j. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 7, 1995Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
staff report is so intense and so accurate ... and I will await to hear the other commentaries
' before I come back to you. If there's any questions...
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one Mike. On my sheets, what
' I'm seeing in front of me is, the dates on the first three are 7- 12 -94. So am I looking at the
right one? In the lower right hand corner.
Michael Byrne: That's when, that's the original draft possibly of just the contour lines.
Mancino: Well actually you know what? This is interesting. In the lower right hand corner
it has 7 -12 -94 and then on the left hand corner it has revision dates on it. 1, 2, 3, 4. I just
want to make sure, could you come and look at this and make sure that this is the, I don't
' know. Does everyone else have the same?
Farmakes: Same here.
Michael Byrne: This is what you're looking at here?
' Mancino: Now I look down here, and here was the date. And then I looked over there.
Michael Byrne: 7 -12 -94 undoubtedly was the time that the contour lines for this entire area
were started.
Mancino: And then the other dates are the overlays?
Michael Byrne: Not all the overlays. There's been approximately 15 different variations that
Y Y
have been worked on. Major ones and the ones that have been submitted to the city are the
' only ones probably here.
' Mancino: Okay, I understand now. Thank you.
Michael Byrne: Do you have any other questions at this point?
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning
Commission, please come up. State your name and address.
' 3
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Al Weingart: Good evening. My name is Al Weingart. I think you've seen me before and
you're probably getting tired of seeing me up here but appreciate the opportunity to speak
before you again. I live at 5330 St. Albans Bay Road in Shorewood and I am the current
owner of the Lake Lucy peninsula and soon to be buying... Steller Court. I'm not going to
take up a lot of time here with what we've already talked about in prior Planning Commission
meetings as well as, you have voluminous amount of materials we've provided you. If you'd
put up my slide too. My slide on, I want to only put this up there for the purpose of
reiterating again that our group is fairly serious about what we're doing here. We tend to
continue to be so. I'm not going to go through all this but basically we have been all over
this project from day one as far as trying to impress upon not only the applicant, Mr. Byrne,
but also upon staff as well as upon you and we've met with many of you. We've had you out
there. We've had the Mayor. I've spoken to the Mayor and a few City Council people about
what's going on here so everybody seems to be fairly well informed and hopefully have
receive copies of most of this stuff, but if anybody has any question about it, you certainly
can ask for copies. So but the effect on us is primarily aesthetically, environmentally and
economically. Those three things we feel we are somewhat at risk with respect to this
project. Continuing examples of why we feel we're at risk, or not at risk but at least be
influenced by. Being at risk might be a little bit strong but influenced by it, is basically one
example, and this is the only example I'm going to put up relative to what we talked about
before, and that is essentially the tree canopy calculations. The point here is not to show the
fact that we're taking down more trees than we were the last time we talked about this issue,
but primarily to emphasize the fact that they're taking 2/3 of the trees on the whole site and if
that's not abusive, then I guess I would find a hard time understanding what might be. So I
guess we're trying to impress upon you the impact this is going to have, not only on the
properties that the developer's trying to develop here but also our own properties that surround
this property. And the financial impact as well the aesthetic impact and the environmental
impact to that whole area. The sensitivity that it has to Lake Lucy and the wetlands that
support a group of wildlife around there and also the aesthetic nature of the property. So
that's the point of showing you this that 66% of that environment, at least the tree cover, is
going to be taken away. And what we're asking you to do tonight is basically to deny this
application and send it onto City Council. The reasons for the denial can be a number of
them from the standpoint of you don't really have a preliminary plat, like I talked about last
time. I think that's arguable and you probably won't agree with me on that but there still are
certain provisions in the city ordinance that would not qualify this as being a full preliminary
plat. There's still a lot of drawings that have to be done on this, from what Sharmin was
telling us and so that would be one argument I guess. The variances, in my opinion anyway,
are a privilege and not a right and the applicant makes the argument that he has been through
a lot of reiterations on this. However, basically it comes down to the fact that we've gone
from mass grading to something that 66% which is going away. So if that's an improvement,
then I'm missing something. Another one would be the detrimental impact to the wetlands
2
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
1
from the runoff of the water into the wetlands, not into Lake Lucy. I know on my property
1 when it went before you and the City Council, there were a number of provisions put in there
to restrict what I could do on my property relative to runoff, etc. One of them being that I
cannot put salt on my driveway in any way because it would leech into the lake. We have
1 10% grades here. That water's going to run right into the lake and into the wetlands. That
would be something maybe you ought to consider to think about relative to the property like
1 this. That it's particularly ... graded severely. And if nothing else, basically this is the kind of
development that is just not good public policy period and that's a very broad argument, I
understand but it's just one of those developments that, it could be done a lot better. It could
1 be done economically for the developer. Which we realize it's got very excellent piece of
property there that he can get high dollar for if he would just take some of the
recommendations of people who have tried to offer them to him who know something about
1 the economics. And that's all I'm really going to say now. Just that we'd appreciate a
consideration of denial and let City Council deal with this at this point. Thank you. Are
there any questions? Thank you.
1 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
1 Joe Morin: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen. We have the property immediately to
the east of the proposed development. First of all I want to thank the staff very much for
1 their tremendous efforts. The diligence that they've put in. I truly appreciate the work
they've done in trying to preserve the environment, in a sense with one hand tied behind the
back, since they were operating under the constraint of working within a number of lots that
1 Mr. Byrne had originally proposed. Even under that constraint they've made ... to the existing
plan. If it wasn't for their efforts, we would still be looking at mass grading on 95% of the
site. And as Al points out, now we're losing only 66% but that's still a significant change. I
1 think credit for the progress that's been done to this point is due strictly to the staff. I'm
disappointed that the developer has shown any creativity in taking their recommendations and
extending that even further. ...value the property and the amenities certainly could be realized
1 with a lot fewer lots there. Progress has been made but I don't believe that sufficient progress
has yet been made. I don't want to take up a lot of your time tonight repeating the points I've
already made but I do want to tick off a few major items. I still believe that there's still
1 excessive density for this site. It's not compatible with the development going on on the east
property line. The Mason Homes development. There are still 11 variances on 8 of the lots,
1 although staff is requiring that most of these be eliminated. The springs on the property has
still not been identified or located or even addressed by the applicant. Last Friday Eric
Rivkin and I met up with our children and he showed me the springs. One of the springs
1 running right out of the ground. It's in the area of Lot 6, which is probably in the buffer
zone. It may not impact the development but still, the deer and the other wildlife within that
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
area ... water, at least one of the conditions ought to be to put a fence around it to protect it
from the bulldozers and from the fill. There's still 4 to 5 feet, perhaps more by the lake.
You still have the impact of the fill on the pond and the lake. The impact of big houses in
the middle of a wildlife migration zone. We still have 15, 16, 17,000 square foot lots on
steep, heavily wooded terrain. 12 foot high retaining walls. 300 feet long walls, maybe 4 to
11 feet high in places. I'm not sure if shifting it south is going to affect all of these or not.
Some, they probably can be reduced somewhat but it's some of the staff's recommendations.
There's still excessive tree loss. It's even worst than what Al described. If you read the front
page of the staff report. The staff notes that at least 10 trees on the survey appear to be near
enough to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are being
shown as being saved. These are 150 year old trees. They're irreplaceable. There's still an
impact on the wildlife. The applicant hasn't even talked about this. I think that this
development still is abusive to the environment. I want to make just two more points.
There's still too many lots in the southern region of the development and I want to focus on
this for just a moment. What the overhead here shows is the no variance plan. The plan that
the applicant was asked to put together showing what could be done if no variances were
allowed. I put this up during our last meeting but I want to highlight that there's no access to
that top lot, which is shown in there. There's no access so that is not buildable. The dashed
line that you see is the 50 foot buffer zone. He cannot, the homes must be pushed back from
that 50 foot buffer zone. The point I'm making is that in that southern area the applicant can
only access 3 lots. He cannot get 4 homes down there without a private street. Now per city
ordinance, use of a private street can be allowed if the use of a private street will permit
enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Now clearly the applicant is using a
private drive in this area simply to gain an additional lot at the expense of the natural
environment. So my final two points are these. Number one, staff is recommending approval
with conditions. Now if approval with conditions is granted, we request that the additional
condition be added that Lot 6 be eliminated. Point number 2, my final point is however we
believe that the ordinance about preserving and protecting the natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes and water courses is being violated with this proposed plan.
On that basis we request that this application be denied. Thank you.
Mancino: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair. On the point ... he's using the figure which ... the tree removal
process Mr. Thornton has... calculation. The ordinance lays out a replacement program which
calls for 1.2... Our own covenant restrictions exceed those by 50 %... Mr. Weingart also made
a note that water rushing down a 10 foot—flow immediately into Lake Lucy. I believe he's
forgetting about the ... pond. He indicates that this site will be detrimental and
environmentally ... Mr. Morin brings up the fundamental cry that the site would be better with
bigger lots and more expensive... As I asked Mr. Morin... because Mason Homes is aware of
n
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
the economics ... it doesn't work that way. We're trying to use very attractive sites to create
very attractive homesites for ... custom homes. — creating $250,000.00 lots on this site is not
even reasonable or ... statements made over the last 3 meetings have had... melodrama.
Normally at this point in time I would have asked Dave Hempel to identify within the staff
report, which I believe he would have argued that Mr. Hempel has answered continually some
of these questions about, number one. Some of the requirements for example ... they have been
done. Mr. Hempel has indicated because of the changes that are going to be continuing to
make ... final plat, those calculations he would accept ... We've done our necessary preliminary...
The soils examinations are done before the final plat. Mr. Hempel in the staff report has
continually brought that up. I can only depend on what staff.. In conclusion, I'm asking for
approval... your job has always been and remains the same. To evaluate the staffs efforts and
recommendations. The presentations ... to make your decision. I think we've done the best that
we can in this situation with the limitations that we have ... thank you for your time.
Mancino: Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Oh excuse me, one
more.
Joe Morin: Would it be okay if I just...
Mancino: Joe, would you come on up and state your name and address again.
Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. The only thing I wanted to
address is, as you can see there are several homes immediately adjacent to the pond and also
immediately adjacent to the lake. Runoff from those homes runs directly into Lake Lucy.
' The storm sewer... Secondly, Mike, Mr. Byrne eluded to the Mason Home density. If we
were to apply the same density calculations to the development on the west, there would be 4
to 6 new homes in that area. Now obviously this plan is much more environmentally
sensitive than is the site that Mason Homes is developing so one would expect even a greater
degree of care and diligence and sensitivity to the environment. We're not seeing it here. I'm
trying not to be ... but there's value in this property that extends beyond the economic value
t and there is in fact economic value that could be traded here above and beyond what will be
traded when the environment is destroyed. That's all I want to say right now. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Skubic moved, Fwmakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
' motion cariied. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from the commissioners. Questions and comments. Jeff.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes: I'm not going to make any comments on this.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: This is a particularly difficult development for me. I'm relatively new at this and
I've had the benefit of looking at it from developments that have been completed and I look
at this development for.
Audience: Louder please.
Skubic: I've had the opportunity to look at completed developments and now I get the chance
to look at development before completion but I haven't had the benefit of seeing a
development before and afterwards so I'm a little hard pressed to make a good judgment on
this one but. There are a number of variances on this development. In my short experience
here I have not had a proposal, seen a proposal that was this difficult and required as many
variances as this. There is certainly justification for that. It is difficult grades to work with.
We have the lakefront and so forth but I get the sense that this is like putting a square peg in
a round hole. It just isn't right. That's all.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Well we've seen this 3 times. I think staff had a chance to look at it 3 times and
work with it every day. Issues the neighbors bring up we have ordinances for. There's a
couple that we don't. Staffs job is to interpret the ordinances and my cut at it is they have
done that. Unfortunately, when you have a sensitive area, there's not an ordinance for that
and it's tough to develop one. We don't have one. I think the staff report is appropriate.
Staff is interpreting the ordinances as they are and interpreting them fairly. It's probably not
my druthers to develop the site this way but I think again our job is to make sure that staff is
interpreting these properly. There are some variances and I think we don't have to grant them
but I think the variances do create a better project. There are probably 4 points if we approve
this that I would want to have incorporated into a motion. One of them would be for the
applicant to work with the staff in terms of shifting Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
See if there is value in doing that. A real issue for me is the lake. And the sensitivity of that
lake to this development and there is just no way you can prevent the lake from being
contaminated by the development but I guess I'd like to put some kind of a monitoring, a
special monitoring. I'm never sure what occurs out of the city for projects like this in terms
of monitoring to make sure our ordinances are enforced and this probably deserves some
special note and some special attention so I think we need that kind of review and that's not
to say we distrust what's going on but I think just because you have other contractors
involved, we should have maybe special review of what's going on. An issue that was not
8
1
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
' addressed by the engineer is the impact on the springs. I think that deserves an engineering
comment by the time it gets to City Council. And then I think I'd like to have staff advise
the Council on the appropriateness of developing Lot 7. Those are my comments.
