Loading...
PC 1994 07 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMM~$ION REGULAR MEETING JULY' 6, 1994 Vice Chaimum Mancino call~ the meeting to ~ at 8:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harbem, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Nancy Mancino ~_na Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: loe Scott and Ron Nutting STAFF PRF_~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, Bob C_~n~us, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer;, and Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING 0RDINAN(~E AMENDMENT TO AMEND ~ CBD, BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW SCHOOLS AS A PERMI'v~ED USE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on _this item. Mancino: Any questions for Harberts: I have one. Sust with regard to the ~ building. Is the parking lot, does that have any agreement used by other businesses in the area? Aan~son: No. Now it's a permi~ use so we didn't get into the specifics as far as, there won't be any external remodeling. We didn't want to get into this. There won't be any site plan review of this. It's strictly some internal remodeling. Now certainly as far as that goes, it will have to meet ADA requirements required by building code and those same sort of issues as far as access. Har~: What about from a public safety issue? I mean with kids, my understanding is St. Hubert's is what K thru 67 K thru 87 Aanenson: K thru 8. Harberts: Yeah. Is there any concern from a public safety pa'spec-five? Aanenson: The school district and St. Hubert's has looked at this as far as, and they have addressed how they're going to be serving lunch and how they're going to get access. And all that is worked out between thc school district and St. Hubert's and the facility location. Again, we looked at this as a permitt~ use... There are building code issues, agreed. There is some other issues as far as bus loading and whatever. They have addressed those and we feel that those probably have been adequately met as far as safety... There might be some issues as far as the designs but we'd like to take a look at the safety issues as far as what we have there. Harbem: Does the city have any exposure if son,,eth~g would happen? Say for instance from a public safety issue. Aanenson: I don't believc so. Harberts: Okay. Mancino: You're talking about kids walking back and forth to the playground or? Harbcrts: Well it's not just that. I mean there's commercial businesses operating there and there's traffic that comes in and out during similar school hours so. Farmakes: This actually, school is a temporary use isn't it? If not the. Harberts: 3 years it says. Aanenson: It says...3 years. Harberts: Do you know how many kids they're planning for in that facih'ty? To service. Aancnson: Total number of children? No. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open it up to a public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Sarberts seconded to open the public henrinll. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was open. Mancino: Anyone who would like to speak on this subject. On the zoni.g ordinance to amend the CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a pennitl~l use, please do so at this time. Would anyone like to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the puMic hearing. AH voted in [avor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Mancino: Discussion. Jeff, do you want to start? Farmakcs: I have no real comments on this. It's self evident and I don't have a problem. Mancino: Okay, Matt. Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Ledvin~: No comments. I support the staff recommendations. Conrad: Nothing. Mancino: Any? Harberts: I'm fine. Mancino: Okay. So am I, so do I have a motion? Harberts: 1'11 move that the Planning C. owmigsion recoxmnends to the City Coundl that we amend the CB D district as shown on the Attachment. Mancino: Do I have a second? Ledvina: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the CBD, Central Busimms District to allow schools as a permitted use as shown in the attachment. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried ummimo~iy. Mancino: And this goes to the City Council when? Aanenson: Actually it goes on Monday...decision for the school year so they were going forward on the interpremfion...we just wanted to expedite this based on the fact that they... Mancino: Okay, and next Monday is what, July? Aanenson: llth. Mancino: Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO REZONE 17.