Loading...
1f. minutes • ' SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1992 1, Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order on November 4, 1992, at 5:00 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Chmiel, Council members Workman and Dimler. Council members Mason and Wing were absent. Staff present: Don Ashworth, City Manager. CANVASS ELECTION RESULTS: A discussion was held on the 1992 election results for the Chanhassen Mayor and City Council positions. ' Resolution No. 92 -124: Councilwoman Dimler moved the adoption of a resolution acknowledging the November 3, 1992, election results wherein Donald J. Chmiel was elected Mayor; and Colleen Dockendorf and Mark Senn were elected Council members as shown on Exhibit A. Motion seconded by Councilman Workman. The following voted in favor: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Workman. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Workman and seconded by Councilwoman Dimler to adjourn the meeting at 5:15 p.m. The following voted in favor: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler. Motion carried. Don Ashworth ' City Manager 1 1 I 1 Precinct 11 Precinct 82 Precinct 13 Precinct 14 Precinct 11 Precinct 16 ilta Total Registered Voters 1566 1523 1248 1291 1165 1408 8201 Registered Election Day 195 226 224 280 215 168 1308 Total Votes Counted 1460 1309 1105 1304 1151 1240 7515 Percentage 82.9 74.8 75.0 82.6 83.8 18.6 79.6 SLIY OP CBANNASSBN - MAYOR Donald J. Cheiel 1085 1020 834 1041 ___221_____ 878 5779 Write -Ia Votes 20 21 11 -A_ 21 26 122 O►ereotes 0 0 1 0 - 1 0 _______i_ Under,otes 355 268 253 246 214 336 1672 glif 01 PANNASSBN - COUNCILPBRSON Nark Sena 593 304 230 277 -__19.2______ 280 1991 Coa.ander Joseph Tully 114 , 122 125 133 - 100 __JAIL__ 142 Chris Politer 101 112 106 133 - 123 76 111 College Doekeedorf 460 481 405 495 404 432 2677 Joe Scott 234 321 267 350 244 180 ___11171. �___,_ Dill Gleason 314 363 283 363 318 __VI__ 1962 Gayle Moiler 236 24! 243 271 259 311 1561 Oeereotes 2 6 -____9_ _ -12___ ,_ -___22 Under,otes 862 602 547 576 545 114 3846. Write -le Votes 4 6, , 4 _ _ 8 0 ____12____ , 34 I MOM OM MI ME - OM NIP I 111111 - - -- .1 M CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 1992 1 . Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Wing 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler ,STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr, Paul Krauss and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to ' approve the Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: ' Mayor Chmiel: I do have a public announcement. Received a letter from Jean Strauss, Communication Chairperson for Carver County American Cancer Society and Jean is asking us to adopt a resolution regarding the following, which is Celebrate 0 Day Minnesota, November 19, 1992. It reads, Whereas, the American Cancer Society, Minnesota Division and the American Lung Association of Minnesota D Day, is a light hearted effort to encourage smokers to give up their ' habit for 24 hours on Thursday, November 19, 1992; and Whereas, for 17 consecutive years millions of smokers, including many in the city of Chanhassen have participated in this event; and Whereas, the health benefits of not smoking are substantiated and well known, and Whereas there are additional civic ' benefits such as the reduction of the risks of accidental fires and illnesses related to a second smoke; Now Therefore, I, Don Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen, by virtue of the authority vested in me, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 19, 1992 as Minnesota D Day. In this city and in so doing, urge all smokers and smokeless tobacco users, in the community to demonstrate to themselves and their friends, that they can quit if they wish by joining the ' American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association in the 18th Annual D Day. Is there a motion? Councilman Workman: I so move. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilman Mason: I second it. Resolution $92 -124A: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Resolution proclaiming Thursday, November 19, 1992 as Minnesota 0 Day in the city of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could maybe add something quickly to that. ' I've had people unsolicited tell me that they noticed that all tobacco products at the new grocery store are behind that one counter, and that seemed like a very good idea. So seeing that this city is leaders in that area, it seems to 1 1 II City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 be not interfering with the commerce down there. I thought we could all pat ourselves on the back one more time because we can do it so very few times. II Mayor Chmiel: You're right, I agree. And it did please me. I know it was quite an issue at the time. They deliberated whether it would be a payable thing, but they did do it and I did thank them for it as well. It's really neat to see it there. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve I the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Utility Crossing Lease with Twin City and Western Railroad Company, ' Upper Bluff Creek Project No. 91 -17. b. Resolution 192 -125: Accept Public Street Improvements in Trappers Pass 4th Addition, Project 90 -6. c. Resolution 192 -126: Accept Public Street Improvements in Lake Riley Woods ' 3rd Addition, Project 92 -1. d. Resolution 192 -127: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Willow Ridge, Project 91 -14. II e. Resolution #92 -128: Accept Public Utility Improvements in The Summit at Near Mountain, Project 92 -4. ' f. Resolution 192 -129: Approve Joint Assessment Contract for 1993 -94 and Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Contract. II g. Approve Settlement Agreement, Estate of Martin J. Ward, et al. h. Approve Agreement to Terminate Development Contract and Release the Parties to the Development Contract, B.C. and Brigitte Burdick. i. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Construction Site Erosion /Sediment ' Control Requirements, Final Reading. j. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Rezone 95 Acres of Property Zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planning Unit Development, Final Reading (Lundgren Bros Proposal). k. Approval of Accounts. II 1 . City Council Minutes dated October 26, 1992 I All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I should mention the fact that we did get an approval settlement agreement with Martin J. Ward and also donated some of that property too. Is that correct Don? A portion of something to. Don Ashworth: We reached settlement. I'm not sure I saw anything. 2 11 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 • 1 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I was dreaming about it. Hopefully, maybe we'll get one. 1 Don Ashworth: I'll take that back. He did donate a portion for the trail system. A Mayor Chmiel: Well I thought that's what it was. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ' Ann Miller: My name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path. My question to the City Council is, before me I have a planned residential development contract that was revised on February 28, 1983 between the City of Chanhassen and the Derrick Land Company, which I understand has gone bankrupt. On Section 5 it talks about building plan certification and it states, due to extraordinary slope and soil conditions, building and site plans for all residences within the subject property shall be certified as having been reviewed and approved by an architect or civil engineer, licensed by the State of Minnesota. Said building and site plan review and approval shall include provisions for slope protection, surface and sub - surface drainage, prevention of siltation and the preservation of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation removal during construction. I'm asking for written proof that this was provided for on my property. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don. Don Ashworth: Have you visited the Building Department? ' Ann Miller: Ah yes, I have. Don Ashworth: Their response to you? 1 Ann Miller: They don't have anything in the file. Don Ashworth: We can research it more. But we do keep all of_the'ccmmercial!_ _____ industrial plan sets to insure for access, etc. But with the number of single family, and all other type of permits, it would be larger than this entire building to hold all of the plan sets that have been received since 1983. They're kept during the construction period. The end of that construction period, individual plan sets are thrown. It's our belief if they have met all of the Code requirements, most owners will keep a copy of their own plan sets. So I'm not surprised that they did not find anything. Ann Miller: But that doesn't answer my question and it seems the City has an obligation to provide me with that information. Either the, giving me the name of the licensed either civil engineer or architect that did approve the site. Don Ashworth: And the previous owners will not provide you with a copy of the 1 plan set? Or you don't have one? Ann Miller: I've asked them for such things but they have not given them to me. I moved into the house myself in July. We closed on it June 5, 1992. Mayor Chmiel: Ann, maybe if you'd just back up a little bit with the problems that are existing with what you have. 3 i City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Ann Miller: Yeah, it's the cul -de -sac at the top of the hill. It's a high water table area. It's the Swedish house. Some of you may be familiar with it. We're having water problems pooling in the yard, etc. When we first moved into the house I actually thought I had a watermain break and had Mr. Boucher out ' there immediately to check things out. Fortunately we didn't. Also had the water sprinkler system checked.out thinking we had a break there. We did not. It has been a wet summer but the lawn never dries out. We have sitting water on ' the hill at all times with actual frogs and snakes everywhere in the yard during the summertime. And we also have a bowing retaining wall that's putting extra hydrostatic pressure on the house. Don Ashworth: I can prepare a report or have Scott prepare one for the Council. It would appear as though that part of Mrs. Miller's problem is between herself and the previous owner. But again I will ask that both Scott and the City Attorney prepare a report for City Council hopefully having it onto our next agenda. Ann Miller: And when would that date be? Don Ashworth: Two weeks from today. Ann Miller: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Ann. Is there any other visitor presentation at this time? ...I know that there's some concerns from, let's just back up from this public hearing. I know there's some people here from Minnewashta Parkway. Some of their concerns and I think probably at this time we give them an idea as to where everything is at. I've asked our city staff to pull together some information in regard to this. And the status as to where it is right now. So maybe at this time we can have Charles start out with this and take it from there. MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPDATE. Public Present: Name Address JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Harold Taylor 3861 Stratford Ridge Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We have our project engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt here tonight. We've prepared at least an overview drawing which we can display tonight to show you what the exact project status is and what we will complete in the next 2 weeks on the project. Bill. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This is a half section map that accomplishes four sections of Minnewashta Parkway from Highway 7 to Highway 5. The bottom of the map. We're trying to highlight in various colors in what the status of the road condition is right now. The red section that you see is the area that has been, what we call rocked in or rock base has been 4 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 partially constructed. Of the 16 inches of rock base, 14 inches have been applied to that particular section. All the retaining walls have been built and storm sewer has been installed. The next section that you see in green, just south of Stratford Lane, is a section that they're presently working on and we believe that by the end of Wednesday night, that section will be red. So the rocking is going to start proceeding tomorrow on this green section. At the same time they will be proceeding to bring this to grade and by Wednesday night the red again will extend up to Red Cedar Point. We feel that those are two of the major goals that we establish and we will accomplish by that point. One is to get up to the Stratford Ridge where the majority of the people have a driveable surface and then on Red Cedar Point. That everybody can go out to the north to Highway 7. The section that you see colored in light yellow down along Highway 5, that's the fill section. There's about 8 to 10 feet of fill going in that area and as these sections are completed, that fill material is being moved up to that section so as these are being done, this is also being done. And we believe that by the middle of next week, this section or the first 900 feet will have the rock surface on it and then the middle section between Red Cedar Point Road and Hawthorne Circle should be completed shortly thereafter. Maybe another 3 to 4 days. The major portion of the work was up in this upper end. We had deeper cuts. Tougher areas to maneuver in and the haul distance was considerable. It was almost the entire, well it was the entire length of the roadway to get to our fill area up in this area. But as we move south, that distance from the roadway that they're working in to the fill area shortens up and it moves along much quicker. And the area through here is already to grade. We have that to subgrade. The storm obviously threw a damper in our entire planning on it. We had fully intended and the contractor was notified that we wanted him to complete the blacktop and the curb and gutter this year. His indications were earlier that he could complete it and could do it. He felt very confident on that. The snow storm has thrown that backwards basically. What we're going to be attempting to do and what we will be accomplishing is to have the entire roadway rocked in for the winter season for next spring. The curb and gutter, we feel that it should be delayed until next year along with the bituminous paving. We could put some in but we feel it would jeopardize the quality of the entire project, and we're not willing to do that. It's our recommendation not to do that. They want a good driveable surface and good hard surface with a rockway. There's going to be some inconvenience when you have the freeze /thaw where it's going to be mud but not deep mud. It's just going to wet on the surface. The majority of the problems that anybody has experienced up there was due mainly to the utility trenches. They have had a fairly good driveable surface all through the project. When they ground up the blacktop, they reapplied it and kept that open. There's no question that it's not 100% but any construction project is, of this nature, is going to have some problems with it. One of the biggest problems up here has been the traffic and just an unbelieveable amount of traffic. The contractor has done, I think a very good job of keeping the road open. We have never shut down the roadway entirely. Everybody has had access to go back and forth. There have been delays but they've always had access through the project. They've been very accommodating and they're doing their best. That's about all I can tell you of the conditions we have right now. But I think to push this and put the curb and gutter on, put the blacktop down, I think you're going to be jeopardizing the project. But they are going to have a good driveable surface. If you go out there, if you've been out there, we even had the string lines up for the curb and gutter. It was to start the Monday after it snowed. I mean they were all set to come in and pour 5 1- City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 curb and we would have been off running but the way it is right now, we just won't do it. Mayor Chmiel: I know today I drove out there and they were removing some of the fill area to bring it up towards Highway 5. I think that's basically for a better eye level at Highway 5., 11 Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Better views so accidents can't occur, or shouldn't occur with the problems that we had previously. Bill Engelhardt: It's a very difficult project because of the tightness of the fit. They're moving the dirt with scrapers up there. They could do it with trucks but it would be slower and they couldn't move the volumes of dirt that they can move with, scrape with with scrapers. But because of that, and the maneurability of those machines, it just takes a little bit longer. But it's coming along very well. It could be going faster but the contractor is using ' his blade out there. He's had a man out there most the time going up and down the road and some people that have had problems, it's mainly due to some of the trench settlements, the storm sewer and the utility trenches. The gas mains and the telephones that had to be lowered. And that was a consistent problem all through the upper end. Having to go in and work around the gas mains and lower those as they were going. But again, the cuts are shallowing up and it should go faster. The plow distance is shorter and there's not as much work to be done in those sections. Councilman Wing: Have we had an abnormal number of public service accidents out there? Telephone, power? Bill Engelhardt: For a job of this nature, we've had quite a few of them. I don't know what's normal to tell you the truth. The gas mains are all over the ' place out there and the telephone lines, they've had markers out there. People marking. Even today when I was out there they had a mark and they've still been hitting them. You don't know the depth of them. You know approximately where 1 they are but they're just all over the place. And I don't know if that was a result of having the work redone or being done when the sanitary sewer and watermain went in years ago. I don't really know but they're just meandering ' all over the place. So we've had to move those area. We've had to relocate mains. We did add about $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 worth of storm sewer manholes to the project to avoid relaying gas main. Or having the company relay the gas mains and we did that for one basic reason and that was for time. Because it ' would have taken 3 to 4 weeks to move the gas main and we felt it was imperative that we not move the gas main. Move the project ahead and so those manholes were added in order for the contractor to proceed. But hopefully by the end of this week, we'll be up past Red Cedar Point. And the contractor informed us that he felt fairly confident that he could have it all rocked in and he will have it rocked in one way or the other but he's saying in 2 weeks. But before anything is shut down for the year, that roadway will be rocked in and it will be a driveable surface. And he will maintain it. If we get any soft spots, we will call him at any time that we need to in the spring and he will be out there to straighten those soft spots out and keep the traffic flowing. I think the advantage here, it was our hope to get it paved and it was presented as being paved in one season. I think the advantage of going through the frost cycle 6 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 without the paving to get the settlement out and we could put both lips of 1 blacktop down in one season in lieu of waiting one full year before the final lip goes in. So there are some advantages to the way it's being done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other questions that you might have? Does anyone from Minnewashta have any specific questions? Bill Engelhardt: I should say your Honor too, the people up there have been r really good to work with. Very few complaints up until the snow storm. We received after the snow storm not a large number of calls but more people curious whether we were going to shut down or not for the year. The contractor didn't work for about 2 -3 days there and I think people were concerned that we were just going to be gone or the contractor was going to be gone. That's not Chp case. They will be working as long as they can out there. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I know one of the questions that were brought up to me was the fact that they weren't working full 5 days a week. I think I found out the answer but I would appreciate if you would just bring that up for the balance of Council and people that are here too. Bill Engelhardt: The contractor's work schedule was for roughly 45 to 50 hours ' a week. A number of his initial crews that were out there, the people live out of town so his policy with his company is that he works 4 days and gives them off Friday but in those 4 days he's working 10 to 11 to 12 hours. So he was accomplishing as much work in the 4 days as what he would accomplish in the 5 days as far as hours go. We can't ask him, it's very difficult to ask him to put in more than that when you start going over the 45 to 50 hour limit. And that was basically for his pipe crews. Now that all the storm sewer's completed, his grading operation, his people work longer hours in that particular area of the business and they're working 6 days a week and they're putting in about 60 hours a week. So the first initial shot, people were wondering why on Friday they were gone but by Thursday night, those people had a lot of hours in and they were staying in motels and they would go home for the weekend to be with their families. But they did have a significant amount of hours in by that time and again now it's 6 days a week. Councilman Wing: A letter just recently came out. Charles, I think you just sent it out. Stating that you intended to blacktop and now that's outdated and I kind of wished that letter hadn't gone out. I think we need to get a letter out that hits this thing head on. And the neighborhood has to know that they're going to gravel it. They're going to shut down and nothing's going to happen until spring. And also, who to send the complaints to. I mean no sense calling me or Don or any other Council members. There's got to be a central, a 1 -800 number. Crisis number. ' Bill Engelhardt: They have our number. Councilman Wing: 1 hope so. 1 Bill Engelhardt: They have our number. At the beginning of the project they got our number and we try to be accommodating to them and work with them. ' 7 I City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: If we have any power at all here we could adopt a resolution asking for a freeze because that would eliminate a lot of those given problems. But I guess weather, trying to work with that is rather difficult. I Councilman Wing: Just suggest one quick comment Charles then I'm done. The real concern of the phone calls that I had relating to the Council meeting tonight were that they don't try to put in the curb and they don't try to I blacktop because everyone was in fear that it'd be a second rate project and I think that a lot of people, even though they're concerned, are really happy to see it coming to a halt and then starting out fresh in the spring. II Bill Engelhardt: There are only so many things that we can do realistically and without jeopardizing the job and those will be done. But we're not going to sacrifice the quality of the project because of something. One other thing we I should mention too is the mailboxes has been a concern. We've just lately had a couple of questions. We have one big row of mailboxes on Kings Point Road. We're going to, now that we're starting to get the rock in and getting it in place, we're going to start separating those up and get those closer to the people's homes. They may not necessarily be right on the road but we'll use Stratford Lane and some of the other roadways and we'll look at each address and make sure that their mailboxes are as close to their home as possible for the II winter. So that's one thing that we're going to be doing. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, one other thing I'd like you to mention too. As to why now II we can't put in that curb and gutter. And it would jeopardize the consistency of what's going to be put down. I'd just like you to clarify that too. Bill Engelhardt: Basically, the reason we don't want to put the curb and gutter down, it'd be very difficult to backfill behind the curb. Right now the subgrade is a little bit wet on the shoulders and what would happen is it would freeze and thaw and that curb is going to move up and down next spring. If we II put it in, we're going to get movement. We're going to get a lot of cracking and we can't backfill because the material is so wet out there along the sides. We can't pull that up behind the curb and if you don't backfill your curbs, I they're going to fall right off to the side. The other consideration is that, if you don't blacktop after your curb and gutter is in, within a reasonable amount of time, your going to chip that all up and it's going to be virtually ' destroyed. So we would basically be, any curb and gutter we put in now, we'd probably be ripping out 90% of it and replacing it next spring. That's the basic reason is we can't backfill and we've got to have the blacktop in there to hold it so we don't chip it up when we plow and the subgrade is a little bit II wet. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, you were going to say something? II Charles Folch: Yeah, I was just going to mention that the letter that did go out to the residents about a month ago, we at that point in time still had intended on blacktopping this year. In fact if we would have had about another II 2 weeks of normal weather, we would have had the project blacktopped. The letter that I sent out on Friday basically explained to the residents that we intended to continue to work on the project as far as we could. At least II buttoning it up with a rock base and that I would follow up with another letter within a week explaining, after reviewing with both the contractor and Bill what 8 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 the status was of the project and looking at some predicted weather patterns for the next 2 weeks. That we would follow up a letter explaining in more detail how much we expected to do this year. So I'll follow up with that letter the end of this week. 1 Councilman Workman: A member of the audience wanted to say something. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come up to the microphone please and just 1 state your name and your address? JoAnn Hallgren: I'm JoAnn Hallgren, 6860 Minnewashta Parkway. And I'm wondering if any of the Council has driven past and taken a look at the retaining walls. I think the construction is poor. Evidentally those contractors did not own a level. I've seen a lot of retaining walls and if I had asked for someone to build that on my property, I would not accept it and I would not pay for it. That's not just my opinion. That's a number of residents there. The other thing, today my phone lines were cut. I have two private lines into my home but no one came up to tell me. I had to drive down my driveway and request that they do something about it and I really don't know if I was treated well or not. No one did anything until I sat there in my car and waited for the man in the red truck to go and report it. I talked to the US West phone man and he said, personally they don't care if they cut your lines or not. And he just kept ripping the line up with this Cat. So these are personal things that I have come up with but there are very many people that are upset about what's going on on the Parkway. And you can't even dress up and get in your car and get out without getting filthy because of the roads, and now I know that's not the problem that anyone's to blame for but we consider this to be a finish project by October 31st. Now everybody's making a joke, well that's '93 so that's my comment. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? ' Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Stratford Ridge which is right on the Parkway. Saturday it looked like they did a tremendous amount of work and the road's much more serviceable where it's been rocked. But from what I've seen, there's now kind of a mini -Baja there or something. Excessive speeds and the kids have several school stops there. If it would come, a halfway decent snow, the retaining wall that's very close to the lake is low and if there's not any markers up there, you're just going to lose somebody into the lake basically. So that needs to be addressed if we're going to live with this through the winter. If you did get the red rock base in there, whatever it's called. I'm not an engineer. But that's very serviceable when they put it down but it appears to have to be maintained all the time because it's been down previously. So basically it's, I think we need some visibility of law enforcement basically. Especially early in the morning. Construction guys are not, they're not all pick -up trucks per se but 6:00 -6:30 in the morning, they're really cooking through there. Now that they've got a road that they can do that, they're going to do that. And also later inthe evenings, weekends, that sort of thing and when the road was basically a pottery glaze if you will, once it got wet and froze, there's no way you can stop a car on it or you can drive on it because I'm doing it 3 or 4 times a day. But basically it's Saturday they made a big progress Saturday. Thank you. 9 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Ann Miller: I'd like to make another comment about my property. Mayor Chmiel: Ah, sure. Go ahead. Ann Miller: Just again, my name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path. Also ' for the next Council agenda, I wish you would also consider the proposal that I'm asking the City to solve those solution. The water problem I have on my property and I'm asking them, the City to also pay for it. I have excavators, I approximately 8 of them come to the property. I've estimates anywhere from $5,000.00 to $25,000.00 to correct the problem. I think it's the City problem. Mayor Chmiel: Now is that because of the flow coming off the street or because of natural springs on the property? Ann Miller: Both. And it's not off the street. It's off the hill. There is a holding pond directly above my house. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilman Workman: Can I ask a quick question about that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Workman: I have a newer neighborhood and built, moved in last January and I had a lot of sitting water in my backyard. Now the home next to ' me got built and we've got a problem there. Between our two yards it was all backing up into my yard and I had a lot of water sitting there. Water was supposed to go out through the park. I'm not going to explain where I live but it was supposed to go out through the park. Well that would have been a very difficult proposition. The City did end up taking care of it through the whole way but under the basis that they approved the plat. Water was supposed to go a certain way. It wasn't and since the City approved it that way and it wasn't doing it that way, that they were responsibility. Is that the same kind of situation here? In a sense. By the way, I have a lot of water still sitting there. Me and Ann are going to get together and. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's the same. The two are unrelated but one to a certain point. And you don't have any natural springs on your property there? Councilman Workman: No. It's a natural drainage area. 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's a natural drainage area. Charles Folch: Yeah. 1 Mayor Chmiel: With the topography flowing to where it's supposed to go is what you're saying. Charles Folch: Basically I think in Tom's case, Mr. Mayor, we had a plat that was approved with an associated grading plan and then thereafter there was some 1 10 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 grading that was done to the adjacent park and somewhere along the line the two didn't interface so one of the drainage routes for the, Tom and his neighbor's backyards were actually blocked by some park work we did so it was something that we had done that we caused so we corrected it. Mayor Chmiel: Putting in sort of a swale or something of that nature? Charles Folch: That's correct. ' Councilman Mason: If I can make a quick comment on the Parkway. I think Mr. Taylor's comments were well put. I've done some traveling on gravel roads and they can become very slippery. I hope that the City is on that the whole time. Also I'm not, Mr. Engelhardt makes the comment that the mud won't be too deep in the spring. I think that might remain to be seen, depending on the frost line. I don't know. Bill Engelhardt: No, the rock base is going to hold up. It's a substantial base out there. I don't think you're going to see...And I feel very confident of that. I do. Councilman Mason: Good. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION TO ADD CODE 1 AND 2 PLASTICS TO THE TARGETED RECYCLABLES FOR THE CITY. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in Jo Ann's absence I'll be brief. We have been collecting plastics by regulation. It's only been the drinking containers. The Recycling Committee would like to expand that to all types, 1 and 2 plastics which are I think often described as any plastic with a neck. Any bottle with a neck on it. It can't be a peanut butter jar, but anything else basically. This recyclable material is, there is a market for it. It is being picked up by Carver County. Jo Ann has spoken to two of the haulers. They were given an opportunity to come speak earlier. Nobody was present but two of them contacted her directly, Aagard West and Chaska. They both indicated they were already doing it anyway so it's no big deal. I also spoke to Admiral Sanitation today. They also said that they were already doing it. So I think by and large, the bigger haulers are already collecting it. But there is a desire to get the ordinance changed so that all the haulers do bring that on line. So we are recommending that you do approve the ordinance revision. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's a well worthwhile item for us to do. Environmentally 1 it's good. I know my hauler has been picking those up as we put them out as well. And I see that at the price of plastics are up a little bit more than they were before so that makes it all the more marketable and to remove it from our final resting place which is normally in dumps located throughout. 11 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Councilman Wing: I'll so move the resolution adding Code 1 and 2 plastics to recyclables. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, can I maybe get an idea about what the difference between a 1 and a 2 is. Paul Krauss: You may do that but not from me. Councilman Workman: It's just a bottle right. Mayor Chmiel: They're marked Tom. They're marked on the bottom of the containers. ' Councilman Workman: I know that but I can't remember which ones had a 1 and a 2 on them. Paul Krauss: Again, most of the haulers I know simplify it by saying any plastic that they can form into a neck bottle. Councilman Workman: But that's both so there'd different grades of bottles. Paul Krauss: Yes. ' • Councilman Wing: That was 1. 2 now opens it up to other items. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, such as windshield washer wash. Councilman Workman: Well I've been doing that and they've been taking it anyway. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm saying, yeah. Councilman Workman: I've seen this little comment. When they say no oil ' bottles, are they saying motor oil bottles? Paul Krauss: Yeah, because it coats the plastic. l Councilman Workman: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor with a second. ' Resolution *92 -130: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a resolution adding Code 1 and 2 plastic to the targeted recyclables as noted in Section 16 -1, Definitions of the City Code. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried. 12 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 PUBLIC HARING: TARGET DEVELOPMENT: 1 A. VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AT BURDICK PARK 2ND ADDITION IN ANTICIPATION OF REPLATTING OF REAL PROPERTY. 1 B. ACQUISITION AND VACATION OF'HIGHWAY EASEMENT ON CARVER COUNTY ROAD 16. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, in Kate's absence I'll take this item. As a part of , the purchase agreement of Lots 1 thru 5, Block 1, Burdick Park 2nd Addition, the City completed a Title search and found that utility and drainage easements that need to be vacated as a part of the replat of this area to Chanhassen Retail Addition. The new utility and drainage easements will be dedicated with the new plat that will be signed tonight and recorded tomorrow. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution vacating the underlying drainage and utility easements for Burdick Park 2nd Addition. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And item (b) as well. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. This is a utility easement. This was a little different. This goes back to when West 78th Street used to be the old State Highway 5. It was then dedicated over to Carver County which then was known as County Road 16 and with that the County—had retained an easement for a snow fence. This easement was not removed when it was dedicated back over to the City of Chanhassen. A quit claim deed has been executed by a Carver County Board and will be signed tomorrow and also will be presented at the closing, which is planned for tomorrow. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution vacating the underlying utility easement for the snow fence. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this? Either item? Item (a) or (b), as I've indicated. This is a public hearing. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion or discussion or acceptance? Councilman Workman: I would move to approve both items 2.5(a) and (b). Mayor Chmiel: As indicated by staff? Thank you. Is there a second? , Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution #92 -131: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to , adopt a resolution approving Vacation #92 -7 for underlying drainage and utility easements in Burdick Park 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Resolution #92 -132: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a resolution approving Vacation #92 -6 for the underlying utility easement in Burdick Park 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 13 ' 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 AWARD OF BIDS: REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE WEST 86TH STREET WATERMAIN PROJECT 90 -10. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your meeting on September 14th, an award of bids for this project was given contingent that city staff and the City Attorney would be able to work out the necessary easement negotiations ' and /or right of entries to be able to construct this improvement project. As of late, it appears that we are not able to work this easement negotiation out and given this late time of the year as of course we're experiencing with some of ' the problems with Minnewahta Parkway, it does not seem reasonable to move ahead with the project this year. Therefore, we are recommending rejecting all bids for this year. The project may be rebid next year as a potential project. Otherwise there may be another alternative that may occur next year pending what ' development proposals are on the table at that time. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any idea what the market is right now? The availability or the dollars, I should say. I know there's going to be some hungry ones out there at this time. Charles Folch: As far as contractors? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Charles Folch: Actually what we've experienced through the fall here is bids slightly higher than what we were expecting and from talking to these contractors, it appears that there's a lot of work out there and the uncertainty with fall work also has caused that to be a little bit higher also. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Can I have a motion to reject all bids for the West 86th Street watermain project 90 -10. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution 892 -133: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reject all bids for the West 86th Street Trunk Watermain Improvement Project No. 90 -10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: You know this has taken so long I've forgotten what. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll table it. Paul Krauss: You know, in reading through this again, I was kind of shocked at some of the things. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, me too and that's what I had mentioned to you before. ' Paul Krauss: I think as you're aware, we worked with this with the Planning Commission for about a year and there were several versions of the ordinance 14 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 kicking around. To back up a little bit further, you know we passed a new PUD ordinance 2 years ago which was very comprehensive and we've been operating under it. The only thing is there's not a lot of detailed information on how to do single family residential PUD's. In the interim time you've approved at least 2 of them, and maybe 3. Which is kind of a good working experience. I mean the ordinance doesn't prohibit you from doing it, it just doesn't give us a lot of detail on how to do it. The Planning Commission kicked around a lot of different variations of this ordinance. At one time Mr. Mayor, you were correct with your 9,000 square foot that we talked about tonight. At one time it was 10,000 square foot was the proposal. The proposed absolute minimum that a lot could ever be. This ordinance that was brought forward to you from the Planning Commission goes back down to 9 which was the original proposal way back when. There were other versions of the ordinance that had it at 10 but also required that the average lot size be 15,000. And frankly that offers some possibilities. , I mean we've seen some situations, for example one comes to mind. The Hans Hagen Homes proposal which could have benefitted from having an average lot size of 15,000 but some smaller lots in the soybean fields and larger lots up on the hill. Ultimately that project was not a PUD and it was brought in as a plat because we didn't have that option. This PUD ordinance though differs in a lot of ways from what we operated under a number of years ago. That ordinance caused us no end of difficulty. That was the ordinance that gave us several residential PUD's which were supposed to lower the cost of housing but in fact they did nothing of the sort. All they did is push bigger and bigger houses onto smaller and smaller lots and the city wound up having to resolve a number of situations where there was no room for backyards and no room for decks and no room for garages. Where people had been told that the empty lot across the street was going to be a nature conservancy and on and on and on. That's an example of everything that you shouldn't do. Should not do with a PUD. I think we've tried to address those issues in a substantive way. For example, although this ordinance does lower the minimum lot size, it does mandate that you demonstrate, the developer has to demonstrate that there's sufficient building area for a 60 x 40 building pad I believe it is and a 12 x 12 deck outside of any protective easements or drainage areas. I believe someplace else too, and maybe it's in the wetlands ordinance, there's a part of the Code that requires not only that but you have a 30 foot backyard outside of that area that's not under water or anything else. Now I think that's going to result in lots, even if they're undersized lots, that are oftentimes a lot better than the typical lots we have today. There's any number of lots today that meet the 15,000 ' square foot requirement but are very difficult to build on because they're encroached upon by a wetland or a drainage easement or something else that isn't normally recognized. There is no similar obligation in the normal plat to demonstrate satisfactorily that the lots are buildable. My staff tries to make sure of that but, in fact I think our subdivision ordinance can benefit by having some similar guidelines. Anyway, as you're aware, I think this has been on your agendas late at night for something on the order of 7 months. I'm looking forward to just getting this out there. I'm sure it's not going to be approved in this form but at least we have something to start the discussions from. We're ready to work with you on this and I'd like to get something done so we know what to tell developers. And I truly believe that the flexibility that a PUD can offer is really invaluable and I think we've demonstrated it's utility on several plats. For saving natural features. For getting good residential neighborhoods in there. I think the details need to be ironed out and we stand ready to do that. 15 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: I've been waiting for this for 7 months. 8. Actually it's 9. How long have I been on Council? Councilman Mason: Longer than 9 months. 11 Councilman Wing: The MUSA line is starting to scare me because everytime we shift the MUSA line, east, west, north or south, it opens land for development, and we think that's good. So every development that comes in tries to get as ' many houses in there as they can. Every development comes in kind of scares me because I see traffic and more stop signs and density and cars and I say, what are we doing? Why don't we leave the MUSA line alone and live happily ever after? So in the future I guess I'll fight the MUSA line because that kind of puts me where I want to be. Little larger lot. But my feeling right now is, that the PUD is really a significant ordinance, and the PUD does work in our favor and I really want to support the PUD ordinance and I think Paul's done wonders with these PUD projects that he's come in with. And of course it boils down to what we all consider to be a reasonable lot size and I get concerned about density and how we're going to devise this. We talked about 15,000 feet ' kind of being small enough and I think there was agreement with some of us on the Council that 15,000 feet was a reasonable sized lot and we didn't want to go any smaller. So if someone comes in here with a standard subdivision, they can do anything they want to more or less. Build their streets perpendicular like Paul's talked about and do a standard subdivision. So then as the plum to try to get them to manuever around, the PUD comes in and we drop the lot size down so there's some incentive to have smaller lots. Bigger lots. Save trees. Save wetlands. Whatever the case is. But I still don't like the density so I guess where I stand on this, the 9,000 I think is too small. We had been at 10,000. That was the last one of these that I saw and the Council kind of said, well that's okay. My personal perference and what I would support and what I would prefer to do is to see our standard subdivision move to 18,000 square feet and if somebody wants to come into the city and do a standard subdivision, that's their right but they're stuck with an 18,000 square foot minimum lot size. The ' incentive then is to go with Paul's PUD ordinance and the carrot at that point is to drop the lot size down considerably. 9 is too small for me. 10, I'm really not comfortable with. You know we've got a letter here from Tim from Planning that talks about the setback being 20 feet versus 30 feet. And you know, we've sat on the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the problems we have with these front yards with short driveways and we just had a special meeting just on that where people put their boats and motorhomes and 3 cars and so on and so forth. So these small lot sizes aren't in the city's favor I don't believe. But any rate, my feeling is that if we went to 18,000 for a standard subdivision, and then really made an incentive to stick with the PUD ordinance, and I would go, right now we go from, if we pick 10 as the magic number here. If we went from 15 to 10, we're giving a 5,000 square foot difference. A 10,000 square foot lot. Well, I'm willing to go from 18 down to say 11 and give them a 7,000 square foot difference so really have a carrot for a PUD. But I'm not comfortable with 10. I would compromise on any other number just to get it higher. But to get that number higher, we really have to have a plum which means I think changing our standard subdivision to encourage this PUD ordinance. So I don't like the small lots and I don't like this ordinance because of that and I've debated this with Paul over the year here. I favor larger lot sizes. 11 16 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 As far as I'm concerned, Minnetonka's got it together when they go 22,000. That's fine with me but then I want to hit the other thing for you liberals and that's affordable housing. There is an issue there that I think is justified and I heard what you had to say. That we have to provide some affordable housing which means the 10,000 foot lot size does help first time homebuyers. But if we're concerned about first time homebuyers, and we're concerned about cost, and if we really truly want to provide affordable housing, then let's deal with that as a separate issue. I think it's Apple Valley, I'm not going to ' commit to that but I think Apple Valley went a subdivision where they went 50 x 100 foot lots. Quality homes but to get the home, the cost of the home down, they had to decrease the cost of the land. That's the way they did it so quality homes went in but on small lots and I would favor and support us rezoning and looking at our comprehensive plan and picking out specific areas within the city that we would in fact provide affordable housing by getting land costs down by allowing some smaller lot districts to occur. I think that's a way around getting the whole city under this small lot umbrella. I'd rather see them isolated in corners here and there and be part of other projects so. I guess my intent right now is not to support the small lot size but I'm one vote. , Councilman Mason: I'm not quite sure why Councilman Workman wants me to go first here but, I don't have any trouble with the smaller lot size. Simply because if we don't want a PUD, we don't have to give them a smaller lot size. My personal feeling is we're getting hung up on lot size in the PUD because we can simply say, we don't want a PUD there so it's not a 10,000 or a 9,000 square foot lot. Then it goes back to 15,000. So that's not an issue for me. I'd be a little hesitant to go to 18 or 22,000 square feet because now we're talking about density versus urban sprawl and do we want everything all spread out or do we want things a little more localized. I think clearly by some of the PUD's that are in with some smaller lot sizes, people are buying them. There is a need for them. I personally don't want to spend any time at all working on my lawn. I don't like mowing. I don't want to take care of it. I've got other better things to do so I think there's a trade -off there that we need to address and I think this PUD addresses that. And clearly with it having to accommodate a deck and the building pad that's acceptable, I think smaller lots in some cases are just fine. Let's do something with this. We've been working on this , a long time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Thomas. ' Councilman Workman: I'd ask Councilman Wing to take back that word he called me. Liberal conservative. Councilman Wing: I was going to use the word psuedo intellect. Councilman Workman: I think I'm somewhere between the conservative and the liberal on this one in that I don't think a 9,000 square foot lot in a PUD is necessarily a starter home because they aren't building. Mayor Chmiel: Can I just put a clarifier on that? Rather than that showing as , 9,000, that should have been shown as 10. Is what that really should have been. With the original intent being, from the previous discussions that we had, we brought it back up to 10,000. Not 9 and somehow it came out here. 17 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Paul Krauss: I was trying to remember how that happened Mr. Mayor and as I recall, when this got sent back, or when it went to the Planning Commission. It wasn't officially on your agenda but you commented on it. There was a version in front of them that the Planning Commission that did say 10 and I think after month after month after month of not being able to come to terms, they just threw up their hands and said,,let's go back to the original and I think that's where it came from. But I think you're right. I was a little bit surprised myself opening this again after all these months. Councilman Wing: Wasn't it also 10 with a mean average lot size of 15? 11 Paul Krauss: That's the way staff had proposed it and the Planning Commission went so far back they went to it's roots but we had proposed minimum of 10 with all the same hookers in there. That you've got to demonstrate utility. That one of the things a PUD also has to do that a plat doesn't have to do is provide permanently set aside open space on a sliding scale. So all those things gets thrown at you but it did have an average minimum of less than 15. And to be honest, the two PUD's that come to mind, the two Lundgren PUD's all have average lot sizes of like 10 or something like that. ' Councilman Workman: If you can...pond. Paul Krauss: No, no, no. No, we gave you tables that knocked out all the water and, I mean I'd be fully content that that gives us the kind of flexibility to 1 work with a developer on a unique piece of ground. Mayor Chmiel: But I'd just like to clarify that 9,000 should be 10. Councilman Workman: Well this reads 9,000 so unless we change it, I'm going to...9,000. But what was I talking about? The Lundgren Bros Willow Ridge proves, I mean those are not starter homes and it's a PUD. I mean that's a $200,000. and up, unless the dollar has done weird things recently. So I don't know that that really makes a big difference. I have served a year on the Board of Adjustments and that is very irritating when, as a woman from 10 years, 9 years ago comes and she has a problem. Well, I know of a couple of people in this town who are still furious with the members of the Board and myself also who didn't approve a deck. She could only have a 2 foot deck you know on this thing. Big house. 10,000 square foot lot, on a corner lot of all things. And they weren't going to be building a deck. And I know they're still not happy about that. But it does create an awful lot of problems. I think though that Met Council and planning agencies are saying that this is sort of a way to go and you want to maximize your land useage. Minnetonka now has a 22,000 square foot minimum like our 15? But they obviously have a PUD. What is their PUD minimum? . 1 Paul Krauss: Minnetonka hasn't allowed residential PUD's. They did earlier. They had the same experience we had but you know, there's been so much data 1 collected on this that I don't have it here but we've provided several tables of what other communities have. Minnetonka is off the high end. I mean I think Eden Prairie is 13,000. Plymouth is 12,000. Eagan is like 12 or 11,000. You look at comparable growing communities. Chaska is very low. We're up at the higher end already with that. And as you pointed out, there's very clear evidence that beyond a certain point, larger lot sizes are promoting just what 1 18 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 you don't want to promote. They're gobbling up land a lot faster. Pushing the MUSA line out further than it would normally be. In addition to significantly raising the cost. Lot prices these days it's common, $40,000.00 - $50,000.00 a lot. That's not an expensive lot. And every time you push out the linear front footage, you're increasing the cost of providing sewer and water and street. 1 Councilman Wing: I don't have the floor here but just Paul, there seems to be, and the thing that troubles me. If I'm cutting in, don't let me... There seems to be an issue though that when you take the density we're looking at. Just for me watching our city grow, the traffic and the number of people starts to become overwhelming, and people are expensive. I mean I agree. There's got to be a compromise here. The large lots, it does expand it and I don't refute your argument there at all. But when we start getting down to those 9- 10,000 square foot lots and we get a lot of them, I really do get concerned about the number of The amount of traffic. The density we're getting and that's a detriment. That's not a positive. Paul Krauss: Well again, I think that's why as the Mayor cited, that there was ' a version proposed by staff that had 10,000 square foot lot sizes. An average lot size of 15. Effectively you will wind up with no more homes than you would have otherwise. They'd just be a little bit more appropriately distributed and again, I think you saw that with Hans Hagen's development where he proposed putting the 10's out in the soybean field where he could just grade it flat because there wasn't a single tree and wanted to go with 25's and 30's up on the hills closer to Timberwood. Because he wasn't allowed to do that, I think he still did a fairly good job but he just had a broad brush say, okay everything's 15. Councilman Workman: And to me the biggest thing that I have a problem with in it's perception is the 20 foot front yard setback. To me that gives, that will then tend to give a neighborhood with small lots the impression that they're a right on the road. And how important is that, I don't know. I have a concern about that. It's maybe in part attached to our protecting of trees and tree stands and so we'll let them move it. Move ahead if we can protect a tree or two and God love the trees. I think the long term dictates that we should move, we should try to keep them back a little bit because that tree could die next week of oak wilt or something else, and you've still got a house way in front. I would like to take that front yard setback and keep it where it is. And have us work with the lot as best we can. Other than that, I think I'm ready to, those aren't maybe minor things but I'd be willing to go with the 10,000 square foot. Councilman Wing: 15,000 average minimum? Councilman Workman: But that's what we're saying right? , Paul Krauss: Like I say, I became convinced over time that that gave us ample flexibility to work with the developer. Again, this is minimums and all the developers we've seen in the last couple years have provided far more than that because it was more attractive to do it. And it just became a design qualification. Where can you most appropriately put the lots saving wetlands and trees? 1 19 , City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Councilman Workman: I think we've been lucky. I think we've had some good II PUD's. I think the people who have large lots have potentially bigger problems down the road than the people on PUD's do. I've already, I think I've heard from some Timberwood people who are thinking about splitting their lots, and what's that going to do? Can they do it? They want to, they're building their houses to the side of the lot so they can split it off later. You aren't going to do that with a 10,000 square foot lot I hope. But I think we need to take into account, I don't mind mowing my yard and trees and things. It may concern II me later but I think today's society dictates that most people are more like Mike and they've got other things going on and aren't really concerned with a big yard. II Mayor Chmiel: Amen? Thank you. I've got a big lot. I Councilman Wing: So do I. Mayor Chmiel: I've got just about an acre. And I like it. I enjoy it. When my kids were young, there were a lot of football games in the backyard. Area that they could really use without any effort. I'm sort of inbetween the devil and the deep blue sea on this as well. I don't mind the, I think we need a PUD for that. 1 look at the setbacks of 20 feet. If you go from this wall and come back from where that no smoking sign is back 2 1/2 feet, that's 20 feet. That's not very much. And I think 30 feet would be minimal. And I say that for more than one reason. It also would accommodate additional cars into that driveway. Not having problems with streets plugging up and parking on those streets. I II don't particularly like that. I know we have a couple areas within the community. We're trying to resolve that issue right now. And consequently, those cars are there. To try to get even emergency vehicles through when you have them on both sides and it's pretty well plugged and it's tight. It slows things down and I don't like to see that. Secondly, I see the 10,000 square feet as a potential that it could maybe fit into it I look at 12. Go from a 15 to a 12. That's giving that much more room to the lot in itself. What I'm looking at is decks in themselves. We're talking about a footprint of 60 x 40 but it's not incorporating a garage. And if it is, it's then cutting that house down in size. Number 2. If we do go through this, and they want to put a deck II up which we're talking 12 x 12, which would go without any effort. If somebody wanted a larger deck than 12 x 12, they're not going to be able to do it and they're going to come back in here to us again pounding and saying, well why can't we have that? Because the setback isn't there. And I've sat on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as well and it gets pretty difficult to tell people they can't build something that they want to because we're not taking into consideration what those basic needs may be. And so I am sort of leaning to the fact of this going into the PUD, and I don't disagree with it. But I think I'm keeping it at 12,000 for the departing portion with whoever wants to develop. Councilman Workman: What's the minimum they used in Near Mountain? Paul Krauss: 9. That's where that number came from. In fact, we had Forbord give a presentation. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I know. And if you look at that and drive through there, you can see that it's 9,000 square feet. I've done it several times. 1 20 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the prior PUD ordinance allowed decreases down to 12. Now it was a bad ordinance in most respects but it allowed it down to 12. For the last 3 or 4 years nobody used that ordinance. It wasn't enough, I mean with all the, I mean developers don't like PUD's because it opens up, I mean if you don't have to go through a rezoning action where City Council and Planning Commission have a lot of latitude, they would just as soon avoid it. If I recall correctly in the Lundgren project, the new one, I think some of the lots get down around, a couple of them are like 10,500- 10,700 and I think that's the smallest they get. And that's after you exclude any kind of, they're dry lots but that's after you exclude the wetland. The concern I would have is that, you know we already had experience of 12,000 square foot lots not being enough of an incentive for anybody to use the ordinance. And if we're not going to have an ordinance that's used, it's not going to do us that much good. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I would love to get this moving. I would propose 1 or I would make a motion that we go with minimum 15. PUD to 11. Maintain a 30 foot front yard setback. Paul Krauss: Average of 15? Councilman Wing: Average 15. Mayor Chmiel: To 11,000 square feet? Councilman Wing: And protect the frontyard 30 foot setback. That will make 1 Carol real happy on the Appeals Board. Mayor Chmiel: With the 30 foot setback from the front, yeah. Okay. I'd be willing to do that. Anyone want to second it? Councilman Workman: Second. I don't think that 15 will ever, average will ever be attained. I mean we haven't come near that. Paul Krauss: We've always far exceeded it. The only time it comes into question is, oh I remember when we dealt with the developer who was doing Rod Grams' property. It's not a very interesting site. There's really no natural amenities to protect. He wanted to came in and wanted to do a PUD just to do cheaper homes and smaller lots and he probably would have wanted to do everything to the bare minimum. In a situation like that, and you find that land tends to be south of TH 5. You know the active agricultural areas. Somebody might come in and push it close to 15 so that's probably the only time that's ever going to happen. Councilman Workman: Do we have a problem, as you said, nobody uses the ordinance. Do we have a problem then? If 11,000 is so close to 15, our minimum 1 lot size normally, then do we have a problem that nobody's going to use the PUD again? I mean are we. Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know. 1 Councilman Workman: I would say the only way to not jeopardize that would be to say go to the 18. Go to the 18 and have the 11, and then you're going to get the mix of people who are going to say, well I'd better go for the PUD. 21 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Paul Krauss: You know that's been raised a couple times by the Council and some of the Planning Commissioners too from time to time. And my concern is it's almost throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean we have a subdivision ordinance that's working pretty well and is at the higher end of what Twin Cities communities are demanding. And to push it off the scale to make something else work, I'd be concerned with. As to whether or not an 11,000 square foot minimum will work.. Well it's clear that 12 didn't. I mean 12 wasn't enough to attract them but when I look at again Lundgren's proposal, they 11 were pretty close to that 11 minimum and maybe the 4,000 square feet is enough latitude to get it. I'd sure give it a whirl if that's what you wanted to try and we could see if it's working. t Councilman Workman: Call the question. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll call the question. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing Residential Planned Unit Development Districts requiring a 15,000 square foot average lot size, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size and 30 foot frontyard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: May I address Councilman Mason's concerns. I think Mike represents a lot of people in the city who are up and coming homeowners and I'm still not satisfied that we have addressed your small lot, small land, reduced cost issues. I/ Councilman Mason: I don't think it has been here but I don't know that that was the intent of the PUD in the first place. Councilman Wing: No, no, no, no. But the question you bring you I think is valid. For those who would prefer a smaller yard. Don't have the money for the land. I would like to see us looking at a small subdivision here, there, wherever it is, that does allow for reduced lot size with a quality control in there. Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, there's a part of this ordinance that nobody's ever discussed but it's in here nonetheless. It starts on page 325 -07, standards and guidelines for single family attached housing. Cluster homes. This is not for low density guided land. It's for medium density guided land but I know that, for example in Minnetonka, as the land got scarce and much more expensive, you found people building the projects that were designed for folks who just did not care to have a lot of maintenance responsibilities. That all that land was held in common. Almost as though it was a townhouse but it was detached single family homes on a relatively small lot. This would structure that and allow that to occur on those medium density guided sites. Whether that's going to reduce housing costs or not, that's open to question. The ones I saw in Minnetonka were extraordinarily expensive. But it certainly can happen. Councilman Wing: I think Apple Valley went for an average home cost of $120,000.00 including the lot. The only way to maintain a quality home for $120,000.00 was to reduce the land cost so they went 50 x 100... 1 22 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: I just looked at something that recently a new sign that just has one up where the homes were from $85,000.00 to $120,000.00. Well that /05,000.00 is slashed and it's $100,000.00 plus and escalating up. So they have gone up just in itself over the last year almost anywhere from $15,000.00 to $25,000.00. Same development. Same homes. Just the escalation of price. Trying to reach some of those things is almost next to impossible. Unfortunately. Councilman Wing: You make sure the Planning Commission knows we did something, okay? Paul Krauss: I'll tell them. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 NORTH LEG REALIGNMENT; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. PROJECT 88 -228. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This project is the third phase of an overall four phase program to relocate Trunk Highway 101 out of the downtown area in Chanhassen. Basically this project consists of a construction or reconstruction of Dakota Avenue, TH 101 and West 78th Street all north of Trunk Highway 5. Basically these are the same design elements and plans that have been presented to you in the past. The construction of this project will occur in stages whereby we will build a by -pass in order to maintain traffic from north and southbound TH 101 west along West 78th Street and then out Great Plains to Trunk Highway 5. The access to the Business Park will be closed down during the construction phase. We are unable to maintain access at that point. Thereby sole access for the Business Park will be via Dell Road which will be completed, and is substantially completed at this point in time and will serve as the primary access for the Business Park during construction. The project is estimated to cost, construction cost of $1,580,000.00. We will need to acquire some right -of -way with this project. At this time we do not know the associated costs but do not anticipate that they will significantly or adversely impact the overall project cost. We will need to design and construct two railroad crossings with the project. These design elements will be designed under separate and bid under separate contracts which will come before you I would expect sometime after the first of the year for approval. As the City Manager has eluded to in his comment, this project has some history related to special legislation and tax increment funding for this improvement project. It is , critical that we bid and award a contract for this project before December 31st of this year otherwise those monies that were set aside or dedicated for this project will likely be lost. I would suggest that if there are specific design elements or problems or questions that come up with the project, that we still continue with this approval process and that we address and iron out any potential issues before we come back to you with the award of bid recommendation. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I do remember this quite well. Don and I spent an awful lot of time trying to convince the Commissioners to allow us to even do this. And thank goodness after a period of time we finally accomplished it but it didn't look like we were going to really have it but they were gracious enough to give us that extension in time and it was well appreciated. When you're talking about the traffic flow, clarify this for me. TH 101 will be routed onto 78th Street, over to Great Plains and back out to TH 5? 23 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Charles Folch: Yes. I/ Mayer Chmiel: And I think as I see this, I get a little bit of concern with that because we won't have a controlled intersection there yet. How can we, during the rush peak hours, and I know how, can we provide some kind of traffic control within there, either by having an officer during the peak time periods in the morning and evening, to allow that flow of traffic to continue. Charles Folch: That's a good question. That's something that we will have to consider. What we'd like to do with the other project, downtown improvement project, is try to accelerate construction and installation of that signal at Great Plains Boulevard. It is unlikely that we will have it fully operable by the time we want to begin construction on this project so that is probably a likely alternative. Having a patrolman there during the peak a.m. and p.m. 1 per to help improve the serviceability of that intersection. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Tom. Councilman Workman: It seems to me we're getting out of whack here. Charles, you and I talked a little bit about South Shore Drive being turned into a cul - de - sac or cut off and then West 77th coming through. Where are we at with that before I proceed? Charles Folch: Basically we are proposing to control access at this point with 11 Scuth Shore Drive. Our current plan proposed the construction and a barrier median here which will only allow a right -in, right -out movement from South Shore. MnDot is currently reviewing the plans. There are a number of agencies right now that were given a plan that depending on comments and concerns that 11 they have, there may be some certain modifications that need to occur in the plans. One of which, one of the issues that I'm sure MnDot will be reviewing with this intersection is, how well they feel that this right -in /right -out will function and whether or not they will come back with a recommendation to close the entire intersection or not, I do not know at this time. If they do come back with that recommendation, we will need to consider how that impacts the adjacent neighborhood to the west. Specifically the South Shore Drive area. If we eliminate that access totally at that location, that subdivision will only have one other access, which is to the north. 