' Mancino: Mike.
' Meyer: I think Ladd really hit all of my points so no comments at this time.
Mancino: Okay. I would like to add to Ladd's, the appropriateness of developing Lot 7.
Also, can you hear me now?
Audience: No.
' Mancino: Can you hear me now? To also look at the appropriateness of that private, getting
a variance to Lakeway Drive. Whether that should be and meet the ordinance of a private
drive and why we're allowing a private drive there. A private road versus not on Lakeway
Drive.
' Al -Jaff: Do you want me to address?
' Mancino: Yes, please.
Al -Jaff: The applicant showed us a plan with zero variances. It is possible to serve those
lots with a full fledged street. There is one lot that is questionable along the lake.
Mancino: I think it would be worth it to show the differences to the Council.
Al -Jaff: Okay, we can do that.
' Mancino: And have them look at that.
Al -Jaff: It would basically preserve trees. Additional trees if we served it via a private street
' versus a full fledged street. But again, as mentioned earlier, one of the lots is questionable as
to whether it could remain or not.
' Mancino: Okay. Sharmin, and just a few little questions. Lakeway Drive and Lakeway
Court, is that enough of a difference in names and Lakeway Lane, for the Fire Marshal?
I Al -Jaff: He was comfortable with it. I brought it to his attention.
1 9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Couple other questions that I have, have to do with the proposed
alignment of the city sewer and water to the Willis property, where it's located. Can that be
moved so that it aligns itself with Lakeway Lane and doesn't create another pathway or
swath?
Al -Jaff: In the grading section of the staff report, it is recommended that the utilities be
moved so that they align with Lakeway Lane. But the condition didn't make it to, or the
request didn't make it to the conditions of approval. We will work with the applicant on
realigning that. Another thing that I might mention is, where the utilities are proposed are
also at the same area where the retention pond is proposed to be located. So that area is
going to be disturbed regardless.
Mancino: Oh, okay. So then... And can we also add in our conditions something about the
existing driveway easement for the Willis property to remain an easement?
Al -Jaff: Okay.
Mancino: Until it is developed and then it will get it's access from Lakeway Lane. Is there
also in the recommendation Sharmin, about Lakeway Court and what happens to the turn
around when it, where it is next to the Morin property. What happens? Is the turn around
within the, on the eastern side.
Al -Jaff: What staff is recommending, the applicant provides a temporary turn around on Lot
2, Block 1 and Lot 11, Block 2. However, if the Morin's want to grant an easement at this
time to provide the turn around, staff would advise it. Rather than creating a turn around now
and then in the future and when they develop their property it would be vacated on this plat
and then re- created again on the adjacent.
Mancino: And is that stated such in the recommendation 31?
Al -Jaff: Actually it's condition number 25 and it's the last sentence. It says a temporary turn
around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further
subdivides. It's a private matter whether the Morin's wish to grant an easement at this point.
Again, staff would recommend that they do.
Joe Morin: Madam Chair, would you like us to respond?
Mancino: No. I'll wait and let you do that with staff. Thank you Joe. On recommendation
number 4.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Al -Jaff: Number 4?
Mancino: Yes, about the snow fence. I would like it to be very clear that I think the snow
fence should be placed and inspected and approved by staff along the edge of the tree
preservation easement prior to grading. So that it's all set up. It's inspected. It's approved
before any machinery gets on there and starts grading. Secondly, I'd like to make sure we are
granting numerous variances on this. Almost like a PUD. I'd like to make sure that we do
have conservation easements on all areas outside the grading limits. And that the reason for
the conservation easements is that they are to be maintained as natural woodlands. That's
what's there. That means that the dead fall stays. That means that it keeps it's natural habitat
for the wildlife. And it's also stated very much in our tree preservation ordinance that we
talked about it and the task force, each member that not only did we want the bigger trees
saved, but we were looking ahead to the future. To the future of the next generations that
will be here and need those saplings and that underbrush saved too. So that we have a next
generation of trees. Those are all my comments. May I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. Madam Chairman, you did make a note of the alignment of the sewer. Was
that still an applicable or appropriate?
Mancino: I will let staff and the applicant decide that.
Conrad: Okay, so that one's eliminated. Madam Chair again, you were talking about an
existing, you wanted an existing driveway for the Willis property to remain an easement. Is
that what your wording was?
Mancino: Yes.
Conrad: Until when?
Mancino: Until that property develops.
Conrad: How come?
Mancino: Because at the time that property develops and subdivides, it will gain it's access
from Lakeway Lane. They want to, staffs position from reading the report and please correct
me if I'm misinterpreting it, is when the Willis property does subdivide, that the entrance off
of Lake Lucy Road is a substandard site view?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: And that you would prefer.
Al -Jaff: That at the time of the Willis property subdividing, and adding more traffic onto
Lake Lucy, then it would be required to utilize Lakeway Lane. I would also request that, that
came from Jill Willis and the applicant was working with her and last, to my knowledge,
agreed to allow.
Michael Byrne: Sharmin, our intention is to agree to a temporary driveway. At such time as
the ... or the subsequent owner of that property...
Al -Jaff: Okay. So everybody has agreed to permit this driveway to continue until such time
when it's subdivided.
Conrad: Is it worthwhile getting it into the motion?
Al -Jaff: Sure. While this was being discussed I wrote something so if you want me to.
Conrad: See what I do. Okay. I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends
approval of Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family (95 -1 REZ), Preliminary Plat #95 -3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres
into 18 single family lots and two outlots with variances, (a 20 foot front-yard setback for Lot
3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10% street grade and a 50 foot wide right -
of -way, five (5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the
west side of Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated April 25th. Are
we sure?
Al -Jaff: May 8th. I'm sorry.
Conrad: May 8, 1995, with the conditions listed in the staff report with the following
additions. Point 32. The applicant will work with the staff regarding the appropriateness of
shifting of Lakeway Lane and Court to the south. Condition 33. Staff is to present to the
City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to insure minor impact to the lake
during construction. Point number 34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by
construction and report to the City Council. Point number 35. Staff to advise City Council
on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on house on Lot 7. Point number
36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the
property is developed. Point number 37. That the conservation easement should be
encouraged on all areas outside of the grading limits as presented by the applicant. And then
a minor revision to point number 4 in the staff report that says a snow fence shall be placed
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
and inspect and approved by staff along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to
the grading.
Mancino: Do I hear a second?
Meyer: Second.
' Mancino: Any discussion?
' Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single
Family (95 -1 REZ), Preliminary Plat #95 -3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single
' family lots and two oudots with variances, (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1,
Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10% street grade and a 50 foot wide right -of -way, five
(5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of
Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated May 8, 1995, with the
following conditions:
' 1. Establish a tree removal plan incorporating preservation areas or numbered inventory of
trees removed and saved. Trees lost in excess of the plan will be replaced at two times
the diameter of the tree lost. All trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged
' and recorded as to species, condition and diameter. Applicant must submit a Woodland
Management Plan.
' 2. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road
with the exception of Lot 1, Block 1.
3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way of Lake Lucy. The
applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the
site and along Lake Lucy Road right -of -way. The vegetated areas which will not be
' affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The
conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy
trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall
provide a plan that shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant
shall provide the legal description. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading
' limits must be shown on the grading plan.
4. A snow fence shall be placed, and inspected and approved by staff, along the edge of
the tree preservation easements prior to grading.
13
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
5. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the
property.
6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes.
This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire
fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural
vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No
burning permits will be issued.
c. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block
2, per Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Copy enclosed.
d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turn
around may be modified if homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 are protected by a
NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system or other means acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
e. Fire hydrants shall be located at intersection and end of cul -de -sacs and spaced 300
feet apart.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication
and /or trail construction.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
8. Revise the plat to eliminate the following variances:
a. Lot depth for Lot 2, Block 2 shall be increased to 125 feet.
' b. Side yard setback for Lots 5, 6, east side of Lot 7, and Lot 10, Block 2, and Lot 2,
Block 1 shall maintain a 20 foot side yard setback.
c. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 shall maintain a 30 foot front yard setback.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
' the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the
grading limits.
10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
11. All utility 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.
12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. 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 basins, and /or creeks.
' Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
1 15
1]
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
�I
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development I
contract.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40 foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum
of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 are subject to
the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block 2.
19. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging
into the wetlands. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout
for safety purposes. The storm water pond shall be designed and constructed with a
75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland
plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. The existing
home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system
within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not
required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails.
21. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730.00. These fees are
payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be
waived if the applicant provides for on -site storm water treatment.
16
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer. The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and
gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
23. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2 and Lots 1
through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A
detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with
the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the lot.
24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the
' plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a
drainage and utility easement from the Morin's.
' 25. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance
No. 209 and a turn around acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street(s). A temporary turn around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14,
Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
' 26. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right -of -way reduced to 50 foot
wide is recommended.
27. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be
denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III
erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. The grading, drainage, and
construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better with
the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss.
28. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly
approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane.
' 29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane.
Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be
placed on the barricades indicating "This street shall be extended in the future ". A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners
in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
30. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access
Lakeway Court is recommended.
31. The private streets (Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive) shall be either platted as outlots
and deeded to Lots 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, Block 2 and the Morin's
property for access purposes; or the plat revised to incorporate the outlots into the
adjacent lots and a 30 foot wide cross access easement and maintenance agreement for
Lot 2, Block 1, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Block 2 and the Morin property.
32. The applicant will work with the staff regarding the appropriateness of shifting of
Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
33. Staff is to present to the City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to
insure minor impact to the lake during construction.
34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by construction and report to the City Council.
35. Staff to advise City Council on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on
house on Lot 7.
36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the
property is developed.
37. That the conservation easement should be encouraged on all areas outside of the grading
limits as presented by the applicant.
All voted in favor, except Commissioner Skubic who opposed and Commissioner Farmakes
who abstained, and the motion carved.
Mancino: This goes to the City Council?
Al -Jaffa On the 12th. June 12th.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST FOR A 48'X 36' STORAGE BUILD AND
STABLE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED, RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND
LOCATED AT 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
' Mancino: Any questions:
Farmakes: Does expanding agricultural use pose any problems for the long term plan?
Comprehensive plan for the use of this property, which I believe is.
Aanenson: We looked at that issue and we believe based on the fact that it's really kind of
transient in nature. It's not, the structure is such that it's not such a large investment that it
has such a life to span that. We believe that based on what he has told us he intends to do,
use the property for in the future, it probably would even be compatible. And that again, we
' understand is to be something like a golf course.
Farmakes: I see.
' Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning
Commission?
' Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. I think the staff pretty well
covered it. It's pretty simple, straight forward pole building. No foundation. It could be
' easily moved ... so I can use it for whatever I want to. I need it for a lot of equipment that I
have for my business and for my personal use and I also need it for to house some race
horses I've got. Part of the condition, 100 feet from the lake sounds like a reasonable idea.
Good idea. If we're going to do that up, I didn't think it was ... too specific because we hadn't
designed the building yet. I didn't know how close I had to be but 100 feet from the lake
sounds okay. As far as the easements with the Met Council, I have an agreement with them.
I still own the land. They have an easement for the purpose of maintaining their interceptor
and at the time we made the agreement, we discussed having things like this and I can do
whatever I want with this property as long as I don't interfere with their periodic maintenance
...so that's how I'm covering my bases with them. I don't even know if this fence, because I
haven't measured the area. I don't know if the fence is, or if the interceptor falls within the
100 feet or not but if it does...
Mancino: What kind of fence are you putting in?
' Mike Gorra: It's going to be a three rail, wooden. Typical fence that you see for a corral.
1 19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: The only reason I'm asking is because, on my property we had some horses that
got away and I'm concerned with your horses on Highway 5 and we have a 3 foot rail fence
too on Galpin and it was a little scary at times.
Mike Gorra: Well this fence will be plenty sturdy to keep them in. There is one change.
Talking to Bob, the planner, I did mention to him that I want to look, in the process of
designing the building and came up with something that might be a little larger than the 36 x
48 and he said that they could only allow a 10% increase. So what I did notify the design
department that I would like a 48 x 60 foot so...
Mancino: Mike, do you have a rendering of the building because you say that you indicate
that the building will match the design of the house.
Mike Gorra: Yes. The house is kind of an English Tudor with brick, stucco and rough cedar
or rough ... for the design. The building won't be brick but it will be simulated stucco with a
rough cedar running through it to match the house. It's not going to be a cheap metal type
building that you might associate with a pole barn but it will be a good looking...
