Loading...
1f. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 1, 19951 0 I I I I 0 i C r CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy Mancino, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Bob Generous, Planner II. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 9. CRANES VINEYARD PARK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 26.954 SQUARE FEET AND 36.387 SQUARE FEET, ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 1035 HOLLY LANE, JULIE SPRAU, RAVENSWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Pam Myers 1115 Holly Lane Julie Sprau 2004 Scarborough Court, Chaska Deborah E. Grove Minnetonka Mirald A. Kroupstad 1035 Holly Lane Carl Zinn 5820 Ridge Road John Rask presented the staff repoit on this item. Scott: Any other comments from city staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation or make some comments? Julie Sprau: No. I think John's adequately described it. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: If anyone would like to speak at the public hearing, please step forward. Let us know your name and your address and let us know what's on your mind. Pam Myers: Good evening. My name is Pam Myers. My address is 1115 Holly Lane. I'm the adjacent homeowner. I have a question or two. My greatest concern has to do with water runoff. Storm water runoff and I didn't see the 14 points, or the 14 conditions with regards to this subdivide. I don't know if staff has ... or what the plan is for water runoff. If you know the area, if you know Holly, it does come down from the top of the hill. The water runoff is from Powers or 17 or 85, whatever you want to call it. It comes down the hill through culverts that are larger at the top of the hill and get smaller as they come down the hill and at the moment they come down to the bottom of the hill to my front yard. I've worked with Mike Wegler terrifically well ... in attempting to open up culverts. To open up the water runoff. With putting in two houses downstream from me, I have a feeling that they'll put in fill for this property ... the new lots there which would build up that lot and therefore have less drainage downstream from me. I know that there is a plan, long range plan to do some storm water runoff management in that neighborhood. I would guess this is the only open property at the moment, so those plans might be for storm water runoff. Scott: If we could, because you have a number of questions I can tell. Probably the place to start, if we could have Dave Hempel, who is one of our city engineers, who's quite conversant in that sort of thing and I guess the question being, given what you know about the preliminary plat and the preliminary grading plan, what sort of things are going to be occurring relative to grading and then also our water surface management plan that might help everyone understand the situation a little bit better. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. As ... the city has been contacted regarding the water problem... Holly Road is a substandard city street. No curb and gutter. No storm sewer. The current drainage pattern is through an open ditch section along the south side of the road that meanders through the property that goes through a driveway culvert. There are a number of culverts... along the street there resulting in the water backing up ... The city surface water management plan has indicated a surface water pond in the vicinity of this subdivision. Staff did look at requiring that the pond be built on the subject property but after reviewing the site, and the number of trees, significant trees, we felt that a better alternative... would be to the west on Ms. Myers property. Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator has been in contact verbally, over the phone with Ms Meyers regarding this. There are no plans set for this storm water pond... actually a lower priority. There are projects... additional two home sites in the neighborhood will not generate significant runoff to adversely impact the current drainage situation that is ... there today. We are looking at increasing the driveway culvert underneath the private driveway of this development to a 30 inch culvert which... We're asking also that the existing driveway be abandoned and the ditch section through there be 2 r I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 restored to help the drainage. One other thing that remains at the request of the city was to ' rework the ditch through this property down through the Myers' property too... Scott: Okay. Ma'am, does that help answer some of your questions regarding runoff and so ' forth? Pam Myers: It speaks to the need for larger culverts and it speaks to the needs for the ' drainage on the new property to actually be dug out which is... Hempel: Just to clarify. We did look at this parcel for ponding but all the trees that are in ' the front along Holly Lane there, we felt that it would be a waste to lose those trees. A better site would actually be on your property where the property is lower and is void of trees. t Pam Myers: This is my front yard. ' Hempel: That's correct. Pam Myers: May I show you my front yard? ' Scott: Sure. Ma'am if ou could also help us out a bit. We have a preliminary plat map Y p p rY P ' here and if you could tell us, show us where you're located. Nutting: Are you west of the proposed subdivision or east of the proposed subdivision? ' Pam Myers: West. ' Mancino: West, with the blue door? Pam Myers: I beg your pardon. ' Mancino: Are you west with the blue door? Do you have the blue front door? ' Pam Myers: No. I have a white house. Rask: Approximately right here on Lot 7. As I indicated before, Lot 7 actually has I believe ' 3 homes. Actually there's a home back here that sits somewhere in here. There's another home that sits kind of up in here and then I believe Ms. Myers' home sits up here somewhere. This would be the front yard I think where Dave would be, the pond. t u 3 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: And how does that correspond with the pond? Actually the standing water that we see in these pictures? And we'll pass them to you Dave so you can. Pam Myers: ...the street where you can see the driveway. The driveway and the culvert are under water. Adjacent to the new property. Scott: Yeah, we'll get this over to Dave Hempel and kind of circle the wagons a little bit. Mancino: You have a lake. Scott: They call that New Years Lake is what they call that. Does that ring any visual bells for you Dave? Hempel: That would be approximately the area that we had proposed to excavate out as far as easements for a storm water pond. Pam Myers: That wouldn't be my choice for my front yard. Mancino: Yeah. The other question I have Dave is a little bit about timing. You said it's not a top priority. When you say that, are you talking 5 years? I mean doesn't this present a public safety problem? Hempel: I can't tell whether, what the storm frequency this would have been. 10 year storm event or 25 year, 100 year. We've had a number of 100 year storms in the last few years that would result in this type of flooding. Simply I guess we'd be looking at this type of improvement probably within the next 5 years. Storm drainage ... and so forth. The other thing is ... temporary fix to the whole problem. What really should be done is storm sewer incorporated with the street construction, curb and gutter and eliminate the ditch section that's currently out there. If that... Scott: Yeah because I was looking, when I was down there it appears as if there's a lot of untreated water that's going into Christmas Lake through that area so. Mancino: Are there other options that your staff have looked into besides Ms. Myers' front yard for a ponding site? Hempel: For the time being, no. We've considered contacting the City of Shorewood to do a cooperative project on the north side of the street. There's an existing wetland there that maybe could be expanded to use for storm water treatment. 4 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Pam Myers: There is a pond...that's correct. ' Mancino: Okay. So you would look into that further as, okay. ' Scott: Is there any, do you see any jurisdictional delays due to having two municipalities involved in this potentially? I mean what's your experience been? I think we've only maybe seen one or two plats that have come by that have had some activity with Shorewood. Hempel: We've got a fairly good working relationship with the City of Shorewood. In this same vicinity I believe we service their homes with city sewer and water as well so I think... ' Scott: Okay. Well, we don't have concrete answers but that's one of the important parts of a public hearing is that we can at least get some more information from residents and what we'd encourage you to do is irrespective of what happens here this evening, to continue to follow the project and you're free to contact, of course not only the commissioners but also members of city staff and what we've found is that they're very eager to take the time necessary to get ' the all information possible and try to make the best decision for everybody so. Pam Myers: That's certainly been my experience... But a lake in my front yard is a fall and spring event. It's not an every year event. The property as it stands, the undeveloped property which is the ... is low. I presume putting in pads to build the houses means that the developer understands that it's low... I also presume that means that that's going to be filled. I ' don't know what the plan is for fill in that area but that would mean that there would be less place for the water to go, which I would suggest would mean more back -up on my property. Scott: Have you seen a grading plan for the proposed subdivision? r r 0 0 Pam Myers: No. I've seen a plat drawing. I haven't seen a grading plan. Scott: Okay. Well, you can get those from city staff and also we'll have some extras at the end of the evening but they'd be more than happy to sit down with you and explain, here's what it looks like as far as elevations. Here's how it's going to change and at least allow you to understand a little bit better what the impact might be. Pam Myers: Any higher, I would suggest than it is, they would want it to be in order to build there and not have water ... and as soon as they build, then there will be more water... I have a second concern that has to do with the lot line. I currently am in conversation with Rick Vogt about the survey. The survey line does not agree with my survey lines which my survey was done a year or so ago. So that is not settled. That is not a settled issue. There's an iron set in a corner that would divide the two lots, north and south that I believe is too far E r Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 west into my property. Along that property line I do have a 10 foot easement for that house that's behind me on the part of Crane's Vineyard. And it would mean changing where that driveway was for the easement. So it's important that that be settled before we move too far along with approving the building. I appreciate keeping the trees. I think that's an important part of the project and I appreciate your mentioning that and the developer considering that. We also have peliated woodpeckers there and it would be nice even to have some of those older trees but we can't have both can we. To have the old ones and the new ones too. Did I ask all my questions? Irwin Stevenson: Well I think you need to ask what the Council's going to do in terms of allowing properties to built that just spreads more water onto there because logic, it doesn't take an engineer to figure that out... Scott: Sir, if you wish, I think what we'd like to do is make sure that your comments are recorded on the record. So if you'd like to step up and continue your comments, we'd sure appreciate it. Irwin Stevenson: Well, at the present time. Scott: Excuse me sir. Could you please let us know who you are. Irwin Stevenson: I'm a friend. Scott: Could we have your name and your address for the record. Irwin Stevenson: Irwin F. Stevenson, 110914 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska, Minnesota. Scott: Great, thank you. Irwin Stevenson: At the present time, you saw the water that stands and goes over the road. As she stated, not on a 100 year cycle. But pretty regularly. And also that same water, at the present time we get some relief because it builds up on the property that we're now talking about next door. And so it's ponded too at times. Now the logic is, if you're going to build a house there, you're not going to, unless you're putting a submarine there, you've got to do something besides raise the property. And also the logic to me would be that it doesn't take an engineer to figure out that that water's going to go somewhere. And it's not going to go uphill. It's going to go down into that ditch. There's no other place for it to go. So therefore I would think it would be prudent to the Council, before approving something like that, that Mrs. Myers knows what's going to happen to her property. It can only get worst. It 0 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 C IS r C can't get better. And I don't think it would be fair to allow something that now you deliberately say 5 years from now ... that to me doesn't make a lot of sense. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carved. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: My only issue is drainage, which they've been talking about and I didn't see a solution that I felt real comfortable with that will take care of the current problem. So I think we need a solution. Scott: Okay. So your thought is conditions. Conrad: My thought is I'd table. I Scott: Okay. n n Aanenson: Dave, maybe you can comment. There was a grading plan in the packet and it's maintaining the pre- development runoff rate so it's not increasing. I mean Dave could maybe elaborate on that more. I mean there's an existing condition out there. Whether this plat's responsible to solve that problem, whether this plat were to go in or not, there's still a problem out there so we're kind of looking at a bigger picture besides this plat. I think we need to separate those two issues and maybe Dave wants to comment a little bit more. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The grading plan ... only showed minimal grading for the house pads built approximately 18 inches and provides surface drainage away from the house pad. The current drainage situation out there is not going to be, first of all improved with this development, nor is it going to worsen. A problem exists out there ... it's been there for a number of years and as development continues upstream, more valuable water in generated. So it's a much bigger project than this simple subdivision... involves drainage storm sewer piping, ponding and upgrading of the street essentially to solve the problem. And I was just going to add, by tabling this project would not solve any of the problems. Conrad: Well in the staff report Dave, that's sure not the impression I got, and maybe I read it, and maybe I didn't read your notes carefully enough but under drainage and streets, it 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 seemed like the solution was to develop a pond and that was not going to happen. And therefore, the way I read it, given the fact that that was not going to happen, we were not improving, or not even maintaining the predevelopment runoff. Hempel: The initial runoff generated from two house pads and driveways is really minimal compared to the overall runoff from the watershed that goes through this property. This property that's being subdivided is actually downstream and at the end of the watershed. The surface water management plan showed a ponding somewhere in this vicinity to treat the runoff prior to discharging into Christmas Lake. Not necessarily for quantity purposes but for water quality purposes. So any type of storm sewer improvements we do will help ... the situation but will not totally alleviate the problem. Storm sewers are designed typically for a 10 year storm event. Anything greater than that, we provide for emergency overflows to prevent flooding of the homes and so forth. Aanenson: Can I just add to what Dave was saying? They are being assessed storm water fees to add to that project so we have, that's the purpose of the storm water plan. When we adopted those fees as property subdivided to collectively get that money in order to do these kinds of projects. So they are being assessed storm water fees for the eventual construction of the pond in that area. Conrad: Well again the way I read the staff report, it said we can't solve the problem. It has to impact it somehow. Has to. And therefore that's why I didn't feel comfortable with it. Now if you tell me this is 1 /100 of the overall problem, or 1 /1000, then I may pay attention but I don't know what it is I guess. Hempel: One of the major problems out there is the downstream culvert for this subdivision It currently goes through Miles Lord. The culvert there I believe is only a 15 or 18 inch diameter culvert which is severely undersized. We propose a 30 inch culvert through that area. That is the restrictive device that is creating most of this backup into the upstream properties. Conrad: Yeah, but that's quantity and I'm talking quality I guess. So we can't really solve the quality issue until we build a pond. That's the bottom line. So the bottom line, if I said let's table it, you wouldn't come back with any solution other than the fact that in 5 years we may have enough money to treat the water and therefore maintain the quality of the water in Christmas Lake. Hempel: Certainly, yes. We'd look at it from that standpoint. We'd also put it higher up on the priority list if funding comes available. 8 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Conrad: Well, I'm not doing that but, there are a lot of priorities. I'll be interested in the ' other commissioners comments. That's a tough one. My comment was, Joe is to table it but thinking I'd get something better back. I'm not hearing that the staff has got a better solution right now so I'm not sure how I'm viewing this. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: In talking about the ponding issue a little bit. We have approximately 10 feet of elevation difference between the lake in that northwest corner of the property where the ponding is occurring, so that tells me that that's over an average by 2% grade and you should be able to get the drainage flow. So that tells me that there's some, like Dave mentioned, restrictions of culverts, etc, that are making the problem worst because it should be able to be done. I had some other questions about the situation with the dock. Now I'm not sure I understand what the response of the applicant is regarding the letter that we have which states the dock hasn't been in. Is it the applicant's contention that the dock has been in every year for the last 12 years? Rask: I don't know, maybe if he's here, Mr. Krogstad or his representative, maybe they can answer that better than I could. Ledvina: So, it would be good. I'd like to get that on the record if that really is the case. Would that be possible? I mean you don't have to if you don't want to but I'd just like to hear what your opinion is on the dock. ' Scott: And this is an exception. Normally once the public hearing is closed, we do not have input from the general public but in this particular case, it's an important enough piece of information that we're making an exception. Merald Krogstad: There's been a dock on the property since about 1900. It's used for about 35 years. Scott: And you're Mr. Krogstad? Merald Krogstad: Yes. I'm sorry. Then when my parents had it we rented out the cabins we had back there and that picture show the dock in place. So I'm adjacent to the property so sometimes we haven't had a dock in as it got older. In fact I haven't had a dock on my property for the past 3 years because I'm too busy working in the summer to pay for the taxes on it. That's why I'm selling it and so I don't have time to put out a dock all the time. But we have had docks on and off. For 3 years they were putting in the sewer and they were removing the sewer so I couldn't use the lake for 3 years. I hired a contractor to move... and 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 then we had a dock up at that time. Then for several years a friend of mine put his boat there and he had a little dock this past year but I haven't had my dock in repeatedly for 12 years but we have—over a period of about, probably 3 to 4 to 5 years. It had a dock there when we bought it because it had a dock and we had lakeshore and we kept it and paid taxes on it and not used it for the past few years for the same reason. Scott: It's going to be real important for the purposes of the people who purchase the property that it's substantiated as good as you can. Very important. Merald Krogstad: ...after you pay taxes on it for 4 years... Scott: I know we had a similar circumstance where this same issue came up and one of the things that helped was there were some photographs I think somewhere from the Department of Natural Resources or I think the Department of Agriculture with their aerial photographs that were taken and that may be a source that you could tap into for your purposes as well, and there may be some other things available too but those are very helpful to us when we ran into this situation about a year ago. But if you have some pictures, I think probably the best thing to do would be to show those to the city staff and then because it's going to be important to do that. Thank you sir. Do you have some other comments? Ledvina: I had a question regarding the driveway. The existing, or the driveway along the east side of this parcel. Now that is an existing gravel driveway, is that right? Okay. Now with your proposed plat they're proposing another bituminous driveway right along there so essentially we're going to have 20 some feet of driveway or, are we getting together on this or how is that going to work out? Rask: Yeah, there will be approximately 10 feet where the existing driveway is now is actually on Miles Lord's property, Lot 9. There will be an additional 20 foot easement provided next to that so you'll have a 30 foot wide easement. On the 30 foot easement you'll have a 20 foot wide pavement width that will probably be on a combination of both of the properties over that easement. The private street section of our ordinance, this type of development does require that 20 foot pavement width built to 7 ton design. Ledvina: Okay so the access will be from the driveway that will be improved on Miles Lord's property, is that correct? Rask: Partly. Ledvina: Okay. Okay, well so he'll keep his edge of the pavement and then he'll improve it over on their side? 10 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Rask: Correct. ' Ledvina: Okay. So they could... ' Rask: The existing driveway comes in here. The easement would provide another 20 feet here and I think it's their intention to make use of that existing driveway for the existing, that area not to disturb any additional area than what they have to with the pavement widths. Ledvina: It would seem to be a real beneficial thing not to have 30 feet of roadway right there ... but I don't know, can we add a condition of that sort? I know we might be getting inbetween two private individuals coming to terms. Aanenson: A condition for what? Ledvina: For having an easement over the existing driveway. Rask: The easement will cover that existing driveway. Ledvina: Has that already happened or is that in the process? Rask: No, it's in the process. We've got an indication from the owner of Lot 9 that he is... Ledvina: Do our conditions in the staff report guarantee that that will happen? Or no? Is it appropriate for us to try to specify that? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Condition number 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. Ledvina: Okay. But that relates to the two parcels. It doesn't relate to the neighbor's parcels, right? Aanenson: We can modify it to include that language. To include the existing homes be included in that... Ledvina: Okay. Can I just add that in there? Okay. That was all I had. Scott: Great, Nancy. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: I just want to make the comment that I think all of us feel and Ladd has certainly said that we are concerned with the water quality in the area and as soon as something can be done about it, the better and we would like to pass that on to City Council so as they prioritize for their areas, their list throughout the city, that this is a very serious one. How many homes are on this private drive? Rask: There will be a total of four. We're not including, there's two residences on Lot 9. There's one up here on the lake and then there's, I believe it's a rental unit back there. The existing driveway comes in like this and then here. So it'd be that rental unit, the existing house on Lot 5 and then the two proposed. We looked at a number of layouts here. We looked at creating a flag lot. However, this would force a number of driveways. You would have one driveway coming in for Lot 1. Another one for Lot 2 and then a third driveway for the existing home so we thought this combined driveway, or private street would be the best way to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Mancino: Yeah. When you go and see the site, it certainly does and it kind of keeps the character of the area. It keeps it that way with not as much road coverage. John, a question for you. The back of the property, I want to say the north end of the property that we're looking at. There's, you know it kind of goes uphill and there's quite a few big trees on there. Were you thinking about doing some sort of a conservation easement in that area because of erosion, etc? Rask: Yeah, I guess based on where they're showing the building pad, the slopes in this area and the majority of those trees are within the required 30 foot setback from the rear property line. That those trees would not be disturbed due to construction activity for clearing a building pad. Mancino: Sometimes you put a conservation easement to make sure that they stay there even when a homeowner moves in and maybe wants to start taking them down. How do you feel about that area? That slope area. Are they something that should stay permanent and help in the conservation of that slope? Rask: Certainly we did look at that. However, I think based on what was submitted, we felt we were getting adequate protection. We felt they met the basic requirements of the ordinance. In addition, you know I think the applicant's been very sensitive about the location of the building pad as to reduce to a minimum the amount of trees being removed. Mancino: The only other thing that I would like to add is that on recommendation number 2 which says the site plan document should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from 12 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 the proposed private driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter ' oak tree. And those are all my comments. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I don't have any additional comments of substance I guess. On the drainage issue, I guess I would opt for supporting staffs recommendation. As Ladd commented in his final ' words, we're not going to come up with a solution over night and I'm not an expert in drainage and so forth but I'm presuming staff has done their homework in terms of assessing the additional amount of drainage that would be generated from this and not having a material ' impact in and of itself on that so. I would be prepared to move it forward subject to some of the modifications that have been addressed in Matt's comments and Nancy's. ' Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect? Nutting: Sure. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council ' approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the conditions as noted in the staff report with the following additions. Under recommendation number 2, added at the end of that sentence, ' which would result in the savings of a 36 inch. Mancino: Diameter oak tree. Nutting: Okay. And Matt, was the, I'm trying to think. The easement issue we felt was covered in the item number 3. Did you have any modifications to that? Ledvina: Yeah. I would suggest that the language read, the applicant shall obtain and ' convey the necessary cross - access or driveway maintenance agreements between new lots and neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. Nutting: Yes, and also subject to the issue of condition number 15 which would require the applicant to submit proof to staff with regard to the existence of the dock prior to, is it January 1 of? Rask: July 11, 1983. Nutting: July 11th, 1983. Presuming at the discretion of staff in their evaluation of that. Scott: So you want to have, by virtue of a friendly amendment, condition in there about ' prioritization of the upgrade of the surface water treatment in that particular area? 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Nutting: I guess I'm not sure that condition, well. They're two separate. They're related but I'm not sure that that condition makes sense putting in with this. Scott: I'm thinking when people are going through the Minutes of this meeting, see people tend to zero in when it says motion and then here are the comments. So maybe, I think what I can do is I can just make, I'll make a comment at the end, after we vote on this so those who read the Minutes will see that. Instead of having it buried in. I think it's too important to be buried. Nutting: I believe that's it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a second? Oh, go ahead. Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation subject to the conditions mentioned. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yes. I'm curious what item number 15 means in terms of the grandfathering. Grandfathering means the dock has been in continuous use so Ron, you were asking the applicant to prove that it has been in continuous use since 1983? Rask: Yeah. That's a condition staff had recommended. What I indicated earlier was that when we originally reviewed this we were under the impression, based on evidence submitted by the applicant, that a dock had existed on this parcel for quite some time. Therefore it could continue to be used as a non - conforming structure. However, recently we've received some information that kind of contradicts that so what staff is asking is that everybody submit the information they have. The applicant, any other concerned parties. We'll review that and staff will make a decision regarding the non - conforming status. Conrad: Which means the applicant should be able to prove what? Rask: Prove that a dock existed on the parcel. This could be done either. Conrad: Last year? Rask: Yes. It has to exist every year since adoption of the ordinance. Conrad: Okay. Was the motion made to indicate that? 14 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Yes. That was condition 15. ' Conrad: Okay. That's the way you heard it? t Aanenson: That's the way. Conrad: You're going to write it. Aanenson: Yes. Ron just summarized it. ' Conrad: With a dock goes 3 boats. Aanenson: The issue here is because it's so narrow, they have to meet the dock setback zone t so that's why they're non - conforming. That's why we're saying that if they've had a dock, they can continue to use the dock as long as it's always been in the water. If you don't have it in there for more than one period, you've lost your rights. ' Conrad: Right. With a dock goes 3 boats overnight. ' Aanenson: Right. Ledvina: Just to further add to that. I would like to make a friendly amendment, in the event that the dock is approved. I would like to amend condition number 14 to clearly state that if the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non - conforming status is ' lost. Nutting: I'll accept that. ' Scott: Okay. Is there any more discussion? ' Nutting moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision 495 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. r_ ' 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 2. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter oak tee. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross - access or driveway maintenance easement agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. 4. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. 5. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 7. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. 8. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and /or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124.00 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500.00 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. 9. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088.00 and $2,693.00 respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane ' shall be abandoned and the ditch section restored. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with riprap. ' 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ' 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support a 7 ton per ' axle weight. 14. Storage of boats at the dock must be consistent with applicable city requirements ' except those which have the legal non - conforming status. If the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non - conforming status is lost. ' 15. The applicant is required to submit to staff for their review evidence that a dock has been in use on the property since 1983. All voted in favor and the motion canied. Scott: This is going to the City Council on the, it's still scheduled for the 27th of this month? Okay. Good. And just a comment with regard to surface water management. Obviously we have some concerns there that we'd like to pass onto our folks at the City Council. And then also when a decision is being made on the dock, please whoever is going to be involved with that decision really has to take a very close look at how the decision was made on Schmidt's Acres because in that particular situation the time frames were very similar. Early 1900's. And also there was conflicting information from those who were interested in seeing the dock versus those who weren't and there was antidotal information that was accepted but there were no photographs available for each year so we have set a precedent in that particular issue and I think we have to pay very close attention to it when you guys make a decision on this one. Conrad: And Joe, what was the ruling on that? Scott: That they kept the dock. The situations are extremely close as far as facts and so forth, so I think that's a, we're always careful about when we make a decision on something like this that it follows that the next time it's made, it's consistent. Conrad: And that one had a 10 foot piece of lakeshore? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: No, it was 50 feet. Or no, 30? Yeah, it was non - conforming. Conrad: I'm real uncomfortable with my decision. Aanenson: The beachlot thing's a little bit different. We were trying to attach the documentation to 1981. Okay. In order to maintain the legal non - conforming, he's got to demonstrate that it's been in there every year. The burden of proof is. Conrad: The burden is on him. Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,052 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 900 WEST 78TH STREET, GENE HABERMAN, CENTURY BANK. Public Present: Name Address Craig Hallett 983 Santa Vera Drive Ken Brooks Eden Prairie Pat Giordana Minneapolis Sheldon Wert Minnetonka Bob Generous p,esented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from staff? Good. Questions or comments from commissioners? Mancino: I'll wait. Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant or their representatives like to make a presentation? Yes sir. 18 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Sheldon Wert: My name is Sheldon Wert and ... fine with us in terms of the signage. We're ' trying to work that ... with them prior to the Council meeting and it will probably be turning around the landscaping... There is still one issue though and that's item number 9. We're not sure... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. I did have a conversation today with the project engineer to try to resolve the steep driveway and grade that is currently is proposed ' out there... either by lowering the site, which the applicant does not want to do at this time which results in redesigning the parking lot grading a little bit. Maybe additional storm sewer ... so I believe we can work it out though with the parking lot grades. Massage the ' grades out to 5% or 6 %. Scott: Okay, so it's currently around what, 9 or 10? Okay. Facing south? ' Hempel: East. Scott: Southeast? Directly east? Nutting: So you're saying 5% or 6 %. The condition says 5 %. There's some give there a ' little bit? ' Hempel: Some flexibility. Scott: Okay, go ahead. I didn't know you were waiting for me. You have the floor. This is ' a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. Scott: Do any members of the general public wish to speak about the Century Bank site plan ' review? Let the record show that no members of the general public wish to speak at this public hearing. May I have a motion to close please? ' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Scott: Ron. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Nutting: I don't have any immediate comments. It sounds to me like the applicant is supportive of the landscaping changes that have been proposed and it appears that the grading issue can be resolved. So I don't have anything further at this time. Scott: Okay, thank you. Nancy. Mancino: Do we have Bob, the material, building materials here? Aanenson: Maybe give them an opportunity to explain them. Mancino: Oh, good. Great. I was going to say, is the architect or landscape architect here? Would like to present. Architect: The primary building is face brick. We have the actual sample here. The face brick would match closely the brick that's being used on the Byerly's development in the West Village Center next door and to Kinko's to maintain some continuity between the designs. There's an accent brick also being used which is the light colored brick. You can see it's in a soldier course around the top of the building and then also in some... locations for some accent around the arches of the entry counter. And then the roof structure is a standing seam metal roof. This particular material. It's a very deep red in color. We feel it will look very nice with the brick material. Mancino: It will be exactly that color? Architect: Yes. That's an actual sample of the material. Mancino: When you said that it resembles the brick on Byerly's and Kinko's, it's not exactly the same? Architect: Yeah, it actually is the same blend of brick. There is some flexibility in terms of you can see the speckleness to it where you can pull out some of the dark colors and mix the composition a little bit. Mancino: Got it. How tall is that front entrance and tell me a little bit, I mean I do go to Byerly's but the entrance seems to be so big and massive for the rest of the building. Is it something that is duplicating what's in front of Byerly's? At the same size. The same level. Architect: The style is that the scale is probably about 2/3 that of the, not that massive entry as Byerly's. We're substantially smaller than that in terms of height and scale. 20 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 t Representatively we're probably, the peak of this roof is only about 10 feet taller than the Kinko's that sits out on that lot. Mancino: And how much taller is it than the peak of the roof of the bank... 1 Architect: Behind it? ' Mancino: Yeah. Architect: About 6 feet. What you're seeing, because of the perspective, Powers sits way out ' in front perspective wise. We're trying to give you the actual view as you're coming in from West 78th. You're below the building by 6 or 7 feet because of the way the site grades out to the back. ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. It's a good looking building. I have some questions about landscaping and that is, number one, I haven't seen, first of all what is the slope in the back ' of that? I mean is that a 3:1? Is that 2:1? I mean that's a horrendous slope. Hempel: The north slope between ... that was designed at 3:1 slope. Fairly close to that. ' Probably a little bit steeper. Mancino: Yeah, it looks steeper. My questions have to do with then, are we, I haven't seen a whole integrated landscape plan for the entire north slope so are we going to have places where in back of one building you're going to see these hard edges where we stop the pines ' or the spruces and then go to sumac and then go to something else or are we going to have an integrated landscape plan back there? I haven't seen that. ' Architect: ...in terms of where we put those actual materials but the materials we're putting back there match what's being put behind the Byerly's and the west building. ' Mancino: They do continue. Now there aren't any white oaks behind Byerly's, are there? Generous: In the plans there are. I don't think they're planning it but. Mancino: Okay. How are they going to be watered and maintained on that slope? I mean there's going to be continual water runoff. What kind of, do we have any nurse crops on ' there? Architect: Yeah. I think one of the things we addressed early on with the planning ' department is, there's a requirement in terms of size of trees and so forth and we've met the 1 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 quantities and sizes required of certain trees but we're actually putting smaller oaks in the back because there's a much better opportunity to maintain their growth than if you try to put a large size oak... Mancino: Well what, are you getting bare root that have been potted last fall by a bailey's or a gross? Architect: I'd have to refer to my landscape architect to guarantee that. I think Bob had a little bit of a write up regarding the landscaping in the report. They had reviewed it with the forestry people in terms of what's an appropriate use back there for a planting. Mancino: I would like to see a much more, and maybe this is somewhere, I'm not sure Bob, but I have a concern that there are going to be pockets around these trees. That they're going to be watered weekly. If there is some maintenance agreement with the contractor that these be watered weekly. And that the contractor has the responsibility of doing that and also after a year, replacing any of the trees because that is a very hard slope to keep things growing on. And they need to be watered every week of the summer. And a sprinkler system won't work, nor an irrigation system. Because the water will just run down the slope. The other thing about the landscape plan that I see is that, as we were creating the tree preservation ordinance, we wanted to see a varying size of trees. We wanted not just to see 2 inch or 2 1/2 caliper trees. We wanted to see something that had some design into it and so I would ask that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in a recommendation though, but that staff and a landscape designer work with varying some of the sizes so that in the front and those crab apple trees in the front that we do 2 1/2 to 3 inch calipers and then maybe go down size in some other areas. I would also like to see some sort of a perennial out from. Whether it be in day lilies or roses but. That's all the landscaping I had. What is the impervious surface Bob when we go to the expansion? I mean at the point where the bank expands. Does that come back to the Planning Commission for the expansion? I see on the north side. Generous: It depends on what percent it would be. Aanenson: If it's less than 10 %, they normally just administratively approve that. But it would still have to meet the standards of the underlying district. If it blended in all materials and met the impervious surface and setback standards... we'd approve that administratively. If there's something beyond that, then we'd bring that back to you for you to review. Mancino: If it's, so have we figured out, it's 57% impervious surface right now. Hard surface coverage when it's expanded? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Generous: I haven't figured that out. I don't know exact dimensions what they're looking at for the expansion. I'm not sure if they do right now either. Architect: ...out the area that the expansion would be allowed in ... a lot of green space in the front side. Mancino: My only other question Dave, is a little bit about the traffic flow. Oh, I have one other question for you. Are there going to be, one of the things that I like about Byerly's, in the parking lot etc, is that when I went out the other day and went to my car, you kind of have pavers right in the parking lot so I kind of know where to walk. That are more pedestrian friendly. So there's kind of a pathway. Will there be any of those connecting this building to what's going to be west of it? What's going to be south of it? Like if I want to get to Kinko's. Architect: We have a connecting sidewalk that links, from the kind of the picnic area that's next to the Kinko's development there, across to our development and actually under and through our tower. And then onto the adjoining site with the intention that you always have that circulation extended to the remaining two lots to the west. Mancino: Thank you. Dave, you suggested putting a stop sign at the southwest driveway entrance for eastbound traffic. Where is that? Hempel: In this location here. When you drive out to the existing north /south street where it comes out across from Target. This driveway in here does not have stop signs for traffic flow. Mancino: Okay. So when you drive up there and you can enter in the front or you can park at the front of the bank. Hempel: This is a two way entrance. This is an exit only. Mancino: To the left, okay. Hempel: And this is an enter only as well. Mancino: I was going to say, does it help at all having that not be a two way entrance but just one way? Hempel: This one? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Yeah. Hempel: I believe that should be a two way. Mancino: In case you don't want to get in, okay. And is there any stop sign from the west? Will there be one at this point? There will be one there? Hempel: There will be one here. And also one placed here. Mancino: Okay. And on the west side, will there be one from traffic coming in from the west. Will they have to stop when eventually that gets. Hempel: When this continues on? Mancino: Yeah. Hempel: This would be a free flowing lane of traffic similar to what's in front of Byerly's now. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for staff. It says that, on page 3 we're talking about the architectural design standards. There's a reference to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and I really don't really know what those are. Generous: Just the use of the tower. The tower structure. There's one, the clock sign on West 78th. That was the only reference I was really talking about. Ledvina: Okay. I thought you meant like making reference to the entry monuments. Generous: No. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Because we haven't seen those. Or the latest rendition of those. Alright. I don't have any more comments. Scott: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Conrad: I think it's a real nice project. I compliment the applicant and the staff. They ' worked a lot of things out. I reinforce the fact that we didn't have to beg for sidewalks this time. That they're there. The design is nice. It fits. Traffic flow works. Just a comment. Here's a case where the building is under signed and our ordinance will not let, what was originally proposed I think was real appropriate in terms of taste but our ordinance wouldn't allow it. I think staff gave us the right recommendation. But on the other hand, here's a case where tastefulness was there, yet our ordinance didn't allow what the applicant wanted to do. ' Nothing else. Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? I can second them but I can't make them. Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Site Plan #95 -2, subject to the following conditions. Number 1 through 8. Number 9 should read, that the ' applicant and staff will work out all street /parking lot /driveway grades on the site. Number 10 through 18 reads the same. Number 19 is, the applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the upkeep of the plants on the northern slope. And I'd ' just like to add to that, and revise the landscaping plan to include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials. ' Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation along as amended. Is there any discussion? ' Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Site Plan 995 -2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Add one (1) fire hydrant in the vicinity of the parking lot island at the south /east corner of the building where utilities enter building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. ' 2. Install a post indicator valve (PIV) on the fire service water line coming into the building. 3. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. ' 4. Comply with "No Parking Fire Lane ". See Policy 906 -1991 (copy enclosed). 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 5. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP, NW Bell, CATV, transformer boxes, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 9 -1. 6. Comply with "Premises Identification" Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: use 6 foot high white spruce for screening purposes, rather than the proposed 3 -4 foot high trees; replace the four Skyline Honeylocust in the landscape peninsulas in the front of the bank building with Northwood Red Maples (Acer rubrum 'northwood'); and reverse the placement of the middle six White Oak and the middle eight White Spruce along the northern property line of the project. 8. The applicant shall provide a landscaping security in the amount of $12,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The guarantee shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one (1) full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash security escrow in the amount of $2,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration along West 78th Street. 9. The applicant and staff will wow out all street /parking lot /driveway grades on the site 10. The driveway entrance for the drive -thru bank located in the northeast corner of the site should be expanded from 16 feet back -to -back to 18 feet face -to -face. 11. The boulevard area lying west of the drive -thru window should be flattened out to be compatible with future development on the parcel to the west of this site. 12. The applicant shall submit detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 years storm event to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, another catch basin shall be installed at the end of the south radius of the southeasterly driveway entrance to the bank. Additional catch basins may be required pending review of the storm sewer calculations. 13. The applicant shall amend the site plan to include a stop sign at the southeast driveway entrance for eastbound traffic and replace the proposed "Exit Only" sign on the island south of the drive -thru aisle with a "Left Turn Only" sign. 14. The east /west service drive south of the bank should be modified to begin turning back to the north to provide sufficient turning and stacking distance at the next intersection to the west. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 r 15. The applicant shall work with the developer of the Byerly's site to resolve the existing drainage problem on the service drive along the east side of the site prior to paving their parking lots and service drive. I 16. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 17. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. ' 18. To minimize off -site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one -half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of ' photoelectric cells for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color. 19. The applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the ' upkeep of the plants on the noithein slope and to revise the landscaping plan to include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials. All voted in favor and the motion carried. u u PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDME FOR THE REALLOCATION OF DENSITY TO INCLUDE 51 TOWNHOUSES AND 70 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS FOR THE OAK PONDS 3RD ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF SANTA VERA DRIVE, DEAN R JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Bill Olson Tim & Mary Anderson Craig Hallett John Linforth Dave Callister Mark Littfin 8984 Zachary Lane 1521 East Highway 13 7550 Canyon Curve 983 Santa Vera Drive 7471 Canyon Curve 7540 Canyon Curve 7609 Kiowa Avenue 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Name Address Emily Tischleder Viola Scharrer Marietta Littfin Bernice Billison Sherol Howard Barbara Montgomery Greg Hromatka Earl & Betty McAllister Gladys Schueren Albin Olson 185 Pioneer Trail 110340 Geske Road, Chaska 7509 Kiowa Avenue 7281 Pontiac Circle 1005 Pontiac Lane 7017 Dakota 7580 Canyon Curve 7510 Erie Avenue 204 West 77th Street 406 Santa Fe Circle Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: So are we, by passing this on today, are we committing ourselves to putting 70 units on the space adjacent to Kerber Boulevard? Aanenson: If you were to approve this PUD, yes you would. Part of this, as Sharmin indicated, is we're looking at the transfer of density so that does, what we said is we need 70 units in order to make the financial numbers work. So if you're uncomfortable with that, that's part of your motion. You're allocating. What we are saying is that we're not reviewing the site plan on that project at this time. You will have the opportunity to review that site plan at a future date. But yes, you are, what you're doing with this is approving the allocation of 70 units for that parcel of property. Mancino: And we're increasing the whole by 2 units. AI -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Al -Jaff: But we are still under the 12 units per acre. We will exceed the overall number that was approved in 1992. Mancino: By 2. Al -Jaff: Correct. Sharmin AI -Jaff continued with the staff report at this point. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 u Scott: Any questions? Ma'am. Mancino: Does the city own Outlot D? Aanenson: Yeah, we're in a purchase agreement with the applicant. Mancino: Oh, okay. To be buying Outlot D. Aanenson: Yes. The City Council did authorize the City Manager to pursue a purchase agreement on the property. Mancino: Okay. Is this development getting TIF funding? Al -Jaff: Yes it will. Mancino: The entire development is? Or just senior housing. Or is it all under, in the TIF district that is getting HRA. Al -Jaff: I believe the entire site is within a TIF district. Mancino: Okay. And I just need a little bit of background and then I'll stop but I need a little bit of background. When this originally came in front of the Planning Commission in what, 1992. The whole area came as a PUD and from reading the report, and please let me know if I'm wrong, Outlot A and Outlot B have been constructed. Outlot E and F are what we're going to see tonight. Outlot D is senior housing. Outlot G the city owns. Where is Outlot C? Is there an Outlot C? Al -Jaff: This is Outlot C. Aanenson: That was proposed for a recreation center project. That was the recreational ' center that was proposed with the project. Mancino: The recreational center, okay. My other question is, when this was originally proposed in '92 it had a combination of owner /occupied and rental housing, correct. And the reason that, and please stop me if I'm wrong. I mean one of the reasons that the Planning Commission was approving it and supporting it a lot was because there was some rental units ' here and we are in desperate need of rental units in Chanhassen, or so I believe. Is that, is what I'm saying correct? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: I think part of that was true. The other factor was the footprint of the building. The neighbors were concerned, they wanted the owner /occupied adjacent to them and the rentals on the other side. And you'll recall we went through a lot of issues, because of topography that was felt that based on the footprint of these, there was greater preservation of the natural features with the footprint of the apartment buildings. That's how they ended up that way. I'm not sure we really discussed that that was a reason for approving the PUD was the apartments. All I can say is that the apartments were on the northern portion based on preservation. They were able to snap the units in such a way to preserve more of the topography. Mancino: Okay. So we weren't trying to fulfill a need also for housing in a TIF district? Conrad: Not to my knowledge. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Conrad: But that doesn't mean anything. But I sure don't recall that. Mancino: That's what I wondered. Just because if there had been a change, seeing from what I saw in the report. Conrad: I just remember the neighborhood being so concerned with rental property across from them. Very concerned. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's kind of the background that I wanted to get was how important that was or wasn't it and etc. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments? Ledvina: I had a question for staff, Mr. Chairman. As it relates to the 70 units that are proposed for the senior housing. I imagine the city has done conceptual designs to demonstrate the feasibility of those units on that parcel and everything fits and we're not going to have a problem with jamming things in. Aanenson: No, we've got a tentative model here we can show you. Al -Jaffa Keep in mind that this is a concept at this point. Scott: While we pass this around, are there any other comments? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: This shows that the elevation to the west is higher. Actually higher in elevation. That's really not going to be the case, is it? Because it seems to me that there's a graded pad out there already and it seems to be much higher than the surrounding topography. Hempel: I don't think I can answer that because I'm not aware of any of the plans that I have seen. ' Ledvina: Because this is. Al -Jaff: This is the east. This is the west. ' Ledvina: Wait, okay. I'm sorry. Then the east. This is Santa Vera. Kirk Valette: The east is a little higher. The east is that Tower Road. That Tower Road is a little higher than the grade is at. ' Ledvina: I'm thinking over here. I think the pad seems to be higher but maybe it was an optical thing. So obviously we've looked at that and there's many, are there. ' Aanenson: If I can give you some more background on that. When the city held a meeting last fall, when we were looking at this, the City Council held a meeting and the neighbors were invited and the Senior Commission was also invited to that meeting and this model was available just for discussion purposes to let the neighbors know that the city was interested in this and that came out of the Vision 2002 study that the city was involved in and looking at senior housing and the options they were looking at. The property at West 78th and some various options so a neighborhood meeting was held to let people know that the city was interested in pursuing this site and it was subsequent to that meeting that the Council ' authorized the city manager to go out and work on a purchase agreement. So a neighborhood meeting was held to let the people know that this was being considered for senior housing. And it kind of evolved as we went through the Vision 2002, and that model was there. Mancino: And the height stays within our ordinance? ' Al -Jaff: It's a planned unit development. Aanenson: The R -12 is 40 feet. ' Scott: Pardon me? The R -12 was what? 1 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Is 40 feet, or 3 stories. So it's under the PUD we'd have to look at that. And Sharmin, based on the model here, that was just put together and there's been a lot of, maybe Sharmin can walk through that but what we're looking at as far as to reduce the impact of that imposing. I don't want to get too much into it but obviously the two are wrapped together but it is a concern for those neighbors. The imposing perspective of that product. Scott: And I think also the history too because, although I wasn't on the Planning Commission in 1992, I had some, by accident had some experience talking to some of the neighbors and from what they're telling me, and I think I've gotten more contact from neighbors on this particular issue than any other issue I've dealt with the last couple of years. And perhaps if there are neighbors here that can probably articulate it better than I can but the feeling that I picked up on this, and it wasn't very hard to do this, is that their expectation was one of a couple story buildings, rental, to own and so forth and then we're looking at a 4 to 5 story structure, which makes them quite uneasy because they felt that when they went through the process and were expressing their concerns about the development, their expectation was that the entire property was basically to look like the stuff that's there now. And so anyway, the concern that I've got is I think, we absolutely need that sort of a structure. Or not necessarily that sort of a structure but we do need that sort of housing. That's pretty obvious we have a dearth of that here and I'm interested in hearing from the neighbors at the meeting. But to basically get the, to make the project financially feasible we're looking at about a 4, 4 to 5 story structure. Al -Jaff: Again, the design has not been finalized. Scott: Well I can ask the applicant about it. Al -Jaff: Yes. We can definitely say that we need 70 units because that's the only way the project will be feasible and we will have the cash flow. And Julie Frick with Carver County HRA who has been working on this project as well, could attest to that. The City is working with Carver County HRA at this time to make this project potentially happen. Again, it's the 70 units that we can... Aanenson: What I wanted to say is Sharmin's working with the, we do have a design team on that. We're trying to step back the units so there's not one straight sheer wall. Trying to make it less imposing so we're working with some different designs. We know there's a concern about that and we .... lower profile owner occupied ones right in that area so it is a significant difference. Al -Jaff: One other thing that might be added. If you look at the model that's up there and this one, we've already made some changes where the fourth floor has been stepped back. So 32 ' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 changes have started to take place but again, this is far from complete. So many changes ' have to take place yet. Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Dave, do you have anything? Hempel: If I could just make one point on conditions of approval. To duplicate what the Fire Marshal, condition number 1. I'd like to delete number 1 and condition 10(b) is the ' same. Scott: Good. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Kind of a redundant ' question but I'll say it anyway. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad Johnson. I'll attempt to give you an overview of where I believe we are on this project and speak a little bit about what is going on. This site originally was zoned, the total site, for 324 units and during the original process back in 1989 as we started through the city, the city ' adopted a very restrictive zoning code relative to any type of housing requirement. In any district you'll see that you have to have 2 car garages per house for sale. We came back later on, 3 years later with the project that we believed was the correct one for this one. At the time there had been no successful townhomes sold in Chanhassen and there was, and still is, as Nancy has said, a need for rental housing in Chanhassen. And so as we went through ' there we ended up with a project that was approximately half townhomes and I won't say a low end but they were at an entry level pricing because that's all we were, this was before Byerly's. We all felt that never could be sold here and that project has been very successful. And during that period of time, for your information, the townhome market, primarily for empty nesters, and non - traditional families which is just about everybody without kids, and most of you probably. We found that the market has increased in Chanhassen for the ' townhome type. We probably still have a shortage of the next level of townhomes. I believe there's only one project currently fulfilling that need. We're trying to get another one going in a much higher price range, $150 -250. This, we have conceived that we can now market in ' Chanhassen a townhome project between $1304150,000.00, and maybe up to $160,000.00. In real life you'd probably get more but that's what we're proposing. At the time we did the original project, we could not conceive selling that price range and so we went to the rental ' approach. If you recall, we had 60 units like that and if that was to appear, we were hoping that we may never get it sold and that was kind of the idea. The reverse happened on the rental. There still is a demand for rental here in the city but our costs of development of rental in Chanhassen are extremely high. Mancino: Property taxes. ' 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Brad Johnson: Back to because of many of the ordinances. They don't allow detached garages. They don't allow, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just very expensive to build a unit here. In addition to that, because of the timing, not because of the city. The city's been very cooperative, and at one moment in life probably we could have built those rental units. And that was when the interest rates were at 7 1/4 %. And we couldn't get the project through the FHA. It took us 2 years. By the time we had gotten it through, the project had become unfeasible, again because of the rental level hadn't, if you recall rents hadn't really started going up 2 years ago. They just started going up recently now. No matter what, because we needed a rent level pretty close to $900.00 to $1,100.00 per unit to make them work. They probably could have gotten that rent today but ... and now with the interest rates, it's just a very tough thing to have happened. So sooner or later you have to come up with something and Mr. Johnson of Dean R. Johnson has been very successful with the first one. Feels comfortable. I think he's come up with, and we'll go through that ... so that's kind of some history. In the process, as some of you recall, we had a real battle with the neighbors getting the approval of this project because simply they do look right at it and there are some very valuable trees and those kinds of issues. ...we answered most of them at the time we got the rental approved. We have taken pretty much the layout of the rental and then adapted it what you're proposing and we have been very concerned about the concern of the neighbors and the community as far as preservation of the trees. And so the road system and everything are very similar. It is a different unit that we're coming with because the ones that were down the hillside just happen to have the garages out in front so it adds about 20 feet and... garages as a tuck under out in front because most of the people that are going to pay this type of money would prefer not to walk up some stairs to get to their main level, as we do in the other units. And these are natural walkouts so there have been some... We've gone from 324 units on the total site down to approximately 210 so we're well below what the guided of density of 12 units per acre is. On this particular site, we had approved 104 rental units. We're proposing to be one for sale. We always kind of kid the neighbors, and we actually get along with the neighbors but they're saying now they want to have, what did you say, 27 eyes looking at you. Two pairs. Before you had 44 or 50 so we've actually decreased the presence of people on the hill. We met with the city and David and Sharmin and Kate and we made some changes on the project, and we've actually moved everything up the hill as much as we could. The next thing is we had a meeting with the community representative ... and they were concerned about things like lights, and as you recall, most of the people are concerned about lights and you can put lights down like we do in all the shopping centers around here and they just don't have the glaring light. And that can be arranged. They were concerned about the trees so in our presentation we'll deal with that issue as to where they are and even ask any questions about that. They're concerned about more trees and we've added more. They wanted to see how we looked compared to the other one tonight. I think in general we've been trying to answer and change as much as we can within the buildable area. You know we still have to get in and out of it and as Dave just 34 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 pointed out, we've got to sprinkle a couple of the buildings now because there are some grades in there that we're better off not destroying. And so we're going to sprinkler some buildings and pretty much the report that you've gotten from the staff, we agree with. So we're at the point where the staff has looked at the project. I believe they, as much as they ' can be, are for it. We've tried to meet some of your new things. We've got a model. We actually have changed the plan after the model was done. You know moved certain things up and maybe Kirk, you can show them what we've done there so, but the idea is there. And that's kind of where we are so Dean's here. Dean Johnson who will be the developer and is the owner of the site but the main presentation will be done by Kirk Valette who did the original architecture for the original plan. He is involved in the design of these buildings. ' And then Bill Dolan who is the engineer and it more aware of and I don't know if you have a solution but at least you could say what we are doing relative to this tree issue and the site issue so those are the two things I think we want to call and I'd like to have Kirk come up here now and be happy to answer questions. I want to point out also, because I can see this happening, that we are simply here to have this site approved as planned and I believe all we're doing is shifting density over to the other parcel. But we're not doing a site plan... involved in what this looks like, and I think what the staff was trying to say is we're not, that's not our mission at this time. We're just shifting density over and I would believe that over time, between the neighborhood and the staff and the senior community, somebody will t work out a way of getting the building built. But I think it's going to be one of those that will take a little time. That's my opinion. So Kirk, do you want to take over. Kirk Valette: I'm Kirk Valette with BRW Ellness Architects and we did the original plans that were approved in '92. The buildings that we're proposing now, although it looks like the ' mass on the north side of the buildings are similar in length, the height actually goes down because the buildings that are on the north side are this type of building and the previous buildings, the rental buildings on that side were 2 and 3 story buildings. Predominantly 3 story. The new buildings now are 2 stories high with a small area of 3 stories. So the actual height of the buildings on that north side will actually be a little less than what the rental housing was going to be. ' Mancino: Kirk, is this the same that you just showed? These are B. Kirk Valette: No. Those are the ones that are up more in the center of the site. The one that I just showed, I'm sorry. I don't remember the A and the B. I Aanenson: It's A. Kirk Valette: A. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: I have from the staff report all the B's on the north side. According to the staff report. Of Kimberly Lane. So I'm just trying to get a feel for, and that is what I'm assuming is this. Kirk Valette: It's the A. Mancino: Well according to the staff report, the A is on the, all A's are on there, or maybe I should add this. 19 units of A's and they're all on the south side of Kimberly Lane, not going down the hill. I color coded them. Al -Jaffa A is to the north. Where you have steeper elevations. And B is to the south where you have flatter elevations. Mancino: So Sharmin, I'm sorry to raise this right at this point but I want to track with you as you're talking. I'm sorry. On page 5 of the staff report, when you list those lots 1, 4, 5. So if I looked at 1, 4 and 5, I listed those as B's. Was I incorrect? And maybe I should have reversed them. Kirk Valette: The first two would be actually building A. Mancino: Okay. So there are going to be more building A's. There's going to be 32 of those units and 19 of B's. Brad Johnson: 32 of the A's. Mancino: 32 A's and 19 B's and the A's will be, what I have that are green on this whole north side and the A's are going to be more towards the street. Santa Vera is it? Kirk Valette: No. These are the ones that occur there, correct. Mancino: Okay, so it's in reverse than what's in the staff report. Kirk Valette: Right. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's my frame of thinking, thank you. Kirk Valette: I think the other thing about the units now is they lay out on the street side, is that there's a little more variation because we have less density on the units so there's more variation in providing garages with insets for the entryways. So there's a little more of a third dimension than there was on the rental units, which were more two dimensional because we o I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 had to get the quantity of parking that was involved with those units. I think those are I think two big differences and very important differences on this plan and mostly just the scale on the north sides of the buildings and the scales of the building as a whole just being broken down because there are fewer. And with the townhouses, you start looking for more variety... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Yeah Kirk, how do you respond to staffs recommendation that you vary some of the road? Is that something that you want to respond to and I think it's in recommendation number, Sharmin do you know where you put, you wanted them to vary some of the outside appearance of A and B? Al -Jaffa It would be number 4. Mancino: Number 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design architecture as proposed by the applicant. Introduce some variation among buildings facing north with the ' shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entryways, adding dormers or color. And I guess I would put and color there. Do you want to respond? ' Brad Johnson: We've talked it over. That's why we said we've agreed with the staff report. The only thing we would like to do is just look to have you authorize us to work that out with the staff, because it's kind of difficult in this kind of a group to plan a building but I think working with the staff, we can come up with a variance in both color and some on the outside and Dean's got some ideas on how to do that so. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Brad Johnson: If there aren't any other questions of the architecture, I'll deal with the site plan and Bill, do you want to go through that? Bill Dolan: My name is Bill Dolan with Meadowood Engineering. I've been the engineer on this project from the beginning and so I'm familiar with it. What I'm trying to do, first of all let me say from an engineering standpoint we also are in agreement with all the staff and the recommendations but I just tried to pick out the engineering recommendations and just give a brief comment. The first one would be number 8, and that talks about putting in a turn around on Kelly Street... The parking spaces that are required are 9. We now have 21 as the visitor parking. We are going to put a small turn around on the end of Kelly Street and eliminate two parking stalls there. However, we cannot make a turn around large enough for the fire engine to turn around, and the end of the street is at about a 3 1/2% grade which is a little steep for a fire engine if you start backing up and trying to do those kinds of things to 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 turn around. So we decided just to put a small turn around in there and eliminate 2 parking stalls and then we will go to the sprinkling of the units which was the alternate that the Fire Chief had in his recommendations. And with that change and with the change down on Lot 49, where the staff said that they would like to have an additional driveway, we don't have any problem with the driveway but that will eliminate 2 parking stalls as they pointed out in their report. And that would reduce us then to a total of 17 parking stalls for visitors and again required is 9, so we are almost double so we feel we have adequate parking provided. Item 10 then continues on with some of the things that the Fire Marshal wanted and we covered the first part of that and he asked for 2 additional hydrants, which ... and again the buildings will be sprinkled. Item 12 talks about the grading plans and show floor elevations and the standard building types and so on and this is from the Building Inspection Department and we have now included all those various elevations on our plans and have them on here. And item 13 is our typical... where we said that we're going to grade against the trees and away from it so that was... You caught us on that one. Let's see. Oh yeah, the erosion control plans do show that the Type III fence will be all along that... And we have included the city's standards plates in our plans and so on. Now, perhaps we can talk a little bit about the grading and I think the model is an excellent example on how the grading, even though we have split these two units off of here so we don't have the 6 units. Basically we only have 4 and these 2 units are brought over here to reduce the impact of the building. But what happens on this side is of course you've got a very steep slope and we're building the building down to match the existing ground. We're not going to grade on the outside of the building. We're not going to grade on the outside of the building. We have increased the basement elevations from the standard 8 foot to 9 foot. In some cases along here we have 10 foot... from floor to ceiling. Then if we have, we have a couple places where we have a draw here. Right on this corner we have a spot and right on this corner we have a spot and this corner we have a spot where there is about 3 or 4 feet from the basement floor, when you actually put a stake in the basement floor elevation to the existing ground. What we will do in that case is we will take the block work and building face right down to natural ground and then we will go right down from that for our 40 feet, not grading on the outside of the building so the building will just go right down. But most of these buildings now, these buildings, these buildings, this building, this building, the two units in these buildings here, with the entries from 8 to 9 to 10 foot. The basements do match very close to the elevation of the outside. Now when we do that, we come down between the buildings, we have to in some cases, where we have this draw here, in this area, we have in some cases pick up that elevation change because we don't want to grade beyond the buildings. So in those cases we have a little 4 foot retaining walls that run between the buildings here and they'll show on the grading plan and I think there's 1, 2 and 3 of those. There's one in here by this big oak tree, and I think there's one here and maybe over here. But anyway, that has to be done so that we do not grade beyond the line and that's very important because this environment out here is something we want to save. And we can look at our tree preservation plan here, first of all 38 0 n n t Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 at these pictures here are of the trees on the site. While I'm talking I'll pass some of those. They're kind of hard to see from a distance so I'll pass some of those around for you to look at while I'm talking about the trees. And we'll just talk about the ... here which is over here. Your new ordinance, which was not in effect when we did the first plan but it's a strange thing. The first plan saved the same trees that we are now saving, except one. The first plan said we were going to save this brown tree up here and we're now going to take it, and I'm really not sure that we could have saved it in the first place. But we said we were going to save it but now we're taking it. The brown trees are the ones that are going. The green, dark greens are the ones that we're saving. Now we had an original canopy of 37% and after the removal of the trees, we still have 25% which meets your ordinance. And after we landscape again, the credits we get for the new landscaping plan, which we'll go through in a moment, we come back to 44% canopy coverage which is more than we had originally so this is a, from a canopy standpoint and vegetation standpoint when the project is done, is going to be better than it was. So we were talking about trees and I wanted to point out that this tree is the tree that is going to go and it's a big, old oak tree. It's one we'd like to save but it's going to go now but it's the only one and actually there's probably one in here I think. It's a small one. I guess it's down here that we're going to save that we weren't going to save originally. But the point is, that the canopy is there. We meet your canopy ordinance. We met it in the first place but we didn't have to but ever since we first started on the hillside and working with the hillside, the idea was, and I think Nancy was talking about it, eluding to it earlier that the apartments were designed to try to preserve the hillside and indeed they were. And so was this project. This project only takes out one tree different. Okay now, we'll turn this over and we'll talk about the trees and the landscaping. Now this is the landscaping plan. Here again the existing trees that are shown out here. Now, we met with the neighbors here. I wasn't at the meeting but when they came back they told us that there were a couple of open spots on the plan where the existing trees were not really covering. See the existing trees here do a wonderful job of covering these units and here they do a good job, as you can see that from the photographs but here there was a gap and so in this spot we have added 7 pine trees, 6 feet high to start the screening of this particular open spot here. And then there was a couple other open spots, one here which was open and there were 3 trees there and then we've added 7 trees down here to screen that area which was opened from the Powers Boulevard, back across. There were some trees down here but these are quite a bit lower and down along the wetlands there and then this hillside here looks bare so we added some trees to screen that. Now the question was asked at the neighborhood meeting, how does our landscape plan compare to what was proposed in 1992. And we took out our other landscaping plan and we compared them. And in comparison is this. On Santa Vera Drive, the original plan had 46 plantings along Santa Vera Drive. We now have 85. The original plan had 27 plantings along this internal plan. This long internal drive here and we now have 26. The original plan had 27 pine trees located along the outside of the, the perimeter of the plan on the hillside. We now have provided 19 in these open spaces, okay. And then we had 39 r Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 originally from the old plan, when we finished Phase I, we planted 9 pine trees out there and you can see them on some of those photographs. And those are going to be moved and situated to fit the new layout here so that they will still remain on the outside. So when you add the 9 to the 19, we get 28 which compares to the 27, that was our original. So in each case we're within a tree. One over, one under except on Santa Vera Drive and because this is now for sale, we felt that the units along the outside here needed to be screened from Santa Vera Drive and so that's why we have the additional plantings out there. More plantings than we had originally. So that these for sale units here can be screened and make this area a little more private. I think that pretty well covers everything that I wanted to talk about, and I think the staff report referred to getting the final drainage calculations for the project, which of course we will supply them. But I will point out that when the project was apartments, there was more impervious area than there is now because of the extensive parking and the drainage that was designed in Santa Vera Avenue and going down to the ponds here, was not designed on the basis of that project being apartments which had more impervious area, therefore more runoff. So the new calculations will be looking at that. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Scott: Any questions? Thank you sir. Is there anybody else from the development team who would like to speak? Okay. This is a public hearing, and if I may get a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anyone from the general public who wishes to speak, please step up and identify yourself. Give us your address and let us know what you have to say. Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve, just to the north of the proposed development. First of all I'd like to say I welcome the change in the plan from the higher density apartments to the residential, or the owner occupied townhomes. I also welcome having the senior housing... property. But I guess a couple issues that I'd like to address tonight. One is the footprint of the buildings to the north. I know Sharmin had, put together a couple of overheads that overlaid that previous development which was apartments on top of the new proposed development. I guess I'd just like to show is that we had some concerns that the buildings as they're planned now are closer, farther down the hill and closer to our property than we were previously. It appears to be well, at least 10 to 20 feet in some cases, and that does not include the deck that could be put on the units. 40 f Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Dave, just a question from a deck standpoint. Given the grades that we have on the ' north side of this development, would that be quite an undertaking to be able to put a deck out of the back of some of these things? You deck builder you. Hempel: I'm no deck builder Mr. Chairman, but I have seen decks which are on... C n I I Scott: Pretty scary? Hempel: They're probably not 20 x 20 foot decks. A small deck. Scott: So you're thinking that from a cost standpoint they would probably be relatively small? Just because of the kind of California terrain. Aanenson: Well I do think that if that's an issue, then we should we clarify that because we came up with this problem before when we were under the assumption, that because they included porches we wouldn't see decks, and all of a sudden decks appeared. They were still within the setbacks. So I think if that is an issue to the neighbors, we should try to come to some resolution. That if they are decks, they be a certain size or they maintain a certain setback because if they're under the assumption that they won't be, or they'll only be small, and some big one comes in and they're still within the setback so I think if it is an issue, that we should try to get some concurrence on that. Kirk Vallette: The decks are 8 x 10. Aanenson: You may want to make that condition, that that be the only size or something. Scott: Mr. Anderson, are you representing the neighbors? Tim Anderson: I'm representing myself... I Scott: Okay. r 0 Tim Anderson: Is it possible to put that overhead on? Another thing to make note of, another thing of concern is that even though there's less units, that they're actually closer together. In the previously proposed plan the .... were actually set apart a farther distance. And now it's going to give an appearance of a train going all the way on the hillside. And... discuss it, that was an issue. I know the City Council, that they didn't want the appearance of a train going all the way up along the ridge. The hillside but part of the, that was addressed in some part because they took out, ended up taking out some units and ended up trying to take out one of the buildings... that's a concern I would like to see addressed. On possibly 41 Planning Commission Meeting v March 1, 1995 either pulling the buildings back, taking out a couple of units, whatever that may take. Or additional landscaping or such ... I'd like to see if there is a possible... separating somehow. And I think there was one other thing I wanted to discuss was that the previous development included a conservation easement to go up to the buildings and I haven't heard any discussion on that. If that's going to be included and at what point, where on the property will that occur on the conservation where there won't be any type of lawn maintenance and such. I know Karen had a concern about the senior housing. I'd like to just mention before I leave here is that we are concerned about the size of the building. We, but like I say, we really welcome having seniors as neighbors and I guess I have one question I have. Is, are we locked into 70 units up there? Can it be 60 units or whatever? If this is approved tonight as is, is the city bound to 70 units of senior housing on that property or can the density change? Either it be moving senior housing to another location or just putting less in that parcel. Scott: Well if this moves forward as is, basically we've committed to a density transfer which will allow for 70 units to be placed on the outlot that's on Santa Vera and Kerber so the die basically would be cast. From what my understanding is, is that the number 70 came from a financial model relative to the financial success of the project so. Tim Anderson: I don't want to, I know ... other than the densities. Scott: But they are tied together basically because there's a density transfer. Tim Anderson: Yes, I understand that. I don't, I guess I have a fear that it's implied now that once this is approved, that approval could go ahead and build 70 units up on the hill. I guess is that what's going to happen? Aanenson: Well just the density transfer, as I indicated. They would still have to go through site plan review so it would still come back and there'd be a hearing on that for you to comment on the design and the city certainly wants to work with the neighbors on that issue. Tim Anderson: That's a big concern. I guess one thing I'd like to see, again this isn't related. I apologize ... is that when this comes in the next few months, they have an actual photo rendering of the building at various angles, including from our neighborhood be done. I'd truly like putting an image on a photograph so we see exactly what it's going to look like. The Council and the Planning Commission can see it also. Scott: That kind of reminds me of an ordinance we have floating around. Did that actually? Aanenson: Yes, that's an approved ordinance. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Okay, so that's a requirement. Tim Anderson: Yeah, because I see something like this and it's hard to interpret a drawing. It looks 2 dimensional and this isn't what it looks like when I look out my window. I know ' they made a good attempt to try to do that but actually on a photo rendition it would be very helpful and more useful. Thank you. ' Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister. I live at 7540 Canyon Curve, Mr. Chair and ' Planning Commission members. First of all I was not aware that we would be talking about a senior housing issue tonight so I guess I don't really have any comment on that other than what Mr. Anderson said previously. The size is a concern. I haven't seen anything for ' tonight but the bulking would be a definite concern. I haven't had a chance to look at the details. ' Scott: Yeah, the public hearing is for another section but I think because of the nature of the density transfer and what happens here casts the die over there, I think your comments are t appropriate. Dave Callister: And with dust the specific proposal that's in front of us this evening, I guess I think it's a much better proposal than what we had 2 years ago. The density is lower. The type of units and the type of resident that we're going to see in these units, definitely from a neighbor's perspective is better. So I think there are a lot of good things about this new ' proposal that the developments have tried to incorporate into it. I do have a couple of concerns. One with the location of the buildings. You've heard this before about creeping down the hill. Apparently, and I've had several discussions with staff and the developer on ' this and basically what they told me is this is as far, this is where it has to be simply because of the logistics of the site. Given that, I guess I would like to see, if that can't be moved up the hill any further, I would like to see more trees. I know they have indicated there's some ' pine trees ... 6 foot pine trees if you're looking up at a hill like this, and you've got a structure of maybe 25 feet, a 6 foot pine tree really doesn't buffer for a few years anyway. So I would like to see, first of all more trees. Second of all, maybe some larger trees in there. And then ' third, maybe some deciduous trees to cover for some of the other trees that may be lost in the future. So that would be a concern of mine. The last thing that I want to touch on, and we've already touched on many of the things that I have here, would be the construction ' limits. We talked a lot about this in 1992 about having heavy equipment in sensitive areas around the tree roots and I think last year sometime when they did some drainage improvements, where ... down the hill, woke up one morning and all of a sudden there was ' heavy equipment down there. And the heavy equipment wasn't as much of a shock as the 1 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 footprints through the trail that they had and they knocked over branches from oak trees. They were within probably 3 or 4 feet of the oak trees. Totally disregarding everything we talked about, about staying away from the drip line of the oak trees. Apparently it wasn't the contractor but it was some subcontractor but nonetheless, I would like to see some precaution or some regulation that we could establish that would ensure that the things are adequately fenced off in the case of any damage and I think they have to replace it on a 1.2 to 1 basis or something like that. I don't know if you have any flexibility to increase the penalty but I think it's, especially it's so sensitive in this area with ... buffer, that if you knock them down during construction and you say whoops, you knock over a few trees and we'll plant a few 6 footers over here to make up. Scott: There's a couple of ordinances that have come into play since then. The first one being an extremely comprehensive tree preservation ordinance which one of the requirements is that the drip lines of the trees are actually marked by fences. Snow fence which obviously is not going to keep a piece of heavy equipment out but it's a lot different than what we had before where traffic actually could go over the drip line areas. And then another ordinance is, and I'm sure that the developers are aware of this. Is that there's actually some, what we consider to be fairly attention grabbing fines for the damage of erosion control fencing. To summarize that, there's a penalty and then within, I believe it's a 24 hour period of notice by the city, the city will hire a subcontractor to go in and fix the erosion control and charge it back to the developer. So that was something that just went through recently so we feel that we've gotten a little bit more sensitive to those sorts of things. And of course, it's difficult enough as an appointed or elected official to keep track of the ordinances, much less a member of the general public, but just to kind of let you know that these are some of the things that we've done. Dave Callister: That's good to hear. Do you know when that was actually incorporated or when that was adopted? Scott: Well it came through the City Council. Aanenson: The erosion control just got approved like the last month. Dave Callister: The tree preservation. Scott: The tree preservation's been 8 months. Aanenson: The tree preservations been the last year, yeah. Scott: Yeah, something like that. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Dave Callister: ...it's a question of monitoring and I know staff has a lot of work to do. Scott: Well we've actually, one of our newest planners was specifically brought on board for ordinance enforcement purposes so. Dave Callister: Just a concern and I want to make sure it's adequately... Scott: No, appreciate you bringing that up. Dave Callister: That's all I have at this time, thank you. Scott: Good, thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Greg Hromatka: Hello. My name's Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just... I like the idea of the senior housing. I'm not going to say anything about that. I'd like to deal with the idea of transition. Just with that there ... it doesn't seem to flow. I do have a question about how that would be, what the senior housing will be. As an area, the total picture. Is it going to be a fifth or a sixth of the total land area? Aanenson: It's 2 acres. A little over. Al -Jaffa A little over 2 acres. 2.2. Greg Hromatka: Of the total amount. Scott: I guess what is it, 9? Aanenson: Well that's just for this phase. ' Greg Hromatka: So that's a 1/13 of the total and you've got 70 units on 1/13 of the total space. That's my driving point. Smallest chunk of space with the largest number of units. That's short and sweet. Scott: Good, thank you. Yes ma'am. ' Mary Anderson: Hi. My name is Mary Anderson and I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. The only point I'd like to make is to reiterate the neighbors' concern of the units coming down the hill. I don't want the commission to think that the neighbors are not concerned because of the ' numbers that are here. What I'd like to say is this the second time that we've had a public 1 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 hearing that the neighbors were not formally notified. And if there is another public hearing concerning this, we want to make sure. I know when my husband told this to Sharmin, she said we should have gotten something in the mail saying there would be a public hearing and I called ... our neighbors today and no one received notice. So that is, this project is a great concern to the neighborhood. There would have been more people here tonight had everyone not known at 5:00. Scott: Well how did you find out? Mary Anderson: When we met with Dean, he mentioned it may be on the agenda tonight and it just clicked in my mind as the 1st so I went can called and sure enough it was. We were told we were notified but no one had gotten the notice. Scott: If I could just ask the, let's see. Mr. Anderson, how did you find out about the meeting tonight? Tim Anderson: I called Sharmin this morning. Scott: Okay, Mr. Hromatka? Greg Hromatka: Neighborhood. Al -Jaf£ We did mail out notices to all the neighbors. Mary Anderson: Then why did no one get one? I mean I can see if one family didn't but no one on Canyon or no one right in that area on Canyon Curve received anything. And the last time we went through this... development, the same thing occurred. And I just want to stress that this is a very important issue to the neighborhood and we would have been here in more force and more prepared had we known. Scott: Yeah. I didn't, is there a, I didn't get a notice list in my packet. Aanenson: We can pass it around. We did receive calls so some people did get notice. We did verify, after we received the call, we did verify that notice was sent to that address. Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. Sherol Howard: My name is Sherol Howard. I live at 1005 Pontiac Lane and I'm the Chairperson of the Senior Commission and I've lived in Chanhassen 40 years and I've seen a great many changes take place. And we seniors are pleased with our residence to be built 46 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 here ... and we have every confidence that the differences will be able to be worked out for a ' housing that's very much needed and we have eliminated many locations, and this one seems to fill all our needs. So we're sure you can all work it us for us. Thank you. ' Scott: Thank you ma'am. Yes sir. John Linforth: John Linforth, 7471 Canyon Curve. Mr. Chairman, the last time we had a ' meeting on January, on February 15th, excuse me. I asked you if this item was going to be on that program at that time because I had received in the mail a letter to this effect. I should have received a letter saying that it was not on that docket for that evening and I had received ' no information that it was on the schedule for this evening. I read all the mail that comes into my house. I collect it out of my mailbox. Nothing from the City of Chanhassen arrived at my house anywhere... I would like to ask, or address the issue of where the transition from high density to single family. There is no transition with a large 70 unit structure on a 2 acre lot. You're going directly from 70 units to a single family. There is no transition. It would appear that listening... and all the nuances and what goes on in this procedure but by your ' approval tonight, you approve it. It sounds like this, at this point is for you to decide whether it goes or whether it doesn't go. The structure that you have in front of you here, if you'll ' note on the north side of that building, which faces our subdivision. You're looking at something close to 60 feet tall. That is a very, very long structure that they're asking to build. The reason for it to be built there, it's explained to me that it's close to downtown so they can ' walk to it. Why don't you put 70 apartments facing underneath. Why do you need parking if they're going to be walking? If they can drive, they can put it on something that's more aesthetically pleasing to the marketplace. Finally, this hillside that they wish to put this unit ' on is a very, very high point in town and to put a very, very tall structure on top of it would be very, very noticeable. It is not a good use of property. ' Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to make any comments? Emily Tischleder: Hi. Emily Tischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail in Chanhassen. And I just want ' to say that most of the seniors have lived here 30 plus years and now we're in the position where we're ready to sell our homes. We don't need the large homes anymore. We would like to stay in Chanhassen because we have nowhere else to go unless this is built. The City ' of Chaska has a population approximately the same as Chanhassen. They have two senior units in their city and I was hoping that the City of Chanhassen will consider having ... thank you. ' Scott: Thank you. Any other comments before we close the public hearing? 1 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper for us to answer some of these questions? For instance... Scott: Which specific questions do you wish to answer? Brad Johnson: I just want to go through the list. This will just take a second. One thing we should realize, I think what's the setback from the point from the property. What would be the required? Al -Jaffa The ordinance would require 25. Brad Johnson: Okay. We're 225 to 300 feet from their property line. I think we always forget this. Scott: Well that's the setback from the property of your project. Not the setback from the property line of the neighbors, right? Aanenson: That's the property line. Brad Johnson: That's the same number. Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Okay. Brad Johnson: ...football fields away and 2/3 of a football field away in this case on our project. The problem is the hill and what they see. We will agree that the decks will be no greater than 8 x 10. I think what they've said is they would like to see more landscaping to cover, we'll call under story and some over story trees. We would agree to come in with other trees other than pine trees to fill that area up, wherever it is. Okay. As you can see by the photographs, probably we're talking more about trees underneath than over but we're more than happy to work that out by the time it gets to the Council with the neighbors. There is a, what we'll agree to a conservation and one of the concerns was that we'd agreed not to landscape down the hill ... so whatever that would take. Aanenson: I think the intent was to leave it natural so people wouldn't... Brad Johnson: Yeah, but ... want it in writing ... I think though the heavy equipment thing was a mistake. They were just saying, the guys wasn't supposed to be there. I asked Dean why the Sup wasn't there to make sure the guy wasn't there, and he said they weren't supposed to be 48 ' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 working there but in the future he'll be fined and that will take care of that. But that's, I think ' we've apologized for that and we're going to try to make sure that that doesn't happen. But it just, it happened. The guy wasn't supposed to be there. It was one of those days ... I think we're more than happy to, we don't want to lose units. The last time we went through this whole thing we kept losing units and we don't see a need for that. I think Dave's suggestion that we try to landscape more and cover up, because they're just worried about what they're seeing and we'll see what we can do. We thought we added some. We can add more. Okay. ' Scott: Good. Thank you. If you have new information that you'd like to add, please come up. Dave Callister: Dave Callister, 7540 Canyon Curve. This just came up. We were talking about in '92, and I don't know how many of you were around in '92. This is a totally ' different issue now. The City is apparently going to acquire an outlot with the ponds, for their half of the ponds, is that correct? ' Hempel: It's already been done. ' Dave Callister: It's already been done? Okay. One of the conditions of the last PUD was that there was at one time talk about a trail going through there. A paved trail on that slope. ' Aanenson: That was eliminated a long time ago. Dave Callister: Okay is that, we just want to make sure it doesn't come back. ' Aanenson: No. I think the intent is, I think that's always been understood that you don't want people back in there. That anything beyond 30 foot beyond the house pad is a no touch ' zone. No mow and we'll put that language in there. Dave Callister: That's all I wanted, thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? I Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have a question. And I'd like to hear from other commissioners. I am very concerned that the neighborhood, I mean this is our only time to have a public hearing. We don't have public hearings at City Council, etc. And I'm very concerned that none of the neighbors got notices to come tonight, and I think if this is the only forum for them to speak 1 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 and to say what's on their minds, and I think that we need to make sure that they have that right. And if we didn't offer that to them, I think we need to and I'd just like to hear other people's. If you're as concerned as I am, that maybe we table this and have a public hearing and make sure that the neighbors are notified. Ledvina: I'd like to understand what staff had done and their reaction to what the comments have been. Aanenson: I believe this was noticed at least twice before this, and we pulled it off based on we felt that information that we needed in order to put it on the agenda wasn't here so it was noticed twice before. We had met with a lot of the neighbors, and neighbors were tracking it. Had come in and asked questions. This has been over the last 2 months while this thing has evolved because we've tried to get the development where we felt comfortable coming forward to you. As you see, some of the changes aren't even reflected here. We worked very hard to try to get this where we knew the neighbors' concerns were so there has been a lot of dialogue between the neighbors. Now it's our understanding, there was we know for sure two notices before this. Again, it was tabled as this gentleman indicated at the last meeting. It certainly was our intent to notice everybody again. It's our understanding it was. If it wasn't, it certainly was not any intention. If it wasn't, it was an oversight. Our secretary is responsible for making sure that all public hearings are noticed. It's our understanding that that was done. If it wasn't, we're not aware. Scott: And I think our feeling too is, and I was at the, I'm not going to talk about organized collection. I'll use the City Council meeting as a ... to the effect (a), don't people read the newspaper, and (b), don't people do this and we've been doing this for 2 years, so on and so forth. I think we've got a responsibility as elected or appointed officials that even though we're following the rules and we're doing the right things relative to notice, I think it's still, I'd agree with Commissioner Mancino, that it's still incumbent upon us to give that one last shot to let the residents come in. And if we have a couple people here the next time, I think what we would want to do however is, instead of having a full blown public hearing, to do something else because what we don't want to do is we don't want to have the same information come up again to perhaps give people the opportunity who haven't had the chance to speak. I think we understand the issues. I think those are pretty evident and I don't see new issues coming up. Conrad: If that's the case Mr. Chairman, the City Council always holds a public hearing anyway. The point is that we understand the neighbors concerns. I think the people that have been here, were within neighborhood groups. My perception is that the staff has listened to the neighborhood. The developer has listened to the neighborhood. The neighbors have been here. They echo pretty much their concerns. They're the same concerns I heard 50 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 the last time we were putting rental units here. That's not to say that everybody doesn't ' deserve a public notice. They do. If it didn't happen, they should be notified for the City Council meeting. I don't think I need to have another public hearing to find out more information I guess is what I'm saying. City Council has a public hearing. If they didn't, I ' would say table it. Mancino: They're not required to are they? Conrad: They're not required to. They always do Nancy. Mancino: They always do. Because I don't know if there's something else that someone may come up and say that I haven't heard tonight. You know I wasn't here previously when this was up in front of the Planning Commission so this is the first time I've heard this and I've ' heard the neighbors. So, and when I hear that nobody that's here got a notice, I'm concerned. For tonight. Scott: You know there's another, a thought that I had when I was listening to it, and when I look at the list of parties who are involved in this PUD, Carver County HRA. There's tax increment financing dollars. The City is going to get involved. I believe the HRA is going to be bonding for this particular, or at least the senior housing project. We're starting to see I think how PUD's really were designed to work where there's certain things that we want as a community and we're starting to get some players involved. There's one component however that we've been asking for and a PUD really is the only way that we can get, add to it and that's the idea of entry level housing, affordable housing. Whatever you want to call it. I had a discussion with the Mayor about this and kicking around some ideas. Obviously in the day of unfunded mandates and so forth, I think that that's a real issue that we happened to be targeted because of the tax base that we have and I think we're all aware of what the Metropolitan Council's blueprint has to say about their plans for affordable housing in Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Eagan and so forth. And one of the things that I talked to the Mayor about is a concept where in order to gain something that we're also lacking, that either a density trade because obviously you can't put a developer in a situation where they have to take the hit on the sale or rental of market property because obviously our tax structure, our property costs, just won't support this kind of thing. So one of the things that crossed my mind is that what we may want to consider, if you all want to do this, is to try to determine how we could have that affordable housing component introduced here or in another PUD that may be forthcoming. So I wanted to toss that out to see if that's worthwhile considering. Great. If it's not, move on to something else. So I wanted to get your input on that. Ladd. Conrad: I think it's, well I know. It's a good thought Joe and I'd like to review it. I don't think it's fair. When a developer has done this. We just can't do that to anybody. I don't 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 care if it's a good project, bad project. You know we've made some commitments to them and they've gone ahead and done some things and then to introduce something new. As valid as that may be, and I really would like to pursue it. Scott: And I figure we can throw it out just because we got the County HRA involved. Conrad: Yeah. I guess I'd like to make sure we address that thing soon because PUD's are probably a good way to do it. But I don't think it applies here. I'd rather not do it here because I don't think that's fair. Scott: Well I wanted to throw it out because it seems like, I mean we may have more of these kinds of opportunities we hope. Conrad: Well again, if we care, we make that a priority. Scott: Is that direction to staff? Conrad: No, no. That's a direction to you. Scott: Well then I'll send that direction to staff. I think since we've talked about this for many, many hours here and we all know what the environment is and at least what I would like to direct staff to do is that, you know what's coming up before we do. If we see a situation where we've got a PUD coming up where there's a mix of different types of housing, I think what needs to happen initially in the conversation with the developer, is introducing that some sort of component. However, it's got to be done in a way where perhaps they get additional density. I mean it's a give and take and it has to make financial sense because we're not going to get any financing for that. And we don't want to mess around with the market, if we don't have to so, take that under advisement. Ron. Conrad: Well there's still the issue at hand. Nancy wants to table this. Mancino: Well not table it. Keep it going. I mean there's another thing besides opening it up completely again so that, I mean we've heard the applicant and we've heard some neighbors but any new. I don't know what it's called. Yeah, I mean I have, when people haven't received notices, or it seems as if they haven't, I have a problem with that. Because by the time you get to City Council, it's done. Ledvina: Well I would agree with Ladd on this one as it relates to the notice. I was here when we went through this initially and. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Two years ago? Or three years ago? Ledvina: Two years ago. Three years ago. I think what we have at this point is a proposal that's much more acceptable to the residents. The neighboring residents given the fact that the density has been scaled down for this particular development. I think there's some small issues. While they're important issues but they're resolvable issues as they relate to the conservation easements and some landscaping. I don't know that anything else is going to get driven out of the wood, or whatever. I think that this has been extremely reviewed many times and I think it's in good shape. But that's my feeling. Conrad: This is a great staff report. It's far superior to what we had seen before. It's just, you know if we listened to what the neighbors said before, this is paying attention to it. I think what I'd prefer that we do is move it along. And normally Nancy I'd agree. And normally I like to find out about the lack of notice before we spend 2 hours. We should have killed it and brought it back rather than, you know no matter. Every time you open a public hearing, we're going to get the same input. It's hard to control. You know people want to talk, and I think the neighbors that said we didn't get notice of it, and more people would be here. That's right. They would and I think they still have a great opportunity to make their concerns known at City Council. I wouldn't say that if Council didn't open public hearings but they do and they make, you know. I think we're going to identify the real issues based on the comments and I think if the neighbors want to show their support for their feelings, they will show up and staff will make sure that they noticed. So again, I don't want to dominant this. There are more folks here but I don't really see a reason to bring it back and force citizens to come back at this level. The Council's still going to make their decision and the residents are still going to have the opportunity to talk to them. I'm pretty comfortable pushing it forward. Scott: And you're comfortable with the density transfer? Conrad: Absolutely. I think it's, yeah. Scott: Okay, good. That was another kind of a side issue. Okay. Ron. Nutting: I'm also ... to taking it forward. It's not, odds are we probably haven't heard every single issue that all of the neighbors would bring up but I think we've certainly got the significant flavor of what those issues are. And again, there seems to be a steady back and forth between the developers and the neighbors. That's attempting to address the issues. It's always a very difficult process but, and to my limited experience I've always seen public hearings too but I don't know that to the length of Ladd's experience. So I guess we're, Mr. Chair I guess the question is do. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: I guess we'll go for a motion. Conrad: Well I think we should have issues. Mancino: Well no, I think I'm hearing everyone say. I mean I'm still, you know I feel very principally believe that that's the responsibility of the Planning Commission to do it. I'm not saying that I think a lot of issues have been resolved, etc. I just think that there's a time and place that the principal of everybody getting to be at the public hearing and having their say, I just want to preserve that in a very formal way. And that's what we're here to do. So, be it as it may. Scott: Any other discussion? Conrad: Not on that issue. Scott: Another issue then. Conrad: Do you want to just talk in general? Scott: Sure. Conrad: Do you want me to lead it off then? Real quickly. I am impressed with a lot of the things that have transpired. I am impressed with the staff working on this. There's no perfect solution and I think that the residents and the neighbors are always going to have certain concerns. It's a little bit different housing type but again if my memory serves me properly, this is a quantum leap from the housing that we had scheduled to go here. It may not really be in the maybe the best interest in terms of rental. There is a rental need, more than likely. But in terms of a quality product that's going into Chanhassen, this certainly does do it. It may be even an income generator for the city, which is not any of our concern but it's probably such a quality that it's a real asset. I'm really not concerned about decks but I'll let somebody else. You know our setback is so far, I guess I don't get it when we start talking about decks and we're going to limit deck size. I don't understand. I don't know the rules that we're playing with when we start limiting decks. When we're a couple hundred feet away from the property line or whatever. I like what the developer said in terms of the lack of disturbing the grading. I do agree with the density transfer. It does lock us in however to the density going to the other area but I'm pretty comfortable with that at this point in time. The conservation easement, I think we should put in. The lighting, so it's directed down, I think we should put in. I think that's it. I really have very few comments on the actual items in the staff report other than the one that Dave wanted to delete. I guess I'm just approaching 54 0 0 r C I n 0 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 it from where we were, and from where we were 2 years ago, and what we approved, this is a better project. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: Looking at the density issue. I think this is a very good site for the senior housing project and I would definitely support the density transfer. The city in conjunction with the Senior Commission has been working very diligently to find a site and when you look at all the work that they've done to look at sites and evaluate them and I know there's been actual field trips and combing the city essentially to find a site that meets their needs and I think they've found one here, and I think it will work out very well. I think in terms of the buffering and the transition, it's essentially on the corner of Santa Vera and Kerber. There is buffering to the north with the locations of those ponds and trees, etc. You can talk about a transition but if you have appropriate buffering, that specific density transition is not necessary, in my opinion. I think that type of density will work at that location. Looking specifically at the project that's in front of us, I have some questions about the layout of the buildings. Where we have the apartment buildings on the south. Let me back up a little bit. I know we had two interior roads and I know we had double frontage when we were looking at double frontage on the buildings. When we were looking at the apartment buildings but we have double frontages now for these townhomes and that concerns me a little bit. I don't know of instances where we really want to do that, especially when you have decks and those kinds of things off the back and we're 30 feet from a roadway. Can you address that? Aanenson: Well that's where the setback, Sharmin indicated is 25 feet so that would be obviously a prohibitor as far as putting an additional deck on there and I believe the applicant spoke to the fact that that's why they also want to put additional landscaping along Santa Vera to buffer that. Ledvina: Well Santa Vera, yes. But the interior I'm speaking. I just don't like the looks of that type of double frontage. I think it's really tight in there but the backs of those homes and the street, Kerber Lane in specific, the backs of the homes that will be constructed on the north side of Kelly Court. Just those units 28 to essentially 38. Those 10 units. I think there's something that's not quite right there and I don't know what we can do about it or what your comments might be. Aanenson: I guess I would compare it similarly to what's already there right now with the 8 units. You've got the 4 facing each other. It's a similar type thing. I mean there's just a driveway between them and they're facing each other and that's I guess the nature of the beast when you're looking at a townhome type product. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: That they're facing each other, are you saying there's not a street in the back of them, is there? Aanenson: Well it's the driveway approach. So you'd have, here. Put this one up. That's the existing, right now we've got the driveway going between those units so you've got 4 units facing each other. Actually 8 units. Ledvina: Could you point to the unit? Mancino: This is what's behind Byerly's right now. Aanenson: These are the units that are built right now. So right now there's a driveway that comes down all the way to the end. So there's decks on these, and these 4 units all face either other. Ledvina: But those are 8 units a piece. They don't have any rear to them. But there's no rear to the home. Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. So that's really not the same kind of thing. I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of a detached situation. I know in a detached situation we'd say no way. That's not acceptable. And I know this is a little different scenario but at the same time, people will be using those back yards, you know. Well, maybe I should ask the applicant. Are there walkouts on the backs of those buildings? Bill Dolan: Yes, those are walkout units and they do face that street down there. On townhomes what you try to do is give them room for their patio and then as you might have noticed, some of the patios on the existing townhouses as they go up the street. But the patios do come out. They have a fence. So what will happen on those units that face that street where those patios come out, they'll be fenced so they don't bang the street right up to them. And they are, actually they were a little closer to the street and staff and so we talked about it and we decided we could move back a little. I think that we will come back to where they're 20 -25 feet from the street there now. With the fencing, we feel that will be satisfactory. Now the reason they are faced that way is because, you know the side and every ... it's a big deal and it goes up to the top of the hill. So you can't just shave the top of the hill off. You have to build into it... Ledvina: Right. No, I understand that. I guess I'm just seeing that the distance between the back of the homes and in Kerber Lane, or Kimberly Lane, I'm sorry. It's extremely tight. 