The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1994 03 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 1994 Chairman Scott called thc mcefin§ to order at 7:135 p.m: MEMBERS PRESENT: ~oc Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, left Famutkes, Ron Nutting, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Ha~berts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner fi; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City En~nccr PUBLIC HEARIN(~: CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO ~ __CITY CODE RF. GARDING TFIF~ SIGN REOUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE FIF. I(~HTS CF. NTEI~ LOCATF. D ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE I-W. IG~ 2ND ADDITION, Public Present: Name Address Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented thc stuff report on this item. Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff. Mancino: Are they also asking for approval of the pylon sign and the monmnent sign at this time too? Generous: Not specifically. They brought those back as a part of the sign package for thc entire site. The 20 foot monument sign will be 80 square feet of signage. It is pemfissible under our code. Mancino: But so we're looking at a whole signagc package right now. Generous: Basically yes. Mancino: Okay, so it would include the pylon sign and the monument sign and all the wall sign, right? Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Generous: In essence, yes. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: Do we have, maybe I missed it. Do we have a copy of the ~ that we use to grant variances? Mancino: It was in the staff report. Generous: Starting on page 3, the findings. Farrnakes: So it's incorporated into that? Okay. Generous: Those are the a thru f are the crit~ Mancino: Mr. Chair, we can ask more questions af~ the applicant comes up right? Scorn Okay. I'd like to hear from the applicant please. Please step forward and identify yourself and speak into the microphone. Charlie James: Hello again. I'm Charlic James. You've probably heard all you want from me. I guess I'd just refer once again to the type written narrative that we provided in the report and also through thc sign designs here that we have provided that are drawn in strict accordance with the existing code and would be built out of this same mst~,vial as the building. Since our last get together here I managed to get a copy of a more 3 dimensional artist rendering that Byerly's submitted so I'll pass this around. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Scott: Good, any questions? Ledvina: Do you find the staff report acceptable? Charlie lames: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Any other questions or cornm_ents for the applicant? Farmak~: I'd like to see thc drawing before I close out on that. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Sure. Mancino: Charlie, now trme Foods, that is in reference to the grocery irons? To the restaurant? Charlic James: I was told that that's part of their, that's a trademark Byerly's. Fine Food is part of some trademark. They're just going to the Chicago market now for the first time. They're building a store, or they're in the process which will follow right after this one in Highland Park. It will be thc first store and so they felt that in those areas that they're putting in Chicago where they're not as known as they are here, that they would introduce that onto their buildings there and so they decided to introduce it here for consist. I'm afraid I don't know whether they're referring to their restaurant or their groceries on that. Mancino: Okay. It almost looks like here to me architecagally it's to symmetry of signs on each side of Byerly's more than anything else. I have no more questions of the applicant. Scott: Okay, any more questions or commsnts7 Great This is a public hearing and if I could have a motion to open the public hearing. Msncino moved, Ledvins seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the Byerly's signage vm:iance? Seeing none, let the record show that there's no one here to speak on the first it~n. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Conunents. Mancino: I have a question for Bob. Bob in your findings on (a), you felt that the sign could or should be bigger. The signage area on the West 78th Sucet and you compared it to Target and you compared it to Market Square as one of the reasons for being able to, and when you made that comparison, what was your thin.rig as far as the rest of the signage package? If I look at the rest of 78th Street and I look at Target and Market Square, they don't have a 20 foot pylon sign. All they have, each one of them has one monument sign. So if we're going to use them to say yes for bigger square footage, shouldn't we also use them as the benchmark for signage on West 78th? So we're going to use them for part of it but not the other? I xrwam that's what I'm asking. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, !994 Generous: I didn't really look at it that way because as far as the pylon sign went, they were meeting code and so I wasn't putting the package together in that sense. I was just trying to compare the bulk of the bui]din§, the mass of the bnilding and what they were req~g... From a policy standpoint, yeah. It might make setlse to put the whole thing together for Wost 78th Street. Mancino: Okay. Because that's where I kind of corn~ from. I'm seeing it, if w~ are going to do something different here, allow a variance and if we use Target and we use Market Square as the reason that we're allowing this variance, then I think that we should follow it through on the entire signage package. I mean it only would make sense. Any discussion on that7 Farmakes: I'd agree with it. Scott: Yeah, I too. Ledvina: Well I think the, just from in a comp~on sense. I didn't know what the pylon sign for the bank was and as I understand that's like about 20 feet? Something like that. Mancino: For which? Ledvinm For the bank sigm Farmak¢-s: 20 feet in height? Mancino: Which bank? Farmakes: Are you talking about Am~cana or what? Ledvina: No, the Chanhassen Bank. No, okay. Then I'm mistaken. Mancino: Well when I drove down, and I was looidng at West 78th Street to see you know what kind of pylon signs there are existing there right now. I was looking at Target. I was looking at Market Square. I also looked at the Country Suites sign; which is not a 20 foot' sign either. I rrram that's a block away but I kind of looked at the overall area to see what was going on there because that's the compafi~n we're making and the lVau~n for the variance and it just slxuck me that you know if we do allow this, then I would like to see compatible signs also. Monument signs~ Although I like the design of the pylon sign. I like it because it's kind of airy in the way it looks versus your squared off monument sign and I still like the lower height in the sign. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: What height would you like, if there's going to be a monet sign ~ that, what size would you want to see there? Mancino: I would say either 8 to 10 feel I'm not sure what's, probably 8 feet. Do you know Bob off hand what the Targe~ I know that the Market Square is 10, isn't it? Because we just saw a package for that Wendy's which was thc same exact so it's either 8 or 10 feel Aanenson: For Target? Mancino: Yes. Aancnson: Here it is. It's 8 feet. Mancino: Okay, 8 feet. Aan~son: Yeah, 8 x 6. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Well with regard to this particular issue, what would you be in favor of relative to sizes, variance, etc? I mean would you support the staff reco~tion? Or if not, how would you see that changing so that you would support it? Mancino: Well I guess what I just look at, on the West 78th, the big Bycrly's sign that is over the entrance that's 304 square feet, to me it could be 3/4 of that size and still be just fine. I don't support thc Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours as signagc and I guess I feel that overall, I ~ I don't want to get into looking at different businesses that come in and decide what language that they can be putting up on their walls besides the name or the registrred trademark or the logo of their business. So that is what I would limit it to. Scott: So you'd support the Byerly's about 75%, this is the West 78th, By, fly's West 78th about 3/4 the size but not Fine Foods. Mancino: Not Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours. I have a little harder time with the Wine and Spirits and obviously that I guess did not pass on Monday night at City Council so we don't even know if there's going to be a wine and fine spirits. Is that something that we should still deal with tonight, even though it's off? Conrad: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I support signagc for kind of a store within a store, which I feel that this is. And where I get confused is then if there's a resmmant within a store, at what point do we limit the number of signs and I don't know that yet. So I'm going to wait on that part and listen Scott: Okay. Well for purposes of coming to a decision, I've got this broken up into a couple of things. We've got the Fine Foods, 24 Hours. We've got the West ?Sth Street Byerly's. We've got Wine and Spirits and then we have the restauranL Is that a good framework to work from so we can say yes, no, yes, no, because I think we need to come to an agreement here. Would anybody else like w, is there any discussion? Any additional discussion? Farmakes: Arc we going to make comments axound thc board7 Scott: Yeah. Yeah. Farwuire~s: We can jump around7 Scott: Sure, that's finc. You can go. Farrnakes: I'd agree with what has been said except for personally I would be fine with Open 24 Hours and Wine and Spirits. The criteria being it's a separate entrance for the stare similar to their other operations. It requires a separate license. So I don't have a problem with that because of thc amount of square footage that's there, which I think is the overriding call for thc variance here. I think it's reasonable with a store that size to see that thc part of the store and the elevation facing south has a reasonable opportunity to be seen from Highway 5 because of it's location and the fact that it's a, or subregional, a destination for people outside of town finrlirlg iL I do think however that the east and the west applications are different than what the applicant is applying for. I don't think they need to be that stwng. I would limit any signage on the building to the west. Rely on monumenture for at the entry points along 78th and along Kerber Boulevard. I would e 'luninate the wall signage to the east. Scott: Eliminate wall signage to the east or to the west? Farwuire~: I would leave it to a monument. An entry monument or get it off of the wall I don't think it's required that it be that large. The sight distances from the roads, they're virtually fight next to the building. Right next to the sign. Obviously a different assi~ment to the south. Facing the highway. Scott: Yeah. So you'd support the size of the Byerly's logo as proposed? Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Farmakes: ! think it's reasonable because it has a ~ distaucc than Target. I think it's reasonable. If we could moderate and eJJminate the pylon sign to monument for the entrance to the south, on 78th, and the enmmcc to the cast. And take the rest of the signage off the' buildings as far as Byerly's goes. And leave V~me and Spirits and Open 24 Hours. C-et rid of Fine Foods. I think a case has been made that that's a trademark. It's a generic verbiage and it's far enough away from Bycrly's that it's a category capability. Scott: Okay good. Matt. Ledvina: Boy we've got a couple different things that have been proposed. Overall I think that thc proposal is acceptable the way it's been laid out and I look at how I think it's going to look af/er it's built and I don't have a pwblem with what's there. Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, Wine and Spirits and the Byerly's logo. I think Nancy has a good point with the pylon~ I think maybe 20 feet is just a little bit too much there. Scott: What would you like to see7 Ledvina: I think 10 to 12 feet would be acceptable. I don't know. Maybe it should be 8 feet but you know I'm okay with 10 or 12. Scott: And then what about the, so then there's signage proposed on the east and the west elevations. That's acceptable to you? Ledvina: Well, as it relates to the provisions that are laid out in the ordinance, I think you have to have the street frontage to get the signage. Farrwlrez: Staff is rccomme~_ding denial of the west elevation. I made a recommendation that the east elevation be removed and allow it to have a monument on ~ rather than virtually if you drove on Kerber you'd be right next to the si~; whether it's on the wall or whether it's on the slxeet~ My conumnt was from the distan~ that it has to be read, it's not necessary that it be that size. From the east elevation. The only sight line is from city park and 78th. Mancino: I kind of like that. That's kind of nice because if you're in Market Square, you could look up you know Kerber. Farmakes: It would allow sight from Kerber and sight from 78th but it would not be obtmdve to virtually what's civic property. Ledvina: You're restricting them beyond what the ordinance would say then. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Famules: Well it d~ds on how you want to look at this. You're granting a variance so you're not restricting them. You're offering. Ledvina: Right, there's a give and take. F~: There's a give and take situation there. I think the primary emp~ ~o &e applicant is to be seen from TH 5. I would agree that that's the motivation for the variance. I think that that's reasonable. Nutting: Jeff did you come out in favor of the pylon and putting the monuments as part also on 78th? Farmakes: I would be in favor, I don't want to tak~ away from son~ of the comments. I just wanted to clarify the differences between the comments that have been made up to that point. My comment is to support what Nancy said to the exclusion of Fine Foods and the east elevation. Currently if you look on where it says east elevation, the secondary sign. That signage is vimudly facing City Hall and for direction or people coming down Kerber or people coming down 78th to see the location, if it was a monumenmrc at the entrance area. there, that that would suffice. And still follow the moderation that we used with Target. It'd be similar to how Target reads off of 78th. Scott: Okay. Matt7 Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I would accept that. Elimination of that signage on the east side. Scott: Okay. I_add. Conrad: Jeff you said eliminate the signase on the cast side? Farmak~: No, I said rgpla~ it with monum~tum ~ Targgt. Ledvina: Well, the wall signagc. Conrad: Yeah. Farmakes: And thc entrance point from the east. Ledvina: So add a monum~t sign. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Farmakes: There'd be two monument si~ in place of a pylon. Conrad: Wc're all going to have different opinions. I don't mind the, I think most of the signage that's requested is quite nice. Basically, but I do have some exceptions and they're a little bit different than everybody. I like all the wine and spin'ts. The fine foods is fine. I don't like the 24 hours out there. I ~ink that's, I just don't want that. That's not what, I don't want that. The pylon sign in front, I think we should take it down in size. That's sort of a give and take process here to allow the variance and I don't have a clue what to say to Jeff's proposal. Not a clue. I was comfartable with the east elevation as it was provided the 24 hours was taken off of that. So I'm probably in a different spot than everybody else. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I could go along also with the adjustment in the pylon. I guess how low do you bring it before a pylon has to become a monument? Scott: I'm just saying, chop the legs off and it becomes a monument. Nutting: So I don't know what hnpact bringing it down to 12 feet has. ff it stays a pylon or if it becomes a monument or how that fits the plan.. I'm okay with the east elevation signage but there's the give and take side but I think if we're bringing down the pylon, I mean there's give and take going already with the pylon coming down. I think the east elevation sign could stay. I'm okay with the Byerly's logo out front at the present size. And as far as the 24 hours, fine foods, wine and spirits, I can live with all three of those. Scott: Good. Yeah, I'm fine with the Byerly's on West 78th. I think that's the kind of treatment that we're looking at. I mean what we don't want to see is a 4 x 8, back lit piece of plastic so I think that works well. I don't think the 24 hours, open 24 houxs is appropriate. Wine and Spirits is fine. I like the suggestion of the signage on the east face being replaced with a monument and also having the large sign out by the street on West 78th to be something that's in the 10 to 12 foot range. So are there any more comments? Any more discussion? Mancino: Yeah, I have a question and that is Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the atilt what he thinks of Jeff's suggestion on Kerber. To take off the wall sign and put it on a monument sign on Kerber. I'd like to get his thoughts on that. Charlie James: Well unfortunately I'm not in a position to deal with it. The people from Byerly's so I don't know what their...might be. I guess reducing the, I think one of the reasons for the pylon down on West 78th Street for instance is because the code specifically Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 allows a pylon and so we just tried to draw what we had down there to fit the code. I would think at that point, I'm speaking for Byerly's here but I can't imagine getting too much brain damage if that was lowered or consistent with the other ones we're doing. Unfortunately the ordinance doesn't provide for that. It says you can have a pylon...so that's how we ended up with that. But I could see some, although Target has a pylon 36 feet tall, I can apl:a'ecia~ I guess what I heard tonight for the first time was a concern about West 78th Street. What that street.scape looks like. I appreciate that argument. As long as everything else going out West 78th Street we're consistent here...going on there timber west and everybody's got these big signs, what are you going to do out there? Because they're in a wedge, are you going to say they're along Highway 5 or are they on West ?8th? Do they get to push their pylon up to, I don't know. I guess I have, maybe we could get some consensus or direction from Byerly's prior to City Council or something, I don't know. I'm afraid they're not here tonight. The gentleman that ordinarily aueauts this is on vacation with his family this week so I guess I'm indicating that we're going along with that...and I guess I can appreciate the concern on West 78th. Whether Byerly's will like it or not... Scott: Okay. Any other discussion7 Ledvina: I would move that the Phnning Comm~ion recommend tha~ the City Council approve the variance to the sign c~tinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's. A v~ of 351 square feet and a maximin of 376 square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byerly's. A variance of 296 square feet. Approval of the signage on the west elevation of the ret~ center and denial of variances to pennit signagc on thc west elevation of Byerly's. This approval is subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following a~ditions. Number 7, a pylon sign should be limited to a height of 12 feet. Number 8, the words "Open 24 Hours" should be elhr~ed from all signage text. Conrad: I second that. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mancino: Yeah. You're suggesting Matt that we say 12 feet even though Target and Market Square, their monument signs are only 8 feet? And why? I mean I just want to hear some rationale. If we're ~ring to have the whole area idnd of have the same co ,reparable, compatible signage. Ledvina: Well I don't think 4 feet is, Market Square is just 10 feet I don't think. Well that'd be an extra 2 feet. I don't think that difference is able to be seen. I think that the, by taking them down to 8 feet, I tbinir what happens is maybe this design doesn't become feasible 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 anymore. And I like this design. I like the way this is set up. So I don't want to see this e 'hminated. I just want to see it scaled down. Perhaps they'll actually searle the whole thing down and we might get a smu_ller Byerly's on there. But I would leave that up to them in terms of how they would do it. Mancino: So you kind of just picked an arbilrary height. Insw. ad of picldng, would you entertain a friendly amendment of the maxim~ height not being any larger or any higher than either the Market Square or the Target monument instead of kind of picking an arbitrary. Ledvina: Well then that would be 10 feet right? Mancino: Ycah. Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that. Farmakes: What about the issue, thc east elevation7 You're proposing it as it's drawn right now7 Scott: Except for the 24 hours. Ledvina: Yes, eliminate the. Farmakes: No, the east elevation would be attached to the wall rather than the monument7 Ledvina: Yes. I think that' s. Farmakes: That's a much larger scale. Ledvina: Pardon? Farrnakes: That's a much larger scale design than would be on a monument of 10 feet Ledvina: Right. I think that again what they're rcq~g for, or requesting is reasonable. I don't want to monkey with it too much. Maybe that's thc wrong word. I don't feel that I want or I don't feel we should ~ them to that degree. To totally eliminating that signage. Fannakes: But the only sight line for that signage is the governmen_ t civic park and Chanha/ksen Bs_nk_ 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Ledvina: Well, you can see the sign as you're on the road as well Farmakes: You cam't s~e it from Kerber coming to the south until you bccon~ adjacent to the building. And coming on the east, west on ?Sth, you couldn't see, you'd see it at the same time you saw the from end elevation or thc south clcvafion of thc building. Scorn And the monument sign. Farmakes: Because of the projectory of thc angle that you see it. Scott: You'd also see the monument sign out front with a monument pylon on West 78th. Well too it looks as if the Byerly's on the east clevation is thc same size as thc Byerly's on thc south elevation. Ledvina: Is that the case? Generous: It is. (There wex~ sev~ conversations going on simul~~y at this point.) Ledvina: Well if you would like to make a friendly amendment to that affect, I would accept that. Farmakes: I'll make a friendly nmendment that the east elevation sign be reduced to the word Byerly's, similar to the monument sign on the 78th Street south elevation. And reduced to the same height as Target and Market Square. Scott: Which would be? Mancino: I think we said max 10. Scott: So we're looking at two 10 foot monmnent signs, Kerber and West 78th. Mancino: I have a question for discumsion Matt. When you gave square footage, total square footage earlier, on each elevation. Did it mire in 24 hours because I how that you wanted to e 'hminate that so wouldn't that take away from the overall square footage that we would allow? Ledvina: Yes, I would imagine so. Actually that's something we need to be concerned about? 12 Pla~niug Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Well we're taking away three occm'rences of open 24 hours and I don't know if that'a 2 feet tall by 8 or something. Ledvina: Well can we just, can I add another condition. Condition number 9 that the footages, the square footage identified in the main body of the recommeada~on bc adjusted to, adjusted downward to account for the e 'hminafion of the Open 24 Hours text of the signage. Is that acceptable7 Scott: Is there any more discussion7 Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question from Bob7 Scott: Certainly. Mancino: Bob, on recommendation n~ 4 you have thc signagc will have con~stcncy throughout the development Consistency in si~oge shall relate to color, size, materials and height. Does that mean that you know, a Byerly's has PMS 286. I mean that's their logo color. Does that mean that every other retail store in this development has to use this color for their signage7 Generous: No, that's not the intent no. But we wouldn't want to have clashing colors that don't go together. Farmakes: Are we specifying what colors we're seeing in the signs7 Mancino: Well yeah, are we specifying what colors we're seeing on the signag¢? I suppose we should do that. Fannakes: Determine that as Bycrly's blue. Scott: Would that be condition number 117 Mancino: Yeah. Friendly amendment Matthew. That we specify that for Bycrly's, that there's consistency in color and that is the Byerly's blue which is PMS 286. Ledvina: I would accept that. Scott: So we have a motion on the floor. Let's see, can we have a second7 Ledvina: Do you accept those7 The second has to accept those amendments as well7 13 Plarmlng Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Conrad: I don't. Ledvina: Okay, you don't. Farmakes: I'd second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we. Ledvina: Well can we, excuse me. Are there any particular ones that you don't agree with? Conrad: Yeah. We're ldnd of tinkering with the, we're designing signage here. I don't know, I'm real uncomfortable with that. I like to see what it is and how the applicamt say that makes sense so. A couple things did make sense. The 24 hours to me made sense taking that out. Approving weil designed signage made sense, whether we did it through a variance or through another vehicle but as we start gerry rigging signage here, as resident experts, I'm not comfortable with that. Ledvina: So if you didn't accept the friendly amendments, then it goes back to my original motion and we have to vote on that because we have a motion and a second. Is that correct7 Conrad: I think you had another second. I think Jeff could second your motion. I withdraw my second. So Jeff can sex~ond it. Scott: Is there any discussion7 All those in favor say aye? Mancino: Can we state the motion in it's entirety? Scott: Certainly. Would you like to do that? Ledvin~ Well we have the, okay I'll go ahead and do that if I can. Item number 7. Reduces the maximum height of the pylon to 10 feet. Numb~ 8, which eliminatr~s the words "Open 24 Hours" from all signage text Numb~ 9 which was Jeff's friendly amendm~t as it related to the elimination of the signage on the east elevation of the building. Replacing that signage with a monument. Scott: 10 foot. Ledvin~ Okay. And then number 10 which reduces the square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation to account for the removal of thc words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. I think that's it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: And then number 11 was Nancy's. Mancino: The color. Ledvina: Okay. And number 11 would be the use of the co~t color PMS 286. Mancino: PMS 286. Byerly's blue. Scott: Is everybody ready to vote? Ledvina moved, Farmskes seconded that the Planning Comm[~l~ on recommmd that the City Council approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Wffiage Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byeriy's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a m~ximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byeriy's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west elevation of the retail c~mter and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's Thin approval is subject to the following conditions: and Market 1. Signage shall be individual block lettrrs. No pan or panel signs shall be permit~cL 2. All signs require a separate permit 3. The signage will have consist~mcy throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, matm'ials, and heights. 4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permittrd. 5. Individual lett~s may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign. 6. The signa§e for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code. 7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 10 feel 8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be e~lated from all signage text. 9. The east elevation sign be reduced to the word Byerly's, similar to the monmne~ sign on the 78th Street south elevation and reduced to the same height as Target Square. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. 11. Byerly's name shall have the ~si~tent color blue which is PMS 286, All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay vo~. Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the cast elevation signage. I guess I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't~ I'm not com¢cn't~le with picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the devcl~ have spent a lot of time working on. Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments. Conrad: I've made them already. Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council7 Generous: March 28th. (Ladd Conrad left the ~g at this point and was not present to vote on any of the remaining items.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR $6 SINGLE FAMII,y LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY $~ EAST OF TIM#ERWOOD ESTATES~ HF. RITAGE DEVELOPMENT~ RLK ASSOCIATES. Public Present: N#m~ Add ~!'~_ Tahir Khan John Dietrich 2040 Re--ce Court RLK Assoda~, 922 MainsUeet, Hopkins 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 $ohn Dobbs Colleen Do~Morf 450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada 2061 Oakw~ Ridge Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for saff~ Hearing none, would the applicant or their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a URle bit about me. I'm a trn_ined landscape arc~ and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show up on your...conununity across the c, orddor, study of urban design studies, ore of my professors in landscape archimcmm department and Bill Morrish did some...urban design and Lars...who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only that but I happen to nm Heritage Development at the moment...so it gives me an intuiting and unique perspective ! think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward to it I think .... make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there ~re a lot of concerns staff has and that we have about the property and-it ~ like a very good way to keep...and the staff and the Planning Commi~on and City Council A number of is~ue~ have been addres~ as in the ~ meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with gmrm water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very rolling. There's a fumm park corridor running down the Bluff Creek...idea for the entire city itscff. And thc future sewer linc that's corning from Stone Creek running out to thc future school site, Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, thc City Engineer. I've also been over to...Bill Morrish and Tom...and just trying to be as much a part of this as I possibly can so. We're coming to the...~g at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited about the process and I think we'U pass along...With that, we do have some concerns with the storm water is a real issue. That's changing as wc speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so obvionsly...So John Dietrich who represents RLK wilL.. John Dietrich: John Dietrich/rom RLK Associote_~s. We are the landscape architects and civil engineers preparing thc findings for Heritage Devel~t. I have just some clm/ficafious that I'd like to put to each of thc I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you. A&iress those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that...Should we speak to those now or would you like to discuss the plan first? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is and so fo~. John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff rcfm~..The first one, the app~t incorporate design components from the ~oposed Bluff Creek W~ plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we de~nitely want to include those. We just want it to bc clear that there arc a number of issues that ncccl to bc addressed in this corridor. Open space, land use. Thc acccss needs. The ncccl for development of thc rcsid_e~utial property so that they all have to bc tied in so we arc a quality park and open space and have.~individuals come down and usc that space. Secondly is timing. Wc arc in~ in moving forward with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting proccd~ so that we can look at an opportuniw for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looicing to do, trying to move along quickly but also incorp(mtting thc concerns. Number 2, thc propos~ pondin§ area in the southern portion should 5c relocated to lessen impact on wetlands, wooded areas and natural features. If indeccl the po_ndin§ area that we have...talked about - with Heritage and...is going to bc an issue, we fccl that there's an opporumity to have a pre- treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to thc cast and the lots up the roadway that would necessitate some...and possibly thc roadway and possibly some negotiation between thc square footagcs of all the lots but wc fccl that would be a doable process and wc would definitely adhere to thc prc-trcaunent of any storm water...wctland arca~ Number 3, that's a yes. Wc will definitely bc woricing with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland delineation. Numbcr 4, aucmpt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, wc will bc looking closer at thc grading plan and design and in concert with thesc...mmk linc, sanitary sewer and watermain to this site, wc want to try and have an equal balance for good cngincerin§ and good site design for all pm'tics involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the storm water. Basically wc §o back t~ comment number 2. The City has suggested removing Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building It storln wate~ retention pond for thc pretreatmcnt area. Wc feel wc can modify thc location of that pretreatm~nt area so that wc will not lose 3 lots outrisht for prctrcaunent. That is again a..