Mancino: Any other questions for Mike?
Skubic: Yes. I didn't follow what you had to say about expanding the size from 48 to 36 to
36 x 60 feet.
Mike Gorra: Well, when I applied for the conditional use permit, I hadn't given much
thought to the size of the storage and in the last month I've kind of tried to figure out what I
had to store and what the horses would take up and I think a 48 x 60 would be a better size
to apply for so if I do need more than the 36 x 48, I won't have to go through the process
again. Even though I might build a smaller one, it wouldn't require me to come back up here
So I would like to apply for the 48 x 60 foot.
Mancino: Staff, do you have any concerns about that?
Aanenson: No, that's fine.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
Mike Gorra: Thank you.
Mancino: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing?
20
t
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and address the
Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from the Planning Commission. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on this particular piece. It seems appropriate...
Mancino: Okay, Mike.
Meyer: No comment.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: No comment.
Mancino: I have none either so may I have a motion please.
Farmakes: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approve conditional use permit #95 -1
on the findings present in the staff report on the following conditions, 1 through 5.
Mancino: May I have a second?
Farmakes: Should I date that on the Planning Commission report dated 5- 17 -95.
Mancino: Thank you.
Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use permit 495 -1 based on the findings presented in the staff report and with the
following conditions:
1. A natural buffer strip shall be maintained between the interceptor and the wetland, lake,
and stream (approximately 100 feet). Horses shall not be kept or allowed to graze in
this area.
2. A stable permit is required by the City and must be renewed annually. The property
owner shall contact the Stable Inspector for an application form.
3. Erosion control shall be maintained throughout the construction period and until new
vegetation is established.
4. The site plan shall be revised to show the fence outside of the required buffer area and
outside of the interceptor easement.
5. If required by the Metropolitan Council, the property owner shall enter into an
agreement with the Council to protect the sanitary sewer facilities.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PBK INVESTMENTS, INC. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A 23.5 SQ. FT.
MONUMENT SIGN AT THE HIGHWAY 7 ENTRANCE TO THE 7 AND 41 CROSSING
CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND 41.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish
to address the Planning Commission?
Brian Pillowski: I'm Brian Pillowski. I'm the owner of 7 and 41 Crossing. I think there's
some confusion in sort of how I see the background on the center. The center, on the front or
the application where it says 7 and 41 Partnership. PBK Investments owns the real estate.
Mr. Sass from 7 and 41 Partnership lost the title to the property Park National Bank and I
purchased it from Park National Bank in December of '93. And the sign that was placed on
the property in '93 was not by 7 and 41 Partnership but by Park National Bank. One of the
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
things... property is you have tenants who pay real estate taxes and pay maintenance and
they're very concerned about how people approach the real estate from an access standpoint.
The property, and again I didn't develop the real estate but from owning it and understanding
the process of the property, at present there is a, out where they're stating on the Outlot 1,
i there is a brick post presently there which the electric does hook back into our junction box
to the center to have a sign placed on it from the original. When the developers did the
property, of course they got into financial problems right away and never did put a sign up
there. Of course they never did put a sign on TH 41 either. That was done in '93. And my
tenants wish to have a sign out there to attract more customers to their space. We feel that
Super America has two signs, which is a 4,000 to 5,000 foot tenant. We have 25,000 plus
' square feet and we have one sign that is not very plain to see on TH 41 from Highway 7.
That is one of our main concerns in applying for a variance to put a sign up on Highway 7. I
do realize that any tenant that goes onto Lot 1 is not going to utilize the sign that was
presented to be there. They're going to have their own sign, which means we've got some
brick posts with electric running back to my junction box that is not being utilized. So I
know it's a problem but I think that we're going to work and make changes but I think that
the ability to have both signs on the property only enhances the ability to bring in more
customers. Raise rents over time which ultimate raises more property tax value for the State.
So questions?
Mancino: Any questions? I just have one Brian. From, I kind of live in that area. There
are fairly good sized wall signs up on each of the businesses there right now that you can see,
and I think that the daycare center not only has one at the end there of the building, but also
has a very long banner. A banner on it's fence.
Brian Pillowski: Temporary sign.
Mancino: Well it's been there for a long time, if that's temporary. And are the signs lighted?
They're also lighted on the.
i Brian Pillowski: Yes.
Mancino: Okay. And they are visible at this time from Highway 7.
Brian Pillowski: Yes.
I Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Any other questions? May I have a motion to
move for an opening for a public hearing please?
1 23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion cwlied. The public hewing was opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come
forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Fwmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from Commissioners. Jeff.
Farmakes: I go first...
Mancino: Right. You worked on the sign ordinance quite a bit so.
Farmakes: Yes I did. I think in this case, the analysis of staff is appropriate for this
particular development. I don't, having been a long time resident of this resident and being
there. Going into the shopping center quite often, it's all service retail. Typical development
that you see on the corner junction of two major thoroughfares in the community. As is the
case sometimes with these smaller retail developments you have a group of business people
who come in. Usually they don't have, they have a fairly limited amount of experience in
retail. They sometimes guess wrong when they come up with a service business, which is
what is in there. And to counteract that, it's always more signage, more signage, more
signage because I'm not making the money I thought I was going to. This particular
development I believe also had financial problems. If you go back into the history, there was
a great deal of neighborhood concerns when the development was made. Consequently a lot
of the signage that you see at Super America and so on is low impact. However, I would be
wrong if I said that I thought that the general public that lives here, in the community, don't
know that there's a Super America there and I could list off every store that's at that retail
center. And I would guess that's general knowledge in Chanhassen and Excelsior. Under the
current location of the proposed sign, and the fact that it's on the undeveloped outlot, and the
fact that where the current sign resides, and looking at the intent and purpose of the sign
ordinance that was passed recently, I don't think that this qualifies for an additional sign. I
also would like to remind everybody here that there are stop lights at this junction. You can
clearly read off every one of the signs on the retail wall that faces the highway from both
Highway 7 and Highway 41. On a good day, when it's not raining, you can even see what's
in the window and I would be inclined not to vary from staffs recommendation here.
Mancino: Okay, Bob.
24
t
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Skubic: I concur with what Jeff has said. I have no further comments.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: Pretty thorough. Yeah, I agree with Jeff too.
Mancino: I also concur with staffs recommendation. There's not enough reason for me to
grant a variance to the new updated sign ordinance that we do have. May I have a motion
then please?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign
Permit Variance #95 -2, dated May 17, based on the findings of the staff, 1 through 3. I have
nothing further to add.
Mancino: May I have a second please?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign
Permit Variance #95 -2 based on the findings in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. The shopping center and the occupants located in the center already have a reasonable
opportunity to advertise their name and service.
3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4 ACRES FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO
PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57
ACRES INTO 78 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY; SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR 75 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON
19.95 ACRES; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED
ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY, NORTH
BAY, ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Bushey
9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie
Ron Ytzen
9227 Lake Riley Blvd.
Jo Ann Mulligan
8501 Tigua Circle
Dave Nikolay
8500 Tigua Circle
Don Sitter
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Sharon Gatto
9631 Foxford Road
Don Jensen
Rottlund Company, Inc.
Wayne Tower
Pioneer Engineering
Ernie Peacock
Applicant's Representative
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions? Thank you Bob. Does the designee of the applicant wish to
approach the Planning Commission?
Don Jensen: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Don Jensen, Land Development
Manager for Rottlund Company. With us tonight in the audience and ... Wayne Tower, who is
our project planner and coordinator with Pioneer Engineering. He'll describe a little bit of the
site characteristics. I'll be able to explain some of the architecture and the concept behind
what we're trying to accomplish on this property. And then representing the owners is the
owner's broker and designated representative here tonight, Ernie Peacock in case there are any
questions regarding our contractual arrangement. ...tonight working on this project. We also
have representatives of the adjacent properties here to speak on their particular issues with the
Lakeview Hills Apartments. We have had a chance to meet with them and working with
them.... staff quickly described on the overhead here. Without much further ado, I'll let Wayne
Tower here to...
26
n
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Wayne Tower: Thank you Don. I guess my role tonight is just to kind of introduce you to
what the general site is and how it relates to the community in general and the physical
attributes of the project. Down here, I don't know if it's easily seen by the camera but we
have an aerial photo obviously showing the larger pictures of what we have up here on top.
Obviously the main characteristics of the site, of course ... Lake Riley. As we move to the
east, there's the Lakeview Hills Apartments that can be seen here on the aerial photo. As we
move around to the north, there's a future right -of -way for Highway 212. As you go around
to the west here, we have some open ground which presently is being proposed to be
developed by the Klingelhutz ownership and also wetlands to the west. Working on the
specifics of the site itself, again we had the lakeshore. As we move north from the lakeshore
we have a fairly substantial stand of mature oaks. Mostly oaks right through here which we
are intending to hopefully save in it's entirety with maybe some very minor exceptions. From
that, presently Lyman Boulevard exists through here but there's going to be an expansion to
that or an upgrade to Lyman Boulevard which is something I think Don will talk about.
Presently we thought we were working with the appropriate curve data and we'll have to work
with the city engineers to find out quite what their objections were because some were
unspecific as to what the problem was with that 35 mph speed program. As we move north
we have an open water wetland which is somewhat outlined by this normal water elevation or
high water elevation line right here and this is pretty much open, as you can see by the aerial
photos. The extension of the wetland per se, as defined by the DNR and others, meanders on
out and back through here and of course back. There's an existing driveway that actually
splits the two wetlands right in here. There's a small equalizing culvert there that works
across the driveway in the central location here. As we move north we have another stand of
trees. These are a little more wetland types. Cottonwoods and box elders and those kinds of
things and many of them are viewed by the wetland downgrade... venture out but actually kind
of a little swale ... takes a storm sewer pipe up through there. But generally, most of that tree
coverage is in the wetland. After that the terrain dramatically rises. Now, I think between
the lake and the highest point, which is up here at 912, we've got about 46 feet of elevation
difference. It's generally downhill all the way from our north property line down to the lake,
with a... We have a small wetland up here in the northeast corner and ... very small little ditch
type of wetland over here which will virtually go away when 212 comes into play. I guess
that's just the general attributes of the site and I think I'll turn it over to Don at this point.
t Mancino: Thank you
Don Jensen: What we're really doing, and I'm going to put up the, I've got the architectural
boards on, I hope that the camera can see them. We've got two different styles of housing
we're proposing in the plan, all of which really ... the standard townhouse in the townhouse plat
as you see it in attached housing and we're really just separating it again at what would be the
common party wall. Really our concept here is to blend, if you will, and what is called
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
detached townhouses. So if you pushed these all together, you'd easily have a duplex, a row
of townhouses, four units or more. Now as you start to separate those, explode those again,
what you have is a few more windows on the side elevations. And depending on whether
you turn those or rotate those, you get differing patterns that appear in how a residence or a
new owner would actually use these homes. What we have in this particular instance, and I'll
show you on the site plan, as well you have these in your packets but perhaps this will clear
things up a little bit. Two housing sites and the ones that are lowest and closest to Lake
Riley on this plan, and also along the wetland, straddle on both sides of North Bay Drive, the
proposed public street, what we're calling Rottlund Cottages at the moment. All of these are
designed to be skewed to the road at about a 30 degree angle. And what that does for us in
the house plan is, by drawing them up you can easily see the road at an angular area. You
have some of the concave area to the street. That is your garage access point, and whether
we have enough room to load them from the side or load them straight on, it becomes your
garage entry area as well as your front door entry area, neither of which end up blocked to
the road. By angling it, depending upon your direction of travel, in one direction where you
see the garage doors more and the other direction where you see them substantially less. The
second thing that occurs when we have these tipped at an angle is that off of the rear area
where there's a 3 season porch, whether that's an option or standard and various patio spaces
that we have programmed in through here. Again, those have a more angular view and as
you know looking across, whether it's any room or outdoor space, if you can get some angles,
you have a much longer perception and in reality a much longer opportunity to experience the
outdoors. What that's also done is it limits the amount of space that we actually we have in
between dwelling units and that side setback zone. So by tipping these, if I have a building
that's 70 feet long for example from the front of the garage to the end of my master bedroom,
by angling, I really only got a space of about 40 feet inbetween and that's not anything
different from a standard single family for example where you might have anywhere from a
40 to a 55 foot deep house on some pads, depending on if the garages are directed forward or
back. We have similar relationships within this particular product. What we're looking at in
square footages, that are in the submittal packet here, is you have approximately 1,280 square
feet on one floor plan and then we have a maximum of 1,490 feet on another floor plan idea
so there's a variation. This plan, and in your packet, in these locations, we anticipated right
now only tying the market with a single floor plan. So it's a rambler, all slab on grade. Not
dissimilar to our Mission Hills neighborhood but again there's a four dwelling unit in a single
building. We have found in our one neighborhood that is probably the most similar to this
that's up and running right now in Inver Grove Heights, that when you have a strong amenity
such as Lake Riley, such as the wetland complex immediately to the south, that there are
those people who want to expand and ask for some options. What we had in that particular
neighborhood, and no doubt we will have in a couple locations here, is people look at some
bonus space as a second floor. So they have all their living area on the main floor, anywhere
from 1,300 to 1,400 square feet. And then if they want to, they'll add bonus space so if the
28
E
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
kids come home, but we're really looking at an empty nester market in terms of a buyer and
throughout this style of house. The second product type that we're looking at is a two story
design. Again, if you can imagine, these could just as easily have been two groups of row
townhouses in four's or six units configurations. Again, we're expanding out the design space.