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Bill Dolan: No question about it. We will be fencing those patios. ' Ledvina: And then that raises another issue. Do we want fences along Kerber Lane? How is that going to look in terms of the streetscape? Bill Dolan: Well, that's typically what we do with those and maybe it's a good thing we talk about that now if you don't particularly want them. But that's typically how we do that to ' provide some privacy for people. And the fence is typically right at the end of the patio, which is like ... and then the grass would go down the street. ' Ledvina: Right. Well, I don't know if I've got a solution for that other than to say that things are too tight in there and I know that things have been tighten up to bring units away from the hill and that's a very strong objective but I'm thinking about our future residents that will ' live along this street and what they're going to have in terms of their streetscape. I guess my opinion would be that I certainly wouldn't want to see fences along there. I'd rather see that be, it would have to be heavily landscaped. I don't know if you can even stick a berm in ' there and landscape the berm. I think that might be real difficult. But the way I see it now, I don't really like it. ' Bill Dolan: ...say we don't build lot fences there, I guess we do that typically with our patios now. We have on the other projects. ' Ledvina: Right, okay. I'll let some of the other commissioners comment on that. I think the units on the north side, they're okay. I guess some of them are fairly tight. There's about 15 t to 20 feet in some instances. Maybe even less. Like between Units 11 and 10. And then again on the south side they get tight in spots as well. I don't know solutions other than reducing the number of buildings in terms of that feeling of tightness. I guess we've got a ' piece of land and we talk about potential density of x number of units, whether it's 9 or 12. I think when you look at the usable acreage, you still have to make sure that even though you're at a density of 6 or 9 or whatever it happens to be, that what you have in the area that ' you're developing, really works. I'm not saying this doesn't work but I think there's got to be some fine tuning that's able to be done to help this out a little bit. I don't really know what that is right now but I'm open for suggestions on that. Questions on the conservation ' easement. Did we suggest that it would be 30 feet from the rear of the, or 30 feet from the building along the north side? Is that how it was laid out? ' Aanenson: Correct. I think it was always the intent of the neighbors that that part be left in a natural area. I guess their concern was that you have people end up mowing or planting gardens and pretty soon it's down. They've taken out vegetation. r 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: Can we add it as a condition? Aanenson: Sure. I think the developer's agreed to that. Bill Dolan: No problem. We expected that. Ledvina: Okay. Okay. Bill Dolan: Typically townhouse people, other than their own patio. See they don't mow the grass anyway. So that's common grounds so. Ledvina: Yeah. I wouldn't want to. I mean ... but just a message, or just a comment about the situation with the decks. I would support putting in a condition limiting the size of the decks to 80 square feet. And the reason that I would do that is I think you talked about this earlier. If you build off the back, you're going to have these structures. You know, even though they are several hundred feet from the neighboring properties, you're going to have these posts and things like that, that are 20 feet long to get the footings down into, down the side of the hill so I think 80 square feet is usable space and it also will keep them fairly close to the ground. So I would support that. Well I think that's it for me right now. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Let me start with saying that density transfer and to the senior housing, I'm in full support of I am a little concerned about knowing there are going to be 70 units and not seeing a layout of them and how it's all going to work. I mean I have some concern but there's no question that I do fully support the senior housing and in that location. I think it's been worked out well. One of the questions Matt, or somebody brought up about the backs of those townhomes on Kelly Court which will back up to Kimberly Lane. Just a suggestion. Can you shorten the driveway at all so that you have a little bit more room to do some berming and some landscaping behind the patios? Bill Dolan: On the other side? We will shorten it as much as we possibly can. Aanenson: We looked at that already. Mancino: Is that something that helps? Aanenson: We tried to condense this because when it first came in we were concerned about how far down the hill. We are also concerned that we have enough parking when visitors are there that we're not blocking the street. Just to respond further back to Matt's concern. I 58 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 agree, it's a concern and we looked at this as a product but I don't think that it's any different ' than we looked at on Mission Hills and the one we most recently looked at on Autumn Ridge. We have a few places where this is a private street. And typically they're not, people aren't buying these for the yard. I understand what your concern is but we tried to take those ' units and bring them up the hill and we've condensed them as much as we can and still allow where we've got enough space for people to park in the driveway. We looked at that and believe me, that's why this was noticed twice before it came here because we've kept trying to ' revise it and crunch it as tight as we can get it and still make the numbers work. But I understand your issue. But we want to make sure we've got driveways that cars can park in, because there's no parking on a private street. There's no parking. So we have to make sure that we do have enough parking in there that we can get emergency vehicles through so. If there is room to look at it but I think we're pretty tight. ' Bill Dolan: Oh we are. Obviously if there's anything that we can do, we'll work it out with staff. We've been working with them all along. Mancino: And the only other suggestion that I would make on top of Matt's is, I would favor a more densely vegetated area versus a fence. A privacy fence. Now, I don't know if that ' means the people can still put up a privacy fence if they want to or not, but at any rate. Ledvina: Well I don't know. Aanenson: It's a PUD. You can make it a condition of the PUD. ' Ledvina: I think fences along that street would be very unattractive and I would support making that a condition. Eliminating the use of fences. Mancino: Okay. Bill Dolan: You're suggesting use vegetation instead? Ledvina: Yes. If they want to achieve screening, that they use vegetation and landscaping to provide that screening. ' Mancino: I'd like to make the comment that I think that the applicant has done a wonderful job of, extraordinary job of trying to preserve as many of the oaks, the white oaks as possible. ' Building retaining walls, etc so I am very glad about that. One of the things that I would suggest to city staff is, is that during this time of construction, which is you know, the oaks are very susceptible and very fragile, that our forestry intern spend some extra time ... that she visits the site and makes sure that everything is going well. 1 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Bill Dolan: ...you mentioned that. The environmental laws that are now getting passed and the tree ordinance and so on that you have passed in the last few years and so on, we're taking note of that as to design and so on and so forth ... and that's what happened and this gentlemen was talking about, what he doesn't know that before we got through with that project, I personally fined that fellow. But now he's learning, okay. And now we have fences. We fence those areas and so on and so forth but until we all get in step with everything... Mancino: Okay. On recommendation number 2, I would just like to add to change Lot 52 to Outlot A. I would like to also add the line, this outlot can never be built upon. Because I think outlots can be built on. I mean we've built on. Al -Jaff: No, they can't. Mancino: Oh they can't? Aren't we building on an outlot right now? Aanenson: Well it'd have to come back and get ... we're just doing the preliminary plat right now. Mancino: Oh! So we don't need to add on that? Aanenson: No. Scott: Do you have any questions, specific questions for the applicant because you've been standing there. Bill Dolan: Oh, that's alright. Mancino: No, I don't. Scott: This is kind of more of a discussion time for the commissioners so, have a seat. Mancino: Sharmin, about the height of buildings. Where do we measure the height of the building? For instance, there are some buildings that I have seen that look over 40 feet tall to me in Chanhassen and that is, I mean like on the townhouses that are going to be on the north side of Kimberly Lane and the basements are going to be 9 or 10 feet tall. Do we, is the height at the lowest building point? Al -Jaff: We're actually taking average between the heights and the... elevations. .1 u 1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: It's an average, okay. So there are, that is why there are buildings that are taller than, I thought you went to the lowest. So what will the building heights of these be from the lowest level? Do you have any idea? Do you have any idea of the product? ' Kirk Vallette: From this point of the roof... will be about 35 feet, even on the back side. That's the mid -point of the roof. ' Mancino: Is that here or is that at the peak? Kirk Valette: No, it's not at the peak. It would be halfway between those two. A vertical ' distance would be right... Mancino: And that's about 35? ' Kirk Valette: 35... i Mancino: Okay. The only other suggestion that I would like to make is that in number 4, I would like to add, not or color but and color so that we do have a variation in color between the townhomes. And also that if the electrical, and I'm thinking of Oak Ponds right now. If ' the electrical from the 4 units are going to come together in one place and be on the outside of the unit, that that be covered. Boxed in. Because one of the things that I notice on Oak Ponds as I drive through there is that all the electrical faces to the streets and I would like to camouflage or hide. Aanenson: We'd have to check on what we can do as far as building code because that's the power panel box. There are specific. ' Mancino: They're actually attached to the units? Aanenson: Right. There are specific codes as far as height but we can certainly check on that and see what you can screen it and landscaping wise. Mancino: Yes, it can be landscaping but it would be year round landscaping. Thank you. Those are all my comments. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I'm also in support of the density transfer. Also to echo the comments about the conservation easement. The lighting issue. Decks and also Matt's and Nancy's comments with regards to the privacy fences. We get into the subject of transition here and I think 1 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 really the main issue I see for transition is really the screening and the buffering in terms of, it appears to be that there's a good back and forth going on with the developer to put in some additional trees and so forth. Like it or not, the distance is some element of transition and in the process, and that is my perspective and so, I think any additional cooperation between the two sides with respect to the screening and the height and so forth is really what I see as being one of the key issues. So other than that I would support the additions that have been discussed thus far. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Amendment to PUD #92 -3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Review #95 -3 as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995, and subject to the following conditions. Outlined in the staff report with the following changes and additions. Elimination of condition number 1. Modify condition number 4 to change the second sentence to read, introduce some variation among buildings facing north through the shape, eliminate facing north. Introduce some variation among buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers and color. The rest will read as stated. Condition number 12. Should I go through everything? Aanenson: We've got them modified. Ledvina: Okay. Condition number 12 to read per the recommendations identified in memorandum dated March 1, 1995 from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al -Jaff, subject 92 -3 PUD. Okay. An addition of condition number 27. The lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted at the property boundaries. The maximum permitted by ordinance. Number 28. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. Number 29. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings along the north side of the development. Condition number 30. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development. Condition number 31. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff. Condition number 32. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting. Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation as modified. Is there any discussion? 62 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina moved, Comad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to PUD 492 -3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Review 995 -3, as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Change Lot 52 to Outlot A. 2. Amend the PUD contract to permit the transfer of density within the development of Oak Pond. ' 3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation among buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, and color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span on Building B. 4. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the overall development plans. Street lights shall be placed along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive. The plans shall be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval. ' 5. A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street and utilities. ' 6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication as required by ordinance. 7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. ' 8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. ' 9. Fire Marshal conditions: I a. Provide an approved turn - around at the west end of Kelly Court or sprinkler units beyond 150 feet from the intersection of Kelly Court and Santa Vera Drive. I b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly Court at 75 foot intervals by the applicant. Pursuant to City Policy 906 -1991. 1 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 C. Turning radii on the private streets shall be approved by City Engineering and Fire Marshal. I d. Additional fire hydrants will be required at the east entrance to Kelly Lane off Santa Vera Drive, also at the east entrance to Kelly Court off Santa Vera Drive ' and between Lots 29 and 30. e. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 10. The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. ' 11. The applicant shall comply with the Building Officials recommendations as outlined in the memo from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al -Jaff, dated March 1, 1995. ' 11 On Sheet 6 of 10, the plans indicate a definition of the construction limit fencing that states "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity in the canopy area..." The wording should be changed to read "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity out of the canopy area..." 13. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the wetlands. Type I erosion control fence may be used on other areas. The applicant should be aware of that additional erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane. 14. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and mulch, sod and /or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading is completed unless the City Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995. 15. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans are subject to a final City review and approval process. Upon completion of the street and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as- built, mylar drawings. 16. The developer shall obtain all of the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, Minnesota Department of Health and comply with all conditions of the permits. 64 LI r f Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 17. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until the entire development is built out and all areas are full revegetated. Upon completion of the project, the sedimentation basin located in the northeast corner of the site shall be abandoned and the storm sewer extended to the east pond. 18. The applicant shall provide the City with updated drainage and ponding calculations for the entire development including Phases I and 11. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 year storm event. The applicant shall document that the existing storm sewers are capable of the additional runoff from Phase III. The City may require additional catch basins pending review of the final storm sewer calculations. 19. The applicant will be responsible for restoration of the City's boulevard along Santa Vera Drive. Security shall be included in the PUD agreement to guarantee boulevard restoration. 20. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turn around to the Fire Marshal or all units beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered. ' 21. Landscaping shall be rearranged along the east lot line of Lot 52 in a fashion that will allow access to the easterly ponding area by City maintenance crews. ' 22. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 51 for wetlands and the storm water retention ponds up to the 100 year flood level. In addition, a 20 foot ' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the east lot line of Lot 52. 23. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting of material from the site. ' 24. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The covenants /association by -laws shall incorporate language notifying the homeowners of this responsibility. 25. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51. 26. The lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted by ordinance at the property boundaries. 27. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 28. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings along the north side of the development. 29. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development. 30. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff. 31. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And Commissioner Mancino, your summary. Mancino: My no has nothing to do with what the applicant has brought before us. It has to do with looking at a preliminary plat, a revised one that came in 3 years after the first one and it seems tonight that the neighbors in the area did not get notice of it. And that's why I'm against it. PUBLIC HEARING: PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT C INTO 7 OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE LOTS, AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD SOUTH OF THE TWIN_ CTTIES & WESTERN RAILROAD, AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION, ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay, any questions or comments for staff? Dave, comments? Hempel: No initial comments. Scott: Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Bill Engelhardt: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Bill Engelhardt. I'm representing the owners of the project which is the Audubon 92 Partnership. I think I can make this very brief, unless you have some direct questions then we can address those. e- Li n C 1 1 1, Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Initially the area you see outlined in orange was platted as Outlot C in the 1st Addition. It's now a replat of Outlot C. It's been replatted into 6 lots with two cul -de -sacs up in this particular area and the remainder of the property will be now Outlot A for the 2nd Addition. Outlot D stays as Outlot D of the 1st Addition. Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block stay as part of the 1 st Addition and Outlot A and Outlot B to the west stay as part of the 1 st Addition. Part of your requirements is to show an overall development plan. This is the master plan for the development so you can see that in the future Outlot A could be subdivided into 5 additional lots. Outlot B could be subdivided into two additional lots. Lot 1 in both areas will stay the same. Outlot A would stay the same and Outlot B would stay the same. There's no additional work with those in those areas. We did list all of the, the building covers, the building square footages and we're a little bit below I think what the average was under the first part of the approval for this property. The main reason for coming back through the Planning Commission and through City Council with a revised plan and basically a revised PUD, are two issues. One was that they're now proposing smaller lots. The market is being driven, in fact there's 2 or 3 of these lots that have are real close to being sold so they've got more of a market for that type of lot. The other main thrust for redoing some of the work here was to reduce the amount of grading. This is a mass grading job and originally there was a pond proposed down in this area with realignment of the flood plain area and there was a cut for taking material out to compensate for the flood plain filling. There will be no work now in this area, in the flood plain or in these slopes or in the wooded areas other than the trail. We're going to leave that alone. We're generating... off of this site and we're utilizing the natural low areas as our ponding area, and we're backing up our buildings to this pond. That's really the main... We felt that looking at the cost, that there was a substantial amount of money to be saved by not... Landscaping buffer on the south, would remain the same as originally proposed. There's a stand of trees out there. Not a real good stand of trees but they're staying ... The landscaping will be done on this cul- de- sac ... We propose to build the pond at this time and we may be doing some of the landscaping... Right now the street, it's got a temporary cul -de -sac to this point. In the future you would probably come in with a plat for Outlot A, the 2nd Addition. We could then construct this street and do any additional work. That's, in a nutshell, that's pretty much it. If you have questions. Scott: Questions or comments? Bill Engelhardt: We do agree with the conditions that you set forth. The 12 conditions. The park fee issue was clarified. Aanenson: Yeah, I think it's the trail fee. Bill Engelhardt: Or the trail fee. The trail fee was clarified... Item number 9, the installation of traffic signals and surety for that. We don't necessarily disagree with it but, and maybe we 67 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 work with staff a little bit. We're not quite sure how to arrive at what share this piece of property would be contributing to a traffic signal ... so again, I think that's an issue that we can work with the staff on. Item number 15. We don't have a problem with it and I heard tonight that we're talking about the perimeter landscaping for this area. Aanenson: Correct. Bill Engelhardt: And I don't see a problem with that because again ... by next month or the month after, you're going to have 2 or 3 site plans. Aanenson: I guess just for clarification. That perimeter would include the streetscape on Lake Drive and then you're internal streetscape and then adjacent to the railroad tracks. Bill Engelhardt: Okay, that's fine. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Let the record show that we do not have any members of the general public who wish to speak, so can I have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments please, Matt. Ledvina: I would agree. I think the proposal is an improvement. I remember when the National Weather Service built their site and I was wondering, where was all the dirt going. And it was part of the grand scheme here and all I knew that this happened before my time and all I knew that there was all kinds of dirt going everywhere and I didn't understand it. And if we can reduce that, I'm very happy about that so. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. .. I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Just a couple questions, and again this goes back to history. Why was this PUD ' approved with such a long cul -de -sac? Any particular reason? Aanenson: Well we looked at that. There's a natural feature, maybe it's easier to talk off of this. There's a significant stand of trees... there's no way really to save the tree ... this piece needs to be accessed another way. Mancino: Yeah, I thought of more coming around. u u C� Aanenson: A loop? We looked at that and we based on the fact that the type of traffic that's generated is really determining the type of probably more truck type traffic so we felt that that makes sense. It is a long cul -de -sac. We did do an EAW with the original application that came in to kind of review those issues. We felt that probably the best way to serve it is to leave it at a cul -de -sac. We tried it down to the south. Mancino: ...residential ones. Aanenson: Right, you've got residential south. You've got the railroad tracks to the north so really, and then the degregation that you do going across, we just felt that it really didn't warrant that. Mancino: Okay. I have another question for you Kate. I went over to the neighborhood that abuts the Weather Station and from the back of those homes, it's not an ugly site but it's not a pretty site. It was different than what I thought we had approved on the parapet walls covering the HVAC units, etc and you can clearly see that. Aanenson: You'll be able to see the tops of all those buildings. Mancino: Because you're down so low? Aanenson: Yes. And that was an issue that we raised. Originally it came in with just a fence and we thought that was pretty contrite because no matter what, you're still going to see over the fence. So we said, basically all we can do with this plan is try to do something architecturally to make it, you're going to see on the top of all those. Eventually as we get more landscaping in, the Weather Service has not completed all the, we do have surety in place for the completion of their landscaping. That should be additional and with this trail hopefully, and more landscaping, we can try to mitigate some of this but same with on, I hear that same complaint on Audubon. You are looking down on top of this and it is a hard thing to do. Unless you can put a complete dog house, and we felt that was even adding to it. The best that we can do, and we've talked to the other people that are coming in on this site, is try .• Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 to blend the rooftop. It's going to be an issue on all these site plans when you see them, is try to blend some of this, the heating and ventilating equipment to match the roof line. Because I'm not sure if putting something around there is always going to be the best solution either, because you're still going to see on top. Mancino: Can we... Aanenson: Well that's an issue for a lot of the builders too is the maintenance of when paint peels off and then that can become unsightly too. So it's something we're going to have to struggle with as these come in. Mancino: Because it's really, I mean I don't think you'll have a problem with the lot west of it because of the existing tree line. Aanenson: Yes. And the lots just north of that, maybe will screen some more of it too. I don't know. From Audubon anyways but it's an issue. We've talked to the people who are looking at those lots and try to see what they, leave it to the creative architect to see if they can come up with some other solutions. But it's a tough issue. Mancino: That's my concern. The other thing is, how do you know what the building coverage is going to be on these lots? Aanenson: What we asked them to do is provide a typical building. Based on that they generate parking standards. They came up with a typical user would require this much square foot. Therefore, this much parking is required and that's how we came up with those numbers. This is a similar exercise we went through when the first one came in and we did the EAW. We needed to know how much building space and how much traffic would be generated and do the environmental. So they went through the same exercise because we wanted to get an idea if this, by making the lots smaller, if that increases the amount of impervious surface because we told them they had to stay within that same framework and as it turns out, it looks like we're actually underneath that so I think it's going to be pretty good. Bill Engelhardt: We had the same problem. Basically the same question. How do you determine it so ... and I have a sketch here but I don't even want to show it to you because it's not real clean but we did go through the exercise of laying out the buildings and the parking lot and meeting all the setbacks to see what could be done. Mancino: So is this the biggest building that could be on that lot? Bill Engelhardt: Basically. 70 L Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Yeah, it's maximum. Yeah, because again they have to stay within the 60 %. Mancino: And Outlot, tell me about Outlot B. Where is it being accessed from and how is that all fitting into the scheme of things? Bill Engelhardt: Outlot B eventually is going to do one of two things. It could be tied in to Outlot A as one big park area or it would be tied in with the property immediately to the ' south. Aanenson: And what happens is, there's a big wetland that runs through this portion here. Even though ... so it could be tied into that. Bluff Creek flattens out quite a bit there and there's a wide spans of, if you look on the zoning map. Well I'm not sure, it shows on the comprehensive plan. Bluff Creek is fairly wide through there. ' Mancino: So when sa ou it goes south, okay. Y Y g ' Aanenson: Right straight south. Mancino: And this is industrial? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: And what about this? Is this... ' Aanenson: Correct. You have an electrical substation down there and that area is guided for industrial. ' Mancino: And where does it stop, here? Aanenson: Yes. Right at Lyman. But actually you have a large buffer there that's naturally ' there because Bluff Creek through that area is about 300 feet wide. Or even wider. It flattens out right through there so that's kind of the natural transition through there. ' Mancino: And how are these people going to get access? I mean that's another time I guess. Aanenson: It would come off of Lyman as it goes north. That's the way to access that. Tie ' that together. Mancino: I don't have any other questions. 1 71 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I have nothing further to add. I think it makes a lot of sense. Scott: Sounds good tome. Mancino: Oh, I just have one other thing, I'm sorry. Can we add to this PUD, since now we're changing it a little bit. Scott: Senior housing. Mancino: Yeah, senior housing. We would like to put senior housing on Outlot B ... anyway. Throughout the language here and I know that we have updated it during the Highway 5 task force, etc. When we talk about outdoor storage and screening of everything. Instead of just putting landscaping, we put now year round landscaping. Can some of this be updated in the current language without it being a hassle to either the applicant or the city? Aanenson: It's interesting you bring that up because that dialogue came up meeting with some potential users on the site. Now, having said that, this is a bowl. It sits down quite a bit, which is one of the nice reasons it makes a good industrial park. It's topographically, you're seeing less sight lines of the building so in effect it's screening right there. I personally would like to leave some flexibility to the people that are looking at these lots to be creative and see how they're going to screen it. In some instances I think we're going to have site lines based on positioning of buildings. But the intent is that we don't have outdoor storage. And if they are, then they have to be screened and I'd like to leave that flexibility up to individual developers to see how that's accomplished because like I say, I think some of them will be, depending on buildings on sited, that will screen. Maybe in some instances they will have to do landscaping. Maybe some of them will have to be materials that block or tilt up panels that match the building that's going to be screened. But I'm not sure we can cover every, based on the types of users that may be out there, that we can cover all that. Scott: Well and you know, it's a PUD and we'll be getting site plans on all the many buildings. Mancino: Well I know but ... PUD contract and the... Aanenson: Well right. Well yeah we can. I'm taking this same framework, and if we want to modify this, we're redoing the framework. I think if it's something you want to revisit. I guess what I'm saying is, the intent is that we screen it and we could list some ways to accomplish that but if you want to do that. I guess I'd say, I'd like to see, and we've already 72 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 just had this dialogue with people that are looking at lots. I've said if you can demonstrate to our satisfaction, the Planning Commission, the City Council, that you won't be able to see it, do perspectives from here. If I'm standing at this position and this position, that you won't be able to see it. Then that may be effectually screened. Mancino: If you feel that people will be receptive enough and there's enough teeth in that intent, fine with me. Aanenson: Yeah. It always was our intent that it be screened. Again, I think a lot of this is going to be accomplished based on the fact of the topography. But you do want to make sure from Highway 5 and that internal road that it is screened. Mancino: And from Audubon. I mean heavy screening. Aanenson: And that was always the intent that we have the higher type uses along Audubon that the more office component be facing that and those that have the more, the heavier trip generators or more outdoor storage, the more internal type uses. Mancino: You convinced me. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Nutting: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD amendment and preliminary plat of 7 lots and one outlot for Chanhassen Business Center, 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated February 21, 1995 and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report dated March 1, 1995. Mancino: Second. Scott: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we pass the staffs recommendations along as stated in the staff report. Is there any discussion? Nutting moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ' PUD amendment and preliminary plat of 7 lots and one outlot for Chanhassen Business Center, 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated February 21, 1995 and subject to the conditions: 1. The applicant should provide the city with updated drainage and ponding calculations for Phase I and the overall development designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding ' calculations which document the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour 1 73 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 duration and will discharge in accordance with city's Surface Water Management runoff rate. Final pond design standards shall be in accordance with the city's SWMP. The pond slope shall be 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water elevation for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 side slopes overall. 2. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. Type I erosion control fence may be used on all other areas. 3. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch, sod, or wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks of site grading. Unless the city's Best Management Practices Handbook planting date dictates otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995. 4. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the city's Standards and Specifications and prepare final plans and specifications for city review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with the final plat approval process. 5. The developer shall obtain all the necessary permits from the watershed district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MWCC, Mn Dept. of Health, and comply with all conditions of the permits. 6. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street construction plans for Lake Drive West and the proposed streets. Street lights shall be designed consistent with the existing lighting on Audubon Road (low profile rectilinear- rectangular style lighting fixture with 250 watt sodium pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high cortin steel pole). Placement of the street lights shall be approved by the City. 7. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the storm sewers and storm water ' retention pond until the entire development is "built -on ". 8. The developer shall be responsible for water quantity fees for this phase of the development. Final calculation of water quantity fees will be based on the actual storm water calculations to be reviewed by the city. These fees will be payable prior to final plat being recorded. ' 9. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road is expected in the next few years. The developer shall be responsible or share the ' 74 i� I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation ' from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Audubon Road. Security to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development (Phases I and II) will be required. 10. The existing storm sewers in Lake Drive West which discharge into the temporary pond will need to be modified to convey the runoff to the new permanent pond on Outlot A (Second Addition). 11. Security to guarantee easements and future construction of trails should be included in ' the development contract for the Second Addition. 12. Park and trail fees shall be paid consistent with city ordinances. Surety /letter of credit ' for the future trail shall be placed as a condition in the development contract for the Second Addition. 13. Fire hydrants shall be located as per the city Fire Marshal's requirement. 14. Street names shall be submitted for review and approval by Public Safety. ' 15. All required perimeter landscaping shall be completed with the approval of the first q P p g p submitted site plan in the Second Addition. Surety for this landscaping shall be placed ' in the development contract for the Second Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who had left the meeting, and the motion caned. Scott: I'm thinking we can probably continue the rest of this stuff to next week. I don't think there's a reason why we have to do this so I think. ' Mancino: Let's just finish it. There's nothing to finish. Scott: Well new business. No. You know what, on these things, if there's new business, could you list it because then I can just say, hey there's no new business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of ' the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Okay. This is an update from the 13th, because the packets kind of, you have them the same week. They did approve the Halla plat extension to June 26, 1995, and that was basically, he was unable to get the soil. Ledvina: Why? Aanenson: Well, because he can't do the individual septic site tests during the winter month. There's an area that we're concerned about where the large nursery stock is. Whether or not that is suitable. Ledvina: I understand the concern. This plat was extended like last fall and they recognized that. Aanenson: We raised the same concern when the Council originally gave the March 6th date, we either said you've got to go sooner or later because March 6th is going to be in the middle of, it's not going to work. We raised that issue originally but the Council said, well. Let's put the 6th on it anyway so. Ledvina: So June 26th is the drop dead. Aanenson: Right. And we put in the motion that we would not recommend any more extensions. I mean that's it. And I wouldn't support one at that point. Mancino: Or Matt will leave the Planning Commission. Scott: No, he'll come back here. Aanenson: The final reading for the erosion control was done and we had a meeting today. We're trying to set up our procedures on how we're going to have that. They approved the Boston Chicken site plan. Ledvina: What did they think of that? Did they have any discussion on that? Aanenson: They had the same discussions, well. I think there was some concern about the boxiness of it, but I'll let Nancy. She was at the meeting. She covered it. Mancino: Well no, they covered it very quickly. I think that they felt that we had done a good job of reviewing it and they just went. 76 n 0 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: Did they like the awning? Did they talk about the awning? Mancino: They didn't talk about the awnings. Ledvina: Oh, okay. Aanenson: Then the March 15th is Lake Ann Highlands so that one still will be considered at that meeting so I'm not sure where that one sits as far as any new proposals or anything. Ledvina: I saw this. Aanenson: You like that? Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: I put that in there because Chanhassen, I circled Chanhassen. OPEN DISCUSSION. Scott: This could be ongoing items or open discussion. Let's put it in open discussion. ' Mancino: Well just real quickly. There was some very good article in the Twin Cities February '95 on multi - family housing and on rental property and why, you know they aren't being built right now. And it's just very informative. Ledvina: I'm sorry, what was the name of.. C Scott: That's a photocopy maybe in the next packet. Aanenson: Yeah, if you could leave that for me Nancy. Mancino: Yeah, I'll do that. It's just really, really good. The other thing is... Aanenson: And then also, based on our next discussion. Next week we do not have any public hearings noticed so it will just be a work session. I talked to Joe today about that. We thought we'd start at 7:00 and just go to 8:30 and then we'd give Matt a call and go out with Matt for his last meeting but we did call other cities to find out what they're doing for buffering so we'll be able to talk about that. So we're going to try to talk about two things. We've got the slope ordinance draft on that, which is reduction of grading, and then we'll talk 77 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 about transition. So just those two ordinances. No public hearings so it will be a work session. Mancino: Now that I think about it, isn't the one that we just looked at tonight, isn't that a bluff? I mean where the oaks are? Aanenson: That's another one that was given an R -12 zoning without looking at the topography a long, long time ago and no. Mancino: Would it be now? Aanenson: Not with the new 25 but the one we're looking at, pretty much anything would be a bluff. Ledvina: What's that the new one? Aanenson: The new slope protection ordinance we're calling it. That's what we're going to meet on next. Scott: Any other stuff before Ron makes a motion to adjourn the meeting? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 78