~modification that would have to be. Number 6. Wetland 15-15-1 should xcmain in it's cuffcnt condition. If in fact it docs remain in that condition and you would like to have us work with thc city as to potentially looking at that as some unique housing sites on thc cdgc of that pond area where they would have a much higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for pon_ding, there should be another usc that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of credits... Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarifica~on. Is thnt the wetland that is drained by a culvert? 18 P/a~nirl§ Commisdon Meeting - March 16, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it rela~ to that? Do you need to take that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Re, gze it or. John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated ufili~ng as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Cmrenfly there's a creek and in the crcek...si~ from the Timberwood Estates are~ We would propose that that would be in it's current location. That with a street cro~ing. Ledvina: Okay. $ohn Dietrich: Did I answer your question? Ledvina: Well. Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the railroad ~racks in this location here. Based on the sm'face water management plan, we did propose...the use of this wetland but as the storm wa~er quanfity...as of today right now. A lot of the Swne Creek development as well as ~he southerly...drain through a ravine down to the wethnd to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this flat area with the trees...for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm sewer to go in prior to dischar~ng into the wetland...eon~ the drainage ~___~_ of the neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading plans and so forth. Iohn Dietrich: Ilz'm number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as aptm:q)riate. Yes we will be looidng to provide that on site and the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitm'y, trunk sanitm'y sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have those within the public fight-of-ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain the creek corridor in it's natmal state which we think both parties will benefit from_ Number 9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot w connect W the future east/west frontage road. Between Cralp~ and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, ti~ one would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10, curvilinear streets are recongncnded to add aesthetics. We will wc~k with thc city and try to come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long nazrow, highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number 11, to make the north/south roadway the major mlffic flow. Yes, we will modify that. Number 12, detailed consa-uction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that. 13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for securing thc escrow. We will submit that Trail easements connecting the interior of the development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that isstle to try and minirrlize the amount of right-of-way for individual lots if we have the oppommity to do so. Number 17, north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to m~_w_-h the typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed does connect inw another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in_ A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Num_hcr 19. We will look at setbacks of variances to acconunodate the siting and maintain that..Jqumber 20, 21 and 22. Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by Mr. Richter to Kate Aanen~n. Although we're concerned with the chssificafion of this as a protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000 square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site constraints and... Sco~ Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. $co~ Those who would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address. Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occauring fxom my Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 property which is 2040 Renaissance Corm. Which if you could put a map up. This is the lot and there's naUnal drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the wa~er chains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the creek that runs north and south. The way I see this p~ out it's going to be running right through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if. Farmakes: Excuse me just a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or nm'ih and south? Generous: It drains from west to ease Scott: Towards Bluff Creek. Generous: Yes. To the wetland. Tahir Khan: It's a natura~ are~ h just happens to be draining fight from this corner. It goes fight to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so they don't end up with a...pond where the water has no place to go except...§o south. Hernpel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at ~is time if you'd like. Down here is Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the 'V~ood Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in thi~ area. We will be requiring that this drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to... Estates up here. We will rnainlain that flow through there. W'fll not be compounding... Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occmring towards, there's a slight depression on the top northwest comer and it serves two homes. One is my house and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that drainage occurs, goes fight through the ~ to the east. And unless there is some grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south. So unless from that wp n~ comer there's a new ditch section be done north and south, for any house that goes...is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the northeast corner of my house and the southeast comer of the Johnson home. Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the neighborhood drainage p~s are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the stn~ layout and the lot lines. Hcmpel: We don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal informatiolL This will address that further. Farrnakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the conmaent? Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These back yards of the TLm~ood development in here. Scotl: Which lot numbers? Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54? Hernpel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard -. drainage. $ohn Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the proposed Lot 7? Se. om Right John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necexsitate a pipe out to that side or a definite swale or some type of drain tile along the property line... Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now...that pond is about 50 feet in diarmter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to drain so it's collecting right now between my ~ and the property north of me and I think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top it~wflf off and start heading across the, start draining eastward now. John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water. Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get subnx~ed. Then once in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8 inches worth of ridges and that would be like a darn. And eventually the ridge would break and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, ff there's a road going by and it can be graded so that ~ lots and the road are lower, by only even a foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 have, thank you. Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is limt the exact area we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in? Hernpcl: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberw~ Estates, we're looking at this corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion. Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments when it's not final but my other concern is. the time line that you guys are trying to meet and are we putting the cart before the horse..~Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not sure if all...and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a time line that we don't want to be subject to. Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to nm into the Tim~ood Estates, I would pcrso~y oppose to having it nm next to the creek or the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my ~. And it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to gO agross. Now there is a drainage and util~ easement on the northern edge of my ~ that tak~ a straight shot towards Oalpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the existing casement also is part of this pond that I'm descri~g and consequently there's not as many frees. And also access, like I said, su~ght to Galpin but I would be opposed to having my property ~...in ord~ to facih'tate the stub going in. Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal in d~ining the best altrmative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the T'mfl~rwood area though it's typically, well there's...to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire development through a gravity system...and no need for an additional lift station and so forth but we can certainly review that in greal~ detail in the ~in§ month here so. Sco~ Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all Bob I want to thank you for doing such an extensive job of bringing up so many issues~ It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the devel~t and I think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the developn~nt is to create a project that is compatible with the natmal elernen~ of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing Wpography. And it goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff Creek corridor and those design components the devel~er can work with. Until that is done, because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff ~ shirette is done and see how the developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this development. Because it is the whole part of _this development. The Bluff Creek and the natural topography. Scott: Okay, good. Jeff. Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high paxamlage or we start hovering close to 40-50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development process and I keep on brining this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular where some of these drainage pattmms are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting a8 to where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or re. ally x~iew the design of it. Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that'S what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be conc. emed about that if I was an adjacent property owner or potential owner of this ~. And I think it's sort of thc cart before the horse here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it at this point. Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the north/south street shall be extended through that outlot to connect to a future east/west frontage mad within three years of thc final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 199~ know road scenario and what would be the time line far the east/west fi'ontage road going in? This is part of that south frontage road conslruction. What are we looking at there? Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing this spring with the site grading of the school Utilities later on in the summer with the slreet conslrucfion in the fall. Completion ~ of I believe July of 1995. Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting far? Is that what the developer is shooting for? Hempel: I don't want to speak far the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The ouflot to the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the developer can address their phasing...of this parcel Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56 lots. $ohn Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues...the one,that's the most glaring and that is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would have to be...in preparation far the sewer...Then our intention after that, after the sewer would go in, if there's enough time this year...put in streets as far as ~er... Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm co~ about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates to safety and maybe 3 years is too long...to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that reco~tion again to see what might be appr~ as it relates to that time frame. It may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be ~ On item number 17, Dave. Would you ¢lm'ify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you see that? Hempel: Ceminly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase of Stone Creek, There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek Drive...which will terminate at the westerly pwperty line of the subdivisiom Their street, typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it would be completing the sidewalk Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area. Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony with each of those... Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD appwach. We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme topography on thc northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would strongly support staff's reco~tion that the private driveways be looked at in great detail Not necessarily to reduce the right-of-way but in an effort to minimize the disruption to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to elimin~ grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the devel~t back on the northern pan of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as it relates to minJwizing and perhaps even e 'hminafing the grading associated with the preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be changed to maybe provide a little more ctu~linear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that we want to evaluate thi.~ or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I thinlr staff has probably a pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the i .mpact on the corridor. To provide the access that we want w. The open space, etc so I think we're pretty far away from making decisions that really diclate how the corridor will be impacted at _this point so I thinir that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I thinir we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the staff changes. I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the neighborhood concerns. Farmakes: Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And adjacent to the property. Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of thc things that we can do for the developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding thc con'Mor. But specifically I don't 26 Planning Commission Meeting - l~m~h 16, 1994 know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable. Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots are a third of those lots are bnilaable. Lcdvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly. Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandm~ if you get to 40- 50%. 60%. 70%. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland doesn't, you couldn't build a traditio~ development on it. Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the wtal, is that Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the wefland...We check out the net and the gross... Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they have some rights in terms of being able to grade flint are~ We don't want them to. Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are unders/zecL That's, if you look at the usable, I did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems lille we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development. Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site. Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you think that more homes, when you're saying thc site benefits. Does the site benefit from more 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 199,{ homes or higher density within the site or? Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here. Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out. Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't. Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so L Ledvina: I would change that certainly. Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland. Ledvina: No, you're right. I will say this. I don't know that whatever n~ of lots, 59. lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will. Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clusm-ing of the houses and have more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the ravine, otc? Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at thc use of privau~ drives with homes serviced off private drives. Several. 3-4 homes. That's a l~chnique. ClOg houses. I guess that's kind of a clustering type of thing...I'm done. Farmakes: I just had a question. Ledvina: Those are my comments. Scott: Okay. Ron. Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving concept,_ ,s_! approval now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporat~ design components from that Is it 6 and 1, haft a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may change or have to change because of that So that point seems to suggest that I can live with 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by defying or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes into the process. Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual. Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage. I think Jeff's comments are appropriate. Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One who lived or has a lot adjacent to this propmy and they didn't say anything about the density or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non- usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are, when I think about the work that we did on A1 glin§elhu~z's multi-family. We had a situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre parcel. The devel~er came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and when I take a look at the nor~ern extension Of the street and I think Matt had a good point about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably exceeds our, was it 6%? 7%? So I think we're talking about some hozrendous grading. I can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan. I don't have any further comments. Do we need more discussion or wonkl someone like to make a motion? Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission reco~ denial of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Wamahed Plan. They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this reconunen~on that Bob has put together for us, be in~ into the conceptual plan 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 tooe Sco~ Is there a second please? Farmakes: I'll second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Farmakes s~ouded that the Harming Commission recommends denial of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorlmmte the conditions outlined by the staff report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to Ci~ Council on the 28th? Generous: The April llth. Scott: April 1 lth? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city guidance...fime to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council? Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that.What we'll try to do now is...so they know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They may §et less than that but we have to resolve all these issues...that's fine but obviously we hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council But we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are when it comes back. Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new information available, okay. Ledvina: Joe? Scorn Yeah. Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patmms within the Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And_ I'd also like to add that the consideration for the sanitary sewer stub for 'Hmbe~wood Estates, the siting of that stub minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible. Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minut~ break before we do the next? CFhe Plaoning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARIHNG A REQUIREMENT TO SI~IBMIT COMPUTER AmED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS. PubUc Present: Name Address___ Vemelle Clayton 425 S~nta 1~ Orcle Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments7 Mancino: Is this a public hearing7 Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment In thc section 1(4) where you talked, i~em number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocorr~o, site images or artistic renderings. I personally would like to see compum' genera~ photocomposite images only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a Plaoning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute differences I think in the pylon size and different main'lab and then also they were able to do a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's going to look like in x number of years. Nrom an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see that as being as valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come_, in though, do you have an idea of what this costs some_body to do a photocompo, site versus an artistic rendering? Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 costs for the photocom~sitioning...$3,000.00 for the standard site. The example he used was the high bridge in St. Paul which was a $35 million to $55 million project depending on their final design. And they said that the final cost was, I believe it was $35,000.00 or $40,000.00. Scott: Yeah, because that's my concern is if somebody's got a quarter of a million dollars in a lot and the.~ they're going to be building a $20.00 a square foot tmildlng, I'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to give us the scale without having. Aanenson: As you recall when we looked at the hotel project, what they did, I'm sorry. What they did is take ac~_ m! photographs and fried to superimpose it. I think that helped you to give a bit of perspective from Highway 5 and West 78th. Scott: That worked really well. Aanenson: Right, and I think that's what we're talking about in this artistic rendering. Scott: So it's a photographic process but not just somebody drawing something? Ledvina: Question. When you say artistic rendering, do you mean a con~,uter artistic rendering or is that what you're requiring though? I me~ can somebody skew~ it out? Is that adequate? Scott: That, at least in my mind; that doesn't really give an appropriate view or doe.m't give me a §ood idea. Mancino: Well they can change scale all the time. When it's a hand drawn artistic rendering, a lot of times they'll get the building and the trees out of scale you know with each other or they'll give a fnnny perspective that isn't real realistic and I think that that's the problem with the. Yeah, they do whatever they want to do. Scott: I like the idea of if there's some existing, I mean I don't expect someone to spend $3,000.00 on something but I think it is i~t, if they can mite an existing photograph and use that as the scale point and then do something with it. So I don't know what the language is. Maybe photocomposite image. I mean that to me says it's a couple of photographs stuck together. It doesn't have to be anything extremely expensive, unless someone that has a very large scale development feels they can invest thc money but anyway. Farmakes: You're going to drive the cost up of degrading a building that's not built as a 32 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 199at photocomposite where it becomes an illustrafion...versus if they scan in an elevation &'awing and then drop in some color and then show the signage. They can do that like a photo shop or something relatively inexpensively. If they have to render the building in 3 dimensional form, it gets to be fairly expensive. Scott: What's the middle ground that gives us what we want but doesn't cost? Generous: Well it depends on the resolution you ask for too. John was telling me that if you go with a flat shaving, it's less expensive than going to the photo realistic images. Farmakes: Thc memory capabilities get very high and then you get into work station type breaks where you have a much more sophisticate! corrm, uter to hold a lot of menm~ from an illustration. Some of them might be 100 megabytes just for an illustration. So it's a lot of more expensive equipment. Scott: What language do we want? Farmakes: Well aren't we inm'prefing, Kate can you go over what the Ixamfit again is supposed to be here? If we're looking at photoco .mposites, we're loo~ng at the relafio~ of the building to existing buildings? We're looking at possible siguage or landsc~ing. That sort of thing. When we're looking at signage or whatever, I think that certainly woridng from a working elevation and seeing the maximum development is sufficient. I don't know if it needs to be a photo rendering or that cost when you're ~g with PUD's where there's substantial amount of money and it's a large scale development. This is fairly small percentage. Mancino: Yeah, I was going to say. It might have to do with cost of the project and having staff make that decision because we couldn't have visualized the bridge. I mean if somebody explained it in verbiage, here's the difference between the you know, the bridge. We couldn't visualize that and the picture obviously. Aanenson: I tbinlr that idnd of language, what Bob has put in there, the appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization. I mean that's something we're going to have to develop you know as we go through this process. Say that this project demands this level of detail and this project._but we want to have something in there where if we do need it to make a good decision, that we can ask for it. Farmakes: So the criteria then would be that if you thought it was necessa~, then you could ask the developer for that expense? 33 P/anning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Aanenson: Right. B~,aus~ we don't have it in there fight now. Right now we can't ask for it. Mancino: That makes sense. That m~e~ sense. Ledvina: So the terminology, appropriate levels of resolution, that's really your discretion. Aanenson: Well if it corre~ to you, you could say we can't tell the details and we're going to have... Generous: Also you should know that once they have the first one done, the next levels are less expensive. He was giving me like $800.00 for a different angle or picture... Ledvina: A question. Now does this apply to all subdi~on~ that will come throu~? Aanenson: No, that's what I'm saying. We'll have them to do in subdivisions and sign plans. Ledvina: But what do we have in front of us7 Is this. Aanenson: You're amending two sections of the code. Generous: 18-40 is the subdivision section and 20-109 is the site plan review. Ledvina: So you said subdivisions so this is for subdivisions, just like what we, like a residential subdivision- Aanenson: Or maybe along Highway 5...some instances where you may want to... Ledvina: I see that it's a very powerful Wol for analysis and I really like what we did with the pedestrian bridge. I couldn't agree with you more on that but for a residential subdivision, I'm having a hard time seeing the application- Mancino: What about an ap~t building? Aanenson: You don't have to have it. This is something if you feel like it's necessary, you've got the language in there. Again, we're §oing to have to on a case by case basis, and it may be something that...a multi-family project. Generous: He also said they could do like a video so if you have a subdivision it would be like coming inw the enlrance on the street. Going up the street seeing the various housing Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Man:h 16, 1994 Farmakes: A walk thru program. Generous: Yeah, exactly. Mancino: So it gives us the option. Aanenson: What it does is gives you the option- Scott: The option to ask for it. Okay. Ledvina: I guess I would like to see that chrified. I don't think that...appropriate level of resolution. Another question though. Section 20-109. That's the site plan review? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. I think it's ~y appropliste there. I don't know, I tMnk it has a lot of application there but I'm not so sure, certain as it relates to subdivisions, how i~t it . might be. Nutting: But they're also not making it mandaw~. Ledvina: Yeah. How can we change that language to make that clearer? Appwpriate levels of resolution. Scorn Appropriate levels of resolution as determined by City planning staff. Ledvina: Can you throw that in there? Scott: So it's clear as to who wske~s that? Aanenson: Well this is part of a laundry list that you look at. When you come in for an application to build a subdivision, we give you a checklist, these are the things you need to provide. And so these fall into that checklist. Okay so if someone was coming in and we'd say well this obviously, you probably wouldn't need thi~ on this subdivision or take a site plan, this may or may not. It's one of those things you could check... Nutting: You want to say it's a requirement but you have the flexibility to say you don't nccd it. Generous: Yeah, you're too small and we don't mtlly... 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Annenson: Or when it corn~ to you and...and you feel like you need it, then we've got a method to say, we're not going to approve it until we get a visualization. Scott: Yeah but I wouldn't see us getting to that point until the development is going ahead but then we're getting down to maybe some of thc finer details. Okay. Good. Are we done with thc discussion with thc staff? Thi,~ is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of thc public hearing? Yes. Please identify yourself. Vcrnellc CLayton: I'm Vcmellc Clayton end I live at 422 Santa Fc Ch'clc...just have some questions. We haven't had much of a chance to look at the report end we had some of the same questions that you did. Pnrtictdnrly did it really mcan that you could have a rendering such as we used on the motel, and apparently it does. And I think that's important. The process is not incredibly well developed yet for computer visualization. It's sort of going through thc process, as I understand. Thc computers and calculators and everything...probably in a couple years everybody will have it but right now not too many people do. And I have, ever .~ince I worked in State gove~'nment, always felt that it was somewhat an uncomfortable position for any unit of government to find themselves in to be requiring something that is only provided by a few. And so one of the questions that we had was, would like to have answered too I guess before we know whether we're even concerned about this is, how many people really can provide this service? And that is kind of...and that then, let me go back. How many people can provide it at the level that you want? There are a lot of people that can provide a ~ amount of...go in and assume that you're requiring a whole lot. So I guess that would be something that should be clarified so there aren't any mi~tnders~gs. The other thing is that sometimes I think what we did with the motel, when we took a pictt~ and then Tim Howell, as you may recall, painted in what we proposed to build, could be done by somebody like Tim Howell but the others couldn't. I like to be able to see folks like Tim Howell be able to...business of being an architect, one of the few remaining businesses whe~ you don't have to be a..if you don't want to. So I mean...but ~y we had a couple questions like that. When would it be applied? There are some small projects that really couldn't afford iL And whatever you ask these folks to do, they pass it on to the price of the home or the price of the product that's sold in the ~ bnildings so I think you need to think about that. I believe that's all I had. But maybe if you have the answers to those questions and you know that...that's fine but we didn't have the answers and we were wondering, since we find ourselves appearing before you from time to time with various projects but. Scott: Maybe the intent, especially on the, like an addition to an existing ~. In my mind that's just fine. We just want to see how is it going to look. How's it going to play out and so forth. From a signage standpoint, an elevation drawing, you know 2 dimensional 36 Planning Commiss/on Meeting - March 16, 1994 is fine but I think when we start getting into something like, and I don't know if you had a chance to see the computer generated piece that they did for the pedestrian bridge but we were asked to make some decisions that I don't think we ~y could have made. Vemelle Clayton: I think that's perfectly reasonable and that's a very ambitious project...so it's a very small percentage of the total cost. Scott: So that's why we want to make sure that it's optional and it's only used in case of n tie or if you will, but just something where we feel we need it or city staff needs it. But we're not going to be requiring this willy hilly and I think that was one of our concerns. It's like what does this stuff cost? But no, your points are well taken. Vcrncllc Clayton: I would suggest you might want to...obviously it's got to be not thc planning staff but the City Planner. I've never read anything flxan the staff on their own... reports signed off by the planners. I think it would be the city planner that would be making the decisions. I would thintr she'd be more comfortable with some sort of a guldeline...and I would think you would be in the future, should you hire some...if she decides to go to South America or something. It's easy to be comfortable with the people you know and their judgment. You're comfortable and so am I with Kate's judgment but this is a law on the books that doesn't always, I've been around here a whole lot longer than probably any of you and some of the things that we all thought we just a given you know 5 or 10 yearn ago, people don't even remember now. And some of the things that happened 20 years ago, it's so easy to have a good idea while you're doing it and then another group of people intc~p~ei~ it differently. Scott: I think somez~ne at the planner level would be appropriate. I don't know if we need to have the Planning Director but you know city, when you talk about planning staff, I'm not thinking of an administrative individual. I'm thinking of someone who's business it is to plan and to make decisions of that thing so we need to specify planner level I and H on up or whatever but we're talking about somebody who's in the business of planning can make that decision. Are there any more comments from the public for the public hearing? May I have, seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? httncino moved, Farmakes seconded to dose the public hearing~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was close~L Scott: Matt Ledvina: Well, I have a few questions. I guess one other thing that I wanted to know was, it says and provide a perspective. Thi.