These come in a variety of orientations. Certainly can be massaged as we move forward.
Some are oriented straight to the street. Some are angular to the street and fan out as we go
around the curve. We're not convinced yet that we want to have it exactly head on the street.
Perhaps an angular pattern is perhaps just as appropriate... They're much shorter than the slab
on grade variety that we have in the other area. This for example would be the elevation of
the, as you would enter the development with a single level dwelling unit. Voila, new sketch.
And this being the elevational pictures for the proposed dwelling. Again we're looking at
varying the fronts of the buildings, whether you have bonus space over the garages that's
described in the staff summary. Looking at mixing the brick. In some cases having pre -cast
columns that are different building material types. I've got that at my feet and I'll show you
shortly some building material samples. Board that we prepared that are taking place in a
similar neighborhood. The number of square footage and the floor plan variations going
anywhere from approximately 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. So fairly sizable amount of square
footage that comes ... base plan. Again, trying to cover the market with a really all in one.
You limit certainly people the opportunities for a 3 car garage but it's intended to fill a nitch
within the marketplace that is probably a step above our villa neighborhood, if you will. So
people might be moving out of attached. This gives them the sense of still a community.
They don't have the maintenance obligations. They come with buying the standard single
family home and all of the fixed costs of maintenance and upkeep. Here you still have the
benefit of some of the association, the costs such as snowplowing and landscaping and water
bills and other such things that may come with a master association. And again you have
flexibility though picking exactly the house that you would pick that would fit within the
allotted area. So there is a natural variation of colors. A natural variation of house style and
there are some unique characteristics based on people's options within that base package. So
that's what we're attempting to bring to the marketplace in this location. It's certainly unique
in that we're trying to work within Chanhassen's zero lot line and PUD ordinances, both of
which haven't been used very often. It's our understanding... What we have in a companion
neighborhood, it's a slightly larger square footage than our zero lot line housing in our Arbor
Point, Inver Grove Heights project but it's our kind of test model for life cycle housing. We
have it all in that neighborhood with a variety of housing colors, that shift primarily within
the lighter earth tone ranges. Using stone type materials on the columns. In the front of the
garages, etc. We're trying to carry those as we can to other locations. Combining that with a
cedar shake style siding. Using the upper gables as well as having the standard vinyl or
aluminum siding. Really maintenance free throughout the building elevations on the fronts
and around the sides. We are looking at opportunities to enhance, whether we have brick in
addition to the stone tiles but the primary focus here is to have a minimum amount of
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
maintenance on the structure. Again, a 25 year roof standard shingle approach that we've
been using for many years and that's really what we're trying to accomplish here in this
neighborhood. We looked at the attributes of the site. We've had the engineers out. We've
had the wetland delineators out as soon as the frost went out, which wasn't until late April so
we have some natural concerns with what's going on in the system. We certainly are hopeful
that we can resolve the access issue right through here. We're not as excited about trying to
have one access point out to the street in a location to the east... We certainly are hopeful that
we can market off a single entry, either off of Lyman or Lake Riley Boulevard. But that
tends to keep this more of a neighborhood onto itself. If we have a road as suggested up on
a common property line, we tend to dilute when you really enter the neighborhood and it
becomes more houses out in the street rather than entering this particular pocket if you will.
That's our marketing issue and that's something that we feel strongly about as we can. We
have the public street that connects into the proposed location of the Klingelhutz plat. We
have a sidewalk along that side that connects to the neighborhood park. We have a lot of
reforestation going on. We have an average of at least 3 trees per dwelling unit on this plan,
which is substantially more than a good part of the single family subdivisions. Staff has
recommended more buffering ... and we certainly see the attributes of doing... Large wetland
canopy area here that we are planning and proposing to be cleaned up in there. There's a lot
of dead fall. The city's proposing to grade the waterway... storm water management plan but
it's some 3 to 4 feet ... some of those trees that are living on the edge are not... As Mr. Tower
of Pioneer Engineering pointed out, there's a lot of stronger, hardwood canopy material along
the lake edge. We're proposing that as a common lot owned by this association and so that
they would use the dock facilities that they're entitled to by code for this property on a lottery
basis if in fact they have a boat. All of those rules we're not proposing or asking for anything
unique there other than what the lakeshore lineal footage grants this particular property. We
understand that that's probably up to 5 slips under a separate permit action that we would
come back to the Council for and through the Planning Commission. As staff noted, we have
a private street up in the northern end of the development. We're 50 feet away, or more,
from the proposed 212 right -of -way. That has slid on MnDot's chart of accounts for many,
many years. But regardless, this helps preserve the opportunity for this subdivision...
subdivision and that the resale or initial sales, the 50 foot setback is what we are looking at
away from a proposed future major road. Whatever that design happens to be. As staff
pointed out, we have what's really called common lot area. There are small individual
townhouse style lots around each property, the balance of which is a common area. We have
anticipated to have two associations, one of which would be for this housing type that would
be on a public street. And a second association that would exist around this area here. They
would have common use of this space here and if they would decide, once these
neighborhoods built out, what the use should be in really that common back yard area. That's
approximately what, an acre and, a little over an acre of a common back yard space. There's
really kind of private zone in their lot area. If you remember from the sketches, or if you
Me
r
C
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
don't. It's approximately 10 feet within the platted lot past the structure... ideas, whether that's
multi - family attached or single family, it's really kind of their private space and beyond that,
you start to get this public zone ... in a couple of locations to the public street or a more
pronounced access. Standard single family for example you might have a 15,000 square foot
lot and you might have 5,000 square feet really in the back yard behind the house, based on
that lot. You'd have approximately 35 foot setback, 50 foot deep house. What you have left
over is approximately 40 to 50 foot deep back yard by however wide your lot is. And what
we're doing here is really allowing a much more expanded opportunity for play. This housing
style that we have programmed on the north end is our most variable. What's really, it's the
most likely to cross over in terms of age bracket. In terms of opportunities for people with
children. Not really a whole lot we can predict about what that market will be. It's primarily
a price point. If people are interested in being in Chanhassen, they can't obtain more. It
provides a different opportunity in a price point where you don't have maintenance
obligations. You might be able to find some turnover housing in Chanhassen. That might be
$120,000.00 but you still have to mow the lawn. You have to take care of the upkeep. Is the
roof in good repair, etc? So that's our hope and our target. Just some initial dimensions that
we have on this plan, before any changes or reiterations. It's 150 feet wide. It's
approximately 350 feet long at this location. 180 feet wide at this location and at these other
dimension points, show 130 feet. 100 feet. 90 feet. It's a pretty large space. You can throw
a frisbee a long way in a space like that or throw a ball a long way. You can get a pick -up
game of baseball for small kids. That type of thing. We're hoping through the grading, and
what is proposed, that we can get as level a space as possible in the final plan. Staff went
over what our wetland issues are. We'd like to explain a little bit and hope that the Planning
Commission, in terms of our land use application here and see what we're trying to
accomplish. The road in this particular designation for Lake Riley Boulevard, is trying to
accomplish a number of things. What we're hoping to do is to open up this ponding area for
the city's water quality goals. Our approach is to try to find a way that the city can work
with it's engineers to make the design speed appropriate so that the space can be as large as it
is. We'll work with the State Aid Standard, and believe we have. The farther this road is
over, the larger the ponding can be. The city is trying to place storm water runoff from the
road project in addition to this development and the neighboring development in either a pre
or post conditions. It's not quite clear to us but our whole approach there is to try to make it
happen, not lose any trees. There are some that are programmed to be lost anyway by the
city's current plans that are in pre- design. We've had a meeting with the Park and Recreation
Commission. They are requesting in your notes that we dedicate the land in this particular
location. That's their domain to request that. We are believing that by granting easements,
that the ownership is retained by this particular association and it's primarily a Council issue
to solve. However I remember my last time around you had issues that were different from
the Parks Commission. If in fact it's to be dedicated, we just want to be treated fairly and be
granted park credit for that rather than paying full fees and having the land taken to boot.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
We're hoping that the PUD looks at the flexibility of what we're getting as a total package
and not just creates an opportunity to have us pay, and take land away on a lakeshore. But
again, that's primarily a Council action. We're working with the City's water quality
specialist, Diane Desotelle and making sure that our wetland analysis meets her criteria as the
LGU. That's the City's obligation. It's a cross check off for us. We wanted, we've asked and
talked with staff yesterday on a clarification on their request to move the road over to straddle
the easterly property line and we would look at that as we come back, so long as we
understand together and that we would have the Planning Commission's blessing as well, that
what we'd really be doing is just inverting the houses and this road. That there would still be
wetland fill on this side of the development. On the easterly boundary line in order to have
housing that would essentially take advantage of that roadway and the cost of that roadway
going down to Lake Riley Boulevard or Lyman, as it may be renamed. The traffic numbers
are going to be very low. This is at the very end of the traffic generation line if you will.
People immediately on either side of Eden Prairie are in the Bearpath development.
Presumably they're mainly going to be driving, whenever they decide to go to work, out east
on Dell Road and there's probably not a whole lot of trips coming back through Lake Riley
Blvd, Lyman Blvd. You really have department development as a traffic generator and any
future development that occurs ... so we believe that by having housing up closer to the lake,
it's really not a traffic problem by having a lot of roadway built. It doesn't have any housing
immediately off of it. You're dragging a lot of pipe... We'll be happy to answer questions. I
know there's a few other people that want to have comments about the development and...
chance to speak.
Mancino: Any questions now? We may have some more later. Thank you.
Farmakes: When you're talking about the commons area, you were referring to that would be
worked out by them. This is a conceptual plan, correct? Typically we don't do that that way.
Is that, when we discussed the issue of commons area and we talk about landscaping for
instance or in a concept. I notice that there's no landscaping on the commons area so how are
you treating it.
Aanenson: No. Again, we're just looking at this in generalities. How you feel about the
product. Some of the general framework issues and then when we come back for preliminary
plat, it would be tighten up. So we're looking at this just in the general framework.
Don Jensen: If I could clarify the intentions of the space. We went through this with the
Mission Hills Villa neighborhood. What our goal here is to, is to landscape it. It's going to
be sod. It's going to be irrigated. But that there's no program equipment that we would like
to see conditioned on this development. Having full park fees that are going to a program
park immediately less than probably a quarter mile.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes: So from a conceptual standpoint, what you're saying is you don't want a ballfield
ont here?
Don Jensen: We don't want a ballfield. We don't want play apparatus. We don't want any
more conditions on that common space than you would on a single family house, what goes
in their back yard. That's what we're talking about, by having those residents decide, based
' on who they are.
Farmakes: Is this conceptually a commons area for the houses that surround Block 1? Or is
' this a commons area for all the units?
Don Jensen: It's a commons area for all of the units but it obviously impacts those people
that are in that block and back onto the most.
Farmakes: Some of the areas that you're showing as green space, in the corners say for
instance. Are those intended to be accessed also or are those, would those access to those
points have to be over property lines?
Don Jensen: Access to those would be available. The lots that you have on the proposed
plat in your packet, they have a ... strip inbetween each lot so for maintenance purposes there's
always access. It's all commons area but everyone's entitled to be there that lives there.
' From a practical point of view, we tend to find that really only the people that live in that
general area use it the most. But it is open to all, from an ownership perspective and there's
no rules against using it.
Mancino: So if someone from the first cottage on the south side wants to come into the
commons area in the middle, they can walk through anyone's side yard, which is 10 to 20 feet
inbetween?
Don Jensen: Sure. Much as people can today on any single family neighborhood on the
common drainage and utility easements that are available on all of those properties. People
rarely do but you have a public easement.
Mancino: But there is no general area? There is no entrance to that commons area?
Don Jensen: No. What we would have is, in all likelihood, a space between Lots 63 and 39.
They would have a much more pronounced entry. Likewise there's more than likely to be a
drainage and then on the utility plans we have drainage access in this location here and again
' up in this northeast pocket there'd be a more pronounced entrance into that. So it might be...
landscaping plan or be able to announce that a little bit better... access trail.