11 Councilman Workman: But we're being asked to approve plans and specifications and we really don't have those and so I'm wondering where do the residents on, two things. The residents on West 77th are obviously effected and have been there a long time. And then we're going to kind of, potentially reconfigure the traffic to the neighborhood. At what point do we invite those people in for comment? Shouldn't this have already gone out for notice? Charles Folch: Well unfortunately we don't know. MnDot hasn't finished their review so we do not know what their stance will be. If their stance is, that the plans are specifically related to the geometrics of this intersection are 11 acceptable, then that's the way the project will be instructed. If they should core back with basically a red flag at this intersection, I'm sure we will have that information that was used from MnDot back before we come back to you with ' an award of bids recommendation. If that does become an issue, I would recommend that basically...add in if you will some medians to address that 1 24 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 specific design element, which could be an element that could be changed during the project construction as a change order. Again at this point, we do not know. It may be a non - issue. Councilman Workman: Well do the 51 sheets that you have show, they show the 1 median. Right -in /right -out. . Charles Folch: They show the median and right -in /right -out. 1 Councilman Workman: I mean I can tell you that the people on West 77th are going to demand at least that. That we can get out of there without, because then, in effect what you're saying, we would have three outlets to that neighborhood. We wouldn't cut it through to West 77th. Charles Folch: We are proposing to cut in through or off 77th Street unless, 1 that would not be investigated as a possible alternative unless this would become a complete closure. Councilman Workman: Okay, yeah. Good. Then let's not scare the chickens 1 until. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Is it your suggestion that we consider opening 77th? , Councilman Workman: No it's not. No, I'll tell you what. I live there but if I acted like I didn't, then I should act the same way obviously. I would be very, very sensitive about what West 77th had done to them. You know I was the driver behind the Timberwood, keeping it out of Timberwood down there and not to separate neighborhoods but because then traffic patterns change and where people built a home and have lived for many years, now things change and I wouldn't like that if I lived there. But no. If I could get to downtown the back way a little bit quicker maybe but to me that doesn't need to be done. And so it looks really ridiculous having that little cul -de -sac with that little median sitting there and the UPS guy drives through there anyway you know. But no, I don't think I would, living on West 77th, I wouldn't want it. As long as we can get out of that neighborhood okay, I think it's fine. Charles and I are going to try and get a speed meeting on TH 101 here hopefully. Not too far from now but and maybe that can be addressesd a little bit too. But I just want to keep ahead of it here because that could be a real hornet's nest. I know of at least one household that would fight it pretty hard. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions or discussions? Councilman Workman: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. 1 Resolution #92 -134: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 101 North Leg Realignment Project No. 88 -228 and authorize the advertisement for project bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i 25 1 11 II City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 II APPOINTMENT TO DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COMMISSION. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. This is really nothing more thEn...I'm bring this item to your attention this evening. Last February you 11 appointed Heidi Halverson and Tim Clark as a youth and adult representative to this Youth Commission for District 112. It is recently come to our attention that both Ms. Halverson and Mr. Clark are unable to fill those appointments so II that has created two vacancies. In reviewing the Youth Commission file, it was shown that Jay Johnson was interviewed by the City Council last January 27th as a potential candidate for the adult position. And then has been interest expressed by Ms. Natalie Rosini in serving as the Youth Commission member. Both I/ those individuals were contacted. Mr. Johnson is out of the country serving in the Reserves but Sally Johnson has expressed his continued interest in serving on that Committee. Natalie is at school this evening practicing for the play II which starts tomorrow evening. She called today expressing her interest, continued interest in serving on this Commission. I leave you with that information and the Council may elect to appoint one or both of those current II applicants to their respective positions. Or as an alternate, ask that the vacancies be re- advertised allowing for additional interviews prior to making appointments. Mayor Chmiel: Well we normally, in the past have always gone through the re- advertising portions on this. And I think it would be my suggestion that we do this. We keep it open as we always have to see if there any other people II that may be interested. If we don't get any, then that would be then to appoint the two that have been indicated. II Todd Hoffman: On both the adult and youth? The Commission had a meeting toncrrow evening and they essentially contacted Natalie asking her to be there but I said until Council took action this evening. II Mayor Chmiel: Right. We should be able to get something into the paper by tomorrow morning, or will they accept anything? I Todd Hoffman: Potentially I'm working with him on another one so. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. And then we should have this back before us next II Council meeting. Todd Hoffman: Between now and then would you like to conduct interviews then? il Mayor Chmiel: We can probably squeeze that in inbetween there sometime. Or if it might be better, we could probably do it maybe a half hour prior to Council meetinq, depending upon total numbers, of the next Council meeting. Meeting a II little earlier. Todd Hoffman: So noted. II REPLACE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR'S VEHICLE. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, Council. I have submitted to you a memo setting forth II the basis for my request, which I won't repeat unless you have any questions. For reasons I have outlined, I have recommended a 4 wheel drive vehicle as my 1 26 II City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 1 first recommendation with a sedan being the alternate recommendation. I quickly sought bids on 4 wheel drive vehicles from Chevrolet and Ford dealers as well as several different models of sedans to review. While I do believe that access to a 4 wheel drive vehicle is important and an appropriate recommendation, the bids shc:w a wide range of prices. After carefully reviewing 2 wheel drive options, I did not think the Taurus or Luminas would be worth considering when compared to the rather extraordinary value of the Crown Victoria or the Caprice on the State bid which we may purchase under. These are $21,000.00 list price vehicles available to us for under $13,000.00. Because of reasons including immediately availability, I would specifically choose the Ford over the Chevrolet. Because there is a $4,274.00 difference between the 4 wheel drive from Polar Chevrolet and the Crown Victori -a on the State bid, I would like to recommend my recommendation to go with the Crown Victoria and request authority to immediately proceed with the purchase of this vehicle and necessary equipment. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I know you have a lot of dollars in your budget. Scott Harr: He asks knowingly. I'll defer that question to the City Manager. Mayor Chmiel: This vehicle was going to be replaced next year. Total miles and Probably by this happening, we probably lucked out. Luckily you didn't get h Scott Harr: Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Which is one of the better items with it. Any discussion? Councilman Workman: The Crown Victoria that you refer to is under the State Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's the least amount. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. I wish we could get a 4 wheel drive vehicle because I think it's better for the city but at that price. Mayor Chmiel: Well I looked at it too and I looked at the Sheriff vehicle. I looked at the Highway Patrol vehicles and they all drive the Crown Victoria's which I think is, and I've had discussions. They seem quite pleased with those. Okay, any other discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: I think Scott's decision is a good one. Just so we take into account the fact that it is rear wheel drive. It's not a real storm condition car and the ideal vehicle for Scott would be the 4 wheel drive, 4 door. But it is a lot of money and...Council's decision. Mayor Chmiel: Motion's on the floor with a second to purchase a Ford Crown Victoria in the amount of $12,725.00. I understand that there will be no additional costs from relocating the equipment from the previous vehicle. From 27 , II City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 I/ one to the other. The insurance is also going to pay for those transition costs. Scott Harr: That's correct. We just finished getting the final test done on the radio equipment to determine what all would need to be replaced. And Shop Foreman, Harold Brose is just completing the negotiations on that but our position is all replacement will be paid by the other insurance company. 11 Resolution #92 -135: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to purchase a Ford Crown Victoria in the amount of $12,725.00 for the Public Safety I Director's vehicle. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: It looks like we don't have any Council Presentations or Administrative Presentations. Before going to an adjournment, I hope the II Council has had an opportunity to review the Administrative Section and some of the discussions that we see before us regarding, a couple items I just wanted to see. Strgar- Roscoe. Hope you see that with an increase of another $60,000.00 II to $65,000.00. And I wrote in big red letters FOW because we've already expedited $75,000.00 on this and it just, hopefully they can substantiate their time and where those dollars are also going. And also the letter that's in here from Moody's. Investor's still putting us at our BAA1 rating even though we II still just increased some of that. Just alone on that again, if we had that BAA as opposed to BAA1 on the total amount we're saving, roughly about $25,000.00 whi:h is a good substantial amount. There's also a letter from the Greater II Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce which is coming up November llth. Just 2 days from now and if anyone is able to attend that I'm not. I have already other appointments on that day but if anyone can make it, I think it would be well II worth: while. So with that, I would. Oh, very good. If you can just pan the camera, I'd like to publically congratulate Colleen Oockendorf and Mr. Senn. Mark Senn in back. He's sitting there so quietly. Didn't even raise an arm. Congratulate them on being elected to Council. They'll be sitting up here the II first part of the year and it's good to see you here tonight to hear all the won things that we've got going. Congratulations one more time. And with that. II Councilman Wing: Congratulations to Tom too. It was a good campaign. II t�yor Chmiel: Well, he's not going to sit on this Council but yes, , .Wi ; ;ptulations Tom. We've given it to him 3 times already. And with that I'd request an adjournment. Laverne Vassar: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Laverne Vassar: I was put off til tonight to have you people on an assessment hearing and you haven't addressed it. I've been here all night. I Mayor Chmiel: It wasn't on the agenda was it. Laverne Vassar: You told me to come back in 2 weeks. I didn't hear nothing II fr:m your staff that you were talking about. So I went and seen your staff and II 28 II City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 they said they were going to get back to me and they never got back to me and they never sent me a letter or nothing. Don Ashworth: It's my understanding that you did not get a chance to meet with Dave until just recently. t Laverne Vassar: A week ago. D:on Ashworth: He did write a letter, which I just received here today. I was 1 anticipating having this on to our next agenda. I do not recall that we specified the date. That it was going to be a function of Mr. Vassar being able to work with engineering. I apologize and you have not received this letter? Laverne Vassar: No. Don Ashworth: It's dated November 6th. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can provide him with that letter right now. Don Ashworth: I have marked mine. Charles, could you maybe take the letter out of your packet or, oh. You don't have a copy. Mine is pretty well marked up. We'll go upstairs and see if we can find another one. And I can put it onto the agenda. Basically what it states is that, Mr. Vassar's bill was reviewed before. A letter had gone out on May 21st of 1991 when it had been questioned at that point in time. It was looked at at that time as a, at that time the city inadvertently charged you the higher land use of *41.31 per acre per quarter, which is equivalent to business park rates. Since then your bill has been revised to reflect the current land use. Industrial office rate which I think is what, almost a benevolent position by Dave. Mr. Vassar operates the used car or the car place on 212 by the SA and so the lot is almost 100% used from the standpoint of the number of used vehicles that he has on the site and the amount of runoff, at least that staff believes he has. But they did reduce that to the $32.24 rate. I've confirmed my drainage calculations for your parcel and am confident that we are charging you the accurate rate per acre and threfore no adjustment to your billing is warranted. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. And then attached to that was the letter of May 21st. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1 Don Ashworth: If the Council wishes, we can still put this item, or we can put this item on for the next meeting. The Council should have copies of this. T`ere are some aerial photos that do show the parcel and the land use intensity that is occurring at that site. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Sorry that we kept you this long. I know you enjoyed , listening to everything we had to say. Laverne Vassar: I'm on the City Council so I know. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How about if we can have you back on the 23rd and we'll put you right at the front part of the agenda rather than having you sit through the rest of it? 29 ' 1 City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 Laverne Vassar: Alright. Me/ or Chmiel: Can we make sure that we do that? Cor: Ashworth: It would go under old business so it would be on the earlier part. Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we can waive it and move it up ahead right after the consent. Yeah. we'll do that. Laverne Vassar: Now, there's one question. This thing is set to be put on the taxes as of tonight. It was 2 weeks you said the last time. Don Ashworth: Well he was giving a 30 day period of time. Certification, if the City Council acts to modify that, that certification can be modified and there would still be sufficient time to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. La . erne Vassar: Okay. And the 23rd right? "3yor Chmiel: 23rd. Can we have a motion for adjournment? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Su!DT.itted by Don Ashworth Cit Manager ^rr; by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 I <5;,.. II CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1992 II Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, I Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Emmings II STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: I PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 112 RENTAL UNITS AND 105 TOWNHOMES AND A CLUBHOUSE /OFFICE ON 27.04 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED R -12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET I BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOTUS REALTY. Public Present: I I Name Address Bob & K. Dianne Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve II Mike & Mary Henke 7560 Canyon Curve Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve Tim Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve Randy Swatfager 7511 Canyon Curve Karen Branow 7490 Canyon Curve Hans & Mavis Skalle 780 Santa Vera Karl & Mary Rollar 7550 Chippewa Trail I Kevin Crystal 940 Saddlebrook Curve Greg & Cindy Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve Mark & Cindy Schallock 7501 Canyon Curve I Dave Callister 7540 Canyon Curve Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Arvid Ellness 5115 Knox Avenue So., Mpls Kay Halla 770 Creekwood 1 Gordon Christenson MN Valley Surveyor 1 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Can you generally provide an overview as to what the developer's II gaining by this being rezoned a PUD and what the City is gaining? Aanenson: Well the intent was to hope is to try to preserve the trees. Again, that's the question right now. It appears that as it's been staked I that the grading plan is not, it seems to be inconsistent with what's out there. There's some concern about that. Paul would like to address that. II Krauss: There's a couple reasons for it. One of the more fundamental ones too I think that goes beyond the usual trade - off...that's being looked at, is we've got a site out there that's zoned R -12 and it's a real II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 2 ' wild card. I think there's a lot of concern. Most of the folks are here tonight because there's been one plan after another proposed for this site. One of the good things about a PUD is for all intensive purposes it becomes contract zoning. If there's a plan that's approved for the site under a PUD, that becomes the zoning district. It's no longer R -12. It's that PUD plan. And the City's control and the neighbors ability to input if this project doesn't proceed from that point forward, is much greater. ' They basically have to come through another rezoning action. You eliminate a lot of that wild card status. In addition, under the PUD we're talking about two different types of housing. Owner /occupied and ' rental. We're talking about private recreational facilities. We're talking about trying to manage a site in a comprehensive way. The PUD district provides the added controls that we need to do that. Under straight zoning we don't have the right to commit a developer to enter into a contractual agreement to protect what we'd like to protect and maintain what we think needs to be maintained and those kind of items. But I think you have more focus on those kind of concerns than you do ' specifically a trade -off. Batzli: So what are we, maybe I wasn't focused intently enough on what you just said. What are we gaining by making this a PUD in terms of ' natural features of the land other than the trees? Anything? Krauss: You've got the, well start with the topography. Earlier versions of this. Batzli: Graded it more significantly. ' Krauss: Lopped it off and make it a plateau. You've got the trees that you're picking up. You've got communal private recreational space that serves a good purpose but it needs to be maintained by a homeowners ' association. I believe some of the, correct me if I'm wrong but we were looking at some of the standards relative to street width and grades being modified and some setback internally to be modified a little bit to make ' the plan work under the PUD. We think in exchange we've got a better quality product. You've got a great deal of flexibility from the developer in terms of product...these things are going to look like. On the owner /occupied we've gotten, we've managed to pick up preservation of the trees, not only on the...hill itself but internally. A lot of those things are a lot less flexible under a straight R -16 zone. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to give a presentation at this time before I open the meeting to the public? Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm the developer of the project. I have with me this evening Arvid Eilness, who's the architect. Gordon Christensen who's the Surveyor. Has.done the surveys out there. And Kay Halla who is the Landscape Architect for this particular project so we can later on address any specific questions to them. Arvid would like to come forward after I'm done and just do a brief presentation on color drawings I guess. If you recall correctly, when we first presented this, we were going through a three process process here. The first step is conceptual, which we've gone through and listened to the neighborhood's II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 3 1 concerns about the original proposal that we had. We've been through the Planning Commission. Listened to your concerns and also the City Council, So we're now going through for the preliminary approval and we're trying to adjust somewhat to the input that we've had from everybody so far and would say most of it has been a very positive process. Initially our major objective on this particular project, only because I saw through this last time it came through here, which was about 3 or 4 years ago, was to maintain as much as we could the stands of oaks that are there and there are also scattered oaks on that site. So that was one of our goals The second goal we had, as far as the development was concerned, is to do a's minimum amount of grading as we could. So we actually went ahead and adapted a new type of rental structure so that it would fit the lines of I the property. The third thing was to produce a project which would fit into what we perceived to be the Highway 5 corridor plan as far as what visually was planned for this area which was primarily to maintain the 11 trees and then when everything was all done, you'd have a nice looking project on the hill. Because it will be visible from Highway 5. Those are the major objectives we came. One of the things we did not address, and probably because I, not because I forgot about it but this particular' site to the east is R -12. To the west is R -12. And to the south is our highest density commercial property in the city. So it's basically a transitionary parcel. In talking to the developer of Saddlewood, when hel did this particular project years ago and he and James arranged for the zoning. First it was zoned R -12 prior to, is it Saddlebrook. What is it Saddlebrook. Prior to Saddlebrook being zoned whatever it was, the property on the hill was R -12. So he had to deal with how to buffer his property to this particular property. And the buffer that he used was the wetland area which is approximately 200 to 300 feet across. And he felt that that would be the buffer. In talking to Rick Murray, that's how he 11 perceived it. Thus he had a little point in here, which was an outlot of the parcel zoned R -12 also to coincide with the zoning that was there I already. Later on, that's been purchased subject to that zoning so our proposal assumes an R -12 zoning in that property and whatever goes along with that. Since we've met with the neighbors, and all the Planning Commission and talked to the staff, things that we have done is reduce thil total number of units from 240 to 217, which is a net density drop of dow to about 10.4. I think we're actually at 9.6 or almost lower than that and I think the report shows that as far as our total density in a zoning area that requires 12. We've gone from 168 rental units to 112. We've increased the for sale. They were concerned that we had too many for ren units in the propject and some of them that were directly visible to the neighbors to the north so we have changed the for sale mix to from 72 to II 105. Primarily the for sale unit increase was in the northeast corner which was originally our Phase 3 rental. We've lowered the rear elevations of all the buildings to appear to be 2 story instead of 3 stories that look directly onto the neighboring houses. As I said, we'vr added a northeast for sale. We've added quite a bit of new landscaping. And this again is probably an oversight on our part but we added quite a bit of landscaping in the original proposal to the north side. There is one barren hill there so whatever was built there would be seen. But we're putting in pine trees. One of the things that we did do, I've jogged through there periodically and I always wanted, like we do on the 11 other side, job along the pond so we put in a trail system that went alon the wetland pond that's in that neighborhood. That met with quite a bit II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 4 of objection from the neighborhood. I think they just didn't want people running through their rear yards, which is reasonable. And secondly, there's quite a bit of wildlife in that area so we've taken that out. There was no need for that. We have however been requested by the City, ' and we've agreed to do that, is to add a trail and a trail easement as a part of your trail plan along Powers. CR 17, whatever it is. That street so we complete the trail system connecting the downtown area to this. We have worked with the city on the drainage. The storm water drainage plan for that which I believe Kate reviewed with you and basically our position is that we'll use the City's consultants to design that. Just assuming that they'll come up with the best solution. And then finally we've ' in I don't know most of your parking for rental units run around 2 parking spaces per unit. In some communities it's a lot less. Our parking is currently 2.25 parking stalls per unit which is quite higher than average for most communities and higher than your requirements that are here. With that I'd like to have Arvid just go over the plan. Those are the things that we have changed in the project. I think Arvid can ' review the actual project with you. Batzli: Brad, do you have any objections to the current conditions in the report? Have you had a chance to look at the staff report? Brad Johnson: The only one that I'm concerned about, and this is more of a financing problem, is that one of the requirements is that we put the ' road in all the way through right away and that really has to do with how we finance the project and whether the lender, whether we're putting the road in. The City's putting the road in. We haven't dealt with that issue as of yet but no, the rest of those conditions are things that we've ' talked about. There's some issues about trees. I believe we published, you have received a document that was sort of incorrectly drawn by a computer as to where trees were located in one area. That's been corrected and the surveyor is here to verify that was the case. We drew in the wrong grading line. Our intent is to preserve as many of the oaks. As far as I know at this point, we are only taking 2 oaks overtly I guess ' that we have to take. And there's 5 to 8 elm trees and that type of trees over 12 inches that are in the path of the development way over on the west side. There's a lot of trees in that particular area but I think we've been as sensitive as we can to the project. But no, I don't have 1 any problems with any of the staff concerns. Other than that one and we haven't really talked about it. It just showed up in the discussion so far, so Arvid. Would you like to go over the project itself? Arvid Ellness: I'll just kind of recap some of the highlights of the plan. We sort of presented the conceptual thinking on the project in the earlier meeting which is basically an idea of where the rental units should go and where the for sale units go based on the variable that we wanted to preserve the natural topography of the land as much as possible. Use the building type on the hillside that gave us the greatest deal of flexibility and could be nestled into the ravines and the positioning of the trees. The unit that we had in mind for the for sale unit has a lot less flexibility in that regard so those decisions were discussed and debated and resolved in earlier discussions with the Planning Commission at the earlier meetings. Now to highlight the things, and I don't know if you all can see. To highlight the things that Brad brought to your 1 I/ Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 5 attention. The area in the northeast corner here where we've made the 1 major change is that we've taken out the rental units up here and we've gone to a for sale unit. That for sale unit is a staggered type. Third type design for the project. It's designed specifically for that area. I� has a lower roof line on the north side and it's a staggered type design so that it has a softer and creates more of a shadow effect. These units are somewhat lower than the rest of the units and they fit down into the hillside as a phase which was our Phase 3 development area. We then planted some additional trees on the north side here. Conifer type trees to give us additional screening and softening those facades as much as we can. We'll have some elevations to show you. What we've done with the 1 elevations is kept it very schematic in terms of bulk and size to determine the height of the building. The scale of the back wall and things of that nature and the refinements of design in terms of detailing of the windows and how the building materials and colors will go together will be a phase of development that we're anxious to go into. But at thi point we're trying to get the parameters of the project established and with respect to scale location and positioning on the site. The other tw1 buildings that were referred to by Brad that we've lowered the roof on. On the north side which is the area closest to the neighbors to the north, are these two buildings here. We've brought the roofline down to a 2 story effect on the backside rather than a 3 story expression that we've II been showing above on the project. Before on the project along the major embankment area here. The area of the grading discrepancy, one of the I areas was in this central area here where we were showing some grading that was inaccurate. That's all been corrected and the new plans have been submitted and they have that on file here as well as documents enclosed in the set here. We also have some retaining wall work that I we're going to put in around these oak trees here to make sure that our position that we're saving the trees is maintained. I think the other components of the site that you're somewhat familiar with from earlier 1 discussions so I'll just go on to some of the other sheets. This is a building type that you've seen before. It's a building in which the garages are located on the street side into the community type area and the back side of the project is where the unit face out into the oak tree' and overlook the wetland area. The configuration of that building is pretty much as we had shown it originally. The exception to it is that in some areas we've been able to take the roofline and actually lower it to I 2 story effect which we'd use on the buildings closest to the neighbors t the north. So we would represent to everyone that this building,'- that's been identified on the plan will have a 2 story facade on the backside as it's predominant elevation rather than the 3 story facade on the backside ' that we had shown earlier. Materials remain as we had proposed. Final siding is a predominant maintenance free material. The colors and things of that nature will be resolved in the course of development of this design. The other building type which has been a pattern of refinement II over the periods. It's the one that's being marketed for sale very successfully throughout the metro area. It's referred to as the back to back for sale unit. Very popular unit. Very well selling unit and price in the moderate range so that it's retained that popularity. The materials and the configuration of the building has been refined somewhat from earlier sketches but it generally represents a building of this scale. Of this height and with these widths. All have 2 car garages and other features that we identified earlier. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 6 Batzli: What is your targeted moderate range? Arvid Ellness: What is what? ' Batzli: What is your moderate range? Brad Johnson: Price wise? Batzli: Price, yeah. ' Brad Johnson: Under $95,000.00. Arvid Ellness: This unit here is the new entry into the design and it was basically here is the unit that we're referring to on the northeast corner of the project. It has a 2 story type expression on the back side. It's staggered in a sawtooth pattern so it will have a softer look. It's a for sale model. It's a unit that we think fits into that particular segment of the site and into the contours in that area. More appropriately than the other for sale model that we had used on the south side of the property. So this is a custom design unit that would be marketed and sold ' in the northeast quadrant. And it's been figured so that it still, the bulk is much less than what we had planned to do on the south side. It also allows us to use this particular design is set up to be a single loaded approach where you park on one side. The units face out the back ' so it's a much narrower and carries a much smaller scale in terms of bulk on the site itself. The other drawings mostly go into the detail development of the project as required by the ordinance. The actual I configuration, the hard shell lines of the streets and configuration of the landscaping and all the grading contours and detail information that supports these general conceptual plans. And I won't take the time to go ' into that but we'll be able to answer questions I believe on those. So with that, do you want to comment anything more on the landscape or anything? ' Brad Johnson: Why don't we just wait until, would you like to have us comment on the landscaping plan at this time? Conrad: Sure. Brad Johnson: Why don't you pull out the landscaping plan. Kay Halla from Halla Nursery. Kay Halla: Hi. I'm Kay Halla and basically what I tried to do, I walked through the site and looked at what existing trees were there and the ' topography. And I found it very important to add more oaks. White oaks . in the upland areas. In through here and along in here. And some pine oak and swamp white oaks when you get into some of the areas that may be a little more wet so that the species, once they were planted, they would survive. Also, I tried to go with related species such as American linden. Things that were found naturally with oaks in upland areas. American linden, sugar maples. And then as far as the evergreen species, Douglas fir, white pines, Austrian pines, flathill spruce and in some of the lower areas the balsam fir. They can handle more moisture. So I tried to make it very natural because that's the feeling I got from the 11 II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 7 site. And also I think it's a very, the trees and things that are ' existing are very rough looking and I think if you, by adding more oaks and American lindens, things that are very rugged looking trees. Not too many delicate looking trees, I think that would continue the feel of I the site. And also I felt that there are quite a few trees added and I think that will really make a difference in softening the buildings. And again, adding more evergreens along the north to screen from the neighbor and along the south for the corridor TH 5 views. Adding kind of a variet of some evergreen and some of the shade trees. And then also some sumac down below on that hillside so that when you're looking up there you'd again get that natural kind of feeling. Any questions? 1 Batzli: We'll take public comments later. Thank you. Does that conclude your report Brad? We'll now take public comment. What I'd like to have you do is go up to the microphone. Give us your name and address please I for the record and if you can, keep your comments brief. We would appreciate it. Thank you. I Tim Anderson: We have at least one resident who was going to speak tonight who's not here yet because of the move up on the agenda so, I don't know what we can do about that. 1 Batzli: Your name and address. Tim Anderson: My name is Tim Anderson. I reside at 7550 Canyon Curve in Chanhassen. We put together a video. Myself and two of my neighbors showing the site and it was done a couple days ago in a snow storm so I 1 apologize for it's quality. Batzli: How long is this? Tim Anderson: Oh, not very long. II Batzli: Is this a 6 hour tape or? II Tim Anderson: Is it possible to rotate that slightly so I can kind of narrate it as we go. Okay, from what we wanted to do, first of all is show how imposing a 30 to 35 foot building would be at this site. So what we did is put together a 32 foot long pole and held it up to the site. We're looking north. This is the hill where the row townhouses will be. Looking south across the row townhouses... 