Loading...
PC 1995 01 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II, and Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: NORTHSTAR RF~TAURANTS, INC. FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, BOSTON CHICKEN, TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PUD AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Peter Hilger John Keogh Chris Lombardi Portfolio Design Northstar Restaurants/Boston Chicken Northstar Restaurants/Boston Chicken Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments from staff?. Any questions from commissioners? Okay, would the applicant or their representative choose to make a presentation? If yes, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and let us know what you have to say. Chris Lombardi: Hi. My name is Chris Lombardi. I work with Northstar Restaurants. I live at 6471...Street in Eden Prairie. I really don't have any formal presentation for you today. If the Planning Commission, I wanted to be here to answer any questions that you may have. And also to thank the work of the planner we've met on a few occasions and I think they did a good job in helping us to direct some of our original plans and make some changes here. Give...what you folks are looking for. And we're looking forward to doing business here in Chanhassen and Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 we're more than happy to take any questions or listen to any comments you folks may have. Scott: I just have one question. I'm not real familiar with Boston Chicken, and that's just more of a personal question. Where do you, is this like a national franchise or it is not a franchise? Chris Lombardi: Boston Chicken is a national chain. Northstar, we have 534 restaurants nation wide. Northstar Restaurants is the franchisee that has the rights to Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Our group currently has 12 restaurants open. We opened our first one here in the Twin Cities in November. We have 5 open to date with a sixth one in the Twin Cities to open Monday. We're looking to have, when we're done with our build out, approximately 35 units here in the Twin Cities. It's a restaurant that is serving what's known as a new niche in the restaurant business. Between a fast food and a casual diner. There's no deep frying or microwave happening on the premises. Everything is made fresh daily. So we offer a home meal replacement if you will. 50% of our business is folks taking home their meals to have at home...mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, creamed spinach... It's a whole meal replacement that serves... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? Do you have anything else you'd like to mention? Chris Lombardi: No. Scott: Alright. Well thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion cmxied. The public heating was opened. Scott: Would anybody from the public like to speak on this particular item? Let the record show that we have no one from the general public who would like to speak. May I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heming was closed. Scott: Ladd, you restaranteur you. Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Conrad: I'm going to defer some of my questions. I'm curious what other Planning Commissioners have to say. Bob, could you give me, the roof line you were concerned with in the staff report. Is the representation in the elevations that I'm looking at, is that what you have agreed is appropriate? Generous: Yes, they have revised it to provide a pitched roof element for the screening portion. Conrad: Which is in the elevation that I have here? Generous: Right. Conrad: I guess the only other thing that would concern me, that I see, is the awning. I like awnings. I guess I think because of our signage policies in Chan, some of the specifics on the awning in terms of typography have probably got to go. Specifically the Meals To Go. That type of wording. Those are my only questions. Just echoing what I said before on this PUD. I really don't like it. It has nothing to do with this particular project that we're looking at right now so my comments mean nothing. But I really don't like how we've strung 3 restaurants together in a PUD. It looks like we, I really think it's bad planning. But in terms of this specific project, I think I've made my comments. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Okay. Now as far as the pitched roof element, is this going to be similar to like Wendy's then? Is that what we're looking at? Generous: Except for it's not... Ledvina: I'm sorry. Generous: It's more like a parapet. Ledvina: Okay. So it's not closed. Generous: Not closed. Ledvina: Okay. Because there's a lot of elevations. I mean that's a relatively low elevation and Highway 5 is higher. Neighboring, is that Powers? Those are all higher that I can see that. Just a parapet doesn't actually give you a pitched roof element. I Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 guess I don't know. I mean I see what you're saying. So essentially, well let me understand it. It's about, what is it? It's about 4-5 feet tall? Peter Hilgers: I'm Peter Hilgers with Portfolio Design...how that all ties together color wise in terms of computer generated colors... Basically what we have, we don't have an exact situation as you do with, at Wendy's. I looked at that particular project and Wendy's is a much narrower building. Narrow and long. This one is almost perfectly square. So in order to get an identical image, if you will, this thing would go way up. Much higher than the building would actually, so it's totally out of proportion. What we're proposing to do basically is provide some pitched elements in the center. Not close out the edge of the parapet but provide that standing seam element all the way around the building. Approximately I think that's 6, 6 1/2 feet tall. Ledvina: Above the parapet...? Peter Hilgers: Yes. Yes. Above the parapet line. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Image number 5, what is the elevation that that is taken from? I mean not directionally but is that 10 feet above the level of Highway 5? I'm talking about picture number 5. Is that someone who is standing 50 feet over the intersection of Powers and TH 5. Peter Hilgers: That's more than 5 feet. Quite a bit more than 5 feet. Scott: Yeah, okay. But that looks like it's the rendering shows West 78th and the other two structures as they're going to be. Peter Hilgers: Right, exactly. Scott: Thank you. That's very helpful. Ledvina: We're looking at, is this like a green metal and like a forest green? Is that what we're getting at? Peter Hilgers: I believe it's like a darker color. Not necessarily green. Like a dark orange. Ledvina: Okay. More to match the color scheme of the building. Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Peter Hilgers: Right. The building colors are gray. We want to do something that will tone that down just a bit. We're not proposing red. Ledvina: Alright. Well, I don't know, maybe somebody else will have more comments on that. But one of the items in the PUD was that these buildings shall be designed with similar materials and colors as Target. I'm wondering what, if you would Bob, if you would comment on what specific elements are tied in with Target and the colors, etc. Generous: Well the finish is, the red is probably the only one that is specifically tied in to the Target building. They have a, what is it sandalwood brown I believe for the other structure within the development. Aanenson: I think we were looking at the more neutral tones as far as that and that's kind of what we did with Taco Bell. Kind of more neutral. As Bob indicated, sandalwood beige. And the top of the building itself, that parapet, that's a similar feature that Target put on top of their's. Generous: And then as another element, that canopy would be similar to what Perkins is providing. As well they're providing their orientation towards the Perkins building for the front entryway. And so they...sense of closure right in the middle of this development. Outside of the building and then we have the landscaping plan where...proposed to be provided on the Perkins. We're having another row of sugar maples being provided between Perkins and the Boston Chicken. We're having red oak put on the western side of the site that will tie into the city's landscape treatment for the remainder of Outlot A. We did have the Hoisington group review this concept and they told us yeah, it looks like that's what at least they're working towards. Ledvina: You mean in terms of the landscaping. Generous: Yeah, for the Outlot A. The gateway treatment. Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the materials and how the buildings look in their architecture and their shape, was there specific efforts to do that or I mean like Target has a rough block or whatever. Peter Hilgers: I think I can clarify that. Basically from this red band down is rock faced block, which is a pre-colored unit. It doesn't have to be gray. It's a standard prototype material. And above that point is stucco which goes all the way around the building. And the stucco is what...all the way around the top of the building which I Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 believe is consistent with Target as well. They have stucco. So the two primary materials are rock faced block, stucco and of course glass. Aanenson: The rock faced block is what Target has. Ledvina: Right. Okay well I guess, one of the things that we talked about in terms of a PUD was with this tying things together. I don't know whether that's good or bad or makes things boring or whatever but I just was wondering what the perspective was on that. Have we looked at all the pedestrian considerations here in terms of where we want to move people from the sidewalks and all of this. Generous: Well they are providing one connection to West 78th Street in the northeast corner. Internally they would have to use, you know walk across the parking area but there is ways for people to go from one lot to the other. This lot was sort of tied with the approval of the first two. The access points and how those are going to lay out but we believe that it will work together. And of course traffic circulation, they have extra wide drive aisles between adjacent developments. Ledvina: I'm a little bit concerned about the signage. I guess the one thing that Ladd mentioned that makes the description of the products, you know what they're selling. Rotisserie meals to go. We've had quite a bit of discussion on that type of advertising and I guess I would be, I would not like to see those specific items presented on that awning. That's just a comment on that. The monument sign, essentially that's 50 square feet. Is that, does that track with what we, with what the PUD allowed? What was the specifics on that? Generous: 80 I think is what is permitted. Ledvina: 80, is what they could do? Okay. How does it, in comparison to Taco Bell, how many, do you recall how many square feet Taco Bell had on their monument sign? Generous: Not in particular. Ledvina: I'm just wondering if they're going to be compatible. I know, I guess I see this and it's further out toward Powers and it's further away from Target Lane and maybe there's a different effort in terms of the sight lines so maybe that 50 square feet is not that, won't be that bad but that's still a pretty big, big sign in terms of a monument. But if you're comfortable with that, I guess that's okay. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Nutting: Question for staff on the, we believe the awning feature provides architectural relief. However, we are concerned the color scheme may be excessive. Was the color scheme discussed with the applicant? Did you indicate what you thought was excessive and was there any discussion on moderating it or is that a more direction to the Planning Commission who generally thinks most things are excessive. Generous: It was from previous discussions at the Planning Commission we picked up on this. They have moderated what was originally proposed and our question is, is it sufficient for what the city is looking for quality. We did suggest some alternatives but we left it up to them. It's very important for the applicant that they have these colors. The color scheme in there. Nutting: I guess the other issue, getting to the signage. I understand what the other commissioners are saying. I also don't see, I'm just looking at one picture but I don't see any window signs on this. I don't know if that's part and parcel of the way Boston Chicken typically. Aanenson: We...take them out. Nutting: I'm sorry. Aanenson: There was some in there. Generous: They took them out. Chris Lombardi: We'll be happy to put them back in. Nutting: I maybe have less of an aversion to the awning signage. I know that's an issue that we've gone back and forth on where the banding signage. I haven't heard anybody address the square footage issue... Aanenson: Just for your clarification, when this originally came in, it did have the window signs and as Bob indicated, had a significant larger band wrapped around it and they moved as far as they felt they could. They've got their franchise that they, you know this is the same discussion we had with Taco Bell. So I guess we're saying, it may be too loud still for the Highway 5 standards and we're kind of looking for your direction as to what you feel is the standard. But I do want to apply to that. But they have moved quite a ways as far as what they originally came in with in trying to meet what we're, what direction we're giving them. Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Chris Lombardi: I think it's important to note, if I might add, that the striped awnings are a very definite...That's an essential component of the trade... Peter Hilgers: Staff mentioned the concerns and for lack of a better term, warned us that this would be an item of discussion this evening. The color scheme of the awning to us is really vitally important, particularly at this stage of our growth and I realize that that means a lot more to me than it does to you. You know we're trying to create a design pattern that will be recognizable to customers without being you know, our building is a fairly simple building. It's retail in nature. There's nothing real individual about the building. It's basically a square retail building and what we feel internally is that the awnings provides a little bit of the older fashion deli or market kind of an atmosphere and look to the building. So the color scheme really becomes real important to us. We did have, you know in our prototype drawings have a lot more lineal square feet wrapped all the way around. I can understand your concern but we said, you know what we'd like to do is back off of that presence but maintain our color scheme because that's real important to us but we want to work with you guys to be consistent with what you're trying to achieve so this is the result of those talks. Chris Lombardi: Also the awnings were, your standard prototype are back lit awnings. These are not back lit. Your standard prototype for across the country is that those awnings are illuminated internally so they are lit at night as well as part of that... That was one of the concessions we made as well. Nutting: Okay. Appreciate your comments. I don't have any other issues at this time. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: The exterior lighting, are these going to be neutral poles or are you going to continue with the red? Parking lighting. Generous: The parking lighting? Farmakes: The parking lighting that became sort of an add on to Target. Generous: I didn't specify that. What color they were supposed to be. The only color that they did give me was for the goose neck lighting on the building itself. Farmakes: The reason...the Target decided to do red...They decide to do red and Perkins decides to do green and the Taco Bell decides to do magenta. Maybe you Planning Commission Meeting - January 1§, 1995 wind up with something a little silly there. We may want to look at what those are going to be. I would prefer that they be neutral and that we not carry on your color schemes with outdoor lighting. But I believe the majority of outdoor lighting in parking in Chanhassen is a neutral. I was surprised, actually the direction of the building is quite buffered from the distance and the size that it would be. It's actually facing towards the highway and not facing towards 78th or Powers Boulevard where the traffic that would be going 25-35 mph. It seems to be the view primarily from the western direction and pretty low impact at a distance. I can see where they want the awning. This has been defined here as some of the subjects that we talked about in this type of addition to a building. And the reason I keep on bringing it up is not to penalize or be punitive to the retailer but to bring up the point that this is a necessity for them. They feel it's a necessity. In this case you have a building that's trying to be seen from quite a distance. We're talking about rear lighting these awnings. These things are not architectural elements, as the applicant says here. And we had, I believe at a previous meeting we had somebody standing up from the Chamber saying, hey they're architecture. Who's to say what it is. I think we ought to call it what it is and define it. That doesn't mean to exclude it, but just to moderate it so that we don't get a situation where we just have a box and then we say, we would like to see some detailing. Oh, okay. We'll put an awning around it and we'll back light it. It's really a sign but we'll put it on an architectural detail .... we have something that's like this when we don't moderate it. Fielder's choice. We get into a situation what guidelines do we use. We're not even sure at this point whether it's a sign or not. I think in this case it's probably appropriate but I'm trying to recall what types of conditions were put on Perkins which typically also uses awnings situations and I cannot. Aanenson: It couldn't be backlit. Farmakes: Yeah. It couldn't be backlit. I was wondering, I missed, I wasn't here at that meeting, the Perkins and I was just wondering this is, the situation that you negotiated here is consistent with what was done with the other restaurant, correct? Generous: I believe so, yes. Farmakes: Okay. I look at the buildings and I look at it as a description. It's for retail and basically a box. What I would like to see or try to add on to would be any type of detailing, the ridge line of the roof, possibly the edges of the building. I think that the awning situation, as long as it's not rear lit defines it more as an architectural item than a sign, i.e. Blockbusters or some of the Wendy's operations. Not our's but some of the other ones. I think that definitively makes it a sign. In this case I don't see that. I would like to see just as a matter of consistency the additional type. To Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 begin with, this wouldn't be drive by type that would be readable from the highway. It's too far away so I see that as a minor concession. If somebody traversing the parking lot in this situation, if they decided to go by your establishment so I don't see that as being a heavily punitive thing there. That will be consistent with what we've asked other retailers to do. I'm not sure, the roof element is metal, is that correct? Peter Hilgers: Yes, standing seam metal. Farmakes: Yeah. And that would be a black. Peter Hilgers: Like a dark brown. We have other dark brown colors on the building. Farmakes: Okay, so this would match some of the edge trim that you're doing around the windows? Peter Hilgers: Around the windows, exactly. Farmakes: The photograph that you provided shows the edging in white and only the center line in red. Does that change from store to store when you're talking about prototypes? There are other established stores, from reading your perspectus. Is that? Peter Hilgers: Yes. As a matter of fact there was, one of the most recent stores, it has changed somewhat. But one of the more recent stores that was done in...the red up on the top, the White Bear Lake store for instance has that. That can go white. That's not a huge issue to us. Farmakes: ...consideration, and it might be nicer looking if something with that, the roof is continually flat, it might be nicer looking to provide some detail in there. On that soffit area. I'm not sure if just making it wider or making it more substantial or something. Peter Hilgers: It is a, it's not a single dimension on that. It's a parapet cap. It is actually built element. Farmakes: Yeah, I can see that. It's sort of like two ridges but it's a minor. Peter Hilgers: Right. It does provide minor shadowing. Ledvina: Jeff, are you suggesting eliminating the red and going with a white? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1§, 1995 Farmakes: I'll throw that out. A little bit more is built out, a bit more definition so that, basically the building doesn't have a roof. It's another square, linear building and the detailing that they're providing is for the fast food area and the entrance area. They're building that out. Otherwise it's essentially a square with a fiat roof again. When we talk detailing, they add on the interior lighting or the awning and I'm just looking for something maybe more architectural in detailing. For instance in Byerly's we asked for some of the capping. It's different with the...existing brick or something other than the box. Like I say, in that particular area there's one provided a significant additional cost to the retailers and trying to communicate some of the issues that we talk about in detailing. And that they aren't always awnings. Actually I think the signage is moderate to the...that they have, based on how they positioned their building. I'm assuming that the drive by situation will not be large enough. That it has additional properties where it can be viewed from the street. The drive by menu will not have the same kind of rules and regs that we have at the other drive by at Wendy's? Peter Hilgers: What rule are you referring to? Farmakes: Is there a drive by menu that I'm not seeing? Peter Hilgers: Oh the menu board and it's located right here. You can see that right by the building. Farmakes: Yeah, I didn't see a signage sketch of that so my response is that sizing of that board, it's not to be read from the street in other words. Peter Hilgers: No. The letter is an inch and a half high or something. Farmakes: So it's just for the line of cars that's there. Peter Hilgers: And there's also, we did the landscaping around the perimeter to try to hide that as well. I think if you look at the landscape plan, we...the landscaping in this area here so that from Powers we're really looking to hide that. Quite frankly the reason we didn't provide you with that is that we don't have the drive thru signage yet. Our first one is opening on Monday and it's brand new to our... Aanenson: Also Jeff, there is a change in elevation too. The building sits lower than West 78th right there too so some of that will be recessed. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1§, 1995 Farmakes: It's your thinking that because of the elevation that the equipment on the roof area isn't going to be seen primarily like it is here where you can see down into it? Peter Hilgers: Precisely. Farmakes: Will that be up high enough? Generous: That will be pretty close. I believe when we looked at it previously, from the highest point on Highway 5, you might be able to see the tops of some of the equipment. But from the majority of the area you won't be able to. Farmakes: Well obviously from this side... Peter Hilgers: I think we can provide, in the city submittal we provided a cross section of the building showing the mechanical equipment and the screened... Farmakes: Getting back to Ladd's comments about the PUD issue and, it was my understanding at one time early on, that's going back what, 2 years now with Target. That there was additional retail conceived for this area and 3 restaurants. What happened to that? Aanenson: Well when we looked at this originally, when it came in with the Target proposal and the city was looking at how this should be proposed. The original development plan showed a possibility of 6 users on this site. When we got down to putting the PUD agreement together, we specified no more than 2 fast foods be located on this site. And then we gave a list, a laundry list of other appropriate uses in the PUD. As it came out we felt like based on the impervious surface, because Target went over, that probably only four uses could fit on this site. As things evolved and we got looking at it, we really felt in order to do justice, because this is a gateway into the city, that we felt that the city should be in a position to probably not sell as much of the property and hold some of it into a gateway so what we ended up doing was only creating 3 lots. But there was a possibility of 6 when we originally looked at it. I think what Ladd may be talking about, there was a cOuple of proposal where we had all the buildings in a line. Some different configurations that we looked at. I think some of that got, because Target wanted to maintain view corridors and the like, and so it kind of ended up with the utility lines that went through there, there's a fiber optic line that goes through there. It ended up putting footprints in certain locations. There wasn't a lot of flexibility with some of those. But there was some creative designs with how that could be laid out in a different, than the traditional way 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 of being split up now. I think that's what your comments were about some of the Barton-Aschman drawings. There were some other creative designs. Conrad: A little bit. I think if you look, there's been a lot of give and take and a lot of changes in what this was going to look like, and overall because of the green space, I think Chanhassen is making this part of the city acceptable. But if you take a look at this footprint on the cover here, and of the three, and then you read one of our criteria that says an internal sense of order for the buildings and use on this site and provisions of desirable elements for occupants, visitors and general community. You look at that and then you take a look at this, it's just hard for me to accept that. It's not true. It's not true. But then you know as the commission agrees, there's a lot of good things happening here. Aanenson: I think that discussion came up too...the walkway through the middle of the parking lot and you end up fighting a lot of traditional things that they worry about with carts and the like. But there is a walkway going up to West 78th. It doesn't show up on, maybe you didn't see it but we did ask them and it is provided on the site plan that you can walk directly from this site up onto West 78th. You don't have to go all the way down to the service road that comes in. So we are trying to create those pedestrian linkages. But you're right, this split the traditional way. Farmakes: I'm going to close my comments off by, when we were talking about garish colors. These are primarily as they'll be seen from the street are black and white. Which will be absent of color. I don't consider that to be garish although in all fairness...applicant and the commission, we haven't defined that particular item yet. We discussed that earlier. I think it has to be, we've decided to define that outside of the sign ordinance and backing up again and looking at that, just to be consistent...I think what we're looking at is we don't want to wind up with boxes with signs plastered on them that are... What we're looking for in essence is, we feel we have a community a cut above and we're trying to get building a cut above what's established here. And I think by putting up boxes and putting a couple of items that really don't do anything, and letting them slide...Retail can be nicer. It can be middle of the road or it could be bad. The way this is laid out, it's fairly sophisticated. I don't think that it's, garish would qualify. I'll leave it at that point. Scott: Good. I don't have any additional comments so if someone would like to make a motion, I'd be happy to accept it. Ledvina: Well I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Site Plan #94-8 for Boston Chicken as shown on the 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 plans dated January 11, 1995, subject to the conditions in the staff report. With an additional condition number 16 which states that the advertisement that's laid out on the awning shall be deleted. Scott: So you want to have a condition in there that the parking lighting poles be a neutral color? Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Do you accept that? Ledvina: Yes. A 17th condition that the parking lot lighting poles have a neutral color scheme associated with them. Scott: Can I have a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the city staff's recommendation with 2 additional conditions. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded ~hat the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Site Plan #94-8 for Boston Chicken as shown on the plans dated January 11, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. Relocate fire hydrant approximately 90 feet south and 22 feet east. . Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint yellow the corresponding curb. Contact the Fire Marshal for specific location. See Policy #06-1991. Copy Enclosed. . Address numbers shall be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy Enclosed. . All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The developer shall provide cross access easements for the use of the common driveways. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 o o . . o 10. 11. 12. 13. The applicant shall install aeration/irrigation tubing, see Figure 11-2, if separate irrigation is provided, or 11-3, if separate irrigation is not provided, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. The applicant shall be responsible for providing irrigation to any development trees located in the outlot. Such irrigation piping shall be located entirely on Lot 2. The applicant shall supply the city with a $2,500.00 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee protection of the existing public utility facilities and guarantee boulevard restoration. The applicant shall supply the city with a $8,000.00 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee a minimum landscaping budget for the project. All internal streets and drives are considered private. The applicant should be aware that they will need to enter into a cross access easement for the use of the common driveways with the other two property owners. Ail proposed utility lines within the site are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all of the necessary agency permits associated with the site plan development including but not limited to the Watershed District, Health Department, PCA, and MWCC. Construction access to the siie shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. Landscaping materials may be planted within the city's outlot as long as the plantings do not interfere with maintenance of the existing utility lines. The applicant shall provide a revised landscaping plan showing the existing utilities in relation to the proposed landscaping materials. Site plan approval is contingent upon the recording of the final plat documents for Chanhassen Retail 2nd and 3rd Additions. The grading and drainage plan should be revised to be compatible with the overall site grading development plans for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted for review and approval by city staff. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 14. The development shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 15. If permitted by the electrical code, the electric meter box on the north elevation shall be lowered by two feet. 16. The applicant shall delete the advertisements on the awnings. 17. The color scheme for the parking lot light poles shall be of neutral colors. All voted in favor; except Conrad who opposed, and the motion canied with a vote of 4tol. Scott: And your reasons? Conrad: I don't like the roof lines. I think it really does, it doesn't meet the standards that we've had for past projects. It still looks, it looks very squarish building. A flat roof building to me, even though there's been some good attempts to try to hide the mechanicals. It's not up to the standards that I thought we were setting. Farmakes: Do you envision add on's or a redesign? Conrad: It doesn't need to be redesigned. It's close but it looks like we're just covering up the mechanicals Jeff. My perception. And that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to make the buildings look a little bit different other than flat top buildings. They have some little bit different problem here because of the squarishness of the restaurant but I think they could solve it pretty easily. Scott: Okay, thank you. This goes to City Council on the 13th of February. Generous: February 13th. Scott: Thank you for coming in. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING 20.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.11 ACRES INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50' STREET AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, JUST WEST OF WILLOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TED COEY PROPERTY, MASON HOMES, POINT LAKE LUCY. Public Present: Name Address Pat Boran Scott Clark Ed Jannusch Jeff Elder Joe Cook Alan Thometz Pam & Mark Wagner Toni Cline-Andvik Suzy Shunk A1 Weingart Jim Rea Lori Carsen Kelly Randy Travalia Bob Christensen Claudette & Jim Schluck Mike Byrne Cynthia Smolley Ted Coey Brian Tichy Angie Lee Stephanie Morrow Doug Volkmeier 1341 Heather Court 6700 Mulberry Circle 6831 Utica Terrace 6696 Mulberry Circle 1340 Heather Court 6690 Mulberry Circle 6735 Mulberry Circle 6606 Mulberry Circle 1350 Heather Court 19XX Lake Lucy Road 6700 Mulberry Circle 6714 Mulberry Circle 14201 Excelsior Blvd, Mtka. 1511 Lake Lucy Road 6800 Utica Terrace 5428 Kimberly Road, Mtka. 13603 80th Circle No, Maple Grove 1381 Lake Lucy Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road 6637 Mulberry Circle 6673 Mulberry Circle 6691 Mulberry Circle Sh~mnin AI-Jaff presented the staff repo~ on this item. Scott: Okay, good. Diane, do you have any comments? 17 Planning Commission Meeting- January 1 g, 1995 Desotelle: Not really. I'm here mostly to answer questions as they come up. Scott: Okay. Questions or comments from commissioners? Okay, would the applicant or their representative wish to make a presentation? Randy Travalia: Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Randy Travalia. I'm President of Robert Mason Homes, the developer of this property. I'm sure all of you at one time or another have heard of our company. It was founded in 1953...I'm approaching 20 years myself. Our company's been founded on the concept of good quality land development with quality construction. We've done dozens of neighborhoods here in Chanhassen. We have done residential here for a number of years and some commercial projects lately. In Eden Prairie currently we're underway with an...Minnetonka, Bent Tree, Copperfield, Royal Hill, Royal Oaks, Abbey Hill, a whole bunch of them. Nearest to the city is probably our Waterford neighborhood in the city of Shorewood, immediately adjacent. That's another neighborhood that we started in the mid 1980's and are virtually complete with it at this point in time. This particular property presents some terrific opportunities to do a very high quality neighborhood and a very high quality development. It has all the type of amenities that we seek as homeowners. All that we as a developer can do is be a conduit from the raw property, the raw land and turn it into a high quality neighborhood. We consistently attempt to develop neighborhoods that...Whenever we build our homes...with the vision that our neighborhoods are something... This particular property has a number of amenities that most people do enjoy. Lake Lucy. A beautiful natural lake. A number of ponds, wetlands, the rolling terrain itself and the woods itself which... In any development that we do, we spend an awful lot of time trying concepts and thankfully tissue paper is available in huge rolls because we use up a lot of it in the attempt to develop a land plan that services both the property itself and the neighborhood fits properly within the property. But also respond to what the market is. Also respond to what the people want to purchase when they ...If we can create them to satisfy all planning desires, but unfortunately that may or may not satisfy what the market wants. We as developers and builders can influence the market perhaps but we can't create one. If people don't want to live in a homesite that's situated such and such, they don't want to live there and we couldn't sell it them. The difficulties within the property itself which create the opportunity to make it a very special neighborhood are the grade itself. The high point of the property is at about 20 feet and the majority of the grade through the middle of the property is about 10 feet and slope all the way down to 950 feet there. 