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 17,6 ACRE~ OF PROPERTY INT0 2~ Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 SINGLE FAMII.Y LOTS WITH WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES AND YARD SETBACK VARIANCES ON ~ FLAG LOTS~ LOCATED AT 1420 AND 1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD~ SHADOW RIDGE (HARVEY/O'BI/W.N), Public Present: Name Address Dale Hieben Elizabeth Ann Glaceum Craig & Leslie Carlson Bill & Loft Delay Terry & Millie O'Brien Al & Mary Harvey Ken Adolf Bill Coffman 6510 Yosemite Avenue 1510 Lak~ Lucy Road 1341 Stratton Court 1350 Stratton Court 1420 Lak~ Lu~ Road 1430 Lake Lucy Road Schoell & Madson Coffman Development Co ~mpany Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, could you just give us an overall look at what's surrounding this pmtm~? Like who is in this, what I want to say, southwestea~ parcel Right here it sets a single family home. What's around this properS? What's going on fight now? Generous: Curry Farm Estates is located to the east of that. They are single family home~ It's all single family homes in the area. There's large, unplatted lots to the south across the street. There are some preliminary discussions about development of those properties but that's as far as they've come for other single family subdivisions. There's single family m the north. Large lot that the Stewart's own that gould subdivide~ sometime in the future. This whole area is designated for residential, low density which is our single family subdivision. Mancino: Any other questions for Bob? Farmakes: On some of these housing pad questions that you've brought up. There's a fair drop on some of these but they're showing these pads. You feel that these will, that amount of drop will take a house without causing any severe grading problems? Hempel: I'll attempt to address that one. A majority of the lots, yes, are designated for a walkout type dwelling home. One lot of particular concern is on Lot 17 them right off Lake Lucy Road. That has a very significant drop and will most likely be an engineered P/avning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 foundation when it goes for a building permit and receives approval for that lot. Similar ~o, I believe it's Lot 14 on the plat as well Or excuse me, it would be 15 is a lot that has pretty si~onificant slopes. The remaining lots... Farmakes: And where you showed those tree areas, those tree preserves where those smep ridges are on 14, 12, 11 and 10, those remain unbuildable then right? Within the preservation area. Mancino: Any other questions for staff? Then does the applicant or the designee wish t~ address thc Planning Commission? Hempel: If I could just make one more clarification on the c, ondifio~ of approval. There was some discussion with regards to the net developable acreage which our Surface Water Management fee is calculat~l off of. I believe the staff report reads 14 acres and I believe it should be 13.1 which would also revise the total assessment fee down to $25,938.00. Mancino: I think it's 13.06. Hempel: That's condition number 2. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Could you give your name and address. Ken Adolf: Madam Chairman, members of the c, on~ission, I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson. We're the cn~neers for the applicant which is Coffman Development. Also here this evening is Bill Coffman who is the president of Coffnmn Development. The applicant is agreeing to 26 of the 27 conditions that are ~ hem. One of them has been delet~ but the exception is number 11 which recommends that the Block 2 area be platted as an outlot and held out for...dev~lopment. This is important to the applicant because thc grading, the sit~ grading of the first phase generatr, s 100,000 cubic yards of excess mal~d. Excess soil and there's a shortage of soft on the Block 2 area so he wants to take that excess and place it into the Block 2 area. Reduce the amount of i .mportrA fill that will be necessary there. The excess fill is really cutting down the hole there where the house and the pole barn and the area which... The reasons that were cited by staff for platting of the Block 2 area as an outlot were inadequat~ streets and utilities. That both lots would front on Yosemite, which is a serviced street, although substandard. The applicant wo-ld agree to the assessments for future street improvements and would commit the furore lot owners to the same. As far as the sanitary sewer and water service, them is existing sewer and wagr just to the we, sc I've got a transparency which indic, ams how sewer and water service could be provided. I should say the existing sewer and wamr is to the north of Yosemite. That's dashed in, the existing water is in the dashed blue and the existing sewer's in the dashed red. The water can be extended P/annJng Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 re. ally with no problem. The problem is with the sanitary sewer which is too high an elevation to allow serving the proposed lots. What is proposed as far as sewer service is a gravity sewer which would flow from the south to a ternpor~ lift station and the lift station would help force through the existing sewer. Ultimately wc understand that this arca would be served or is presently in. ding to be served by extension of the gravity sewer from the west on Lake Lucy Road, althou~ the construction of that is indefinite at this point. When that sewer line would be installed and the gravity line runs through the Block 2 area, could be connected to that sewer line and the temporary lift station would be _elimins___h~_ So we feei that this is a reasonable alternative to providing