1
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: Is there a trail to Lake Riley from that northern side? How do people get from
there to Lake Riley?
Don Jensen: From the northern side they're going to come around onto the private road and
then they have their choice. If they want to get on the sidewalk at this point here, this point
here or if they come through the back area to access the sidewalk that's proposed on this
south side of North Bay Drive and if they can move down... Pretty much like a cul -de -sac
area if you will. You have a small housing neighborhood with a well defined access point,
two of them, and that whole private street doesn't generate a whole lot...
Farmakes: How many zero lot line developments have you been involved with? Your
corporation.
Don Jensen: The company here, and we have five under way right now. We have one in a
full scale development. We have several that we had completed probably 10 years ago.
Farmakes: I'm assuming that the piece of people who are living in these zero lot lines, that
they have very little property surrounding their home...
Don Jensen: There's two perspectives there. That's correct. The commons area is important.
The other is, when you look at the overall land mass that you have, for example out in these
areas. The actual perceived open space that you have is a lot more than their lot area.
Farmakes: I understand that but for recreational issues, particularly if they have children and
so on, in this type of situation they're either playing out in the street or they're going to a
commons area.
Don Jensen: Or they're going to the neighborhood park that's a little bit farther down the
street.
Farmakes: Correct, but if you're talking younger kids and so on that primarily... where would
they be parking their bikes? Where would they be, there's no in and out. Will people be
dropping their kids off by parking their cars on the road? What has been your experience
with these other developments?
Don Jensen: I guess what you really see is that you have a buyer profile that's buying into a
neighborhood understanding that they're not needing the yard space that comes with your
standard single family lot. That's what they want versus having someone who says, I want to
buy and live here and I feel cheated because I don't have this big back yard that comes with a
single family lot. It's just different housing.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes: But conversely, it may be that someone needs that space but this is what they can
' afford in that particular community. So therefore that's what they buy and they utilize that
commons area for recreation.
' Don Jensen: And that's true and that's one of the advantages of being able to have it as large
as possible for as many people, whereas for example a number of single family homes that
might share a common back yard lot line. One person deciding to fence off their back yard
in the middle of that what once was a pretty large opportunity... In this case we have a much
larger opportunity. Where they place their bikes, they'd probably lay them down on the turf
or whatever their mode of getting there is.
Farmakes: So you haven't experienced any type of problems with the neighbors for access
' issues with this commons area because of the narrow access points, or storage of bikes or you
know, young children hitting a ball through a window?
' Don Jensen: No, but I think you have those concerns in many number of housing types
though. We haven't perceived... more or less of a problem. Working through a...
' Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Did you have anyone else
presenting?
Don Jensen: No.
Mancino: May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please.
Meyer moved, Fmmakes seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning
Commission, please do so at this time.
Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I've been a resident of
Lake Riley for 15 years now and I guess our main concern with this would be protection of
t our lake resources. I'm a little concerned about the wetland alteration. I do not see anything
in these plans that show how he's mitigating the wetlands that he was destroying, and I don't
' believe, being we're so close to the lake and studies that we have done as a lake association
and part of the surface water management task force, show this wetlands to be critical to the
health of Lake Riley. And he also mentioned that the grade is all coming right down to the
' lake. I would really suggest we don't listen to any kind of mitigating this wetland off to some
other property or going into the fund or anything like that. I'm really not sure what these
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
holding ponds do for the water that's coming this direction and heading toward Lake Riley. It
doesn't quite make sense to me so I'm assuming that the city will work very closely. I would
very strongly support moving this road over here to mitigate west of the wetlands. Also I
was part of the wetlands ordinance that we worked with and I think they said that the wetland
officially goes back. These trees are included in the wetland. These houses are not anywhere
near far enough away from the wetlands to meet current ordinances, as far as the buffer zone
so I don't think they're even close to meeting current ordinances there. I'd also like to address
the beachlot over here. I would suggest that the city pull that in together and not consider
that separate. I think it should be considered as an entire plan so we can look at the whole
thing altogether. My concern is that we're going to give them a beachlot which has boat
storage but there's no place for anybody to park a boat anywhere in here and I'm afraid that
they're going to end up wanting to have boat storage and whatever else next to the lake,
which I would be strongly opposed to. Also the road improvements. I think this is going to
add a fair amount of traffic going both directions out of here. I don't know what kind of
coordination you have to do with the City of Eden Prairie to coordinate the road
improvements but I would strongly suggest you look at that. If the road has to shift, I didn't
quite understand this but they said that the road would have to shift to the north to get MnDot
to approve the speed of the curve or something. Again, that's going to impact the wetlands
and I didn't see anything in the plans as to how they're going to address that. And as far as
the zero lot line, some of the discussions about how people get to these common areas.
That's not so much my concern as the protection of the lake, but it sure sounds like you're
setting yourself up for a lot of trouble with having lot lines that snake between houses and
people cutting through other people's yards. Looks like trouble to me. However, I would like
to say on the positive side that I'd rather see a development like this than high density, high
rise, low income housing so I'm in favor of this type of a development versus a super high
density type of development, which I think is what it's zoned for today. So keep our lake in
mind in the planning process and we appreciate it.
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Bob, can you talk to any of those questions that
came up a little bit about wetland mitigation. About the closeness of some of the homes to
the wetlands, etc.
Generous: Well that one's easy. We pointed that out to the applicant. That's why one of our
recommendations that they shift the North Bay Drive to the north so that they can maintain
the required setbacks and buffer strip. The roadway alignment. It's a horizontal curve. It's
some engineering standards that have to have so much sight distance and angles to meet their
requirements for funding I believe and design criteria and so that's what the city has a
consultant that's working on that and the applicant's engineer will work with the city to make
sure that complies. Actually I believe that the City's original alignment for Lake Riley, or the
Lyman improvement is closer to the wetland area. This one actually pushed it farther away.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
The ponding areas there are proposed for storm water quality and quality improvements so
' that it takes out the nutrient loads before it would dump into the wetland and then it would go
through the wetland out into the lake. So what they're working on is based on the city's
' storm water master plan that looked at the development of this area and how we're going to
preserve and enhance our water quality.
' Farmakes: So as the plan stands right now, 15 under your recommendations covers that
issue? As the drawing shows it now with the setbacks and so on.
Don Jensen: 15 on page?
Farmakes: Page 16.
' Generous: Yes.
Don Jensen: If I could elaborate on that, and Bob did an excellent job... All of the road's
taking the storm sewer that comes down the road. Likewise the city's project has storm sewer
off of a curb and gutter section. Those meet at this location at the intersection of the public
' street that we're calling North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Boulevard. This is the water quality
pond area. This coloration is the untouched wetland in it's current status. This area here
actually is a second cell and as, from a water treatment point of view, qualifies for wetland
mitigation status. So this whole entire area of wetland mitigation, and it's likely that the city
through this road project would expand that into the land that's available here, on the
Klingelhutz plat. The water goes from the street to pure water quality pond. Bounces out
' and goes through wetland mitigation area that also is used as a water quality second cell.
From there it goes to this large complex. Here the City's proposing to raise that elevation like
3 or 4 feet for storage. This road presumably goes away and then it bounces out into the one
wetland again that flows back underneath Lyman Boulevard back out into the lake. So there's
really quite a series of protection or systems here.
i Farmakes: How is the setback issue to the north then?
Don Jensen: The canopy that's shown on the drawings would lead you to believe that the
edge of the canopy is the right -of -way, the edge of the wetland. That is not the case. We
have about a 40 foot distance from the delineated wetland. We understand that it would need
' to be 50 so we shift 10 feet from this point here.
Aanenson: Can I just expand on one other thing, on the beachlot. Again, this is conceptual
' so the objective here is just to try to flush out the issues that they need to address when they
come back to refine it. Certainly there needs to be some work on the wetlands. But the
1 37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
beachlot, I want to make sure that that's clear. That we concur that that needs to be
addressed when it comes back for preliminary and we would notice that as part of the
preliminary and have a public hearing on that but it needs to be addressed then. And also
understand that the Park and Recreation Commission also is looking at possibly using a
portion of that as public space and that whole issue needs to be addressed too and we'd like
to see it again in kind of a holistic sort of thing so we have a lot better understanding what
the trade -off is. And it ties back into what you were saying Jeff as far as open space. When
we looked at this, what would be a use of the land. Obviously it's zoned for high density.
They could be stacked. We felt this was a good use of the land. It's a different product and
we also felt the preservation of the open space along the lake, the preservation of that natural
feature, the trees also provide an opportunity for those residents to have a place to recreate
too. In addition to the larger park in the Klingelhutz, the Park and Recreation Commission
has now recommended a larger park in this area, which is also is close proximity to walking
space. So there is king of a competing need there to have this type of a product and not as
much open space interior but in close proximity and a little bit different type of space.
Farmakes: When you're referring to the product then, and what our commission's going to
recommend, is the intent of what you're calling public use, a neighborhood issue or serving
the people in relative distance to the area?
Aanenson: My understanding is they may be looking at putting parking spaces and opening it
up as a public space to allow maybe a few parking slips for maybe a public pier.
Farmakes: But again I go back to, unless they've changed the definition, neighborhood park
is to serve generally the neighborhood, although it's publically used by...
Aanenson: They do have, all that beachlot is under their ownership right now. That would
all be their neighborhood park. Now if the Park and Recreation Commission wants to obtain
that in some fashion, they'd be looking at a different type of park. That is all right now just
thoughts that they've expressed. Again, conceptually this is kind of what they're leaning at
but certainly we would like to see that refined as this goes through the process and certainly
the applicant wants to know exactly what the implications are in their project.
Mancino: Kate, will you talk a little bit more about the park. Is it a neighborhood park on
the Klingelhutz property?
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: And how far is that?
38
I,]
C
�I
L
u
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Generous: It's 5 acres in size and less than a quarter mile from there.
Aanenson: And that would have the normal play structure and those sort of things that you'd
see in a neighborhood park.
Farmakes: What is the distance to the apartment building that is part of the non - conforming
lake access that we had problems with. How far is that distance?
Aanenson: It's right in front of the project.
Farmakes: Right in front.
Mancino: Are you finished.
Farmakes: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to.
Mancino: I'm cutting you off. This is still a public hearing. Would someone else like to
address the Planning Commission?
Dave Nikolai: My name is Dave Nikolai. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm a resident of Rice
Lake Manor. I'm a neighbor, and I'll use the term lightly as neighbor, to Rottlund right now.
Approximately a year ago I was here, I am the single largest... resident that borders the
Mission Hills development and I'd like to show you some pictures a year later of what has
happened to the water quality in Rice Lake Marsh area. The ponds and I'll show you, or ask
you, have any of you since approving Mission Hills, been out to take a look at what has
happened to the water and wetland areas? May I ask that question first of all? Have
anybody of you gone out and come out into my neighborhood and taken a look?
Mancino: I've driven out and I haven't seen the wetlands.
Dave Nikolai: Okay. Can I show you some pictures? These pictures were taken in the last
3 months. I have talked.
Mancino: Just a minute. Nann, can you get this?
Opheim: The photos?
Mancino: No, can you get his voice?
' Opheim: Yes.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: Thank you.
Dave Nikolai: I have talked to Dave Hempel about this and I am working with John Rask.
John should have apprised these people about that I was coming this evening, so I'm not here
to blind side the city by any means but I want to show you the reality of what's happened just
this year, which is approximately one year since Mission Hills came into play, and what it's
doing to the water quality. You've got an issue, we've got runoff going into Lake Susan
direct and you've got an issue with runoff off the development going directly into Rice Lake.
First of all here is the exit off of West 86th Street, or off of TH 101 into West 86th Street.
You can go out there and you can see water pooled there right now. If you drive out there
and that is running under TH 101, directly into Lake Susan. This next picture was taken
approximately one year after the development commenced. You'll see on here that there are
no barriers for protection of the erosion and I'm going to show you pictures where it escalates
based on the rains and things that we've had. Now we've had a fair amount of rain this
spring but that should have all been taken care of and protected and thought of ahead of time.
I'm going to show you, the pictures I'm showing you right now are before the erosion barriers
that were put up about approximately 3 weeks ago. 3 -4 weeks ago and I'm going to show
you what happened after the last rain and you'll see the pictures of the erosion barriers.