50 to 60 feet of grade deviation from north to south. The majority of that grade deviation happens from about the Block 4, Lot 17 area down to the end of the cul-de-sac. That creates the difficulty of balancing effectively you want to think of the ridge that runs down there is much like 18 Planning Comrni~sion Meeting - January 18, 1995 a saddle. There's a low side of each side of it and consequently in our discussion with staff, we asked to have the road right-of-way be at 50 feet rather than 60. The idea there is if you've got 60 feet of road right-of-way, 30 or 40 feet of front setback, to put in a house, pretty soon you're falling off of that saddle and you're getting the back yard built to where it's relatively unusable but not as comfortable for people with smaller children. Our neighborhoods typically attract younger families. We wind up with a lot of people who want at least some good, relatively flat usable area in the back yard and if you force yourself too light on that saddle, unfortunately the grades are too steep and you're going to find out that you don't have that opportunity. With the wetlands on either side, that exacerbates the problem inasmuch as it's our desire to stay away from those wetlands and preserve the pristine views. You know it's funny, 15 years ago a property like this, the development of a community at that point in time, the theory was, by gosh we've got to fill all those in because they're a health hazard. Our little children are going to run out there and fall in this black hole and they're going to drown .... changed a little bit, and I think properly. The original proposal developed on this property called for 27 lots. We examined that proposal very carefully. It complied with the majority of the city of Chanhassen's ordinances. As we examined it, it doesn't really fit the kind of homes that we anticipate in developing here. And as we struggled with that doubled edge sword of trying to make sure the properties...public attracted to them and yet financially possible from our vantage point, we came to the conclusion that we needed to ration that number of lots down. What we've done is we've proposed that there be 20 home sites developed in this property. About 1 per acre. The average is just about 3/4, a little over 3/4 of an acre in size. The grading plan that we've established takes into account the idea that the majority of the grade again picks up from about a line approximately from where Block 4, Lot 17 are. We anticipate that we would need to cut through that soil area right there, 8 to 10 feet and basically start to move all of that back. You see the grading lines as we get down to Lots 6 thru 15. They get a little tighter there. At that point we envision that we would have 7% grading of a public street and climbing up to about 5% just before the cul-de-sac. I recognize that in a lot of instances where you have to, you can have grades that are steeper than that. Maybe it's just a personal idiosyncrasy of mine but we do our very best ancl never develop a home or a neighborhood where basically the street goes like this and goes downhill all the way into it. People...the mentality that I'm going down to our house. We want to go up to our neighborhood. So our intention is to have a fairly fiat, slightly rising condition as you come into the neighborhood and then picking up the terrain as it drops. The majority of the grading, actually the grading lines, if you follow them carefully, you'll see that the majority of the disruption is actually in the back side of Lots 9, 10 and 11. What we have there is a NURP pond that required, a potential siltation p°nd. And at the back edge, the southerly edge of that pond is still approximately 8 feet vertically 19 Planning Commission Meeting- January 18, 1995 above the elevation of Lake Lucy. One of the neighbors from Willow Ridge sent me a note and suggested that perhaps that pond should be moved around and to either side was their suggestion. To either Lot 8 or to Lot 13 and we're more than willing to look at that as a possibility. Notwithstanding that, in the grading plan, if you examine the houses on 7 and 8 and 15 and 14, you'll see that we're allowing the grade on the house pad area to fall with the street so we're actually going to have the street going downhill and the house will be able to do that as well. Actually...more level so we're going to allow the grade across the front yards of those homes to wind up with effectively a walkout...There's a number of existing spruce trees that are in the project now. They primarily were planted by Mr. Coey, who currently owns the property... Those trees now range in size from 4 inch diameter to 9 to 10 inches in diameter. In consultation with some of the large tree moving companies, they claim that they're going to be able to move all of those trees with a tree spade. We can tow them in, out of the way while we finish the streets and then we can plant them again. So we should...the lots and be able to utilize those trees in a responsible manner. We are asking that a private driveway be allowed to service two home sites. Lots number 11 and 12. There really is no other satisfactory method of getting to that point. There is a pond there that will require that we remove .03 acres, about 1,300 square feet, which I suppose is about the size of this room as to the size of that pond. It's characterized as a season...to temporarily flooded as an agricultural basin. Our intention is to mitigate that in a location as desired by the staff engineering. Probably on Lot 8 is one location that we suggest... We've had the question still remaining about the location of the detention pond that's currently on the back side, the southerly side of Lots 10 and 11. I would concur that that pond creates the most active view of grading work through there and we'd be happy to work with staff to attempt to move that either to Lot 8 or to Lot 13 and 12, like was one of the other suggestions and we're willing to look at that...explain to you, we talked this afternoon and it's very difficult to go over grading plans over the phone because I'm pointing at this mark and they're pointing at that mark and...same thing so our suggestion was to get together early as possible at the beginning of next week to examine the grading plans together to see if there isn't another approach that may be viable...to look at that. I must also admit that we've utilized the services of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban as the land planning company on this, and Schoell and Madsen as the people who've done the consulting engineering work. I have complete confidence in those people... Given that we're in January now, I'd like to see us continue to move the project along as promptly as we can. We'll be able to start doing some infrastructure work... I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have and look forward to your approval of our request for this project. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. I'd like the applicant to react to the proposed alternate or alternate that staff has developed. · Randy Travalia: When I got the document and we talked over it this afternoon, and some of the grade numbers...in it were some were of existing grades, some were proposed grades and basically none of them were marked properly. None of them were identified so I didn't know which was which. Ledvina: On the city of Chanhassen map? Randy Travalia: Yes. On this plan. What happened was, as I reviewed what had been drafted and with the locations that were made on the staff copy, the grading did not work. We would have had, well...since had a conversation that said, well that's not the grades that we're really trying to put there. The grades as they were drafted were that the cul-de-sac would fit at an elevation about 1008 and 150 feet or so, which is kind of roughly the curve in the private driveway. The elevation at that location is 870. So 20 feet of vertical deviation and 150 feet horizontal, which is a driveway that's untenable, even disregarding yesterday's ice storm. That's a 20% grade roughly and that's not something that we would do. Since that, that was my original instinct as I reviewed through that. Since that time we've had a conversation, well that's not what those numbers were supposed to mean, and that conversation ended at about 4:45... The other part of the equation there is, again kind of going back to my earlier feelings about what the market will buy and what the market won't buy. We've developed a number of neighborhoods where we've had private driveways servicing a couple of home sites and they've been readily accepted by the marketplace. We've done one where there were 6 home sites on it and they were not readily accepted by the marketplace. So that's something that we've been cautiously wanting to stay away from. Particularly given that those are going to be the most valuable homesites on Lake Lucy, we want not to create a situation where the market doesn't appreciate. Ledvina: The situation with the grading. Have you done calculations relating to the earth balance? Randy Travalia: I think we should be pretty close. Our rough cross sections indicate that it will be pretty close to the elevations as we've established on our initial grading plan. If anything we'll be paying for a little bit of dirt. But our preliminary estimates are pretty close. Scott: Any other questions or comments? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: There's a considerably amount of vegetation on that shore. It'd be the north shore of Lake Lucy. If these lots were developed, I believe wasn't there a resident that took the city to court in regards to tunneling through that vegetation and the city got into a situation where the DNR said the city had jurisdiction over tunneling through, I think it was like 200-300 feet of cattails. Aanenson: Are you talking about a wetland alteration permit for a dock? Farmakes: I believe the applicant was someone named Rivkin. Was on the other side of the lake and he wished to tunnel a channel through the wetland. Similar, that would have been on the northwest part of the lake. But it was several hundred feet to the lake through the wetland. And my idea being here is that is sort of being sold as lakeshore, is it? I'm assuming that these owners may wish to get access to the lake. Randy Travalia: Mr. Coey has a dock on the lake now. Farmakes: It's like a little board thing I believe. I'm familiar with the lake. You're talking currently, 1, 2, 3, 4 lakeshore lots. 5 lakeshore lots. Has the city addressed that issue? A1-Jaff: They would have to go through a wetland alteration permit to get a dock on the lake. Farmakes: I believe with a development of this size, haven't we been pursuing the issue that there's one dock for everybody. Aanenson: Well if they want to get a common dock, they'd have to go through the beachlot requirements which would require the 40,000 square foot lot for the association. Similar to what we did on the... Farmakes: As I recall, there's a significant amount of vegetation between the wetland edge to the water line, and even once you get to the water line, very poor quality water. The depth get to 4 feet at a considerable distance out. So I'm foreseeing potential problems there. Particularly if an owner wants to get access to the lake. Being we'd have 5 owners maybe burrowing a 60-70 foot channel through that wetland on each lot. Aanenson: Well there's a couple different ways you can handle that. One, obviously is leave it up to each individual person to ask for a wetland alteration permit. Require 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1§, 1995 that they do a beachlot, which would preserve one lot. You know state, ask if they'd be willing to state that they not have access through the wetland to use the lake. Farmakes: The reason I bring it up is I'm familiar with the lake and the lake is I think on the C or D list for recreation because of it's size. It does have a problem with turbulence in the water. It has a muddy bottom and the lake is I think on the criteria that they use for health, it's not a particularly healthy lake. We're getting a fair amount of disturbance in the wetland areas around the watershed of this lake and I don't think this will be adding to the health. That's why I bring it up. We usually touch on these subjects with Minnewashta and I don't see that being part of the report here. So I'll leave it at that. Randy Travalia: Did you have a particular preference between a common dock and individual set of docks? Farmakes: I'm certainly open to, at this point, since we're still into the hearing, I'm not going to make any comments in regards to preference. But I believe we've established some precedence in looking at these type of developments where there's a considerable amount of wetland area. I'm not sure what you grade the wetland area that's adjacent to the lake. I believe it's fairly high with cattails and so on. That we could lose a significant amount of that if each homeowner decided to tunnel through that wetland. I didn't see that addressed in the report. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. The public heating was opened. Scott: The public hearing is now open. If any members of the general public wish to speak, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and let us know what you have to say. I'm sure that there's some interest so take your time, but we are very interested in getting your thoughts. Yes sir. Joe Cook: Good evening. My name is Joe Cook. I live at 1340 Heather Court. I'm here representing the Willow Ridge group. The folks here and a few over here. We got together a week or so ago after these notices were sent out, to just kind of see what the feedback was of the neighbors and what they felt about the project in general. And overall everybody, you know they're real pleased with Mason Homes coming in there. They're, as was indicated, a quality builder and they have a good 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 §, 1995 reputation so we're real pleased with that. I was in and Sharmin and I have talked a couple times now, and most recently this morning. And I guess we sent out letters, delivered letters and did everybody receive those letters today? Scott: Is this from the Willow Ridge Resident Alliance, 1350 Heather Court? Joe Cook: Correct. Scott: Yeah, we just received it and I haven't had any time to read it, which is usually the difficulty when significant information gets presented at the meeting. But if you wouldn't mind touching on the high points, we'd certainly appreciate it. Joe Cook: That's fine. Quite a few of the issues that have been brought up here already. We're kind of focusing on some of those same issues that are concerns of our's. In the initial, what do you call it. The initial proposal that was on the table here a week ago. Not the updated staff recommendation. There was concern on our part about the water flow drainage from Wetland/ti through the alteration zone and Wetland//5. They wanted to eliminate the Wetland//5 and relocate that to a different part of the site. And we just feel that that's kind of was a natural swale over there that channels the water out into the water pond, through the lowland there and out into Lake Lucy. And they want to put a home basically right on Lot 12 which basically interferes or interrupts with that flowage. Obviously there are ways that it can be mechanically diverting that but we feel the natural flowage should be retained if possible. So that's one issue that we had a concern with there. Tree canopy is another area of concern and it's documented nicely in the staff report here, dated yesterday. And you know, especially Lots 12 and I believe 7 and 8 are heavily wooded sites within the subdivision. The home pads there are obviously.., tree canopy. In addition to...there's been discussion about the location of that NURP pond and we feel, in looking to the proposal to move that up to the Lot 12, Lot 13 area and again...if I'm not mistaken, there's significant mature trees in that location of Lot 12 and 13. That was... The position where that, in the original proposal, again I believe there's less mature trees and a lot more of the scrub, you know the scrub willow or dogwoods or whatever. So again you're losing vegetation but now significant amounts of hardwoods and so on. So I don't know what the answer is to that question...concern with that pond issue. Of course that whole area is just teaming with wildlife and there's some natural deer paths and trails that cut through that area or parcel and again that's a concern with development of anything around here. It's going to put more pressure on the wildlife. So that's a concern. Fire safety was an issue with the private drive of Lots 11 and 12. I know it's the staff's recommendation that the staff report had the Fire Marshal is going to require either a large enough area to turn around a 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 fire apparatus. Does that mean a fire truck...? Okay. And/or, if that's not possible, require sprinkling system within the homes. Is that right? Okay. I guess you know, I don't know, I haven't costed it out but I would imagine it would be a fairly significant cost on the construction to put sprinkler systems in homes. But as far as the turn around lane, I don't see that that could be really accommodated. I would envision like a cul-de-sac turn around. AI-Jaff: These are examples of acceptable turn arounds. A Y, a T and the applicant would have to design something that would be acceptable but these are acceptable. Joe Cook: Now and like the Y or the T or the hammerhead, I suspect any one of those legs could be a driveway of the home? Or not. You know like you've got the Y going this way for instance. One of those Y could be the actual driveway. A1-Jaff: Yes they could. Joe Cook: So then you just need one extra short... I suppose that could be accommodated. A1-Jaff: Yes. Joe Cook: Alright. But again you know, in the original plan the private drive was feeding two lots and then this updated version it would be 4 lots. So there you have most of the problem... From a desirability standpoint, as Mr. Mason pointed out, that it could go either way. It could be less desirable to have that from just the appeal of the neighborhood... It might not present itself as well. Especially if you're considering the size and the value of the homes that he'll be placing is significant. Another point of contention I guess is the, we feel there's an inconsistency with the wetland preservation zones, and I guess maybe we just need some answers. In the Willow Ridge subdivision...Exhibit F here, it says a pond area at the rear and it indicates that there's a preservation, wetland preservation, tree preservation zone indicated by a dotted line with large circles going around it. Not much for a visual but it's all I've got. But at any rate, this preservation zone has, goes around this pond at some sort of concentric circle fashion and I would assume has something to do with both setbacks from the water's edge and also the elevation. Perhaps do you have any, or is there a specific formula that you guys work with on that, for that setback and how that line is determined. A1-Jaff: There isn't a required setback from a pond, a man made pond. However, as far as wetlands, natural wetlands, then yes there is and the applicant is meeting those 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 required setbacks. The covenants or ordinances governing the Willow Ridge subdivision were much more lenient. Aanenson: Significantly because we didn't have our wetland ordinance in place yet. So he's being held to a completely different standard than the Willow Ridge. Joe Cook: Yeah, well then I'm just wondering. Scott: We have a gentleman who is speaking at the public hearing and it's appropriate for members of the commission or members of staff to speak and if you would like to speak yourselves, which we would like you to do definitely, when this gentleman is finished, please step up and you can make your comments at that time. Please. Joe Cook: Yeah, I guess I'd like to know staff's requirement or footage or elevation for these lines then. And like he said, especially with a man made pond. I'm going back to how this line was established for Willow Ridge and since this is a totally man made pond, that they've set a pretty restrictive setback preservation zone. Aanenson: Maybe I can answer that. When Willow Ridge was developed, this was before we had the wetland ordinance. As it evolved we came up with three different standards. One is for ponds, man made ponds, which there is no setback from. The second is what we classify ag urban, and then excuse me there's four. Then we have natural wetlands and then we have pristine and they have different setbacks with different buffers. When this proposal came in we were just in the very beginning of developing that wetland ordinance so...buffering and setbacks so, it's before there was an ordinance and that's how that got put in place. We weren't sure exactly where we were going with the development of our wetlands. Joe Cook: Okay. Well then, that's fine but I guess the question I have is, this zone that protects this pond comes, there's a setback here and as it comes around, as it comes around the area, to this side of it, it comes right down to the edge of the pond with no preservation there. And from this line the people in Willow Ridge are required to stay back anywhere from that line, 30 to 50 feet from this protected zone around this pond. Aanenson: If I could address that. Actually if you wanted to pull out the Willow Ridge file, there's a lengthy history on that but a lot of that actually was wetland area that was filled. There was a significant amount of filling of wetlands. Again, this was before we had our ordinance in place and I believe that was part of the compromise. There was a lot of wetland in that whole southern area there that was filled. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Joe Cook: Okay, it was dredged out. Aanenson: Yeah. Actually almost all of them were either dredged or altered in that whole plat. But I believe that was part of that and we'd be happy to research some of that for you... Joe Cook: Okay. I guess, you know I'm not trying to dwell on Willow Ridge because that's history but what I'm trying to go forward is on Lot 12 there. You know Lot 12 borders right up to this pond within maybe 20 or 30 feet of the lot line, of the property line. And then they wanted, they've got a building pad that's right there within, what's the side yard setback, 15, 20 feet? 107 So that house would literally be within you know maybe 30-40 feet of the water's edge of this pond. And what I'm saying is that, that seems to be a contradiction from what we're, you know what the setbacks that we're required to be enforced on our side of the fence as opposed to their side. The Grant's tried to put up a deck and they were required to stay 50 feet back from that setback line and they had immense, at the time it was built, the builder was told 30 feet. Then it increased to 50 somewhere along the line, is the story that I got, and then so... came to put a deck up and obviously they had big problems trying to get the variances. But that's the thing that I'm trying to drive at here is, it seems like the new development going in has got, it's going to be much closer to this pond than we're allowed to be and it's the same pond we're talking about. Just the other side of the fence so that's an area of concern of our's. The development laid out in general appears very pleasing. Now you have the problem except for Lot 12, as a group are also concerned with the layout of that lot. Most subdivisions have fairly uniform back yard to back yard layouts. As you look down from Lake Lucy Road and you come down into the subdivision. The homes are going to be backing up to the back yards of back yards of Willow Ridge, and all the way along until you get down to Lot 12 and this is turned sideways and the back yards are going to be going against the house this way. It just doesn't seem to flow with the development and also future developments that are going to occur to the west of this, which will occur within the next, probably the next year. I would imagine you're going to see that the Planning Commission's going to want to see some uniform back to back layout. So it just doesn't seem to flow... And let's see. And as Ron pointed out earlier, there's concern about the shoreland. The shoreline impact. There's a lot of concern on our part. Each homeowner channeling their way through the reeds, the wetlands area to put a dock out there and as noted, the water gets very shallow there until you get quite a ways out into the lake. Each person can do something different and totally cut down stuff, we just don't know. So as a group we'd like to see you know something in place prior to this plan being okayed. Something in place in terms of how that can be handled. What kind of restrictions that the builder has to inform the buyers of. The buyers 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 coming in. People buying lakeshore. They pretty much figure they can do what they want with it but being the classification of this lake may not warrant that.., use of that shoreline. Scott: You know Diane, it might be appropriate to talk a little bit about the wetland alteration process and then without making any guarantees as to the outcome of the process, based upon your past experience, you may be able to shed some light on how possible it would be for someone to get a permit to do the kind of alteration necessary to access the deep water. Desotelle: You need a wetland alteration permit to do any filling to excavating of a wetland. There's a certain minimum amount that...size and the length of the dock would be. Most likely they'd have to replace 2 to 1 what they take out. And unless they can somehow design some sort of a floating, there are some possibilities where they maybe can do some sort of a floating dock or something like that, that doesn't actually hinder. But the DNR also has administration over this lake and as far as like if people are concerned about people making beach areas or something like that on a lake that is heavily vegetated and then pretty mucky, I would be very surprised that anybody would be able to dump sand in there, if you're concerned about that. As far as maybe a dock or access, that may be a possibility but it's a pretty complicated process to go through and the next question would be, even if they get the permit, where are they going to replace the wetland? We try to have replacement on site or as near as possible. Even with that they're going to have to go, the further out they go, let's say they go somewhere within, you fill within the city or the watershed, they have to replace even more. So it's actually a kind of process that tries to actually discourage people from doing it. So as far as the number of docks and all that... Aanenson: Just as normal city policy, in the past what we've done on a lot of these too is encouraged common docks between property lines in trying to reduce the number of dock. But again, in areas where we have substantial wetland like this, we've normally discouraged that. The only one I can think of in the past is like Dogwood on the end of Minnewashta where we had boardwalk docks that were in excess of a couple hundred feet. Scott: So basically I think that maybe at least the sense that you may be getting from this is that if someone were to put a dock there, it would probably make the most sense for all of the owners of a lakeshore lot to put a single dock in. And then from a mitigation standpoint, then if it's a dock that services 5 lots, can they mitigate in that are or do they have to mitigate specifically within the lot that pertains? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Desotelle: No, they could do it within the project area. And all the encouragement would be to...possible so it'd most likely just be naturally...out close to the water. Scott: So there is, I know your concern is to see someone coming in and doing something. The DNR, any time you're getting involved with a state agency, it's not a pretty sight if you're not following the ordinances and I think that although logic sometimes does not enter into it, at least hopefully it's apparent that it's a long process and there are state and local ordinances in place that will cause people to be pretty responsible but I would think that maybe something you might want to suggest is to have something noted in the property records so that, just like when the people who purchased property in your area had to sign a document stating that they understood certain things. At least that a wetland alteration permit would be required for any alterations relative to docks. I think something like that would be a service for the people who are going to buy these lots. Farmakes: I go back to the lawsuit. The ruling was that, as I understood it, and this was a while ago. Now the legislation may have changed this but as I understood it, anything below the high water mark was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. Desotelle: Correct. Farmakes: The DNR said, we will allow this property owner a 50 foot channel access to the lake. Now he had to go through several hundred feet of muskeg and the economics of that were pretty staggering. He chose not to do it because of cost. In this case, would the city, this is below the high water mark, would the city's rules and regulations then apply or would the DNR say to each one of these 5 property owners, we'll allow you a 50 foot channel? And then with the city's rules and regulations in regards to this could be put on a shelf. Desotelle: The DNR regulations the high water mark would apply. But also the wetland alteration permit would apply because of the State Wetland Conservation Act and the city has a city wetland ordinance. So we would require them, if they would dig out a channel, to replace it if it's over the exempt amount, which is right now 400 square feet. Farmakes: That would add to the financial burden again to make it unfeasible? Desotelle: Right. Conrad: But Mr. Chairman, a riparian owner has the right to get to open water. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Desotelle: Right. Conrad: And so, Jeff your comments are right. Rivkin could have, he had that right and it was ruled in his favor so. The only question here would be, I guess I'd like Diane to just, when this comes back, just to update us a little bit on here's a case where 5, 4 or 5 separate lots would want access and are there, rather than one lot owner going at a time, would the DNR be able to control the one at a time access issue? The concern being, if the DNR knows that there's 5, that that one access, would they have the ability to focus that on one dock, one floating whatever it is versus 5 separate access points and it looks like they have to go quite a ways to get to open water. Farmakes: The other issue here...not only the access but what type of boating access would be to the lake. Once you get to this water line, it's still 1 to 2 feet deep and the base below that is nothing but muck .... power boating through there would require dredging I think, at least 4 feet deep, and that end of the lake is quite weedy for the majority of the boating, so you're looking at extremely high maintenance for a marginal recreational lake. That type of lake is pretty conducive to canoeing and things like that but it would require even more extensive I think dredging once you got out to the lake. To get a power boat out. Joe Cook: Is there any horsepower restriction on that lake? Farmakes: There is not. AI-Jaff: There is a movement from the Park and Recreation Commission to make this lake non-motorized... Farmakes: There is a reason that there's a problem with this lake also is that, I think the average foot depth on it is like 6-7 feet or something, once you work it out so to have a power boat and if there's a mucky bottom below there, you really throwing up clouds of silt as you power around it. Joe Cook: I guess with these questions I'm kind of driving at the fact that, you know how do... You obviously it's not a Lake Minnetonka, hard sandy bottom beach. You know 10 feet deep at the end of the dock type thing. But I mean are they going to be pitched to the buyer as a municipal, full recreational lake. There's no horsepower restriction. You can bring your jet boats on there and do whatever you want because there aren't restrictions. Like you said, it's a shallow lake. Any kind of big engine on a boat is going to tear up the bottom and cause the silt and I would imagine do some 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 pretty good damage to the water quality. But that would be another issue of I guess for covenants of the property and what's being sold to the customer. The buyer or homeowner of it ultimately. I guess getting down to the request here that they had written up was to reduce the size of this development down to 16 lots. You know that may be a little bit aggressive but that's...kind of came up with. We felt that would, reducing the size would accommodate some of these concerns of our's. Less impact on the lake and so on. Specifically our request, you know if you take out 2 or 3 lots, whatever, but one lot, the main lot that we feel needs to be removed from this subdivision plan is Lot 12. Again it's fed by that long, narrow private drive which is not real desirable in the marketplace. As far as the lakeshore quality goes, or as the quality of the lot goes along there, I would say that it's probably lowest in the desirability, at least for a couple reasons I say that. It's because it has, the other lots, Lot 7, 8, 9 and 10, and I guess 11, all have a due south and southwesterly exposure with real good views of the lake. And also all the lots are walkouts, if I'm not mistaken, which is again a very sought after feature in today's market. Lot 12 on the other hand is in general quite a low lying lot. There's an existing...wetland on that parcel. If you make it as a lookout lot. The basement, just some daylight windows down there. And again it shows it on the plat that there's lake access there where it fronts on the lake but I don't know if the reality of that is questionable. And as Sharmin has in this staff recommendations has already reduced, taken one of the lakeside lots out. However, she did combine some of the other ones over, more up on this side of it and my opinion, our opinion as a group feel that this should be redesigned to make maybe a larger lot into two different lots that are large, have a back to back configuration and then you know, keep the lot over here. Maybe how that works out but just eliminate the lot over here and keep the lots over here if possible and then again, from a development standpoint, I believe that you can maximize the value of those lots by doing that. Again you're getting the walkout feature. You're getting lake views and the right exposure, the south to southwest exposure that everybody looks for so. I guess that's pretty much it, that I have anyway. I don't know if anybody else here has...but appreciate your time. Scott: Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any new information or additional information that they'd like to add? Yes ma'am. Joan Ahrens: My name is Joan Ahrens. I live at... That's the little cul-de-sac to the northeast of the proposed development. Over the last 4 years we've lived with constant construction around us, and I'd like to request that the city prohibit the staging of construction equipment in our cul-de-sac. I know it's an odd request. Scott: No, I think it's odd that you'd have to, I mean what? What's the deal here? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 A1-Jaff: She lives on that little eyebrow and a lot of people would tend to use it for turning around... Joan Ahrens: It's not only Willow Ridge and... Scott: Is that a public safety issue? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: I mean that would just really tick me off. Aanenson: Yeah, that issue has been brought before the Public Safety. I believe they're looking at putting an island in there. Joan Ahrens: They're looking at putting an island in but we called the city in the past and the city has always said, well it's a public roadway. Well that's really stretching the idea of a public roadway. But we feel pretty beat up with the construction equipment in that little circle and it's amazing that they are doing the staging. The, I forget what ridge it is. A1-Jaff: Shadow Ridge? Joan Ahrens: Shadow Ridge. Over the winter they have parked repeatedly in that little circle and we have 9 kids who live between the 3 houses in that circle and all of our driveways go straight down into the road and of course it's dangerous. But we haven't gotten any help from the city and so. Scott: You've contacted the Public Safety Department? Joan Ahrens: He knows our names, believe me. Scott: Okay. Well I should have assumed that but I wanted to ask the question. Joan Ahrens: But is there a way to get it into the developer's contract that they can't use that area for parking...? Scott: Yeah. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: And also like I said, I know this issue has been brought before the Public Safety Commission and it's my understanding that we're looking at putting an island in there to try to eliminate that. But that's certainly something we can address. Scott: That's an issue that you can, while I'm sure you're very familiar with how the process works so. Joan Ahrens: Well we'll follow up on the island but... Scott: Yeah, and public safety can, that's a little extreme use of parking privileges on a public street. Joan Ahrens: Well it's just the developers however. We also have snowplows that, I don't know what happens to the drivers but they abandon their equipment there running. Running, if you can imagine this. We have 12 year old boys who would like nothing more than to get into the snowplow truck. They just leave them there. They leave them for an hour. Scott: This is a city, city vehicle? Joan Ahrens: They say City of Chanhassen on them. Conrad: Joan are they, maybe this is inappropriate but when Willow Ridge moved in, you had some concerns I think, there were road alignments made and how did things work out? Joan Ahrens: We built a fence. It worked out fairly well with the alignment of the road but it was, there are some things that I'm not sure that we...particularly the landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. Conrad: It's your day in court here. Joan Ahrens: Pardon me. Conrad: It's just a good chance to get feedback. Some of the times we think we do the right thing...execution follows the plan. Joan Ahrens: Well, like I said, I think Lundgren did a, followed the rules as they...at the time, except for the landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. That's not what we had envisioned when I was on the Planning Commission and what we had asked for as far 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 as buffering. We were expecting, at least I was expecting some sort of boulevard effect along Lake Lucy Road with the trees. I don't know if you remember that Ladd. And now there's, I don't know, maybe 5 very small willow trees, which was also a surprise to me. Conrad: They grow fast. Scott: Not a lot of salt tolerance though. Joan Ahrens: Well we'll see about that. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Yes sir. Jim Rea: Jim Rea, 6670 Mulberry Circle. I had three basic issues I guess with the development. The first one is it appears along Lake Lucy Road that we're developing isolated neighborhoods. We have Mulberry Circle as it's proposed is not connected to the neighborhood. We have this new development that's not connected to a neighborhood. I understand that this plan, in lieu of a path through the neighborhood, they're going to pay money to the city and not put the path in. I own, if you could put up the yellow sheet. I own the vast majority of property from Lake Lucy Road up to about Lot 12, and I don't know if the topography works out but I would be very happy to talk to the developer about putting a path from my property through into his development. My concern is as we build these isolated neighborhoods, and kids get to know each other, their only road, their only place to go on bikes is on Lake Lucy Road and I'd like to assure that we try to connect these neighborhoods. So I'm very happy, again I don't know if it will work but I'd be very happy to talk about putting a path through there. So that's the good news. The second is, this is the first that I've heard Lot 13, about putting a pond on that lot. There are very mature trees on that lot .... very tall spruce trees. I can't cut down trees on my lot. I have a very small back yard. Believe me, I'd like to put a swingset up back there and I don't think I have the space for it because I can't cut down any trees. I'm not sure why 20 feet on the other side of the property line they can do that so hopefully we're going to make sure that we preserve the trees on Lot 13. And the last is on Lot 12, which I'm sure is a recurring theme. I'm hoping that the city is going to, I'm sure that Lot 12 was of great economic value...to the developer but I'm hoping that the city is going to be concerned about the current residents as well, along this development. Just a little story of why it's a concern. The way that it's laid out right now, you've got back lots facing what's essentially a side lot. When you've got back lots between each other, there's plenty of space between houses. When you have a side lot to back lot, essentially some of my neighbors could have what could be a 2 or 3 story wall at the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 end of their property and they will stare out onto that wall. I lived in Maple Grove where the city decided to change the Comprehensive Long Range Plan and the zoning to allow from residential to commercial, to allow a 3 story commercial building to be built in front of my house. I hated that thing. Every time I walked out the door, it got my blood pressure up. It took me 2 years to sell my house. I sold it at a great loss and I was happy to get out of there because that thing bothered me and my concern is if we allow a house, again to be built that close to other houses and it's essentially a flat wall because it's the side wall of a house, that my neighbors will have that same sort of view. Quality of their life on their property will be decreased because of Lot 12. I think in general it's a great development. I'm excited about the development. I'd like to have the development there. I think Lot 12 was shoe horned in to fit another lot that is probably not appropriate in that development... Scott: Thank you. Sir. Alan Thometz: I'm Alan Thometz and I live at 6690 Mulberry Circle. Just a very brief point or two to echo what Jim just said. Jim and I are neighbors. It's Lot 12 that really is the concern that I have. One of the reasons that we were attracted to moving into Willow Ridge is because there were the different setbacks and I don't know how the origin of how it all happened with the number of feet and what they are. It just seems surprising to'me that we moved in there a little over a year ago and we were attracted to it because it was environmentally sensitive and because the area was setback from the pond. As I look at this plan, I see a house that can be closer to that pond than all of what the existing residents around that pond agreed to in terms of a setback. Or further away from than this house can be. That just doesn't seem fair. So I'm really concerned about Lot 12. Otherwise... Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to make some comments at the public hearing? Well seeing no more comments, sir. Joe Morin: I'm Joe Morin and we have the property immediately to the west of the proposed development. We bought the property about 9 years ago. We've been living there for the last 6 years. So our property extends from Lake Lucy Road all the way down to Lake Lucy. So it looks like we'll be having a lot of new neighbors. Actually we wish we could keep our present neighbor. Ted's been a good neighbor and one house on that property seems appropriate to us but realistically, if I were to choose which Twin Cities developer I would like to develop that property, I think Mason Homes would be first on the list. So I'm really pleased that it looks like we're going to be able to...development that is suitable for the natural terrain and is sensitive to the 35 Planning CommissiOn Meeting - January 18, 1995 trees and I think with the modifications that the staff is proposing, will minimize the grading impact on the area. One aspect of the proposal I'm particularly pleased to see is the removal of that eyebrow because that puts the homes on the lots immediately adjacent to our home further away. Reduces the impact on us. One thing that I'd like to point out, and I've already talked with Randy about this, is that we do have a walking easement around the pond to Lake Lucy Road. That's in our deed and I just want to be sure that that's a matter of record here. The other thing is that one of the proposed mitigation sites is right in that comer where our walking easement is and again, I talked with Randy about that. He's very flexible being able to move that but there is a grove of small white birch trees that I would like to be sure isn't impacted by where this mitigation site is placed. And I also talked with Sharmin this afternoon about that. The other thought I had in terms of the mitigation, and...but the pond itself is a rapid, well not rapidly but is gradually filling with vegetation and it is quite shallow now. If something could be done to improve that pond rather than building another next to it, I'd like to see that happen but I don't know if that's possible or not...and it did look quite shallow. So I think it would improve the habitat for wildlife but...You mentioned that Rivkin proposal and he did have to go through about 400 feet of cattails to get access to the lake. In front of our property it's more like 40 to 50 feet and there are some areas of open water where you could happen to get access to the lake without having to do any dredging. My neighbor and I share a dock, which is right on our adjoining property lines and that works well for both of us but should development occur further to the west, I would also like to have access to the lake myself and that would be a sixth dock possibly so you might want to consider that. There is a naturally occurring open area on my property...I do now have access with our canoes. My position on motorized access on the lake, I think people that are on there presently should be grandfathered in at the horsepower level that they're currently using. I'm using 4 horsepower, okay. And the reason I need a motor at all is because of the point that Jeff raised, is once you get beyond the cattails there's another maybe 20 feet of foxtail that's very hard to get through. And so I like to have that 4 horse motor to get through that. After that the lake drops off to 17 feet out there so it is a pretty nice lake once you get past that barrier. Do you have any question for me? Farmakes: The area right in front of your property there's a hole. There's a hole there. As you go farther to the east, it gets much more shallow. It's not 17 feet. Joe Morin: It gets shallow as you go into that lagoon area and then once you're in the lagoon, it drops down to 12 feet. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: Right. But the lagoon area that we're talking about, the lake area in front of 12 and 11 and so on, that's much shallower. Joe Morin: As you go to the east, you're right. And then we have to get around that little island. And then later on it gets up to 26 feet on the other side of the island. Farmakes: Again, I believe the average depth of the lake is below 7 feet I think. Joe Morin: Well we measured it one year. It's 26. Farmakes: That's out in the middle of the lake though. Joe Morin: Yeah it is, right out in the middle. Scott: Any questions or comments? Good, thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir. Ted Coey: I just want to, I'm Ted Coey. I just want to clarify a point about the lake and that's that, I've lived on the lake for 13 years and all I've ever used it for is canoeing... It's not a boating lake. And the reason is, you can't get out to it. There's no public access. So if they put 5 lots or 500 lots on my property, you can't get to it. I mean you can't put a road through there. The DNR would stop you. You'd have to pick up a boat and carry it, a 2,000-3,000 pound boat out there... So I don't know what everybody is worrying about. You couldn't get a boat. All you can get out there is a canoe or something you can physically carry. There's no public access on the whole lake. So that pretty much solves that problem. Scott: Good, thanks. Anyone else? Seeing no other folks interested in speaking, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion cra,led. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: First of all I'm going to start off, I have property on this lake but I'm going to make comments on it because I think there's a precedency. We've had commissioners who have been on Lake Minnewashta I believe have stated that I don't think in this case, this would change my mind on how I would vote on this. I can't see this property from my property. I'm on the other end of the lake. I think this is a 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 nice development. The physical property, because of the wetland to the east really sort of precludes any type of turn around coming back out of the development if there's a second entrance. The concern though is as these properties develop, and I think this is a classic case of these properties developing. A lot of these lots are narrow going down to the lake. I believe some of them to the west are 4, I'm not sure what your property is but I think it's 4 or 5 acres. Something like that. Ted Coey: 5 acres. Farmakes: Right. But there are several of those so as time moves on and people move on, these properties will be developed so what I envisioned, there are going to be a lot of cul-de-sacs, single road cul-de-sacs going down to access this property. The majority of these landscapes are kind of ridged and pretty treacherous down to elevations down to a little wetland or something before it hits the lake. So a lot of the contours of where these roads can go are certainly defined by contours of property and I think this particular property is a pretty classic example. Kind of meandering through a couple of wetland areas on either side. We did not deal with this issue with Willow Ridge on connecting the additional property. It's been a while since we did Willow so I'm not sure where that discussion led. Maybe Ladd can fill us in on that. Following our direction, I believe it was 1,000 feet, this is what a 1,000 foot cul-de- sac? Aanenson: Yeah. We did look at that with Willow Ridge. Farmakes: Right. Because of the wetlands, I don't see how we can come up with another way out of there but I'm not sure if we have a policy of how we're going to do that with any additional property as you go along down to the west there on Lake Lucy Road. I'm going to support staff's recommendation on negotiating an issue on the elevations... The issue of property, having riparian rights to the 5 lots that are currently, that the applicant's designed, as I stated before this lake is on the C or D list for recreational access. The DNR essentially does not wish to put any money into the access unless the city gives them the property because of the recreational level of the lake. The lake is sick. It has been sick for years. It doesn't read out well on a meter reading and so on and primarily it's because the amount of silt that's already in the lake. Because of the farming that has taken place in the watershed. It has a huge watershed out to the west. Much bigger than the lake itself. I think Mr. Schluck ran a rod down to silt in the middle of that lake 20 some feet before it broke, to give you an idea of how much silt it sitting out in this lake. As a matter of practicality, cutting through these reeds and so on is thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. However, if you look at these lots, the minimum access that the DNR will give them 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 will be 50 feet. And if you cut 50 feet on all of these lots, you really virtually destroy that wetland so potentially it could be destroyed by allowing that access. Typically if you ask for it, they will give you 50 feet unless there's an extraordinary reason why not because of what Ladd said. The State's position is if you have property, unless there's an extraordinary reason, you're allowed access. And in fact, you can do it without a permit if you choose to remove it by hand. I believe they allow you to remove a certain amount by hand without asking anybody. Certainly because of the nature of this lake, it would certainly be a good idea to deal with it as a community access, and this has not been addressed at all. I'm not sure how that works into the lot situation. Or how that would work into type of covenant situation. That really hasn't been addressed in our report. But perhaps when we reconfigure in that situation, that you can look at that. This lake is also subject to a lot of unstable shoreline. Floating bog problems as well because the level of the lake going up and down. On occasion large chunks of muskeg break off and float around depending on whether the level goes up or down. Also the area on that, that would border 9, 10, 11 and 12, it's quite shallow out for a considerable distance before you get to what I think the DNR has navigable at 4 feet in depth. And it extends much farther than what is shown on the map as being navigable. I'm not sure where it stands on the issue of motor but I do know that if Christmas Lake is a precedent, I think it's the only time that the DNR has made a precedent. Where they grandfathered, for a period of time, a difference in the horsepower between public use and lakeshore use. And otherwise their policy is, whatever applies to public applies to the homeowner on the lake, which is fine. I don't boat on the lake, by the way. I've had a little boat down there that's been sitting there in the reeds for years. It's not a very pleasant experience. You feel like you want to take a shower after you're done boating out on the lake. There's a lot of stuff living. But I think anything that's reasonable, certainly if we use this precedent of how we've handled Lake Minnewashta, I think that there were a couple developments that went through a considerable amount of wetland. Certainly if there's something that could be done there. Failing that, if the criteria is such that it came between destroying that wetland, which I've been over on that side of the lake because of the DNR actually gave us stuff to spray for purple loosestrife with the Lake Association, so I've walked over in that muskeg actually and there is a lot of wildlife in there. It's pretty much a pretty pristine area. I would hope that we could find a way not to destroy that, or to assure that that won't be destroyed. The rest of the lots certainly, I'm not sure if 16, or I'm not even going to recommend an amount at this point because I think that this configuration still needs to solve some other problems other than a count situation. Certainly the amount of property applied to each pad is more than what we typically see. And if it wasn't for where these wetlands fall, and some of the other situations that are caused by the topography of the land, this would certainly be an asset as it's being proposed now. But I would like to see those 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 problems solved. And I was willing to wait and see how those come back. I'll leave it at that. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I like the development also. I support staff's direction. I guess the only thing I would add as this process develops is if we can, the Willow Ridge neighbors, the developer and staff address the Lot 12 issue and see if there is some accommodation to be made or perhaps it makes sense to remove Lot 12 for a whole host of reasons that have been mentioned. I'm not saying it has to end up that way but I'd like to see that process evolve so that hopefully the developer and the neighbors can come up with a workable solution. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: As it relates to Lot 12, I also see quite a few problems and I'm not going to go through discussing those. There's a number of things here that have to be resolved before that area becomes a buildable area and right now I'm not convinced that it works the way it's laid out. So I'll defer that to staff and the applicant and the representatives of Willow Ridge, if that works. Looking at the wetland situation, I was looking at the grading plan here and I see that, as it's designed, there's quite a bit of grading within, grading for the construction of this pond within the wetland setback area. And typically we don't allow grading in the wetland setback area. Is that correct? Desotelle: As I understand the ordinance, this is a natural wetland so the buffer would be an average of 20 feet with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30. Ledvina: Okay, so a minimum of 10 feet then. Desotelle: Right. Ledvina: So as it's proposed, the grading really can't take place as we see it. Desotelle: As the ordinance says. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. And just expanding on that a little bit more. When we, in those buffer areas and in the wetland itself, the ordinance prevents the vegetation from being cut in that area. So I think you would have to actually come in with a variance 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 to the wetland ordinance for anyone to construct a dock out to the lake. Let alone what the DNR would say or other types. Farmakes: That was the point of the ruling. The point of it is below the high water, the State has jurisdiction, not the city. Aanenson: Right, but what Diane said is that they would still have to get a permit through us. That's what I'm saying, and we have the stakes that we put up that says you can't, no alteration or you can't do anything within that buffer. Farmakes: It's a setback. Aanenson: Right. So that's what Diane indicated. They still would have to get a permit through the city and the other agencies. Ledvina: Well it wouldn't be just a permit. It would be a variance to the ordinance. Aanenson: Because it was conditioned already on this, right. And still get a permit probably on top of that, correct. Desotelle: I assume if that storm water pond, if that's still there, that would be the other... Ledvina: Right, that would be a variance scenario as we've laid it Out here and that's not identified in our report right now so, is it? Desotelle: I thought I addressed that issue. Ledvina: Well it's not a condition. As a specific variance to the city ordinance, we usually have a condition regarding that. I might have missed that in your discussion but, and I think some of the ideas here were maybe that pond works best on Lot 12 and maybe that's an alternate. Or other places, but again I would like to see that, the buffer areas for our wetlands be strictly upheld and make sure that no grading takes place within those areas. I guess just in general also, as I look at some of the house pads and I see the house, the lines for the house pads are actually kind of skirting right along the erosion control protection and I know when you're building a house, you're going to be driving heavy equipment around the house pad so you have to account for that. You have to account for the movement of a bulldozer or a backhoe, a large sized backhoe completely around the house pad. I don't think there's any other way of doing it. I'm sure there are but not in standard construction techniques so I'd 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 like close attention paid to where the setbacks are and where we're actually putting the house pads. And I think, I guess I would agree with staff in terms of the efforts that, or the suggestions that they've made regarding the 20 foot setback. That's pretty tight. I think maybe 25 would be more appropriate. You know variance from 30 feet but I think it can be done. I don't know, that's a hard one to visualize. Let's see, the situation I think with the common dock, that might be a reasonable possibility and maybe Lot 12 can work into that, although that doesn't look like the best spot for access to the lake. But at any rate, I'm not going to say anything more on that. Regarding the grading issue, I understand the difficulty in working with the slopes and we do have our city ordinances relating to the slopes of the streets, etc. I do think that there can be some additional improvements made to the plan as it's laid out and I think the staff alternate is heading in the right direction certainly. And I think it's conceptual at this point and when we, I think once we get together with the applicant, we can work on the grades and make that type of scenario work. Eliminating the eyebrow, shortening the cul-de-sac, all seem to make good sense to me. I think it would be a good idea to add a condition, or at least discuss with the applicant the possibility of linking some pedestrian access through to Mulberry Circle, is it. And also I would be in favor of adding a condition regarding the staging of, or prohibiting the staging of construction equipment in that eyebrow. Curry Farms, is that right? Aanenson: ...Hills. Ledvina: That's it. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: Very little to add. Just summing up some points that I've heard that I agree with. It's a good development by a good developer. I think it should be tabled for the refinement that staff's recommending. I do agree with the staff recommending the reduced right-of-way and the reduced setbacks. I don't think that numbers of houses is an issue on this parcel. It's just not. I don't care if there's 10 or 20. I think the issues are the topography. We saw those. There's enough property to do what the applicant wants to do but it's looking at the sensitivity to the land that's most important to me. When this comes back I would hope that when the staff is making recommendations on certain things to preserve, I guess I need a sense of what we are saving. So if we're reducing something from 20 to 19, or we're changing something, I just need to know that we're going to save more than 1 tree. And that's what I don't see right now. I don't know what we're doing. So that has to come back. So if we make an alteration to the developer's proposal, I guess to change it, I'd like to see what that's changing and what it's saving. As I talked to Diane about it, I need to know what the 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 control is front end for having one common access to open water from this development. I'm really not in favor of a beachlot here. I do like beachlots but I'm not in favor of here. The developer doesn't want it. It's not in the plan. I'm comfortable with that. I think the issue is how do you get 5 lots to open water without dredging 5 different channels. They're not going to do it because of cost but somebody's going to want to get out there so I guess I'd like to see what we have. What controls the DNR will place on that. And my final issue, a lot of thing's been said about Lot 12. I guess I don't have, you know right now I'm no place on Lot number 12. I want staff to come back and say, it still is a buildable lot for these reasons, or it's not because of some of the points the neighbors brought up that we forgot to consider. That's all. Scott: Okay, thanks. I just have one comment. I know that we've got setbacks from side to side and back to back and so forth. This raises an interesting situation where we've got a back to a side. I'm not familiar, I don't think our ordinance really addresses that. If it does, maybe you can educate me at some other time. If it does not, I think we need to consider that because as we get some of these lines, thin ones coming in, we may run into it in the future and I'd like to have a number where we can say, this doesn't work and then they redesign it. But that's the only comment I have. I'd like to hear a motion if I could. Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission table the proposed development, Case #94-13SUB, #94-6REZ, and also that's rezoning, Case #95-1 which is Wetland Alteration. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the issues as mentioned. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Rezoning of 18.15 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family #94-6 REZ, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18.15 acres into 20 single . family lots and one ouflot with a vmiance to allow a 20 foot front ymd setback and a 50 foot wide Right-of-way (94-13 SUB), and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate an Ag Ual>an Wetland (95-1 WET). All voted in favor of tabling the item and the motion cm'~ied. Scott: When can we see this back? First meeting in February or. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: We need the turn around time. Scott: Yeah. I guess we'd like to see it as soon as possible to move it ahead so put it on the schedule and thank you all very much. We always appreciate citizen input and it's especially good when you're as organized as you are, so thank you very much. Come back, see us again and follow your issue all the way to the City Council. VISION 2002 UPDATE- FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington: What I would like to do is to be as brief as I can and talk to you a little bit about the summary of, my instructions are to kind of give you a summary of the survey completed some time ago on the Vision 2002 and then talk a little bit about what the Planning Commission might do or might think about or might consider doing in the way of implementing or even to put some pressure... I won't spend a great deal of time. I don't know if any of you are privy to Bill Morrish's presentation to the city probably about 2 months ago but these were some of the findings of that particular survey. Joe raised a good point that...that there are no dollars...with any of these so it's a lot easier for folks to suggest that they approve them or support them... This was kind of interesting though because there was a high level of familiarity.., and that's attributable of course to a lot of people having been involved with it. A lot of media coverage and so forth so there were lots of folks that knew about this and 63% said that they received a copy of the newsletter. Well it's sent to every household in the city of Chanhassen. So some folks...it was folded up and didn't realize what they had. Some probably threw it away. Some probably didn't want to believe that they received it. It's a normal human response and consequently...indicated that they had received it. 45% of the total sampled were familiar with the idea suggested, and according to Bill Morrish that was a very high percentage. Extremely high percentage...he's done so many surveys around the metro area, and we were very high on that particular question. Now some of the things that people say, they favored an activity center. 63% are either somewhat or strongly favored an activity center...recreational center, community center and so forth and...define what that is except there seems to be some fairly strong...come from younger families. The people that don't participate and did not participate in the...so there's kind of a silent group out there that happens to have young children... As far as the activity center timing...is we had a couple of options. Either 3 years, 5 years, or never and 74% said they ought to be built within the next 5 years. The city commons consisting of City Hall, library and senior center, was reported at 75%. Those who favored...and most of you know the history of ...monuments and...and the city of Chanhassen hasn't been particularly certain that that could work...so strong support there...I would hope that was because there's an understanding that maybe this downtown really has to be different than what 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 a typical suburban center might be, which are big parking lots in the front yard. And I think there have been enough things changed or done or thought about...one of those things that we never even dealt with in Vision 2002. Not one of our points we considered. It's one of those things that Mayor Chmiel felt very strongly about and felt we ought to incorporate into doing. And so it was incorporated. As you see, 62% support it but...the only issue that talked about money...money, then the percentage supporting dropped to 51%. Not unlike our recent survey...where folks are very supportive of cutting government services, or cutting government costs but maintaining all the services. So it's one of those things where people think they would like the service but don't probably want to pay for it. And as far as favoring keeping the Post Office downtown, of course over 2/3 supported that. Which again I felt was kind of... Now, Bob there's one more on the other side there that has to do with priorities. I'll touch on that briefly. What we did was ask 3 different questions to see which of these probably...stronger when it came to public support. And there was a fairly clear indication that the activity center was the first priority, if you begin to consider how many first, second and third choices they got. The city commons was second and I think those two are far and away the two most strongly supported. The Post Office, a little bit less...You know the survey did talk in most cases, except the teen center, about monies there...Any questions? Farmakes: Do you have an age range of the response? Nuttings: That's down below. Scott: Yeah, down here. What is your age. Fred Hoisington: One of the last questions. 32% were in the 35 to, well 64% were under 44 and 20 to 35% or 36% were over that. Farmakes: Did the fact that the majority of these people responded were child bearing years, is that finding reflect the importance of the activity center since I believe we're building one at the school for those age. I mean depending on which public relations name we apply to it, it's a recreational activity place. At that time that the question was asked, were they thinking of that or were they thinking of an autonomous activity center placed downtown? Fred Hoisington: What we did Jeff was we gave them several general descriptions throughout this process. There's no way I can define what it is and there's no way at this point city staff or anyone can define that. What we have talked about is a facility for all people and we have talked to the various...But I don't know of anyone...I've 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 been involved with surveys where it's skewed because of the...rather than a telephone survey where you have more of a... Scott: What was the sample size? Fred Hoisington: I think it was 300. Scott: 300. Farmakes: My question in regards to the activity center, I guess we'll call it. As you know the community's been wrestling with that problem off and on. It's been through referendums and so on and it's had different reincarnations as to what it would be and who it would serve. The reason I ask the question is if that's put forward on the priority list and it was targeted to those age groups, I'm surprised it actually isn't higher than it was. The point being is that typically when we've discussed these types of services being provided by city government, we think in terms of providing them similar to the baseball programs that we have or the soccer programs. It's provided to a particular age group. Children, 5 or 6 up to 12-13, which is typically the ages of children in the age groups that we have targeted for the majority of response. Do they see the importance of that activity center, if that's what we're going to call it, being placed downtown or just having an activity center? Fred Hoisington: That's a question I can't answer. We didn't ask that question. I don't think there's any way to answer that. For those who may have read the Vision 2002, my report did offer...to the extent they would have read the details about that particular element, then that's what they would have known. Whether they read it. Whether they knew what it was, I don't see any way to know. Farmakes: As you know, as we've looked at trying to fund this type of center in the past, typically it's been some sort of free land situation that either augments another development adjacent to it or in it. In the downtown frame of trying to get that off the ground. And without looking at that, with those types of finances involved, which could make them unpalatable to some voters, and looking at any type of financing for this type of activity center or these things. Did you deal at all? The reference material that I received never talked about case or monies or funding. The only time that was referred to in that study, there was a 10% point difference I think. The teen center issue. Scott: The historic area but it was said, at least the historic areas, that funds were already set aside and no increase in property taxes. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 §, 1995 Farmakes: Why did you choose that one particular subject to deal with financing? Just curious. Fred Hoisington: Which one? Farmakes: The teen issue. Fred Hoisington: ...activity center and the teen center had the funding source and I guess with.., trying to determine the degree of support out there. Otherwise we could have left the financing part of that question out like we did with everything else. But again I can't remember how we dealt with the community center but it seems to me we also said that it would have to be... I think people understood that...I'm not going to second guess what anybody believed...but they were fairly close votes too remember. That doesn't...mandate never be build a community center. I think of all the survey, all you can do is just consider it as a door opener for any one of these... Conrad: Fred taking up on that, yeah there was really those votes in referendum were very close. And now your survey comes in and says that 50% would pay for an activity center, teen center. Farmakes: They weren't close. That's a myth that was a mistake in a city report. The vote was very close in the trail issue. The last referendum was actually 2 to 1 against the, they called it a community center. Conrad: That's good. Thanks for correcting me. Farmakes: But it was being portrayed during the working meetings that it was a close vote. Conrad: So then you could say that it was voted down a couple years ago but based on the current numbers, there may be more support for it. Is that something that you could gather from. Fred Hoisington: I would gather from this that there may be more support out there than you realize, right now but until you begin to try to...what it is to begin with more public support, you're not going to know that. I don't think anyone can assume that the public imposes, given this result, the development of the community center. I think it simply opens the door for discussion. We're not saying you should rush out and do it. We're saying... 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Conrad: That's how you'd interpret a 50% approval? Well maybe I'm misinterpreting the information here but, and it's probably related to the teen center because that's the only, no. It says activity center. Which one had money attached to it Fred? Fred Hoisington: The teen center had money attached to it. Conrad: Okay. So it lost 10 or 11 favorable points when money was attached. So we could probably assume the same would be true of an activity center? Fred Hoisington: Maybe. Conrad: And what would that take us down to? I'm not looking at any numbers. Fred Hoisington: The activity center was a 63% strongly or somewhat. Conrad: Okay, so then we'd down to the 52. So it's still close. Farmakes: The consideration also, in particular the last two times that that particular community center issue came up, it was...financing and it's location was a lot of the debate and without having that accompanying it, it seems to me, and I'm trying to be positive because there's a lot about this that I think is correct. But if you present a wish list without saying what it will cost and discussing these issues, it's certainly these are the issues that are up for debate I think and have been debated for quite some time here. The community center's been up for referendum twice. Without having that information accompanying it, it's sort of would you like to see this here? Sure. What if it costs us $300.00 more in taxes a year after your taxes went up 15% in the last 2 years. Well, maybe not. Scott: You know also too, I remember when we were presented, I think it was about a year ago with, we've got $10 million burning a hole in our pocket of TIF money. What do we do? Remember that? And that meeting basically didn't go too far. Where is that dollar amount now? That's I guess the first question. And since we're all intent on spending the public's money, would it not make sense you know, and I'm sure these guys at Decision Resources are wonderful folks and they'd love to do another survey. I would think probably the most effective way to do this is to say, the city of Chanhassen has x million dollars to spend on public stuff. Some of the options are, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. $1 million, $3 million, half a million. How do you want to spend this money? And I mean research is wonderful and most of us have had a little experience with it but if you really want to know the bottom line then it's like, these are the ideas. This is the money. How do you want to spend it? 