like that. I'm not sure what that is. To me it indicates that it's really not a buildable lot. There was another reference to xve've had the enjoyment of the 34 to 44 years of the open space that that provides. Well maybe that's in our favor because alt the other lots are very open and spacious. Now since we didn't buy this lot we didn't realize it was buildable. And in regard to the setbacks, or I'm sorry, to the variances that were denied before. It stated that they were denied because they were too much. Actually they were denied because this really, the house didn't fit there. This one doesn't fit there either. Not in that neighborhood. I've got 30,000 square foot lot. They've got 12,000 square foot lots now and those are the small ones. There was a reference to 2 or 3 lots that are in the neighborhood that only have the same amount of space. I'd tike to know where those are. I can't find them. If there are, there's an 8,000 square foot lot which is close but it's still not 6,000 square feet. The variances are, you know you want a 60% reduction in the lot size. You want a 33% reduction of frontage and you're looking for an additional 11% lot coverage. That's quite a bit for a 6,000 square foot lot I think. Another thing, there was no purchase incentives that Wally brought up. We've made numerous inquiries via telephone with Ms. Benson. We receive only answering machine which is fine. We can leave a message but never a call back. Actually I even broke down and called her work today. She's not available. She's out of town for the entire week so we have no way of doing it. We would be interested at a reasonable price to purchase that lot and divide it up like Wally had mentioned. They also mentioned the critical differences in the scale that was presented in a report versus what actually is. I think that's a concern for us. And that brings me to what I talked about before and that was ethics. Both with us and with the report that we have. There's many different stories that were told to different citizens that called in to inquire about this lot. We did not realize it was a buildable lot until basically after it went up for sale and when we inquired it was already sold. We see a very active role in the staff in getting the variances passed here, both on the previous proposal and this proposal. That concerns me. Why is that happening? I'm not sure. The majority of the neighbors that I canvassed and I was only able to get to about 20 of them on Sunday, are all against this. I do have, it's my only copy but since we had such a short time I've got a number of signatures with their addresses that they oppose this proposal. I also in questioning that last item, we questioned the 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 $4,200 that it was purchased for and the potential $27,200 that it could be sold for. That might answer all those why's that we have on our other questions. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission? Kermit Austad: I'm Kermit Austad. I live 980 Carver Beach Road. Just west of that there. What I can't understand is how these, when the sewer went in and went from 18-20,000 feet. Now they're trying to get it on 6,000 feet which at that plan it was a non-buildable lot. Now if it would have been buildable, I think a lot of local people here would have taken advantage of that a long ~ime ago. Also you put a house, I seen a drawing out at, looked like a 3 story from the front and you place that in an area where it's ramblers and stuff, you know what it does to your resale value for that house and the ones around it. Because I've built houses for 40 years and we never did this because of the fact if you build supposedly a $400,000 house and you've got a $125,000 rambler to it, you know what it does to that $400,000 house. Right down. The house just don't fit there. That's all I can think of. Thank you. Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission on this one. Debbie Lloyd: Hello, my name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I was here at the last meeting when we addressed this property. And I want to say to the neighbors, forgive me if I misunderstood you but did not a number of you approach the city staff and ask if this were a buildable lot? Audience: So we can buy it so it wouldn't be built on. Debbie Lloyd: Correct. And you were told they have no report of that question being asked. And I want to tell you that you're not the only ones in this community that have had that response from the planning department. And I think it's time we start holding the planning department accountable for what they tell the citizens of this community. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Okay, motion to end public hearing. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Comments. Sacchet: Dear oh dear. Conrad: I don't know where we go Mr. Commissioner. It's real uncomfortable. It's real uncomfortable. I don't like it and there's a lot of hearsay that we, I just don't like it. So on the one hand I think we should, if it is, legally it's buildable regardless of who said what to who. Legally it's buildable. But legally I have no need to allow a huge house, even in a. Burton: Is it buildable without a variance? Conrad: You've got to let them build. Burton: Well I'll wait. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Conrad: And there will be variances but you've got to let them build so, so you know, on the one hand I think we should say well the house can have 600 square feet and we can let them have a garage. That's it. Now they just might do that and that would, I'm not sure if that's smart to do or not. IfI owned property that was fairly cheap. But we could just let them build the minimum and hope that they may sell. Burton: Comments Uli7 Sacchet: Yeah, just to expand on that a little more. What you brought oui. From the letter from the city attorney it's my understanding that we do need to grant the two parts, the size variance and the lot width variance because it's a reasonable use to build a house on it, okay. But that by itself is not enough. To build something they need either relief on the impervious surface coverage, or on the minimum house size and/or that 2 car or is it 3 car, 2 car garage requirement. So one of those 3 is necessary to make it buildable. So it appears that from a legal viewpoint we have to give them 1 of those 3. Now if we restrict what's being built there further, and I think that's where you were getting at, we are bringing down the value ultimately of that structure. By bringing down the value of that structure, it also impacts the value of the surrounding...I mean out of context, I don't believe it fits into the context. But out of context it's definitely a nice house. And it's very nice how it fits on that lot with the front and side setbacks and back setback and that really has to be noticed. So if we restrict it, we say well we don't give them the impervious surface variance but we give them a variance on one of the other ones to make it somewhat workable, we decrease the value of the structure which then in turn has a decreasing value effect on the neighborhood. So that's what I'm saying, it's Catch-22. Now we can say it doesn't fit into the neighborhood now. Well, is there a potential that maybe as there's turn over and you guys build new houses and your kids want a second story on top of your rambler, that all of a sudden it starts fitting better? I don't know. But I thin we have to be open minded here a little bit and I'm really torn because on one hand it doesn't fit. There seems to be some funny business. I mean I feel uncomfortable about the fact that somebody builds a lot that may or may not be buildable. Happens to be somebody that knows supposedly ordinances very well and all of a sudden it becomes buildable. Yeah, well that's my comments. I don't think it helps much but. Burton: Okay, thanks. Do you want to? Go ahead Alison. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah I agree. I do like this house plan. Much better than the last plan. However, like the last plan I don't think it fits into the neighborhood. I just don't, I can't see why she wants to build this house on this lot. I just, it's and it's Habitat for Humanity is no longer involved. I don't understand. I guess maybe I don't even need to understand. I won't even go there. I don't like the house on the tot. I think that if there is the possibility for the neighbors to make some kind of an offer to the present property owner, that maybe should be explored before we go on and start granting variances. But then again I don't want to run afoul of the law in terms of not granting the proper variances because indeed it is a lot of record. Whether or not it was ever mentioned to be built on is another question but it is a lot of record so we don't want to run into that problem I don't think. But I think if there's a possibility that the neighbors would be interested in purchasing it and a possibility that if the present owner is, it doesn't look like going to be living there personally, then maybe that option should be explored before we move forward with granting variances for a lot that I really don't think should be built on in the first place. Burton: Other comments? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I think Ladd stated things correctly, at least in my opinion that I think in this case we're dealing with a proposal that has a huge house on a small lot. We really don't want that. It just doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. So I think we should start the applicant offat the smallest house possible and work up if that's necessary. But you know realizing that you have to have reasonable use but it still has to fit into the character of the neighborhood. It's just too big for the surrounding property. Nice house though. Burton: Deb. Kind: I'll go next. You probably could tell from my questions of Matt about the impervious surface that I have a quandary similar to Uli's and that is, it's a nice looking house and if 6%, 36% of 30%, what difference does it make? It's pretty similar as far as runoffgoes but we could limit it to, it's a puny lot. What are we calling it, a mini lot? I kind of like puny. That's what my daughter would say. So we should put the smallest, mini house on that lot and how would the neighbors feel about that as far as the bringing down the prices of homes in the neighborhood so, Uli already touched on that and I agree with that so that's my quandary. And also the aspect about reasonable use not departing downward from the neighborhood, pre-existing standards. Variances that blend with pre-existing standards without departing downward meet the criteria. I think that we could put a condition that says the building height should not exceed 2 stories including the garage level, which knocks offa story of the house and we could approve the minimum surface coverage which is 30% and then approve the necessary setbacks for, or necessary variances for the lot size and the what else. And the lot frontage. And limit the height and that can fit the smallest house possible. I think we could do that tonight. I would be willing to do that tonight. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair before we go further. I read that the site coverage is 25%. Bob I heard you say something about 30%. If we're going to even be considering lowering percentages, what's the percentage we should be looking at? - Generous: Well 25 is the ordinance requirement. Blackowiak: Correct. Generous: 30% is based on that analysis of the 600 square foot per square living area. A 25 by 24, or 24 by 24 garage and a 20 by 30 foot driveway. Blackowiak: Okay. The driveway plan that was submitted was less than 20, whatever you just said. Sorry. It was kind of a Y shape almost and so the surface area of the driveway was, let me see. Generous: 576. Blackowiak: I'm sorry? Generous: 576. Blackowiak: 576. And what was what you were saying? Generous: 600. Blackowiak: Okay. So we're not gaining that much, okay. So it's 30% then is what your take is would be the bare minimum? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 200t Generous: Yes. On the 2 story home meeting the criteria for single family home. Blackowiak: So 2 story above and beyond the garage? So 3 story looking at it? Generous: No, no. No, you could call that, it would be a tuck under. So you could have part of the first floor adjacent to the garage and the second floor. Blackowiak: On top of, okay. Generous: And above the other living area. Kind: That's what ! would propose that we could do tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Burton: Well my comments also are that I really don't like this issue and like Ladd, I kind of sunk when I kind of thought, here we go again but I do think that this one needs the extra scrutiny. Normally I'm pretty forgiving on variances but there's some factors here that mandate that we look at this one a lot harder. One is the lot size and I think the applicant's relationship with, in history with the city merits us looking at it a little tougher. And then neighborhood opposition and I also think it's pretty apparent that all the neighbors thought this was a non-buildable lot or one of them would be the owner of it. You look at the standards for granting a variance and one of the main one is a reasonable use. And I look at the language in our report and from what I know of land law and real estate law, that a reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of the comparable property but there are other uses which could be reasonable uses. I don't think it'd have to be, that this has to be a house or it's not a reasonable use. And I don't know enough as to whether or not there are other reasonable uses of this property which would past mustard. For instance, could renting the property just as a vacant lot to the neighbors be a reasonable use? It might be. Could it be used for storage within the zoning? I don't know. I haven't studied that but perhaps there are other reasonable uses that can be made of the property and at this point I'm not entirely convinced. I do think that the house is an obvious reasonable use but I think that there could be other reasonable uses. And then if we determine that there are other reasonable uses, it does seem that I just don't believe that this would ever, the chances of this being litigated are pretty slim. Just for the amount that. Blackowiak: From the attorney. Burton: ! think there's not enough at stake on the owner's end to warrant a lot war on this one. I question whether the purpose of the variance is to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Don't know but it sure does seem to be and as to whether or not the hardship is self created or not, it's kind of interesting because I don't know the law on that. When you acquire an existing condition, is that self created? And it'd be one thing if you owned it since it was platted but when you acquire it at a later date, is that self created? I don't know the answer so I can't say that that one passes. Granting the variance will not be detrimental for the public welfare or injurious to the other land. It does seem that it would be injurious to the other land so I'm not sure I could pass that requirement. And it makes me wonder, what if this lot was even smaller than it is? You kno~v, what if this was 2? Are they still going to, will we still have to shoe horn a house in there because it could fit with? I don't think we would have to. So I have problems with it and I'm inclined to vote against it. So does somebody want to make a motion? 