1d. Planning commission minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1993
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina and Diane
Harberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Planner I
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10
OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE
1 CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN
1 BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
(BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY).
1 Public Present:
Name Address
Marian Schmitz 8190 Galpin Blvd.
Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd.
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Dan Blake Centex Real Estate Corporation
Paul Krauss, Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item.
1 Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order.
Dan Blake: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dan Blake.
' I represent Centex Real Estate Corporation. As Paul said, we're really here for some
direction. There's been a lot of discussion on this site as we worked with staff earlier this
year on the road alignment of the frontage road and the park issue and we finally decided we
1 needed to just get a plan in so that we could start formalizing the process and where the city
1 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
wanted the park and where they want that road. And I think we've gotten awful close to
' accomplishing that. I'd like to, a little bit of site information. Again, this is Highway 5 and
Galpin. Some of the natural features. A big wetland area...down here. Develop a piece of
high ground down at the bottom of our site which the park department has indicated it is their
desire for park acquisition of the part of the park system here... There are some areas of trees.
' Generally lower quality wetland...type trees. Further down the wetland there are some trees
on this side of the knoll...If you go out there today, one of the most significant features is a
' very high natural berm left when Highway 5 was cut with trees, evergreens on it now,
roughly in this location. It's the requested Highway 5 widening of right -of -way which
includes that tree line. I'm not exactly sure what impacts those trees are if you widen
Highway 5...I would guess that a portion of it may be lost...The buildings, this is an artist
rendition of the buildings. They are 12 unit townhouse buildings. 6 units on either side.
There's also 8 and 10 unit buildings which is the same building as some of the middle units.
' Currently we're building this exact product in Eden Prairie and Apple Valley. We just last
year completed a project of a very similar building with the city of Mendota Heights so the
building design is pretty much established...our intent to build. Again the attached garages.
...and I think what that does for some of the concerns of the Highway 5 issue is provide some
varied exposures. I have a drawing back here and I can pull it up. It kind of cuts through
the site but it's awfully small. Given the scale of the site, it was hard to depict but we're
trying to show you, this being Galpin on this end. The western boundary of the site with the
varied impact of the trees and the building. This is the 3 buildings that you see here. Down
here and here and here. And then the big open existing wet meadow wetland and then some
1 of the existing forested wetland which is through here. That kind of shows you the general
look from Highway 5. I think that is one of, Paul referred to as a concern. I think it's just
kind of an unknown yet what that Highway 5 impacts. What exactly this is looking for and
1 what exactly this would look like. Another cuts through the site the other way. Shows
Highway 5 here. The existing tree room. The proposed right -of -way. Landscaping berm, the
parking drive and then the buildings so this kind of gives you a sense of the scale in relation
to Highway 5. I believe it's 265 feet from the edge of the building to the center line of
Highway 5. This would be the dimension from here to over there.
1 Mancino: Excuse me, is that a 2 lane Highway 5 or is that a 4 lane Highway 5?
Dan Blake: This is drawn as existing.
Mancino: As existing? Okay.
1 Ledvina: Where do the other 2 lanes go then on Highway 5? Do they go to the south?
Okay.
1
1 2
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Harberts: What are your homes selling for in Apple Valley and Eden Prairie and Mendota
Heights? 1
Dan Blake: Eden Prairie the price ranges from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Apple Valley's
a little less than that. 1
Scott: Can you plus or minus $10,000.00 estimate, given that development, can you estimate
1 what the sale prices would be for this particular project? Same range roughly?
Dan Blake: Same. Similar. Maybe a little further up than Eden Prairie. Maybe a little bit
less but a lot of the same site characteristics. It has a very prime view units. A lot of I'll
say secluded, privacy units. Not too many highway units... Beyond that I guess it'd be easier
for me to answer questions either now or as you see fit.
Scott: Okay. Any questions?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, the report discusses, the staff report discusses the buildability of the 1
area in the vicinity of units 17 to 20. Have you done? •
Dan Blake: We've done, we have brought engineering out to do soil borings on the site. We 1
•
did deep regular soil borings on this site but because of access, because you can't cross this
wetland, not very well. They just from the other side walked in and did some relatively deep
hand auger borings, in the 6 to 8 feet down range. The unsuitable soils range from 2 to 6
feet over in this area...half a foot of topsoil and sandy clays below that. We're not exactly
sure what our opinion is. Is it for sure buildable. It's buildable at some cost but that's
exactly...too costly. I think as big of an issue this is going to be, the construction of this road
which the city I believe is important no matter what goes in here and they have agreed to
participate in the, at least the permitting process of getting that road across that wetland. 1
Harberts: A question for staff. What's the opportunity to try and focus some priorities for
affordable housing with this project? I just came from a governance committee and my 1
understanding is the Governor's putting together a blue ribbon task force to address housing.
Krauss: Well, I think as most of you are aware, the city has had a concern with affordability
1
of housing. We have broached the idea to a couple of developers. I guess we really don't
know what kind of flexibility we have at this point and we're having our bond counsels and
some other folks who work with us on financing issues put together what our fmancing
options are so we can go back intelligently and talk to developers. We're also having, we've
commissioned a study. Fred Hoisington is working with major employers in the community
and he's surveying their...to ascertain what the needs are for housing. What can they afford.
3 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
What do they look for. What sort of incentive program is most useful to them. I think it's
fair to say that certainly as soon as we have our ducks in order, we'd sit down with this
developer. We've already talked about sitting down with another developer who's on later
tonight and trying to at least tinker with some of these units to make them a little more
1 affordable. I'm hoping that we move forward on that a little bit in the next month or so. I
believe there's an item on that for the BRA agenda tomorrow night.
Harberts: I think it's going to come to a point where if the cities do not take a lead in it, that
the government's going to force the issue in a way that's not going to be very positive for the
community and that's the message I basically got tonight at my meeting.
1 Krauss: Well they've kind of been hinting at that for quite a while. The problem is they
took away all the tools we had to do anything about it. You know we have to stretch the
envelope a little bit to do much of anything. We used to be able to sell mortgage revenue
bonds. Used to be able to do TIF districts for housing and they took that away and then they
complain that you're not building affordable housing in the suburbs. Well the fact is, we the
' city don't build anything. We depend on the private sector to do it and they can't deliver it.
I think what you've got here tonight is a fairly reasonably affordable product.
1 Farmakes: The other thing that disturbs me is that the government has shown an abysmal
record over the past 30 years of doing a very good job of project housing. And I don't
believe that once you get outside the realm of market, and start dictating a large scale project
1 housing, that if the city approaches this, that it does so on an individual housing type basis. •
Because otherwise I think that we're approaching a serious can of worms and I'm sure many
developers will tell you that. And what bothers me about this is government is never very
good at producing something that the private sector can for less at probably far more
efficiently targeted to the customer. That doesn't take away from staff but.
1 Krauss: Well we don't know what the options are but none of these options have been
explored, and frankly...government subsidized housing. The approach that we've been
' looking at is to try to tinker with that offer for example of first time home buyer assistance.
People can often...but they may be stretched to meet the down payment and there are ways to
develop a small pot of money that over time allows people to get into those homes and it's
' blind. I mean these are owner occupied homes. We won't know who's in them.
Farmakes: And I think that's more innovative. But as I said before, the tendency when you
ask how much are these houses going to cost, for information that' fine but to get into
dictating what that's going to be, that's a little worrisome to me anyway and the other thing
that bothers me, I don't believe that that's really going to solve the problem because what's
1 happening here, when we look at medium density profit housing, and...housing quite often the
1 4
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
assumption is well, that's affordable housing when in fact I think that the last year that
you've spent here you've seen that that's not the case. That in many cases this higher density 1
housing is up, in some cases up to the $200,000.00 range. So ,.some of the other issues that
Paul had just talked about are not necessarily large scale development type- situations but
issues of financing and so on, which I think are fine. And I support that. 1
Harberts: And Jeff, you're certainly correct with what you've shared but I think there's
some, and Paul's quite aware of some of the political perspectives. From inner city versus
1
suburban areas and basically when you get into housing, you get into that because they don't
care what market demand is out here.
Farmakes: And that's fine but what I would submit is that they're two separate divergent
interests there. And one was born out of the other and there is, we don't need to go over
metropolitan politics for the past 20 years but it is, Minneapolis and St. Paul have tried to not
only curtail the school system but also housing and it's to their advantage. And then they've
used their political clout to do that. And certainly from the southwest suburbs, we're new to
our political clout and we are I think doing a pretty good job anyway, finally of responding
but I don't want to use this forum for that. But I do have concerns about this and I've seen
this on occasion where we get to the higher density issues of trying to accomplish this.
There's nothing wrong I believe with single family housing and incorporating some of the
issues that you're talking about. There are some innovative programs that are being done
with that and curiously enough they're being done outside of the realm of government.
They're being done through religious non -profit organizations and they're being done with
philanthropic direction from architectural firms. And I think that that's far more efficient to
deal with it that way I think in the end. The homeowner is probably far more inclined to
take care of rather than rely on someone else to take care of their home and so on. And I do
think that again smaller is always better with that sort of thing. Than getting very large scale
developments and that's the sole purpose of it. 1
Scott: Okay. Any other comments. This is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the
general public that would like to speak. Please go up to the microphone and give us your 1
name and your address and we're interested in your comments on this particular project.
Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin Boulevard 1
and I have some questions that are not being addressed as far as I can see tonight. And
there's basically three so I won't take too much time. The one was what was brought up
earlier and that is, as I understood the zoning or the guidance with the Highway 5 corridor
was that this be low to medium density housing on this side. I don't understand why you
want to plan this higher density in an area that's kind of far away from the corp of city
services that should be offered for that kind of community development. ...people I think
5 1
1
.1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
I would like to be closer to bus lines, shopping, and other things like that so my first question
when I saw this was, why not the northwest corner across from Target. That'd be a lot closer
in. Be a lot handier. That also brings me to my real concern and that is that that intersection
I has been upgraded to support that kind of added traffic. On Galpin Blvd we are a corridor
and that's true for the industrial complex in back of us. There is a 48 unit housing
development on one side that's going in with another large development on the other side
I that's going in. Right now if you try to gain access to Highway 5, either in the morning or
come at it in evening hours, it's quite tricky and those houses haven't even been built yet. I
don't know if I can show it on this but that intersection of Highway 5 is not quite blind but
I it's not a very visible intersection and when there's a grain truck behind you and you're
turning left, there's traffic coming at you, that intersection of Hundertmark Road looks pretty
minor. So it's a very scary place. What my concern is is I have not heard anything about
I either the widening of Galpin, putting turn lanes in so that people aren't lined up for half a
mile down the road. The development as shown, on almost all of the units and there may not
even be development on the other units closer to TH 41 but almost all the units are on the
1 Galpin side, which would indicate they'd probably use that as an egress to Highway 5. I
think as a safety issue, I don't see how you can advise planning of this type without some .
kind of improvement to that intersection. Not only for me as a resident but for these other
1 people, these people who buy these houses, if they choose to. So for that reason as a local
resident...what are you going to do about the traffic problem. It's already bad. It's going to
be worst with the existing projects already in place and this one would really add to it. Thank
1 you.
Scott: Paul, do you want to take the density question and then we can probably talk about
the roads Dave.
I Krauss: Well I think I touched on the comprehensive plan issue before. The comprehensive
plan was done based upon how this community would ultimately look when it was
completely developed. It was done with a community wide perspective. It was done with an
I eye towards getting a variety of uses in the community so that there was balance in the
community. You're talking about a site and maybe...and I guess some of the Planning
Commission...with Highway 5. Just to the west of this is 170 acre industrial park. Industrial
I office park. And to the south of that is all the industrial uses that Chaska developed along
Highway 41. So this is an area that's surrounded by intensive development. The north side
of Highway 5 is also ultimately going to be brought into the MUSA line and will be
I developed. We've already received a petition to bring it in. We appreciate the fact that this
sort of housing often times has somewhat different access needs although I don't think it's
particular true in this case because it's an owner occupied. The need for immediate proximity
1 to downtown is not as great. However, that's why we're building these streets. To get
people to downtown. To schools. To recreation without having to go onto Highway 5 all the
1 6
1
1'
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
time. Relative to, I guess I can leave the bus aspect to you but we've talked to Southwest
Metro about ultimately providing bus service on these parallel access boulevards because that 1
seems to be where the people can be and it's a much safer way of working it than running
down Highway 5. We also do have a...amount of medium and high density housing around
the central business district. Some of it's being filled right now up on a hill, just north, a 1
block north of Target there's 220 unit'of townhouse there. The site which was mentioned,
there's a lot of people who would love to see medium density housing out there. In fact that's
what it's guided but it's also the site that's owned by Eckankar and it's being operated as a 1
church and it's not being developed. But it was developed, that's what it's being guided. We
share Mr. Dempsey's concern with the Galpin intersection. It is not a safe intersection.
There was a school bus accident there, I think it was last year or the year before. We're well
aware of that and I guess I'll pass it over to Dave to talk about what we have in the works
with that.
Harberts: Just one question Paul. What was the, I think the gentleman brought up about the
northwest corner on Kerber. Was it?
Krauss: That's the Eckankar site.
Tim Dempsey: I didn't realize all that was owned by them. 1
•
Harberts: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Krauss: I'll be happy to get you a copy of the comp plan.
Harberts: Alright, thank you.
Mancino: Dave, could you talk about a stop light there on Galpin and Highway 5. 1
Hempel: As Paul mentioned it is a very hazardous intersection. We've had a few accidents
there. Trunk Highway 5 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation,
MnDot. Galpin Blvd is a county road. County Road 117. The City has been working with
the County on a joint cooperative program for the future upgrade of Galpin Blvd south of TH
5. With the recent residential subdivisions going in down there, it will warrant an upgrade. 1
The comprehensive plan that was prepared some time ago, the Eastern Carver County one
which has been used as a guide lately, or up until now I guess, dictates that it be a 4 lane
road at some point here. The other driving force behind this obviously the school site. That 1
will include turn lanes onto TH 5. A full intersection with a traffic signal on Galpin. It's my
understanding that the city and Carver County is petitioning MnDot to do a signal 1
justification report, which is the first step in order to get a traffic signal installed at the
7 1
.1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
intersection. So it is in the works for upgrading the intersection...as well as plans for
1 upgrading Galpin Blvd. Widening the turn lanes.
Mancino: Do you have any sense of timing on this?
Krauss: Well ossibl . I mean we've been working with the school district, architects and,
P Y
as Dave pointed out, the County and MnDot and I was in a meeting with them last week
where it was pretty clear that concurrent with the development of the school, which is
opening in the fall of '95, that Galpin would be improved to a 4 lane status. I'm not, I mean
ultimately I don't think, the jury's still out about whether Galpin needs to be improved to 4
lanes. I mean I really shudder to think about that, south of that area. But it certainly needs
to be, have some of the kinks taken out of it and worked. But north of that area from the
intersection of the east/west collector up to Highway 5 now looks like it will be improved
concurrent with the opening of the school, and as Dave points out, we have begun talking to
MnDot about temporary signalization. One of the problems we're dealing with is the
Highway 5 upgrading was supposed to take place, I think in '95 not too long ago. But then
when the 5 cent gas tax was vetoed, everything started getting dominoed on back and now,
the last I heard, they're looking at 1998 maybe. But MnDot is also realizing that they have
1 very significant safety problems that they have to address well before that at TH 41, Galpin
and Audubon. So there will be something. We have every expectation that there will be
something in place concurrent with the opening of the school, which isn't too far out of
whack with when this development might come on line. And we should have a lot more
information on that certainly by next time this comes back on your agenda.
1 Scott: Okay. Mr. Dempsey, did those comments help your understanding?
Tim Dempsey: Yeah, but I'll stay tuned.
Scott: Okay. That's good. Yes ma'am.
1 Mary Schmitz: My name is Mary Schmitz and I live at 8190 Galpin and my concern is the
safety issue also. A high density area like you're talking, 232 units. You can anticipate at
least half of those have children and you're talking at least 100, maybe 200 children living in
1 this area. How are they going to get to the school across the street? Are they going to be
running back and forth? This began an issue with the Chaska school over at Highway 41.
They had that huge development, children are constantly running across Highway 41 where
' there's no other way other than walking way down to the light, which they won't do, and
they're running across Highway 41. Again, I've lived there about 15 years and the traffic just
' keeps increasing and increasing and increasing on that road. It's even a hazard for me to
walk across to get my mail and come back. I really have to be very alert and really watch
1 8
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
when I walk across. Now you're talking about 6 year olds and 7 year olds running across
Highway 41. Or Galpin Boulevard and I just have a concern that you're creating a hazard by
having that many children so close to a school district without some kind of control of how
those children are going to get back and forth. The buses are not going to go across to pick
them up. They're too close so what is this development going to do to solve that issue? 1
Scott: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public
hearing? 1
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: One quick question before I give my comments. You're talking about information
yet to come. If we approve this concept, preliminary. They're basically looking for a
critique correct. We're not committing to anything here and I will refer to your
recommendation number 2. It's kind of saying they should have some additional forth
coming information such as so and so and it goes on. Should we be limiting the information
that we should have forth coming to that or should we leave that more open ended? It seems
to me that perhaps there's some additional traffic information here in coordination with the
school. There are other egg and chicken type information situations here that really kind of
need to look at the same time we're looking at development for that property and surrounding
properties. How they fit in together. At least that would be my, and I don't know if that
would be my consideration. I don't know. If the developer certainly is in a position to
provide us with that. They're talking. The County, we're talking School Board. We're
talking, do you feel that you have a handle forth coming on that information? How it will fit
up with this type of development?