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: Also some of that is short term cost and some of it is long term cost that has to come out of your tax dollars. Scott: Yeah. That's like the referendum which passed overwhelmingly and then it was like, I forgot...and pretty soon it starts to be real money. But yeah you're right. I mean there's the cost of building the dam thing and then there's the cost of operating it and obviously if you get people excited about building the dam thing and spending all their money, then it's oops, by the way. Remember that thing that you told us to build. So I mean that's the kind of stuff that ticks people off. Is the hidden cost. And I mean this I think served a purpose as kind of like what you're saying, kind of a door opener for reasons for public officials to spend their time talking about certain ideas. But I think before we, this can't be taken as a mandate that the citizens demand that we do any of these things. Fred Hoisington: No, and I don't think anybody here would suggest. Scott: Oh nobody here. I don't think anybody here is. Fred Hoisington: ...because I don't think is telling us this is a mandate. I think what it is saying is there may be some...things here that people are simply willing to jump to the conclusion that there is no support. I think Jeff is right. Part of it was location before. Part of it was facility and yet the same thing has happened to us in Eden Prairie. Certain elements...so I don't think anybody's taking this...they're just simply saying, we may have some direction. Should we pursue it? Should we get...whether it makes any sense. Scott: But I think we have to be careful that this is the direction and that a lot more, I mean we need to let, before we're going to get people excited about making investments and building stuff, we need to make sure that all the people who are footing the bill understand what it costs to either to open the door, and what it's going to cost to run the thing. But I'm sure we'll some more of this but I think it serves it's purpose and the process is viable and it's working and people feel they're involved. But where it goes from there is extremely important. Fred Hoisington: Any other questions? Conrad: Where are we going? Fred Hoisington: You mean with respect to the survey? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Conrad: No, with respect to the Planning Commission. What do you think the Planning Commission should do? Fred Hoisington: I have... First of all you have a city, the city has a Vision 2002 plan that probably could become adopted...which means that it has little or no status. It seems to me that it adds some validity and importance and it certainly has some community support, that the Planning Commission ought to consider it's adoption... Scott: That makes a lot of sense. Fred Hoisington: There are two things you can do. You can sit back, you can take two attitudes. One of them could be to simply, as people come to you and you can simply say yes or no. Yes or no or based on the framework of the Vision 2002 guidelines and so forth and... They're not really... Or you can attempt to lead something. Instead of just sitting back and reacting and I sort of had the impression that if I told you that you should just sit back and react, you might go like this and say...there isn't anything we have to do to do this. But it seems to me that if...there are a lot of good things that could be done and I think we need to explore, is exactly what those might be. Because there is a...Planning Commission in that regard. One of the things that was deleted from this plan, for probably a lot of reasons, were the design guidelines. They were originally incorporated. Lots of people felt they were too specific. There was a sense that they a bit redundant. People from the Highway 5 corridor group also...guidelines in it but much more suburban type guidelines than what this document was originally intended to have. I have copies of those design guidelines. The ones...might like to have copies of because they may be of assistance in responding to requests when they come in. Let me just tell you about some.., little bit later. One of the things that we think is pretty important in a downtown like Chanhassen where it has some history and it has some buildings that have already established a pattern of building out to the street, as many of the buildings as we can get pulled up to the street you want to. Now a developer's going to have fits with that...you've got to have parking in front of the door. There's just no other alternative...and what we're saying is even if you want to set the buildings back, you should at least have a connection, a pedestrian connection and not block the front of the buildings with cars, in most cases. Now we understand what happened in Byerly's case. Target you worked a great deal to do something different. Not the parking is still in the front but it just happens the front is the side...and not dominated that yard with parking. The clinic was the same way. We had some, a real struggle with that. We had only two choices... You didn't get it with Byerly's but you got a lot of good things with Byerly's. It's a good plan and Byerly's now becomes a very strong anchor and is going to draw a lot more activity in this downtown so you've now got what the 50 Planning Commission Meeting- January 1 §, 1995 power, I think to not only draw things in but also to tell people what you want, and you've been doing that for some period of time. It's just that some of the things that are embodied in the Vision 2002 plan we think are pretty important. You ought to be looking at carefully...make sure happens but you don't really have the guidelines to do that. This plan is a bit too general for... Now, one of the things that was an issue during the course of the Vision 2002 process were these intersection treatments for landscaping. Some people, business people were very concerned about the impact of vegetation along the street on... use of signage and the businesses and that sort of thing. And when you...at this conceptual level...exactly how tall those trees are going to be and so forth. One of the things that could be done by the city is to move into a little bit more detail with the landscaping. Not only to develop a pattern that will work downtown, based on the entry. The entry concepts that have been established here but to begin to think in terms of the type, size, character and materials that will occur and is compatible with...because the purpose of the landscaping in this case is to frame an intersection for example. Not simply open things up...You can have parking lots there, we just don't want to see the whole dam thing. We want something that will screen... There are a couple of other things however, also that the Planning Commission might want to at least think about and one that the Park Commission may want to think about as well but some of these things have to kind of occur in their own time. They can't occur too much in advance. But this whole concept of the historic district has been unresolved. Still unresolved but what I think we determined from Vision 2002 was that if, that that was probably either going to be some sort of commercial building on the immediate comer, and there's a real advantage to aesthetically...or it could perhaps be a park...because of it's dimension, it's shape, the difficulty in using them and so forth, it could also be a park .... there is this element that is yet not as well defined so it could mean it seems to me that there could be some work done to better define that concept. Scott: Yeah, there's one thing. We had a centennial commission meeting last night and that was one of the, as we were talking about what we're doing and planning and so forth, one of the things that came up was to focus an event in that area because that's basically the intersection. The location of the intersection where the city basically started. The village basically started. And one of the things that Todd Gerhardt talked about, we just kicked this around, was taking their, I guess it was the old depot building that's now by the tree farm. Moving that in because I guess from what I understand, the Pony and Pryzmus is gone the first part of March. Aanenson: It's number 8 on your work program too. You asked us at your last meeting to put that on for the Planning Commission to work on. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Scott: Yeah. So that's something that we're kind of bubbling around in the background and actually utilizing that particular site as the focal point for the May 5th '96 event which is the centennial, the actual founding of the city so that, this is like another thing that's going on but I think the historic district in the centennial group, there's some direct linkage there. So I mean it's good to hear your unaided discussion of the consideration of that particular park element there so. Fred Hoisington: And there's another one Joe as well. This is, one of the things that we have shown sensitivity to was...what their plans were...what the decision has been with respect to St. Hubert's. Whether they, I'm assuming they're intending to stay. Aanenson: Well we met with them today. Fred Hoisington: What were. Aanenson: Well, they're looking at either trying to expand on site. If they can't do it there, then they have to remove themselves pretty far based on land costs to another town so. I'm not sure I'm at liberty to discuss all of it, but they're looking at trying to expand there. We came up with some pretty creative options. Fred Hoisington: So they're leaning more towards staying than... Aanenson: That's their first choice, sure. And they've got the opportunity with the Kenny's building. Fred Hoisington: In order to be able to do the kinds of things that they may wish to do on this corner, one of the things we talked about here was eliminating the road itself as it lies between them and the Pony, etc and relocating this road further to the east and then assisting in some manner or form to be sure...an adequate site. That does not mean to acquire property for them. It is a church. It doesn't really make a great deal of difference so you could perhaps scratch that. I think what it means is that things like roadway realignments and those sorts of things could legitimately be done and support whatever happens... So there's some planning that needs to be done in association with that and things I think that the Planning Commission could be involved with to make sure the right things are done in accordance with this plan. Another thing that could be done, that you may want to consider but this one I'm a little cautious about because it might be a little bit too premature to even consider it but one of the things that we had talked about was kind of a city commons and then a central park. If you know what in the past, that central park has always been talked about more as this commons in front of City Hall but it doesn't really represent a big 52 Planning Commission Meeting- January 1 §, 1995 enough space to have larger group activities. It's hard to have a 4th of July party or other sorts of similar events at that location. What we envision City Hall being is sort of a meeting space in the park that you really have a building, a multi purpose building that's really surrounded by a park so the whole thing becomes a central park. Including the area to the north and the area that is currently the school property and including perhaps this area up here along Santa Vera where you might be able to replace some of the more active recreation facilities that are down closer to City Hall. The idea being ultimately, through some sort of transformation, seeing more of a passive park immediately adjacent to City Hall where you can have these larger types of events and have rather large groups of people and where you could use the whole thing all the way down to West 78th Street and perhaps have your more active activities further to the north. Now that, the problem with that is...short term the school isn't probably going to be particularly enamored with that concept so you might think in terms of doing some planning for it but recognize, maybe not you but the Park Commission, but recognize that it may be quite some time down the road before that is maybe an acceptable option for the school district. Farmakes: What type of numbers are you looking at in your study? Fred Hoisington: For space for? Farmakes: These recreational events that you're talking about. Fred Hoisington: Oh, for the most part it takes up all of the space. Farmakes: No, how many people, a 4th of July function, aggressively, do they have ideas on how many people. Aanenson: I'm sure they do. I have no idea what that that would be. February Festival, some of those sort of things. I'm not sure. Scott: Well the concern that I have here is that there's been a lot of work that's been done planning that lot that's right on 78th Street to be a park. And I can see this movement focusing, perhaps purposefully, taking the focus off of that parcel so all of a sudden we get a building there and I would not support that at all. Farmakes: Well, I don't know, how many renditions of that property have you seen? I've seen maybe 15 or 20. That the city's contracted and I'd say most all of them, with no exception, were they ever designed to handle large functions. 4th of July, Oktoberfest. They were full of landscaping. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 §, 1995 Scott: A gazebo. Farmakes: A gazebo things and so on. So take an issue of planning and how many people need to be served over a period between now and 10 years from now or whatever, what the longevity of that would be. I know that they touched on this issue of school property and what the city works with jointly and what the school owns specifically and I think we had a rendition. Nancy brought somebody in that was working, Mr. Nordby I think. He had a schematic done with park going into the school property and so on and I'm not sure, as I understood it, that that's not feasible. At least short term. So whether the issue that that remains a school or not, I was told that in the foreseeable future, that that would remain a 112 school. So I don't know, do we plan based on that it would be gone? Or jurisdiction shared or cost shared? Fred Hoisington: Well I think jurisdiction shared. I don't think in the short term, and that's why I'm a little concerned about getting too deeply involved in this one at this point...school has designs... Farmakes: If property is owned by the school district already in existence, can they legally share that with a municipality? I mean if the deal isn't struck prior to it being constructed say for instance on the Highway 5 school. The elementary. Where the financial deal was struck prior... I know that we're restricted say for instance what we do once we purchase parkland. Aanenson: Well it depends on how it's purchased. I'm not sure. This is something I think that we certainly can talk about too with the Park and Recreation Commission. We have a joint meeting set up with them next Tuesday. That's the only way we find out as far as what their plans are. Farmakes: It'd be interesting to see what kind of number projections Oktoberfest or July this year or 2000, 2005. Scott: Well you know, when you think of the, and I'm pretty familiar with the 4th of July. When you think about the amount of space that's taken up specifically for that event, you basically have the parking lot and it goes to about the third base line, or excuse me, the third base of that first diamond. So actually when you think that you have literally thousands of people at 4th of July, it's a relatively small strip that's being utilized for that event. And that's the biggest event that we have. So yeah, it's probably going to get bigger but it's pretty amazing at how small that event really is size wise. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 §, 1995 Farmakes: I think the majority, at least currently the majority of the space isn't taken up by people. It's taken up by the event. The vendors that are showing display space or parking the fire trucks. Scott: The tents and that kind of stuff, yeah. But yeah, it's a good point. Fred Hoisington: I don't think that you can expect, and of course we had never envisioned putting the small park in front of the city commons would expect to accommodate an event. Scott: No. There may be some spill over. Fred Hoisington: We looked at, you know for...we expect the festivals to occupy more than just this site. Over time we would expect it to, if it grows, it will occur all the way around City Hall and probably the adjoining properties. That's the only way you'll be able to accommodate it... people willing to accept that. So I don't look at it as applying to this particular site. I think what we're looking is long term here. We're saying that you have a real opportunity to do something that is unique to this location and be a real centerpiece to this and I think we're going to see the school change. You're not going to see the school change in the immediate short term but it is an older school and eventually the district itself is...When it then decides that it's time to change, you'd better be ready to...but that one was a bit premature. One more thing. As you know, we are working on an entry design. We've been doing that since the Vision 2002 project...some interest in a couple of things. In making sure that the landscaping on the west end, toward the fast food area, was consistent with what might be done and I forget what the priorities are at this point but we had talked about the oak being on the west end. The maples on the east end and the wetland prairie in the center at Market Boulevard. And we are working on those and we will have some concepts. I don't know if you've seen those concepts or not. Have you? Ledvina: Yeah we have. I think at HRA. Fred Hoisington: They have been presented there. Right. I didn't think they had been presented to the Planning Commission. But they have at HRA. We will want your input as we go through that process and it will be very important for us to have. But that already is... The entertainment district, and I don't even know where that's going at this point. Aanenson: It's still alive. I think we talked about this at the Planning Commission. They're looking at different facade treatments now. It's our understanding that there's, 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 people are still interested in leasing and sort of thing. It's still ongoing. So we suspect to see some other version of it here shortly. I guess the type of facade they were looking at wasn't going to... You're talking about the theaters...so I'm not sure what the new iteration is. I don't know. But it's not going to be this two story type look. Maybe. Scott: The Port Orleans look that we saw. Aanenson: Yeah, right. With the little deck and portico, yeah. But they're still working on it. Fred Hoisington: And one of the things we'll be doing in support of whatever they do, is testing some land use scenarios. Parking and so forth down there. Aanenson: Right. That's a big issue. Fred Hoisington: ...has more to do with some buildings that we'd just as soon not have there. Aanenson: Clean up issues. Fred Hoisington: Right. We'll want you involved in that when the time comes but that's going to be more reactionary. Kind of sit back and help us through it so. Any other questions? Farmakes: What about the spill over issue of the commercial to the south? That's popped up on occasion. We never really went into detail. Conrad: I don't know if that's Fred deal right now. Farmakes: Well we voted on a couple of issues I think. Aanenson: That was part of the Highway 5 corridor and I think what we decided is, what your recommended on the Ward property was to take away the commercial and we felt like really, the energy that was created in the downtown centralized, and that's what people liked about Chanhassen so your recommendation was to take the commercial, the guiding for commercial off the northern portion of the Ward property and put it back to industrial with the caveat that up to 25% could be commercial in the industrial, if it was appropriate. The Council hasn't responded to that portion of it yet. They're waiting to do the final alignment on Monday and then the next component of that, they'll be responding to those land use recommendations and making those. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Conrad: So Fred you said that we can use these principles. We've got a couple things we can do. We can adopt the Vision 2002 statement. We can use it to guide us as things come in. Fred Hoisington: Or you can initiate some of the things. Scott: Are we talking a work session? Conrad: You know I just have a whole lot of questions. Fred, you've done this and I guess we could let the project lay and it takes a lot of energy for anybody to move this. Aanenson: Can I just expound on what you're saying? Part of the problem with this project amendment is this was kind of came through administration. We were kind of out of the loop in this whole thing so we don't really have ownership of it and now that it's done, it's like well where does it go now? Conrad: Well that's what I'm trying. Aanenson: Exactly. And I feel the same way because it's really someone else's project and I was involved in the fact that the overriding meetings so unfortunately nobody's taking the ownership now to say, now let's get it in some other form besides a document. Because once it's standing, as Fred indicated, then we need to do something. So I think as a group, maybe you can provide at the next Planning Commission meeting, think about this stuff and give us some direction as to what you think maybe we should do and take a note here on some of the action steps that you can take. But if you want to adopt a plan, adopt a guidelines...if you've got some comments on that or just maybe look at some of these. We do have some of these on our work program such as the historic district. The HRA has the gateway issues and certainly we'll be involved with that. City park commons, I think we could talk about at the Park Commission and see who's going to, kind of wants to champion that cause. Maybe it's something that we work on together. Maybe it's further out but I think there's some things in here to give some thought to and talk about next week and see what direction. Maybe it's something we put on our work schedule. Fred Hoisington: ...someone has to keep an eye on it to see that things are moving because there are a couple projects that... 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: Well there's senior housing you know. We met with St. Hubert's today. They're trying to move forward. The entertainment. They kind of have their own energy. Ledvina: Could this be potentially like an appendix or an addendum to the comprehensive plan? Aanenson: It's just like the Highway 5. You adopt it as a guide and when someone comes in for land use. Ledvina: Or for an overlay? Aanenson: Sure. Well that's how you could adopt these standards. Farmakes: If it's like Highway 5 then, are we going to go through an approval process from initiating to reinstituting it from the beginning again. Aanenson: That's why Fred...talked about the development standards. The reason why these didn't get put in, is when the mailer went out, we felt this was too complicated for the lay person to understand so these got pulled out of that of the mailer that went out because it was really for just to give the concept idea. It's not to get into the specific framework of how this all happened. But certainly, if you're going to adopt some plans and you want the standards, then this may be something you want to consider. Scott: What do you guys think about the idea of kind of running this through like just about everything else we see, because it seems like if we've got a Highway 5. We have a number of different sets of ordinances and now some more design standards that comes out 2002. Do you guys think it would make sense for this to go to staff?. They can say well no, this is redundant. This is good. And then basically go through that level of detail that you go through on all the developments that we see. Then it would come to us in a form that we don't have to spend our time doing stuff that you guys do a heck of a lot better. And then we could have some sort of a workable set of guidelines and then we could kind of sanity, you know like, I'll use the sign ordinance as an example. Kind of sanity test it. You know how does this work? Is this going to give us what we want? And then something that we can adopt as a guideline. Farmakes: How tight of a guideline are we targeting it to be? If for instance we're talking about the issue of putting store fronts up by the street, there are very few lots left in downtown to even do that in. The majority of the development in this town, 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 we've been saying this for years, the die was cast back in the 70's in regards to how, where those parking lots would go. And that development thinking is still here. We're not recreating downtown Excelsior here and that's, some of that is wishful thinking. There's no doubt in my mind, in the meetings that I attended, that some of that perception was there. That it was carry over on the main street issue that we had with the road that went up to the north here of TH 5. That somehow that's what they want Chanhassen to be, even if it's not. I'm not sure much time we want to spend with that. Fred Hoisington: Well Jeff, I don't think anybody's forcing the process...that we were trying to recreate a downtown Excelsior. I mean everybody recognizes...and not many of liked what was here, frankly the old downtown...I think what people are saying is that there is something about the pattern though in Excelsior and many other smaller downtowns that has much more pedestrian scale to it than the kinds of things you see in Eden Prairie. Farmakes: I agree with you wholeheartedly. But short of us, how much time should we spend on that unless we bring in the bulldozer and mow it down and start over again. How many lots are we talking about? If the downtown, I mean I don't know how to address that and I don't know how to use our time constructively here in discussing issues like that is what I'm saying. Aanenson: Well that's why it's kind of saying, I'm not sure. I think maybe Joe's idea is a good. If you'd like us to look at some of these issues, development standards. I guess my initial thought, it was kind of, some of the stuff was already covered in the Highway 5. There are some more specific things and we can look at some of that and come back with a report to you to kind of summarize what Fred has talked about and give you some alternatives and directions to go. Conrad: Why don't you give, rather than you doing that. Mr. Chairman, can I suggest a different approach? I think you should hear what we're saying first. I think we should react to this. And then you listen and maybe we don't have anything to say. You know it may be a very quiet meeting but on the other hand, our job should be to look at this and say, we agree. We disagree. There's something we should do or no. We're not going to touch it. I look at staff's ongoing issue here. There's a lot of stuff. They've got, there really is and they probably can't get to 3 or 4. They may get to 3 or 4 of these this year. Or finish them. So every time we tuck something in, I think we've got to be really aware that something's falling off. Scott: It doesn't appear that there are issues in there that are actually part of this? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 §, 1995 Conrad: Oh absolutely. But there is just a ton of stuff here. Yet on the other hand, Fred's been hired to do this. We should use what things we like about it and drive it from, my perspective is to drive it if, I've got some issues in here obviously. That's why I care about some of these things tonight and I'd like to bring those to the forefront a little bit. And this is a process that I can do this in, or a format that I can do that. So my suggestion again would be maybe we allocate a half an hour some session. It probably would require, well, we start with a half an hour. If we need more, we do it at the next meeting. But seriously, we could all say hey. City commons, hey. We don't have anything to do with that. That's fine. Somebody's got to do that. It takes money and we don't have money. We might be able to go through it rather quickly. Yet on the other hand we may find out that we've got some other projects that we'd like to initiate. Fred Hoisington: Again, you can, as I indicated before, you can sit back and simply react.., assuming this is your plan. If it's not, it's another matter. And you can monitor it. You need do no more than that. Just make sure that things are moving along. But for no one to be looking out for the big picture, because that's really what the Planning Commission is. They're looking at the big picture. And Planning Commission's typically don't pick things up and actually do them except that they're policy made. The comprehensive plan...to implement individual projects, no...So don't feel obligated to have to do that. We do feel some obligation to have to look at this as a policy guide and first of all, whether you agree with it... Aanenson: So you're not saying tonight, you're saying a separate work session? Conrad: Separate. Aanenson: Oh, okay. I thought you were saying tonight. Conrad: No. I don't want to do it now. It's 11:00 and I know the Chairman's going to kick us out. Farmakes: Is this something too that the City Council wants us to look at? Do we go off on our own and do this or do we ask for feedback? Aanenson: I'm going to ask for feedback. Ledvina: Direction. Scott: Do we have some other, taking Commissioner Conrad's lead, are there any other questions for Fred? Hearing none, so I guess the thought process is to. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: We'll try to find an agenda that's light and put it on there. I think the next one looks like, maybe we can squeak it on that one. Scott: Thank you for keeping me in line. Conrad: Well no, it just. You're welcome. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: So we're not approving Minutes anymore, we're saying we looked at them but if there's something that can be used against us, we didn't. Aanenson: Actually, didn't I write something in there? Whether you put, in the City Attorney's opinion, when you say as noted or whether you approve them, it means the same thing. You can always go back, even if you said approved, you can go back and say, but what I meant was. They have the same. Scott: Okay, so if we approve something and someone like me, I did not read the Minutes from the last meeting and if for some reason we vote to approve them and somebody comes back to try to do some legal...we can say. Aanenson: But what I meant was. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: Well then I would make a motion to approve. Scott: Can I have a second please? Nutting: Second. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated Janumy 4, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Kate Aanenson reviewed with the Planning Commission actions taken by the City Council at their January 9, 1995 meeting. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Ongoing issues. Hopefully we'll keep that current and like I say, we're trying to plug away. Hopefully at your next meeting we'll try to get something on the transition zone just because that was a timely topic and give you some ordinance on that. It's my understanding you want us to add something architectural standards. Kind of that issue. Is that something you wanted on? That came up earlier during the meeting during Boston Chicken. Farmakes: Again from a practical matter I'm not sure how we want to define that. How many more fast food places are we going to get down here? I guess until urban renewal comes along I'm not sure we're going to get that many more. Aanenson: Well we've got 2 other spots on West Village Heights. Well actually we have some on Burdick's. Farmakes: But I think it would be good if we had definition. What is an architectural detail versus a sign. I think that was a primo example that we saw tonight. Scott: Why can't we, I mean this is the over simplification but architectural things. Things architectural are not tenant specific. Anything that's signage is always tenant specific and I'm sure some holes can be poked in that but when I think of, if I were going to move into the Block Buster Video, you know when they go out of business or whatever, anything that is associated with Block Buster Video, even the banding and stuff, is probably coming off the building for a new tenant. Aanenson: But some of that works but then some of the stuff like the goose neck lighting that Jeff was talking about, that's where it starts falling in the gray area. If it's something that's easy to say tenant specific. Like the colored awning and that sort of thing but there are other things that are more fall into the gray area. Scott: That's not a bad start. Farmakes: And I don't think that it has anything to do with fighting the issue of signage so much as I think the city loses when we're asking for getting details on buildings, when we get what we get in response is a back lit sign. And without defining that for what it really is, because it's debatable. We had our Chamber of Commerce representative come forward and say hey, I like to look at those banners. think they're nice. I like to look at those back lit awnings. That's not a sign. That's an architectural detail. Yeah, I guess...but to me it's what is the purpose. Is the 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 purpose to decorate or is it to put out a message and I think here tonight it was clearly articulated by the applicant that, you know that's what's important. Doing it so we can seen. That's our corporate message. That's identification. That's the yellow M or that's what we're going to put our money behind. And to me then it leaves the issue of being an architectural detail and gets to the issue of signage. Aanenson: Then just on this article that was attached, I thought there were some interesting things on family and community and architectural design that was in here and hope you had a chance to read that. And if you didn't, save it and read it at another time. CHANHASSEN COMMUNITY PROFILE. Generous: This started out as a pragmatic item. We were coming up with the '95 study area and I was starting to do some research and so in going through the census and building permit activity we said well, this is some important information that the city could use both for planning purposes and for marketing so we went there and pulled out, at the time I thought it was probably important information that people would want to see and it's in one location so it made it easy for everyone. Some interesting facts came out of it. Over the past 35 years the city's had almost a 5% annual population growth. You can see that our population growth and the building permit activity have been peaking over the 80's. We had an 8.4% population growth. It slowed down, over the 90's we anticipate that it will slow down to probably around 7%. It also showed that the community is "fairly homogeneous". We have almost 98% of the community is white. 80% of the households own their own homes. 77% of the households consist of families, which shows a stable base. Almost 75% of the people have some college or some secondary education. And it's approximately 75% of the population has incomes over $35,000.00 which is significant for a lot of marketing people...to get people to come to Chanhassen. Building permit activity. Scott: Could you be kind enough to send a copy of this over to the...Chamber of Commerce. Aanenson: Well the only thing. Scott: Because we could probably sell these. Aanenson: Well we're selling them. That's why I was reluctant to do that. The City's selling them because it is valuable information to somebody... 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Scott: How much are you selling these for? Aanenson: Well right now we're just looking at. Generous: Well it's $6.00 is the copying charge. We'd have to go through a resolution to have Council change that. Aanenson: It is going to Council on Mondayl Conrad: $6.00 is all you're going to sell it for? Aanenson: No, that's just the copying cost. Generous: What we can only charge right now because that's our copying cost. We need a resolution to establish a fee for this. Conrad: You've got to charge a lot so people think it's worth something. Scott: I was going to say Ladd, I mean marketing and research like this kind of stuff just. Conrad: Well it's good stuff. Any company wanting to come into Chanhassen would want this. Any major company here would want this. It's good stuff. Aanenson: And for your edification too, the back part of it's really just, what work you've done over the last year too and stuff. The number of subdivisions. Generous: Is there anything else that you would suggest that we might want to put in there? Additional information? Nutting: The age distribution from 1990 to 95, you have a population projection. Is the age distribution much different? I'm just looking at what's over 60% of the survey respondents were in the 25 to 44 category and in 1990 it was 43.1%. My intuition says that a lot of the growth is coming in that age. Generous: I would think so but I haven't done any analysis on the, I just put the information together. Well you know the type of development we're seeing. Lots of families coming in. Professionals. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: I wonder if, when we discuss this issue when we talk about low income housing or multiple type housing issues, you make your comment about us being homogeneous and I think that there's, the basic thrust I think in the...is that the Planning Commission and the communities are legislating that. I'm wondering what the breakdown of that was prior to Chanhassen even having zoning. I suspect it's probably very close to the same based on historical development here. And so I'm not sure that that's legislated versus historical development. In fact I believe probably, if you look at the population here prior to 1960, it was probably primarily German. Of one area of Europe. I'm not from there. But I know that there are towns that we drive through to recreate and go skiing, and the entire city is from a Finnish decent. It still is but I'm not sure that that was legislated by any zoning. Conrad: You should put a map in here. Generous: I thought of that, and locations. Fmmakes moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 65