48 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Conrad: Well let's talk about this. The intent, obviously the city didn't think this was going to be a lot. That's why it wasn't stubbed in. We didn't think it was going to be built on. We thought somebody would buy it. Merge it with, never happened. Somebody's got it right now so we can do a couple things. Matt, we can test the law saying they don't qualify for the variances. That's one alternative. The other alternative is for us to allow the owner to put a minimal size, because it is a very substandard lot, we will allow a very small house on this which means 600 square feet of living space, 720 feet of garage space, and a driveway that accounts for 600 feet. That is what they can do. Two stories high max. Now that could be bad. That's one of those, they could do it and I don't want that tS happen. I would think that would discourage it. Kind: That was helpful. Sacchet: Basically what you're saying is, if you give the lot size variance and the frontage variance, that's what they can do. 600. Conrad: I don't care about the variances to tell you the truth. They can build the minimum. If they, if it's a lot of record, they can build the minimum that the law requires and that's 600 square feet of living space, a 2 car garage and a driveway that gets there and they can't build more. Burton: To me the burden is on the applicant and the applicant hasn't met the burden. That doesn't mean that by denying it that we"re Saying that they couldn't come up with something. But they haven't given us something that carries that burden. They can come back. Conrad: And deny that because, what's your rationale for denying it? Burton' Well they haven't explored, they haven't articulated their analysis of other reasonable uses and why they ~nay or may not work. Conrad: Yeah, we could do that Matt but I, I really can't think of one reasonable use other than a house or selling it. You know it's not crop land. I just can't imagine what it would be. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair but ifI look at the findings for variances and specifically (c) and (d) regarding the desire to increase the value or income potential and alleged difficulty is not a self created hardship, I don't know that this application meets those two criteria. And if you don't meet all the criteria, you don't have to grant a variance. So for me it's a fairly cut and dry. Burton: You can say right there. The applicant hasn't met their burden on those two items. Blackowiak: Right. Burton: They have given us no evidence. Conrad: What are the items again? Blackowiak: (c). The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. And (d), the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. Now just because the lots were platted in 1927 doesn't mean that the present purchaser didn't know the condition when the purchase was made. 49 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Kind: In fact you could argue she knew. Conrad: Okay. That's probably reasonable that we could deny it. Sacchet: And we can also include (e) if you. Burton: I think all of them you could make an argument with. Sacchet: The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Burton: Well it xvould. If we give them the bare minimum, that's a loser for the neighbors and if you let them do it it's a loser. Conrad: There's enough of them that maybe that's enough to pursue. Burton: So does somebody want to make a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll do this one. I'll move the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance frown the 90 foot lot frontage requirement and an 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36% for the construction of a single family home based on the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated Findings C and D as outlined in the staff report. Page 7. Burton: Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it. Burton: Any discussion? Well I'll wait. I'm going to vote for it but I also think the applicant hasn't met their burden on any of the conditions, not just those. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement and an 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36% for the construction of a single family home based on the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated Findings C and D as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A 50 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE CENTER OF THE CREEK TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SHADOWMERE, 500 BIGHORN DRIVE, DEAN AND SUE STANTON. Public Present: Name Address 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Dean Stanton Don Mehl Wayne Brown Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 510 Bighorn Drive 490 Bighorn Drive SALA Architects 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burton: A quick question for you. How does our city ordinance about th~ 50 foot setback from the creek interplay with the DNR requirement. If you said they're both the same. So if we did grant a variance, they'd still have to get a variance from the DNR? Or how does that work? Hoium: If we just adopted that. Burton: That's just like a standard that they have? Hoium: Yes. Like the 75. If we granted a variance from the 75 foot, I believe the DNR would also. Burton: Is it a separate requirement though from the DNR from our requirement or we just adopt. Aanenson: We adopted the shoreland regs with some modifications... Burton: Okay. Any other questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I'm a little confused about the precedence because there is a letter in this packet that states 3 properties within 500 feet have portions of their buildings or separate buildings .that are within the 50 foot setback...and it lists 510 Bighorn Drive by that 29 foot. 520 Bighorn Drive by 43 ½ and 610 Carver Beach Road by about 30 foot. Were you able to verify those three locations? Hoium: We were not able to verify it. The retaining wall for the 520 Bighorn Drive does not show up on these surveys and the survey that we have for 510 Bighorn Drive, it is outside of the easement that was created by the city. We don't show it encroaching. Sacchet: So it's possible that they build a deck in the case of 510 and a retaining wall in the case of 520 since it was surveyed. And then the 610 Carver Beach, we don't know what's there. That's also a porch. Hoium: We don't have any record of any buildings on that lot. It pre-dates aerial photographs. Sacchet: It's before, okay. So it's not necessarily a precedent that could be used directly. Now there isn't all that much encroaching. I mean it's just like two little comers. The main thing that's encroaching is that retaining wall for their entry porch right? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: What I want to clarify is like the driveway is immaterial. That's not considered a structure so that doesn't encroach? Hoium: Correct. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: That's my questions. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Kind: Yes I have questions that continue along the same line as Uli. The retaining wall and the walkway count as a structure but the driveway does not. Hoium: Correct. My understanding that a driveway can be built over easements. Aanenson: If you get an encroachment agreement. Hoium: If you get an encroachment agreement. Kind: Okay. And the roof that overhangs the walkway is not shown on this plan, but from the elevations it appears to me that it's flush with the garage and so that the encroachment really isn't 17 feet of the structure. Building structure itself. It's a smaller number. My ruler would say probably about more like 10 feet rather than 17 feet. Not knowing the exact scale of the attachment that we have here. So I'm kind of thinking along the lines of what Uli was commenting on that it's really just of the main principle structures. These two little teeny, tiny corners can encroach in and then it's the overhang over the walkway. That's not the principle structure so. And then my other question is, the definition of reasonable use and I have this problem every time this stuff comes up. And that is the notion that a reasonable use is defined as the use made by the majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Well the majority of comparable property within 500 feet are larger homes with 3 car garages. So I see that as a reasonable use for this property. Hoium: Staff is just basing it on what is required by the ordinance and you can also have the same type of home, same value of home with the smaller building size. Kind: Sure. I buy that too. Okay. Those are my only questions of staff. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, a couple more about the existing setbacks. Now 510 and 520 Bighorn, wouldn't they both have been built after the 50 foot setback requirement was instituted? Hoium: Correct. Blackowiak: So did they get variances to do the building in the setback area? Hoium: No they did not. On the surveys they are outside of the easement which, I'm not sure if we can tell the easement is the hashed line. Blackowiak: There's a map in here I know. Hoium: And on 520 the retaining wall is not on the survey. Blackowiak: So when you talk about precedent, isn't that a variance that's been granted generally Kate I guess. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Aanenson: ...a variance for a one stall garage. That's a hardship. In this circumstance I'm not sure that the survey came correctly...did the work without a permit it altered that. That sometimes happens when they do landscaping so I guess I suspect that's probably what happened. Blackowiak: Well that's what I'm guessing happened too. Aanenson: Did they have permission to work in there, is that what you're asking? Blackowiak: Well in my mind something that sets precedence is a decision handed down by the planning department or something or City Council that says you may do this and that sets precedent and if somebody does something that they didn't have permission to do, then it technically doesn't set precedent does it? Matt? Attorney Matt. Burton: Well it depends on how long you've been doing it. Blackowiak: Well I mean I just think, I don't think that this really sets precedent. 610 Carver Beach has been there forever. That's ancient. So I mean I think that that's something that we can't even really consider but I just don't necessarily agree that those two set precedent because maybe they shouldn't have been there. My second question is this 75 foot, you know we go back and forth on why do I keep thinking 90? Where am I getting my 90 frontage? Sacchet: The width at the setback. Blackowiak: Okay. And so 75 feet from ordinary high water mark unless your neighbor is farther back, in which case you take the higher amount of the neighbor. Okay. Now 610 Carver doesn't make sense because that's way up on the hill so we just throw that one out because that's been there forever and it doesn't really apply I don't think in this instance. · Aanenson: Right. So what you're doing is, as everybody follows that same rule when the subdivision went into place, what you're doing is pushing it further into this... Blackowiak: So in your opinion then, it's better to hold at the 75 foot and give, what's the better? Aanenson: Right, I guess what's the worst of two evils. That's the exercise we went through and it was our conclusion that the 75 foot minimum could be held there because everybody else in that subdivision was held to that standard... Blackowiak: Right. And you're comfortable with that as opposed to 91...Okay, thank you. Sacchet: May I attach a question to this? Burton: Yep. Sacchet: Are the neighbors okay? Is this is going to be a hearing. Burton: We're going to have one. Sacchet: So we'll hear, okay. 53 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Burton: Any other questions? Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning Commission? Dean Stanton: Yes I would. Burton: State your name and address. Dean Stanton: My name's Dean Stanton and I live at 510 Bighorn Drive, which is the lot right next door here. We currently live here and we also purchased this lot. Originally w~ bought that lot in November of '89 and we were going to start building on it in the spring of '90. There was a title dispute with the developer. Dragged into a lawsuit over a couple year period. In the meantime we had sold our house so we ended up buying the house next to it. When we bought that house in '90, the deck and everything was on it when it was built new. And that is kind of a dispute that it was added on afterwards because when we looked at it the first time, it was brand new. It was a Parade home and it had the deck on it. And that's 29 feet from the creek. Because I measured that and then I also measured the house next to it, 520 and I don't know when that retaining wall was put up. It's part of the deck structure so I think when it was brand new that was put up also. Because I don't remember them adding on a deck after the fact. And then the other property, this might, my map's not very good but that's like a four season, or three season porch with a fireplace and stuff. It varies from 33 feet from the creek on one corner to 28 feet as the closest. 