Krauss: I think on the roadway issue specifically, that's out of the developer's hands. That's
really our responsibility to push and I think conveniently there's a lot in the works now to
make that happen and we should be able to get out information on that. In fact I think you're
going to see the preliminary plans for the upgrade of when...I think November 17th, you'll 1
see what it will look like at that point.
Farmakes: So we have some time lines converging here then? 1
Krauss: Right. And I think the developer made a good point that a lot of things aren't
resolved until somebody sticks their head up and people can take shots at it and come up with
some concerns. As far as in condition 2. Whether that's open ended or restricted, I'd
encourage you to be as forth coming with other things as you want to have information on so
that we have direction and the developer has direction. So if there are other areas, certainly
9 1
1
.1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
roadway issues y su s and traffic are things that we totally to expect to have information on.
1 Farmakes: Okay. I would also, when you do get that information, is to have Public Safety
response to cross over situations. Children. How that would be affected to access
I playgrounds and so on. At the school across the street. On the Highway 5 issue, or how this
fits into the Highway 5. I would like to see an assessment of that as well. How units 18, 1,
5 and 8 fit into what we're doing there. We spent really a considerable amount of time to the
I north. What was happening to the north and not quite as much here to the south and it seems
a little ironic to me that the first development we get is of course to the south and not to the
north. But I guess that's to be expected. I like in general, I guess I should say, Centex. I
I think that Centex, just to throw out a comment. I don't know whether it's appropriate or not
but I like your corporation. I like your developments. I think you did a nice job of Curry
Farms. This is a different division of your company but I think that they also provide quite
' good value for the money in development. So I like seeing your corporation developing in
Chanhassen. Since this is a PUD, I for the life of me can't figure out how you do much else
with that piece of property. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. And I guess I would
I like to see further information across the way on the developability of that property that they
sort of did hand auguring on. I'd like to get a response whether or not that is sufficient
information or that's sufficient engineering information for them to proceed or if they'll have
I further information by the time we see this again. Getting back to the Highway 5 issue and
how the 1, 5 and 8 fit into buffering and how that fits into the goals that we set for that I
wanted to define that a little bit more for you with buffering. I hope that we do not wind up
1 with a wall, a 2 mile wall on the south and north with nothing but higher density situations '
where if we just see walls of that type of development. Similar to like what you see on 169
going north. There are occasions where you drive by and you see, you drive by for a mile
1 and you see nothing but that type of development. I'd like to see a little bit, if not different
kind of zone, at least more creative uses of berming and trees. Plantings. Otherwise I think
we're defeating. We certainly would be defeating it just to do it on the north and not do it
I on the south at the same time. I would go back and support that we modify the
recommendations on 2 to expand. I would encourage anyone to bring in, that we add onto
1 that. Certainly the issue of the intersection and public safety and how this fits into the
Highway 5 goals. That's the end of my comments.
I Mancino: Okay. Actually looking at that Jeff I can see where if you're going west, well
actually east or west on Highway 5, that at least you have that big open space of wetland so
that there will be some good viewing from Highway 5 to the south. The wetland will break
I that up. Paul, has anybody talked to the three homeowners on that south side of the frontage
road that are to the east of this development? I mean as far as they're concerned. If I were a
landowner on Galpin, on that west side of Galpin and I saw the comprehensive plan and saw
1 that it was guided single family and then all of a sudden it's going, it may be changed to
1 10
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
medium density, have they been notified of this?
Krauss: Well they've certainly been notified.
Mancino: Have they been notified that there is a change that may be, the process may be
starting. That someone has come in and asked to put medium density.
Krauss: We're not actually, Commissioner Mancino it's not actually clear to us exactly
what's being changed. The guide plan has a presumption of road alignment for that east/west
road. The current alignment has shifted and you know to the point where it's kind of hard to
define exactly where that line will be. And now knowing what we know about the wetlands 1
here, there is no real, I mean we had anticipated and I remember when this came up in the
comprehensive plan. We knew there was extensive wetlands there but had some
understanding that there were areas of high ground where cul- de- sac...to the south were able 1
to be pulled in. We now know that area is entirely wetland and is forever protected from
development. So I think that the single family area, the low density area that we spoke about
in the plan, in all likelihood doesn't exist. But we can provide you with some additional
comparisons between.
Mancino: Well and I also think that the existing homeowners there should know that this, 1
because if I look here, the road went way up north and it would have had the medium density
area in a much smaller. It would have just, it would have been a much smaller area so I'm
just saying that I think these homeowners need to be able to respond to something that you'll
be changing around them.
Krauss: We can certainly do that. 1
Mancino: And I'd like to hear. •
Krauss: I honestly don't know if people have been in contact with Kate or not. I know the
last contact I had with anyone were the calls I received quite some time ago so it wasn't
related to this issue.
Mancino: So none of them have been contacted on this particular issue? 1
Krauss: Other than the normal notice procedure, no. I don't believe so.
Mancino: Okay. I agree with Jeff on the concern about setbacks and just how Highway 5
and Galpin and all of this is going to relate and how it's going to be a safe area. That there
won't be a lot of noise. There won't be a lot of street lights, etc so I think a lot of attention 1
11 1
1
.1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
' has to be paid to the landscaping and berming around the development. And any other, I
don't have any other thoughts. New ones other than what he said.
1 Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I would also agree with Jeff's comments. I think there's definitely some
safety concerns that we need to have addressed. Looking at recommendation number 2, I'm a
little concerned about the density and also the coverage, hard surface coverage. These units
along the north look pretty tight to me in terms of how they're laid out. But I understand
' we're looking at a conceptual here but I just, and I know that's part of your evaluation but
that's a comment I'll make at this time. And I had a question for Dave. As it relates to the
driveways or the accesses off the proposed frontage road. Is that number of accesses
1 acceptable or how do you see that? Is that a problem?
Hempel: We always encourage to reduce access points where we can...and it's a question of
1 it being a collector frontage road like this.
Ledvina: I look at it, it doesn't look too bad on the east side but then on the west side, two
of those driveways are pretty tight in there but I don't know. I think there's actually 3
driveways there.
1 Krauss: Yeah. There's a total of 7 curb cuts and I think the...certainly willing to look at but
it's these 3 possibly right in here.
1 Ledvina: Right. That's just something that I noticed that I know it was an issue with one of
the other developments we're going to see tonight but if that could be revisited in terms of
1 safety. I guess other than that, I think this proposed development is certainly appropriate for
the site and I would support the conceptual from this point.
Scott: Okay. Diane.
Harberts: My comments have been shared. I guess mine were basically in the public safety
area. I noticed that the Fire Marshal noted the need for turn arounds. I think it was 14, 1
and 19. Dave, did you, did someone get a chance to maybe just look at that internal
circulation? When the Fire Marshal put his memo together, did he look at the internal
1 circulation to make sure that it was adequate for the vehicles and things like that?
Hempel: He did briefly look at it and we had some conversations. The driveway entrance,
the units on the south side of the frontage road, kind of in the east area. He was somewhat
concerned about that. I recommended that the loop sweep around the back of them and I
12
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
think that can be easily accomplished.
Harberts: I guess mine were just to reinforce the public safety issues, circulation. I think
they're nice homes. Nice units. I think it's going to be positive so.
Scott: Thank you. Mr. Blake, what is the future of the project if let's say that the high
ground where it looks like you've got 5 buildings slated. What if that's not profitable for you
do build those? Are you still planning on, or is that something that you're considering, or
what do you think is going to happen?
Dan Blake. That would certainly be a big factor in the doableness. I don't know if that's a
word or not. •
Scott: It works. 1
Dan Blake: One of the things we've talked with Park staff at least about, and I think with a
little bit talked to the rest of the staff, especially when this was maybe going to be looked at
as park. If this didn't get built, does the park department want it? They were looking at this
entire wetland area as a park area. And if they did want it, would the city be interested,
would the city be able to justify constructing a road across here. This is, in my mind, the
most significant issue of this project which really has nothing to do with our project. It's
already been proclaimed that the road needs to get from here to here. So that issue stands no
matter what goes on this site. If we drew, it can be built. That's really not a question as
how expensive it is being built because we can do it, I believe we can do it within
regulations, and ...even necessarily as much of a planning issue as just a structural issue. But
if it's too costly then we need to look at how does that affect obviously the cost of the whole
project and the construction of this road through here. And sewer and water that go with it,
that really are to be serve a bigger area is a big factor. You know this project may work by
itself if it was just this piece and a road to here and that's something we looked at and I think
we'll continue to work with the staff...what's the best combination.
Scott: Okay. Well I support this. Approval of this conceptual plan so can I have a motion
please.
Dan Blake: Can I ask a question?
Scott: Sure. 1
Dan Blake: Pardon my ignorance but there's a lot of discussion about the Highway 5 impact
and I know the city's been looking at that for a long time. We're a little confused. I don't
13 1
1
.1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
know if when you talk about more creative berming and landscaping, if that was more
1 creative than what this plan here represents or if that means more creative than what's out on
169. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be trying to hide these buildings or make them more a
feature. I understand the objection, or I believe what I understand is that the city doesn't
1 want maybe a bunch of 3 story flat walled apartment buildings.
1 Farmakes: I think the first statement probably than the last. I would try to make, the typical
guideline I think are goals are set out, and Paul might be able to provide you with that.
1 Dan Blake: I think we have them.
I Farmakes: I think the issue is to attempt to work that into the existing landscape and the
existing landscape in many people's minds, although it's subjective, is probably more the
wetland area than a development. People want to continue to see open areas, balanced areas
I and a mix as they drive through. I believe that they do not want to see a parallel wall of a
single type of development covering it up just because it happens to be by the highway. I
think you get a certain type of development and certainly I think if we can get a mix of that
I going on and some, as I say some creative hiding of some of these issues. Parking. Some of
the buildings themselves go a long way. This is not a huge development plan so I'm not.
I Dan Blake: Right. I mean we're talking about 3 buildings and...facing ends to the highway.
The higher peak or the fronts, which have a little more character and that was kind of our
attempt to respond to the concerns of your staff.
I Farmakes: I think also your particular development is one of the first in this particular area
that we've been discussing.
I Dan Blake: I realize that. That's why it's a little bit hard to know exactly what...
1 Scott: Well if you hide them, that's probably a good two word description of what Highway
5 task force is looking for.
1 Mancino: Well yeah, not only from the Highway 5 perspective but from the homeowner's
perspective too. We don't want to be looking onto this huge highway and having traffic
noise and lights and everything else and the safety issues if there were children.
I
Farmakes: Although we've been working on this now for, what is it? Going on 2 years now.
I We have yet to finalize but we're in the process of doing that now. Where those
requirements are going so lead time may still be a bit out but I think that there's a relative
1 14
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers
Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive.
I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the
highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems
with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I
would fully support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion. 1
Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approval of the conceptual planned unit development #93 -5. The applicant being 1
Centex Real Estate Corporation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with
modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional information
and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance 1
with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard
intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the
1 proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conceptual PUD #93 -5 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
preliminary plat submittal.
2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic
considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues
as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the proposed frontage
road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio. '
3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap
additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development.
The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment
of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A
buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by 1
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin
1
15
1
.1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping.
111
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
1 trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer.
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards;
I 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard
Y P tY
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10
year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's
water quality standards (NURP).
1 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in
I the development contract.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993.
1 . 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27,
1993.
1 11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues
raised in the staff report.
I All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190
I DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION
OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT
1 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
I
Name
Address
1
1 16
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2
It
g g t 20, 1993
1
Dick Putnam Tandem Properties
Don Jenson Rottlund Homes
1
Greg Pskekke Westwood Professional Services
Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional Services
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica Lane
Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle
Jo and Mike Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle
Bob Armstrong 8400 Great Plains Blvd. I
Mark Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public 1
hearing to order.
Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. One of the partners in Tandem 1
Properties. Don Jenson from Rottlund Homes is here this evening and can explain a little bit
about the unit types, particularly the new townhouse version that's been added to the plan.
I
4 • Greg Pksekke and Dennis Marhula are here also from Westwood Engineering if there's any
technical questions. Al Klingelhutz who's one of the underlying owners of the property is
here also and would be the owner that retains the commercial site. I think to make my
presentation go fairly quickly, because I think the staff report highlighted a number of things.
What I'd like to do, if I could, is point out to you briefly the changes between the first site
plan, which is right here, and the second one. It's sort of the good news, bad news joke.
The good news is, we've made a number of the changes. I think we've improved the plan
dramatically. The bad news is, we have more units. And someone asked, well how do you
do that? Is it a slight of hand or smoke and mirrors? What it is is looking at the boundaries 1
of the site. Unlike most sites that you have that can't expand and contract. Because we have
a freeway on our south side and TH 101, or the proposed new TH 101 on our west side, and
86th Street can move because it's going to be relocated, we have the luxury of I guess
1
efficiently moving some boundary lines around a little bit to work. That plus adding a third
unit type in the townhouses allowed us to utilize the site much better than before. If you
I noticed before there were a number of, because of the way the buildings laid in there
geometrically. If you think of using a square peg in a round hole, that's sort of the situation.
Whereas this one, by changing the buildings and using different types, we were able to make
it work a little bit better. If I could just start and sort of refer to the letter of October 4th that
we had written. The changes, let's take the road changes first of all. 86th Street in the
previous plan looked like it was into the wetland area. This one has been moved and the I
sidewalks so there will be no construction in the wetland area...to the north. Highway 101.
17 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
What was shown in the original plan was a 250 right -of -way in width. And this curve right
here, on the commercial area was of a particular degree. What this plan reflects is a 200 foot
right -of -way for TH 101, leaving a 50 foot buffer strip from the existing right -of -way and 150
foot for the new roadway. In talking with the engineering staff and with Mr. Hoisington, that
dimension works. The reason it was 250 before was to take in slope easement and
construction. Well, we'll be doing that before the road is built so that wasn't necessary.
Also the curve in this location has been changed slightly on the commercial and actually it's
straight now for a distance coming up from the intersection. Rather than starting a curve like
you see here. And then the curve proceeds up this way. Another thing that was done is the
access we believe to the commercial site was greatly improved, both from the city's
' standpoint and also for the property owner Mr. Klingelhutz. We've added an in/out about
halfway between freeway ramps and 86th Street. Mr. Klingelhutz has reviewed that I believe
with the staff and also with the State Highway Department and that's acceptable to them.
Likewise we moved the access into the commercial area off of 86th Street. Before it was
pulled way back and shared the access with the residential street. It's not been moved up to
this location and has it's own access point in. One of the things that was brought up in the
' staff report before was that in the original plan they weren't sure that there was enough right -
of -way and room for additional turn lanes if they were necessary because the commercial in
this one which we're showing is a 80 foot right -of -way to the commercial entrance and then a
60 foot that goes down to Tigua and the balance of the property. The 80 foot would allow
more than adequate spacing for the turn lanes that may or may not be needed. Internally the
road system, before there was a central loop that you see on the north side and a loop on the
south side. That has been retained but we've done it in a little different manner. The street
that runs to the north, and we'll just call it our new residential street, was pulled over slightly.
Anywhere from 25 to 40 feet to make the lots adjacent to the 3 lots along Tigua deeper and
' allow us, at the last meeting the suggestion was made that we should look at using a 20,000
square foot lot instead of a 15,000 square foot adjacent to the existing home. We've done
' that we, in the process, took one lot out of here and one lot out of this area and these lots
will now be 20,000 square feet. Also relative to that we had conversations with a couple of
the homeowners there that expressed some concerns about the way the single family worked
' with it and maybe if I could just quickly use the overhead. This is just a plat of the Tigua
Lane area and then approximately how our road system coming off of 86th Street going north
would fit in with that. One of the issues that was raised was would it make more sense for
' these 3 homeowners to bring the north/south street over to their boundary line as a buffer or
separation with their homes. And possibly the opportunity to subdivide if we needed to in the
future. I discussed that with two of the owners. I think the conclusion was that maybe that
' wasn't as good an idea as it sounded so instead what was discussed with one of the owners
and if all would like, is really putting in a low security fence like a chain link fence, 4 foot
tall or whatever, that really defines their property and keeps the trespass issue out. It
wouldn't be something that sticks out. Do it out of the black material so it doesn't stick out
1 18
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
and would provide that separation. I think the issue of bringing the road over though, I'm
assuming at least was sort of resolved and probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. With
that, if you see, just an excerpt of the comprehensive plan. This north/south street is right
here. This is Tigua. The intent of that is to connect back over to TH 101 through the
adjacent parcel and that's something that can work and happen. Presently we just have a
temporary cul -de -sac there and in the future it could be extended by that property owner.
One of the things, and I might just as well jump forward here. One of the beauties of your
concept stage is we can make changes real quickly. As the staff had discussed, in the villa
1
home area it was brought to our attention that because it was medium density, the 30% site
coverage was required. We looked at that. Also I had a conversation with the property
owner adjacent to us here about eliminating a driveway that was proposed here and here and 1
said we could do that and that would allow a berm to wrap around that area. What, in just
talking with the staff in the last day actually, and dealing with the site coverage issue. What
I guess we would propose to do is a couple things. It solves a couple issues that were raised.