1 Farmakes: Is it north on the other side of the wetlands? Tim Anderson: Yes, this is looking over the farthest west, farthest east' pond. Now he's panning over through the wetland area. You can see the trees. The oak trees and such. And as you can see that's, even the smaller townhouses will be quite imposing on that hill. We really don't II have any arguments for the townhouses. Okay this is we went out, Mr. Johnson had the surveyors put the stakes down and we discovered that one set of stakes delineated one of the buildings as actually probably on top of at least 3 trees and very close, within a drip line of two more. And the statement saying they're only going to cut down 2 oak trees is rather misleading. This is another building corner we went out and set the pole 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 8 ' on. We had bad weather conditions so I apologize for the quality of this. This is looking south again from my next door neighbors backyard at the wetland area and the detention ponds. 1 Farmakes: Your first pole staked to the east that you showed first, was the elevation at a stake? Resident: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. Tim Anderson: Yeah, exactly at where the stake was. Resident: ...I'm sorry to interrupt but how sparse it is on this side... 1 Tim Anderson: What we're concerned about too now is the location of this one building which was delineated with these stakes and essentially the ' trees that would have to be cut down is the buffer between our houses and these apartment buildings. Another thing I wanted to state is we measured, if I can use the, when we get done here, I can use the overhead. We measured the distance from the. Okay, here he's walking a line between two of the stakes on one of the buildings. As you can see, he's going to be walking right through some trees. Obviously you're not going to be able to preserve those trees. I think you get the general idea. We can ' probably cut it out. I want to talk about several issues tonight. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible but I feel it's important to myself and my neighbors that these items be covered. First of all the site ' configuration. Currently there's two types of, or three types of units to be built. One is the apartment units which are facing, directly facing our houses. And then there are what Brad called the back to back units. The villas which are, those face south towards the commercial area and then there were the row townhouses up in the northeast corner. We are concerned about having for rent units within 200 feet of our houses. 200 or 250 feet of our houses. I was a renter for several years. 7 -8 years 1 before I bought my house here in Chanhassen and as a renter I know, even though most renters are really good but one thing they really aren't concerned about is what's going on in their community and they tend to ' have large turnover. Every 6 months. Every year you get turnover in these apartments and we are uncomfortable having that type of turnover so near our home. I'd like, for an example, how many people here are from the Westwood Village Apartments which are also right next to this development? Is anybody here from those apartments? See, not that I'm criticizing them as much as renters know that they will be moving on. Going elsewhere. I'm also concerned about one of the buildings. I want 1 to put up the previous grading plan if I can. Okay up is north. This was the building that we have, it's essentially on top of 3 or 4 trees and if you go down, one of the ponds facing our backyard is with an 85 feet. One of the buildings. That is the same distance as our houses are to the ' pond. Essentially it has the same setback as a single family unit and it's facing a single family unit. This is a much larger building. Much higher building. Much more imposing building. Neighbors that are going to have a lot of turnover. There's going to be probably a lot more noise than you would expect from a single family homeowner. That...to me. You've got to excuse my land use map. I'm not a planner. This is the for I/ Planning Commission Meeting I/ November 4, 1992 - Page 9 sale units. The back to back for sale units...townhomes. This is the roll of townhomes. These are the apartments. These are our houses. This is Saddlebrook up here. What I tried to show is, we would like to see the II for sale units be placed to the north adjacent to our homes and the apartment units with higher turnover with the larger per family per acre density than these would have, facing the north. Or excuse me, the south. And one of the things the City should realize is that these for sale units, currently this whole area down here is undeveloped. I went throug and grabbed an old set of plans for the Target. I understand it's changed a -bit the last couple weeks. This was the Target. These are some outlotil which could take fast food restaurants or other types of restaurants. Restaurants with drive thrus and such. A lot of lighting. Parking lot lighting. I kind of made up some buildings up here. It could look like this. Strip mall, a K -Mart, a Taco Bell. Look how close potentially these townhomes could be, owner /occupied townhomes could be to a Taco Bel or any type of fast food restaurant. So obviously. Batzli: Paul, I'd like you to leave that up when you're done and I'd lik' Paul to clarify the record if anybody watching this, that what you're suggesting has not been approved. And I want to make that very clear II right now. Tim Anderson: I apologize for that. This is just an example. Anything to the north of 78th Street is an example. Taco Bell or any of the fast II food, Hardee's. Any type of fast food or any type of auto service area i going to produce a lot of noise. This land is zoned commercial. I don't know how the owner of this land feels about having owner /occupied units ' within probably 50 feet of their building. These people who buy these units will...this area is developed, naive like we are I guess. They're going to be coming to a Planning Commission 5 years from now complaining about the construction of a fast food restaurant. The construction of some type of auto body shop or car dealer. That is very, very close to a owner /occupied. To me it's like maybe...of Chanhassen where they are that close. But you've got to understand, this is at least 10, probably 30 II feet higher than this. Expect this part of this house or this unit probably 10 to 15 higher than the ground level down here. They will be overlooking it. You will not be able to buffer a berm as such on a down slope like that. You plant trees, it takes a long time for those trees t� mature. So you're going to have these, I bet you in 5 years you're going to have the same people who purchased these units are going to be here just like we are in Saddlebrook, complaining about the development that II will occur right down the hill. Second of all, the property values here. I would think Chanhassen would like to keep their property values at least steady if not rising. These won't. I'm not a realtor but I don't think,, especially in the end units here. They are very close to a commercially zoned property. So these people will not, will have very, will have some difficulty selling these properties and would probably face those propert decrease. Renters, like I said, I lived in apartments. As an apartment owner, you don't worry about land values. It's more a convenience possibly that there is going to be a Taco Bell down the hill or grocery store or a K -Mart. It makes more sense to have that transition from commercial. Very high density. These people are not going to have a nil' view of essentially 80 -90% impervious. It's not going to be parklike. Highway 5 is going to be right here. There's going to be noise from II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 10 1 Highway 5 and these people were here. There's no sound protection here. These unit sections come down the hill slightly if you look at the grading plan. All we're proposing is for the good of the city and the good of us, 1 is to place these units or similar...townhouse units which are adaptable to the site without taking out oak trees. They're...these types of units where they can be essentially dropped down the slope similar to what they ' were proposing for these. I'd like to then put the apartments against here which will provide a more logical and thoughtful buffer between very high density residential, the single family subdivision of with half acre lots. One other thing I wanted to cover here is Brad Johnson will talk about how much setback there is here but you've got to understand. Our houses are 10 to 15 feet above these pond or wetlands. His development is about 20 feet above that. If this was Fargo, North Dakota where you could 1 plant trees, flatter than a tabletop...buffer wouldn't bother me. That'd be quite a bit. I'd be very happy with it. But we are looking across a valley at it and then up 3 stories at it. And I'd like to have you think ' about that. Is this really proper land use to have, proper land use transition to have it the way it is shown here. Do you want to keep this up? Batzli: Yeah, keep that up for just a minute. Thank you. Tim Anderson: I have some other topics to cover. Batzli: Paul, do you want to at least point to the map to the things that are approved and the things that he was discussing that aren't approved ' just to clarify. Krauss: Well the only thing that's going to authorize to date that has been approved is the Target, right over here. That should be under construction shortly. This area out here, this outlot area is kind of conceptual but it is fairly similar to the various concepts that were reviewed with Target. Target was, there's 4 to 6 outlots. Target was ' limited to only 2 fast food restaurants. You are limited as to lighting. It's got to be 1/2 candle to the property line. Every property in Chanhassen has to adhere to that. Commercial hard surface coverage, max is 70 %. In terms of what's north of 78th Street, it's conjecture. You know it's hard to argue that this would never happen but then again, what we're looking at right over here, which is off the map, is the City and HRA plans for having a central park out in front of City Hall. Between City Hall and 78th Street. That will be a focal point to the community. It's a green area. It's something actually fairly nice to look at. And one of the things we begun to talk about and it's really conceptual at ' this point, is where the K -Mart is illustrated, we've actually talked about that as potentially a senior housing site. But again it's all conjecture. Tim Anderson: Well what is the zoning for this site? Krauss: It's got commercial zoning right now. If we went with senior 1 housing, we'd have to rezone. Tim Anderson: Yes, similar to how our, or the property across from us is 1 R -12 right now and we took a chance and we lost. This will be the same 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 11 II risk it would take by putting those type of housing very close to and II above the commercially zoned property. I also want to comment that City Center, or the park you're talking about would actually be east of Kerber as I understand it. We're not directly adjacent. II Krauss: That's correct. Tim Anderson: Yeah, so it's not like it's going to be adjoining it. 1 Krauss: Which is just off the map there. Tim Anderson: Right, I understand that. Thank you. The second thing I'll like to cover tonight is the ponding issue. Storm water. I have some background in it so I can say most of what I'm saying with some confidence. Storm water's been kind of left out of everything. You keep, hearing comments in the staff report about it and it will get fixed. It will get fixed. I'm concerned that if you approve a site plan tonight that possibly it cannot be fixed properly. First of all they're talking 11 about enlarging the pond to the east. The farthest pond to the right on the overhead. If you look at the contours of that adjacent to it, they would be cutting into a hillside that presently has anywhere from 5:1 to II 3:1 slopes which is extremely steep. There is a townhouse, a row of townhouses planned above it. Essentially you would walk out from that townhouse, probably roll down a 3:1 slope and directly into the pond. I don't think this would be very bright considering children will probably be living in those townhouses. So there's a big safety issue there and I hope the City considers that. And second of all, I have heard from the, Planning Department that these ponds are, with additional runoff, these ponds do not meet NURP standards, which is National Urban Runoff Program standards created by the EPA which I believe the City requires developments to meet. Developers to meet or somehow pay to have additional ponding trade somewhere else. And I would like to see some, II where this NURP ponding is going to go because there is downstream of the two ponds are wetlands and I believe just downstream of those is Riley Creek. And I don't think you want to put a NURP pond in Riley Creek. So' I was just curious as to where these NURP ponds or this additional volume of water will be put and I think that this should be commented upon befor approval. And finally, the staff report states that the development of a single comprehensive drainage system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient removal effort while reducing the City's long term maintenance cost. First of all it doesn't, maybe at one time it did have a single comprehensive drainage system. The drainage now goes in three directions' I don't know the percentages exactly. Some of it goes directly into the farthest east pond. Some of it goes into the wetland. Protected wetland area. The Type II wetland directly to the northwest. Some of it will be put to a storm sewer system along Kerber and actually, and then put the drain to the east towards Chanhassen Pond Park. This isn't a comprehensive or a single comprehensive drainage system anymore. And it's not low in II maintenance anymore either. They're proposing a sump manhole to catch sediments. Sump manholes is one of the most highly maintenance, high maintenance things you can put in. They have to be cleaned out quite frequently. And they're also planning a sedimentation basin where I cannot see they can fit one. Essentially in the wetlands. The protecte ii wetland to the northwest. That, if they build it, would be very small an Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 12 ' would have to be cleaned out quite frequently. That is not low maintenance. Finally I'd like to know why, somehow has the Planning Department or developer commented on why on -site ponding was not ' considered at this site. I believe there are locations for it. They just deny that they say they're not there. I want to comment, I think the oak trees have been commented on quite a bit. If you saw on the video that looks like they may be removing more oak trees than they say. If you look ' at the parking lot. This area, these are oak trees right here. They're overhanging the parking lot. Oak trees are very sensitive to earth work and you have to do earth work to build a parking lot. And those weren't counted in the 2 that he said would be lost. As you have read in the staff report, or at least may have, the engineer technician who reviewed the grading plan basically said all the oak trees would be lost. I saw a new grading plan. I agree that it probably will be, it's much better than ' the original one but I question that it's a matter of trust. They say, originally one end said one tree would be lost. Now two trees. When will it stop? I would like to see some type of proof and this proof includes that there be a detailed survey done of all trees greater than 6 inches in diameter. Then the developer should go through and identify which trees are lost due to construction. And then have, the developer should pull some type of bond so that any oak trees that are lost up to approximately 3 to 5 years after development could, would have some financial penalty for that. The bond would be used to replace those trees because oak trees are very sensitive in the long term to development. Not just during construction. And also the developer should replace all landscaping if it dies. Especially in the buffer areas between our houses and the units. Steep scopes. Page 5 of the staff report says that planned unit ' developments are to encourage the following. Preservation of desireable site characteristics and open space. Protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. They're not doing a very good job on 11 the steep slopes. These are 4:1, 3:1 slopes he's planning to build on. Very sensitive to erosion. Many communities including Carver County, which of course has no zoning authority in Chanhassen, has a limitations ' and setbacks to construction on steep slopes. I don't know if, I'm not familiar enough with Chanhassen's zoning ordinances about construction on steep slopes. I'll be curious to get a comment about that when I'm done. ' Especially since these units will be constructed halfway down an 80 foot hill or more than halfway down. It does also kind of destroy a very good view which is not something that should be encouraged. And finally I want to talk about something that I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on but I know a little bit about this. Enough to be dangerous. I see that Mr. Svoboda, the City's consultant on wetlands is here and maybe he could even comment on it but I got one more overhead. This area here, this is ' approximately where the road will be built. This does have the hydrology matching a wetland. It's approximately a half acre in size. It also contains blanco soils. Blanco soils is the same soils that are in this wetland and that were up here and also the wetlands adjacent to Chanhassen Park Pond. I would like to see this somehow addressed. Checked out. Is it defined as a wetland according to the City of Chanhassen? I called Jo Ann Olsen about a month ago asking what a definition of a wetland would be. This is a Type II wetland I would guess. From my knowledge of it. And she had told me that it would probably be protected and have to be 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 13 1 mitigated probably on a 2:1 ratio. Loss filling of this wetland. That's' all I have to say, thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I've misplaced your name. Is was? Tim Anderson: Tim Anderson. Batzli: Does anyone else wish to address the commission? Mike Henke: Hi. My name is Mike Henke. My wife Mary. We reside at 7560 Canyon Curve. I live directly, when you looked at the tape, when you saw the berm that runs inbetween the two existing ponds, I'm looking straight' at that building that's on that hillside. To just make it short and sweet. I just, it's really hard, there's so many different, you asked in the beginning Mr. Chairman what the advantage would be to put it into the PUD and they said the preservation of the trees. And then on page 2 of your notes for tonight, it says the main, in the last paragraph, it says the main wildlife area around the wetland as well as the wooded hillside , will remain untouched and protected under the proposal which is a complet falsehood because the marker that's, the survey stakes that's on the hill is 85 feet from the water. They're taking that whole hillside out of there. ...not be true but I'm just really concerned about the trees I II guess. I mean I'm not trying to be looking at. It started out in the notes for the meeting in July 15th I believe where it says...1 tree would be lost and then the letter he sent to us was 2 trees. On page 5 of your notes tonight it says a few trees. On page 9 of your notes tonight it says many trees. So I think that we need to give it some real serious consideration and maybe have them mark the trees so we know exactly what we're talking about there. I mean you go a long way from 1 to 2 to even so many. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. 1 Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve. I apologize first of all for being late. I had another meeting s if I repeat myself, I apologize. When we first looked at this proposal ill was hard to assess the impact on our particular neighborhood. I think I originally stated that we all agreed that there was going to be apartment or multi- family housing in this area someday. Or at some time or another and my intent was to minimize the impact of that work with the city. Wor with the developer in minimizing that impact. As I look at the situation now with the survey stakes that have been placed there, I'm totally, I II can't agree with where they're placed. It's not minimizing the impact. It's 85 feet to the pond. By the time you go straight measurement on the survey, it's probably less than that. All of our houses are 75 feet away' Like I said, I don't know if I misunderstood originally where this was located but I really, I really can't understand why they're located so close to the pond area. As outlined, did they get a copy of this here? ' That's fine. I've got one I was just wondering if they had seen it yet. I don't know if this has been mentioned tonight. I know it was mentioned before regarding the logical transition for any type of development or any type of zoning would be from single family to mid -range family to high II density. Multiple family dwellings. I don't see that here and I realize there are some circumstances that we can't control but like I said, all 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 14 we're trying to do is minimize the impact and enjoy our property. I think we all paid a premium on our lots that face this area and one of those reasons being the trees. As you, the tape was shown? As you saw in the tape, it doesn't make sense. The trees are going to be taken down. There was 5 of them with one building. It's hard to tell from the 4 stakes in the ground. So I guess that's one thing I would like to have required of the developer is to stake that property out to show the citizens. To show the City where those buildings are going to go so there's no question about it. I complained before about them showing the solid stand of oaks. It's not on the maps anymore but it was a solid stand of oaks and it was my impression that no development would come on the north side onto those oaks and that's not the case with the stakes that are presently out there. Another thing that I would like to address would be the roofline. The developer has worked with us on reducing the impact by reducing the ' roofline so that it looks like, not a full 3 story walkout. But he's only done that on a few buildings and I would like to request that the Planning Commission consider making that a condition on the rest of the buildings that face the Saddlebrook development. I believe they're only on like these three and I guess I would like to see them on all of the apartments that are facing the development because those are going to be sticking up out of the trees. And I would rather, much rather look at a roof than a ' full facing and then a roof on top of it. As mentioned before, I think that the Planning Commission needs to have more detail information on the landscaping part of it. The existing trees and so on. A site survey showing exactly where every tree is located. There's so much confusion. Everybody says something different about where those trees are located. Those trees are an asset not only to our neighborhood but to the entire community and as contained in all of your ordinances, you do whatever you can do preserve those. 5o I think that more details need to be presented so that we can find out where exactly those are and the ones that we're going to lose, we need to know that in advance and not find out later that somebody chopped down a tree they weren't supposed to. The only other thing would be a traffic study and we talked about it a little bit last time. I don't know if the County is doing a traffic study on Kerber. Or not on Kerber, but on Powers Boulevard there but I don't know whether the City has ever, is considering doing a traffic study but anytime you add that many residences in a type, high density type situation, you're going to have an impact. Not only on traffic but other things and I hope that gets addressed before thise project proceeds. In closing I guess I'd just like to say that I do appreciate the fact that the development up in the northeast corner was changed. That's certainly acceptable to me. The thing that I do oppose is the proximity of these three buildings right here. And to me the location of those three buildings are unacceptable. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Mr. Callister. This document that was signed by the residents, was this ever given to either the developer or City staff? Dave Callister: No. This was something that was developed in the last 2 or 3 days, yeah. After our neighborhood meetings and after our initial meeting. Batzli: 5o the Chanhassen Planning Department hasn't seen it? Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 15 I/ Dave Callister: No. They have not. Some of them are the same concerns but there are a few additional ones. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Greg Hromatka: My name is Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve. , About that survey that you have. That's basically a thumb nail. Meant to be concise. Readable for you all and for the persons that we went to to get to sign it. It's always been talked about the oaks. I wouldn't kno� an oak if it bit me but that's probably the only way so I want to be sure that there's big trees. Elms, lindens. Maybe they're not as desireable as others. Actually when they're this big around in the trunk and they'll going to take 20 years to replace, they're pretty desireable. And so I think that has to be considered too. Batzli: Did you give your name and address? I'm sorry. ' Greg Hromatka: Yes. Bob Bohara: I'm Bob Bohara. I live at 7510 Canyon Curve. I'm concerne� about the transition area. As they said on two sides it's high density residential and on the other it's commercial. If they build apartments the north side then, you'll have high density on that side too so you'll have this small little area of owned homes there with lesser desireable type buildings all around them. That seems to be not good for the peopl who buy those homes and having the high density apartment buildings next to ours doesn't seem to the best way to go from transitioning from this higher density downtown like area to the single family homes in our area. We live actually on the western most end. Back over here and I have a couple additional concerns that weren't mentioned. I'm not very good at reading these things but it looks like the road they're putting in is very highly graded in that area and that's something of a concern to me. One I of the places for the extra drainage is down here...lines, that's very steep in there. I don't see how they're going to get any extra drainage in there for this property development. And the final thing is that there's also supposed to be a path here. It's actually a city requirement, not something the developer volunteered to do. That area i right along CR 17. I think the plan at the moment is to put it in the utility easement and at least part of that is very highly sloped away fro, Powers Boulevard there and I'm concerned about how they're going to do that. It will take some kind of heavy build -up there or terracing or something and once again you run into this wetland... ' Batzli: Thank you. Mary Henke: I just have a short thing. My name is Mary Henke. I live a, 7560 Canyon Curve and on page 3 of the staff notes, at the very bottom. It says the residents to the north would also like no trespassing signs placed on the property limits. I would just like to know if that is still going to be part of the development. If that's going to happen. And also, remember when I asked you about those, the buildings. On Monday at our meeting I asked you, are they going to be on top of the hill and you said yes. And after the stake was placed there, I don't know a couple of � 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 4, 1992 - Page 16 days ago, it's like right in the middle of the hill. I would like to know why that was changed. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Do you want to address that Kate? Respond to her question. Aanenson: I went out and looked at the stakes today myself. I was kind of surprised as far as the location. I'm not sure how they were placed. ' We had the same concerns about them. Paul and myself went out and looked at those. It's obvious that there's going to be more trees taken out than even originally ourselves thought. That's why I raised the question ' to.night. We'd like to see more detail in that. I'd like to hear from the developer. Exactly what those stakes represent. He did it out after the meeting that was held with the neighbors last Monday night. They asked for some stakes to be placed and I'm not sure exactly what they represent. If they're off -set. If they're on corners of buildings or what but I would agree that the ones that are in the trees come down the hillside a ways. The other ones to the, that are on the northeast side, that's the way I always felt they would be located...misunderstanding on that but the other ones we are concerned about that location. Ahrens: The three buildings? All three of them? Aanenson: Those three buildings that Mr. Callister pointed out. The 8 unit. The two 8 unit rentals and the one 12 unit building. Batzli: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission at this time? Okay. Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. I'd like to go on record that I agree very strongly to what some of the other people have talked about here tonight. And I also would like to thank all of you for taking the time and hearing our concerns. One thing that I do want to point out or make mention of is, I live on the, it would be the furthest pond to the east. And this past summer the berm that was moved back a little bit closer to Kerber I think in itself has created a little bit of a problem in water runoff. Okay. So it brings up a strongly concern of mine of what's going to happen to all this extra runoff that's going to be coming from that adjacent development. Being that close, I have many opportunities to see what that water looks like going to that pond and coming down the street, Canyon Curve at times when it's a fairly strong rain is considerable in itself but now in addition to that, with that berm being moved back a little bit, there's an additional at times a river that actually comes through there. And it's actually starting to cut through, cut past Greg and Cindy's home. Coming right across to mine and there's already a fairly good sized, I don't know what it would be called. A little canyon it looks like almost. And each time that it rains it creates a more mitigation of that soil and stuff that actually goes into the pond and I'm not sure what to do about that myself. But it's getting worse so my concern is also with all that impervious land that's going to be up there, where's all that really going to go? And can you really make that pond big enough to handle all that extra runoff and personally I don't think so because of what I've already witnessed so. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 17 1 Batzli: Thank you. Dave, are you aware of the area that he's talking about? Hempel: Yes I am Mr. Chairman. Recently this past summer three of the residents got together and applied for a grading permit to relocate a berg that was located in their backyards which is just north of the most easterly pond. Essentially they did that to create a more useful backyard and essentially the same drainage pattern is being maintained. There may be with the relocation of the berm, there may be a more concentrated flow ' through the most southerly yard but it can be taken a look at. I know they've resodded the yards up there and it's been all approved by us. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Cindy Hromatka: Hi. My name is Cindy Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon I Curve. One thing I just want to go back to this transition area thing one more time. In the City Council meeting on August 10th, Mayor Chmiel did ask that they demonstrate why it cannot be switched and I don't see that I that has happened at any point here. No one has demonstrated yet why we cannot have the owner /occupied facing us. The rental on the other side. I'd like to see that done because obviously we all want the owner /occupie there and I think it makes sense and I would think the City would see it the same way. Would see that the same way. So I'd like that. The other thing is the oak trees again. I was told, Brad Johnson told me before th City Council meeting last time that he had talked to someone and they had told him that they actually needed to have driplines between, well two driplines from the oak trees. That they couldn't build within the two I drip lines in order to preserve those trees and that they would incorporate that into the plan. That obviously hasn't been done. You know in a lot of cases as Tim pointed out, they are building within one drip line. I would like to see an expert maybe consulted on this to find out how close you can build to oak trees in order to preserve them you know like 3 to 5 years from now. That's a big concern. You destroy those roots and then the oak trees die way down the road when the developer is done. Those are the two issues I want to talk about. I'd like to see something that would show why we can't have the owner /occupied facing us. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Randy Swatfager: Hi. My name is Randy Swatfager. I live at 7511 Canyon' Curve and I think one of the things I wanted to address was the lighting. We had talked with Mr. Johnson before and he said he could work it into the covenants. The size of the lightings. The height of the lighting. The lighting itself so if you look at it in perspective, we'll be looking up at this and there will be a lot of light pollution coming down from that site. So I'd just like to have some assurance that the lighting will stay where it's needed. Not where it isn't. Obviously enough to make th' residents in there feel comfortable but not enough to make us feel uncomfortable. And the only other thing I've got is, I believe traffic is going to be horrendous in that area. I've got kids going to school shortly that will be walking that area and I haven't seen any studies, as has been mentioned before. If that's been addressed or not. I've got a 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 18 ' question for Ms. Halla. The trees that you're going to be putting in, what size will they be? ' Kay Halla: ...there are certain standards that the City...how many units, and it's a money thing. Randy Swatfager: It's always a money thing but I mean. Kay Halla: So the size is really, it could vary and I can't say at this time... Batzli: Excuse me sir. Kate can probably help you on the size of the, the minimum sizes at least. 1 Aanenson: Well there's a conifer standard and a deciduous standard. 2 1/2 inch caliper on deciduous and 6 inch on a conifer. Krauss: However, we recognize that trees don't grow overnight and we often times when it's warranted, insist that trees be installed at 12 foot heights and 4 inch diameter trees. It's very difficult to do that across ' an entire site. Really it does cost a tremendous amount of difference. But where screening needs to be provided quickly, we do... Randy Swatfager: So in layman's terms they're going to be what size? Krauss: The minimum they can be by ordinance is 2 1/2 inch diameter, 6 foot height for conifers. But again, on a number of instances, I'm not sure exactly here but we have the ability to say no. You cannot put... What's needed back here is 10 to 12 footers at installation. Randy Swatfager: Are you thinking of doing that ?, Aanenson: Well I think that was one of the things that came out of the neighborhood meeting is that the residents had asked for in those areas that screening needs to be done, that Mr. Johnson had committed to put that in immediately. ' Randy Swatfager: Yeah, we keep asking some things but we never. Aanenson: Yeah well I put the, I think I've got a lot of the comments in the conditions. The lighting is in one of the conditions. That was addressed and the staff put that. Randy Swatfager: Yeah we know it's a condition but we're just trying to put it in perspective and get some details on these things. Farmakes: Paul isn't there also probably, we've had landscape people in here before talking about if you put too big of a tree in, you greatly increase the chances of a dieback as the years go on within 5 years. Is that? Krauss: Well, Ms. Halla can probably reflect on that. I think Halla's known to have the biggest tree spade in the State but yeah, there is a limit to it effectively and there's a limit for what kind of soils you can 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 19. 