57-58 feet over here. So I guess I would argue that there has been kind ora precedent set. When we bought this lot we asked the developer about where we could put the house and I think I even asked him at the time about being so close to the creek and he said we'll look at the other houses up the street. And I guess I didn't check into that there was a 50 foot setback at that time. Originally when we start digging ~ve had more of a squarish built house design and apparently we can't find the original permit but the builder did start digging and then that's when we found the title problems came out and so we stopped construction. But nobody can find the permit so I don't know if that means anything or not. I guess I would like to comment a little bit on, and I guess I've got these photos since we're talking about, ! don't know how well they're going to show up. Okay, that's up the creek. Let's see that would be up here on the creek looking down and you're looking at 520 and 510 Bighorn Drive. This, well you can't really see it very clear but that's 510 Bighorn Drive where we live now. Shot from the creek side there so you can see the deck and the stairs. Trying to show the distance. I can hand these over. They're probably a little clearer. This is the 520 Bighorn. It shows a retaining wall. And then this is the, that three season porch. The one on the left just shows the porch. The one on the right I shot on the edge of the porch showing the creek. Just trying to give you some visual proof of the distances but I'd be happy to have somebody come out and measure it. And I guess if we're looking at this, the proposed house, it's !,000 feet smaller than the one we live in now. We tried to fit it in this little pizza slice of an opening that we have the best that we could. Staff seems to think that if we took out one garage and made a 2 car garage that we could still fit it in, but according to our architect we would still have points that would intrude on the creek side. And I think that although the, I don't know if it's the law or ordinance or whatever says a minimum of 600 square feet, 2 car garage. I don't think my neighbors would be very happy ifI put a trailer home on there. So I guess I just wanted to address the, I guess there's a number of points. Whether you can grant a variance or not. Number A. I guess I think that a reasonable use would be the properties within 500 feet. If you look at the homes within 500 feet, that whole development, not just the ones within 500 feet but the whole Shadowmere development, every home in it has a 3 car garage. Homes within 500 feet are all either larger or more expensive than what we're proposing to build so I think that we're trying to blend in with the neighborhood. Where if we go down to the minimum standards that the law says you can put on the lot, we would actually be detracting from the neighborhood. When I look at B it says, the conditions upon which a petition for variance is based are not applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification. Staff and finding for the 54 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 lakeshore variance said, this is the last vacant lot within Shadowmere and I think that would be also applicable to the creek side variance because it is the last buildable lot in that development so it would not affect any other lots in that area. If you did find for it. Purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income of the lot. Basically we're just trying to build a home on it. We tried 10 years ago. Had some problems. Enough time has gone by where we got goofy again and tried to do it again and now we're running into this problem. So we're just trying to build a home on it. We're not trying to increase the value. I guess you could argue that a larger home would be more valuable but I guess we got 3 kids. It'd be nice to have a 3 car garage. And even if we cut it down, I think that with the elevation there it would be hard to come in the front door without either bi-inging in a ton of fill or putting a step ladder there. So I guess we're just asking for the front entrance. D. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. In finding for the lakeshore variance they said this lot was plotted in 1987. I think you could find the same thing for the creek side variance. When we looked at it, those other homes were up there closer to the creek. I guess we felt we could build a house in there and we're trying to stick within the regulations as much as we can. I think E. I don't think it would be detrimental to the public welfare. The neighbors in the cul-de-sac are all for it. I don't think anybody is going to complain about it. And F. I don't think we'll impair anybody's supply of air and water if you would be so kind as to grant it. I guess the other thing is, Wayne has got a couple of other issues he can bring up. Wayne Brown: I'll just touch on a couple of points that Dean already talked about but I want to elaborate. My name is Wayne Brown. I'm an architect with SALA Architects in Minneapolis. Just a thing though I want to point out is that we've tried really hard to affect this area, this natural area by the creek as little as possible and I think aetually they're starting, we could simply fill a lot more land and meet your requirements but I think it would actually be more detrimental to the creek than the way we've chosen to do it which is to extend the small appendage with a retaining wall to create access to the front door. I don't want to open the door but okay I'I1 do it but I think we're trying to do it in a way that is...most sensitive to the natural landscape there as possible. One other, I guess in the staff's granting or recommending granting a variance on the lake side, I think that seems apparent that if that wasn't documented we would not have a footprint big enough to do anything. So I think that's it unless you - have some questions. Oh, just a little history. This is what this plot looked like when it was approved by the City in 1987 and so the shaded area is the buildable lot area. This line over here is, was the natural creek bed at the time. But the city imposed the holding pond, which I assume the builder built. And actually it changed the creek bed, which is essentially causing the issue that we're facing now. Aanenson: Well there was a large erosion problem. Actually the City went in and did a project because of the proximity and the erosion in that area so...problem. Wayne Brown: So there's maybe there's an argument really to modify the creek. Aanenson: Well you'd have to get a grading permit to fill in the creek within... Wayne Brown: I think that's it unless you have questions. Burton: Any questions for the applicant? Dean Stanton: I guess there's one other thing I wanted to mention is that when the surveyor did the survey it was in September of the drought season and he took the center line of the creek. That creek is really an open storm sewer or open runoff. When it rains it fills up slightly and if it doesn't rain for a month, then it gets down to a trickle. And in September when they did the survey it was down to a 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 trickle and unfortunately the water portion was up against our edge of the bank. If you look at the width of the creek bed, we would have picked up another 5 or 6 feet if we had measured it when there was any water running through. So there's some kind of I think slop there if you take the center of the creek bed