The Larsons that live here had a concern just what their view as of the units that were there.
What we did is pulled out the 8 unit villa home and we took out a 8 unit villa home here
also. Again, by adding the townhouses which Don Jenson will talk about a little bit, it's
given us a lot of flexibility to mix very compatible housing types that are all different sizes
and shapes. That allows us I think to do some things. So what this shows is two 4 unit
townhouse buildings here with an access off of the internal street and then one 4 unit building
here, access off the internal street. That opens up an area that's about half the size of a
football field as part of an open space area and allows the trail connection through this
location to go into the land adjacent to us that may be city park in the future and continues '
that trail out of this open space area and the center of the site with totlot and benches and
picnic area. That would reduce the density from 144 units total to 136 and would bring this
area into that 8 unit medium density category and would meet that intent. I think it also, it
improves the plan. I mean there's no question. I again adds more open space around the
pond and then the marsh that's there and puts the townhouse units up a little bit closer.
Getting into the changes in the plan itself and I think they're quite numerous when you look
at them. The comments were made at the previous meeting, that were very valid, that 86th
Street was functioning as a driveway for these multi- family buildings by having driveways
going out to it. There's really no way to do much screening or softening of those buildings
with that kind of a plan. So we turned around and in fact changed the whole idea of it.
Oriented everything internal on both sites and were able to have the berming and landscaping '
along both TH 212 and Highway 101 which were proposed before. But also extend that now
with a combination of ponds and berms, landscaped, what have you, along both sides of 86th
Street. With the ends of the buildings in most cases adjacent to the road. Here there's the
1
townhouse units and here. It should present really a very nice boulevard entrance road. And
I guess we felt that that was a good criticism of the previous plan that we could work to
alleviate. And I think that's done a pretty good job of that. The same thing holds true to TH
19 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
101. The buildings in this location g t1u ocat�o again are end loaded to TH 101 with the berm so that you
' get what I think will be a nice boulevard appearance. The wetlands provide, that are adjacent
to 86th now, provide just a real nice separation and something the units can orient to. And if
you retain that and make it an asset to the site, it should be real positive. One of the things
that we also tried to do was to reduce the number of the larger buildings. I think in here it
talks about the percentages but for example on the north side of the road there were 5 of the
8 unit buildings, or the larger buildings and let's see, 5 of the smaller, 4 unit buildings. What
1 we've done with this plan is reduced the number of the large buildings to 2 and increased the
number of the smaller buildings, the 4 unit buildings, 10 of those versus 2. So we've broken
down the large number of buildings and made them smaller buildings. Likewise we've done
the same thing on the south site. If I get this right, I think there are four 12 unit buildings
now. The 8 unit buildings are these and then we've added now it would be, I should count
these. 32 townhouse units. I think we just increase that by doing this. 38. So there's
' slightly more of those. I think when, I'll ask Don to maybe explain to you briefly what that
unit looks like and how it works. It allows us to do some things that we weren't able to do
with the larger buildings on this site just because of the tightness. Sandwiched between the
freeway and the pond and the pond and the commercial area. All of that allowed us to really
I think do a better job of site planning. The commercial area, I believe that staff has met
with Mr. Klingelhutz and I think they have a meeting of the minds as to what is actually
_ 1 envisioned on this site. It's a waiting game for all of us to see when 212 is actually
scheduled. When 101 is improved in those areas and I think he's certainly amenable to
waiting to have that occur. In the meantime the wetland that is located right in this area,
1 which was the one referred to that was being filled, we aren't filling it. Neither is Mr.
Klingelhutz. The only way that's really going to be filled is if 101 goes through it and that
won't be us doing it so we're not mitigating a wetland because we aren't filling it. Our
1 construction won't do anything to that at this point. In fact it's a good way to tell where 86th
Street will come in in the future if you go out and look at where that little depression is. 86th
today the intersection is way down here so the new one's up here. I guess at this point I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you might have. Or entertain any suggestions before I
turn it over to Don to just briefly show you the new units.
1 Harberts: I have a question for staff. Paul can you, the park and ride lot that's mapped on
101 and 212, is that just south of that outlot?
1 Krauss: It's on the south side of the highway. If you imagine a clover leaf interchange, this
is the northeast quadrant. The park and ride is in the southeast.
1 Harberts: I think it's mapped for what, 200 cars?
1 Krauss: I honestly don't know the size. That sounds about right. It's honestly in a state of
1 20
1
1
Planning Commission Meetin g - October 20, 1993 I
1
flux. MnDot's got a few designs that they're trying to work out with Jim Curry who owns
the property.
1
Harberts: Okay, thanks.
Mancino: Sharmin where is the, on Block 3, Lot 3 to the west of that is this lot that's
already here with an existing home. What's the access to that home? It's on the north side
1 of, do you see where I mean?
Al -Jaff: Where the horse farm is?
Mancino: Yeah.
Al -Jaff: It's off of 101. 1
Mancino: It is off of 101, okay.
Farmakes: The trails that you have showing are on there that show up in the...is that, who's
going to be maintaining those? Is that part of the developed project or is that?
Al -Jaff: Homeowners Association.
Farmakes: Okay. So that's not a park issue? 1
Al -Jaff: No.
1
Dick Putnam: The only trails that fall into the public I guess would be the one along 86th
Street and then the one going north on the new north/south street. And whatever happens if
that parkland develops to the east of us.
Mancino: Another question about that. Well first about, is there enough parking? Excess
1
parking for this plan as it exist? I mean I don't see a lot of extra parking. Do we know if
we're close?
Dick Putnam: We'll meet or exceed Y our ordinance because a number of these units have 2
car garages.
Al -Jaff: And then there is off, on the street parking as well.
Dick Putnam: That's what these little perpendicular stalls that you see kind of scattered 1
21 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
around indicate, is the off street . arkin
P g
1 Mancino: Thank you.
Dick Putnam: Guest. Those are actually the guest spaces as opposed to the garage and the
space in front. Let me ask Don to real quickly explain to you the difference in the townhouse
units that they develop.
1
Don Jenson: Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. What we passed out in the folder is
' our latest newsletter which came out since our last meeting. It highlights the project that we
have in Inver Grove Heights where this particular product that we're also utilizing on this site
was first introduced for us. We did see a need for it. Rottlund did come up with a blend of
the back to back that still worked with our villa line of housing and that's what the villa
' townhome has done. Both in the Mission Hills as well as other neighborhoods. The garden
home itself, which is what we feel is a strong replacement for a housing need, is also profiled
in the newsletter in the center. And then we had a graphic that was highlighted which
showed really the scale of the end elevation, the side elevation if you will, from the villa
building in the back to back form. The garden home which is still back to back design and
the single family which of course is all part of this master plan. In response to the Planning
Commission and in response also to some of the neighborhood, there was a question of well,
shouldn't we have a slightly more different mix here and we were a little bit concerned of
1 trying to make sure we could reach a wide spectrum of potential buyers. So we agreed that
we would see how well this particular product works. It's not been built yet. It is one that
we hope will be well received in the marketplace. It is the, it provides if you will then four
1 different unit size types. We still have within the back to back villa design and these
locations through here. Units that are a little bit over 1,050 square feet in the interior home
and about 1,080 square feet in the end home. One car garage, two car garages. When we go
with the buildings that are being called the villa townhome in this plan, they jump up about
another 1,000 square feet apiece so that the interior dwelling unit, which still has a one car
garage, is about 1,185 square feet as it starts out and we're up to about 1,250 square feet on
the end home again with a two car garage. So instead of having one or the either building
type, trying to reach both markets, what we're able to do is have 4 different interior floor
plans. The added benefit that we get with this particular building, from a planning
perspective is that we then turn the patios to the flip side of the building so instead of back to
back, which has a back wall, we then have a facade on the outside. That of course increases
' the obvious price of the dwelling itself but we felt with some of the amenities that we had on
this particular site, both with the wetlands to the east as well the center wetland here.
Minimizing the amount of impervious surface, separating the driveways...done to the site plan
and the locations and the main entry points through here as well as our ability to buffer and
1 22
1
1
Planning Commission Meetin g - October 20, 1993
1
deal with some of the dimensional constraints that we had, is that it provided an excellent
opportunity for the front facades on the internal streets match. That was our intent and goal 1
so that driving through there's not a perception of a great deal of difference between the
dwelling units. Once you get inside, the buyers have a reasonable choice and what we have
with that mix at this revised total of 132 dwelling units, is we still have close to 100 of our
back to back buildings. Roughly 92 if my math was correct. And we still have about 48 of
this new villa townhome. So there's going to be, instead of a price gap, which is really
relative to land use but everybody always ask, it's going to create about 4 different tiers of
pricing for us and I think that that's what allows this to be in the neighborhood and still be a
real comfortable mix as far as we're concerned as the builder and that we would be able to I
have success in moving through the neighborhood and getting it completed in a reasonable
time frame. The one element that is missing in terms of a unit mix, on the north the site plan
is benefitted by looking at the majority of the end units is that we're not able to bring as
many one car garages in the garden home plan forward and we'll have to look at another site
in order to accomplish that. Our buyer that we're looking for for that particular product with
the one car garage is really widower or a widow, someone who's never married. They're I
really pretty set. It's an older buyer and there's not really a need to force a 2 car garage onto
those particular segment of the population. It's not necessary and price is real important to
people as they're downsizing. Regardless, I think it's a good chance for us to bring a new I
product. We did, as we mentioned last time, find that about 10% to 15% of all the buyers
that came to any given neighborhood of our villas, which would be on what we're having on
the south, were people of a little bit older age bracket and primarily they were buying on
I
price. They wanted the newer bathroom facilities. Newer kitchen facilities. They wanted to
make sure they had a...priced home under $100,000.00. In most cases under $80,000.00.
They wanted the maintenance done for themselves. They didn't want to shovel snow or take
I
care of the lawn. Any of that anymore. I'm sure Centex plans the same thing. And so what
we were able to do with the garden home is stay within that square footage total and
hopefully...building products pricing in line with that so the people could get one level living, 1
rather than two level living, and that's the whole reason for the garden home being created at
Rottlund. So I guess that highlights our changes. Of course the scale of this building on the
villa townhome. It's narrower. It's really not a whole lot different than single family home 1
in it's overall width. The overall height...about 35 feet. Not a whole lot different than a two
story walkout type home from the back. Patio's on the back side looking at the amenities to
the site. Interior floor plans. Four different ones for this particular unit. We do have the
1
other elevations behind here if you wanted to be reminded of it but we had the photograph of
the back to back in the packet there that we used previously and how well this happens to fit I
with it. This does have a little bit more of the gable ends which was a focus for some folks
as to what the exterior facades ought to be.
Scott: Any comments from the Planning Commission? 1
23
1
.1
.1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Farmakes: Can we be brought up to speed again on park commitment in relationship to the
park? I believe the park issue was forfeited in this case, correct? Not forfeited but, could
you just go over that again where that stands currently.
Al -Jaff: When the Park and Recreation Commission looked at this, they said yes. This area
is park deficient. However, the area east of Mission Hills is designated for future park and
they didn't see any need to take any parkland on this specific site.
Mancino: I think we were the ones that requested some sort of an amenity.
1 Farmakes: I like what happened down, I'll save that for my comments.
Krauss: The Park Board also did request that there were some private recreational facilities
1 added and that's been addressed.
Scott: Okay. This is a public hearing so if there are members of the general public who
1 would like to ask questions, please come forward. State your name and your address in the
microphone and ask away. Or comment away.
Bob Armstrong: My name is Bob Armstrong. I live at 8400 Great Plains Boulevard and I
was wondering what, I'd like to talk specifically about the north side of this project that
1 comes up to TH 101. I was wondering how it was decided to put this 200 feet from the old
Highway 101.
Scott: I guess my thought is that's just the recommended route of the new, yet to be built,
Highway 101.
Krauss: Well, yeah. I mean we're in a position of MnDot isn't as far along as the city or as
individual property owners are and we worked with MnDot to do an analysis of where TH
101 should be. It was completed 4 1/2 years ago, 5 years ago. We're currently in the
' process of updating that a little bit and we worked with MnDot in the intervening years to
refine the interchange design which kind of orients everything. And what this project is
based upon the current...of MnDot's current design status of...which is the one that's going
through the EIS and this is where they're at right now. This is what they plan to do. And to
an extent the way development occurs along there is going to tell MnDot, or whoever builds
TH 101, this is where it's going to be. We don't have a quarter mile on either side.
' Bob Armstrong: And that's kind of where I was getting at. About 4 1/2 years ago we
decided, through one of these processes, that Highway 101, the new alignment was going to
go farther east. This project now has pushed it north.
1 24
1
1'
Planning Commission 111,
g Co si son Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Krauss: This project isn't pushing anything anywhere but what changed in the intervening
years is when MnDot was aligned, was doing final design. Final preliminary design, or
whatever MnDot calls it, for the interchange, they changed the orientation of it a little bit and
it's the alignment of how TH 101 crosses the 212 corridor and how the off ramps connect
onto those.
Bob Armstrong: You're saying you have a better curves and accesses to 212? Is that why 1
this is being pushed this way?
Krauss: In part. They refine how the ramps were coming off of 212. They refined how 1
intersections would occur with 86th Street and would eliminate Lake Susan Hills and it
basically reoriented the interchange by a few degrees. Where the roadway goes from that
point or north of 86th Street up to what we built last year down by the creek, that's open to
some analysis right now. We've got four alternatives on the board that we're looking at, any
of which can be built in what's being proposed here. 1
Bob Armstrong: This project here doesn't give any of those 4 alternatives. This cuts you
down to 1. There is no alternative if this thing goes through the way it is. To 101. 1
Krauss: No, I don't think that's true. We've had, Fred Hoisington is working on developing
those 4 alternatives for us as is planned and has dealt with us on that. 1
Bob Armstrong: And I could be wrong but I think that this thing only lets you come, you
know when you're saying we're not going to be doing the wetland. Originally that road was
going to go between those two pieces of wetland. Now you're forcing the road to go through
that wetland and these houses are being taken another 50 feet away than I am and reduce that
...by warrant. And here's another vicarious little problem. There are two people that are 1
going to lose their homes because of this deal. If this road now is pushed over that way. At
least.
Krauss: No, that's not the case. Well, they may in fact lose their homes...
it h
of th y y act o e o
Bob Armstrong: Then what are you going to say to those people? Why are they losing their 1
homes?
Krauss: They may in fact lose their homes depending on which alignment is taken. They're 1
considerably north of here and where this is being shown over here has no bearing and you
could still pick any of the 4 alternatives that are being looked at. It's just a matter of bending
111
back to the west and getting onto the original alignment or the existing 101 alignment or the
25 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
t
1 iv alternative, development
other two a alternatives that are being looked at. This alternatt e, this is not
I limiting those choices at all.
Scott: Paul, would it be appropriate, at least my understanding is that MnDot is basically
I going to call the shots for the location of and foot the bill for the portion of 101 that goes
from the 212/101 interchange up to 86th.
I Krauss: That's correct.
Scott: And then what happens after that, we're obviously trying to partner with them. We
1 don't know. The city of Chanhassen may have to pay for it.
Krauss: We're trying to put the city, as residents, in the driver's seat of deciding where the
I city thinks it's going to go because I think what's going to happen is MnDot's going to punt
on it and it's largely going to be a local decision.
I Scott: Yeah. And that's because even though it's called State Highway 101, the State of
Minnesota considers it to be a temporary highway, is that the?
1 Krauss: Since 1934.
Scott: Yeah, so it's not something that they want to have responsibility for so that's why it
1 puts us in kind of a strange situation as far as funding and siting and locating the section
north of 86th. Or where 86th will now be.
1 Krauss: The intent or the crux of the question, this is not limiting our alternatives but we can
certainly provide that information when this comes back again. We'll overlay the
alternatives. In fact we're trying to have some additional meetings with the neighborhood on
I that with Fred Hoisington so that's in the process too.
I Bob Armstrong: Then I guess that's my point. I would really like to see how, what this does
to your options for 101 and you've got it down to a pretty tight corridor there towards that
industrial complex.
1 Scott: In looking at it, it looks like there's about, and I'm just going to eyeball it here. It
looks like there's about 700 feet from the intersection of 86th Street to the northern border of
I the project and I, perhaps the folks from Tandem can correct me. I'm just kind of eye
balling. Say there's a 200 foot easement for the highway. So that's a relatively small
section when you consider what's going to be happening north of that.
1
1 26
1
1'
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Bob Armstrong: And again I would really like you to take and consider, to really understand
where and how 101 would look going through there and if you let this parkway go through,
you've got...you don't have very many choices the way I see it. And we can see an overlay.
I'd be happy too.
Krauss: We can certainly provide that. There's one that's not really reproducible. It's in the
staff report and we can certainly...to the gentleman right now. But this does not limit the 1
option.
Bob Armstrong: Okay. 1
Scott: Is there anybody else who'd like to comment? 1
Dave Nickolay: My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle and I'd first of all
like to ask the commission members if you've received the letters that I directed to you? 1
Scott: One is a hand written, 4 page.
Dave Nickolay: I've directed 3 letters to you...came before you on August 18th and you had
a letter at that time. And then we were rescheduled, I directed a letter to you at the meeting
in September. 1
Scott: In our packet we have one letter dated September 13th, but that's from, it looks like a
David Nagel. And then there's a second letter dated September 12th that is from, I guess you 1
and Sharon. And then we received via mail a letter also. So I guess we've received two
letters from you.