~ is in the middle of the paragraph. And provide a 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 perspectivc of thc proposed development from abutting prope~es. Outlying properties? All sides? At thc ~ linc? Aanenson: We do that fight now when we ask far perspectives. We make the judgment call on what we feel is the most huporlant...maybe on a small project, it's_maybe on one project it's so sensitive that you need a perspective/rom all. So really. Ledvina: Sure. Okay, so it's your discretion on that. That's fine but it's just, it begs to question I guess. Aanenson: Maybe there's a... Ledvina: Sure, I'm okay with that. Aanenson: There's just so many variables with each project. I guess I don't want to tie it down and then leave soft. thing out. Ledvilm: Okay. Well I think things do change with time and I can see 5 years from now people looking at this ordinance saying geez, that was in the Stone Age. The Jurassic type of things... But we have to make a stab at it and I guess, as I said before, it is a powerful mol and I would support the passage of this ordinance. Scott: Okay. Rom Nutting: I guess I also would support it. I guess thc issue is coming down to discretion to apply on a case by case basis to the level that's sppropriate and I guess the only question I have is, the language as it sits, aNpwpriate levels of resolution for thc visualization shall be used from flat shading etc. Does that leave appropriate open to interpretation from the applicant side as opposed to planning side? And do you want to say as dem'mined by so my co~t is, if we want to refine that. Otherwhe I'm in favor of approving this. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I'm in support of approving this as is. The only words I would change is artistic renderings and I don't know what we came up with. And I don't know what the right jargon is. Jeff, what was the fight, you came up with something. Farmakes: I don't remember what it is. Mancino: Did someone write it down? 38 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Generous: I wrote photocomposite but I don't know. Mancino: Well I think that 1oe you said just leave out artistic renderings and say photocomposite images. Farmakes: Because the photocomposite that's where you took two photos together into a single image. A rendering, a 3 dimensional rendering is just thac It's a hindering. A drawing in CAD where you do. Mancino: Oh a computer generated rendering. Farmakes: CorrecC Which is far more elaborate and far more costly. You can use photo, canned photo or library photo mxmres like for instance...have a lot of different kinds of brick And you can design a dimensional drawing and the computer will apply it dimensionslly. So again it's the amount of, that's far more elaborate and time consnming aad expensive than scanning an elevation drawing and dropping in some color in the background. Scott: Or t~king a photograph of the existing area and then superimposing either a line drawing or a phowgraph. Farmakes: That's easy. Scott: Yeah, and that may be appropriate in those instances. Farmakes: That's an easy issue. Two scans and you put them right together. That's easy. Mancino: Well then let's leave it up to the discretion of. Ledvina: I'm comfortable with artistic rendering... Mancino: Then we'll leave artistic rendering. Ledvina: ...but again, I'm sen~tive to. Mancino: Cost. lxdvina: Well cost, yeah. And narrowing thc realm of possibility and also the vendors that can provide thc service. I think that's i~t. 39 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: Then let's leave both in and so either are an option. Whatever is appropriate for the particular site. Scott: As determined by. Farrnakes: And I would add the verbiage of provide an undistorted perspective of the proposed development. Mancino: Where would you put that? Farmakes: Well you were talking about distortion of perspective which can be used w create a distortion of scale so the purpose of comparison, you would want like a normal lens. A view of thc surwundin~ area. Farmakes: My comments on this are that the city staff should have discretion because the negotiation and development takes place prior to us seeing the staff report and that's therdn where the preparation of presentation takes place. Before we see it. For us to set up a criteria, again you get into the problem of trying to come up with a criteria that is applicable to every type of development. And as we've seen with the sign ordinance type situation, it's a very complicated process and I would go with the judgment of city staff on this and not hinder the, as to individuals changing on city staff, I don't think that that makes any difference. An ordinance is an ordinance and whoever is in the city staff at the time I believe will, it's their job to project whatever the city ordinances are through their in--on so time marches on and I'm sure we may get other people here but I wouldn't expect that they would go outside the realm of what the cummt ordinance is and ff it needs to be changed, it wRl be changed. We do it all the time as 0111' needs a_rise. Aanenson: Or as technology changes. Mancino: Jeff, you're limiting it just to staff. I mean if it got to City Council and somebody on City Council said you know, you guys I really think we should see a photo image composite, I mean. Aanenson: It's not limited to staff. All we're saying is this is a requirement. If we don't require it, what we're saying is it could be a requirement. Okay what we've done by not, everybody...when a developer comes in they'll say, can you hand us a checklist to see what we need to do. We can say, we probably don't think that this project requires...so all it is is it's on the checklist. Is it appropriate? You may be required to put them on notice... Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Sc, om Okay. Well I support that code amendrmmt and can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that, oh I'm going to need your help on this. I move that we approve the code amendment to require computer generated images for subdivisions and site plans as shown in the a{xached amendmeut, atiachmen~. Is that what I want to say? With the addition of provide, you're wanting to provide au undistorted perspective. Farmakes: Provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scorn It's been moved and seconded that we accept the code amendment as amende& Is there any discussion7 Mancino moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Code Amendment for Computer Generated Images for Subdivisions and Site Plans ameaded to include a statement that it provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Does this have a life afro' us now7 Aanenson: It go~s to Council. LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CQRNER OF THE IN ERSECTIQN OF mGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Kate Aan~n presented the staff report on this item. Scorn Any questions for staff or co~ts? Mancino: A couple questions. Kate, where are you, and I'm sorry if I missed it when you gave the report and you talked about the conservation easement. You're going to take that directly to the City Council? Aanenson: That would be part of the conditions. You had asked that's one of the things we 41 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 did...it's not in here but you had asked that that condition be added as one of the conditions of the plat...I didn't list it as a condition but it will be a condition of their plat. Mancino: And have you talked with the applicant about where that conservation easement would be? I mean what area takes in the conservation easement? Because I am very concerned about the shoreline of significant lrees on the south side that are on the south of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Minnewashta and those are thc ones that, and there may be Aanenson: The conservation easement should run along the backs of all these plus these are the other significant lrees in this area right through here on the backs of these lots. Mancino: Can you also tell me why we have a variance for Lot 8, and it was because of ~ree preservation? And why is that? Aanenson: Well, as you recall They moved this lot line here. There's some significant trees up in this area here if you overhy the two. Mancino: Okay. Aan~n: Flat lot, this goes back to thc flat lot issue. Flag lots for some reason has 20 yard side yard setback from the 30 foot setback once you get ins/de that. You're supposed to take the setback line from here. $o that would push the house even fiu'ther down. Mancino: Oh okay. I see what you mean. Okay, thank you. And you are suggesting that additional trees be placed in 13 lots where only 1 tree per lot is proposed. They should be on lots, do you have any number? Because I can see the mitigation of 173 trees that were taken down prior to this developrreaat. Is there a guideline number that maybe we wish to come up with? Aanenson: Again, I'll leave it up to the applicant to make a proposal to you. Mancino: Okay. $o I'll ask the applicant. Okay, thank you. Farmakes: In our current ordinance for shoreline, pan of that is the screening process involved as well as other eco reasons. And that just deah with trees but also shrubbery and so on or the natural state of the shoreline. When we're talking about trees, are we also ~g with some of the screening ele/nents that are involved with the natural shareline. Other than the ones that say ~ of a certain caliper. How is that reswred or clem~7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Aanenson: As I indicated earlier, anything under the ordinary high water rnark...jufisdiction. With this plat, with the tree conservation easement, they shouldn't be below the building, the rear building line. That's where all the si~t trees are. There shouldn't be any reason to have...It should be snow fenced and. Ledvina: But they can't go in and prune the underbrush or something? Farmakes: So from the 60 or what is it, 75 feet setback from the shoreline, the under~ and screening there, I know you're allowed to clear out, I think the DNR allows you to clear out an access or a channel and I know that we've had some arguments in the past about what you're allowed to clear out. Or how much of a paflz Whether it's lot line to lot line or whether or not it's a 50 feet situation. I'm just wondering if there have been violations of that there in your opinion from the existing properS7 Or the way the existing property was prior to the application_ Aanenson: Well as I indicated what the ordinance says is...DNR shoreline regulations...What we felt was being removed at the time was less than the 6 inch caliper. Obviously you show clear cutting and that was a concern. At that time the... ): - Farmakes: So if dogwood was cleared out, we're not going to see dogwood replaced. Aanenson: No, I .think what we're asking is that they would be replaced with si~ific, ant species. Something that-..~~ trees. Not necessarily omarmmtal but... Scorn Dave, clarify on the stop work order. You signed it. Hernpel: That was placed by the building inspector at that time on the sit~...activifies being done. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Question about the landscape phm. Was this done by a professional landscape arcMtect? Aanenson: You'll have to ask the applicant for his credentials. Scott: Okay, we'll wait for the applicant's report Any other questions or cotmnents? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative wish to address the Council? Planning Cormnission. 43 Plaonirig Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Kenneth Durr: My name is Kenneth Durr...and I think it's appropriate that I address some of the issues and the accu~tious that have been leveled that have not been very accurate...I've been a building contractor for 40 years. T~is was our 40th year. I've had...w~g with me for over 30 years who was Chief Building ln.~or for the City of ]V[innetonka...In talking to him today, I asked him during his experience with the city of Minnetonka, or previous to that with an architecttffal firm, Johnson..., whether he had any knowledge of anything permits necessary to cut trees on property. He said no. He had never come across that, nor have I in 40 years. With one exception, we are a bnilder in the Begr Path, ~Iack Nickolson...in Eden Prairie there has a tree...and we're well aware of it and it was presen~ to us and we were made aware of it prior to our doing any work there. But in 40 years we've worked in many, many municipalities. There have been areas where we've had 40 acre sites. Where we have cleared out, I ~ clear cut 3 acre parcels out of the center so a large...and there's never been the faintest thought in our mind that permits may be required for that. And we've never experienced that. So when we approached this site, at the ~ that I put these parcels wgether, I was not certain whether I was going to build there or sell the property. I had offers on 2 parcels that I first owned. I felt it was necessary to purchase the third because there were lot line discrepancies. Had I not purchased the third piece of the last 30 feet of the parcel that I did own so I went to a lot of expense and legal work to get that cleared up to purchase that. At that time juncture, just as I was purchasing that, there were other people interested to purchase at the same time I was. And my intent in §oing in there was not n~y at that point going into it as a developnmnt but merely to clean the land up so that it was presentable. Now what we did there, I had a firm come in who's done work for us in the past. They do work for a number of the golf courses in town~ Interlachen Country Club being one of them and I trust their jud~oment as to trees. What is diseased, what is wind damaged, what is good, what is not. And they just go ahead and do their work for us. They do work for municipalities. They do our work on all of our si~s because we're very concerned about prese~g m~. We're not there to rape the land. We are pxvservist in what we do. It's only to our advantage to preserve and maintain a good tree cover but it isn't in the best interest to leave wind_ danced ue~s, diseased trees, and that type of thing. Those are the types that were taken off that site. Had we the intent of just going in there and clear cutting with the intent of just coming in behind that and pushing roads in, it's very obvious looking at the property, we would have taken trees down on the hill where we wish to put the road. That was not done. You'll notice the trees that are there are all of the specimen trees. Big umbrellas on the trees. The u~w,s that were taken were mainly trees below 6 inches in diameter, 4 feet up from the base. In looldng at the site. .. something major is 8 inches or 10 inches but 4 feet up is entirely different than what a stump shows. It's 4 feet off the ground, 6 inch diameter. Those are the trees that were taken together with wind damaged ux~ that were lodged, I have a couple pictures that show just a tangled mess in part of this ~. There are old buildings in there that my insurance company said I had to get out of there because they were an attractant nuisance to children. So we removed those at the same time. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Hauled them off the property. But it was a tangled mess. Wind damaged trees. Trees leaning into other u'ees. We just didn't simply cut some of those down, we cabled up and down the sections and pulled them away from the good trees we were saving. It's very obvious in looking at that site you see good trees. The ~ the wind damaged, the ones that were blown over and a few trees, when I talked with my tree people, there were ~ box elders growing under large oaks. Large maples that were stretching for light, growing almost horizontally, coming down touching the ground and then growing up again. Those were the trees, they were larger than 6 inches and those were taken. Ctrowing under the umbrella of the specimen trees but they were junk_ And he knew they were junk. So that's the extent. Now we have a house on that property. Better than a year ago the Fire Marshal wanted to use the house and burn it. I object~l to it because I said I don't think you can do it and preserve trees. The lxees around the house that we wish to preserve. You can check with him and verify this. Now sul~xlUent to that, he has asked me again about it and one of your people even called me...looidng at the ~ and assuring me, yes. We can bum ~ if we don't damage the tn~e there. 