You're now looking at my neighborhood, where I live, West 86th Street. I'm on Tigua Circle,
which is the dead end of West 86th Street. You're going to slowly see the escalating water
build -up. We have a flooding situation. I have talked to Dave Hempel about this twice. I've
talked to John Rask about this and what has happened in the re- building of West 86th Street,
is you've created a pitch that is pushing the water down. There's two storm sewers that are
collecting that water at the end of the new development are not adequate. It's flooding West
86th Street and it's draining directly into the wetlands. The picture that I'm handing this
gentleman here right now, I'm sorry Jeff, will show the flooding that's happening on West
86th Street. You can tell by the quality of the water, that this is straight runoff. Here's the
picture of my neighbor directly to the east where the flooding, this flooding didn't, it wasn't
there before. All of these pictures here now. Now the first picture I'm handing Jeff now, this
is after the barriers were put up 3 weeks ago. Approximately 3 -4 weeks ago and after I had
to come to the city to beg them to get after Rottlund to correct this situation. Here's a
picture I'm handing Jeff right now would be a classic, after the barriers are put up.
Mancino: The barriers were put up a year after the project was started?
Dave Nikolai: That is correct. You can see in the difference in the pictures that there are
pictures that were taken before and then there are pictures that have been taken within the last
couple of weeks. Now I'm going to show you the difference in the color of the water going
directly into the wetlands. I'm going to hand Jeff the first picture here. You can see by the
beige color of the water, and then you can see the blue color in the background, what has
40
Plannin g Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
happened and that water is going directly into Rice Marsh. Here's a good picture showing the
' water already totally distorted. It's not going, it is going through our collecting pond but the
collecting pond's filled up. They overflowed and the last set of pictures I want to show you,
this is the part that I originally called the city about and I'm most concerned about, the
wetlands around the whole Mission Hills development are full of trash and here's a good
picture and sir, I'd like you to come up here and take a look at this picture. Your
superintendent has been notified. Your building permits are being withheld and he is not
' doing anything about it. I live in this neighborhood.
' Mancino: Okay, remember you're talking to us.
Dave Nikolai: I'm sorry. So you can see the trash sitting in the wetland. Here's another
' picture of the flooding but there's also trash. This would be along the easterly border of the
development. I live just up the hill from this development. I've been picking up trash from
the Rottlund development for a year. You can come into my neighborhood right now and
' you will see after this little wind that we had in the last day, trash coming in our
neighborhood. Nobody picks that up except for us. I'd like these pictures back. I'm more
than willing to leave them here so that whoever you'd like. I've got two other issues I'd like
' to address.
Mancino: Okay.
Dave Nikolai: The erosion is my number one concern. The trash is the second concern. For
90 days now, and the city staff will tell you. You should check with them so you don't have
to believe me. I have been talking with them about it. They have contacted Rottlund.
Rottlund hasn't responded. When I said neighbors, you know I was here a year ago. I talked
about all these issues. I was concerned about it. I'm here now a year later. This development,
' while it isn't directly adjacent, we did receive notices in Rice Lake Marsh area that there was
going to be another development by Rottlund in our area but tonight I haven't seen it so
something changed here. There are two parts. You've got the right -of -way going through a
' piece of property here for the new Highway 212. I think somebody should ask the question
about what's going to happen to the piece of land that is on Rice Marsh that is north of that
that butts up to the other part of Rice Marsh where I live. Okay. So I'm asking a question.
...concept of this type of density of housing. I'll live with the one that we have, because I'm
already in to that. The gentleman that said before, that he'd rather see this type of
development versus what's happened in my area, which we're not talking that far. We're less
' than a quarter mile apart here. Maybe even less. This type of development is not suited for
wetland, lake area. The park situation. I fought for that park in Mission Hills. The Park
Commission did not put a park in there. They passed on it. We came here and told you
' about it. You did get them to do that and there is supposedly going to be a park, a small
' 41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
park in there. You cannot put that many people into a small area without a planned park
system, and Bandimere Park is not developed. Sorry. And that's going to come up on an
issue or here shortly. I think I'm going to stop there. There were a lot of promises made on
the Mission Hills project. Dick Putnam, who was the major spokesman at that time, made a
lot of promises to us, the neighbors about things that were going to happen that haven't
happened, and I've got evidence to prove. I'd highly recommend you come out and take a
look. If you don't get out there tomorrow, they'll probably be corrected but I think the
pictures speak for themselves. I would recommend to the city that they really seriously
reconsider this type of development and take a look at what's happened with the Rottlund
people and the developments they have, and if what I'm told is true, the building permits are
being held up because they can't get Rottlund to perform, then why would you want to
approve another development? Thank you.
Mancino: We appreciate your comments. Thank you for coming. Any other comments?
Sharon Gatto: I'm Sharon Gatto. I live at 9631 Foxford. My concern is the traffic. We, it
doesn't sound like 212 is going through. We can't count on 212 going through. So it bothers
me with 80 some homes, which are probably 2 cars to each home. The traffic level, as they
were said, would be very little and I disagree with that. Access could be made, I don't know
if they could get onto it from TH 101, but TH 101 is a pretty busy road these days. Pioneer
Trail's pretty busy. Highway 5 is packed. Dell Road's not open yet. It will be open soon.
That's going to be packed. I hate to see high density going in until there's some roads that
will access people in and out ... TH 101's being wrecked. I mean the traffic on it right now is
very high, it's very dangerous. Lyman, I'm not sure what they're talking about, about the
curve or if they're going to enhance or widen the road but the traffic is what bothers me,
firstly. Secondly is the high density near the lake. I live on the southwest corner of the lake
and it bothers me that high density will be close to the lake. You know you're going to get
trash. You're going to get runoff. You're going to get traffic. And I think people will come
in with kids. Even though they're zero lot lines, they're going to be more affordable housing
because Chanhassen has a higher, it does have a higher average housing sale price so I think
it's going to bring in small families. Just don't think it's suited. I would rather see them take
out maybe half of the homes and leave it not such a high density. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
John Bushey: I'm John Bushey, 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie. I own property and
live on Lake Riley and I'm a Board member of the Lake Riley Improvement Association. I'd
like to quickly reiterate a few of Mr. Sitter's comments and agree with staff on some of the
issues. First of all the wetland alterations. I'd like to recommend that you minimize
alteration to wetlands and question whether the 2:1 mitigation rule applies here. And if so, is
42
' Plannin g Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
it on site or is it off site? Near? Far? I don't know what the rule is on that. I'd like to
' stress it should be near the wetland that's reflected in the development here is critical to the
health of Lake Riley. I think that's pretty clear that that's the case. And as the recent
commenter here just made clear, there's many construction site. I live adjacent to Bearpath
' right now and a lot of nice things were said at the beginning of a construction project and
regardless of the good intent, whether it's there or not, in the end erosion control is largely
determined a success ... and even then it really doesn't work when a big storm comes, and that's
' when the problems are. It's good for a light drizzle and a big rain in the end ... lot of sediment
into these wetlands. The NURP pond or settling ponds on the south of this project considered
mitigation in this case? I don't know that. That's a question that should be brought up. Is
that legally called a mitigation as part of the 2 for 1.
' Mancino: Bob, could you answer that please?
Generous: Under proposed legislation.
John Bushey: The new proposed.
' Generous: Yeah.
Aanenson: But currently, no.
' John Bushey: But currently, no. Will the decision be made before or after that legislation?
That's up in the air.
' Generous: You know the legislature as well as we do I suppose.
' John Bushey: Yeah, okay. And the delineated wetland that's mentioned, is that delineation
before or after the wetland level to be raised by 4 feet?
' Generous: That's currently.
John Bushey: Okay. So if it's raised 4 feet, then the buffer zone go back 4 feet and it seems
' like there's no room for these developments. If the level goes up 4 feet.
Mancino: Well they will adjust it accordingly.
John Bushey: If they adjust it accordingly, it seems like they're awful tight right now.
' Generous: Yeah, and we've let them know that they are tight in there.
' 43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
John Bushey: Alright, so that's covered. It was real interesting to hear the stories of the
development at Rice Marsh Lake. Rice Marsh Lake feeds through Riley Creek directly into
Lake Riley and it's on the primary sources of phosphorus going into the lake. And with the
high phosphorous soils that we have in the north side of Lake Riley, in addition to all the
agricultural phosphorous loading, that's a serious problem with the quality of Lake Riley,
which is in question. It's not a very high quality lake right now to begin with. The erosion
control, it's absolutely crucial that it be taken, the best practices and beyond in these
construction... Three other issues, I'd like to reinforce the thought that the beachlot
development be tied directly with the development. Not keeping them separate... lake
association because of the high traffic already and I think that any approval of this
development should be tied to the development of the beachlot so it's clear that what you get
with the houses, you get with the lake.
Mancino: It will be.
John Bushey: The traffic issue is also pretty critical. I don't know whether having the
driveway together with the apartments or not is good. That could go either way. Right now
the traffic from the apartments is a major problem with very little disregard for traffic rules
and stop signs. I can see why they wouldn't want to share that driveway. But this will an
additional load on the Eden Prairie side as well as on the Chanhassen side. I suggest that this
development not become approved until there is a definitive traffic management plan. It was
hard for me to see but I understand there are some sidewalks. Is that the dark line?
Mancino: Yes, it's on the south side of that main road.
John Bushey: Okay. Is there a plan for sidewalk or bike path on Lake Riley Blvd and
Lyman?
Generous: Yes. With the expansion.
John Bushey: Ali, okay.
Aanenson: That'd be part of the improvement project of that.
John Bushey: Okay. It's interesting that that's on the south side of Lake Riley Road because
you can't continue. Right off the top of this chart there's a humongous cliff there. So
somehow they're going to have to cross the road so some consideration of how that goes. If
it's going to tie into... There are plans right now at the Eden Prairie border for bike paths to
come to the western boundary of Eden Prairie and go north along the boundary with the
Bearpath development... but that's on the north side of the road. So some consideration of
44
0
J
�i
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
that. It belongs on the south side here. Somehow it's got to get across. We understand that.
With the traffic situation the way it is, and the number of children that are in the apartments,
and the very few of us who live in Eden Prairie near this but are not in Bearpath, and the
new occupants of these ... so thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kevin: Good evening, Madam Chair. Commissioners. My name's Kevin ... and I own RLK
Associates... We've been retained by the... Corporation, owners of the Lakeview Apartment
property to assess the development potential of the property, together with assessing the
impasse of the proposed North Bay development on the... property. Three main areas that
we'd like to talk about tonight. How the housing development affects the apartment building.
How the development affects the developability of the Lakeview property and then the overall
planning issues concerned with the entire area. First of all, one point that we'd like to state is
that the access to the apartment building, it's critical that it remains in approximately the same
location that it is. Now if the road were to straddle property lines, that it would be close
enough to existing entrance to the apartment building... apartment complex itself so. Right
now the proximity of the access to the apartments and proposing routing of those are
relatively close and I think that may be an issue... Another issue is that the sanitary sewer and
water service of the apartment are in place now and I'm sure staff will address this
engineering. Those need to remain in place uninterrupted through the construction of the
proposal. Fourthly, that the storm water drainage that's currently ... and I think you can see on
page 2, your existing conditions map, where that line empties out across the Adelman
property and follows it overland of course down to the pond. And then to the south of that,
there's another smaller pipe that exits off the property onto the Adelman property and... And
then fifthly, in connection with the apartment complex, that the overall development, not
necessarily... on the entirety of the Lakeview property but that some sort of connection,
pedestrian connection be from the... Secondly, for the development concerns of the Lakeview
property, again the access I think is something that we'll continue to look at with the Rottlund
Corporation... Secondly that again, storm water drainage be preserved for the developability of
that ... is not affected adversely by that. Thirdly, that sanitary sewer and water facilities be
made available with the proper sizes and depths adequate to serve that area. Again, the
pedestrian connection from the developable portion of Lakeview properties be made so this
whole area can be ... and not a separate piece as it were. Lastly, with the plan issues, and a lot
of these things will go back to show that the common access road is... That overall that the
joint planning efforts by Rottlund and perhaps the... Corporation might yield an overall... And
lastly, in looking at the side of the Lake Riley Road that we understand that shift in that road
may be appropriate given the storm water concerns or the design speed of the road itself.
However... Those are concerns in overview....
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue?
If not, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Fminakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: The public hearing was closed. We may during the discussion, commissioners
discussion, ask questions from the applicant and that would be fine if you could please
answer us or if staff. Mike. I think that one of the issues that we need to discuss is that staff
is recommending that we have this conceptual approval and not preliminary PUD approval.
Just because of some of the issues that still need to be resolved that will affect this plat. So
if you could talk to that and also conceptually, again in broad stroke terms, how you feel
about that.
Farmakes: Madam Chairman?
Mancino: Yes.
Farmakes: Can I make a comment? You may want to define the difference between, for our
two new board members. I'm not sure, I can't speak for them but I know sometimes that's a
confusing issue for initially being on the commission.
Mancino: Oh, for conceptual approval?
Farmakes: Yes.
Meyer: So what are we approving?
Mancino: So what you are approving is transportation routes. How the roads work. The
alignment of the street. The overall landscaping.