1 put it in. Also, you can't get one of those trucks on steep slopes. Kay Halla: Can I make a comment? At the nursery we'ii ball and burlap, which you can manually plant. Balled and burlapped trees. 3 1/2 inch trunk diameters for deciduous trees. When you get into 4 inch, it's recommended to go with a smaller tree spade. Then you can go along up t 18 inches. A real huge one but it is difficult on it, you know depending on access and that kind of thing to get a spade in certain areas. But some areas but it may not be possible but the maximum would be a 3 1/2 inch balled and burlap. That would be safe to handle. Randy Swatfager: I guess keeping it in perspective, when it's on the hill. Here's the house and here's the tree. I mean we're still looking at the house so I think it's all the more important for us to keep the trees that are standing. We keep hammering away on that point but it's II something that we're going to be living with here so. I just got one question for Mr. Johnson. You had mentioned the median priced home of the townhomes would be $90,000.00, is that correct? ' Brad Johnson: What I said was that the, under $95,000.00. Randy Swatfager: Under 95. What would be the lowest point in that? Brad Johnson: Probably about 70. Randy Swatfager: Would these be the higher priced ones? Brad Johnson: Absolutely. They may run 110... 1 Randy Swatfager: Okay. Just once again, I just want to go over some of the same things that everybody else did. I don't like the transition. I've got a question with the traffic and I guess we're looking for the Council to follow up on our concerns and we appreciate it. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? I Is there a move to close the public hearing? Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Kate, before we take comments from the Commissioners. Can you briefly run over whether it was in fact explored to move the renters, thil rental units to the south, and if it was explored, why it wasn't done. Aanenson: I'll let Mr. Johnson answer that question. As far as what I know and I think he can explain in more detail, is his best alternative far as the grading was to come back with just the owner /occupied in the northeast corner. Again, it's a grading issue. I'll let him answer it more detail. Batzli: So did you see a plan which moved it to the south? The rental units to the south. 1 Aanenson: A flip flop plan? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 20 Batzli: Yes. Aanenson: No. ' Batzli: So you never saw a plan? Aanenson: No. Just in our sitting down and meeting and looking at the ' issues why it couldn't be done. Batzli: And what were those issues? Aanenson: I think I'll let him explain a lot of those. Batzli: Well I'd like. Aanenson: The grading is the main issue. The amount of grading that would have to be done. And the types of the buildings. Batzli: And you agreed with his arguments that it couldn't be done that way? r Aanenson: Well it's a trade -off. Of course it could be done. There's a trade -off. Krauss: The trade -off you know, anything is theoretically possible. You can go out and start with a completely different product and maybe it will fit. Maybe it wouldn't. The way, trying to, you know what they're trying to do with this market, this type of unit and the way it's been designed, there's significantly more grading required for the rental units than the smaller for sale units. Yes you can flip it if you want to but you basically wind up flattening large areas of the site which is then reminiscent to what the plan was 3 or 4 years ago and there's a cost. I mean if you're willing to look at sacrificing, if in this scenario you're willing to look at sacrificing the trees up on top, you can do that. Aanenson: Another issue too I was going to bring up is you recall the first site plan had larger 16 unit buildings. Again, one of those trade- ' offs is to reduce, the neighbors were concerned about the massing of those buildings. Those were reduced to 8 unit buildings along that side. Again it kind of punches it forward a little bit more into the hillside and ' again we're concerned about how far it's going down but there has been some modifications. There was a...and staff was too about the 16 unit building up against the single family. So again, there's another trade- off there going to two or three 8 unit buildings and what that means as far as spacing and how much land it takes up. On this proposal again to revisit this whole issue is trying to go with a lower profile. The proposal that was before this one had larger unit buildings. I think Mr. Johnson...and staff's recommendation was to•make the smaller units. Reduce the massing and spreading those buildings out and that's a trade- off issue. I Batzli: Does it make more sense, everything else being equal, to put a transition from owner /occupied to rental? From a pure planning perspective, do planners see any difference in owner /occupied versus 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 4, 1992 - Page 21 townhomes by way of transition from single family to general business district? Krauss: I can give you an answer but it's probably going to sound kind o gobbely gook. There is nothing in the planning literature that's been written since the 1920's that insists on a hierarchy of zoning. It's one of the original concepts of zoning. It's long been surpassed. What most communities try to achieve is called performance zoning. Where theoretically you could make anything fit into any place given the proper design. Now most communities, Chanhassen included don't take it to that extent but we have a PUD. One of the advantages of the PUD is that it's II comprehensive project. It's developed as a package. It functions as a package. Internally, from a land use design standpoint. I realize the residents are raising other concerns. But from a land use design concept it doesn't make any difference whether people live inside the 4 walls are paying rent every month or a mortgage every month. What matters, from a land use design standpoint, it makes no difference. Now I understand tha you're raising other issues about who's living there and what their inten might be and how they might exist but in terms of a site plan, a site pla doesn't know. You know it really doesn't matter. It's the concept of the building. You can take this thing to fairly extreme lengths should you 11 desire. We could ask Arvid to come back with a 4 or 5 story apartment building that only tinkers with a very small part of the site and will save everything. I'm not sure that that would be found to be acceptable I either but what you do is you try to find an medium here between significant disruption to the site and significant impact to off -site properties. Batzli: I have one other question. Does the assumption that it would be graded more depend solely on the type of building that they have come up with? In other words, they've come in with a particular type of building that they are going to build regardless and so they have to grade the sit' to make it fit the building. I've always been told that you pick the site and then you choose the building to go on it to fit the site. It seems t me like they've kind of turned this on it's head. Krauss: Certainly there's an element of truth to what you've said. You could come up with, I mean a lot of different variations that are deemed ' to have different amounts of impact. I could sketch out for you a single family development of that site that's much more disruptive because the land area around each home is much larger. The yards are much larger. Each home is physically separated. You need to grade a bigger pad for each area. You're talking about a site that's guided and been zoned, it has been for many years, for high density housing. Within those parameters, what fits. I mean you have townhouse designs. You had quad II home designs. You have multi - family 3 story, you know 3 story midrise kind of a thing design. Theoretically you could have a highrise. Within those parameters, I'm sure somebody may be able to come up with a better II idea but this is fairly consistent with what you're going to be seeing with anything that would be consistent with that density. Batzli: Would anyone on the Commission like to hear from the developer o' why they did not choose to go with it? Brad, do you have comments on? II 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 22 1 Brad Johnson: I've got a couple comments. To get this tree issue out of the way. I just looked at our plan. Our goal, and we may have screwed up I but our goal is not to take anymore currently than 2 oak trees and looking at the plan, we actually moved the buildings back from the oaks. It is a fact that we take 5 to 8 linden trees and some of those that you saw that were the large trunked trees were lindens and elm. Maybe you want to I speak to elms and lindens Kay as to their lifespan and are they fast growing trees or slow growing trees because we understand. We've got oak trees you want to preserve and we're trying to do that. And if we I misplaced it or misstaked it or whatever, we'll change that because that's not our goal. Kay Halla: I haven't been out since these stakes have been in the ground I but when I was out earlier, I noticed that there were more of the linden and elms along the slopes and I found more of the large oaks in the center area where they are being preserved. There seems to be, there's got to be II some sort of trade -off. That in order to preserve. Brad Johnson: These are the oaks. Supposedly. And these are lindens and I things like that down here. So we've had to move the trees away from the oaks. The buildings away from the oaks which then cuts into other trees. Kay Halla: And it seems like in order to preserve that, which I feel is I very important from a design standpoint. That central area of oaks which, when I was on the site, that seemed like a very important part of the site. From not just the homeowners direction but from all directions. I And I think in order to preserve that, some of these buildings have to go somewhere. You have to adjust them so rather than jamming then all on the top of the site and destroying that, they maybe do have to come down along I the slopes a little and remove some of the elms. And again, I haven't been out to see where these stakes are but the elms are a faster growing as are the linden and as far as value, you know big trees are valuable but as far as value compared to oaks, they're a lesser value tree. They grow II faster and the elms are a shorter lived tree. Batzli: Thank you. 1 Resident: Could she answer how old those are and how much longer they would last if they were left there? Kay Halla: I'm sorry I don't know. Batzli: How long does an elm live generally? II Kay Halla: Well lately they aren't living very long. They generally, they're not as shortly lived like silver maple or something but they're 11 becoming pretty diseased with the Dutch elm disease and that kind of thing. So they're not as long lived. And as far as value from a nursery standpoint, we don't even sell elms anymore because they're trying to develop new strains of them but they are not, they don't hold up to the II disease so we'd recommend something more like a linden or something fast growing. II II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 23 Resident: Well the trees we're talking about provide the buffer between 1 the apartments and our homes. I mean that's the key issue. And being no matter what it is, mature tree... Brad Johnson: We're replacing that with is a large amount of trees that II are evergreen types... Batzli: Excuse me. The public hearing is over. If you have comments, 1 please address them to me and if we have time, we'll get back to you. Brad Johnson: The other thing is, and I agree. You forget why you do II things. One of the reasons, if you look at the Highway 5 corridor plan and all the concerns that people had about that. They wanted to maintain this stand of oaks so it looked okay from Highway 5. They wanted to I maintain as much of the trees over here as they could...so when we were approached by the site, you also have to deal with economics. Today you don't build large apartment buildings. We'd love to build a large apartment building. It's a far more efficient way of doing things but yo' can't finance them. And secondly, a large apartment building on this particular site would have to be set back again over in there. Secondly, we're building to a market and the market happens to be today, if you're II going to build something you've got to be able to either rent it or to sell it and if we're going to build something for sale, the type of unit that we have put here is what's selling. And that particular unit can't , be redesigned to go over here because this is flat and this is undulating We did design some higher priced units than these for here. Now the question is, have we changed? Yes we did. We took out all the rental units that were here and all the rental units that were here, because we ' could perceive that there was a problem because in fact these people, this is a barren hill. And we've cut the number of units there from like 28 down to 16. We put this staggered unit. This is a far more expensive unit to sell than this one. The developer is at risk when these go on th market. We do not feel that they're at risk here and the project will actually get done. So I would say that we are faced with the real marketing opportunities within the community of Chanhassen and throughout' the western suburbs. That this is the type of unit that sells. And I guess our, the reason we can't really remove from that is we can't come i here with a project we'll never complete by trying to design a for sale that would go over here. You can also see that the density drops dramatically when we do that. So then we have to make up the density someplace else. And that's, as I understand it, this was zoned R -12 and II to me that means high density rental for the whole parcel. That's what R -12 means. It could even be zoned up to R -16. To me if the zoning was R -2, R -4, that is transitionary. That's what I'm used to seeing. Or eve" R -8 but this is R -12 and so someplace in the world, in the process of approving both Saddlebrook originally. After this was done, the City itself made the decision that they would want to encourage high density here whether it be rental or not. There's no requirements I don't think II in any of your rules that say people can't have to own versus rent in an R -12. It's considered to be an R -12 zoning. I'm a developer. To me is a rental zoning. Now the current owners were aware of the zoning there. I'm sure they could have contacted the City. I've talked to the develope of that parcel a number of times and he's always told me they were aware of it and he put up, there's a buffer. This particular point here is II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 24 ' about 150 feet from here, which is the property line. And up to about 250 feet from their houses. This point over here is about 200. Some of these parcels are as far as 300 feet. That's a football field, away from the homes. We have tried to handle the site as well as we can Brian. I don't ' know exactly if we could economically do it differently. We've got it into the FHA approval for the rental sides so we could accomplish that. They like the project. And it's not a low end rental. It's tough to do ' any of these kinds of things today and to finance them. They like the project and that's what, it's economics when you get to that point. We don't think we can design a for sale in the Chanhassen market, which is probably under $100,000.00 for a townhouse, and put them on those sites. Batzli: So assume for a minute that you had a flat parcel. Would you put the owned units to the south? Brad Johnson: I think we would, yeah. Batzli: Why? Brad Johnson: No we wouldn't, if it was flat. Right. You're absolutely right. Batzli: You'd put it to the north then? Because you could charge a higher price then? Brad Johnson: It's a premium site. I think, I happen to run along the ridge up there and my feeling is, these are not the type of site, the way those units are designed, if you notice that the decks are on the second floor. They'll be able to look out over most everything. They're not going to be looking down on roofs. They're almost what 40 -50, at least 40 feet above what is going to go in next door. There's pretty nice views from up above looking south. There's going to be great sunsets. If you look down to the, south and west. If you look over at the Rottlund project. That's on the freeway. Right up against the freeway. It's a ' nice project. It's sold out. As fast as they could build they, it sold. It's buffered by a freeway. It looks right into it. We don't have to build a big wall because we'll look right out over it and I don't think, l in talking to the marketing guys, they see no reason why these will not be sold. They think it's a great site and a fine for sale site for this type of project. And it's economics. Now we've tried on the other hand, Arvid, is there a difference between a for rent building and a for sale building? Arvid Ellness: From an architectural point of view? r Brad Johnson: You've only done 15,000 housing units. Is there a difference? 1 Arvid Ellness: From an architectural point of view? Brad Johnson: Yeah. Arvid Ellness: No. It's the bulk and it's the enclosure. It's the occupant. The issues that I heard from the residents...the occupants and 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 25 not the buildings. The building type I'd say would have the same II configuration and massing. If there was a market for that to sell, the design would be very similar. But I don't think there's a for sale market. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: So, in answer to a couple questions. We are, I've got thel plan here. We think we're not on top of any oak trees and we'll warrant that, other than I think it's two. We think we're taking out 5 to 8 linden trees. A couple of those stakes could appear to be either way. There's some porches there and the corners that we have put the stakes aril' actually on the porches. If they're off, this is a computerized world and the whole thing is done by a computer, we'll change the site plan. not here to you know, not do that. We've modified that site plan on the north side a number of times to try to meet the requirements of everyone and we did discover that there were more oak trees on the hill right here which forced us to move the building a little bit away from it. That's been the goal. And as far as the water issues are concerned, we have basically put our fate in our hands of your engineer. And we're simply saying that you hire the people. You tell us how to do it. I agree. II There is not a quick fix over there for where the water's going to go. Ideally it will go across the way through a large tunnel into the Eckankar property into what apparently is not at yet owned by the City and we dum a lot of water over there. Apparently we can't do that yet so we have t deal with that kind of an issue. We're willing to work whatever program meets all the various standards. And I think staff will admit that that's what we're trying to do. Isn't that true. I mean Dave. It's in your II hands. Hempel: In the storm water consultant's hands, yes. 1 Brad Johnson: Well I know. Basically we're working with it to try to do it the proper way, so that's an answer for those two things. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Erhart: Now Brad, why are you requesting a PUD zoning? 1 Brad Johnson: Oh, we're doing the PUD primarily because we can preserve and still get the density. Erhart: Who's asking for it, the City or the developer? Brad Johnson: I think it's a combination of the two. When I came here, all our projects lately have been PUD's because we felt that even though they're an onerous procedure, such as we're doing with Target and Market Square, it's onerous because you have to run through twice. And secondly we can't just go build. We could just simply subdivide this and pull a permit, am I right? Subject to the building approval but we felt that the site had a lot of sensitivity and by using the PUD approach, we could preserve the site. That's from a developer's point of view. Erhart: What advantages are you getting as a developer? 1 Planning Commission Meeting Pl g g November 4, 1992 - Page 26 Brad Johnson: We're getting a higher amenity site, in our mind. Erhart: Okay, so it's totally value. You're not getting higher density. You're not getting. ' Brad Johnson: We've lowered the density. Erhart: You're not getting a higher percentage of impervious. Nothing. Brad Johnson: Nothing. What we're asking for is, we're trying to have, and it doesn't sound like we're getting there but I think we've come a long ways, a higher amenity site for the City. And I don't know how else you would do it. Otherwise you could simply put a road through there. Subdivide each lot off into whatever is necessary for an apartment project and sell off the lots. We're coming with, at risk with a complete project saying, this is how the project's going to look and then we're trying to adjust for that. And it sounds like we've got some problems in this area, which I agree. We did adjust this. We can probably adjust here. I'm ' kind of surprised where the stakes are too. And that's a risk we took because we didn't think we had a problem. They asked us to put some stakes up so they could go look at them, so we did. And it snowed, so I haven't gotten over into there myself but we're trying our best, and remember when they say we are putting a lot of pine trees. 8, 6, 8 foot pine trees and you look up. Pine trees look pretty big most of the time when you look up at them. They'll block off that lower. They'll block ' off, wouldn't you say the lower level? And I don't know what we can do about the upper level so. ' Batzli: Thank you. Tim, do you want to go first? Erhart: Well I missed the first meeting on this so I'm going to let you ' fellows here, and Joan and let the meeting take the bulk of this. But just a couple things. I think in listening to the property owners to the north here, I think the, and I appreciate the fact that you're losing an amenity that you had on a temporary basis but it ought to have been clear ' that this was zoned R -12 when these lots were purchased. You know you also got to keep in mind that the owner of the property is the owner of these trees. It's not you and it's not us as a city. So we have to keep ' this in perspective because it has a tendency, there's a lot of emotion into this thing and I'm not sure it does any good. Your thing that I hear is amiss is that ignoring the fact that they're putting in a lot of trees here to replace the ones that are being taken and I think the point that I'm going to make later in this meeting is that, you know what's the life of these buildings. How many years do you expect to see these occupied on this site before they're torn down? Brad? Anybody. ' Arvid Ellness: At least 50 years. Erhart: I'll bet you'll see them there a lot longer. ' Arvid Ellness: Well they can go 100 years too. ' Erhart: Yeah, and you know a lot of these trees, and while you may not be living in those houses there in 30 years but a lot of these trees that are II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 27 II going to be planted are going to be fairly well along in 30 years. If y look through Chanhassen here, these trees weren't here 30 years ago. A lot of these areas were farms. Most of the trees that you see have been planted so I think in looking at this thing, one of the things that we have to look at is what's this development going to look like in 30 years' And it bothers me sometimes because I think we're laying out these developments and I'm hearing a tinge of it here tonight. We're putting , the owner /occupied, I thought 1 heard. Well I'm not sure but we're putting the owner /occupied maybe not in the best location because we're trying to save trees. And I'm not sure that we're making good trade -offs there. Maybe we ought to look at the long term life of the project and II see what it's going to look like 30 -40 years from now. Maybe you're right. Maybe the owner /occupied buildings should be in the north as opposed to the south and we're putting too much emphasis on these trees. I Originally I, someone explain to me this trail that went along. On the original plan there was a trail down by the wetland? Krauss: The original plan shows a trail traversing. II Erhart: On the south side? Krauss: Yeah, on the south side of the wetland. It had been requested b' the Park Board. It was thrown in by the developer who thought it was a good idea. I Erhart: It was going to go across to Kerber? Krauss: Yes. ' Erhart: And we're taking that out when the developer volunteered to put it in? 1 Krauss: The residents objected to the proximity to their homes. We realized we could put a sidewalk...street anyway... II Aanenson: We've got sidewalks on either side of the street so it was thought that... Erhart: I think you've got to be crazy. This is an obvious place that 1 the developer's willing to put that trail in along that wetland and... not only just the people who own the homes to the north. It's a tremendous to be able to walk along an amenity for people of this community S amenity as opposed to putting the trail along the street. It's just unfathomable to me that we would tell the developer not to do that because it's a much bigger inconvenience to the people who are going to live in those apartment buildings in that they're going to have people walking close to their residences. If he's willing to do that, I think we ought to leave it in there. Let's see. Going through the report. What are we going toll get out of a street study? Aanenson: I'm not sure it's warranted. They felt strongly because the ' County had asked for it. Because we kind of looked at this when we did the superblock area for the West 78th Detachment project. Where the II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 28 lights should be and that's sort of the issue. I'm not sure that's warranted but Dave may want to add. Erhart: What's the worst that's going to happen? Are we going to change Kerber and Powers because of this study? Aanenson: No. Erhart: So what are we spending the money for? ' Aanenson: I think the deceleration lanes is what we're looking at. Krauss: Yeah, the County Engineer raised the question of the intersection on the west side and how that relates to West 78th Street which will be in ' the area of how it relates to Highway 5. It will function in the big system but as Kate points out, when the Target proposal was brought in, we expanded the traffic study for that to include this intersection so we ' became comfortable that it works. Aanenson: I think the issue still is, as Dave, is a deceleration lane. ' Erhart: Currently what the County is requiring. Hempel: The County is the one with the issue with regards to turn lanes. ' Deceleration lanes. By -pass lanes on Powers. That, I anticipate, would be the major ingress and egress through this development since this is the closest access to Trunk Highway 5. r Erhart: Okay. So the developer's not offering to put the lanes in at this time? Hempel: I don't think we're totally aware of what lanes were needed out there at this time. Erhart: Well that's the purpose of the study. Hempel: That's correct. t Batzli: But when we did the traffic study for the Target proposal, we didn't take into account the density at this site yet? 11 Krauss: Actually it took into account higher density. Aanenson: Right. It's just what those decel lanes should look like in more specifics. Erhart: Do we actually have an ordinance that says we can't have more than 7% grades? Or is that a policy? Krauss: Yes. It's in the subdivision code. Hempel: We have granted variances to it in efforts to save trees or reduce grading limits, yes. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 29 Erhart: Okay, and I was a little confused on the storm water. Is all t storm water ultimately going into an existing wetlands someplace? That' the objective? Hempel: There's 3 different components, yes. Ultimately it will end up ' in, all 3 components will end up into a wetland. Erhart: And we're not doing NURP ponds because there's not enough room? ' Hempel: We're going to attempt to design a sedimentation basin to NURP standards along Powers there. In that area. ' Erhart: Okay. And then lastly, why are we requesting a conservation easement over the wetlands when the wetlands are already essentially preserved by our wetlands ordinance. They really can't do anything with I the wetlands, without a wetland alteration permit, which is a fairly arduous process. Why do we duplicate? It says the conservation easement shall dedicated to the City over the wetlands on a parcel already protected. Why do we duplicate? Again, it costs more money. Hempel: I think we've done it in the past just so it shows up on the Title of the property. So the property owners are aware of it. That it I is a conservation easement. And restricted to what can be done in these areas. In this circumstance there is a multi - rental type unit. ' Erhart: Well it just seems like again more duplication and more expense so. Batzli: Where does the expense come in Tim? 1 Erhart: Well just writing the easement and you're going to have to defi where it goes. You're going to have to go file it at the County. I don' know. It's not so much I guess in this kind of a project but it gets mor what we're talking about later. I'll pass. Batzli: That's it? Erhart: That's it. I mean otherwise I think it's, well again I haven't seen the first pass so these are comments are based on a pretty short... Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: First I wanted to comment about lighting. Are we concerned abou lighting the elevation, Kate? Aanenson: Well there wasn't, they'll have the street. Our standard ' street lights on the public street but on the interior, where the buildings are located and the parking lot areas, there wasn't any lighti shown, so we want to see that specifically. And then the neighbors were concerned, the neighbors to the north were concerned about floodlighting to the back and their privacy. So we want to see that specifically to limit that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 30 Conrad: Just in general, and we sure hear the neighbors comments. I think that some of us who have been around on this Commission for a while, always knew this was going to be a high density development. Maybe you didn't but for years and years we were, this was the logical place to put it. So as we see this coming in and I guess you're going to probably hear some comments that they're not sensitive to your concerns and I hope it appears that we are. Yet on the other hand, in our minds, at least in ' mine, this was the area that we were going to put apartment buildings on. And you can see that the developer is trying to, you can make compromises. You can save trees or you can go up and elevation and in my mind, over the ' years, I've tried to make some of those compromises and I think in this particular case, the apartment buildings was always something that I thought was what's going to go here. It looks like what's being developed ' in my mind, and I'm not a planner but I've been around for a little bit. In my mind what they're proposing is fairly decent. Hearing your concerns about who's living where. That's a tough issue to handle. This is the right place in my mind for a high density. I think the developer has 1 taken it down a little bit. It's a quantum leap better than what we looked at before. I'm concerned, as you are, with trees and I think we've heard that and I think we're going to do something about that. I think ' Mr. Johnson is trying to be as sensitive as, well we'll see where trees are. I guess I'd like to see some sort of, what we call a landscaping plan. I'd like to know what trees are going in and what trees are going out at some point in time. I think that's important. Not every tree's going to be saved. It's just not. And we can't take everything away from this R -12 district. That's the way we planned it. That's the way it's been for years and years. It's a balancing deal and hopefully we can make it as sensitive as we can but you've got to remember that there will be new plantings and I'd sure like to see what those are. I don't believe property values are going to disintegrate one bit. And we've reviewed ' these property value issues for a long time. And to my knowledge the economy changes some property values out but I don't think the way I see this is going to effect anything. Dave, I'm concerned about what the residents are talking about in terms of drainage and whatever. It seems to me, we have a PUD here that, and it's a large site PUD. We should be able to develop something that's not second rate in terms of all the things we're talking about. Drainage and protecting wetlands. Not just funneling water to wetlands so I'm assuming we can do a good job and the word assume is probably dangerous but it's one of those things that we have a large site and I can't imagine that we can't design the drainage to our standards which I believe are pretty good in the city. Or they're approaching a real comprehensive type of program. So again, my feelings are to protect the trees. I don't want to protect them all. I think there's some reason that we have to, that the developer has the right to ' use this property. I would like to see how the trees are coming out and I thought I heard the developer say he's sensitive to that and I think we need some kind of a plan. I do want to see the drainage. I want to be convinced that the drainage is being properly handled and Kate is telling me that the lighting can be a concern. I think I ticked off some things that the neighbors were saying. If I haven't responded, it probably meant ' that I didn't, I wasn't sensitive to the particular concern that you had. Those are my comments. Batzli: Thank you. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 31 1 Conrad: The trail, yeah. And you won't want me to hear talk about this II one too. I love, when we have natural amenities, it's great to put trail next to the natural amenities. I know it's going close to your backyard and I understand that. And I'm not going to change. I'm not going to take up this position right now. But, very seriously, that's where a trail should be. Right next to the wetlands. If we open up to people that can actually experience the habitat and the nature down there. That's where I'd be. I'm not going to bring that issue back up. It's oul right now. The developer's taken it out. But I thought I'd give you my preference. Amenities in Chanhassen should be open. That wetland is an amenity and I'd like to, if I were designing from scratch, I would have kept that trail there. One other comment, when Tim is talking to you about trees. Don't think he's not sensitive to trees. I think he's real involved in the Arbor Day program. He's probably planted more trees in Chanhassen than anybody else. Well there's no doubt about it. So when II he's making these comments, it's not that he doesn't care about trees. Batzli: Is that it? Matt. ' Ledvina: I had a question regarding the for sale units on the south side of the project. I was looking at my grading plan here and that hill on the south side, the units go right up to it and I'm wondering, are there retaining walls at the parking lot? On the ends of the parking lot and how does that all work? So there are retaining walls over there? Okay. And what is, how large are those retaining walls? , Brad Johnson: You mean height? Ledvina: Yeah. What are we looking at there? Well a related question t' that. I guess I could see that they're likely in the vicinity of 10 to 15 feet or so. Or least that's what it looks like from the grading plan. Brad Johnson: The width or height? Ledvina: Height. ' Brad Johnson: Well I don't think so. Ledvina: Okay, then I'm mistaken here. ' Arvid Ellness: It varies but it's in the range of about 4 to 6 feet. Ledvina: Okay. I was concerned about how that would look from the Highway 5 location there. So essentially the retaining walls connect the building all along that south face, is that pretty much? ' Brad Johnson: Yeah, and then there are plantings in front of that. Ledvina: Okay. And then there's like a, is there a walkout or something' to that side? No, just windows? Okay. Alright, I was just, I didn't quite understand how that was all laid out and concerned about how that would look from Highway 5 but we are talking. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 32 Brad Johnson: I guess what happened here and we put a lot of focus on what this looked like from, we started out what it looked like from TH 5 and now we focus on...what it looks like from the north...We are concerned about that. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. One of the items in the staff report related to trespassing signs and also mentioned by one of the residents. I just ' had a question. The residents are concerned with people trespassing on their property so they want signs posted right at their property boundary, is that the issue? ' Resident: The issue is that there's two berms. Or there's a main berm there right now and there's a smaller one off to the side. Right now it's being used in the summertime and in the springtime as a major cut through area. Anybody from the development beyond Kerber, walks down Kerber, cuts into the Saddlebrook development and walks down Canyon Curve and cuts right across the yard, ...and back up the hills rather than... 1 Ledvina: Alright. And a question that I had on the parking. On page 8 of the staff report we were indicating that we were concerned that there was insufficient visitor parking for the rental units. Has this been resolved Kate? Aanenson: No. I've spoken with the developer and they can pick it up on 1 the other side. They are short the handicap stalls so that is mentioned in the building official's letter too. Ledvina: Okay. Is there a condition to that effect? Aanenson: Yes there is. 11. 1 Ledvina: Okay. And I remember when we first looked at this in the concept stage. Steve, when he was looking at it he had concerns about the parking actually for the for sale units. And now we made modifications there. Was that to decrease the density along this south side to provide for more parking there and were those changes made accordingly? Aanenson: Well what they did. The ordinance doesn't require that but we felt like it's necessary based on the way this is laid out. I'm not sure that the wording is such to remove density to get it. I mean that's happened anyway. But they have provided additional visitor parking which ..into those for sale units. Ledvina: But the number of for sale units along the south side, is that essentially the same as the concept proposal? Aanenson: On the south side? Ledvina: Yes. ' Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see, I think that's all I have for now. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 33 1 Batzli: While we're talking about parking. Dave, in your opinion memo October 27th, you talk about the 12 private service drives are too many d and you attached a sketch but that wasn't one of your conditions. That any of these can be blocked off. Apparently you were just trying to, was it just get rid of one or, that's an old layout isn't it? Hempel: I just tried to point out wherever it would be possible to eliminate an access out onto the major, I guess it's called Oak Park Road would be beneficial I guess from a traffic turning standpoint. I felt pretty confident that it would be able to accommodate on at least one of the parking areas. To eliminate that access point out there. I may have' inadvertently missed that as a condition of approval. Batzli: Because it wasn't included in any of your conditions. Hempel: That is correct I guess. It would be appropriate if we could reduce. Brad Johnson: Kate, didn't we take this one out? 1 Aanenson: That's the one we talked about asking to remove it. It got ' omitted. Brad Johnson: Not on our plan. Aanenson: We've spoken to him about it. It did get on there as a condition of approval. He's aware that we've asked him to take that out. Batzli: Because on the October 22nd plans it was in there. , Aanenson: Right. This was after we spoken to him about the conditions wanted in there. So he has agreed to do that but you're right, it's not in the conditions. It should be added. Batzli: Jeff. 1 Farmakes: I'm going to touch off on a couple of things to start off with. There are issues on water runoff and sloping and trees. The developer ' said that the tree, the site plan needs some additional review and some additional work so I'm not going to comment on specific issues on that. And the water runoff and so on, that's really not my department. I'm sur that the City and engineer can discuss that at length with some of the residents. The issue of the concerns that I saw on the statement that y brought forth. I'm not sure, are you acting with the group here? Okay, and that's a part of your association? It's not the one individual? ' That's a part of your whole group. Several of those comments resolve around existing ordinances in the city. Several of your questions. You should address that to the city staff. I'm sure they'd be happy to go over each one of those with you and comment on those. I hear a couple of words over and over again tonight. One of them is trade -off and the othe one is change. We hear this over and over again here. A lot of people have a lot of anxiety to change, and that's understandable. Many of you II have just come out here or recently come out to Chanhassen. You built there. Saddlebrook I believe was built in the late 80's. You have a nice 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 4, 1992 - Page 34 amenity that you're looking at but as Tim said, that amenity is owned by another property owner that you're viewing. And I think some of the issue here is responsibility. You're asking the city to have a responsibility in developing this property. The developer has a responsibility to do a ' nice development within Chanhassen and come up with something that's appropriate to the neighbors. However, at the same time he has a responsibility as a financial situation to do something that's financially feasible and that people are going to buy. You also have a responsibility to do your homework when you come here to maximize what you're doing here. You want the developer to make some concessions to you. I'm assuming that you do and address your concerns. That's understandable. I think some of ' the work that you're doing here, you need to address these issues in a communication loop between the city staff and the developer. Many of these things such as the list that you brought forth, as I said. These are things that are already covered in city ordinances and if you look into these things further, and again I know sometimes it's hard to latch onto the right person. You can get a lot of these questions answered before you ever come into a public hearing. It would be helpful to you I ' think. To eliminate a lot of that. It would speed things along and it would lessen your effort here tonight. I think that the City and the developer has demonstrated a willingness here to work with you in resolving these issues. Perhaps if you selected one individual to represent you and come forth and work a little tighter and improve that communication, things would go more speedily here. The history of that 1 property we touched on earlier. I'm familiar with the history of that property to the extent that in the early 80's when Chanhassen was working on a master plan, I have to take some responsibility for the fact that the R -4, R -2 is missing on that top ridge. I was in the audience with a group ' of homeowners, single family homeowners in the area that wanted the farm that your homes are presently on, to be single family zoned. The City wanted it medium density. In the ensuing process, that was changed. It ' was changed to single family. The idea being is that that development was going to follow along the lines of New Horizon, which was the previous development to the north on that property. Basically it's a single family development that's wrapped by R -2, R -4 type on the north /south and to the west. What you got is only to the north. You got that type of development to the north of your property because of a site problem. It ran into a peat bog on that property and that's that lake that you see ' there. Actually if the problem would have been solved in the overall design that you're talking about, there would be duplexes or fourplexes where your homes are now. So in the long term thinking, yes you're correct. There perhaps should have been another buffer zone there but had that been done, you wouldn't be where you are today and that was a matter of economics that was worked out between the City and the developer at a later date and I was not a part of that. We agreed that the general plan that they had was alright and we did not pursue that further. But then it brings me to the situation here. You have a responsibility when you purchase the property to know what your existing zoning is. When you come in here and deal with the situation, 1 think you have to assume some responsibility for that. And a city is only capable of doing so much. They have to work within the existing laws and the ordinances. They can't arbitrarily say well the citizens don't want it. We won't put it here. Many times you certainly would like that. Sometimes to do that but we don't have the legal right to do that. We have to work within the r 1 <isting ssion Meeting Commi as an R -12 before arming 4 , 1` 92 - Page 35 l fisted vember s had that t that certainly the f I d the master Plan ha have to admi that Property they're I rules an An d so y °a nts t deVe u5 P n9 a puD,weit lking e el dug a hole there• property rig they're j DU ever is within e their . i this ca e the things that you're the yaond could' with some The contour that y loop, II e to the zone. deal T h e trees• cati At the ccordi a and c ommunic ation want -. rYin9 to maximize concerns that withithehthings that loop is gOingtha be about. That seem to m some of comm unicati on to me II wou ld seem fervo in ' ° on e this and c factOrn °astwell• An d You have a o°�also have nd s ame t i m e, - .an t important ou r positio work h an al. But y on this a understanding Y a lot of it e motiona l. home work t you II you unders 've don Tim said, has s hown that cases You as really do y some ou ' r e d nt responsibility that you've made here tonight • would rea lly s s commen • what you're nsi that You in some areas- That's my resP work d do th of Yo some of Your you i f you some , done help y haven process and help this P commissioners II of my fellow these II comm ents d that they Ahrens: ' Well listening to the osition of tonight t Well after feel like I'm in t he p of them say t site tha I feel didn't hear one r o hems °n that paren up II Ahrens' Jo hnson , f all, I They the best project they a nd gra First O They wa almost feel Sure ect • know I their like opinion. ke we're par doesn't mean h this project. YOU voicing That I fee we're didn't want get. here a zoned R` can Possibly being property wa 19u i s d o n't think we they ding th for this Prop. can get. scot that project they them a thing• here project, the b P tu towards ex act same front of my knew this P ,t wan tic attitud be doing the right in h as II that they don't a pa ternal istic I a protect t as recently fought kin in their didn't have a project an d I ta king I were that I with ct as enonly way You If e w hen t w remember, Commission II r b o tr Y i hats I di do ; su sure • a 1 O .O ct was go °d W P anna nw h at wet the as these summake sun e tha these c ty.e I s ,yot s o the squeaky whee a et to thing done in ouncil tinw II mee g any an d City C meet ings, grease here. ked tonight• t m eeting and they've sgUea firsThe trail. I I thin I c h a ired the amenities" them• amens gatzli Let's see n atural a ll our good. Good fo t time. d our aroun Well, firs good idea around trails easemen Ahrens comments the are a 9 h had gotten city • d a ll their that tr ails that We should should have w t his hear d to think think The City little in that the happene an d I also ding lotus• access to I understand that a in the tithe city, includi we have e h ba d. I think bu t I II As it is ' It's to issue an lakes in thinw• wetland every ful city • The safety issue for around beautif Safety. etY • e to be a safety issue have a b drainage a safety and we , e going in. aroun big , going of s problem, t b kids tha it if it's not it a trail won lots of a ssume buil concern having b ch ildren. buildings II think that You the apartment now for Yo the apartme h spacing os don't le living in of the people around the pond management question about that changed or living deal with also h for You should the s outh side. I thi You o in. Steve embergona the le Y u gits, if I rem II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 36 that still the same? I don't remember why he had a concern with that except maybe it was just for parking purposes. Aanenson: That's how I understood it. He wants the additional parking. Ledvina: Right. He was concerned with the parking. Aanenson: Visitor parking. Ahrens: Yeah, I'm not going to go into the drainage issues and everything else because I think those have been addressed adequately and I think that with the additional condition that was brought up tonight, I think that will, I trust that our engineers can handle that part. I guess those are my only comments but you know, I just want to reiterate that you have every right to be here and you've got to make sure that this is a project you can live with. Even though that property's owned by somebody else. Even though those trees are owned by somebody ease, you do have. You're going to be looking at that and we do want to hear your concerns. I'm sure that a lot of you were aware of the zoning but that doesn't mean you don't want the best plan on that site you can possibly get. That's it. ' Batzli: Okay, thank you. I have a couple of technical things that I want to ask first of all Kate. The driveway in the northeast sale units, takes a big old V, right hand turn. And we had just gotten done talking about ' how our firetrucks can't get around islands in the middle of cul -de -sacs and I have to admit I didn't read our Fire Marshal's memo carefully enough to see if he commented on that. Did he? Aanenson: Yeah. What it has to do with Brian is the proximity of fire hydrants and he did show some relocations from those cul -de -sacs. Batzli: But what about the ability to get a truck in there? He didn't comment did he? Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Batzli: Or is that his number 7 which is the turning radius must be indicated. Brad Johnson: Brian. We're not sure but we think that based on our experts, that the radius there is the same as the regular cul -de -sacs. Batzli: But see, they wouldn't be able to, they'd have to back out wouldn't they? Krauss: That has the same radius that we have on our cul -de -sacs. Batzli: Where are the parking stalls on there? Maybe I'm not seeing the parking stalls. Aanenson: That's why, he had asked for, what he's asked for is for them to give specifics on the radius to make sure it works. That was one of the conditions of the Fire Marshal. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 37 Brad Johnson: They would have to back out... Batzli: I guess I'd like to be consistent one way or another. And that's on a discussion later tonight but I think we need to review these things. Whether it's a circle or a V, same way. The number of drives, guess that's been handled in at least the color sketch. Are you happy with 11? I mean to me what's the difference between 12 and 11? If there's too many, does 1 really do anything for you? Hempel: Well, if it's not needed, by all means it could be eliminated 1 and I guess I felt that it could be. It's not needed for a secondary access out there. Batzli: So you don't mind all the other curb cuts? Hempel: I believe all the other ones would be necessary to promote traffic safely through it. Batzli: Given this layout of the buildings? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Is it a safety hazard to have this many on this type of, what this, a collector? Hempel: It's getting to the collector status, yes. With the number of II units and projected trips on the road, yes. That's why we've asked for little wider pavement section through here. Than our normal 31 foot wide street. Here we're requesting, and they are proposing a 36 foot wide face to face street. Batzli: So for example the one that's on the outside radius of the curve, right when the road starts heading north. That wouldn't be a safety concern? I thought we tried to avoid putting them on curves. Hempel: Is that the most westerly curve as you're heading up the hill? II Batzli: It would be just west of where the pool's going to go. Hempel: I don't believe there'd be a site limitation with that access II point. Batzli: Because it's on the exterior of the curve? Hempel: Yes. Batzli: We heard several comments about sight line versus actual distance. When you're looking at the grading plans and they're talking about you know 200, 300 foot buffers. Is that actual distance on the ground or are they looking, talking about as the crow flies kind of the I line here? Hempel: I'm assuming as the crow flies.- With the grade out here it may' e, if you were to take a measuring tape and run it along the ground, it Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 38 may be actually a little bit more but as the crow flies and scaling it off the drawings here, it is about 200 feet. Batzli: As far as Tim's comments regarding the pond and Ladd I think followed up. They're not to the NURP standards. We're moving a lot of ' the water off of the site whereas currently I assume we don't move as much of it off the site. It seems to me like there's a lot of room somewhere on this site to do a good job on the ponds and including also ' perhaps, and I don't know what the status of these particular wetlands are but why don't we have a setback around the ponds? A do not disturb area which would be required under the new ordinance. Or will those be? Aanenson: We'll look at that when we do the law Brian. We've tentatively identified this as an Ag -Urban so we can do mitigation. I'm not sure if you understood what we're doing as far as, what we're tenatively looking at. What Bonestroo is proposing and that is that there be a... 1 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Batzli: The trail by the wetland, can you give me the condensed version of why that's not going in? Or couldn't go in. ' Aanenson: You recommended at the last meeting that it be taken out. The City Council supported that too. Batzli: We recommended it? Aanenson: The neighbors felt it was an intrusion into their. Batzli: You were in charge. Farmakes: The developer said it wasn't a major issue so. Aanenson: Because the neighbors asked to have it taken out so I think. 1 Farmakes: So it wasn't, however at the time that we discussed this, it was a very fluid plan. 1 Ahrens: I don't think it was raised as a major issue. Batzli: Okay. 1 Ahrens: Do you remember? Were you here? 1 Farmakes: Who was here? Ahrens: I think I was the only one. 1 Brad Johnson: What I said is, the neighbors came up with an objection and I said no and the Planning Commission was sort of neutral on the whole thing. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting II November 4, 1992 - Page 39 II Farmakes: It wasn't a major point guys. And when it got to City Council it was gone. I Erhart: If we wanted it back in, would you put it back in? Brad Johnson: Would I? II Erhart: Yeah. Brad Johnson: I guess that's one of those, you know we're having, we'rel trying to do some things for the neighbors at the present time. What I felt at the time was that the trail was a bigger issue than the trees. I you follow me. It was an emotional issue. They felt that the wildlife would leave the area and all those kinds of questions so I'm trying to preserve the trees and I thought I'd give away on that. I thought it wa a good idea but I'm not, from my point of view, you guys will have to tell me that but I think you were concerned about a trail there. Residents: Yeah. II Brad Johnson: So I said, I agree and that's where I left it. Resident: And the Park Board said that it wasn't on your major trail II plan and they saw no reason for it to go through. Resident: It's also on a steep hill and you'd have to dig into that hilt and there was a concern about drainage as well as the sides of the path itself... Batzli: Kate, have we ever required, well I should, I haven't asked the' question this way. How long do we require a guarantee of trees after construction? Aanenson: One year. Batzli: Just one year? But for a saved oak tree for example. I Aanenson: You can set something up different. Krauss: Normally for new landscaping, it's a full growing season past the date of installation. As Kate indicated, we do have some flexibility to vary the standard for preservation. Batzli: Because we don't have in our condition 9, we say protected tree lost due to construction. How long would that condition last? Krauss: The way it's worded, I mean once the construction is over and 1 it's still there, you'd have to add a time extension onto that. Aanenson: Or bring an expert out to make a determination of the damage II or something. Krauss: Yeah, it gets kind of difficult too. I mean we could say 5 years or 10 years or whatever but once a tree dies, what did it die from II II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 40 I at that point. You know our primary goal is to keep the equipment away II from the roots. Keep the dirt from being impacted. Keep everything back far enough and take our best shot. Hempel: We could have these treed areas fenced off. We've done that typically in the past to avoid inadvertent damage of the dripline and so forth. I Batzli: But you're talking about during construction? Yeah. Currently the condition does require the fencing. It's an issue of replacement. Do we, in the past we've had several people go out and do the inventory I and mark all this kind of stuff. Now that they've gone out there and pounded in the stakes, do you want them to go out there and do a survey like that ?. II Aanenson: They have submitted a tree survey. They haven't done a tree removal. I think that's what was. I Batzli: Right. Are we requiring that and /or should we be requiring that? I Krauss: Yeah, I think in this case it certainly would resolve the question. As Kate pointed out, when we were out there tonight we had many of the same concerns the residents did. That what we saw on the ground or in the snow wasn't jiving exactly with what we saw on the plan. I Batzli: Okay, but what do you recommend we do here tonight to ensure that what we're looking at on this plan. 1 Krauss: We're looking for a tree removal plan that says, trees 35 thru 37 are going to be removed and nothing else will. And that's what we I will hold them to out in the field. Batzli: Do we have a tree removal plan with one of the conditions? 1 Aanenson: No. Batzli: Do we need to add that? 1 Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Okay, and then where is our landscaping plan? I Aanenson: They have submitted one. Is that what you're asking? II Conrad: Yeah. Erhart: It's not in here though. II Aanenson: It should be in with your, the architectural renderings. It should be the last sheet. II Batzli: Say Brad, does your architect have the copy of this sheet that can be focused on by the camera so that everyone can see this? II II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 41 , Aanenson: The landscaping plan? Batzli: Yeah. 1 Aanenson: I've got it. I Brad Johnson: One of the subtle things on this particular project is, these are the oak trees right here that we're saving. And what that originally...not knowing exactly where they were and then we had to move' them back to save that stand of oaks. In other words we were trying to build around the oak trees. Conrad: So the perfectly round circles on this plan are new. 1 Brad Johnson: No. The perfectly round circles. I Batzli: New deciduous trees. Brad Johnson: Those are the existing oaks. II Conrad: No. No, the ones that have the jagged edges are the old trees that we leave. The ones that are perfectly circular are new. 1 Brad Johnson: Right. Erhart: This shows what's going to remain after it's done. It doesn't II show what's on the site now. Brad Johnson: We'll be more than happy to, we've got that so we'd be II more than happy to come in. I don't know if...did we check on the elms II and where they were? Gordon Christenson: Well the grading plan, the large elm trees are shown. Brad Johnson: There's another plan that shows the large elm trees. II There was a plan that was done... There are 5 to 8 12 inch trees that would come down. They're primarily linden and elms. ...by saving oak trees and it's a trade -off guys. II Batzli: Well I get the feeling though that the residents wouldn't be happier if you moved the building further up the hill to become more massive. Not only would you take out the oaks but it would be more II intrusive. Brad Johnson: Farther up the hill. II Batzli: Farther up the hill. The coniferous trees that we're looking at go around each of the units that are closest to the neighbors. Typical' when we plant those babies, that's just what they are and they're very slow growing trees. How's this going to help block the view of some of these things? It is just going to break up the base and hopefully they'll grow big someday? - I Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 42 Aanenson: Well I think...neighborhood meeting also that they wanted to have more decidous trees. To give them more height in these areas here. ' Originally it was based on the fact that there was existing oaks. They wanted some more coniferous for the tree loss but in looking at this now, realizing the height of those are only going to be maybe 8 to 10 feet. I ' think at the neighborhood meeting there was a commitment by the developer to put some more of those deciduous trees on the backs of those buildings to get some more height. Batzli: But that isn't reflected on these plans? Aanenson: No. Erhart: Could I ask, would you agree that the coniferous tree is a slow growing tree? Kay Halla: Yes, slower than your deciduous. The original landscaping plan had quite a lot of deciduous trees in the north of the building. Especially up in the northeast corner. It was mostly deciduous because I felt that area might be kind of a lot of wet soils so I thought get some trees that could handle it a little better. But then based on the comments, I changed it. So they are a little slower growing. They only maybe get a foot in height where a deciduous tree, depending on the tree, can get, once it gets roots established, can grow... ' Erhart: How big are the coniferous trees you're putting in here? Kay Halla: The City requires 6 foot. ' Erhart: 6 feet. Batzli: Do the rest of the commissioners feel that additional, either landscaping or some other technique is required to kind of temper the view from the north of these northern most units? ' Ahrens: Why not put some dogwood in front of the, to provide some... Farmakes: Isn't the majority of the problem viewing from the east where there's no trees? At least on your video. The eastern part of the 1 property where you're showing the pole, there were no trees covering the building. ' Resident: That's a concern but I think to maintain, the big trees are a buffer, even if they're not an oak. The mighty oak. They're big and they do a good job now. Resident: There is an area where there's no trees at all and my house and my neighbor's house basically it's all open... Farmakes: Is that the eastern part of the property? Resident: No, it isn't. That's the center part. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 43 Erhart: Well I think it's clear that the staff has to come to indication with the developer on what trees are going and I don't know that we need' to review that. Clearly they have to get a handle on that. Conrad: Yeah, I tell you. There are a lot of trees in this. We requiril one tree for a single family unit, right? Isn't that our standard? There's a lot of trees here. If you're looking for some trade -offs, whether they're the right trees, I don't know. That's up to staff and the developer and maybe with input from the, I think they're listening till the neighbors in terms of what they must have heard. I'm not sure if it's the right assortment right now but it's sure a lot of trees. It's sure a lot more than what we see in a typical development like this. I counted 70 trees. Now that's why, I guess when I looked at this, beforell the meeting, I didn't treat it as real. Erhart: There's about 200 evergreens going in? , Conrad: Because there just seemed to be a lot of trees. Kay Halla: There are a lot of trees. Brad Johnson: She sells trees. ' Kay Halla: I tried to put the emphasis on trees rather than a lot of developers you might find large trees and then you'll see a mixture of ornamental and shrubbery and I think as far as maintenance in a unit, in a development like this, you're better off getting your impact from just trees. Conrad: Yeah. But this is a committed plan. Okay. , Batzli: I guess my final comment is more philosophical and that is, it'll difficult to sit up here and have seen the plans that we've seen and not think that this is a good one. But I don't want to be paternal, as Joan said. It's hollow words for you to hear us say, well gee this is the best one because the issue is exactly what Joan said. And that is, it II should be the best plan that we can get for Chanhassen and for the neighboring residents, as well as the people that are going to move in. I think, I hope some of your concerns have been either talked about or III recognized by us and hopefully you need to work with the developer in thil meantime between now and when it goes to City Council because what we're doing tonight, again to emphasize, is recommending to City Council. The will make the final decision and so your voice at the Council meeting is � still very important and you need to follow it to that meeting. I know you've probably attended several meetings by now. Stick with it. Go to one more. It will make a difference I believe. I would like to see a II condition placed in here that the developer will work with staff to make sure that the sight lines of the northeastern corner buildings are modified to minimize the impact to the neighbors to the north. What thall means I don't know. If that means putting in a couple of more fast growing ones. Putting in deciduous. Whatever they've got to do. I'd like to see that instead of putting in a bunch of 5 foot pine trees that are going to take 20 years to get to be 20 feet high. That's what I'd like to see. I'd at least like to see a commitment that they're going t 1 il Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 44 II work with staff and the neighborhood should give their input if, because I don't think, looking at this and listening to both sides, I don't know I that, and this is conjecture but I think it would be worst to pull the buildings further up the hill. They'd be taller. They'd be more massive. You'd have an ever tougher time trying to minimize the impact. II I don't know that it's so important to save the couple of trees on top of the hill. I guess I'd rather minimize the impact to the neighbors. We've got so many trees being planted here. If that would do it, if that would minimize it and help the development for everybody concerned, I I don't know why we're worried about saving a dozen oaks. The oaks will, I'm sure the developer would replant oaks. Obviously they're nOt going to be as big but they will get big. If that's the problem, if that's II what's causing this, then we need to look at that because then we live in a world gone mad because we're saving 12 oaks and we're ruining everybody's sight line from the north. That doesn't make any sense. So, II having said that, is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning to PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans II dated October 8th and October 22nd, 1992 and subject to the staff conditions with the following modifications. I'd like to modify condition number 8 to make it a little more proactive. I'd like I condition number 8 to read, the number of parking spaces, including handicap, must be revised to meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. And I'd like to modify condition number 9 to read, fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during I construction. Protected trees lost within 3 years due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. I'd like to add a number of additional conditions. I Condition 13. Elimination of access drives to Oak Pond Road in accordance with October 27, 1992 memorandum from Dave Hempel on his review of the Oak Pond site development plans. Condition 14. I Preparation and staff approval of a tree removal plan. Condition 15. That the developer shall work with staff on sight lines to reduce impacts on neighboring property owners. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Discussion. Conrad: When you're talking sight lines, you're talking tree? Or are 1 you looking at housing revision? Architectural revision. Farmakes: There are several sight lines. Which way they look. 1 Conrad: So what are we talking about? What are we saying to staff? You know we can solve a sight line deal with a tree. A major deal is if we're talking about altering the units. The rental units and the II elevations. Ledvina: Well I think what Brian was getting at was the screening issue. II Batzli: Well, I was looking for screening of the northeastern units which don't have any natural screening. Screening them from the development to the north. Breaking up the impact of the mass of the 11 buildings more quickly by putting in something faster growing or bigger 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 45 immediately. That's what I'm looking for. Ahrens: But isn't there some concern about the location of the building" I mean that's what I heard from staff. Aanenson: Right. , Krauss: They're going to have to rationalize the tree preservation plan... It sure looked like out there tonight that they have... , Ledvina: I think that's what we were trying to get at in condition 14. Regarding the tree removal plan. , Conrad: Well let's take that a step further. So if that means that the pads are in the wrong location based on cutting down more than 2 oak trees, then what's the next step? Does that mean we shouldn't be okaying, given the fact that we think it's wrong, do you want us to reac to a site plan? What's our step on the site plan motion? Tree removal might force a different site plan. Should it come back here? ' Ahrens: Well I agree. I think it's real unclear. Conrad: Yeah, and we've got to get some. ' Aanenson: Unless you want to set a number of trees. Conrad: We wouldn't know. Aanenson: Let staff decide if we feel it's a significant impact. ' Conrad: We can let you guys go forward with staff and you take, you go to the City Council. You probably don't want to come back and talk to 1 anymore, I would guess. Krauss: We're occasionally faced with making decisions. You know there's a lot of changes and accommodations that are reasonably made by II the developer, between them and staff prior to going to City Council after you do it. If we believe that we've transgressed across some gray line though so that the project is so significantly different and it's not the one you approved, we hold up short and then we do bring it back., I don't think that's going to happen in this case but if it does, we would bring it back. Ledvina: We see it one more time anyway. This is a preliminary site plan approval. Aanenson: No, you won't see it. Krauss: It's worded incorrectly. This is the site plan approval and I preliminary plat. Conrad: We'll see a wetland alteration permit coming back but that's, then this is out of our hands. We have control of it right now. For th last time. If you think that's control. Well I'm comfortable. I think 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 46 what we're talking about is a reasonability deal here and if it doesn't appear to be reasonable, it's going to come back to us. Batzli: Balancing test. You know it when you see it. ' Conrad: And I trust our neighbors will keep everybody honest on that deal too because if it gets to City Council and it's not, well there may be a different definition of what's reasonable but I think they're sort ' of the watchdogs on this one. So I guess I don't want to see it back here. For a while I thought I did. For a while I wanted to see what would happen but I think the developer's saying he's going to work on ' this and I hear staff saying they think they have a sense for it, so I'm comfortable that it doesn't come back. Batzli: Ladd, you started off by not liking condition 15 and you wandered into 14 I think. Conrad: I wanted to make sure that staff heard what 15 was and you i clarified that. Because architectural, that's a different, we didn't make that, I want to make that real clear. ' Erhart: A question on number 9. Kate, when you say that protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with the plan approved by staff. Are you talking about trees that are identified as going to be removed during the development or are ' you talking about trees that die later because of development? Aanenson: Right. Erhart: Okay. So let's say an 18 inch tree dies. So now you're going to put in six 3 inch trees. After the development is in and the sod's laid and the people have moved in, how do you determine where those 6 ' trees go? One obviously will go to replace the one that died. Where do the other 5 go? Which gets to Matt, your proposal now to carry this out to years. Is there a logistics problem with the concept of doing this? Ahrens: No. Erhart: No. Well how do you, who determines? Ahrens: Play it by ear. Seriously. ' Erhart: Well I'm just trying to be serious about this. Ahrens: No, I know that but I mean really. r Erhart: Where do the 5 trees go? ' Krauss: There were some neighboring communities that when something like that happens and there's no place to put it on site, they obligate the builder to buy the trees and they stick them in a park. It still accomplishes the goal of reforestation. Ahrens: But on a site like this, there's going to be room. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 47 Krauss: In terms of how you guarantee it financially, that's not difficult. You just take the components of what the letter of credit fol landscaping and carry it forward. Erhart: Okay, let me ask you this. Matt's proposal to increase this toll 3 years. Does that make sense? Can you handle that? Krauss: We haven't done it to date but I don't see why there's any II reason why we couldn't. It's just a matter of scheduling and going out there on the site. If we forget about it, I'm sure the developer will remind us that we still have his money. Batzli: Well I would go a step further and eliminate the words "due to II construction ". Krauss: Now that concerns me. I mean what if oak wilt comes through. I Is the oak wilt due to construction activity or? Batzli: Well if I'm the developer, I don't replace a single one. In thl third year I say that wasn't due to construction. Ahrens: Right, exactly. ' Batzli: Yeah, I mean with due to construction in there, if I'm the developer, I'm sitting in the back row laughing. Fine. Give me 50 years. I don't care. Erhart: But he's supposed to replace trees that die from other causes? is Batzli: Well, how are you going to prove it? Krauss: You know where the suspect trees are. I think Dave can attest II to this. The idea of bulldozer drivers going bizerk is legendary. You know when they've transgressed and knocked down a snow fence or compacted some dirt. And you start writing which trees you highly suspect have been suffered, may suffer damage. Erhart: That's why I think the point of the snow fence is so great. Because I don't think you can draw the lines on this 3 year or due to I construction. All these things are soft. A hard fact is 'you put the snow fence around and they don't go inside of it. I'm not sure that going beyond that accomplishes anything. That's the point I'm trying to make. Even if we had to increase the diameter of the snow fence to 1 1/� times the drip diameter...actually protect that area. And by golly, if they run over that snow fence, man they just replace the tree. Batzli: So you'd change it to fencing shall be placed around the oak trees at 1 1/2 times the drip line? Erhart: Well I don't know what the right answer is. My point was that II I'm not sure, setting up a situation where staff's going to go out 3 years and inspect this. It just doesn't happen. If we're concerned we're not getting adequate coverage, I'd more on something that well could measure which is the fence line. Drip diameter and things. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 48 1 Ahrens: So they knock it down and they go back and put up another fence. ' Aanenson: That went back to my original proposal and we bring in an expert to walk through the site and look at, make a determination and we ' say it cooks like this tree's been damaged due to construction or whatever. After it's been final graded and, not only that but you know after they've graded the site, not all buildings are going to go up. They're go up over a different timeframe. It's not all going to be built ' at once so there's going to be over a period of time, different things happening. To say 3 years, I'm not sure. I think with each building that goes in place we're going to have to go out there and physically look at what's been done after activity. Make a determination. If it looks like it's been altered or damaged, which goes back to the snow fence thing. I think that's the staff, although that's easier to try to fence them off and go out and make a determination. Batzli: Well when do you go out with your expert? After final completion of the whole plan? 1 Aanenson: I think there's going to have to be a series of different times. After the final grade and then after each building goes up if they're around an existing oak tree that we want to preserve. Farmakes: What's the time factor in a stress situation like with an oak tree if it's damaged in construction? Is it immediate? Kay Halla: No, not all the time. ' Farmakes: 6 months? Kay Halla: It can be, I'm just basing it on a plan that I had that we put some landscaping in the year her home was built and just this, it's been 2 years, her 2 trees are dead. She has... It was obvious that they had been really, really close to the house and really graded around. And it took 2 years but it was pretty obvious. Farmakes: So no crown damage showed up until then? Kay Halla: No, they were totally dead. But again, it had really been graded around. Farmakes: Is there visible damage shortly after construction of some sort? Kay Halla: She knew a year later that there was some die back on the tips and that kind of thing. Erhart: What did they do? They ran equipment right underneath the tree? Kay Halla: Well we think so. The home we went to, we did the landscaping after the home was built but it was, it seemed obviously like comparing to what the neighbors land and how it was graded. It seemed like they have to get drainage away from.the home and that there was some soils put on top of the trees and then in one area the driveway was only 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 49 ' 2 feet, the edge of the driveway was only 2 feet from the trunk of the tree. So it was right underneath...and it took, in 2 years they were II totally dead but I think some can last longer. Batzli: If no one has a proposed amendment to number 9, would anyone have any other discussion before I call the question? Conrad: Just one more thing in terms of runoff and ponding. Dave, what is it that's going to assure us, from your department, that we really dol have good specs for water runoff? Our good system. We've got a consultant out there that we've hired. They are making some recommendations and what are the standards that they set. They have to II meet basic minimum standards. Hempel: That's correct. They're going to follow our latest storm water quality practices that we're employing on storm drainage. Krauss: We should throw in a proviso there. It is possible that the consultant's going to come back and say that by all rights, a portion of" this should be handled off site and...developer shall pay x number of thousand of dollars into the city program so he can accommodate that. That's very... Conrad: That'a acceptable. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? 1 Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning to PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown onll the plans dated October 8, 1992 and October 22, 1992, and subject to thell following conditions: 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions signs shall be placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Road. ' 2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures in accordance with the City's construction site handbook. 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on til final plat for all utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement shall be dedicated to the City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site. 1 4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development. 5. A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County , shall be conducted by the developer' prior to requesting final approval. Planning ommission Meeting g November 4, 1992 - Page 50 6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails ' and possible location of sedimentation pond before final plat approval. 7. Park and trail dedication fees be paid in lieu of parkland. 8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must be revised to meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. 1 9. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost within 3 years due to ' construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20 foot manicured area shall be maintained along the north, east and west property limits, anything beyond shall be left in natural (non - maintenance) state. ' 11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated October 19, 1992. 12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated October 21, 1992. 13. Elimination of access drives to Oak Pond Road in accordance with October 27, 1992 memorandum from Dave Hempel on his review of the Oak Pond site development plans. 14. Preparation and staff approval of a tree removal plan. ' 15. That the developer shall work with staff on sight lines to reduce impacts on neighboring property owners. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Is there a motion on the preliminary. Is preliminary plat the wrong word here? ' Aanenson: No, it is a plat. Batzli: Preliminary plat? Is there a motion on the preliminary plat? Conrad: I make the motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated October 8th and October 22nd, 1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Erhart: I'll second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? I'm still a little concerned about us not having the areas around the wetlands at this part of the process. Why are we taking that at the wetland alteration permit stage? Because Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 51 that's when we get it and that's when we do it? It seems to me if there should be dedicating areas around the wetlands, we should be doing it II now. I haven't quite figured that out. Why we're not doing that at thi time? Can we at least put in here, well you already have in here that they have to get a wetland alteration permit. Okay, then that's good enough? Okay. Any other discussion? Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated October 8, 1992 and October 22, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City II and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper installation of the - public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permittin agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver County. 3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements within the right -of -ways or easements to City standards' and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement and right -of -way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for formal approval by the City prio' to final plat approval. 4. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the westerly portion of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond Road to Kerber Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When will this be going to City Council now? ' Aanenson: We're going to do the wetland alteration permit before it's forwarded on and we need to get the traffic study back. Krauss: Yeah, we want these issues resolved once and for all before we go to the City Council. What we'll do is renotify you... Batzli: Okay, thank you all for coming in. Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing? ' Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: I agree with Joan about the parenting role that some of you played with them today. From a developer's point of view, that was II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 52 very good point but I think you do have a better project because of your 1 input. I know we've kind of gone through hoops for you. I know that that whole barren hill over there, I didn't even think about it when I started out the program and so I think in real life, it's been a benefit 1 and it's obvious that we're trying and we just, sometimes we can't do everything you'd like us to do, like not build it. So I do appreciate your input and I think we've tried to improve the project because of it. You've got a better project. Thank you. Farmakes: Do you feel that those objections are crystallized? Brad Johnson: In your mind? Farmakes: Yeah, because I got the impression here tonight that they're 1 not crystallized. Brad Johnson: Well I agree with what you suggested. That one or two of ' you are welcomed to sit down with, because most of our questions are tree and design. One on one and just sit down and work through some of the problems. You know we've had neighborhood meetings. It's always usually we, they kind of a meeting. So if you guys wanted to appoint a couple ' people in the next couple weeks, because it's about 4 weeks before we're back here Paul probably. Krauss: Well it's a matter of when we get the materials. Resident: ...because there's different issues depending on where you are. This is not an association of people here. The neighbors have 1 primary concerns about the... Farmakes: Okay, what I'm trying to suggest, to be productive, if you 1 crystallize those things as a group. List them as the major elements of what you're presenting and some of the sub - elements, it would help in the negotiation process. It would make your position much more clear. Specifically. Do you understand what I'm saying? Resident: They were on the paper. Batzli: Well yeah. We need to move this one along and I like what's on the paper but that needs to be shown to City staff and the developer and you need to sit down and discuss those things with them. If it's as a group or, it would be nicer to have a couple of people so that, it's difficult to do things by committee. If you can have a couple people sit down. Go over those points with the developer, that will be very helpful and we do appreciate you coming in and telling us these things and pointing out, because you're intimately familiar with the project and how it will effect you and so we do appreciate that. Thank you. 1 1 1 Planning ommission Meeting 9 g November 4, 1992 - Page 53 PUBLIC HEARING: NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA MANOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: ' Name Address Wayne Holzer 2911 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior Don Crenshaw 2961 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior Herb Pfeffer 2850 Tanager Lane 1 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Are you comfortable with the documentations that we're holding these other applicants to? They they really address that. In general terms that addressed that but it says that there was no record. Aanenson: Right. The gentleman that had to leave earlier was a Mr. ' Kimber and he's lived in that neighborhood for 20 some years I believe. 25 years. And he had numerous documentation. He also did, we were trying to find a letter that was sent to him by Bill Monk that said if wil vacated this street, that the Association would get all rights to that street vacation. In speaking with Roger Knutson today, the City Attorney, he said normally it's turned over to the court and it's split ways so again, what we are recommending, if he can get, if the Association can get this property owner. This property all right here is served by private drive so a majority of this underneath here is under I water. If this gentleman here is willing to quit claim to them his portion of that, that would give them more access because otherwise all they have is a very narrow strip. There's nowhere to stand or anything like that. So all they do is go down there. Launch their boats or use the 2 boats that are at the dock. Erhart: 5o are you proposing to table this? ' Aanenson: No. I think the Association may want it tabled because I think that they're feeling like, let me pass this picture around that wall given by Mr. Kimber, the gentleman that had to leave, showing you how they get access. Batzli: In the meantime, since several people have stayed, I do want toll hear from them. If the three of you, do any of you, I should say, are any of you with the Association? Don Crenshaw: Yes, I'm President of the Association. ' Batzli: Are you other two gentlemen here on this issue? Are you with the Association? Herb Faber: I'm a member of the Association but I live on the canal there so I was here as a matter of interest. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 54 Batzli: Okay. I'd like to hear first from the President of the Association if I could. Don Crenshaw: My name is Don Crenshaw. I live at 2961 Washta Bay Road ' and a situation's arisen that the Association's not very well aware of what the Council wants from us or where the situation is. Unfortunately our little corner of Chanhassen likes to think it's in Excelsior and we ' for example don't get the Villager. So no one in our neighborhood was aware of this meeting and this being on the agenda. One letter arrived to someone in the neighborhood that eventually, through a series of phone calls, got to me late last night and I'm here basically in a situation of ignorance trying to gather as much information as I can to represent the Association. ' Batzli: Do you understand that what we're doing here is a process of bringing in all of the old time beachlots? Are you generally aware that that's why we're here tonight? Don Crenshaw: Yes I am. Batzli: Have you had a chance to look at the application that was 11 submitted on behalf of your Association, even though you didn't know it was being submitted? Don Crenshaw: No I haven't. When I found out about that last night, I made efforts to get in touch with Jim Senst and I talked to him but didn't get a chance before I had to come to the meeting to actually get a look at what he submitted. Aanenson: The gentleman that had to leave, it's the other gentleman in the association that has seen that. Let me just clarify why you didn't ' get notice. What we've done with these is we've worked through the Association President. We notice everybody on the lake so there are some people that did get notice in the Association that are lakeshore owners. ' Otherwise what we've done is work through the Association President, that's where there was a downfall. It was our understanding that he was the Association President and since he sent me back the application, that's what I was under the assumption of, so I apologize for that. ' Batzli: So if you had your druthers tonight, while we're figuring out our issues on access and things like that, would you want this matter tabled so you can review your application to see if it's what your association wants? Don Crenshaw: Yes, please. Batzli: And you now have his name and address so we can send notice to the right people? I would like to hear if either one of the other two gentlemen that have stayed, if you have any other comments. I don't mean to cut you off but if either of you two have something to say, I'd be happy to hear you tonight so that you don't have to come back in or 11 you're always welcome to come back in next time this is on our agenda. Whichever you prefer. Planning Commission Meeting II November 4, 1992 - Page 55 II Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer, 2850 Tanager Lane. I live in Lot 10. That's my residence there and as long as this is going to be tabled" I suppose that's fine because I can come up with more data at a later date but the only problem I have with the lot, or with the dock is that originally when I moved in it was a single, two plank dock going straight out from actually the road. I think it was 4 years ago when we had the II drought we dredged the channel out. At that time a T was added. An L was added to the dock to get access to the water which was navigable so to speak. But that does put it right on my lot line into their dock. I And I haven't had a problem yet but there's nothing to prevent anything from happening I suppose in the future. Legally to have water go down again and let's say a pontoon is placed at the end of that L section, which basically is over my water which is my lot. See the way this was 11 plotted out, what's shown there is the high water mark. The low water mark is, I mean this is the low water mark that you've got up there. The high water mark is to a point where right about in that intersection II where it says Lot 10 and the angular effect. That's about where the water is right now. So if you extrapulated and assumed the dock was out to the end of that lot line, and then go say another 20 feet with a boat or a pontoon or something like that, well that would really obstruct my view. I wouldn't care for that one bit because that would be on my property. Batzli: So the dock, the addition of the L shape was within the last II several years? Herb Pfeffer: Yes. And now apparently that's illegal because it's on 1 the lot line. Aanenson: I spoke to Mr. Pfeffer this week. That's why I got a legal opinion on this issue. The dredging did not go to the beachlot's lot. I stopped at the edge of Mr. Pfeffer's property. In order to get the depth of the boats, they bring it all the way up to the edge of the property. II Batzli: But what we're trying to do is determine the intensity of the use of the beachlots back in 1981. And so. II Herb Pfeffer: In '81 there was no L. Batzli: Right, and so if we were to allow them to put in the L, if you I will, it's my understanding that we might be able to put some sort of condition on that since that would be an intensification of the use over a period of time. So I think what we should do is table this and that needs to be resolved to everyone's obviously satisfaction here so that w� don't intensify the use over what it was in 1981, but at the same time allow them some use of their lot. II Herb Pfeffer: Fine with me. Thank you. Batzli: Did you want to address the Commission? Okay. Thank you for II coming in. Is there a motion to table this matter? Ledvina: So moved. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 56 Erhart: Second. 1 Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to table the the Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE. Public Present: Name Address ' Frank Svoboda Bear Lake Wetlands Center 22752 CR 7, Hutchinson, MN Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. 1 Batzli: Philosophically, for the people that weren't part of the wetlands /SWMP committee, why is it better to provide a buffer strip and allow buildings closer to the wetlands and under the old system where there was a 75 foot setback? Olsen: The old system with the 75 foot setback did maintain a structure to be back further. But we were having lots of problems where there'd be ' a manicured lawn or there'd be alteration right up to the edge of the wetland and we were finding that that was actually causing more harm to the wetland than the structure. And we're finding, in speaking with ' other wetland experts, that it's not necessary that 75 feet isn't protecting the wetland necessarily. All it really is is visually and that if you have a buffer strip that's protected and it has that vegetation there to provide habitat and food for the wildlife and also it ' just provides protection from actual alteration to the wetland itself. That that's more important and that a deterrent for being provided with that buffer that we could allow the structure to be closer. And actually ' it's not the structure's aren't really moving from 75 feet to 40 feet. That includes the buffer strip so at a minimum the buffer strips I believe are still 50 feet. The structures would still be 50 feet from the wetland edge. So that's still a pretty substantial setback. Batzli: I'm sorry, minimum, as long as it's not a utilized use. 1 Olsen: Right. Batzli: So Ag -Urban above, it would be 50 minimum. Natural 60. Pristine 1 150. Olsen: Right. Utilized, we're saying that that's not even a wetland. That's a storm water pond and that's the way it should be considered. So ' that's our philosophy on that. I don't know if Frank wants to add any more on that but. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 g g November 4, 1992 - Page 57 Batzli: We've got to make him say something. He's been here for 4 hours or something. 1 Olsen: I told him to come late. It's his own fault. Ahrens: Jo Ann, as you know there's been a lot of discussion about how 1 to define a wetland. Federal government defined it in the past year as something other than what States, and including Minnesota have defined wetlands as being. How did we identify to find the wetlands in Chanhassen and what standard was used? Olsen: We did look at the three qualities. The vegetation, they hydric soils and the water. And when we did the on -site surveys, is that what ' you're talking about? Krauss: I think you're referring to the situation where Dan Quayle and I his Council on Economic Competitiveness decided that they knew what a wetland was and changed the rules. Ahrens: Who's Dan Quayle? 1 Krauss: How quickly we forget. Olsen: There's sheets in here. We did use those three different factors. Krauss: But what you're referring to, there's a Federal Wetland Delineation Manual and there's two of them out there and originally the Feds wanted to go with the 1989 manual that was quite restrictive. Now there's a '91 manual. It's a modified one that's much looser. It defines a lot less acreage as wetland. It really doesn't matter in Minnesota because Minnesota State Law says the 1989 Manual is the one that is going to be used to regulate wetlands in the State of Minnesota. It's in the State Statute. Now taking it off of that, there's any numbe of ways to classify wetlands. There's two basic systems that are recognized. The original one is Circular 39 which is, it goes up to a lot of different types but those are the ones... And then there's the I one I always mispronounce. The Cordian System. Ahrens: You're getting a little over my head here but go ahead. ' Krauss: Our program uses a much simpler approach when we define it. What we're defining is what the real intent of the wetland is and what the value and function is to the community. Ahrens: So you simplified this whole thing? Krauss: Oh yeah. But it's, you can make it a lot more complicated. Vol can put it back into the classification systems that everybody else might use if we need to. Olsen: The surveys that were performed defined the Circular 39 report. But then when they also, these are the sheets. You know we have all these sheets that were filled out for each wetland so we can go back and' refer to each one of those other classifications but they also break it 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 58 down into our three definitions of wetland. And again takes into the 1 lon g vegetation and has it been impacted. Has it not been impacted. Those ' kinds of situations. Ledvina: Have each of the wetlands been physically observed? Olsen: Right. ' Krauss: Yeah. All the 400 whatever it is. Batzli: There was a comment earlier tonight which raises a question and that was, one of the residents stated that he felt that a certain part of a'development was a wetland. What happens in a situation like that where we either missed one, and I know Frank wouldn't do that. I think it was his F250 pick -up truck by the way. What happens? In the ordinance is ' there a mechanism by which we can change either the number of wetlands or the type of wetland? And do wetlands change over time? What happens if we create a utilized wetland and it becomes an Ag Urban wetland? Krauss: That can't happen. Olsen: Yeah, see it's not utilized wetland. It's a utilized water body. 1 Batzli: Okay, so we create a utilized water body and it becomes. ' Krauss: It takes on wetland characteristics. Olsen: But it's always going to be a storm water pond. 1 Batzli: Why? Krauss: We define it that way. Batzli: Why? Krauss: Because it's got a function that way. We're talking about a part of a drainage system. Batzli: The building gets blown down by a tornado. Erhart: I think there's a good answer to this. Because the guy who built that paid for it to make it a utilized pond. Is it fair then to go back and say gee whiz now, we take rights against that pond now but now it's Ag Urban because it took on wetland characteristics. You've got to remember, all these utilized ponds were created. 1 Olsen: For storm water. Erhart: Created by somebody who invested in that utilized pond. Krauss: It was created for the specific purpose of accommodating storm water and /or improving water quality. We have to go in and maintain these things. Every 3, 4, 5 years we're going to go in there with a backhoe. We may develop technologies. People looking into setting up 1 Planning Commission Meeting II November 4, 1992 - Page 59 NURP basins where you actually grow cattails and you harvest them becausII it takes up the nutrients and you remove it from the system. These are managed basins. They're no different than pipes and culverts and storm I inlets. Olsen: And they will take on the wetland qualities if they're done II correctly. They will look nice. Batzli: Just by way of example. The pond at the end of my road, which is a storm water pond, and whichever year they go in there and pull out il certain percentage of the cattails. But yet it takes on a wetland look over the years and in the spring and the birds come and nest and all this other good stuff. And what we're saying is we don't care whether people do anything to that. If for example none of, it's on a piece of propert that's owned by a private individual. God only knows why, and our neighborhood happens to take care of it. ' Erhart: But you don't know if that's a utilized, designated as utilized. Batzli: It will be. But my point is, why not let that go. Why not I require that some of these things go to? Krauss: Because then, under State Law and under our laws, what you woul wind up doing is you would have to mitigate the mitigation. In fact we have some people at the PCA who are trying to do this right now. You actually construct the pond to protect the wetland. The pond you constructed takes on wetland characteristics. Therefore that becomes a wetland and you have to construct another pond to protect that one. Tha one takes on wetland characteristics. I mean where does this end. Batzli: A better world. The reason that I bring it up is not really 1 because I mean it was supposedly going to be a loaded question but you answered it very well, and that is, there's a lot of agricultural areas ' that are sometimes plowed and sometimes not and they're kind of skunky right now and maybe they only have one type of vegetation in them and maybe they really don't look like a wetland. But over time I've got the feeling that, due to seeds floating in air and birds moving around and II everything else, it would take on a greater diversity of stuff. Krauss: Those are not utilized wetlands as we define them. 1 Batzli: So what is the process to upgrade those kinds of ponds or to look at them and say, is it a wetland or is it not at this point? Krauss: The way our ordinance is structured, you can take an Ag Urban II wetland in a development that we review. Based upon the criteria... You can take an Ag Urban wetland up or down or leave it. II Olsen: Or keep it that way. Krauss: Yeah, by that I mean if we, if the Ag Urban wetland, and they'd real dandy spots to mitigate, other wetland impacts and we've seen that time and time again in developments. Where you have wetlands that have been drained by field tile or whatever else and they have organic soils.I II Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 60 1 They're naturally low spots. They receive drainage but the farmers been pumping the water out for 100 years. Those are great spots to turn back into Type III or IV wetlands with the proper regrading, busting up the drain tile and whatever else you're going to do. And we do that quite regularly. At the same time we may decide that that's the place the NURP ' basin should go and sacrifice it. In which case if you sacrifice it to that standard, you're going to have to mitigate it. It's kind of late, I don't want to throw too much philosophy at you but right now we're a ' little bit of divergence with the State rules that are being developed that have not been approved. State rules should differentiate between wetlands of different quality because the law mandates that they do but the State rules don't. The State rules say a wetland is a wetland is a wetland and nobody says one is better than the other. Treats them all equal. ' Batzli: Where in the ordinance are you able to say that something is a wetland if it's not on your official map? Krauss: There's a statement that says our official maps are prima facie evidence of their being a wetland. Batzli: I know but you're going the wrong way on me here. Where is it, how can you change your map? Krauss: Well we asked Roger that. Now neither Jo Ann nor I talk legal latin but we were told by Roger that, when he threw in the prima facie language, it would allow us to. Olsen: What's on page 2, that the Planning Director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated wetland boundaries or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based on data that is supplied. Batzli: So it's going to be the. Olsen: The Planning Department. Page 2, at the bottom there. Batzli: The Planning Director shall make a determination to maintain the wetland. But see I thought that was in the event that an applicant is disputing. But you're reading that as in any instance you can. Krauss: If we missed one or it's a different configuration, we can ' waive. I mean it's still a wetland and we will amend the official maps accordingly. Olsen: Or if we go out there and find that it really isn't a wetland. Ahrens: But that wouldn't happen. They're all right right now. Batzli: Well but see there may be areas that are agricultural that they quit plowing and it may become a wetland. Farmakes: Well that's what happened in what we were discussing today. Cows grazed on that wetland down there for years. Down inbetween, that 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 61 low lying area there. Batzli: I think that needs to be clarified. 1 Frank Svoboda: If 1 might add something. Under the State Statutes that' the City...operates, any individual that's proposing to do modification to their property, it is highly recommended that they obtain a certificate of exemption which means that someone qualified has examined II that particular parcel of land to determine whether or not wetlands are present. And before they go and do any modification, just for their own safety, they should have this Certificate of Exemption in their possession...again under the Wetland Conservation Act, any Peace Officer 1 of the State is empowered to issue a Cease and Desist Order if he believes that a construction project is impacting wetlands. And the only defense that a property owner has to end that Cease and Desist Order is if the Certificate of Exemption. So I think eventually what will happen as this process starts getting worked out, is that an individual will come to..., just for their own safekeeping, and say can we have this property examined. We want a Certificate of Exemption...And so I think 11 that's the safety aspect that's out there in the event that something wa overlooked. If the City... Batzli: Have we covered, we talked at one point I guess in the SWMP committee about things that are effecting the wetland that aren't dredging. Things like that. I think in your prohibition section. Olsen: We added something about that. Batzli: Yeah, but I couldn't find it though. 1 Krauss: But we did add it. Batzli: I remember you added the discharge of storm water runoff that 1 impacted it. Krauss: We also got into the cutting of vegetation was a wetland in there. Olsen: Well that was the edge of a wetland though. You're talking aboull off site. Batzli: See I was thinking it was going to go in the no net loss Sectioll 20 -404. And I was debating whether or not that covers the scenarios we were trying to come up with, or at least I was trying to come up with that night. I don't know. Dumping oil on it. That alters it I suppose. I don't know. I find it difficult once you start enumerating to then argue later on. It almost appears like we're trying to enumerate all th possibilities and that's what kind of scares me with that section and I thought we were going to put it in again later on in the ordinance. I don't remember if you guys even remember talking about that. Krauss: ...to discharge in contaminated water is concerned about? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 62 II Batzli: That or taking your motorcycle through there. I mean my example was to run your bulldozer through there with the blade up. Or drive a I snowmobile through there all winter long on the same track. Doing things like that. I don't know if that's what we're necessarily trying to regulate but on the other hand that's going to damage the wetland. 1 Erhart: Doing what Brian? Batzli: Driving snowmobiles through there all winter. I Erhart: You think that's going to damage the wetland? 