Dave Nickolay: And I faxed letter Sharmin and asked her to distribute that letter dated
ax ed a ett to S
October 17th. 1
Scott: Is that the one that was mailed to us?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Scott: Okay. 1
Dave Nickolay: I just wanted to make sure that you have those. And before I get started to
address, which I think I addressed in all three letters to you, which I believe are consistent
and I haven't changed my position since I came before you before. I just want to respond to
27
1
.1
' Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
i
a discussion I had with Sharmin on Monday. In all the letters I've requested a written
' response to my concerns and questions and it wasn't until Monday that in talking to Sharmin
that I discovered that that's not staff's position to respond in writing when someone like
myself requests that so I've asked her, so it isn't her fault in terms of the way I've restated
' my last letter to you, which was a little bit stronger, who's supposed to be representing me?
A resident of Chanhassen. I was not getting my questions answered by the city, okay? I've
talked to Sharmin about that and she's going to address some of those issues, or direct other
members of staff that I would like a written response to the issues that I've raised in the
letters. She faxed me a copy of the staff report on Monday. I spent Monday evening reading
that and that was the first time, and that's maybe my naivety in this whole process, that I
' really started to understand the magnitude and the scope of this. Before that I'm dealing with
public notices that are very sketchy. We don't know if we're talking about 190 units. Are
we talking about 216 units? We're piecing this thing on the fly so it's very difficult for me
to keep track of this. And so I'm asking staff and also for your cooperation. I'd like to get
some written responses to the questions and issues that I've raised. And I've not talked to
Mr. Putnam and the developers because up to this point I don't think the issues that I'm
1 raising have to do with the developer. I'd rather work with the staff and the Planning
Commission and if as a result of the actions that you take you direct us to work as neighbors
here with the developer and staff, I'm more than willing to do that so I'd just like to start out
-., with those opening comments. I've seen I think 5 different points in the recent letter to you
and it should be consistent with the points I made originally. The first point, and I'm going
to go through these real quickly so I appreciate your time and...in the letter. The type of
' proposed development here, the density, the high density aspect of this is a major concern to
me. I have the largest piece of property that borders this development and the future, that
they extend the road that they just showed us here. I have 4 1/2 acres and I still feel, which
is under my point number 2 in my letter, that there is an inadequate transition plan from the
size property that I have and I'll let my neighbors speak for themselves in terms of their
' properties. The removal of one lot down from 8 to 7 I think it is, is not in my mind adequate
transition plan. A fence is, that's okay but we'll talk about the fence issues in the future.
We're not talking about the real issue here and the real issue here is when I purchased my
' property 12 years ago and when I attended the hearings when the comprehensive plan was
changing, I did not have a vision or was I led to believe that this type of high density would
be put in such a small area. We're 7 units. We have the capacity for 8 units on 40 acres and
' your report is detail enough. You can look at how many acres you're talking about here and
how many units are going onto this. That still continues to be a major concern that I have.
My point number 3, I disagree with the Park's recommendation. For the size of this
' development and the number of people that are going to be here, and the uncertainty of that
future park east of Rice Marsh Lake, the current path system that will go down on the south
side of West 86th Street is going to make and push all those people down onto Tigua Circle.
1 We're a dead end cul -de -sac. Where are those people going to go? They're going to end up
' 28
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
having, because of the discontinuation of the park trail with no plan for the future, there's
nowhere for them to go but down into our neighborhood. And yes, I can live with a few
neighbors. I can't live with 216 neighbors. The number of people that will be in these units.
My fourth point is a large portion of this proposed development is the, what I'm viewing as a
buffer against the new Highway 212. It's on the news tonight as I'm coming home, unless
the Governor and the legislature gets together on the gas tax, there is not going to be a new
Highway 212 for anywhere in the near future. And so that highway is a long ways from
being built and I'm really discouraged what I just heard here a few minutes ago in terms of
the fellow that was up here before me. That the developers are going to drive where the
highways are located. I think that's backward. That's what I thought 1 just heard. Maybe I
heard wrong. But whether it's Highway 101 or Highway 212, that's a concern that I have.
Something that I just discovered tonight as I was listening to the report. The buffer that is
supposedly being provided between our three lots that border this and the Rice Lake Manor
development and the 7 lots, were extended to 20,000 square feet. Well, were they extended
to 20,000 square feet because of the sidewalk that is part of some trail that I have never heard
of. I've not seen plotted anywhere. So were they extended from 15,000 to 20,000 because of
the trail or were they extended to appease us in terms of some transitional plan? I'm unclear
on that. My final point is the current Highway 101 is totally inadequate to handle this kind
of traffic. How are we going to turn off of 101 with this many people or gain access onto
Highway 101 in it's current form? I can see in the future when it's upgraded, we have turn
lanes, we have signal lights or whatever but in it's current form, just simply realigning West
86th Street and extending it into 101 is not going to be a solution. Beyond that I guess I'm 1
looking to the Planning Commission to represent us the current owners of property that are
directly adjacent to this development and to do what you view is right. I strongly feel that
this is not the right use for this type of land. It wasn't what I had envisioned when I 1
originally built there. But I ask your cooperation in terms of looking at those of us that are
there and the whole complexity of this project. We're literally going to be boxed in and I.
strongly feel that that changes the whole complexity of what Rice Marsh Lake was originally
plotted for. We're just putting down another development next to a development that's
already there and they do not look alike in any form or fashion. So I guess we'll take...from
the last commission meeting. I wasn't specific about what I was to ask for. I'm asking you
to deny this request. It still has a lot of work to be done. I know understand the difference
between a, what is this called again? The plan. It's called a concept plan. I found out on
Monday that a concept plan is just that. You look at a concept and you either approve it or
disapprove it. Make the changes to it. It goes to the Council and then I understand you start
all over again. We come back before you again. Monday was the first time I found that out
so I'm struggling with this. I'm trying to figure it out and understand it and I'm asking your
cooperation in helping us deal with the issues that we've raised. So with that I want to thank
you for your attention. 1
29
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Scott: Good.
1 Mancino: Should we have staff address some of those?
' Scott: Yeah. I was just going to say. First question was the density as proposed being too
high. I think Sharmin, in your staff report you addressed the, it looks like we have three
different density, or at least 2 different density requirements and your comments, maybe you
1 could restate your comments relative to the density.
Al -Jaff: Okay.
' Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could help too just by answering the questions, if you
would like.
' Scott: I think we were talking more about the comprehensive plan and city ordinances.
1 Al -Jaff: Correct. This was studied in detail when the preparation of the Year 2000 guide
plan in the comprehensive plan took place and that was in 1989 -1990. Basically the area that
is, and I'll point that on the plan. This area was guided medium density.
' Scott: And medium densi ty is?
Al -Jaff: 4 to 8 units per acre. This area was guided for single family units and that would
be 2 to 4 units per acre. 0 to 4 units per acre.
1 Scott: When you kind of made that sweep, we're talking about the single family area as part
of Mission and the existing development for Rice Lake Manor. You kind of moved your
' hand around there and I was. You're talking right there?
Al -Jaff: Correct. The single family area. Everything else west of the single family area as
' well as this red line to west of the commercial area is proposed for medium and high density
and that is 8 to 16 units per acre.
1 Scott: So it's part of the comprehensive plan basically?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Scott: What we see is we see large lot, low density, medium, high so it's a transition toward
the highway.
1 30
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Al -Jaff: Correct. I would also like to point out that Rice Lake Manor is built residential
1
single family. Therefore under the zoning ordinance they could, if they should hook up to
water and if they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, they could
subdivide their lots.
•
Mancino: So all 7 lots could subdivide?
Al -Jaff: If they meet the minimum requirements of zoning
y eq is o the zo g ordinance, yes they can.
Scott: Next question is a related question. Being the transition between the development and
Rice Lake Manor. So basically what we're saying is we've got residential single family over
at Rice Lake. And then we have residential single family here and then kitty corner we're
talking about medium density.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
1
Scott: So your comments on the transition.
Al -Jaff: The applicant has reduced the number of units from 18 to 16. The ordinance would 1
allow them to put in 15,000 square foot lots. They are providing 20,000 square foot lots.
Single family separating single family from a higher density is an adequate transitional area..
Mancino: Well and actually, the single family on the east or Rice Lake Manor could
subdivide to even smaller lot sizes than what we have seen proposed?
Al -Jaff: Correct. If they meet.
Mancino: If they wanted to. At a future date if those 7 lots wanted to subdivide, they could
subdivide into 15,000, is that correct?
Krauss: That is true. We're not sure if all the lots have that ability depending on where the
homes are but there are some. I also think you've got to keep in perspective, Chanhassen had
one of the largest single family lot sizes in the Twin Cities. We take a lot of hits relative to
regional issues about the elitism of having half acre lots or quarter, third acre lots as a
requirement. Now it's something that the community feels real strongly about and it's a
characteristic that we've maintained. Well I guess I get a little bit concerned when we hear
well that's still not big enough. It ought to be bigger and it ought to be bigger by nature of
the fact that it's next door to somebody else if the ordinance applies, unless you happen to be
next to somebody with a different situation. We can't apply ordinances like that. I mean the
standard lot dimension in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet. The lot's being proposed exceed
that. We're buffering a single family neighborhood with a single family neighborhood. I
31 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
think that to the extent that the traditional lannin approach calls for a hierarchy of p g app o al arc y o uses, you
1 have a case right there where it's being done.
Scott: And then also the impetus for the change from the 15,000 square foot lots that we saw
1 in August to the 20,000 is basically about public input, Planning Commission input and so
forth. And then also too, basically from what I understand. One lot was removed from
Block 2. The street was shifted to increase the lot size. And then the trail was added due to
' input from the Park and Rec. That was another issue. Now as far as the Park and Rec
Department has determined that this meets their park and rec requirement with the trail
around the nature wetland. The picnic area if you will there. What is the status, does the
1 City of Chanhassen own the property that is, they're in negotiation?
Krauss: No, I wouldn't even say that. We met with the owner of the property a couple of
1 times and it's, to the best of my knowledge all of the land was designated, or most of it is
actually connected through Lake Riley Hills Apartments. The same partnership that owns that
and the adjacent property. That goes all the way up to Rice Marsh Lake. They know, in
' fact we had their attorney in here complaining about the comprehensive plan. They know
that that area is designated for future park acquisition. I think we're in the mindset right
now, unless the Park Board comes into a significant store of cash, which is unlikely, that
I while we're expecting 212 to be built in a somewhat reasonable time frame, as Mr. Nickolay
points out, it keeps getting pushed back now. But 212 is going to sever the apartment from
this property and make it fairly inaccessible. We have every expectation, or hope I should
say, that we can work out an arrangement with MnDot where MnDot through the
condemnation process would buy the entirety of that site because it has no legitimate
developable access from the property owners and then in turn sell them to the city. Or that
we would be in a position to purchase that property.
Scott: Okay. Are there any other comments from the public on this particular issue?
1 Jo Larson: My name is Jo Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua Circle. I'm a little questionable,
Y g q
' or unsure about whether the lots on Tigua Circle can subdivide or not. I know that you're
saying if they meet the minimum lot standards but I think we may have covenants in our
development. I'm not sure but one neighbor had mentioned to me once that they were told
' by the original developer that he made it so they cannot subdivide it. And so I don't know if
it can or not be but I don't want you to assume that they can be subdivided because they not
be able to. Another concern I have is, I don't quite understand about the land to the east. If
' that is designated for future parkland or not. I do know further east that the State does own
land abutted right up to the Eden Prairie line. I know the State does own that and maybe in
the future the city will be getting that back but I'm not too sure about the land right to the
1 south of me and there's one parcel...more to the east. I'm not sure if that is planned for
1 32
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
future park or not at all and I just would like the developer to check on those.
Scott: Can you respond to that Paul?
Krauss: To a point. I think the best thing we can do is bring maps to a future meeting or to
1
the meeting with the neighbors because they're illustrated better. The park that we talked
about is south of Rice Marsh Lake Park is designated. It is shown on the comprehensive
plan. We do not own it. We would like to. We do not have access to it at this point. We
1
would like to. Eden Prairie is working on a comparable park facility on their side of the city
line which would form the east boundary of this park and they're working with MnDot to put
a trail that comes around that Bear Path development. The golf course development and goes
underneath the future 212 and would enter into the common property line of the park we're
proposing and what they're looking at doing. The State does own some of the land on the
Eden Prairie side and I think that was because there's a program called the RALF fund. It's
an early buy program for protecting right -of -way. We also have that availability of funding
here but we haven't been petitioned by property owners to do it. So we, the State does not
own any of the land in Chanhassen.
Scott: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak as part of the public hearing?
Yes sir.
Mark Jesberg: My name is Mark Jesberg. I live at 8407 Great Plains Blvd and I live in one
of the houses that might be taken out if 101 is rerouted according to one of the alternatives
and I've just got a question. I think Mr. Putnam might be able to answer it. If, according to
these three units, are they drawn up with the highway as proposed if it would take out one of
those? Or could it go either way? Because when we bought the house last year they said
that when Highway new 101 was going to go behind our house. And if it does, if they
wouldn't stick to that, I don't know if they'd be able to put these three units in here.
1
Harberts: Question. Who's they?
Mark Jesberg: The developers.
Harberts: No, you said that when you bought your house they said that the road was going to 1
go behind your house. Who are they?
Mark Jesberg: That's where the road was platted out to go.
1
Krauss: I can expand on that.
33
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mark Jesberg: And the realtor told us that and we saw a little map with the proposal and it
g P P P
was after we moved in that they came in with the new alternatives.
Krauss: Well, when this house was ut on the market we got phone calls on for p th g p alls o this o a good
year I think. Dave got them. I got them. Sharmin got them. The realtor put up a blue line
print I think in the house that showed 'what had been selected alternative routing. The
selected route the city developed 5 years ago which went through the back yard basically of
this house and we continually got questions, well how far does it wind up from the house and
the answer was, we really don't know. And I think a lot of buyers were dissuaded from that
because of that reason. What's happened is, based upon the ISTEA program, the federal
program that allows you to design more sensitively with landscaping and trails, based upon
MnDot's potential for revising of how the interchange is going to work, we took the initiative
of saying, well maybe we ought to reassess what we had down on paper 5 years ago because
' it might not be completely appropriate. The process is not completed yet and one of the
alternatives does take this house, and another house, but off setting that is the fact that the
road is a whole lot further away from the many more homes that are on Lake Riley. I mean
so there's positive points and negative points for all the alternatives. One of the alternatives
is to do absolutely nothing, which is in all probability what would happen if we didn't take
the proactive role, which means that ultimately you would have Highway 212 interchange
.i dumping out onto old Highway 101, which is something that I think most people in the
community would find intolerable but MnDot may well be inclined to do if some initiative
isn't taken. There are four alternatives. They're still in discussion. We have had one
meeting with the neighborhood group. We're going to be having another one. Then that will
be coming through the Planning Commission and City Council for official mapping with it. I
don't know the answer to it but I do know that we're not limiting the options based upon this
1 plat.
Mark Jesberg: Okay. So would some of these houses, or these three would they.
' Krauss: They would stay under any of the four alternatives. What happens is the roadway
Y Y PP Y
shifts away from this plat. If the alternatives that as I recall...moves it further to the west, are
selected, the roadway twists back over that way quicker and comes away from these three
units that you're looking at.
1 Mark Jesberg: So if it goes behind my house, like when I bought it like they thought when
we bought it, they would still.
1 Krauss: It should be able to stay right here. And we'll have the overlays for all those
alternatives for this and demonstrate that for you.
1
1 34
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
Mark Jesberg: So they didn't decide to change and make new alternatives because of the
new development coming in? 1
Krauss: Oh no. We started that process a year ago. In fact we've had continued discussions
with MnDot over the last, well I've been with the city 4 1/2 years. That entire time frame. 1
Mark Jesberg: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Good. Is there any other public comment? 1
Mike Mulligan: Good evening. My name is Mike Mulligan. I live at 8501 Tigua Circle. A
neighbor of David Nickolay's. Across the street from Jo Larson. My property is east of
David's. Somebody mentioned the word elitism here a few minutes ago. I'd like to tell you
that we're very sensitive to that sort of thing, recognizing we do live on large lots. I paid
I
$50,000.00 for my lot 10 years ago and you should know that over half of it is in the swamp.
A good share of David's is in the swamp. The house south of me, formerly occupied by
Tom Klingelhutz, probably a third of his lot is in the swamp. These lots are large in size but
a good share of them, of those lots are unbuildable. We don't have 4 or 5 or 7 acres of
dividable lots there. You or your predecessors allowed these lots to be platted like this and
we do have a problem, as you can see that David explained very well. I think we do have a
I
responsibility to try to address this transition from the lots that we do have to something
somewhat less dense than what we're looking at. With 4 to 8, did you say, living units per I
acre. That's not what I see when I drive around the rest of Chanhassen, the new areas.
Thank you.
Scott: Any other comments for the public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to 1
close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and 1
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: A question I have for Dave. I didn't see in this pack letters from, or review by 1
public safety as we did in the last project. Have they looked at it? I guess some of my
questions I have you know for instance you, what lot is this. The 6 units and 12 units just
I
on this side of the pond. You know it goes to the end. Should there be turn arounds? Have
they looked at this in terms of circulation and public safety?