Aanenson: Just kind of broad brush. Again the conceptual, it doesn't have legal standing.
You can certainly alter it but when you're saying is the general framework, you envision
seeing the single family detached is what you vision on there, as Commissioner Mancino
indicated. But the general framework of the road connections. That sort of thing. Just the
overall broad brush. Certainly issues are going to have to be further developed such as the
wetland. How that's, how and if that should be mitigated. Storm water treatment. How that
will be handled. All those sorts of things but what we're saying is on the conceptual
framework, is this something you would be interested in seeing further developed.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
' Mancino: So with that, I'll start with Jeff.
Farmakes: I guess I'll start out with touching on some issues. The first one I'm going to
' touch on, because this sort of pertains to the previous issue that I abstained on. The
developments that we have that are right adjacent to a lake, it seems to me that in our best
practice, perhaps we should maybe take a look at looking at how we do that. An issue of
construction. I can name off all of the lakes that are in Chanhassen and the ones for future
development of this type are Minnewashta, Riley, Lake Ann potentially, and Lake Lucy still
has a small amount of development left to go. All of these lakes have turbidity problems.
' Without exception, and some of them are bad. There's no question that development
contributes a great deal to this and we can make all the rules in the world but if the
management of development does not follow through with these, we literally have to have a
' person on site on every development in Chanhassen and somebody's got to pay for that. So I
guess we either need to stiffen those bonding issues and make it more than a slap on the
wrist, or simply not allow those developers to develop in this community. Because this is a
' community that takes the wetland issue seriously and not to make a long speech here. That's
what our residents want. And if the developers don't want to conform to that, don't come in.
I'm disturbed by these pictures that were brought up here. I think that a lot of this is just an
' issue of management quality and I realize that you're representing a company in particular that
happens to relate to these but there are other construction firms also that are involved in these
issues. But they're still issues. They're issues of trash and clean-up after yourself and simple
issues of putting up barriers that you agreed to put up and did not do it.
Don Jensen: I would like to.
' Mancino: Would p
ou lease finish until we have a question for you. Thank you.
Y
' Farmakes: In a large scale development, it's obvious there's a million things to go and there
are some things that are delayed or whatever but on the chain of command and going on
down the line, these are the type of things that create problems with neighbors, and these are
' your neighbors here. What you're proposing is to bring in an additional 100 and some people,
or cars and families, into this area to create more of Chanhassen. Now there's a lot of
Chanhassen left to be developed and we have to take it seriously. We have to ask the people
' coming to do that, to take our rules seriously. Now I'll start on the issue of this development.
I think that the issue of the wetland mitigation that was proposed, be pushed farther down on
the property line. I'm not sure, I'd like to see what's the staffs response to that is. I haven't
seen wetland mitigation that is pushed off into someone else's property line before but maybe
if the city wants to respond to that proposal. I don't understand it thoroughly or I'm not sure
' that it's spelled out here. I didn't catch it. Is that what you were proposing? A direct
question.
1 47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Don Jensen: To respond directly to the question here. The plan as it is intended, is if this is
the low area of your SWMP management plan, master plan. Our plan achieves the 2:1
mitigation required by the wetland that's proposed to be filled on this plan. Water goes
directly into a water quality pond. That does not get any wetland mitigation credit. If it
comes out of there into a second cell, which is entirely on this property, meeting the
mitigation percentage requirements before it goes into an area that's declared a wetland, it
does get wetland mitigation credit per current State rules and LGU rules. What I was
describing is that this farm road would go away once you have a public road access further
and this farm is in the 212 right -of -way. It presumably goes away with the Klingelhutz plan
when it ultimately becomes developed. The city's SWMP management plan intends to
purchase property at the low end of the drainage basin for water quality purposes. This
remnant piece, inbetween an existing delineated wetland is higher than the current wetland.
Would be a candidate to be dug for a water quality ponding or wetland mitigation for which
this road project has it's own requirements for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley. So what
I'm just describing is there is a potential for the city to maximize the space. That's off site.
We didn't ask for any credit off site. It's just that what you end up with is this existing
wetlands, all areas above that likely get carved out in your long range master plan that
Bonestroo prepared and your best plan is to have that north of the road because you certainly
can't fit in a water quality pond and expect it to do it's job between the lake and the road so, I
hopefully responded to your questions.
Farmakes: That answers my question, thank you. I'll go down to the issue of what I see as a
fill fluid issue or the options on the shoreline. If they retain, as the park recommends or
whatever they come to an agreement where the ownership of that area as retained with the
development and as for the use of this development. I see potential of problems with boat,
canoe storage and things of that nature. You've got a fair amount of people on a small
amount of land. I'm not sure how that's going to be a part of the plan but I'd like to see that
spelled out when it comes back specifically. What those options are. And the issue of boat
storage. I think we've touched on the issue of canoe storage but I think boat, and what we're
looking at as far as mooring boats. I think it's pretty evident that 212, based on federal
protections and federal money handed to the State, to our community, is down in the future
somewhere. At least not in this century. Under those circumstances, I am concerned how,
what our projections are in this types of densities for access and how you see that traffic, so
that would also be something I'd like to see developed in the next report when that comes
back. Because obviously those access points will be from north to south, and not east to
west. We don't have the benefit tonight of answering general questions of our engineer so I'm
not going to dwell on the engineering issues but obviously it'd be something that you'll be
providing us when this comes back. But those pictures are disturbing. I think that in
particular looking at the previous development, which I see is a much worse situation as far
as land topography. The topographic issue of how that land works and so on and how we
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
deal with that currently. We may want to look at, as I was just talking about some sort of
additional issues on wetlands that surround open water.
' Mancino: We can add that to a PUD.
Farmakes: We can add this to an addition but I'm not sure if staff has had time to
' contemplate that issue but, there's not many feet to that type of water to ... quality of what
we're trying to achieve here. In looking at and a lot of this does not go from one wetland to
another wetland to another wetland. It goes right into the lake. I'd also like to see what
' options would be put forward to residents of the commons area. I'd like to see that spelled
out. I think that's an important area when you confine that many people together, and
particularly a zero lot line. I think that zero lot line is good. I have nothing against zero. It
offers I think a good living environment if the commons area is more than a token issue.
And it allows a reasonable place to live at a reasonable cost and particularly in an area that
has high land cost. I like what I see architecturally. I think how they've approached it with
' the multi -color and the architecture that I see, is actually innovative. I like it. It's some of
the nicer stuff that I've seen come into here. And at that price level. If that in fact is that
price level. Although I'm not making that a condition of what I'm talking about. I'm not
certain, I would feel that we're not doing our job if we left that as a blank area to be figured
out by the residents. I think that's too much an intrinsic issue and we should be part of that.
That's part of what we do. I'll leave the comments, I don't want to take them all. I'll leave
that for the rest of you.
Mancino: You got most of them. Thanks. Mike.
Meyer: I don't know what he's left out. A lot of the same concerns I have were the same as
his. The wetland. Making sure that that's handled in the right way because you only get one
' shot at it is a big concern. I would like us to have a hand in the common areas also and the
planning of that. I just pretty much am in full agreement with everything that Jeff has said
' and I'll just leave it at that for now.
Mancino: Bob.
t Skubic: I have a couple of things. You had brought up the amount of traffic on the
surrounding roads and Lyman Boulevard is scheduled to be updated at some time. It's
another road in need of repair and improvement. How is that, what does the timeframe look
like for Lyman Boulevard being upgraded?
I Generous: I think they said pushing it back to next spring.
' 49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Don Jensen: Do you want me?
Generous: Yeah. You had talked to Charles on that.
Don Jensen: The engineering department, in their memo in your staff report ... condition that
they have in every other development, we wouldn't be able to turn any dirt until they ordered
that job which upgrades Lyman and Lake Riley Boulevard. So keep in mind that that whole
road, the alignment that we're talking about, Lake Riley Boulevard, will get torn out. Torn
up. New pipes put in and a new road surface put down. And from a company builder point
of view, we don't want to be in there prematurely because we don't want to get cut off either.
It doesn't do us any good to start a subdivision and have no way to deliver lumber and that
kind of thing so those two are really tied hand in hand. To answer your question, if the city
can't bond for the roads this fall or the utilities this fall, everything gets delayed at this point
regardless of-timing. Whether that's next monday of July or August or September.
Skubic: Okay, thank you Don.
Don Jensen: The report says spring as the anticipated time to pay.
Skubic: One other thing. There aren't too many zero lot line developments that I'm aware of.
You did mention that there is another one in the suburban area, Inver Grove Heights. Is that
correct?
Don Jensen: Yes.
Skubic: And just for point of reference, how does that development compare in terms of
number of units, price range?
Don Jensen: That was a concept, it's a little bit higher price point. It's has a little bit steeper
topography around the exterior of the dwelling so that's one of the reasons that a lot of the
buyers chose options with second floors ... views. Had the wetland complex that we've been
working with the city on to maintain the overall water quality... Regarding it's compatibility.
It's price point is stronger than what we anticipate at this point and it's target should be. We
anticipated that that would probably come in at around the 140 range... We would target this
one so that the base price would be what we've got in the staff summary. Of course a lot of
that is determined on development costs that we don't necessarily control and some of it is the
higher ambience that... Does that answer your question?
Skubic: Thanks.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Don Jensen: ...little bit less on the other one because it's about another 5 foot wider. It's a
basement product where these are slab on grades so we need a little bit extra room to get the
excavating equipment in so that's our reason for that. That density, with a private road
system, that was about 5 units an acre...
Skubic: And there were about, approximately the same number of units in that development?
Don Jensen: We had 44, which is a real similar notion to what we had through here where
you have...
Skubic: That was 44 units?
Don Jensen: That was correct.
Skubic: Thank you.
Don Jensen: You had a question about other zero lot line developments. There was kind of
a phase in Twin Cities developments, probably RLK could certainly comment to that. About
10 -15 years ago there was kind of a round of development that was in a narrower lot line, and
whether you call it detached... Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, and then for some reason it went
down the road for a little while. Now it's coming back and the Twin Cities in general has
lagged the nation in coming up with housing that is smaller lots with less maintenance. We
think it's appropriate. We've been receiving a lot of potential inventory and opportunity in
giving the market with what they want.
Mancino: Thank you. My comments are, conceptually I think, and no one has hit on the
wetlands and our concern about them and I know that that will be taken care of between now
and preliminary plat. The alignment of the roads, etc. I do support the staff's
recommendations on that. I very much support this kind of housing. We have seen a lot of
townhomes, twin homes lately so I like the zero lot, single family for those people who would
still like to buy single family homes and can't afford most of the homes in Chanhassen.
However, I would like to address a couple of the architectural comments that are in your
memorandum and that is, I would like to make sure that Rottlund, that we do have a variety
of color in bricks. I have seen that work lately in a townhome development that did not just
use one color of brick, but used different colors. All within the same tone but a slight
difference. And they also used brick or a substantial material like that and not the same mass
on every single home. They used it maybe halfway up or they used it on a whole wall, a side
wall, so that there was some differentiation between what was brick and what was wall. On
page 8 of the memorandum under architecture, it says building colors will vary based on
homeowner's selection with a range determined by Rottlund. See selected sample, which we
51
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
did. Rottlund reserves the right to vary based on supplier and material availability at the time
of actual construction. I don't feel comfortable with that because I want to make sure that the
agreement that Rottlund has with the city, with the variations that we see, we will be able to
get. That is very important. Secondly, I would conceptually would like to see more side
level entries. That is as you go down these streets, I see more of a neighborhood of garages,
which is again very, very typical of all of the twin home, townhome developments that we're
seeing and they all start looking alike. So I would like to see more of a variety of entries. I
do feel it is important that the common area has very definite access corridors to it. And Bob
I wanted to ask you, has the Klingelhutz property that's going to be up for development, have
they talked to. Well I would hope in the next few months that they look at the access onto
their property and that the applicant and those that are going to be developing the western
property, get together to make sure that that works.
Aanenson: Excuse me, are you talking about the street?
Mancino: The street access.
Aanenson: That's currently what they have platted right now. Whether that plat's going to
hold in place but they have designed it to tie into this street.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do like what has been presented as architecture. I like the mix
of rectangular and arched window systems but I would just like to add some of these other
things. What else? I think that those are the only other new issues that I wanted to bring up.
I guess that's it. Do I have a motion?
Meyer: Nancy, could I just ask one other question about staff?
Mancino: Sure.
Meyer: Along the 212, future 212 right -of -way, are we talking about any berming or any
landscaping to put some sort of buffer there. I see there, maybe it's just the lay of the land
but towards the upper end, towards the wetland there. Is that bermed?