8o we have to have absolute certainty that this does not occur because we had a house bum down, it was badly vandalized on the center property. And in that they assured us that they would not damage trees. And a specimen maple was burned to the ground. The fire got away and burned the Uee down. I didn't want this to occur again. That house cost me $7,000.00 to have it demolished and hauled out. If I'm looking at the very economics of this thing, I'd say go ahead. Bum the thing down. The heck with the trees because then I'd save $7,000.00. I'm not inter, ted in that. I'm interested in preserving the good uees and forget the $7,000.00. I'd rather spend $7,000.00. Take the house down and haul it out rather than risk the burning lree~ $o these acozsafions that have come to you people are entirely false. The number of uees may be accurate. It's a 20 acre site. There may be 173 trees that were taken down. But we're not talking big tree~ We're talking small ~ that were 6 inches and less unless they were wind damaged, the tops out of them or leaning into other uees or a few exceptions of box elders that were growing horizontally..2 thinic the question was raised about whether or not a l~rofe~onal landscaper would be used in this. Very definitely yes. I talked to Herb Baldwin who's a very well recognized name in landscaping. I'm not sure that Herb will be doing all of this. He's done some prelimina~ work. Kevin Koehnen who is a lanclaca~ architect He does a lot of work for us on upper bracket projects that we do. That involve large acreages, up in the Medina- Orono area, that are very extensive ~ Im~jec~. He has looked at the project and has given me some ideas of what to do. I've been put in touch with one of the best people in the area as far as the ponds. As far as what you do with them. How you go about aerating them. We are planning to do both aeration and...getting air p~ into the bottom of these so that they aerate well. He knows what can be done without using chemicals in the ponds to contxol the growth. And the suggested depth of the ponds, we've gone into things that I feel are very ~t to the total concept of the project And so we are not going into it on a shoe string and just trying to get the maximum that we can out of this property. We're P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 hopefully doing an excellent job and that is our goal We're noted for excellence in what we do and I rcally resent some of the accusations that have been leveled from, particuzlarly one individual. We are noted in all the communities we b-ild in, as being highly reputable and extremely careful of ecology and tend to spend more money than most in landscaping projects, which will certainly be the case hcrc. What is shown is such an ~ ~ to what we will be doing and we will definitely be using professional people in it. We want this to be a very high test, high class neighborhood. SU~-t of Dreams pcople are very ~ted in seeing this developed. Seeing what we've done in the past and we will put ever~ing that we have into it to make it an estab~ed appearing community from day one. Are there any other questions that you might have of me that I can hopefully clarify o~ Mancino: Well I just have a question. I guess it's Mr. Du~ for you and also for Kate. When we ask for a landscape plans to look at and to say yeah or nay to, and they're not final and they're not even, I don't know if this is what you, I don't know what kind of plan you'd call this. Is it a pre~ plan or something? Kenneth Durr: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of evergreens in because they have an hnpact both winter and summer. And we're searching for large stuff. Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and they're all/5 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see? Kenneth Durr: No. Mancino: Okay. Kenneth Durr: This is. Mancino: So I figure an engineer did this. Kenneth Durr: I'm sorry. Mancino: Did an engineer do this7 Okay. Okay. Well I mean I would add to it. Rick Sathre: We were trying to repre, scnt thc numbers. Minimum numbers. P/anning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I just wanted to know what I'm seeing. Kenneth Durr: If there are a number of lrees thai are called out, and I think there was. ionething like, was it 27 or somewhere else I heard 50. Aanenson: Well the ordinance states that you have to place 1 per lot. You also the requirement that you're obligated to do is the streetscape. What we're saying is that, and maybe some additional trees are required and those lots that really don't have any other mature trees on the lots. And this is preliminary. We wan~ed to see, they did show the tree removal plan. I think that's what the Planning Cowmi~on was conc, emed. They showed... individual lots as far as a count idea. Normally when we do see thag I think that's kind of... If you go back to normal ~ plat, we don't always see that quite as formulated. That's something you ask us to follow up on. Mancino: But I thought that we usually see more of the streetscape in it's final form, don't we? Aanenson: No. Not necessarily...l think there was concern because of the trees removed and that's kind of been the focus but now that we've got some~ under preliminary... Mancino: I remember like Rottlund and stuff was from a landscape architrct. It was Todd Irvine from Arteka did that so we see it at the point where a landscape architrct gets involved. Or we have. Aanenson: It depends. On the...plat, on Lundgren's, there was a condition that the landscaping, the streetscape be in...so it's not always the case....I thought you pick~ up that we were treating this one differently but sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Normally you give us directiom I think again this one came out of the fact that tre~ were removed and we wanted to get an idea as to how they were going to... Mancino: Okay. Because I just have the problem is that I wouldn't approve this if this were the landscape plan. I mean it just doesn't meet it for me so. Kenneth Durr: Well again, I may be repeating myself but if there was, as Rick was saying, like 26 but I think_ Rick Sathre: That's on the berm. Kenneth Durr: On the berm, oh I see. And Katr was saying about 50 trees. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Aanenson: Right, in total. Yeah that includes the streetscape and the additional landscaping between the neighbor adjacent to Lots 8 and 9...and that's the minimum required. That would be the concern. Kenneth Durr: Well you can be assured we'lL_the minimum and if you want a commitment to that, you could name a number of 100 and I'd be very comfortable with that. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you sir. Well this is not a public heating so I guess we can move on to comments. Nancy. Give me an issue. Mancino: Not right now... Scott: Pardon me. Mancino: Not fight now but I will Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I think the sole purpose of us going forward with the plat, the preliminary plat. One of the strong conditions that and concerns we all had was regarding seeing what the landscaping would be, as Nancy mentioned, and also the tree removal. I see that we do have a plan which does show the lot layout and the trees. I guess there's x's here. Those represent removal as it relates to the road. Trees removed for the wad but I don't see what would be anticipated for tree loss with the building pads. I think that's. Aanenson: That was the Attachment #1... Ledvina: So there is a discussion, okay. I'll take that back. Aan~n: ...site grading and the road...And then the additional 21 and... Mancino: It would be much easier to tell if we did some sort of an overlay for us. I mean it's very hard to tell which, you know for us to see which tree~ per lot actually are going to be removed. Ledvina: I guess just to wrap up my comments, I would feel more comfortable seeing a more detailed landscaping plan. I think that's reaflly what we were looldng for when we Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments other than what's been mentioned. I guess maybe one thing. I hol~ the city staff still uses some latitude in looking at tim iaatm of the compliance. Whether they were factual or non fact]_~l. Use your own discretion with that. If there's a violation in the ordinance, treat it as such. Ignorance of the law, as I'm wld, is no excuse and that ordinance I know has been on the books for a fair amount of time so the intent is to protect what tree cover is left in Chanhassen and I think it's a good ordinance with good intent. It's not to say that the applicant premedi~y clear cut the issue but if there was damage done, particularly in the area adjacent to the shoreline, the effort and the intent is to restore the vegetation so there isn't a lawn down to the lake as you see in some houses that were developed ~) years ago. With the preface, the intent now has been for a fair amount of years, is not to do that. Not to allow that type of development and the State encourages that and ordinsrIces in th~ city have ~ th~ for quite a while so that's it. Mancino: I'd like to add on to what Jeff just said and I think that a lot of times developers say well we've saved the big trees. We've saved the significant, the big ones and they take out all the saplings underneath, which is our next generation of roms for our children and our grandchildren. When those big trees go, we have another, we have trees there that are ready to come up and liffie trees become big trees. So it is, we are trying to also preserve some of those, most of the saplings underneath big trees also. That they are as i ~rr~mant to us and a part of the ecosystem too. So to go in and clear cut, like they did on Lake Susan Hills a little bit, under the bigger trees, is not what we want either. That is part of the woodland area and should remain so. And are for thc next generation becaus~ those big trees will come down and we have saplings there that are ready to take over. So I think it's as imp~t to keep that under canopy coverage also. Sc, otc Okay. Rom Nutting: I guess I just haven't...in terms of we approved pe,ding the submi~ion of the landscaping plan before the plat proceeds to City Council Is this, I was trying to undersland from Kate's comments, is this the normal procedure7 Is this on a case by case basis whether we get full landscaping plans at this point versus some point in time down the road. I'm just ~g to ~ the. Mancino: We don't see it again. Nutting: Okay. So if we approve things at this point it's, we will ever see... Aanen~n: Are you asking me? 49 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Nutting: Yes. Aanenson: Normally, as a part of the process, you articulate to the applicant what you want to see. You don't also see maybe landscaping in preliminary plats. Some plats yes, you see it. It's your discretiom What they show is that they met the minimnm intent of the ordinance...we'd recommend additional trees, we've left that open. We certainly feel that needs to be evolved by a landscape architect and that's something that normally we follow up on just like the other conditions that we put in the report. Nutting: So is Nancy, you would not be comfortable with even establishing paramelers then.., or additional guidelines to the. Mancino: Well I don't want to tell them how to do their landscaping. I want them to come back with a good professionally done landscaping proposal. Attorney for Applicant: Would it... Scott: Let me see. I have to ask a procedural question here. Since this i~n't a public hearing and the applicant had their, made their presentation and now we're doing our discussion, I know how to handle this from a public headng standpoint but procedurally, go ahead. Attorney for Applicant: My question is just procedural too and that is, since both the Plal~ning Commission and the City Council get to look at this project again, in the final plat approval process. Aanenson: It only goes to Council for final So the City Council will see it for pre~ plat and then as it gets approved in whamver phases, they'll come back for final plat. And again, a lot of times the Council doesn't see the final landscaping plan until they come back. They wait until they get appr~ and then they come back and do the final dedgn. The en~neering of the streets and a lot of those kind of issues. So the Coundl doesn't always see the final landscaping plan until even final plat. There's a lot of final issues. I mean that's up to your call if you want to see it again. Attorney for Applicant: I'm wondering whether that, the next look that you'd like to have can be done in the final approval process. Aanenson: Then the final would come back to them before it goes back? Attorney for Applicant: Exactly. Planning Commission Meeting - Mawh 16, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Kenneth Durr: What we really want to do is spend considerable time in that area. Nor the planning. It's not something that I just care to rush in just for the sake of cor~ing with a plan. We want to come with a plan that is really speciaL We want to do this up really exceptionally well And I don't think that can be done just in a very quick, you know few days or a week. It's something that I think is §oin§ to be a process that we do and we refine it and we come with something that I think you're going to ~nd that is §oing to be exceptional. We're not §oing to spare dollars on this. It's going to be done very, very well. And ff it ~s that it goes to the Council If it has to have a special approval with the blessing of ~ body, that's fine because I'm not conc~rn~ at all about wha~ our final result is going to be for submission. But I would hate like ev~§ just to spend dollars and quickly do something that is only medi~. I want to be special and whatever it takes ~o do that, we can proceed and come back with something that is special, l~t's what we're going to do. Scott: Well I guess that's the, Kate. Ledvina: Can we see it again af~ Council then? Is that possible? Aanenson: Sure. Ledvina: Okay, so that would be a recommendation- Aanenson: Before it goes for final plat that you have a chance to review the plan. Ledvina: Well, the landscaping plan. Scott: Okay. Mancino: That cerlainly works. Scott: So if I could have a motion. That's one of the luxuries of chairing _this body is you don't have to make any motions. Mancino: Let's see. I recommend that the Planning Commission uppmvc the final landscape plan after thc City Council has seen it? Kate, would you help me. 51 Plauning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: There you go. And you know that it, and Mr. Durr has said this, but that it be done by a landscape architecaue, landscape pro~onal and that there will be some mitigation as Kate has said. Well I want to add the staff's recommendations also 1, 2 and 3. Can I have a second? Ledvina: I'1l second it. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Man.o's motion. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commimion recomm~ld to approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Pazkway. e Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. 3. The wood fence along Minnewashta ~y requires a separate permit. e The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval by me City Council All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sc. om Kate timing wise. we're looking at a coupl~ of months7 Aanenson: It's going to Council on the 28th. Scott: 28th? Wha~ver happens ~ that. Okay. Ledvina: You anticipate this development to occur this year? Is that correct? You anticipate that this development's going to occur thia yeatr? Okay. Scott: Okay. Thank you very much. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMM~SIONER TO ~ BOAI~D OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAI~. Scot~ For the record, item number 6 under old business, appointment of Planning Cormnissioners to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Commissioner Mancino has volunteered for that position for 6 months and then at that point in time we'll review what our more long t~rn solution is. Ledvina: Generously done so, yes. I'd rccom~d Corpmi~_ioner Mancino for giving her time and effort. Mancino: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina: I have a question in the Minutes. It reiated to when the, page 63. This gets back to the vote on the Wendy's site plan. But maybe you guys can correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think that Ladd voted for my motion. I thought he voted against it. He's not here to say yes or no but. Farwalres: Which motion were you talking about? Scott: The motion reconunending approval? Ledvina: My motion recording approval of the site plan for the Wendy's. Mancino: That was the first vote? Scott: The first vote was to approve, which did not pass. Mancino: Hc did not vote for that one. Ledvina: He did not. Okay. Mancino: I didn't think so either. Ledvina: It shows in the minutes that he did vote for in favor so I don't know. Do you recall Bob? Can we suspend these or wait? 