both sewer and water to these 5 lots that are proposed in the Block 2 area. The staff also indicated some concern regarding the number of lots in that area... The Block 2 area contains about 5 1/2 acres of land of which about 1.2 is inciuded into wetlands. This leaves 4.3 acres of upland area which we feel is mom than adequate for the 5 lots that are shown. In fact we have a sketch plan that shows several additional lots there which are flag lots coming off of Yosemite. There were some concerns cited about the wetland setback on Lot 5 and that, a buffer could be provided on that lot by shifting the lot lines to the north. Again, the Block 2 area was actually proposed as a phase 2 of the development. However as I indicated, it is i ,mportant to the applicant because he needs to dispose of the excess material in the first phase. Sust a couple other comrm-nts. The applicant has met with the neighbors regarding the development. He has a letter of intent to sell the lots, all of the lots to one builder. Custom builder and this builder is very experienced in building in wooded areas and preserv~g trees and Bill has some photos that will demonsua~ that. That really ends the discussion we had. As I indicated, the only problem we've got is the staff recommendation for item 11. We'll be happy to address any questions. Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Adolf? Ledvina: I had one. Had you proposed this alternate with a lift station to staff before this evening? Ken Ado[f: No I didn't I think there, well there vgre some general discussion about a lift station but that was proposed as a second phase and the utility service wasn't indic, amd on the preliminary utility plans submitted. Ledvina: Thank you. Mancino: Dave, would you like to respond to temporary? Hernpel: Sure. There was an initial conversation with regard to thc utility service to _this block. After further discussions with the City Engineer, we felt that it would bett~ to be Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 served in the future from the extension of the sanitary sewer line north along Yosemite from Lake Lucy Road. However, as Mr. Adolf indicau~ the timing of that is probably 2 years down the road yet. There has been some preliminary discussions of property owners along the south side of Lake Lucy Road of development proposals. However, nothing defini~ at this time. We feel that the lift station is an undue btuden from a maintenance standpoint, especially for only 3 or 4 or 5 home~ In addition to that, Yosemite Road is not upgraded to the cmrent city urban standards as a temparary type of road service that the city actually instaJle~ a ¢otlple years ago to rrtinirilize maintenance of the gravel road that was there, so there's really no storm water ~ements, storm sewer, curb and gutter and so forth and I believe the right-of-way along the street also is below our typical standards. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Would anyone like to open the public hearing? Ledvimi moved, Harberts seamded to open the public hearinl~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: The public hearing is open. Those who would like to speak, please come up in front of the podium. Give your name and address. We'd lihe to hear from you. No one at all? Dale Hiebert: Yes. Dale HieberC I live at 6510 Yosemit~ which is directly acro~ the street from the 5 lots we're talking about. My big concern is drainage. Everybody I've talked to is aware that I have drain tile that drains onto those lots and I just want to make sure that I'm promcl~ here. That you know about it. Everybody I talk to seems to know about it. I just want to...so everybody hears me and water and sewer, if it comes down Yosemil~, am I required to hook up to the water then? I'm presently not hooked up to the water. I have a lift station. And those are my two concerns. Mancino: Dave, can you answer those? Hempel: Certainly. With regards to the drain tiles in the area, it's been the city's policy whenever a drain tile is encountered, that we try to resolve it either by relocating it to maintain the drainage from the system, or incorporating it into one of the storm sewer systems so it maintains the flow of wat~ and the up~ water of these drain tiles do impact the residential neighborhoods. There's quite a network of pipes throughout the city with ag fields...that's been developed so we do try to maintain each one of those drain tiles when we encounter them. At times they're abandoned. .. but in most cases we do rerouu~ them into one of the proposed storm sewer sysmns, As far as the connection to the city water service, the ordinance states that as long as the well is fimcfioning pwperly, you're not Plavning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 required to hook up to the city water. You are required to hook up to city sewer but from my underslanding you're ~tly connea~ so you would be safe until your well fails. Dale Hieberc Airight, thanks. Mancino: Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Ilarberts seconded to close the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carded. The public hearing was dosed. Mancino: Public hearing is closed. Comments from the commi~ioners. Diane. Harberts: I don't know, I'm somewhat co~ with regard to the Lots 1 thru 5. In terms of developing versus waiting. I always have a prob!