Aanenson: 212 will be lower than the actual, this project. What they're proposing to do is do
some of the grading into that so when the property, when 212 does go through, whatever date
that is, you're going to have to come into this project to do grading. So we envision some
landscaping there but the elevation of the road will be lower. But there's still some noise ... or
transition. That's what we're talking about.
52
1
1�
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: Well I just ... I do support what Jeff said. I would like the applicant and staff to
work out some sort of a system so that the erosion control measures are put up. There is no
trash. Developer's walk their talk. And to be proactive and to have natural consequences if it
doesn't happen. Thank you.
Don Jensen: I'm sure there were a couple of questions that ... podium to answer, if I could
respond.
Mancino: Yes, you may.
Don Jensen: There was a question about what was happening north of the property to Rice
Marsh Lake. Right now the city is responding, looking at purchasing the 212 corridor and the
Rice Marsh Lake has been discussion stages and that was a complete program that has
happened in other locations of 212. So that would take care of the problem to the north.
That would fill out their joint plans, as we understand... Chanhassen to have an opportunity to
serve Rice Marsh Lake with a trail system that would be independent of the Lake Riley trails
that are happening in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen.
Aanenson: So our desire is to leave that natural except for a trail. That would be the area
between 212 and Rice Marsh.
Don Jensen: The existing sewer line forms a natural trail corridor that's already cut through
the vegetation. For the most part that sewer line would be abandoned once the improvements
and Lake Riley Boulevard, Lyman, whenever that occurs. Secondly, in some defense of our
Mission Hills development. The superintendents have been told of that. We are the builder
there so we are responsible obviously for all the trash but certainly that's, we're following
other developers since there is a single family neighborhood between us and the others, which
is not to say that some more fences aren't to be added and we'll just leave it at that. But
we're not the prime contractor responsible for a lot of the road building and a lot of the initial
major erosion control to protect that lake. So I just wanted to clarify that ... or if they're torn
down, no matter who tears them down. Regarding traffic, that will be in the staff summary.
Hopefully I explained that. This is a road project... improve the overall circulation that fits
within the city hierarchy. The engineers will comment to that next time. We do want to
make sure that as a Planning Commission you are comfortable with this concept of housing,
because we want to spend the time to massage the plan. We don't want to spend the time to
massage the plan if you change your minds in two months time so we'd like to know that
now and we appreciate the comments that we've heard. Regarding the commons area. We
appreciate your interest to work with us to design it. I would like to say now that I want to
be open to your phone calls and I'd like to be able to access you so we're not spending time
at the podium with what our future plans are. We would like an opportunity to not over
53
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
program space before we know who the buyers are. And there is a risk.there. I've got
neighborhoods where City Councils and Planning Commissions have projected a population
mix. Required me to build play equipment. I can only purchase commercial grade
equipment, like your parks can for liability purposes and I end up with a neighborhood of two
children, with a $15,000.00 play structure, because that was mandated. If the association has
the opportunity, if we can define activity zones, and the association then has the choice what
their liability insurance, can buy a Rainbow play systems that fits what they want to do.
They can buy that for $1,000.00. I can't buy a swing for an association, as the Rottlund
Company, and turn it over, and not buy commercial park grade equipment that a swing will
cost me $1,500.00. A slide that's this high will cost me $1,000.00, and you can verify that
with Todd who buys all the equipment, I presume for the city and it's parks. I'm not trying to
be abstinent about that. I just want to be open that we can envision what this neighborhood
will be but if we don't leave a space and opportunity, all the people with children might buy
on the outside and all the people without children, and there might be a lot of them, they buy
on the inside, and they end up with a play structure right outside their patio. Okay. And
then in retrospect, how smart was I? I don't want to waste a lot of time. I just want to be
open to you so we're not debating...
Mancino: Thank you. At this point, do I have a motion?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD 995 -1 with the following conditions.
Or excuse me, dated May 9, 1995 with the following conditions and issues, concerns and
recommendations. 1 thru 30. I would add 31. To define the options of development for a
commons area and access. 32. That a guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of
siding be defined. 33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for
the shoreline. 34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean -up based on
past... 35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without 212 development.
Mancino: Do I hear a second?
Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Fmniakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council grant conceptual approval of PUD 495 -1 with the following conditions, issues,
concerns and recommendations:
54
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9 -1.
2. Fire hydrant changes:
a) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and the new proposed street
(near Lot 1).
b.) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection by Lot 43.
c) Relocate the current hydrant between Lots 46 and 47 to between Lot 47 and the trail.
d) Relocate the current hydrant from between Lots 36 and 37 to between Lots 33 and
34.
3. Submit street names for review and approval.
4. Submit turning radius of cul -de -sac to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level, top of foundation
elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
6. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This
should be done prior to final plat approval.
7. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of
any building permits.
8. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for
review prior to final plat approval.
9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
' the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
11. All utilities and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utilities plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer
installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan
application.
16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
56
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetland
' shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
20. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
' normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
purposes.
' 21. The proposed single family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $50,873.00. These fees are
payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
' 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels.
24. Existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site will need to be
relocated prior to development of the area.
25. Lyman Boulevard alignment may be further refined conditioned upon the following:
a. The right -of -way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this
time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right -of -way to minimize
' conveyance of right -of -way. The City would need to have the right -of -way
dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard.
' b. The street design must meet State Aid, 35 mph design standards. Upon review of
the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the
' 35 mph design standards.
c. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining
' walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc.
26. The applicant shall meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property owners to discuss
' a common street access along the easterly property line of the site. The current submittal
of the roadway alignment is not acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
27. Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 shall be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large
wetlands and trees. This also requires the realignment of North Bay Drive through the
site.
28. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings; provide additional landscaping screening south of Lot 1,
Block 1; revegetate the area behind Lots 6 -11, Block 2 with central hardwood species
which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B; and increase the number of
evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings.
29. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as
lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley
Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit
development status.
30. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
31. To define the options of development for a commons area and access.
32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined.
33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for the shoreline.
34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean-up.
35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without 212 development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Generous: It goes to the City Council on June 12th and they'll, for conceptual approval.
Mancino: Did everyone hear that? It goes to the City Council on June 12th for conceptual
approval. Thank you very much.
58
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
' NEW BUSINESS:
Mancino: Any old business? Any new business?
' Aanenson: Yeah, I do have some new business. Todd Hoffman has been working to, on this
park acquisition and trail construction and open space plan, has been working with the City
Council and the City Council had recently approved the formation of a park referendum task
force and he would like someone from the Planning Commission to be appointed on that
commission. Let me just tell you what some of the things that they're looking at. They're
looking at having a task force comprised of the following people. Two residents. He's got
the city mapped into three areas. Basically it'd be Powers Boulevard, to the west. North of
TH 5 and east of Powers would be another area and then the rest of the southern part of the
' city would be area 3. So he'd have a resident from each of those areas. Someone from the
City Council. A member of the Chamber. He'd like a Planning Commission representative
and then there will be two members of the Park and Recreation Commission. And again,
' they're looking for a Fall, 1995 voting referendum date so this group would have the task of
kind of going through and prioritizing some of those park spaces and again based on the
dollar amount that they're looking for the referendum, kind of putting some priority together.
' So if you would like, if someone from the Planning Commission would be willing to serve on
that.
' Mancino: So it will be quick? It will be a summer meetings.
Aanenson: Yes, yeah. What he's saying is that they'll probably meet twice monthly until that
time so it's a time commitment but it would be a short window. If someone would be willing
to serve.
' Mancino: Is there anyone that would like to volunteer for that?
Farmakes: I'll do it.
Aanenson: I'll pass that on to Todd and let him, I'll have him put you on the...
Mancino: Great. Any other new business? I just have this to pass out, which I'm sure
you've all seen. The Newsweek's latest edition had an article on—very good article.
' Aanenson: Let me pass this out while you're doing that. This is an interesting counterpoint
too, when I was in Toronto. A professor in Canada who critiqued some of his, what he
t considers a new spin on an old thought and it's just an interesting counter balance to that
r
59
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
article. I think you'd find the, after you read this, just an interesting like I say balance to
what they proposed. Some of the recommendations of that.
Mancino: Great, thank you. And it would be nice at some point, just have kind of an open
discussion.
Aanenson: Yes, maybe we can put that on the next agenda. Sure.
Farmakes: Maybe we can come up with the answer as to why they keep on trying to come
here if it's so bad.
Mancino: So for the next Planning Commission meeting, just read them both and then it will
be just an open discussion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no Minutes available.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: City Council update, I can give that quick and then we can go on to the open
discussion. I'm sorry, I didn't put that in your packet. The City Council met last Monday
and the following actions were taken. Paulstarr was given site plan approval. That's a
business in the industrial park.
Mancino: Any changes? Do you remember?
Generous: They took out the berming requirement and they said they wanted more
evergreens.
Aanenson: Instead of the berm.
Generous: On the north side. The elevations, they went with what the applicant proposed for
the entry way. With the two course projections. The use of the black brick.
Farmakes: Oh, they liked that? No? Sorry.
Generous: They didn't really address it. We brought it out but they didn't do anything.
Farmakes: They thought it was fine.
Generous: Yeah. They were happy to have the new business in the area.
.c
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Aanenson: Okay, Highlands at Lake St. Joe was given final plat approval. That's the
Lundgren project south of Lake St. Joe. The one north of Lake St. Joe was given preliminary
plat, and that was the Oaks at Minnewashta. That will be north of Kings Road. And the
senior housing was tabled and that will be on next Monday's City Council meeting.
Farmakes: What's the general feeling on that? Where they're going.
Aanenson: The issue was the height and they asked the developer, Dunbar Associates who's
acting as kind of the consultant to put the package together, to look at some design
alternatives. A neighborhood meeting was held with the seniors and a couple of the
neighborhood spokesmen to look at some design alternatives. Obviously some of them really
aren't, one of them was to take the pitched roof off. I'm not sure that was really palatable for
the neighbors, or the staff or the seniors. There was some other ones that were, we did show,
they did show a 3 story elevation. It does push the building further to the south. It does also
require a 15 foot retaining wall. Certainly that wall could be tiered so it's really hard to say,
unless you saw a perspective, is that better to look at? So we've asked that the Dunbar
prepare a site perspective showing what it would look like at 3 stories because it may or may
not be better to look at. So at this point, when it goes to City Council, they will be shown all
the different alternatives and let the Council decide.
Farmakes: My comment, when we talked about that, and I don't know if I articulated this,
was continue the coloration that you see about 6 or 7 months out of the year, which is the
oak without the leaves on it, which is sort of a gray, muted gray across there rather than the
black. It seemed to me a real waste of public money to lose over 10 feet, to lose 30% of the
units in a confined area like that. And in looking at the study, the city's either going to have
to take a position that it's not going to follow the study and position these homes within
walking distances of grocery stores and so on. Short of, there are other alternatives which
was to stick the building in the middle of a commercial area. It seems to me that they're
caught between a rock and a hard place but the question is, they're spending public dollars
and then the question becomes, how do you best spend those.
Aanenson: Well I think the 3 story may be able to be done. The issue was, because you
elongated a corridor, and because you do that and you're increasing the footsteps from the
elevator, then it becomes a question of whether or not, can you keep those rents up and some
of the financing issues. That's where the County HRA has to evaluate that. Where we left it
at the meeting was, if the elevators could be moved, then you possibly could do a 3 story
building. Then the broader question is, aesthetically is that better to look at than the 4 story
and that's a question that we can't answer at this point. They've got the new neighbors that
will have to look at it. City Council will have to look at it and based on a perspective. I'm
not sure. So it may be able to be accomplished to lower it. Is it a better project? I can't say.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 '
Mancino: Well at least they have the choice then.
Aanenson: Exactly.
least as the building
other alternatives...
But we're giving design options and that's something that the Council, at '
We did push the architecture, which is always good, to try and see some
Farmakes: It would be unfortunate to see that as a flat building.
Aanenson: I don't think the neighbors want that. I don't think the seniors want that. I don't
think the city wants that. I think that proposal didn't gain much support. We certainly want
to make it the best for everybody so we can accomplish everybody's goal. Let me just say on
the open discussion. On your next agenda, what we'll do is put in an amendment to your By-
laws. Since it is published here and there's really no reason to continue having the tape and
the Minutes on that. They're just kind of housekeeping sort of things. We'll put them in and
then formally when this comes on, we won't close the meeting but it won't be taped or
Minutes of that part. But then we'll close the meeting after that and that was acceptable to
the City Attorney. We'll put that in the next By -laws but certainly we won't close the
meeting now but there certainly doesn't have to be Minutes of this portion. So we'll make
that formally on your next agenda.
The taped portion of the meeting ended at this point. The Planning Commission had open
discussion iegaiding Wetland Regulatory Simplification and Affordable Housing. The
meeting was then adjourned.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
62