Hempel: Maybe Sharmin can address that one but. II
Harberts: I didn't see it in the pack and usually. 1
35
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Hempel: We have looked at the access points. We were concerned about the individual
driveway access points that came out onto 86th Street. Those...were eliminated for the most
part.
Harberts: But some of the.
Hempel: Turn arounds and so forth?
Harberts: Yeah. I'm just surprised.
1 Scott: Well it's conceptual too.
Harberts: I know but so was Centex and I guess I was a little surprised that that same
1 information, I didn't know if it was a matter of time or because there's been so much change
and stuff but I certainly have an interest I guess more from the public safety, traffic
management, that perspective. So I would just.
1 Al -Jaff: The Fire Marshal has reviewed this and he said at the present time he is comfortable •
with what has been presented.
' Harberts: Really? Okay. Well I think you know, just broadly speaking, I like this concept
Y Y Y J Y P
1 better than what we had originally seen. I like the, I don't know, I'll call them the collectors.
The main collectors in each of the areas. When I look at this, you know the request is to
rezone to a PUD and the idea with a PUD, as I understand it is that we give something to get
1 something back which hopefully then as we try to see is in the better interest of the
community. One of the things though I question is the preservation of desirable site
characteristics. That's one of the things that we're supposed to be getting but yet in the staff
1 report it talks about the grading. The grading plan wasn't changed and the fact that this had
the rolling hills and wetlands, can you just give me a little bit more insight in terms of why it
wasn't changed.
1 Al -Jaff: The applicant didn't submit a grading plan. However, the applicant feels that they
will have to mass grade the site in order to get the type of units that you see along the
1 northern portion of 86th Street. Staff is still trying to work with the applicant to make sure
that we don't get as much as grading as they are showing.
' Harberts: Okay and what I recollect from our last discussion point was that that was one of
those points that we felt strong on to try and go with the topography of the land here. So I
guess that would be one point that I would stick on. Or at least try to see some more
discussion occur. I certainly, I guess with my recent involvement, and we talked earlier Jeff
1 36
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
about housing and things like that. I guess I like the opportunity that we have here where we
see the mix of income housing here. I think that's great. I deal with the region. I deal with
government on a day by day basis. When Paul made a comment about elitism. As long as
you're address is Eden Prairie or Chanhassen, they don't care what your street address is,
they automatically in a sense put that elite after it. So it's just one of those stigma's that on a
regional sense, as Paul is saying, is that we have to deal with. When it's a priority of our
community and I think that's what makes it the type of community that we all in a sense take
that ownership pride in. I can understand what the people living there for a number of years,
with that open space. I'm certainly a person that enjoys open space. The more the merrier
but I think that we have a PUD. I think the city, the community is certainly benefitting from
the proposed development. There may be a few more tweaks and stuff here. I think this is 1
an improved plan than what we had originally seen and with the two areas that I talked about,
especially with the topography and the housing, those are two things that I think are things
that are certainly going to benefit the community. I certainly am interested to hear what the
fellow members of the commission have to say. I think when a developer comes in here, it
seems that they've been working. I think we've tried to go as much as we can. I sense that
from the developer too. Trying to in a sense make this a nice transitional piece. I understand
1
what the people are saying and I think it is kind of frustrating when Dave, sharing with us his
process that he followed in becoming more in tune with the process that the city, well that's
established for this. And you know, I certainly have to commend you for following through
for the number of years. Personally I think the, from a governmental perspective, it certainly
is important for that public input and we certainly have to be aware of that and ensure that
that doesn't get sacrificed. But at the same time, when we on the Planning committee, we •
need to keep that entire community perspective in tune here and that's what I'm trying to do.
I would certainly, as I said, I see this as a very favorable segment to the community and I
certainly support it. I'm off my soap box.
Ledvina: One of the things that Mr. Nickolay mentioned was the possibility, or situation with
trails on Tigua Circle where there would be people that would be led down there and there
wouldn't be anywhere to go. Is that really the case? Or could you explain that to me.
Maybe I didn't understand that. 1
Krauss: Honestly we're a little bit stumped on that one. There would be a new trail
connection being proposed that runs up a new street that would come back here, around to
Highway 101. A trail out this way to 101. A trail this way to the park and then as I
understood from this afternoon apparently, as was indicated, substantial portions of the lots to
the east are on the Rice Marsh Lake wetland. The City took a conservation and trail
easement over portions of those properties and I don't think a trail has been built. But it's
my understanding that the easement would preserve so there would ultimately be a trail
around Rice Marsh Lake down by the lakeshore. So those are the likely locations for the 1
37 1
.I
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
trail. All of those would route folks away from the Tigua cul -de -sac.
Ledvina: Okay. And one other thing. We talked about the increase in traffic on 101. You
know as a result of this development. Existing 101. What is the timing for this thing
actually being built? I imagine it will be phased in over a period of years. How does that
dove tail with Highway 101 and the progress of that actual construction, or reconstruction?
' Krauss: The unfortunate answer is we honestly don't know. The contract letting date for
Highway 212, where it's going to start in Eden Prairie, the current date I think is November
of '95? '96?
1 Al Klingelhutz: '95.
1 Harberts: First phase?
Krauss: Right.
' Harberts: '95.
1 Krauss: That's the contract letting date. Now this is, this section of highway is in phase 1 of
the 212 program. Unfortunately it's the last phase of phase 1 because they're going to build
' it from the east to the west. State Highway funding is in a state of disarray. There is
additional federal dollars out there now to complete highways that, this is a highway that's
been talked about and in the design approval process for 37 years. There is additional federal
' money but it's match dollars and the State House last year had a 5 cent gas tax proposed that
was supposed to meet the match and would have allowed a lot of projects to stay on
schedule. But at that time they're talking about an increased federal tax and the Governor
decided he was going to veto the gas tax on the presumption that the feds were going to put a
major gas tax on. Anyway, there's been a lot of press on this lately. But in fact the feds
only put a 4 3/4 cent gas tax on, not the large one that had been proposed. It's being
' resurrected again this year. It's coming up on an election year and I think you have...in the
papers speculate that this is not a good year for it to pass either. Every time this happens, it
is truly like a dominoes test. I mean every priority MnDot has gets knocked back. And it
' makes it very difficult to react to things. Now you complicate that by the fact that MnDot
has never accepted any authority to do anything or responsibility for 101 and everything
that's been done on 101 to date is done because the City of Chanhassen did it and paid for it.
And we're running out funds to do much more. And we've managed to it without assessing
anybody. It was done through tax increment districts in the downtown and the industrial
parks that generated sufficient funds to make improvements to Highway 101. We can't keep
1 building state roads for free forever.
1 38
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
Mancino: But can we, I mean isn't, it's our responsibility to be planning well and when we
plan big developments like this and we don't have the roadways to support them, I mean
what's happening here?
Krauss: Commissioner Mancino, we've been doing everything that we can do to make the
ball roll. As I said, we've actually gone out and built highways for them and handed them
the keys. Nobody else does that but we've also tried to work with them and we've been
proactive in developing where this roadway's supposed to go and doing environmental studies
of where this road is supposed to go. We had a meeting about a month and a half ago where
we asked representatives of Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka,
ourselves to sit down, and MnDot, to sit down and say this is not a situation that's tolerable 1
and we need to find a solution to it. It's going to, I'm not going to promise a quick response.
I mean getting all those agencies to agree on something at considerable cost is not going to
come easily or quickly. But we have established a frame work for that to be done. 1
Ledvina: What's the timing for this development this side of TH 101 or 212? In terms of
construction. Actual construction. I mean how would it be phased? 1
Dick Putnam: Assuming the project's approved, we would hope to begin the first phase of it
next year. Next spring. Based on our experience with the project in Eden Prairie, we're
probably looking at a 3 year build out cycle. To be finished, assuming the market stays. So
if we started in '94, we'd be finishing up in '97 probably.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
Krauss: Well I think this is one of those situations, it puts us in a very uncomfortable 1
position. We've recognized the limitations on this road for years. Is it the straw that broke
the camel's back? I mean is it this developer's fault or is it Lake Susan Hills or remember
Chan Estates. Or Tigua Lane. I mean everybody's contributing and the state, you have an
assumption that the State highway is going to be built to meet the demands being placed on
it. It hasn't been happening here and we find it as frustrating as everybody else. 1
Ledvina: On the issue of the public parks, I guess I am willing to accept the park
commission's recommendation. I think they do a really good job of taking a look at the big
picture in the planning of the locations of all regional parks and I see that the trail system
here is fairly well planned and the connections seem really good. So and then the use of the
wetlands for trail opportunities, I think that's a real nice amenity. Let's see. I guess as far as
the neighboring owners are concerned I think that we have gone beyond what, or the
developer's gone beyond what the ordinance requires. I think with, from the overall sense of
planning that this does flow fairly well and I think bringing the street over is definitely a, 1
39
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
g g
1
further to the west is definitely a good thing for the change in the plans. I guess I'm
1 comfortable with that part of the development. I share Diane's concern as it relates to the
grading. I recognize that this is a conceptual plan and I feel that, however I feel that things
can't be laid out in somewhat of a vacuum. I'm not saying that this is but because I do see
some sensitivity in the road design and the layout to account for the topography but at the
same time I'm, when this thing comes back as a preliminary plat I'm going to be looking at
the grading plan very closely to see that we try to minimize the earth work. As we discussed,
I would support the taking a look at how this development fits in with the alignment option.
I think that would be helpful for the public and Paul mentioned he'd do that so I'd like to see
' that. I think that's the extent of my comments.
Mancino: Mr. Nickolay, you said in one of your points that you felt that there was an
' inadequate transition from your property. That area to the other, to the single family area on
the west. What would you suggest? Do you have some suggestion that you could make to
us?
1 Dave Nickolay: I think that there could be a number of things. One, lots that represents
something that's more of a balance for the size lots that we have would be one option. And
I I'm not talking about multiple rows of that type but I'm talking about the boundary line that
exists and we've got 7 backed up against 3. The street is a buffer in itself so I'm not
concerned about what happens across the street to the, further to the west. But 3 backed up
against 3 sounds like a fair compromise. I never contemplated a subdivision, that that would
be something that you could do. You could set the tone for us. That that indeed is the only
alternative that we have to come back and appear before you with a concept plan and
' whatever we have to do to do that. Beyond that, I don't have another solution. Those would
be the two that would satisfy mine...
1 Mancino: Okay. And you did hear staff make the, tell you a little bit about our ordinance
and the 15,000 square feet and that the developer has come back with upping that to 20,000.
1 Dave Nickolay: Yes. I understand that. Thank you for asking.
Mancino: Sharmin, you ask in the report about an EAW being done for this development and
you asked if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination.
How would that benefit us to have an EAW? What would we find out from one?
1 Krauss: I've been working with EAW's since...I'm a proponent of the process but...you can
get the same level of information simply by asking...The EAW process provides the
' mechanism for coordinated assessments for a variety of issues. Environmental issues. Traffic
issues. Related to air pollution. This project does not meet the minimum threshold for an
1 40
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
EAW. It's always the city's prerogative if you elected one. We typically haven't but you do
have that prerogative. The project was getting close enough, I mean it's not that far away
111
from the threshold...In my own experience it's equally effective and probably a little more
efficient in terms of time and responsiveness to just state, we have concerns about traffic.
We want information on it. We have concerns about, and if you did have concerns about
wetland. That that be responded to. Filling out an EAW form is something that I think a lot
of consultants have a fixed price on that one. EAW's are us kind of a thing.
Scott: Highway 101's are us. Sorry Fred.
Mancino: I had some questions and some thoughts on the recommendations. One of my 1
thoughts was on the commercial on 17. Recommendation 17, which you also wanted to have
some suggestions and the Planning Commission's input on the commercial area. And I would
just like to add that I like the concept plans outlining the first sentence on 17.
1
Recommendation 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts with alternatives, building
masses, square footage limitations. I'd like to insert in there, grading, building materials,
architectural design, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the
commercial area. So as a Highway 5 task force member, those were some of the specifics
that we talked about in conceptual plans that we saw in some of the areas on Highway 5 and
they were very helpful. So I would also like to see those included in conceptual plans for
this commercial development that's part of it. Also, I'd like to see the Highway 5 design
standards used here, and suggestion out there. And I think that's something we might want to
think about in expanding to the 212 area. Using some of our design standards for Highway
5. I also am concerned about the grading. The massive grading that's done north of 86th
Street so I would like to add that as a recommendation. That grading plans be revised to
minimize mass grading of the site. This pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side
of 86th Street. Otherwise I am really pleased with all the additions. With what the
developer's come back with. I think you've listened well to us and thank you.
1
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: My turn? First of all I'd like to address some of the people who came up to
speak. I know your homes are in this area and you're concerned about obviously what goes
in there. Often times how this process works seems very busitine and I don't want to be
parental or to sit up here. We're volunteers just like you are. We also have houses in the
area. We're not paid for doing this. It is a volunteer type situation for people who are
contributing to their community and a lot of times we get a difficult position where our
1
neighbors come before us and they say we don't want this here. It's not a matter of us sitting
up here and saying hey, we don't want it either. There are rules and regulations that we
follow here, just like this process is a part of a process that's dictated by how our city is set 1
41
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
up and that is set up by how the state says our city can be set up. This process that we
' follow through that I think this letter here is talking about. It takes some study to figure out
that process. It is a difficult and often busitine process. It takes a lot of times not being used
to it because many people come in when there's a problem with their property. They don't,
' they'll follow it and then it's fresh to them to come in and see, not necessarily know who to
ask or sometimes they wish they would have more notification or more information and
certainly the staff is here for that benefit. If you need more information or you feel unclear
1 on something, please ask them. For myself, I would like to have responded to your letter.
Unfortunately I would like to do it over the phone. If you would call me, I'd encourage
anybody to call anyone here on the commission. I hope you don't mind that. But I don't
1 have a secretarial service and I don't, I would find it difficult to correspond in this type of
situation. The city does not provide funds for that or services for that. But I'm happy to talk
to you. This town is not that big that you can't just pick up the phone and call us. I would
1 certainly be more than happy to talk to you what I know about it, the process and to try and
see how you can resolve that but this is the process. The process doesn't take place
someplace else. This is the matter of public hearing and record and so on and it does take
' some study to figure it out and to know how to best utilize that. As the Chairman has said
•
here, we're an advisory group. We make recommendations to the City Council and they
I make the decisions. Those are your elected officials. We make the recommendations based
on how staff helps us with law and ordinance and what we can and cannot do. And a lot of
times, sometimes you sit up here and you wish that you could do something but you know
' that you can't do it. Because you're simply not allowed to. The law doesn't work that way.
And any of us who have dealt with some legal issues, we know sometimes that it seems very
convoluted but that's the way the system's set up and unless we go through a political route,
' that isn't going to change. So I'd recommend if you have problems with this, that you
contact your City Councilmen. Now the civic lesson has ended for today. I want to address
the issue just briefly, I want to be comfortable that you understand that a single family
' residential is based on minimums in Chanhassen, and it has been for several years. And a lot
of this started out with the Met Council pressuring tier suburbs to reduce the minimum size of
these lots.
Harberts: Why are you looking at me Jeff?
Farmakes: Because we had a discussion here on a leader. Chanhassen at one time, I know
Ladd said that in previous years entertained two tier single family zoning. That did not
occur. There was pressure from the Met Council to get that down to city sized lots. We can
go on at great lengths about the issue between metro politics and the fact that we all exist
because Minneapolis and St. Paul are here and we all exist for them. But many of us do not
hold that opinion. I wish in some cases that there could be more of a transition but I think
1 clearly someone has to say that what we're dealing with here, the developer needn't increase
1 42
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
the size of the lots beyond the minimum standards. And the minimum standards are 15,000
square feet. The fact that there's a big house sitting next to a small house, as long as it's
zoned single family, we cannot as part of the ordinance say your house has to be as big as
this house. Single family is a minimum and if someone chooses to go above the minimum,
that does not stop someone else from building to the minimum requirements of the zone next
1
to it. Common sense can prevail. Negotiations can prevail but really the ordinance states
what the requirement is and it does not say that one lot of one size has to be alike to another,
as long as it's over the minimum. And unfortunately I say it over and over again. What we
deal with here are minimums. And often those of us who went beyond that have come in for
restitution or arguing that it's not the same as mine and yes that's true but those aren't the
rules that are set up that we're playing by. And I agree. I think that the developer went out
of their way. I like this plan. It's quite an improvement. I also like to give credit where
credit's due and the park issue, I believe we discussed here at the last issue and the trails.
This did not go back to the park board and I really like what they've done because I like the
fact that it's small in scope but it's very management for that size and it offers a commons
area in high density which I think is really important. It doesn't need to have 20 ball parks
and it doesn't need to take up many acres but it's a gathering place. That's what I think is
important. I like the alternative plan that's been popped on there. Patched on there. I think
it opens up the area more. There is a natural buffer from the wetland going out to the east. I
think the fact that the properties that have been boosted up to 20,000 square feet is beyond
what is required and I applaud that. I like the direction of the street lining. I think that that's
a major improvement over what was proposed. I'd like to see maybe just to throw a few
more things out, I'd like to see a few benches to enhance the trails that go around that park.'