1 Olsen: That happens all the time. Batzli: It does. 1 Frank Svoboda: There have been a number of studies done on the effects of snowmobiles on vegetation and there is documented information that it...suggest that just exactly that kind of repeated use will damage I vegetation...snow and frost instead of snow acting as an insulated factor ...conductive factor so...I don't know if the city wants to get into regulating that or not. r Erhart: Your point was to address that here? I Batzli: I don't know. If it's going to damage the wetland, I think it should go in here. I don't know. We're listing the things you can't do in a wetland. II Erhart: Motorboats might damage the wetland. Batzli: But see that's on the water and what we're regulating is above I the water line here. I don't know. I'm raising it as an issue. I'm just raising issues because nobody else wants to talk about it. We can pass it tonight if nobody else has any questions. I don't care. 1 Olsen: I think that's an interesting point...get more information. Batzli: You know, we're all tired. It's 11:00. I can shut up. 1 Conrad: Brian, you haven't let us talk though. I Batzli: Let's close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Erhart: We had talked on the SWMP committee that we were going to notify those people who had pristine wetlands because this has an impact on II their property rights. Did we do that? Nobody interested? Olsen: Yeah, there's really not that many people. II Erhart: Yeah, about three. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 63 Batzli: Do you guys just want to go around, does everybody have specific questions that they want to ask? Okay. Joan. ' Ahrens: What would it take, I know this may sound crazy but what would it take to notify, now that you know where all the wetlands are, to send, out a letter from the City to everybody who lives on a wetland. You can't do that? Saying you live on a wetland. Krauss: Tremendously difficult to correlate all the properties that are' effected by the 430 wetlands. I mean it can be done. Ahrens: Just curious. I don't want to make your life that difficult bull I thought if it would be. Krauss: Fortunately it's not. We're not to that level of sophisticatio' yet. Theoretically it could be done. Batzli: How are we going to know when people come in with building permits then? ' Olsen: Everytime we pull out the half section, we've got these... Krauss: And they are being put on a CAD system. Ultimately we will be II able to do what you're asking Joan by asking the CAD system to correlate addresses with wetlands...but the systems not up and running yet. Batzli: Is it in the budget for next year? Krauss: Well it's supposed to be. ' Batzli: We've been talking about automating this stuff for 6 years. That was always on our goals was to hire an intern for the summer to automate everything. Every year I've been here I think that's been one II of our goals. Krauss: Well, I mean we've actually got the CAD equipment installed ' upstairs and we're digitizing maps now so it's in process. Conrad: What would you do Joan? You'd send out a letter to everybody II that says, you're now on, you live on a wetland. What would you say? Ahrens: You live on this type of a wetland. I mean if we could do this ideally. You live on this type of a wetland. This is what you can do. This is what you can't do. Erhart: The purpose of this letter is to stop what? ' Ahrens: Deterioration of the wetlands. Or destruction. Erhart: You think people are destroying wetlands? Beyond developers. II Ahrens: I don't know. No, I mean maybe an informational type letter. You know it would be...and your wetland and not use certain types of fertilizer maybe. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 64 Erhart: Yeah, but we've addressed that and we did send out newsletters to all citizens of Chanhassen last summer. Every citizen. Ahrens: Well what I'm saying is there's a lot of people who live on ' wetlands who don't think they're wetlands. So they don't think that stuff applies to them. Erhart: Yeah, I guess we really talked in terms of lakes more than ' wetlands didn't we. Krauss: We've sent out a series of 3 or 4 newsletter and special mailings on the SWMP program. Erhart: Well you must remember them Joan. Ahrens: No, but I remember in the past we've had people come and they say they don't think their wetland's a wetland. Erhart: Yeah but we talked a lot on the SWMP committee about, and spent a lot of the money that we had on education. Krauss: We also, and we're going to continue to do just that but we talked about once these maps were developed, having a series of public hearings on the maps and really preclude them to concentrations with the City Attorney better. These things would be long involved hearing in ' front of the Planning Commission. People may contest whether the wetland's there. ' Ahrens: 1 don't think that's a good idea. Krauss: Especially when you realize that we've effectively had a no net loss wetlands program for 8 years and with the exception of pristine wetlands, as Tim pointed out, the fact that we mapped them has not changed people's responsibilities at all. In fact we're being more liberal to some people in some situations. Since it doesn't have any tangible impact on them, unless they have a wetland, and unless they want to do something, and then we have the ordinance. Why put ourselves through the ordeal. Ahrens: ...I don't have anything else to say... Erhart: I think you brought up a good point Brian. Regarding we have a list of what you can't do in a wetland. We can certainly add to it. I wouldn't do snowmobiles because you're going to get tremendous, you're going to have a riot here if you did that in Chanhassen. But I'll tell you, I think there's some other more destructive things in wetlands and that is 3 wheelers and. Ahrens: Yeah, they do that all over. Erhart: I'll tell you, and to some degree horses. When you ride horses at the fringe of a wetland. To the extent you tear the turf up and then ' the rain comes along and all that gets washed into the wetlands so I think there is some valid things if you're willing to take them up Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 65 politically. If you're willing to take them up politically, I think there are some valid things. But you know I guess we kind of dealt with, what we perceived to be kind of construction related and not use related issues. Batzli: Okay, and that's what I guess I'm sitting here thinking if I'm II homeowner and I've got a wetland in my backyard and I change the oil in my car and I don't think about it much so I take the drained oil and I ' kind of toss it in my back yard, and I've got a wetland sitting there, I mean I would rather probably grade it right up to the edge than be throwing oil in there. And we don't cover that. Maybe it's illegal udder another section under the City Code. ' Krauss: We're also, it's covered under State law but we're also having an education program where we're telling people about that. Jo Ann just' got the mylar plate of grading stencils made where we're going to painting on all the storm sewer grates in the city. Don't dump waste down here. This flows into Lake Lucy. We've got door hangers that are going out. ' Olsen: We're going to put, don't pollute. Drains to wetlands. We don't have any prohibitions. We only have what's permitted and that's one of II the things we changed. Because that list could go on forever. Batzli: But that's why I thought under 20 -404. Olsen: Those are just standards but there's nowhere where you would say, snowmobiling is not permitted in a wetland. Erhart: We don't have prohibit. Olsen: Yeah, and that's where, if it's not permitted, it's prohibited.. So what we've done, we only have this little list of what you can do and you have to get a wetland alteration permit to do anything else. Batzli: But I think Tim hit it right on the nose and that is, and maybe this has been my uncomfort because I've been thinking of all these thing that you could do to it that aren't construction related that we don't talk about. Don't seem to cover. This section 404, entitled no net loss. I never quite understood why it's entitled that given what it says. I mean you would almost think the title should be something like, thou shalt not touch a wetland unless it's permitted in here. End of sentence. Erhart: I thought we had that in here. What happened to the thing abou having cattle lots right up to a wetland? That's got to be in here. Feedlots. Olsen: We don't permit feedlots. ' Erhart: You're going to stop the farmer from feeding his cattle here in this town. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 66 Olsen: A feedlot. That's not just a feedlot. That's where you have 1 concentrated, just cattle. Krauss: New feedlots are also licensed by the State. We stay away from the ag issues. Erhart: Okay, but in the old ordinance. We had some prohibitions like ' that... Where does it say you can't dump in a wetlands? Isn't that in here anymore? Olsen: There's only things that are permitted and there's no specific, so yes. You cannot dump. And under no net loss here you cannot. Krauss: A person may not drain, grade, fill, berm, remove healthy native ' vegetation or otherwise alter a wetland of any size or type except as defined herein. Erhart: Okay, but in our old wetland ordinance, we did have a list of 1 things you could do. Krauss: But it was confusing. 1 Erhart: Maybe I was wrong but yeah, I guess somehow I thought we had a list of things you could do. 1 Batzli: But can't we put something in this no net loss section which actually addresses no net loss first of all. But second of all, says that we can't drain, grade, fill, burn, remove healthy vegetation or you know this alter a wetland. I get the feeling that somebody drives their 3 wheeler through there, are we going to risk our reputation on saying that they are altering it by doing that? I mean is that how we're going 1 to cover it? Krauss: I honestly don't know. I've got to believe if somebody did it often enough, that they created a track through the wetland and actually destroyed the vegetation and we could prove who did it, yeah. We'd go after them. Erhart: How can you do that now, if you have no law that says. Olsen: Because it's not permitted. And it's an alteration. 1 Ahrens: We have the wetland vigilantes to go after them. Erhart: Where does it say it's not permitted? ' Batzli: It says you can't do it. Ahrens: If it's not allowed, then it's not permitted. Batzli: What they're trying to say is that you can't do it unless it's permitted but I don't know that what the words that we have in here are broad enough for that. And I would also, is there something in here that requires a no net loss per unit? Per parcel. Per development kind of a 1 Planning Commission Meeting II November 4, 1992 - Page 67 1 thing. I thought that used to be in the no net loss section and either it got moved or. , Krauss: Well there's a part that says something about the ratio. Replacement ratio. Olsen: What was your question again? Batzli: As a policy, we have no net loss per parcel being developed or II something. Didn't we have that in there at one time? Olsen: Yeah, there's all these lists that says you have to do it on site. If you can't do it on site, you have to do it. Batzli: But as a philosophy. I mean we have an intent section that says it's to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands. But didn't we useil to have a purpose or intent that there was no net loss? I thought we did. I mean we keep talking about that. I mean everytime somebody gets up here and starts talking about a wetland, we say well we've got a no II net loss policy. We don't even put it in our ordinance, do we? Erhart: I guess I don't agree with you. I don't think we really have t say we have a no net loss. We have a wetland preservation ordinance and have had one for 10 years. That's what I remember bearing. That we've not used that. Over used. What I consider over used. Krauss: Well not but effectively it has operated as a no net loss. I II mean if somebody was going to make a wetland, they were required to replace it. Olsen: Under B, under the intent it says, when this is not feasible, mitigation must be provided to restore the lost or altered wetlands valu and function. That's essentially our no net loss. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Erhart: ...saying that their trails include wetlands and lakes. ' Ahrens: And your backyard. My backyard. Krauss: They tend to try to avoid drafting ordinances that encounter al eventualities because they get very big and cumbersome and you'd never b able to cover all the... Olsen: We'd rather put something generic that we could. Erhart: Yeah, I think so. And that would include motorbikes or off trail bikes and 4 wheel drives. Olsen: I don't think we're going to get specific like that. , Erhart: Right, a general statement that could be. Olsen: That destruction or alteration. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 68 1 Ahrens: Okay, next. ' Batzli: Do you have any comments? Farmakes: I had one question on Section 20 -405. ' Ahrens: I meant next item on the agenda. Farmakes: It says private boat launches requiring fill are prohibited in wetlands except on lakes without, they're talking about lakes. I'm assuming if there's a wetland adjacent to a lake or it's between the ' property owner and the lake. Olsen: Right. ' Farmakes: Without public boat access. What happens then if it doesn't have a public boat access? ' Olsen: We've had some cases, and this is kind of a recent amendment from the old ordinance where people, otherwise they had no means of access. They had a riparian lot but they couldn't launch their boat or have ' access to the lake because there wasn't a boat launch on the lake. Is that what you're asking why we're doing that? That's a touchy one where we felt that we needed to allow them some means of accessing the lake. ' Farmakes: Does that address that in here anywhere or is that just that line is just addressing the issue that it doesn't have a public boat access. Olsen: If there is a public boat access, then we're saying that's what you have to use. Farmakes: Right, but it doesn't continue the line that they don't have a public boat access there. Or if they do, it just deals with one issue. Are you going to handle that separately? Or are you going to wait for ' them to ask? Olsen: I don't know if I'm following you. Farmakes: The line where it says wetlands except on lakes without a public boat access. If I was reading this and there was a public boat access, where would I coordinate the understanding between that? If ' I was a lake owner. Olsen: That you couldn't do anything? ' Farmakes: Yeah. Would I need another paragraph somewhere and I'd have to match it up with that? Olsen: Well no. Again, it's just this is all that's permitted...fact that you're on a lake with a boat access, then you're not under the permitted. Farmakes: Okay, so I would have to use the public boat access? Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 69 Olsen: Exactly. Batzli: Matt. , Ledvina: Just one question. When you talk about monumentation. Are , you going to have like a standard plate for monuments so people don't just pound a lathe into the ground and it goes away into the earth. Krauss: It's got to be permanent. I think the ordinance does say that I but I think it would be useful for the city to develop a standardized sign. Ledvina: Okay. And then who puts the monument in? ' Krauss: The developer. Ledvina: The developer does and you approve it then? Olsen: We go out and visualize. ' Ledvina: That's pretty key in terms of enforcement as it relates to your setbacks and things like that. Olsen: Right, because we always lose it because the vegetation might go... Ledvina: Right. It's going to be a battle to maintain those things. But you've got to start somewhere. Batzli: Ladd. ' Conrad: I've got several questions. If a wetland's not on the map, we still can protect it right? Batzli: I want them to clarify that. I don't think that's clear. Conrad: Yeah, it just didn't. ' Olsen: That's our intent and we'll get the wording so that's clear that" we can do that. Conrad: On page 4, at the top. Number 4. Is there a particular lake i Chanhassen? Is it just one lake that doesn't have a public access? Olsen: Lake Lucy? Conrad: Yeah. Is that it? So that deal's in there for Lake Lucy. ' Olsen: Well, Rice Marsh Lake doesn't have one. Farmakes: It considered a lake. Is that a recreation lake? Olsen: Lake Lucy? 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 70 Farmakes: No. Rice Marsh. ' Krauss: Not really. Olsen: No, that's an environmental lake. 11 Farmakes: Lake Lucy just qualifies a D, recreational lake or something. ' Olsen: RD. Recreational development. So really that only happened once and I think we kept it in there because of that. In case it happens again but that's not a real big one if you want to pull it out I completely. Conrad: You know if it serves a purpose but private boat launches. So here we have a lake without a public access and we're sort of saying, you can have a private launch to go through a wetland. Olsen: Right. Conrad: You know, if we're going to have a private launch, let's not go through a wetland. Why? I don't know. 1 Farmakes: In some cases the lake may be ringed by a wetland and to access to it, the State generally allows you like 50 feet or something to get out to it. I think Eric Rivkin I think was, wasn't that the issue on ' the other side of that particular lake. What he'd go through like 400 feet of wetland. Olsen: Yeah, he wanted to build a canal. Farmakes: It became a jurisdiction issue. Ahrens: For a dock? Olsen: He wanted to dredge a canal for a canoe. ' Erhart: You're suggesting take 4 out. ' Conrad: Yeah. Olsen: We can do that. I mean it's brought up a lot of concern with anyone who's seen it so I have no objection. Conrad: I think we should take it out. Then Section 20 - 406. Wetland buffer strips. And we drop down to the last sentence, it says buffer strips. And then we get into the little chart and it says buffer yards. Are buffer yards buffer strips? Olsen: Yeah. Krauss: That should be the same. Olsen: Would you like yard strip? Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 71 Conrad: Whatever and then I'm, and this has bothered me everytime this has come through but I don't understand this graph. And I turn the page' and at the bottom of the next page it says table of wetland classifications. It says setback principal structure. And then I flip back to the other page and it says structure setback. Krauss: The tables should be, have a different title but the one you see on page 5 is for existing platted lots. Olsen: No, he knows but he's talking about principal. You're right. Ill meant to add in principal. Conrad: Well no, the principal is important too but I think Paul is, I'll really confused. When I didn't know what, why I was seeing that again. And I couldn't sort it in. Olsen: It's for existing situations. Existing plats. Existing platted lots of record. Batzli: New development requires the buffer strips. Existing, they 1 don't need the buffer. Conrad: I get it. , Batzli: The thing that didn't make sense to me that I was hoping you II were going to ask, and I think Lundgren brought it up, was that they didn't understand that you had to add cumulatively the buffer strip and the setback from the buffer strip. Do we say in here that the setback has to be from the buffer strip? Did we clarify that? Olsen: Right. Yes, that says 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Batzli: Buffer yard and that will be changed to strip. Outside edge. And do we define what the outside edge is in your little graph here? Krauss: Well, the graph illustrates it, sure. Batzli: I think you should just have a little arrow that points to it ' and says outside edge. Inside edge. Something like that. Conrad: Going back to structure. Going back to structure setback. The" word structure. Is that in our definitions? Krauss: It's in the zoning ordinance. Olsen: Zoning ordinance definitions. Krauss: It's in the zoning ordinance. So does structure mean principal" structure? Olsen: There's principal structure and then if it's just structure, tha could be a wood pile. Remember we've gotten into all that before. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 72 1 Conrad: Yeah. Did we ignore that because it's confusing? Did the other committee. Olsen: Our intent was to have it be the principal structure. The main building including the deck. You know for a residence or.. Batzli: So swingsets and sandboxes and kennels could be down by the. ' Olsen: Within the setback. Conrad: I guess I'm not going to force that issue. Batzli: Otherwise you'd have a backyard and you couldn't use it. Conrad: Well, it's just real confusing. Batzli: Is there a difference in our definition section though between principal structure and regular structure? Olsen: I thought there was one but there might not be. Batzli: I don't even know if we need the answer tonight but we should... 1 Conrad: Brian, do you want to stay away from this? ' Batzli: No, go ahead. Conrad: Under permit required, and I guess I'm just looking for a sense from everybody else here. A big concern I always had with the previous ordinance was it kind of looked like you could play around with the wetland as long as you filled out a permit. Now I think the words up front are pretty strong that we don't want. Olsen: Right, we tried to change that. I remember that was brought up as a concern. Conrad: Yeah. I think up front we're saying we just don't want to tamper. But then I get back to the permit and now I'm getting paranoid again. It kind of, we don't say it's not permitted in the introduction of the permit. Okay, so it says you can, I don't know. Maybe it's just the way that said but it said, drainage. I almost want to say Jo Ann that these are not permitted or encouraged but they possibly can happen in a certain situation. I guess it's sort of a, maybe I'm over reacting to that but that's. I Ahrens: Would you feel comfortable Ladd if you just put in after type on the third sentence, may be permitted under some circumstances but requires a wetland alteration? Conrad: I don't want somebody to go to one section in this ordinance and then all of a sudden think, all I have to do is fill out, in fact who said it? A neighbor said it just the other day. Hey, you can do this. All you've got to do is go to the city and get a permit. And that's sort of a reaction that I'm having. And even though it's set up through here Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 73 that says we don't want to. We don't want to. All of a sudden it says permit anyway. 1 Batzli: Well yeah so it makes 404 and 408 look like they're in different directions. Conrad: Yeah. Olsen: Okay. We might have to like repeat what we did before. 1 Conrad: Yeah. That would pacify me Jo Ann. Olsen: Yeah, because I know we did it in one place but you're right, , when you read it here. Conrad: It kind of says, go ahead. But that's not really. 1 Batzli: When we talked about that at length of approaching it from a negative standpoint. 1 Conrad: And I think my only, okay. The only other, on page 8. Under mitigation. The last 3 sentences. Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement. Now I thought the State standard were too were 2 for 1. Krauss: State standards are 2 for 1. I'm fully convinced that... , Conrad: That what? Krauss: It will be overturned. 1 Conrad: Well I guess what I'm saying, I'm not trying to minimize. I'm not sure I buy a 2 for 1 actually when I think about it. But on the other hand, I'm not trying to create an ordinance that's less restrictiv than the State either. I guess that just makes me uncomfortable that the State is saying 2 for 1 and here we're out saying, hey we've got a realli great ordinance. Krauss: The State only says 2 for 1 if you happen to live in a city. I says, if you're a farmer and you're next to God, it's 1 to 1. It treats similar people differently. The State law also doesn't recognize getting value for improving wetlands. And some of this is in the rules. The rules are just out on the streets and can be changed. The law, there's II some legislative moves to change it. We said we'd adhere to whatever is in force but here's the way we want to do it. And this is one of the points that we're taking a little bit of a philosophical stand that's somewhat a divergence to the State law and we may not prevail. Conrad: So we are saying we don't like the State law. I don't know. Krauss: No, no, no. Conrad: You were part of that committee and Brian. I don't know, did you pay attention to this? Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 74 Erhart: Yeah, we thought we did. 1 Conrad: So you knew. ' Erhart: Well I think it's a couple things. Right away it strikes you. When one group has to do 2 to 1 and another group 1 to 1 and they're both really doing the same thing. A wetland's a wetland whether it's in a farm community or in an urban area. It's unfair. Taking it further, Paul says that it's probably going to be unconstitutional, and it ought to be. Therefore, we basically reverted to whatever the State decides. Krauss: And to build on that Ladd, what we're saying is, we will apply the State ratio that's in force. Right now it's 1 to 1. It's supposed to go to 2 to 1 later in the year. We will apply that but we interpret i it differently. I mean we may give a developer spending $40,000.00 or $50,000.00 to increase a Type I to a Type III credit because they've improved the quality and value of that wetland to our community. Therefore, instead of 2 to 1 land mass, we may get 2 to 1 with like a 1 to 1 land mass and 1 to 1 investment because it costs money to do it. State law doesn't allow that now. I think it's wrong. Olsen: That's where those habitat units and everything comes into play. Conrad: This also gives you the liberty to be a .1 for 1 because you can do any, based on what you said in this, you can do anything you want. Erhart: Within the guidelines of the. Conrad: No, that's not the way I read this. I guess I don't read it that way and maybe the lawyers can tell me if I'm wrong. I guess I've read that as saying staff can really, we don't have to do it on a 1 to 1 ' basis. Now we know that the Statute says 2 to 1 and we're saying, we don't have to do it on a 1 to 1 which means we can do anything we want, and that's what I'm reading. ' Krauss: It says mitigation will be performed at the ratios required by State law to achieve replacement of the wetland function and value. Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement but may also be, may be based on replacement of habitat'units and there's that procedure to do that. What we're saying here is that we agree with the intent of the State law. We may have a problem with the fairness of it. We agree with the intent. The only real disagreement here though is the fact that right now, I mean you have a State law that in it's title says that this is going to get at the value and function of wetlands, yet the rules don't do it. The rules just say I don't care what it is. It may be a piece of crap on the corner of a field. It's a wetland. So you've got to replace it in kind. It's silly. I think you've concluded time and time again that an improved wetland that offers more to the community offers better wildlife habitat and offers better visual quality, is a benefit to the city and it's residents. Conrad: Yeah. I'm personally not debating what you're saying. I'm really trying to get, so you have to follow this. This says you have to follow the State guidelines. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 75 1 Olsen: Because we're not going to follow the ratio. I think you're thinking ratio and acreage as the same and it's not. It's 2 to 1. Krauss: It's value. It's value and function. Olsen: Well we're saying value and function. The State's saying acre. II Krauss: But the law says value and function. Olsen: Yeah. The ruses say acre. 1 Frank Svoboda: The rules are not applying the intent is that...if you want to get into that now but I think the reason is, none of the biologist want to...they don't know how to measure it. They know how toll measure area. They know how to measure classifications but if they start venturing into this thing with functions and value of quality, all of a II sudden you're going to have to start making decisions that the City of Chanhassen has made through this ordinance which is, you've classified wetlands according to the certain quality based on their existing vegetation and future intended use... But the State doesn't want to havi to deal with that because in their minds I think they're afraid it's going to weaken their position when it comes to protecting wetlands. As long as you deal with wetlands strictly on an area basis, you only have to justify protecting one wetland over another. So I think that's why they're afraid to even...with that subject. Conrad: And I'm sorry I'm keeping us here but I just really have to understand this. So we've got to follow the State guidelines. Olsen: 2 to 1 but we're saying, we're saying you might have a wetland II that has the habitat units of let's say 50. Okay, and that gets into that, that's way beyond. We don't want to get into that now but that's that attachment that we have. So the wetland that's there might be wort" 50 points. What we're saying is that you can give us a wetland, let's say it's 2 acres. We're saying you could actually give us a 1 acre wetland that has 100 points. , Conrad: So then you don't, State Statute. Olsen: It's 2 to 1. It's still 2 to 1 but it's a function and value. II It's not acreage. Is that right? Krauss: Yeah. 1 Conrad: That overrides the State? Olsen: No. ' Conrad: It doesn't? Olsen: We're not sure what's going to happen. We're hoping we can prove, once again that it does work as we have with our old ordinance. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 4, 1992 - Page 76 Krauss: Just to sum up too. The State law is generating a lot of controversy. The ruling... It's my guess that the rules, if they are put into effect, will not be put into effect on schedule. If they are put into effect on schedule, they're going to be changed radically each ' year for the next 2 or 3 years. And that we've always taken the position that Chanhassen's way ahead of the game. We've got development going on all the time. We can't wait for the State to figure this out. ' Conrad: I'm done. Erhart: I really don't have much interest in this stuff. Batzli: Okay, I don't have anything. What do we want to do with it? Do we want Jo Ann to make changes and bring it back? Are we comfortable ' enough with it that we let her make the changes and put it up to City Council? City Council? Ahrens: Yep. ' Batzli: Can I have a motion? Do we need a motion to approve this? 1 Krauss: Yes. Conrad: So moved. Ahrens: Second. Batzli: Any discussion? Just as long as those changes get in there, I ' have no discussion. Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the Wetland Ordinance amended per the Planning Commission's discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Are we ever going to have a development in the near future where there isn't 500 people in the room and they all want to talk and show us videos? So we can be proactive on all these other things that have been molding in here. Erhart: I heard they used the City's video recorder to do that. 1 Ahrens: I thought the movie was the best part. Batzli: The thing that bothers me is, again when we saw this 3 weeks ago or a month ago or whatever and again tonight where, in one case it was 1 the applicant bringing in new stuff. And tonight it was all these homeowners giving us petitions and talking like there had never been a single homeowners meeting. And that was aggravating from the standpoint of. Ledvina: It's confusing. Batzli: Yeah. 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 77 Farmakes: Well there was another meeting that took place after g p er here where I talked to them. After the last meeting and that's why I was being a little, I was being kind of hard of them because they didn't listen to a damn word I told them. And how to solidify what it was that they were bringing forward. And they still had a shotgun with a whole litany of things including digging in on the price of the house. I mean" I explained to them, every person there that the City can't deal with that. And it just goes in one ear and comes out the other. Olsen: The next meeting is slow though. , Batzli: Okay, well let's make sure it's slow. I don't want to see anything, I don't care what a developer says. If he's going to go bankrupt between now and Christmas. I don't care. We need to talk aboull Tim's stuff on the trees. We need to talk about cul -de -sacs. Krauss: We do have Abra- Goodyear which was supposed to be on last time II and there was no last time. And it was supposed to be on tonight and we found out that we had made a mistake in legal notice so we couldn't hear, it. So it's on for your next. Batzli: Well what else is on there? Farmakes: Is that going to be at that meeting tomorrow? Would you brim that to the meeting tomorrow? The potential development here for the Highway 5 committee. That's tomorrow right? Isn't that tomorrow? 1 Krauss: That's next week. Farmakes: Next week Thursday, okay. Is that a relevant topic of discussion at this point? Krauss: We might have the Opus project there. 1 Farmakes: This might be a good example of types of projects that will be coming down the pike and a motivation for this alignment type ordinance. Olsen: 5o the other one is very short. It's, you know the Valvoline site. That had to go through the plan... Erhart: You're saying the next meeting is short? Olsen: Well it was supposed to see that Valvoline site but now we have I the Hanus building. That might be... Batzli: Well we're going to have 3 things on there again, right? That was a drag that we had to cancel the last meeting, because we could have talked about some of this stuff at that time. Okay, is there a motion t adjourn? Krauss: Well we have to do two things. The Tree Board but also several" of you talked to me about, we don't have anybody who's term is up this year but several of you have talked to me about, for personal reasons an what not, seeking to leave the Commission and move on. I'm not going to Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 78 force anybody's hand. I'm fully content with working with you in the future. But I need to know if there are going to be departures because I need to advertise. Now Tim, one of the things we had talked about was the Tree Board. The position that's open, well there's several positions open on the Tree Board. There's the at -large positions but there is a dedicated Planning Commission position. Olsen: ...who you are appointing tonight has to be a Planning Commissioner. Krauss: So if anybody's got anything. ' Batzli: Does someone want to be on the Tree Board as a Planning Commissioner? How often is this group going to meet? Krauss: It's probably once a month. Olsen: If that. Maybe to get started, yeah. It's one of those things, once things get started it will be. Batzli: Anyone have interest in it yet? We held it over from last time because I think we thought you might be interested Tim. Erhart: Well as I told Paul, I've been on here for 6 years and I've gotten enough of these late night meetings. So I'm going to resign soon. I'll give it one more meeting to talk about these trees and then I'll just send this to the Council and let them fight it out. I've obviously had a big interest in trees and enjoy it and stuff and I guess maybe one of the things, if nobody else wanted it, I could take it and then resign from the Planning Commission and then represent the Planning Commission for a year and then you could appoint someone else but I don't know if that's the right thing to do either. In terms of you know certainly coming back and reporting anything relating to the tree group, to the Planning Commission, like I say I don't know if that's the right thing to do. Olsen: We don't have any By -laws or anything like that. Conrad: I think it's the right thing to do. Erhart: It would certainly be convenient unless somebody else wanted to be on the thing. Batzli: No, go ahead and do that. Erhart: Just make sure it's clear what we're talking about here. You're appointing me to it as a Planning Commission member. Then when I resign the Planning Commission and then I'll serve a year and then you guys, or at any time you can. Batzli: I'm comfortable with that. Is there a motion to appoint Tim? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1992 - Page 79 Batzli moved, Ahrens seconded to appoint Tim Erhart as the Planning Commission representative to the Tree Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: You're appointed. What else do we have to do? Krauss: So should I advertise? 1 Erhart: Yeah, you ought to go ahead. Just think Matt, you've got 5 more years. 1 Batzli: Are you going to turn in your pink slip? Erhart: You are Joan? ' Ahrens: I really hate to. I mean I've really enjoyed myself but I was telling Paul that I have a new job and I'm going to have to be attending' Planning Commission and City Council meetings as part of my job in different places so I can't handle any more than that. Batzli: So two it sounds like, unless Steve. Steve also or no? Krauss: I should call Steve. I haven't heard that he wanted to. Conrad: He talks about it. Erhart: We all talk about it. Usually about 11:00. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 7, 1992 as presented. Ledvina moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12 :00 midnight. 1 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1