itself. The surveyor unfortunately took where the water was, which when it was drought we lost 5 or 6 feet on the setback. If we measured it again this spring we would pick up 5 or 6 feet. Wayne Brown: Just one more point. I did have a discussion with the surveyor today and he did acknowledge that in that bend, had there been water, we might have a creek bed that was 10 feet wider or 5 feet wider. Some distance that's different which would essentially have' given us a different point on the survey, which would also affect the actual distance that we're talking about as we're going here. So it is, and it is true you... There is very little structure that is part of this variance request. Kind: Did I figure it out right where the roof is? Wayne Brown: Yes you did. It's really an arm or it's just, it's not even roof. It'sjust an open trellis over there. Kind: Oh, better yet. Burton: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, let's open it up for public hearing. Can I have a motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Okay, Would anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Please approach and state your name and address. Don Mehl: My name is Don Mehl. I live at 490 Bighorn Drive, which happens to be Lot 12 of the development. And as the closest neighbor to the property I just wanted to comment on a couple of things. Our property's located directly to the south and it's immediately adjacent to the lot in question. We moved into our home 12 years ago in January, '89. We designed our house and positioned it on the lot in such a way that the views were primarily directly to the west out the front, or directly to the east toward the lake. The rear of the garage and only one window of our house actually are overlooking Lot 11. The lot that they're talking about. The rear outer two corners of our house actually have a room extending in an angular fashion outward to the southeast and the other one to the northeast toward the lake and a deck runs inbetween those along the entire rear of the house. And from that deck we cannot see hardly anything of the home to the south. And we wouldn't be able to see anything of the proposed home to the north. Also, very little of the proposed home will be seen from our front yard. The house as proposed will be tucked back in and it's just really hidden from view. As far as we're concerned there's nothing in the request of the variances that will have any affect on us whatsoever as the closest neighbor. Seeing the proposed house plans tonight, I believe they've done a nice job with the design. I also believe that it will blend well with the surroundings. In the 12 years we've been there, I've never seen that creek fill up where it has over flowed it's banks. During a spring melt or during a heavy rainfall, there will be a lot of water flowing down that creek, but it only lasts for a few days and it's always been contained within the banks. I don't know what erosion might be doing to it. I have no way of measuring that. The Stanton's have every right to construct a home on that property as long as there's no safety issues and if it can be done legally and within city codes. And you folks have to decide on the variances. I just want to go on record as the closest neighbor saying that if you vote in favor of the variances, they just will not have any significant impact on us. Thank you. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission? Janet Paulsen: Hello. My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I guess you've seen a lot of us in the last 9 months. We mostly come as observers and I'm just here as an observer tonight but I just want to make one thing clear for the record. When you're measuring from the creek, you measure from the ordinary high water line. Not the middle of the creek. And that a structure could be a driveway and is definitely a parking lot. That's all. Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission? Motion to close public hearing. Sacchet moved, Biackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Commissioners, comments. Anyone? Conrad: I think the setback from the lake, the variance is just fine. When the neighbor says it doesn't impact his views, then that's a no brainer. That one's over. In terms of the creek, that one's not so clear. You can rationalize other variances. Are people been building but you know, if you continue to put variances there then you have no rules so you might as well just get rid of the rules. The contradiction to that one is, we do have a driveway that's far more impactful on the creek than the structure. The retaining wall. In my mind if it was a small, if we just had some...going into that setback, I'd be for it' but this one seems to be a little bit big. Too big for me. That's where I'd be at. Sacchet: I'm a little bit torn because it seems like our regulations apply to this retaining wall and the little comer sticking out of the house but it don't apply to the driveway. While actually the driveway, especially that semi parking area of the driveway is really what sticks out. I mean it probably goes about 20 foot to that creek. I also wonder, maybe staff you can help me out with that. If my ordinance, obviously the structure is the encroachment. Now the structure here is the retaining wall. Not necessarily the front patio, correct? Aanenson: Correct. The driveway is a structure but we don't have a setback for the driveway. The setback is for the structure. Sacchet: If they would have, for one thing if they would fill it, they wouldn't need a retaining wall. They probably wouldn't apply into the encroachment. If they would make a boulder retaining wall instead of concrete retaining wall, would it fall under the encroachment? If they would put stone steps in there. Aanenson: If you're moving earth and it's over 4 feet, it's going to have to be engineered for water. If they're moving and planning to fill, yes. We would look at that. Certainly. Sacchet: So that would be encroachment too. I'm trying to figure out. Aanenson: If you're altering land within that setback, that's what I'm trying to double check here. Sacchet: And then putting a driveway in is not altering land? That's where I get lost. Aanenson: Right. If you're filling. The amount of filling that you're doing. 57 Planning Com~nission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. Then you say 4 foot? Aanenson: Yeah. Sacchet: So if it's less than 4 foot? Aanenson: Well that would be for the wall, right. Yes, right. It has to be engineered. Sacchet: Yeah, it needs to be engineered if it's 4 foot but let's say they pdt a couple of big boulders in there that are 4 foot, and that happens to give them enough of a surface to pour some concrete or whatever, or put some stone slabs in, what have you and they have a front porch. Would that be encroachment? Aanenson: Well you'd still be looking at impervious surface ultimately too, right. It isn't encroachment as far as, the setback is from the house but if you're putting impervious surface in an area that's not intended to be, or if it's going to cause erosion, that's what we may look at. Sacchet: To me it's kind of funny that we don't have an issue with the driveway based on the ordinance but we have an issue with the house sticking out, what is it, 2-3 feet? At most. Maybe even less in two corners and they're making it a little entry platform. It's a great house and it's actually smaller than any of the other houses in the neighborhood. So I have a hard time requiring that they make it smaller. Now in terms of the setback from the lake, I agree with Ladd. That's a no brainer. Is it the setback from the lake to the edge of the deck? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: It's not to the start of the building so it's the deck? Okay. And there is no, sometimes we have a little bit of flexibility with decks or something like that but in that case it's clear. Deck. Blackoxviak: Lakeshore. Sacchet: Lakeshore. Blackowiak: Just ask Ladd. Sacchet: Okay. I'm hard pressed to deny it. But then on the other hand I'm also worried about approving it. Kind: That's decisive. Sacchet: Very decisive. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I have a question. Kate I'm sorry, ! know you're trying to research something. Of course I'm going to lose my question here. I just lost it so why don't you go on and it will come back to me. Kind: Okay. Maybe I'll hit on it. Blackowiak: Maybe you will. Oh, I remember what it is. 58 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Kind: Oh, go. Go. Blackowiak: Where do you measure creeks from? I've heard two different things. Aanenson: Center line. Blackowiak: Center line from creeks and then so is it lakes and ponds, ordinary high water mark? Is that the difference? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. So then it's been measured correctly from the, so it should be from the center line of the creek? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. That was my question. Sacchet: May I expand on that question? Does center line mean where the creek is the deepest or does it mean where the middle of where the water is? Because that's two totally two different things. Especially in this case. Aanenson: I don't know where you guys are going. Sacchet: I'm just saying to amplify what the applicant actually brought it up because it's pretty shallow there with these. So if it happens to be the deepest. Aanenson: You know I told Lori not to be here but clearly this is much more complicated than we all thought it was so I guess my preference is that we get additional information from Lori. You know I've got people that are, there's a lot of ambiguity and I'm just not comfortable at this point, at this time of the hour to try to make an interpretation here. Sacchet: That's fair. I support that. So I would suggest we table. Burton: Well do you want, let's make our comments. Kind: Sure, I'll make my comments just so staff can get a clue as to the direction I'm going here. The applicant in their letter talks about surface coverage was 14.6% and 25% is allowed. Does staff agree with those numbers? Hoium: Could you repeat that? Kind: 14.6% and 25% is allowed so they're basically saying they're way under on the surface coverage. Hoium: When we calculated we calculated a little bit more but they were still under. They were under 18%. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Kind: Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong but the intent of the creek setback is erosion and the amount of surface runoff so this actually is less than they could get. Aanenson: Let me be specific on it. This development contract set the center line of the creek in this specific instance... Kind: Okay. So now you're thinking we don't need to table? Aanenson: No, I'm not saying. I want to make sure that everybody under'stands what the difference is and if there's that much ambiguity. Kind: Because that was specified for this development? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: No matter what the code book says. Aanenson: Exactly. Kind: Okay. So back to my surface coverage question. The intent of setbacks from creeks has to do with the erosion and the amount of runoff that's going in there and this plan has a smaller surface coverage than what we would typically allow. So I guess I'm giving style points to the applicant for that. Do you agree? Aanenson: Well one other things we talked about too is...or something like that so you would reduce the speed as the water is going down and that erosion. Some of those sort of things. Vegetation plantings as a condition for mitigation. So I guess we can get some specifics from Lori on that too. Saam: And don't forget about maintenance. If we had to go in-there. That's another reason for the setback. We don't want to have a house 10 feet away from us if we're going in with a backhoe. So just... Kind: But they'll still be, what was the number, 33 feet? Back. So that's pretty big. And then I have a little drawing here to share with my fellow commissioners. The dark red is what encroaches. The hash marks is what doesn't encroach so it's kind of like an even deal thing. The point being, I think that the architect did a nice job of following the creek line and the intent is there and I think they're following the spirit of what we're asking. And I think that a reasonable use for this site is a larger home with a 3 car garage and so I would be in favor of both variance requests and I think it's a nice plan. Sidney: I'll make some short comments. I know it's late. It's a tremendous house desiring. I really like it. I agree with the commissioners, other commissioners that the lakeshore variance, I have no problem with that. The creek variance, I'm having a little bit of trouble with. I think we need clarification on that obviously. I don't feel as strongly that we have to, well I feel strongly that I would be in favor of granting that and I need to think some more about reasonable use and granting of variances but I'm looking here at the last sentence that says variances that blend with the pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria and I think we do need a larger house in that area and this is a tremendous design for that so. I am concerned about the driveway. That's a lot of asphalt and I think we do need to have some kind of assurance that they don't disrupt the creek in some way so if you're going to table it, I'd like to table to get clarification. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Burton: Okay. My comments are pretty much along the same lines. I'm fine with the lakeshore variance. The other one, in light of the driveway being as big as it is and allowable, I have no problem with the encroachment and with the house and I would allow that variance too. It seems to pale in light of the driveway so I'd be prepared to vote in favor of both variances tonight. But somebody can make the motion. Sacchet: Well let's move for the first one. Blackowiak: I would suggest we do this together. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: If we're going to. Sacchet: I do think it's funny that we're hung up on this little retaining wall and those two littler coruers when the driveway gets within 20 feet of the creek. Aanenson: If I can add some clarity. We need some direction from the report that we pulled in. That was in Lori's report and she has in here, no structure except a drive may be located within a drainage utility easement... And then she's got the structure maintain a 50 foot setback from the center line of the creek as it runs across this. That was her interpretation of this specific application. The broader issue I can come back and get the interpretation on. Make sure we're clear on that but this is herinterpretati°n on this subdivision. Sacchet: If I may comment .... we can't really impact that slope all that much and When we come down, if anything it will be that driveway that's an issue. But if we come to where that encroachment actually is with that retaining wall in the corner, there is kind of a flat area on the opposite side of where the creek setback is measured so I really don't think in terms of maintenance I can make a case that we have a problem with that 17 foot variance. I think that doesn't fly. If from that sense the variance is absolutely, . it's hard to close it. You can't. Saam: I was just reminding you guys. Either way so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, you know you're missing the issue. You're trying to add some, you're missing the issue of what the rules are trying to do. Creeks can pollute, are a major source of pollution. Especially this one and the city has done some things to fix it but major source. So you're looking at the driveway and saying well because that's so bad, well let's grab the other thing. You should probably look at the driveway and say is that really, have we really made sure that it's engineered right. I think you're really missing the point on this one and yeah, it seems rationale that there's very little impact. Yet it doesn't seem like there's very much sensitivity in terms of what the ordinance, a lot of holes in the ordinance. But on the other hand, what are you doing? I haven't heard anybody do anything other than say well, we don't know if we're 17 feet from the creek or we're measuring from the center line. The point is, what are you doing for the runoff and I haven't heard any comments tonight on that so I think you've all missed the point. Kind: Well Ladd I beg to differ. I did talk about the surface coverage is actually less than what we would allow so the runoff would be less. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Conrad: Totally, runoff going towards the creek or towards the lake? So that's a new rule. The runoff is going to be less. I don't see that. I don't understand that. Kind: Based on surface coverage you don't... Conrad: But there are minimum standards and you're just, what you've done right now is saying anybody can go 17 feet into, you told the ordinance that anybody can go 17 feet into the setback. That's what you said. Now we may say, and if the lawyers are here they're say well no we didn't. We said you could go in 17 feet if you're building a foundation. That is what you'vejt~st done so you're, and our interpretation, anybody else who wants to build a foundation and go 17 feet in is totally legal to do that. That's, they don't even have to come here anymore so again, the challenge is, it seems like it's insignificant. It's a good house design. I think the lake is protected. I don't think you've done a good job of looking at the creek other than saying well the ordinance stinks and if that's what you want to do. Kind: But it's a retaining wall, not principle structure. Conrad: But that's fine, so what have you done for the creek? Sacchet: Well here's something you can do. I agree, we haven't done much but I think if we want to put something in there to help the creek, we can do much more by asking that they don't have that little parking lot there. Then asking them to try to find some other solution that would be difficult to find with that end report. Conrad: And that's why I think we should table this and have them talk to staff a little bit and I'd sure like to get interpretation on a driveway that is that close to. That one I don't believe, just like you don't. You know it almost makes our conversation ridiculous when you put that much impervious surface and within the 50 foot setback. It's like we don't need an ordinance if you can do stuff like that. So my preference is to table it. Have staff get back and say are there any mitigating ways that this could go through and yet maintain the integrity of what we're trying to do with the 50 foot setback. It's a DNR standard and we've adopted the DNR standards so typically DNR standards are minimalist standards. It's not that they're setting out huge numbers so anyway, my preference would be that you table it. Burton: ! don't have a problem with that. Sacchet: The whole thing or just the. Conrad: The whole thing. Blackowiak: Yeah, I don't think we can break it up. Burton: Does somebody want to make a motion? Conrad: I would move that we table this item. Burton: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Burton: Any discussion? 62 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request for a 17 foot variance from the required 50 foot creek setback for the construction of a single family home on Lot 11, Block 1, Shado~vmere. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: So when would it come back? Aanenson: On the 20th. Kind: So then this will be the second item on the 20th? Aanenson: Yes. It will go under ongoing items. Burton: Kate I don't know if you heard, I told the Lundgren guys they'd be first on the 20th. NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: ...so you know what's coming up on the 20th. Bob's having meetings on the rezonings. The neighborhood meetings set up. 350 notices went out for a meeting next Tuesday. Three areas... Generous: I'm having the open house at the Rec Center. We noticed the people basically west of Galpin. Also Walnut Grove. Out to Lake Minnewashta. There's only 15 properties that were actually, we'll bring back were proposed for any changes but we want to discuss that there's a lot of inconsistencies between land use and zoning so we want to let them know what the options are. What's going on. What we know is going on. What the potential development is Out there. Aanenson: And we'll talk a little bit more about it in our work session... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 2, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: We have been...agenda. Kind: Oh, I do have a question about that. Aanenson: ...ongoing goals and...what you want us to be working on. The comp plan's...the format we'll be following. I also wanted to give you...projects, status. What we're looking at in the future. And then we've got Planning Commission interviews scheduled. I started them at 8:00. I'm assuming there will probably be 4 or 5. So we do 15 minutes each. What we normally do is put the applicant... Blackowiak: Okay. So you have 4 or 5 applicants right now? Aanenson: I believe there will probably be 4 or 5. There's 2... Kind: And my question is, are we interviewing candidates to replace or to complete Craig's term or are they starting a completely new term? 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Aanenson: That's a good question. I'll have to get some clarity on that too and there's a couple people that are up and it's in April so we might want to just, you know we put the one vacancy so we'll have to look at that too. You know runner-up...I'11 get some clarification from the city manager on that. Sacchet mOved, Kind seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 64