Or the trail that goes around the wetland, if that's possible. They're showing a few benches
around the totlot but if there's a way again to help people enjoy that. Getting out into the
open. I'm a little, I want to make a quick comment that it would have been nice to have a
little something more of a gathering area for the area above the road next to that Dupont of
some sort. Basically there's, anyone who wants to utilize the lot area that's, where it's mark
with 1 would have to come across the road and walk a considerable ways. I'm wondering if
there's something that could be done to utilize that property that's adjacent just to the west of
the Dupont. Whether or not maybe we could knock off a unit there or not. It doesn't bother
me how they realign the units. I think that they've done a nice job of that. The highway
issue it seems to me is, at the present that's out of our hands. Until MnDot decides. MnDot,
not developers that will decide where that road goes with input from the city but as often is
the case, those that pay the most for it have the most input. So where that happens farther up
really doesn't affect this particular development, in my opinion. Where the alternates, as I
understand it. The public safety issue and so on. Those are all issues that are relevant and 1
they're important issues and I would like to see those developed further. Similar to the last
development where we're going to get this type of density. That we make sure we have the
1 support structures in place that will accept this type of traffic. Oh, grading. Yes. That was
43
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
the last one on the list here. I somewhat know that high density will require more grading
because of the issue that you're compacting structures. So it will require more grading than
say a single family type operation. So I'm open to that. I'd like to see that minimized
obviously as much as possible but I will look at that with interest when...that's the extent of
my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you. I too am interested in the grading and I think that also too,
something obviously we'll talk about minimums but I think something could also be done
with Block 2. That removing a lot or two from that area will probably have an insignificant
financial impact to the project. However, from a marketability standpoint, I mean that's your
1 bailiwick. That's really the extent of my comments. I support approval of the conceptual
plan so I'd like to entertain a motion to that effect.
1 Mancino: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the Conceptual Approval of
PUD #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993 subject to the following conditions.
' Conditions 1 thru 5. Conditions 1 thru 16 remain the same. Condition 17 reads, first line is
changed to read, concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building masses,
square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access,
' and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. Number 18 reads, the
first line. Excuse me, the second line is amended to read, the hard surface coverage of the
multi- family portion of the site located south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds
' the permitted 30 %. 19, 20, 21 read as they exist. 22 reads, address the hard surface issue to
meet requirements of the PUD ordinance. The hard surface coverage south of 86th Street and
east of the wetlands may not exceed 30% of this site. 23 reads as is and 24 is a new
' recommendation. 24 reads, grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as
it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual
approval of PUD #93 -4 as amended.
1 Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chair. I don't think we got a second.
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: I would second that.
1 Scott: Now it has been moved and seconded.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
1 conceptual approval of PUD #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to
1 44
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
g g
1
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland.
PP P g g
Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th
Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets
1
in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to
determine the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report.
1 Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate.
2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and
street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades
throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary
permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT.
Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. •
4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control 1
discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining
the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements
on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum
20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat.
Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary
sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan
sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the
applicant. In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to determine if there is
1
excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study.
1
6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the
applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant
by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing
costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain.
Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's
recommendations.
45
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting twig - October 20, 1993
1
7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and
retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be
designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference
between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event.
The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the
predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to
improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide
alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in
implementing the best location for said ponding.
1 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and
awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and
water facilities to service this site.
9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed
Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of
both landscaping materials and berming.
I 10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent
dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm
sewer.
•
' 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right -of -way
determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street.
' 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant
shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on
1 Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles.
13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and
' Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the
staff report.
1 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4.
These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas.
1 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along
Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and
1 residential lots.
1 46
1
1
Plannin g Meeting Commission Meetin - October 20, 1993
d
1
16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission.
A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1.
PP P t3'
This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas,
picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. 1
B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from.
Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street 1
north to the street's terminus.
C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the
1
sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said
trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction.
Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with
documentation for verification.
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the 1
rate then in force.
17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square 1
footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian
access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We
realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this
area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located
within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our
ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best
interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this
report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 1
18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many
shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site located
south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds the permitted 30 %. Mass
grading of the multi- family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that
possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations
1
appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be
achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open 1
space.
19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the
potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been
47 1
1
Planning Commission Meetin g - October 20, 1993
8
actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families
1 and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal
development plan is submitted.
20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond
the applicant's control and we had hopped to have it completed by now. By the time
formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of
the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is
not impacted by this issue.
21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one
would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it
' would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and
submitted with the formal PUD submittal.
22. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard
surface coverage south of 86th Street and east of the wetland may not exceed 30% of
site area.
1 23. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3."
24. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the
multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
' PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF
1 1,000 CUBIC YARDS) ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET, BETWEEN KERBER
AND POWERS BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
Bob Generous resented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public
P P P
1 hearing to order.
Jim Hill: Jim Hill. Consultant for Charlie James.
1 Scott: I'm sorry sir, I didn't get your name.
1 48
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Jim Hill: Jim Hill. I'll apologize for Charlie not being here this evening. He's out of town.
Out of state and did not make it. The intent here is to prepare the site for the first user and
site plan which according to Charlie has indicated he will be in within the next 4 weeks
here...The site as you know, the condition of the site, it has to be graded no matter what the
use is...get an early start. We're going to do some of the work before the winter socks in on
us. I'll answer any questions if you have some.
Harberts: Can I use it for fill? 1
Ledvina: Do you need 40,000 cubic yards?
• Yeah, I'd like to use a little bit for fill. Well I was going to ask him what
Harberts: eah, g g you're
Y
going to do with this dirt. I know a wetland that I wanted to fill in.
111
Scott: Any other questions for the applicant from the Planning Commissioners?
Jim Hill: Mr. James has two bidders that have supplied him bids for removal of the dirt and 1
once he gets back in we'll sit down with the responsible low bidder and we'll see routes and
so forth and work it out with staff. As you know those have not been determined because we
don't know where the dirt is going. But if we have a good idea where it's going, and it will
be shared with you when we determine that.
Harberts: I have another question. This is a little more legitimate. What happens if you • 1
don't do the grading now? What's the impact?
Jim Hill: The impact is we don't start the first building this fall. In the winter. The 1
foundation.
Harberts: Oh you're going to start the work? 1
Jim Hill: The site plan will be in in the next 3 -4 weeks. 1
Krauss: I think what it allows them to do, I mean there won't be any formal approvals until
early next year but if the site is rough graded, it is possible at that point to put in footings 1
over winter and they can start construction.
Harberts: Okay. I didn't realize that. 1
Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing and are there any 1
members of the public who'd like to speak at this public hearing? Let the record show that
49 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
g g
1
' there are none.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments please.
1 Mancino: Comments. Only one question for Bob. Should we be stipulating in the
recommendations when the stock pile has to be removed? I mean putting a date on that.
1 Generous: Well you could if you want, yes. It all depends on, they'll probably get it off
there before any deadline...grading by the summer of '94. In the summer of '94 and I would
' assume that at least by September that's the end of summer. They'll probably have the
construction on that part of it going by then.
Mancino: Okay. That's my only question.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
I • Ledvina: I really don't have anything to add. I do want to say that I thought this was an
excellent staff report. You did a nice job Bob.
1 Generous: Thank you.
1 Scott: Diane.
Harberts: Well I'll refrain my questions from the dirt in my wetlands in my back yard but I
' have no other questions or comments.
Scott: Good. Neither do I. Can I have a motion?
• I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends approval a app ov tha e g pp roval of Interim
U Use Permit #93 -2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24, 1993 and subject to the
following conditions numbers 2 thru 18 as identified in the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
1 Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
1 50
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
approval of Interim Use Permit #93 -2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24,
1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1
1. Deleted.
2. The City of Chanhassen will process the WCA exemption report and necessary
paperwork to administer the WCA.
3. Runoff calculations for the temporary sediment basins shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval. The temporary sediment basins shall be designed in accordance to
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 1
4. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to site grading and be maintained until
the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the city. 1
5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory 1
agencies such as the Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.
6. Applicant shall obtain and comply with the necessary permits for the demolition of the
farmhouse and out buildings as well as the abandonment of the well and septic
system(s).
7. All draintiles encountered upon grading shall be reconnected or relocated to discharge 1
into the city's storm sewer system.
8. The two existing farm access driveways shall be eliminated upon construction of the 1
new site entrances off of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street.
9. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the 1
retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the property.
10. Upon completion of site grading, an additional row of Type I silt fence shall be installed
approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one half of the site.
11. The applicant shall pay grading fees in accordance to the Uniform Building Code, Table
70 -B (Attachment No. 1).
12. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City and provide the necessary
PP �' g P tY P
financial security in the amount of $32,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the terms of
approval for site grading. 1
51 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
13. If material is o hauled t be au ed to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to city staff
' designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities.
All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried.
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
GALPIN BOULEVARD 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG - CARLSON
1 PROPERTY.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public hearing
1 to order.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. We don't have a presentation
for you this evening. We feel that the material provided pretty much covers everything. We
do have I believe 4 or 5 items on the conditions that we would like to discuss with the
Planning Commission.
1 Scott: Okay. And this is a public hearing but are there any members of the public here for
this particular item? Let the record show that there are none so there is no public hearing.
1 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 carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: I'm going to pass simply because I did not participate in the presentation last time.
I was not here so I will look to the members that were here to make comments.
1 Ledvina: Okay, well I would ask that Terry go through his items that he has in terms of the
recommendations or the conditions of the staff report. Some concerns that you have with
those.
1 Terry Forbord: Should I do that now?
1 Scott: Yeah.
1 52
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Terry Forbord: Mr. Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will be addressing those issues.
John Uban: Thank you Terry. We have been working even since the memo was faxed to the
city at 5:00 so we're trying to constantly resolve the last few issues and what I just want to
do is make some clarifications and that you may have a very clear understanding on almost 1
every single issue. The condition number 11 for instance. This is one where we've been
working back and forth with the city on street right -of -way widths. Street right -of -ways for
cul -de -sacs. Staff would like to have them 60 feet and we would agree with that. We had 1
wanted them to be 50 feet but we also have looked at a condition that could be added that the
front yard setbacks for those homes on that part of the cul -de -sac could be 25 feet instead of
30. That way the actual homes won't have to move in relationship to the plan that we've
created. So it's really just the moving, the legal moving of a right -of -way line a little closer
to the house but the relationship between the street and the house actually stays the same. In
addition to that, the Street H and I that goes up into the woods on the northwest corner of the
property, that is this area. We had proposed at 40 feet and staff would like to have it at 50
feet and we looked carefully at the utilities and so forth and how that would work and we
think we have a resolution where we could add that it could, that it would be a 50 foot right -
of -way and we're still trying to save as many trees as possible. Instead of the 24 foot wide
road, we'd go to a 28 foot street section. Not the standard but a modified 28 foot wide street.
That's back to back so it's a little bit narrower. But in that right -of -way the city would allow
retaining walls and would allow the shoulder to slope back to match grading very quickly
rather than the standard large flat boulevard that you would commonly see. So we could '
taper back in up to a 3:1 slope back to existing grade. And that also will help to save trees
and do the least amount of disturbing of root systems. So with those kind of modifications, I
think we've reached a resolution that works very well for both of us. On number 20 and 24.
It's really the same issue and this, we had a discussion about it and it is the access for the
Song parcel which is their estate lot. It's not quite 10 acres. 9 1/2 acres. It's on the north
side of the whole subdivision and they plan a home that will overlook Lake Harrison. They
see this as an important part of their resitting their home. Their old home sits down here next
to this pond they dredged out for a swimming hole and they would like to have their own
driveway access off of Galpin. It's what they have presently and they would like to have it
repeated up here. It was suggested in the conditions that between these two houses, the
driveway would go up through this area into the woods to get to their home and not create
another entrance onto Galpin. We think actually, and at some point in the future this was 1
redeveloped and there would probably be some road system that would continue to serve all
that land. Most of the properties in this area are very large land holdings and are being held
by people I don't think will subdivide for some time. And an additional access point out here
may not be that critical with traffic and so forth. We've talked both with planning and with
engineering. Engineering is indifferent to which way it goes. Planning would like to
consolidate and keep an access to the cul -de -sac. We think it's inappropriate for the Song's. 1
53 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
They certainly feel it's inappropriate be onn th it e lot to y y to connecting a estate oft the end of a cul-de-
I sac so we want to have it come out onto Galpin. And so those two conditions, 20 and 24, we
would just either like to have them struck or reversed to allow the Songs to have a simple
driveway out to Galpin. Item number 25. We worked on this and we'd just like to add to
I the very end of it to clarify the State Aid standards for street aid. That it would be built with
a 7 ton section. And we've talked to engineering and we believe that is agreeable. 26 Paul
talked about and that's what we agreed to and that sounds great. And so the last one is really
I item number 31 and this is a setback to a drainageway that has been unplatted, or sort of
unrecognized before and I want to point that out to you because I think a little too much
attention is being paid to it. I don't think it's as significant as everyone might believe. It is
I a drainageway that drains the pond next to the Song's existing home. It comes to this just is
a wet swale that comes down and then finally joins the creek at the bottom of the ravine
through here. And we already have a conservation area, a buffer area, setbacks from the
I creek bed up to this lot. We also around this man made pond, we also have a buffer area and
a large setback to the front of this building. And this swale runs along the side and if we
then place another buffer and setback, 10 and 40 feet, we will significant reduce the ability to
I develop on this property. And we think that it isn't a creek. It's really just a swale that
drains that pond and that pond seems to be draining quite a bit now because the Song's use a .
heat pump and the heat and the source that they use to extract heat is their well water so this
I ' overflows and keeps their pond level high and then of course the surplus drains on down.
And so it's not really a wetland in our opinion but is a drainageway. So we thought, instead
of 40 feet, a 20 foot setback would be good from a 10 foot buffer. So we can create then a
1 protected space that would in combination be 50 feet wide with the drainageway in the
middle. And we think that's more than adequate to protect that particular feature so we
suggest that the setbacks in 31 be changed to 20 feet instead of 40. Those are our issues.
:1 We think they're fairly small at this point and we will answer any other questions.
Ledvina: Have you discussed these with staff then?
I John Uban: We've discussed all of them except number 31.
1 Ledvina: Dave, could I get your reaction to these then? Just go right through them.
I Hempel: Item number 11. Mr. Uban is correct. We've had discussions regarding the street
width on H and I. The right -of -way being...50 foot wide right -of -way over 40 and increase
the street width to 28 foot back to back over the 24. Compromising the boulevard typical
I slope which would normally be a 2% grade to allow for private utilities, gas, electric and
telephone. Allow them to modify that to a greater percentage of slope. To meet the existing
terrain much better. Also to allow them to place retaining walls within the right -of -way area
1 subject to maintenance responsibilities placed amongst the homeowners association and that
1 54
1
1
Plannin g Meeting Commission Meetin - October 20, 1993
1
can be done by a chain of title such as a development contract which they would be entering
into. Making sure the maintenance responsibilities... As to condition number 20 and 24.
1
Harberts: Excuse me Dave. Can you go back and address the 25 foot setback request on
number 11 versus the required 30. 1
Hempel: Oh I'm sorry.
Harberts: Do you have a feeling for that?
Hempel: Right. It is our belief that we shouldn't compromise the 60 foot wide right -of -way 1
on Streets B, D and G with those areas all being mass graded anyway. The applicant has
requested to maintain the placement of the homes, the grading and so forth to accommodate
their request for a 50 foot setback. Or 50 foot right -of -way with a 30 foot setback. We
thought well, we could live with granting the 25 foot setback of those lots and get our 60 foot
right -of -way. Essentially the house is placed in the same location. The same green space,
and so forth. The city will just have the 60 foot right -of -way versus the 50 foot right -of -way.
And I don't want to speak for Paul but I believe he's in concurrence with that as well.
Krauss: Yeah. We've always supported the 25 foot setback and such. Now it's raised. 1
questions and...but I think Dave, in this case Dave is correct. Visually it's not going to look
any different. You're just talking about where the...The house is going'to be exactly the same
distance back, whether we get the full right -of -way and a modified front yard setback or the
smaller right -of -way with...setback. It's exactly the same.
Mancino: But what's standard right now is the standard right -of -way which is 60 foot and a
30 foot setback. I mean that's the standard so.
Harberts: What are we gaining?
Mancino: Pardon? 1
Harberts: What are we gaining though by if we were to.
Mancino: To go with the standard?
Harberts: No. 1
Mancino: To go with the reduced?
55 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Harberts: Yeah.
1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, maybe I can address the issue. For those of you who were here at
the last meeting...just kind of talk a little bit about that. There's a number of real sensitive
areas on the site that we believe as the applicant, that the right -of -way should be significantly
reduced from what is typical in the city of Chanhassen. Typical in the city of Chanhassen at
least within the last 5 to 6 years has been 60 foot right -of -way. Prior to that they were 50
foot right -of -way. Prior to 6 years ago. So what we had come in in some of the sensitive
areas we had asked for, in one area, 40 foot right -of -way. In the northwest corner area that
had the significant sugar maples and a reduced pavement of 26 feet back to, or excuse me.
1 24 feet street, 27 feet back to back. In negotiations with planning staff and the city engineer,
trying to find a compromise that would satisfy their concerns and at the same time still trying
to meet the objectives that we would be able to obtain through reduced right -of -way and
1 reduced pavement. We were all able to come up with some compromises and there were
trade -offs on everyone's part. And that's how we came up with what you're seeing before
you this evening. As far as the right -of -way. I hope that answers your question of how we
1 got to where we are today.