__em with variances to the setbacks. But it seems that I understand because of the topography that it's probably warranted. So I guess there's the values there. I guess what I'm Ulhng to wrestle with is really the Lots 1 thru 5. Otherwise you know from a preliminary plat, from my perspective, I don't have a lot of problems with the other material but I was just trying to wrestle with 1 thru 15. That's the extent. Mancino: Okay. Maybe we'll come back to you after hearing what Ladd has to say. Harbcrts: Oh I don't know about that one. Conrad: I don't think so. In thc staff proposal summary, on page 2. h talked about thc developer wanting to, thc applicant to reduce setbacks and buffer strips minimized and that. But then I didn't, you know I didn't see in the report any change, recommended change to thc plans which tells me that the applicant has changed their plans in accordance with your position? Generous: At least for Block 1. Our issues were all on Block 2, Conrad: Okay so it seems we're in a kind of a sensitive aiza with real significant slopes. And it seems that in thosd areas we don't reduce, we increase if anything. So we go to the max versus the minimum. I guess I don't have, I think the proposal looks okay and I think the flag lots are acceptable. The variances on those. I think that meets some of the needs we have and I think most of the staff report makes a lot of sense. It's just this one particul~ issue that, in terms of protecting the environment, I can't tell and that's why I'm asking you the question, and you're saying it's okay. We have built in those buffers and we are doing Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 what our ordinances require. So does that mean that we have a 20 foot buffer around the wetlands now? Generous: The natural wetlan~ Conrad: Around the natural wetlands. Generous: In the southeast and southwest Conrad: And our ordinance says they can be somewhere, our ordinance says they can be 10 to 20 feet? Generous: 10 to 30 feel Conrad: 10 to 30. So why didn't we pick 30? · Aanenson: What we do is we average the, we have that flexi~. We certainly can do that. ..average. Conrad: Okay. I just wanted. Aanenson: ...and that's why we raised it on Block 2 because that's ~y one that we want m, I mean we're questioning the integrity of those lots. Conrad: Yeah. Generous: And Block 1...on that natural wetland and combining it into one and provided us with a large preservation area that won't be aff~ at all Conrad: Okay, so you've looked at it and you're comfortable that that buffer and whatever is appropriate so I'm not trying to push 30 feet when we don't need a 30 foot buffer. Generous: It will get larger than that in some areas. Conrad: Okay. But you're using the ordinance for what we want? Okay. Harberm: Do you have any comments with regard to Lots 1 thru 5? Conrad: Well I don't get it. You know I guess I'm going to listen to Dave. He's the expert around here. I think the applicant has a good point, moving some land around snd dmnping Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 it real close. I'd listen to that But on the other hand, I think I have to pay attention to what city staff feels is appropriate. I don't think that 5 lots is what I'd like to see there, just basically, but I don't know what the right number is and I need, it's like I can't approve that until I get some idnd of a review of the area so that is in never, never land and therefore handling it as an ouflot was fine with me because then we'd have more time to tak~ a look at it. Aanenson: ...whether or not based on the. .. storm water mana~t, sewer availability, sewer and water. That was an issue of en~neering. Plus we felt like, we're not sure there's,..that they're going to have a wetland if there's $ lots so we said put them in an ouflot. I guess what we're saying is, put it in outlot just so there's an understanding that there is the 5 lots there. We're saying we'll revisit that issue. We're not comfortable saying that there's 5 lots there. Now as far as the soil between this block and the other block, there may be issues as far as the wetlands. Some of those things too and how we cut across there as far as balancing erosion issues. Harberts: I just have a question if I could interject Ka~ with regard to that area though, the Lots 1 thru 5. I guess I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of the applicant in terms of, you know from dollars and cents. Is there a compromise here? I mean what we're doing is asking them not to, well telling them they can't develop. Aanenson: But that's in the subdivision ordinance you've got to have adequate road and sewer service available. We're saying that, en~neering has said for that number of lots, this approach isn't acceptable. Harberts: So is there a compromise? Aanenson: As far as balan~g the mils? Hcrnpel: They're certainly capable of grading this site and trade dirt. I think they want to do some house pad correction~ on this Block 2. They have access to good ~ on Block 1 and they want to do a little Inide of the two areas. That can be done under the proposal here before you this evening. Expanded on the grading plans to show that. Harberts: So you can't maybe have the premium but there's a middle of the road here and so it's a decision then that they'd have to weigh. If they want premium, then you have to meet the codes, which is good roads and all this. Whereas there may be an alternative, a choice. Is that what I'm understanding? 