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scot~ Yeah, we don't have to approve them. Because they don't get distributed until they're approved anyway. Ledvina: Not that we need to reproduce this whole thing. I don't want to see this again in my next packet. Scott: Maybe an addendum or something. Ledvina: Maybe save a tree but just that page 63. Just to c~ where Ladd sat on it. I don't want to make a big deal out of it but seeing that he's not here, I want to, and there is Mancino: Yeah because I thought he voted the second time. I know he voted against it. Ledvina: I know he voted against the second motion but I thought he voted against both motions and I kind of understand why he did that. And I don't want to make a big deal out of it but he's not here to answer my question and there's some di~lgreement as to what actually transpired. So let's revisk that next time if we can. Scott: But if you look on, about a 15 second comment. If you take a look at, on page 66 where the motion came up to reco~ denial of the site plan. Ledvina: He did, yes. Scott: Yeah, so whatever. Ledvina: It does make sense that he would go with the converse but I don't think that automatically... Scott: Well we will the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of Mawh 2, 1994 have not been approved and we'll review that particular item at our next meeting and perhaps Nann, if you could give Commissioner Conrad a call and see if he can search hi~ memary banks on that one and we'll cozrect it. l. axivina: Well I don't know that we need to do that...I read an article on motions passing that weren't supposed to pass. When people were actually put to the test and asked how they voted on it, it came out different than what actually went into the record. I guess I'm sensitive to that. Not that it made a difference in this case but still; I think we should be sensitive to make sure that what actually Iranspir~ is accurate. Before it goes into the record, yes° Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Fanmkes: Let the record reflect that that's how I voted. Scott: Okay. Good. COUNCIL UPDATE: Sc. otC That was Nancy, do you have a City Council update for us? Generous: Not me anyway. Scott: Well Nancy, you were at the. Mancino: No I wasn't. Was I supposed to? Farmakes: We were upstairs at the time. I heard though that they denied the liquor license. Generous: Well they didn't, they tabled it I believe. Mancino: To come up with sorr~ way to writ~ it in as... Farrnak~: It was an issue of concern of zone. Sort of like the problem we had with the sign. Generous: I wasn't there so I'm not sure. Kat~ was there... Scott Yeah they dropped the Wendy's or tabled the Wendy's ilmu. Any other City Council update related things? OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSS THE DRAFF OF ~ TREE ORDINANCE. Scott: Commissioner Mancino, would you like to be~n that discussion7 Mancino: No. I think I'll let Bob begin it. You wrote the report. Bob Generous gave a staff report on this item. Scott: Can I just ask you a question. Commissioner Mancino raised a good point about the understory trees that are the next generation. From a standpoint of determining what has P/arming Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 changed, because I think after a development is put in, obviously do we, are we thinking of using aerials to then determine what's really happened and what about the understary? Generous: The idea was that if we were able to put in these conservation, tree protection areas, you're not going to have clearing in there. So you're going to maintain those understory trees. And specifically ones of, for instance as part of the subdivision, just like we do wetlands and they have to put the stake in and say this is a wetland conservation ~t. Well on the site they're going to put in another smkc that says, this is a tree preservation area so that the future protxn'ty owners, the homeowners know that as part of the platting process this part of their ~ was designated as a preserve. Scott: Okay. Who's, because we've had some issues I think also with the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition about things happening after the fact. That obviously were not totally above board relative to tree removal How do we keep an eye on this thing? Who's responsibility is it going to be to make sure that these easements are protected? Do we just..but I specifically mean, do we have, we've had an interm Generous: Yeah, and we'll have it again. I don't know, maybe long term if ~is works out the city will say, yeah. It's, the benefit to having an urban forester on staff is...cost effective. Mancino: I would like to put that as part of the record. That I think we do need an urban forester. Maybe a shared one with another community that helps in making sure that this ordinance is followed because you do need a dedicated person to do that and to know what they're talking about when they go in and check on sites. So for the record I'd like to add Scott: And what about a funding mechanism too? I mean if you're going to basically have tree police~ I mean we have a wetland police person now. I think we need a tree police person and obviously that has tO be funded. Has a mechanism been discussed that based · upon the aerial view and the percentage of coverage, etc, etc that, and I don't know whether it's how you would calculate this but we need to fund this person and that would be my suggestion is we need the protection but obviously based upon the way our city operates, is that we haven't raised taxes for a number of years, and I don't know where we can divert funds from to do this but I think along with this we need to, we obviously we came up with the dollars for Diane and that was a very good move. Generous: That was the SWMP. Scott: SWMP. Well maybe what we're looking at here is, I don't know if it's a tree tax but you know what I'm saying. I think that's appropriate because we do need to have somebody 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 199~ and if you're going to have ordinances, somebody has to police it. Mancino: And most cities do. Farmakes: Actually if you do come up with a tree tax, you may flna mare trees corning down than being preserved. Scott: Yeah but so you know, we have parkland dedication. We've got park fees. We've got, you know what I rnean~ We'll tax cigarettes in the city. But you know what my intent is. Farmakes: $3.00 a pack. Scott: There you go. I'm sure Todd would be willing...anyway. Any more. Ledvina: I have a co~t. This is a general c, omm~L I said it when we talk~ about the wetland issue and you just mentioned it. We're going to put a sign, this is a tree preserve on every lot. I understand that that's good for people to know what it is but on the other hand, we've got so many signs in our lives, I'm against signs. You're tzying to make this a wilderness area and you walk through and oh, there's a sign that ells. me this is a wilderness are~ That I'm in a preserve. I'm against that concept of putting this sign in the trees. Mancino: Well it has to be made out of wood. Ledvina: Yeah, whatever. It's the same thing with the wetland. I understand that there's that education thing but it detracts from the thing that you're trying to accomplish in the first place, in my opinion. Scott: WeAl how many times, right in thi~ very room have we had very intelligent professionals come up and say, well the realtor never told me that I couldn't put a dock out in front of my house. And the real~ never told me blah, blah, blah. You know and that's one, I mean I hate to see that we have people who are fairly, you know they're not. Ledvina: I've heard it too. Scottz Yeah and I'm just ~in~ng, well you know, I didn't know I couldn't cut these trees down so I ~. Farmakes: Well we just had a developer who's been developing for 40 years. One comment on that. The DNR, ~ing to their survey, says that Chanhassen's denuded the forest 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 cover about 95%. That's only about 5% in Chanhassen actually has forest cover in it. So percentage wise you're dealing with a small amount and the majority of that is in ravine areas or non-farmed or minimal farm area. Scott: Non-buildable too. Farmakes: Well it's also environmentally sensitive because most of Chanhassen is a drainfield for an ancient glacial fiver over here and some of the soil, if you follow it down to the bluff is, if you dumped a drink on the comer, you might wash out somebody's house down the way. It's pretty unstable and I agree that maybe you can go overboard with micro managing an issue of putting a sign in front of every tree but it seems that the same theory though of overall massing is that's what we're looking at for the Bluff Creek area. For sen.~itive areas of stands left including animal cover. The animals follow up these ravine stands of trees up to lakes area. I know hist year I saw a beaver coming up. Beavers coming up out of the river area following back up into an uxt)an wildlife scene ~ we have a herd of deer over on Lake Lucy that live in the forest behind Prince's grea. It'd be nice tO see some eco corridors left of those kind of stands because I think what will happen is a lot of that's going to disa~ as you get clear cutting underneath these canopies. That a lot of that's going to be destroyed and the question is, how much of it that's left is... Ledvina: Sure, I understand. But you know you're saying that only 5% is left. Farmakes: I'm not, the DNR is. Ledvina: Well okay, the DNR says~ Then people are going to be nattnally conscious of that and they're going to be concerned about maintaining that. Fannakes: But actually, given the choice, where would you put your house? In the trees or out in the farmland? Ledvina: Well we're not talking about when the thing is being built, The bulldozer can back over the sign and that would happen. We're talking about maintaining a sign in ~ty for whatever, on each lot. Every 90 feet there's a sign that says, you're in a tree preserve. Farmakes: Well you might have a point on the issues in regards to signagc or notification. Maybe it's some other. Mancino: Is it in every back yard for the wetland? Ledvina: Yeah I think it is. It's every lot. Monumentation, every lot. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Generous: I was envisioning this sidnny little sign on a pole. Lcdvina: Well maybe so but it detracts from, in my opinion from the way I cxNrience ~ nature, I don't like to see a sign when I'm walking and communing with Mothcr Nature. It just, that's backwards for me. Mancino: What's another solution to make sure that, you know. Ledvina: Education. I mean if you have a newsletter that says. Mancino: Or homeowners association doing som~g about it. Ledvina: Right. I don't know. And even the issues of main~g the signs aft~ 5-10 years are going to be down anyway. Mancino: Well again, that could be a homeowners association, maintmance thing. Leclvina: Well it's another thing that needs to be done. I don't know. I just, I wish it was simpler. Maybe it can't be simpler. Scott: Wcll what can wc do, I know if there's a conservation semc t, some language gets incorporated in the deed to the lot? Generous: It shows up on the plat. Scott: That becomes a record. But then again I ~ coming back to, you know it's amazing people who invest a hundred, you know let's face it. Corning into this community you're going to be plopping down $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 just about anywhere and it just, it baffles me to see you know people come in and they've ~k_en a lot of things for granted and I don't know. I don't like to see sign~ up all over the place either but it's almost like, you hate to feel like you have to be protecting adults from themselves but it happens. We see it. We see it about once a month so, I don't know if there's a better way to do it, I'm certainly open to it. Ledvina: Well I guess I give people a little more credit for maybe recognizing the value of those things and also I think in the future we're goin~ to see a higher level of consciousness of that I think. I think people are going to look back at what we're doing today with this ordinance 5 years from now and it's going to be a very major issue and they're going to, and it's going to be in people's consciousness. They're not going to need a sign. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I think that's something good to think about. I mean let's kind of go through it and maybe we can come up with a different solution- Ledvina: I don't know. I don't llke the idea of signs. Fannakes: Did it get in the wetland ordinance Wo? C~lerous: That's what I wok, I modeled this one aft~ the wetland ordinance. Mancino: I want to stop for just a second and teA1 you all just a little bit about the make-up of the Tree Board right now and the people who drafted this ordinance so that you have an idea of who was on the Board and what they bring to it. Sust because as you're looidng over this I think it will add a little bit. Obviously Bob and Paul Krauss, has been on it too. Tim Ethan who has been on the Planning Commission and has 100 acres of wooded land. And I also have 23 acres and most of it's wooded so we want to get people who are on it that, a~ some point maybe down the road will develop and will this wozk for these forested areas. I mean my God, what are you telling me? I can't build on here and you know, how many trees am I allowed to take down on my pwpa'ty and so we wanted people who had some property that will be developed so that they could give their opinions. We also have Mike Zens who's from the ,arboretum who is an arborist and Kevin Norby who is a professional landscape architect. So we started out wilh, who else? Generous: There were two people that I never met. Chadie. Mancino: Charlie with public works who does a lot of maintenance of the city trees. And Larry who used to be on the Park and Recreation was the Chairperson. Started out with us and hasn't been there for the last 2 or 3 months. But it was quite a good group so I just thought I'd tell you that up front. Ledvina: Well no, and I believe that the ordinance has gone through some iterations in it and we have discussed a lot of different issues and a lot of this stuff has been hammered out and it's, there's a lot of thought in here and I like most of what's, well I like it ail except for the sign. I guess that's my only comment. The signage. Sc, om Is there any more discussion? Mancino: Yeah, I have a co~t and that is, it's a tree preservation ordinance and the one thing that we're not preser~g, and I don't know if this has come up in some of the Planning Commission...but I certainly had an experience earlier this week about a developer next to our land going in and clear cutting. And it brought up to mind; and the developer clear cut and Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 gave one person, one neighbor one reason and another neighbor another and one of the reasons was, well I'm going to farm it. The other reason was, well I'm going to develop it in 3 years and I don't want the trees to get any bigger because it's going to cost more to talin them down plus the impending tree preservation ordinance. They'll be big trees and I'll have to preserve more. And this doesn't take that into account. I mean I'm wondering if there is some way that, and again this gets into ~ual rights. You know individual property owner rights. If someone is going to ts~e. down more than 5% of their canopy coverage on individual lots, that they need to get a permit. I mean I'm throwing this open for discussion because you have a developer that's got land and prior to development they go in and let's say they don't even clear cut. Pammk~: The developer's a private land owner? Mancino: Yeah. The developer's a private land owner and they go in and take down, I nwan 8 to 10 acres were clear cut and it was, again your second generation trees. These were trees that were 12 feet high. They were probably 3 inches but they were so thick and dense, I mean it was a woodland. The be~nning of a woodland. And went in and in a matter of 2 days took down 8 to 10 acres. Farmakes: Totally? Mancino: Totally. And the punitive part of it is, he or she may have to pay $1,000.00. You know or $1,000.00 a day. And you know if I'm a developer, do it. That's cheap. Cost of doing business. Hey, I'll do that. So we don't have anything for that here. Farmal~e~s: What if there was, if there was a violation of that extent that could be shown as current, what ff there's a moratorium of time that would make it unpalatable to the dcvel~ as a private landowner to cut it? $o that you wouldn't penalize a farmer or a hobby farmer who's clear cutting some Irees for firewood or getting a corridor down to a wetland or whatever it is that they happen to be doing.. It's within their prerogative as a private landowner without thc intent of developing. Not penalizing them but if I'm a developer, that's what I'd do. I mean I'd come in before I applied for the replat and I'd cut whal~ver was necessary to cut. And ff I had to put in a few trees down, well I know that if somebody's going to pay me $700,000.00 for a house, they're going to want a nice carpet of lawn coming down to the lake. And that's a given. And once I clear that out, you might have me put a few more trees back in there but you know, the intent is, the de~ has been done. Scott: Maybe what we need to do here is where it says, it is therefore the purpose of this ordinance to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal or killing of trees. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: Where are you? Scott: This is like page number 1 of the draft, lngtead of saying, on construction and development sites, I ~ink what we need to do is include on private pwperty, construction and development sites. Scott: Well see and anything can be a future development site. Farmakes: But if there's a time line where you're not allowed to replat that ~. Developers don't like to hold onto ~ forever because it costs them money. Mancino: I see, so if there's a 5 year time line. Farmakes: ff there's a firnc linc but I don't know if that's a reasonable way of solving that problem. But the problem you're going to come up with politically is that you're going to have private property owners who own 23 acres of forest or whatever, have no intention currently of developing them and if they want to go down and chop down one of their trees, it's a property right of ownership. You own trees. Generous: Then clear cutting. Fszmakes: Yes, but I mean one person's clear cutting might be another's, they're putting in trails. Mancino: Well sure. When Kate called these guys, they said oh we're just taking a downed shrub. Much like what we heard tonight. I mean this is just drubs. Little stuff. Well you know, these are trees. I mean you can call them shrubs now but these were, so the jargon that is used can be misused. Farmakes: They must be using some plant food on those trees. 3 years later. .. some more to cut down. It will grow that much in 3 years. Generous: That was one of thc specific questions I had on my property is on page 8 we have thc dcfinition for woodlands. Do we need to expand that? Could we co-term, instead of... Mancino: I agree. So we, I would like to see thc second generation of trees stay there. Whether it's. 62 Plarming Commission Meeting - Mamh 16, 1994 Generous: And how do we...or if it covers half an acre or quar1~ acre. Mancino: A woodland is a massing, can be a quarter of an acre. Half an acre. Farmakes: What is the intent of the forester's input to, what is it you're trying to preserve? If you judge a woodland on canopy cover, you go to some foxv. x~ areas of the state, it's just a large yard wide tree with a big canopy and it's cow pasture underneath. That's not, to me an eco, a woodland eco system. It's a landscaped farmland with some tree cover. So what is the intent trying to preserve? Are we just trying to preserve the big tree or are we trying to preserve the eco system of that woodland? Generous: In an eco sysum~ the diversity of u'ee sizes and big canopies and second generation and saplings. That's why...the group was in~.~ent on we put some preservation area around it...wouldn't go in. Farmakes: I'm curious to know what Mr. Erhart did. He was a proponent of how he voted in this issue. He was a proponent of, vocalize it here, of owner's fights to tree cover. I was just wondering what hi~ Mancino: Well he was for all this. I mean we had _things that he wasn't for, we talked through but he figured out what percentage on hi.~ land. He wanted to make sure that we didn't make the percentage, that you'd have to keep canopy coverage so large that you really couldn't put a good development on it. So we figmv. A out how much the streets would take up. How much a pad would take up. How much the driveway would take up. What else did we, what else is included? Generous: That and the utilities. Mancino: And the utilities. I ~ we w~nt throu~ Generous: We actually gave a little bit more on these final percentages. Mandno: Yeah, 5% to 10% extra in cases of gra_ding, etc. So we're really in any development is how much is...40% or 35%. Scott: But then also too we could go with a, if we saw something like that that would happened to be treed, we could go with a PUD and back off a little bit on the setbacks and street widths and that kind of stuff from a preservation and conservation easements and custom grading and all that kind of stuff. But what do we need to put in here to resuicc It's not so much the private landowner who is going to live there and those people would tend to 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 tre~ it more responsibly but it's the developer who is coming in as a private citizen and then going through and doing what's happening up by where you live Nancy. Do we include somehow private property? I guess that would probably, that would cover basically any land owners in the city and is that what we want to do? Mancino: Well I think Jeff's idea was pretty in~g. About the ~ moratafium. Farmakes: I'm not sure that's a good idea. Don't assign my narr~ to it. Scott: Well someone came up with thi~ idea. Mancino: But I think Bob could research, I me, am.. Farwolms: ...palatable where it's in thdr best interest to follow the ordinance rather than trying to get around it, prior to platting the land. Generous: Or by tree preservation (a) is there's no clear cutting of woodlands. Well we might spread that, or to cutting down of half acre contiguous vegetation, or whatever. Mancino: Exactly. I'd like to do a 2:1 mitigation then or something we do in wetlands if they are caught doing it. Farmakes: ff you rely on a punitive action to make compliance on that, it has to be such that it's really to their disadvantage to do it. And I'm not sure if circumstanc~ like we just saw here, and that's an alleged action. We don't have any proof that they did that and don't you have to rely on that garnishing proof or taking the attitude and I always li~ it when there's an incentive for the devel~ not to tak~ the action rather than punitive actions because one, the city h~ to pros~qlte it. Two, the city t1~ limited I~o~ I~d it's very gxp~ngive to litigate that kind of stuff. And oft~ when you're cleansing in developments of that size, hey. A few thousand dollars, $10,000.00, it's not that much money in the overall development of 2~ some hom~ for a rrfillion. Mancino: When you talk about be/ng punitive, I think thc thing that you want though is W have the trees back there. I ~ you want to, as I said, do some sort of n'fiti~tion so that when they do develop, they have to maybe do 2:1 replmgem~t of what they wok out. Scott: So we're thinking from a punitive standpoint would be, if this occurs, a preliminary plat or replau/ng of the property will not be allowed for 5 years or something like that? Because that's where the money is. That's the pocketbook- It's not, it's going to cost you $50,000.00. I think if a developer was looking at putting in homes in there, especially if Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 they're a builder and it's all of a sudden th~ do this and tben now they've got to sit on the property for 5 years. That's huge. That's very huge. Mancino: Yeah, I got you. Sco~ And then they can't even sell because it doesn't matter. Farmakes: I don't know if that's legal. Scott Oh, I don't know either. Farmai~e~s: I don't know if it's a legal enforceability. Scott: I don't know either. Farmakes: Because you'd have to prove intent of the individual and what's to stop the original landowner from whacidng the trees and then transferring the land to the developer? All in one swoop. I mean who incurred the violation? Scott: I think it's clear that we need something, we need to protect the private property and you're right. I mean the thing that we're trying to protm is that somebody who's a developer owns the land. Whacks the trees. Oops. And it's development time. Farmakes: And I'm not sure how you treat trees in a zonement where the city "the community" sort of takes over control of that for the common good. From a private property owner. It's kind of a, I'm not a proponent of one way or the other so I'm just brining that up as something that I'm sure you've discussed and I know Tim Erhart has discussed it at length in the past on the commission here when he was on this commi.vaion. Then if that's where you butt up to the problem and I'm a lot more lenient in my mind to the private · property owner who, as in the past, a lot of these stands were left for access to wood for farmers. So they had something to burn in the winter. But I'm not sure how you can enforce or put that Wgether so that, as I said, it's palatable to follow along. Scott: Well I think you know what we're trying to do and you're going to be meeting with Roger tomorrow so why don't you use some of his expertise on this and then get back to us on it. F~: One thing that I'd like a provision in there that, some people were calling me and asking me. A dead fall, especially an ice occun'ence that com~ within the tree~ on ~horeline. Often thc ice knocks over thc small sized trees when you get ice shifting. The trees that are 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 very close into the water or unstable ground. They get knocked over and so I don't think that there should bc any, you should have to fill out a permit to clear cut that out. I shouldn't say clear cut. To remove thc dead fall for those type of trees. So I didn't know whether that was covered in the ordinance or not but that would be a I believe an irr~ ~ition_ Mancino: We get that all thc time. Generous: Page 6 on 8 1 think covers that. Mancino: I didn't even see it. Generous: It's an existing code. We just added a few more... Ledvina: But in terms of an ecosystem. Generous: Removal of diseased or damaged trccs is permissible. Ledvina: The ecosystem says leave everything stand. Or leave everything fall or lie. Fannakes: Well if it's a problem with the Ixees that's fallen, one it could be dangerous. And two, the tree is dead so it's. Ledvina: Bugs and... Mancino: But we'd leave it because the birds love ~ trees. That's where they make their nest and I mean we don't want to pay the money to have somebody come and take it down. Generous: Then you get back to the issue of som~nc bought that wooded lot and they want the natural environment. Maybe they would... Farmakes: I would like to see the...to the issue of ~ fall. If declared. Sc, om So where are we on this thing7 ~ we going to bounce it back to stuff and then have them take the recommendations in hand and come back to us at our next meeting? Ledvina: Are we going to have a public heating then or no7 Generous: That's if you wanted for this. Ledvina: Are we ready for a public heating on this7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Well not today but. Ledvina: No, no, no, but for the next time. Scott: I don't know. I'd like to see it before I have the public hearing. What do you guys think? Mancino: Well, yeah I agree. We are trying to obviously get it in Ixa:ause of development happens so much in the spring. We want to, I mean why have this thing come in in July. We're §oing ~o lose. Scott: Then let's have a public hearing at our next meeting and we'll get a chance to review. Ledvina: I bet we can do it. Scott: Yeah, okay. Can I have a motion? Ledvina: I don't thinlr we need one, do we? Mancino: No. This is just opera Generous: No, you're just giving direction to move forward. Scott Groovy. Okay. Then the direction is that staff has collectggt comments and we'll get another revision back to us and we'll have a public heating the first meeting in April. Okay. I'll quickly do the Admin Section. An in~g thing occurred at the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and I guess the, is it Ray Haik, the chairperson of that parfi~ group? Well, he's a senior person there and a tract of land that's basically at the end of the Bluff Creek. I guess the city of Chanhas~n was interested in purchasing part of it as part of our Bluff Creek trail system, etc, etc. And one of the me~ of the Watershed District negotiated a deal with a fellow who was reportedly, or actually it was assumed that he was the actual owner of the property when in fact the property was in title to another individual So anyway, that's still up in the air but I thought it was rather interesting. But that's the way it, do you have any other comments on. Generous: Well they also negotiated a deal that was $30,000.00 more than the previous asking price. Scorn So anyway, that's your tax dollars at work. Anyway, any other cotvmaents, questions before we adjourn the meeting or before I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? 67 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I just have a quick question. Bob, you know we saw thc PUD next to Timberwood. Are we ever get in PUD's, I ~ I know that one of the things about having a PUD. I'm sorry, I'm not very articulate. Is low cost housing or rnodea~ let's say moderate income housing. Something like that as a part of the PUD. But we never see that. What's being done7 Generous: Chan Corporate Center might have it but then do you build 140 unit aImruxm~t building. I believe there are efforts on the part of the city to look into options for that. Mancino: Okay. Ledvina: Just a quick follow-up on that. I noticed with Heritage I was reading the Findings as it relates to the PUD development and it said, you know provides affordable housing, etc. And in the response it said, the response well the houses or the lots will be market~ for, or for sale or something like that. It was really kind of a weak. Farmakes: He used the word moderate. Ledvina: Yeah, moderate. But I don't think that, maybe when we have that situation, maybe we should just be realistic about it and say, this isn't applicable for this type of developmgnt. Or something of that nature as opposed to trying to gloss it over. I don't know. That's just a colTLrnent. Farmakes: It would seem to me, this is really late to'be discusaing this but it would seem to me that this city needs to take a clear cut direction along with other suburbs in this regard. How we're going to deal with that because _this is really a meU~olitan, state legislation issue. And for us to willy hilly, run around looking for stats to compare against their stats, I'm not sure if that's the direction for this type of thing. Or there's no question in my mind that there is no intention or conspiracy going on here but, there are viable issues of discussion in regards to barriers against income. And yes it's true. I mean you will, there's plenty of ears at the Auto Show that I looked at, I can't afford them. And we can discuss the philosophy forever, but I think certainly there should be a coordinated city response to this based on hopefiflly civic input, professional input on how we can address the issues that are brought up. Scott: One idea, I think we have the PUD as a good tool and something that popped into my mind when we were looking at A1 Klingelhutz' development and he brought up where there was, we had some concerns with density. Since there are no federal or local dollars, and I don't see thc City of Chanhasscn bonding to, for thc ptulx)se of affordable housing, one way we can take a look at it is, I choose to use the carrot approach and one of the things that we 68 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 might be able to do in a PUD is if ~y does come in with something that's too dense, we can say hey. This is what our expectatiom are. These are the, and we can come up with dollar amounts as far as what's affordable. Not relative to what's affordable in Chanhassen but what's affordable in the metro area. And just say okay. What we are going to allow you to do Mr. or Mrs. Develope~ is, our ordinance says that this is the density. However, if you put in, sca~ throughout this large developn2mt, x number of units that will be let for no more than x, we will allow you to put an additional boilcling, the revenue and profit from this will offset what you're not getting here. We gsin because we get affordab~ housing. They gain because they get additional income and get the break so I think if we can play some games with density. Farmolre~: But is that how the nnirllal works? It would seem to me that the animal works, the developer's going to build the house, even substandard to what we currently have, for a dollar in return. If an applicant comes to that house, the applicant is going to have to be subsidized in such a way, either to buy into the mortgage or on a monthly basis to pay off the principle and inlrxest At least this is how some religious organizations do this in supplementing housing, "affordable housing". And it depends on which category you're using according to the State government. There's very low income. There's low income. There's like 20 different categories that they have and the issue revolves around a rather technical requirements. My point being is that many of the approaches that have been to this are site scattered and when you say PUD, you're not necessarily talking sit~ sca~. Or at least the ones I've seen...where 50% of them are substandard. So if you're looking at that as a vehicle to come up with stats for affordable,, if the word you're using. Low income is the word I'm using or moderate or upper moderate or w~er you come up with. But the problem that you are going to incur is, if you subsidize that, who's going to subsidize it? You're saying the builder in some way and it seems to me that in commerce you're not going to find the builder subsidize anything. It will be more or less I believe, it will wind up being government in some way, shape or form. To come up with some equity situation- Scott: Well, can I have a motion to adjourn. Mancino moved, Ledvina ~conded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in Ihvor and the motion carried. The meeting wa~ adjmu~ed at 11:25 p.m. Submitted by Ka~e Aanenson Planning ~ Prep~ by Nann Oph~im 69