Harberts: Thank you.
Hempel: I'll continue on the conditions. Number 24 has to do with the private driveway on
P P Y
the Song's parcel, Lot 9. Mr. Uban pointed out that engineering really, it does make some
sense to have a driveway, a private driveway through the cul -de -sac to serve that parcel.
There's a sewer line that goes through there as well. The driveway would be over that sewer
1 line. On the other hand, if the applicant came in and subdivided down the road, Carver
County would not object to another curb cut for that parcel. Essentially it could be...serviced
off the county road anyway. So it could be served either access point.
1 Scott: Would the County object to a curb cut for the private residence?
' Hempel: I did contact Mr. Bill Weber, the Assistant Carver County Engineer that, kind of
laid out the specifics on it and they would grant the curb cut for that driveway.
Ledvina: Would it make any sense to put a condition in there that the private drive would
have to be utilized as a road if this property is subdivided? I mean does that make any
sense?
' Krauss: I don't think we're clear on where the road would be.
1 Ledvina: Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to restrict it in that way.
1 56
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Krauss: If I could touch on my concerns. I mean this is not an issue that the world's going
to stop turning over. But we have always recommended against additional private driveways
entering onto county roads, without fail. In fact we're eliminating one with the existing Song
residence with this plat. It's being served off the internal street system. I'm concerned, I
mean you could argue precedent one way or the other but is this lot different than all the
other lots we've refused to have separate driveways. We may have had combined driveways
just because it's bigger or it's going to have a bigger house on it. Relative to the large
I
estates in the area, yeah. There's a number of them in the area. Jerome Carlson lives nearby.
The Mancino's live nearby. And of course Prince lives across the street. But I'll tell you, I
was astonished by the fact that somebody's making apparently serious inquiries about '
developing Prince's property. And when I first heard this I said, well is this just some broker
trying to do a deal. He's wasting our time and then, you know I think Dave's been contacted
by them and Sharmin's been contacted by them and it seems a lot more serious than that. So
I
I mean the world changes and these issues come about. Thirdly is wherever we're having
intersections with the streets, on Galpin we're required to put an acceleration and deceleration
and turn lanes so that the movement can be done safely. The driveway it's very tough to
1
justify doing much of that at all. So I mean are we going to be horribly put out if the
driveway's put in? No. I don't think it's a great precedence.
we've got it with Rottlund and Brett Davidson. We have two curb cuts there I
Mancino: Well e g
for those two developments.
I
Krauss: They're streets.
Mancino: Yeah, that's true. They're regular streets. But we didn't have them connect. We I
didn't punch them through did we? I remember talking about that.
Hempel: ...Mr. Brett Davidson to relocate his driveway from Galpin Blvd to the interior 1
street.
Scott: You're right. It was a similar situation. He had a home. His home didn't move 1
though but he ended up getting access off of the interior street.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman? I
Scott: Yes Terry. 1
Terry Forbord: I don't want to talk about this too much because it's been belabored a lot but
I have to emphasize how important this is to the Songs. Right now they have a 100 acre
1
piece of property. It's an estate. They've lived there for a long time and they want to build
57 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
a significant home and they want to still live on an estate for the remaining y ears of their life.
Now if they came in and this wasn't a proposal by Lundgren Bros but they just came in to
' the city and said we have 100 acres. We'd like to subdivide it. One's going to be a 10 acre
piece and the other piece is going to be 90 acres. They could go through that process. The
city would have to give them access for the two as long as they met all the criteria. They'd
' have a private drive for that. There could be another private drive for the 90 acre piece and
they could do that. And then when they were done with that, then they could come back to
' Lundgren Bros and say, okay now we'll sell you the 90 acre piece and they'd have a plat of
record with their own access. I mean it's really important to them. If any of you have ever
lived in the country. I don't know who does here and who doesn't. I have before and I
' wanted my own private driveway. That's why I wanted to live in the country. I wanted that
type of lifestyle. Granted this area is urbanizing but I don't think that it's really significant to
the approval of this plat. I think it's something that as the owner or fee owner of their
' property, they should have the right to have that private driveway...and I just wanted you to
know that's very important to them and they personally will be coming and talking to the
Council about it because it's so important to them.
1 Scott: Continue with your comments.
Ledvina: And then the last one. 31 I believe it is.
Hempel: The street grades. We believe...Street A should be constructed to in accordance
with State Aid standards. We did discuss the item. State Aid does require a 9 ton. 9 ton •
state aid does but we'd be willing to deviate from that standard to a 7 ton design since the
applicant will be actually building the street and there will be no state aid dollars used to
construct that street so we're able to by -pass MnDot's regulations. In the future, MnDot, if
we need to go back and.
1 Harberts: Reconstruct.
Hempel: Right, we can use State Aid dollars to beef it up to the 9 ton standard with a small
1 overlay project.
Harberts: Question. Why does MnDot have a 9 ton requirement then?
Hempel: MnDot has a 9 ton requirement because State Aid routes usually.
1 Harberts: Is it kind of like a blanket approach?
1 Hempel: No, there's more commercial traffic. Truck traffic routes and so forth and the
1 58
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
lighting of the roads and so forth. Collector type streets. Staff is comfortable with designing
the 7 ton standards, which is the city's current pavement design. 26, Paul had revised earlier
that the street extension to the northwest shall be through another street located in the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property. 31. I don't know if Paul wants to address that.
Mancino: Is that a Swale or a creek?
Scott: Yeah, how's it classified? 1
Krauss: I guess I'm reluctant to change it at this point. I mean we'll take the developer's
comments under advisement but I'm not equipped to evaluate this changes at this point. I
sent Diane home after the last item so, we can certainly, I mean if it makes sense to do it this
way, we can bring that up. I don't know what to advise you right now.
1
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Well that's pretty much it. I would say though that I guess
considering that it would just be a matter of process for getting that additional curb cut, I
think that it's reasonable to allow that to occur with this proposal. So I guess would support
that at this point.
Mancino: I agree with you too. On the Song property?
Ledvina: Right.
1
Mancino: To go ahead. I would too. If I were there and wanted 10 acres and my estate, etc,
I can, Dave wasn't so much, he didn't seem too much against it. Kind of one way or 1
another. I would support allowing the private driveway for that amount of acreage.
Scott: Excuse me. What's the distance between the street and the curb cut? A couple
1
hundred feet or what?
Hempel: 600 -700 feet. 1
Scott: Oh! There's something about 300 feet between.
Krauss: That's a minimum.
Scott: Minimum? Okay so we're, oh you know. 1
Krauss: You're well in excess.
59 1
1
0 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Scott: Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry.
1 Mancino: That's okay. That's a good question, thanks.
1 Scott: That's okay.
Mancino: Terry, I had a question about recommendation number 2 from the Planning
Commission and it has to do with the front yard setbacks being reduced to 20 feet or the
developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result. Does that mean that,
I well obviously that's not going to happen in any of the area that's on the agricultural part of
it. Anything east, you're not going to ask for a 20 foot setback because there are no trees to
preserve on the eastern part of this land. On the western edge where you go up into Street H,
' I'm assuming that's where you're going to ask for a 20 foot setback instead of a 30 foot
setback?
I Terry Forbord: Actually there's a, we walked the site with the staff quite some time ago but
I think it's fair to say that through here and there's a few areas maybe right in here. There .
may be a consideration and then it will be, I think we determined that, the way I understand
(' it, the way staff wants to do it is, if we submit a building permit application and at that point
in time when the survey's been done and it's determined that hey, we can save something
there. Let's tallc to the staff and the staff says, hey you're right. That's when we should
1 make that adjustment because every house will be designed differently. So I don't see that
happening on every lot but if you've ever, I don't know if any of you have ever been on this
property but I know the staff has. There are 4 or 5, 6 foot trees, some of them. And if you
I are careful, you're going to be able to save them. And so there should be, we hope there's
some latitude to enable that.
1 Mancino: So what I just want to make sure of is that on Street H, that if you have one house
that needs to come up to the have the 20 foot setback, that all those in a row aren't going to
I do that. That it's only going to be those specific houses because of the tree preservation.
Terry Forbord: You're speaking of this street?
1 Mancino: Yep.
I Terry Forbord: Now on this particular street, because of the reduced right -of -way, I believe
that, what was the request?
1 John Uban: It was for 50 feet of right -of -way and then up to a 20 foot setback.
1 60
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Terry Forbord: On a case by case basis.
Mancino: On a case by, on a house by house.
Krauss: It's the same. 1
Terry Forbord: That's correct.
Mancino: Okay. And I'm referring back to your Willow Ridge which has all setbacks, the
right -of -way is 50 feet and the setbacks are 25 feet and they're every house regardless of tree
preservation. Because a lot of the houses don't have trees in the back yards so they have
been, they have the 25 foot setback regardless.
Terry Forbord: Yeah, some people have found that offensive. I would say the vast majority 1
haven't but some people find that offensive.
Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions.
Farmakes: I have no comments to make on this. I think we discussed them at length before.
The issues that were still open and...I support staff's recommendation across the board. .I'm
concerned about the Song issue. I realize that probably is arguable that it makes no
difference. However, I support the Planning staff that either we should quantify how many •
acres it makes no difference or we should follow precedent on this issue. And I'm not
opposed the saying that if we have a connection and we have over 50 acres or whatever. If
we want to qualify it that way, that's fine but I think it's a mistake just for us to. 1
Harberts: Arbitrarily.
land and we should let them hook up.
Farmakes: Arbitrarily say well, it's a lot of an an . I'm a p
little concerned about how we're going about evaluating that. Other than that I support staff
recommendations on this issue.
Scott: I just have one question. I remember back in a meeting we had in January we talked
about island cul -de -sacs and as I recall you don't like those. We were talking about
maintenance. We were talking about people falling down and getting sued, I mean it got to
be pretty ridiculous but I see a couple of them and I just want to see how those fit in with the
stuff, because I can't rip the ordinance off the top of my head right now. But I see them
there. Speak to me.
Hempel: Staff's gone through and reviewed those. You're right. The engineering 1
61 1
1
1
0 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
department's perspective is more the public works, from a maintenance standpoint. We didn't
P P P P � P
' like them. Maintenance headache. This situation's a little bit different than...
Scott: Are we preserving some trees? -
I
Hempel: Well, there are going to be landscaped median areas and a homeowners association
1 will be responsible for maintenance of them. The city actually went out and performed some
tests on snow plowing cul-de -sacs with islands in them. They went out to the Dinner Theater
and it actually turned out, the snow plow drivers like them better. It was easier because there
I wasn't as much snow to be removed.
Scott: Had a little snow plowing derby out there. That's what you guys were doing. Okay.
1 That's fine. Alright, anyway. I don't have any further comments. Do we have a motion?
Mancino: I move that we approve the preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create
' 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval
subject to the following conditions. All the conditions will stay the same as in the staff
report. Does anybody want to help on 11? Matt, did you have that written down?
Ledvina: Yeah, sure. For number 11, it should read the final plat shall be amended to
include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 foot right -of -way with
I Streets H and I to be 50 foot right -of -way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks
for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback.
I Mancino: And retaining walls can be placed within right -of -way on Street H?
Ledvina: Yes. The use of retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Streets H and
1 I.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, just one clarification on that. 28 foot wide street width is limited to
1
Streets H and I only. Street B, D and G would be your typical 31 foot wide street section.
I Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, for the city's benefit I think that there was something over
looked there. The city would like that the maintenance of those retaining walls be the
responsibility of, when he said HOA. The Homeowners Association. We'd like to see it as
I the responsibility of the lot owner. Is that satisfactory? It does make a difference to the
homeowner but the city does want to be protected there so we should.
1 Hempel: The lot owner, it won't be on anybody's lot. It will be within the city right -of -way.
1 62
1
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
That's why I'm wondering if the Association probably wouldn't be more appropriate. If
there's some language we can work out in the development contract but if the property owner
doesn't own the property.
Scott: Yeah. I think it's a homeowners issue.
Mancino: Okay. 12 thru 19 remain the same that are in the staff report. 20 reads, the Song 1
homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Blvd or County Road 117.
Number 21 thru 23 reads the same. 24 is deleted. 25 reads, the last sentence reads, a street I
shall be constructed to State Aid standards with a 7 ton section. 26 reads, the last sentence
reads, the street extension shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately
to the west. 27 thru 31 the same. Oh 31, we want to add a last sentence that says staff will
take the developer's comments under advisement.
Scott: Can I have a second please? Anyone? 1
Ledvina: I'll second it.
Harberts: Discussion. II
Scott: Well it's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion.
I
Is there any discussion?
Harberts: I'd like to just revisit what Jeff had said in terms of having some kind of criteria or 1
some kind of rationale so that if this comes up again, we've got some kind of direction in
which to look at.
I
Scott: For the access off of Galpin?
Harberts: The driveway, yes. 1
Scott: And we can, I would think staff being more familiar with existing situations. I think I
what we would do is just direct you to, and I don't know whether this becomes an ordinance
issue but something that, some guidelines. Acreage size and you qualify for these.
Harberts: I think we need the rationale tonight though.
Scott: Size of property.
1
63 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: So why wouldn't y wou do t we?
1 Harberts: Well I think Paul had a real good perspective in terms of public safety.
Mancino: As far as not having a right turn lane?
Harberts: Well, exactly.
1 Farmakes: I think there's a lot of compelling evidence why it's probably makes sense with
that amount of property. There's also, what's disturbing though is that it's fielder's choice
for the issue of hook -up. We're creating a precedent without having a precedent to follow.
We're not quantifying how many acres. We're not quantifying restricted access or the fact
that they can't go anywhere else. The fact that it's a private home or that they've lived there
for a while really, I don't think probably we use that as criteria for other issues of that sort.
If we had that criteria, I think I would probably support that hook -up. It's a significant piece
of property and so on but I feel a little uncomfortable just arbitrarily saying well that makes
1 sense. Let's do it.
Harberts: And I have to agree with that and I like the 600 foot distance. Is that what it was
1 Dave? I think it's great. I just, it's like take that dart and throw it and where it lands, that's
what I'm uncomfortable with. So I'm just looking for some rationale in terms of why are we
doing it this evening. •
•
Farmakes: And if I had 5 acres and wanted to access, I'd say you're doing it here. Why.
And then you're saying well I've got 5, he's got 100, what's the difference?
Mancino: And it's been oin up and down GalP in all the time. Since I've lived there
g g on P
for 10 years. People have bought 11 acres. They've bought 5 acres. And they've gotten
1 curb cuts and gone into their property.
1 Farmakes: Yeah, but as the lots get smaller and smaller, one imagines that there will be
more and more cut requests.
Ledvina: If you say we're setting a precedent, I mean you just said there were 5 acre lots
that got curb cuts on Galpin so I don't think, this doesn't represent a precedent.
Farmakes: Well, that was 15 or 20 years ago. The issue is whether or not it's currently
relevant.
1 Scott: Is there an ordinance that specifies the.
1 64
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: No, there's just a new one. It's 3 acres. 2 1/2 -3 acres. 1
Hempel: There is a public street...collector street and arterial streets, there's a certain
distance. 1
Scott: What about county?
Hempel: Private driveways, I don't believe there is. This situation the access is under the
jurisdiction of another agency, Carver County.
Mancino: Yeah, there was someone who just moved into Galpin just across from the Song
property, Westerpatt. I can't remember but they just bought 2 1/2 to 3 acres and put in a
private driveway and a new home and did all the landscaping and everything which was
approximately 2 years ago.
Harberts: Did they have access to an interior road though? 1
Mancino: No. No. It's right off Galpin.
Farmakes: But that's part of what, why we're discussing restricted access.
Harberts: And I'm not, like I said, I'm not really against it..I want some rationale. 1
Mancino: So that we know.
Harberts: Exactly. .
Farmakes: I think so and probably the end result again is a public safety issue. How many
cuts do we actually wind up getting once the area is fully developed?
Mancino: Because I see this land developing with the Carlson property when it develops.
Scott: If there is no access to it, and I'm thinking of the last development that we put
1
together. We took a curb cut away. They had access to, their property was abutting the cul-
de -sac anyway, as I recall. So that made a lot of sense. This is a situation where we don't
have that situation. Plus the fact, I think there was another issue that the distance inbetween.
Well yeah, we would have had a curb cut from the existing driveway that was 100 or 150
feet away from the curb cut for the collector for the development. But I think if we take a
guideline of 300 feet. If we also take a guideline that if there is no other, if they don't have
access to some sort of a collector street, then if someone does happen to buy the 3 acres and
65 1
1
i Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
there's no development around, they need a drive.
1 Farmakes: Is that, that's really a separate issue for another point in time. I guess what I, my
concern is what we have here tonight or we're going to be voting on. The issue before us.
1 Harberts: I'm finding it difficult to support the recommendation because of that and it's not
the driveway, it's the whole process here. I mean.
I Mancino: But sometimes that happens. Don't things come before us before we've had the
time to write down guidelines for it so what do we do, just not accept it? Or do we stop the
1 process and say let's develop guidelines?
Ledvina: We can bring in guidelines and you know, next time or whatever and just because
I this one has some special treatment or, it's not special treatment but it's, the consideration of
the rules that we have at the time. That doesn't impact our future ordinance or guidelines. I
don't see that as a problem.
I Scott: Are we ready to vote on the motion? Of course it's discussion. .
1 Harberts: I know. Paul, is it feasible for staff to develop some kind of criteria or guide lines
on this? Are we looking at once in a. I know you have nothing to do, I know that.
1 Krauss: ...whether we agree with it or not. I don't know. I suppose it is. I have a hard
time differentiating you know because this lot and this lot or some other lot's something else.
I Maybe there is a size criteria but the thing that came to mind to me is we've got Ches Mar
Farms that was approved. That's on a state highway where the state only allowed one curb
cut and we have a street combined driveway. I've got the developer wanting to go back
I before the City Council who wants to build a...for sharing a driveway. I don't know how big
those lots are but I supposed they're the same. Same kind of size frame. I mean in this case
Carver County's somewhat more liberal than the State was. I don't know what to answer. It
I would help though, I mean you appear to have a perception or the rationale that this one's
okay but you're not going to let other people do it in the future. You know it's not an
ordinance you're playing with. If it was an ordinance you were playing with, you couldn't do
I it. You'd have to come up with a rationale for a variance. In this case it's kind of a
development principle and you do have the ability to waive it I suppose but it would be
useful if there was a rationale tied to it so the next time it comes up, we can say this is
1 different and this is the same.
Scott: Well the rationale as I see it, and in the last development that we made someone
1 basically give up the curb cut. That property had, that property was abutted a cul -de -sac or
1 66
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
an interior street. I think that was key. And then there is a guideline, I think we use a 300
feet between curb cuts. Something like that. And it didn't hit that requirement either. So
those are, that's the kind of rationale that I was pulling with. Adequate separation. It does
not abut an interior street. I think those are pretty straight forward. And the size of the
property doesn't enter into it.
Ledvina: The other thing to consider here is if, by our action tonight by denying that that
driveway forces the Songs to literally take and split it into two parcels and then go through
this whole rigamaroll just to get what they need, you know. Why force them into through
that process? 1
Scott: And I think the underlying thing that I'm picking up on that isn't said is that there's
an agreement between the Songs and these guys that they get their curb cut. You haven't
1
said that.
Farmakes: What I don't understand here again is that if, technically to help in the planning
1
issue, whether or not the Songs live there throughout their life or not, or another individual
who has a piece of property, if something, like a subdivision plan is submitted that shows
how that driveway would be utilized should the property be subdivided in the future, and I
don't know how the city can say, commit to that, but something like that, at least from a
planning standpoint would eliminate some of my apprehensive to having very large lots with 1
driveways that may make no sense in the future.
Krauss: There is an extensive track record of requiring a ghost plat. It's been a while since
we've seen one.
Mancino: And what's that?
Krauss: Well, where a plat has not been proposed but you have a concept of how streets can
be laid out in the area allotted and what's being proposed makes sense on that basis. You
know where it would be useful there too, I suppose to have something like that is, it's still
unclear to me what's going to happen across the street from this thing. Where do we want
to force a new street to be on the east side.
Mancino: But Prince isn't to the east of that new Song place.
Krauss: I don't know where it is exactly.
Mancino: No, it isn't. That's up further.
1
67 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: But it's not Davidson either. It's something inbetween.
1 Mancino: No, it's Marty. He has 21 acres and the next people have about 5 acres. And then
Prince is just a little south.
1 Farmakes: Don't you have an overhead picture showing the structure?
Terry Forbord: To address Mr. Farmakes' concern. Really the property that the Songs are
keeping for their estate, geographically should be planned and developed with the property to
' the north. There's a wetland or it will be a mitigation area between the proposed cul -de -sac.
The mitigation area, this is actually going to be expanded but this is an illustration. This
mitigation area actually comes in through here. It's being expanded as part of the
1 development of this site. If you look at the topography in here, this site really kind of flows
more with this site. Someday those sites will probably develop and at that time, just like you
do when you entertain other plats, you will cause them to vacate their present access onto
1 Galpin when those roads, those lateral roads or street roads are being built within that
subdivision. And so that's when that, at that point in time would occur.
1 Krauss: That's true but I think Dave understands that the merit of the ghost platting is that
when we have a request to develop across the street, we know where to put that road and that
we don't have a standard situation where the Song driveway is here or over there. I mean
1 we're not asking that it be proposed but that at least it be looked at in concept.
Mancino: Terry, can you show us where Prince's home is?
Terry Forbord: Okay, here's the Song future homestead. Right across the street is another
' home right there. His driveway is right here. And here is Mr. Carlson's driveway. And then
there's another driveway here and here. Our proposed street fits right about, let's see.
Where's the pump house? Okay, so our northerly street is here and the southerly street is
1 down here.
Harberts: Where's the Songs' driveway proposed?
1 Terry Forbord: Their future driveway?
1 Harberts: Yeah.
Terry Forbord: Their driveway would probably be in, this is kind of a wetland complex right
1 here. So their driveway would probably be right in this area. Between this general area.
1 68
1
1
Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
Planning Commis g ,
1
Krauss: We can take a little bit closer look at it but from that aerial, it looks like there's only
one option to build it. 1
Terry Forbord: As far as a health, safety and welfare issue. The County wouldn't allow that
to occur if they thought it was a health and safety, welfare issue. They wouldn't grant that 1
access onto that road. And that's another criteria they utilize...entertaining permit
applications. 1
Scott: Any more discussion? Okay, a motion to close the discussion?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close discussion on the motion. Chairman Scott I
stated that discussion was closed.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary PUD #93 -3 for 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots,
preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the
following conditions:
I
1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet.
2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided 1
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet
for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be
I
reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree
preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are
required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory
structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number
I
of trees 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in
the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping
plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along 1
Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved
city list of over story trees, minimum 21/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod
required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of 1
building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for
internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval.
4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for
review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria I
consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance
69 I
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
t
1
and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels.
1 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat.
I 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are
predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs,
financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will
1 be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat."
7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on
I the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to
have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with
site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval,
1 the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed.
This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered
by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are
1 established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans
to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E
streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide
1 protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required
wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1
ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to
I identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing
wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and
I trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining
the necessary permits for this activity."
I 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be
1 developed for approval.
b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible).
I This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from
the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is
mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this
I requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat,
additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide
vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas.
1 70
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from
the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. 1
d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily
marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and
approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the
site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff.
9. Park and Trails: 1
Parks
/ park a. The private/association rivate ark be approved with the addition of an open field with a
minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park
layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed 1
amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall
be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be
drafted into association documents.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application.
Trails
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except 1
within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in
width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading
plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may
meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the
eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to
approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted
to areas west of the trail bench.
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on
Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this 1
wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the
time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by
the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. 1
71
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said
' trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of
building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner
applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of
approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner
properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived.
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16
& 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the
Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993.
This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren
Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is
' acquired.
10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12'
' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat.
11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D
and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with the typical 31 foot street width. Streets H
and I to be a 50 foot right -of -way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks
for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback The use of
' retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Street H and I with maintenance
of the retaining walls to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
' 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The
minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an
' improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the
sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered
with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff.
' 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed
District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army
1 Corps of Engineers.
14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations
1 for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City
1 72
•
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting.
15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard
when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County
Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound
Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street.
16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately proximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in
Y P
accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
All disturbed areas shall be immediately
17. y restored with seed and disc - mulched or
provided with a wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov.
15 each construction season. Areas where street and /or utility construction will occur ,
throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when
building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant
an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas
shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with fmal platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and
water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit
will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk
improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be
determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch
diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement.
19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting.
20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The
Song homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Boulevard or
County Road 117.
21. Street names submitted with the final lat are subject to staff approval.
P subject PP
22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the
1
73
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no
1 berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard
right -of -way.
1 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the
development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction.
1 24. Deleted.
' 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between
0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton
section.
1 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be
extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension
to the northwest shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to
the west.
' 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and
E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to
incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements.
28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City.
29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a
temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in
the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the
1 vicinity.
30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a
1 width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround
acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek.
Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback
from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided." Staff will take the developer's
comments under advisement between the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings.
All voted in favor, except Farmakes and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
' Scott: Jeff, if you could state your reason for opposition.
1 74
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
g g
1
Farmakes: I'd just repeat. My opposition is not to the proposal itself on the Song property,
which was my only objection of the motion. But how we're arriving at the conclusion. I 1
think we're arguing two different things here. One is the actual request and what I'm arguing
is how we're, the rationale we're using for it and I would like it to be consistent and that the
rationale be consistent as to how we apply that.
1
Scott: Okay. And Diane your thoughts?
Harberts: Ditto.
Scott: Your thoughts are similar? 1
Harberts: Very similar.
111
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20 -57,
REGARDING EXPIRATION OF PLATTING VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Do we need to discuss? This isn't a public hearing item so, do we need to discuss the
recommendation?
Ledvina: I don't have any comments.
Krauss: Well actually it is a public hearing...Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Scott: Okay. The public hearing is open. Let the record show that there are no members of
the public here. I think I can boldly close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Okay, do I have a motion?
1
Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20 -57 to read as follows:
Section 20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non -use.
The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance
except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1)
year following the issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in
75 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
reliance thereon.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' Scott: Paul, Administrative Section. Is it something that we should be reading? Do we need
to take any action on this? I noticed that we got the latest and greatest on the Frank Beddor
1 situation.
Mancino: What is it?
Scott: Well, he filed suit on behalf of himself and I think a couple of other parties, filed suit
' on the City Council and the Mayor because of not doing an Environment, or because of the
street.
' Krauss: I'm not exactly sure what the suit is about. We haven't done anything yet.
Scott: In reading it...it appears that it's frivolous because Mr. Beddor is not technically a
' resident of the state of Minnesota.
Krauss: He's a resident of Florida so.
Scott: So he can't file suit. I looked through this and I went, well that's interesting. I didn't
even know that. But anyway, what are the key items in here that we need to, except for that.
Krauss: Oh, one interesting thing. Moon Valley. Another continuing saga...We seem to
have gotten a lot of what we wanted...The different avenue is the Pollution Control Agency,
' which frankly hasn't been very tough on them before. I serve on a lot of boards and task
forces one of which is on the Minnesota River project and I kept on raising this at meetings.
Hey, here's a good example of the problems...we've been in court for years. We're at our
1 wits end as to what we can do about it as a city. Well they were just going to give it a
blanket, it's called...blanket kind of a thing. It's a simple one page form. You write checks
on it... Well apparently the owner Tom Zwiers stiffed MnDot staff a few times and never
1 showed up for meetings. There was a major blow out down there this summer.
Scott: Is that when the stuff went across the highway and into the wetland?
Krauss: Yeah. Well, we called up the Fish and Wildlife Service and the PCA the next
morning and kind of got them out there to see it. They were horrified at the damage that was
caused and in view of the fact that he never took them up on the blanket...they said, well we
1 76
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
withdrew that offer. This is now an individual permit which is a much more rigorous set of
criteria. We tried to get the Judge to require that we have engineered ponds and occasional...
The Judge so far wouldn't let us do it.
Scott: That's Judge Canning?
1
Krauss: Yeah. He thinks that we're going further than we should with a grandfathered use
and we're overstepping our bounds. Well, the Pollution Control Agency just is requiring that
they have an engineer on the site twice a year. That they do monthly water quality testing.
That they meet NURP standards. And if they fail to do so, that they do it at the risk of...plus
the PCA's doing the enforcement and we don't have to. So I think this is kind of an 1
interesting turn of events and I hope it's indicative of cooperation...
Ledvina: Paul, I would suggest that you have somebody watch or identify what the 1
conditions of the permit are in terms of the items and the trigger dates and also that you
follow up with MPCA staff. That they are enforcing their requirements of their permit
because in my experience, they have these wonderful restrictive permits that protect the
1
environment but they don't get enforced. If you have somebody that's there letting them
know that they're watching, they'll do a better job. So just.
Krauss: Your caution is well taken. And we're still in court so we do have a role to play.
Scott: Okay. I think we can forego the open discussion on the redevelopment options for 1
Chanhassen. The bank/post office. That's I think, what you have here is pretty good. I
think we can read through that but my guess is we're going to see something on...
Ledvina: Come to the HRA meeting tomorrow if you want to hear about it.
Scott: Yeah, the land swap. I guess the bottom line is that because of the Klein's buying the 1
bank from the Mithune's and the value of the two lots that the city is eyeing for
condemnation for city center park, is throwing kind of, not a monkey wrench but they're
concerned that that's going to affect the bank transaction.
Krauss: Right. 1
Scott: And they'd like to have someplace, when they expand. I guess the Klein's are
planning on expanding the bank and they want to place the park, that's not going to happen if
city center park goes. The post office property may be, it seems like it's.
Harberts: What's number 8 all about? 1
Scott: Planning Commission goals?
77
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
' Krauss: Yeah. We can put this on another agenda...this time each year. We pass them up to
the City Council in a work session. I also usually take my staff out to lunch and ask them
what do we want to get done the upcoming year...We're so swamped with subdivisions and
site plans that...
Ledvina: Are we going to have the same level of subdivisions coming our way the next 6
1 months?
Krauss: I'm afraid...
' Mancino: We will have a lull or the same degree? I'm sorry, I didn't.
' Krauss: I don't see a lull coming.
Farmakes: I would like to make a recommendation on that. If it's indicative that we're
' going to get last minute information on these developments, that we come up with a criteria
for postponing them until they're sufficiently discussed. This is the second time in a row
Lundgren has brought these 30 list of differentiation between you and them and you see it the
day before. I don't think that there's anything wrong with you dealing within your
capabilities to do that in a manner where you're not running around pulling your hair out
trying to do that. It didn't seem to me that that's what an attorney would refer to as
reasonable time to respond. And I know I feel like it's restricted access. Like they're trying
to pull something to get a response from me without having the support and consideration of
the staff. So to me if you need more time to do that, I think that should be looked at and I
know that you have a time guide line that you use when the work comes in and you'd like to
get it back out again. But if that needs to be expanded, I think you should do that.
1 Krauss: Well, when I came here we expanded it from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. But you still,
that means we have another week we don't have to start on the thing so we can finish up
' something else. Extending it probably wouldn't be useful. I find those kind of tactics as
frustrating as you do. On the other hand, Terry's position is he doesn't get a copy of the
staff report until Friday or Monday. He has no opportunity to give his position.
' Farmakes: Then to me, that's fine. But if you have all the information that you need before
you come to us and you use your criteria or like other businesses do. When I have the
finished item in my hand, I can tell you specifically how long it's going to take to make it
and what it's going to cost. If you change that, if you change that criteria, then we re-
establish the time guide line and some of these criteria for many of these things, I'm sure
there's a lot of factors involved in developments of this size. When you don't have answers
and you don't, if you don't have a reasonable time to negotiate these issues, then we
shouldn't be seeing that stuff.
' Krauss: Well and 9 times out of 10 we can deal with things and I don't have any problem
t 78
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
with a developer taking exception to a condition. The thing that I personally found very
frustrating, and it probably showed in my...but was when somebody is changing nuance or
inflection of what I say.
Farmakes: And verb changers, yeah. 1
•
Krauss: I mean I've had 17 years of experience in writing these things. They mean
something. They're supposed to have some kind of a legal standing because sooner or later
you're going to have contract language or go to court. Changing shalls and maybe if you feel
like it, if it's a good thing to do, doesn't work and I get very frustrated when I have a write a
whole second staff report and meet with him 2 or 3 times when I don't have enough time to
do other work for something that didn't need to be done in the first place. That's what I find
frustrating. I didn't take exception to you know, the driveway concern or the right -of -ways.
Those are all legit. But I don't think it needs to be done in a format where it takes 2 1/2 1
hours of your time to talk through every phrase and every word, and that's what happened at
the first meeting and it happened the last time.
es: That's what I'm saying. I think it's a disservice to the other people who are here eo
Farmakes: P P
who have their stuff presentable and have worked those issues out with you and they wind up
waiting 4 hours when they should be waiting 2 hours. In this case I think it was Centex thing 1
that we saw tonight that had to come back again simply because of that, I think it was 31
issues that he had and wanted to moderate here in this forum and I just, I emphatically
believe that this isn't the forum to negotiate 31 issues that he had.
Mancino: Yeah, it was like I wanted to table it even before it got started.
Farmakes: Oh absolutely. Absolutely.
Mancino: There was no reason to sit there and listen to the whole presentation knowing that 1
we weren't going to be able to respond.
Farmakes: What I'm saying is if you have an increasing amount of pressure from the 1
development's requiring response in the same amount of time, it seems to me that
something's got to give. 1
Krauss: Well I think that's a real big concern I have though because this, we used the down
time with the recession and lack of MUSA availability to do lots of creative things. Write
new ordinances. Develop new environmental approaches. Develop a comp plan and we're
kind of a treadmill now. We're going to 11:00 and 12:00 at night processing new things. I
don't even know when to schedule a Highway 5 because we need to get it back to here. 1
Farmakes: And that to me is far more of a priority.
79 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: Yeah, that's one thing I'd like to get on the schedule again. To go a bus trip and
' do the Highway 5.
Scott: Can we adjourn and take it off line?
1
1 Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 80