10 Planning Comm/ssion Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Hempeh That's correcc There is some compromise that we're able to work with them if they need to get rid of the good soils and com~ the house pads, they can certainly do that at this time with this proposal. Conrad: In conclusion, if the applicant doesn't accept the staff reIggt, point number 11, doesn't want it as an outlot, I want _this tabled for staff to bring it back to review Block 2 in further detail with the analysis that they'd have to put into that. Mancino: And right now the applicant doesn't. Conrad: We'll open it up to the applicant. I think the app~t can say hey I want that platted. Ledvina: You want a yes or a no tonight. Conrad: I think it can sail through here if you're comfortable with an outlot. If you're not comfortable with an ouflot situation, then I'm going to have to table it. Ken Adoff: The applicant is interested in moving this project along. Wants to get the site improvements constructed late this summer and allow house constructi~ to start this fall so we really can't tolerate any delays. I guess if he had a choice of getting it approved tonight with an ouflot, we'd go along with that provided that he can do some grading on that ouflot, which would be Block 2. Which is ded~ as Block 2. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Matt. Ledvina: We talked a little bit about the gr._ding and the definition of a bluff and you're suggesting that the applicant, suggesting that the applicant follow the grading and ~ setback guidelines for dedgnated bluff hnpact zone. So which ~ on site meet the bluff definition? It's on Lot 2, 3, 4, 5 on Block 1. Generous: Yes, the rear of 3 and 4 where you have the steep sl~. Lot 15, 16, 17 and the rear of 14 and 12. He can, we believe with the 20 foot front setback he can meet that, the bluff guidelines. Generous: For all of them. Ledvina: For all of thorn? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Generous: Or be close. He'd be, it's a 30 foot setback from the top of a bluff that would be impacted on. Ledvina: Well for number 17, it would appear that the house pad is right in the, so that wouldn't be, in that instance it would not meet the buildable critm'ia for the bluff hnpa~ zone. Mancino: So that would be a variance? Generous: No, this isn't in a bluff impact zone. We were suggesting that he follow the guidelines. Aanenson: The bluff impact zone is what's being mapped on the city bade. ally falls in the southern portion of the city. Mancino: But it is by all definition, is a bluff ~ zone. How can it not be in one? Ledvina: So if thc criteria were applied that we've used in the southern part of the city in looking at the house placements here, it doesn't alyiwa~ that Lot 17 would be a buildable lot. Is that? Generous: If he can push the house pad further to the east, and he's not in the bluff zone, but then he's down in the low area and the treed area that we want~l to preserve. You need, what is it, a 30% grade. Ledvina: But then is he, would he be into the wetland setback zone them? Generous: No, because he would be able to transfer his average on that lot to one of the other sites. And we believe this is a better placement for the house. As far west as he can go on that lot. Lcdvina: Right. But at the same time it's consUuc~ in the side slope of that bluff are~ Okay. I don't know. I'm on the fence as far as that lot is concerned. Mancino: On what, 177 Ledvina: Yeah. In some aspects, in some ~ I feel that the pad placement should not be allowed on that slope. But maybe I can get back to that. Or let some of the other commissioners have, expand their ideas on that. Let's see here. Talking about the red~ setbacks. Let's sec. You're recommending 20 feet and the standard is 30 feel Looking at the layout of the lots, I think that makes sense for Lots 3, 4, 5 and the other lots around there. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 But I guess on Lot 2, I'm thinking about the existing home that's there. That selback that will be set back quite a bit of disumce off that road and I'm thinking about maybe a transition between the existing home and the other house pad that would be there. So I would propose that we have a 25 foot setback for Lot 2 as the minimum setback and I think there's some room in there where we won't infringe on that bluff zone. Do you have any conmlcnts on that? Generous: No, I don'L.. It's mostly for convenience that they do thi~. Generous: And I don't know if he wanted to have ~ designs. Ledvina: Well but I think again with the existing residence there and it seems m make reasonable sense to provide a transition there. I know there's qui~ a bit of dis~ b~veen the residents and that, and the house on Lot 2 but still: it m~tt make sense. Just a general question for staff. For Lot 2, wherc arc wc measuring the rear setback? There's this little Icg that goes to thc, and I get my directions off here because it goes toward Block 2. On Lot 2, Block 1. Yeah, that little flag. Where would the ~car setback be ~urccl fix)m? Generous: We'd use this side for...wc're proposing that this be included in the ~ation areas. Ledvina: Okay. I was just wondering about those types of lorn How you look at them. Okay. On condition number 27. Have we done a tree survey? Generous: Yes. It's included on this plan. Ledvina: Which plan is it on? Generous: It shows up in all of them. Ledvina: It's the canopy coverage7 Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. And that gives us what w~ need to define that zone? Okay. Generous: Yeah. He's supposed to provide us the calculations... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. And as it relaies to Block 2, I would support platting that as an outlot at this time. I think that's a reasonable approach them. Mancino: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: Just a question before I start on my comments. Did I hear this right? This is going to be handed back to city staff or we're going to treat this as an outlot and they're going to grade on it? We're approving this as a grading plan or? Aancnson: There is a grading plan included. Hempeh It's my understanding that we're going to allow them to grade this outlot, ar excuse me, this Block 2 which we want to see as an ouflot With this overall development at this Farmakes: Okay. You're comfortable with that? Hempel: Yes I ~ Farmakes: Okay. I don't have a problem with the 25 setback. This is a dimcult chunk of property to develop. I'm wondering however when this goes before the City Council is there a net square footage in here? That's buildable. Buildable square footage in re~uds to these lots? I'm just making a comment. I see various square feet but it doesn't say, it seems to reflect what is on the sheet 1. Total square footage. Generous: Well there's 1.89 acres of wetland. Farmakes: No, I was talking about lgr lot. I'm just wondeaing. Generous: Yeah, the net was 23.294 average. Farmakes: Okay, an average lot. I'm just wondea'Mg, when this goes up to the city, ff you would calculatr out each lot as to what the buildable square footage is per lot because I would calculate on some of these with the lot is a majarity of which either there's a Iree preservation or wetland. It probably comes close to being pretty substandanL Generous: I believe that's because we got them to agree to designate these areas. Technically he could build within those tree preservation areas. Farmakes: Yeah, well I'm wondering why isn't this a PUD. I'm must curious. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Generous: Didn't need it. He n~t the subdivision ardinance. Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the variance. I don't see how they're going to develop this property otherwise. I don't know if you're familiar with the property, if you want to look at it but it's a lot of rolling hills that are kind of cow pasture in the woods, is what it is. Mancino: Horse pasture. Horses. Farm~kes: Horse pasture, yeah. The Senson's. I think it's a reaso~le plan for property, as difficult as it is. So I have no problem if you want to table tILLs otherwise ar send it on. If they're happy with that and the city staff's luq~y with that, move it on. Mandno: And the applicant said they would rather have Block 2 be an ouflot and keep going so. That's it? Anything else? Bob, I have a question for you. On page 9 of the staff report you talk about Lot 9, Block 1. If the at)p~t had not followed the smt~s recommen__ds_tion and it shifted the building pad further up the hill to minirllize gl'ading ~ ~ loss. However, you still believe that this portion of the property is very steep and wooded and should be evaluated fimher and quite possibility eliminate one of the lots in acc~ with staff's previous recommendations. Generous: I'll defer to Dave on that one. Mancino: So tell me about Lot 9, Block 1. Hempel: Chairman Mancino. That was one of the flag lots that they have on the cul-de-sac. We initially did some playing around with lot lines and a regular house pad fmther up on the hill; we felt that they were in a sense...Lot 9 is probably no different than what you see on Lot 15 and it's much better than Lot 17 obviously so there's some warrants or merits for keeping the lot as proposed. Maucino: Okay. How long's this cut-de-sac? Generous: Pardon me? Mancino: How long is the cul-de-sac? Hempel: Based on the plat, I would say it's between 600 and 700 feet. Mancino: Okay. And public safety wise you're okay with that? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Hempel: Public safety, yes. Mancino: I know this is a hard lot. Hernpel: It's a very dit~icult piece to develop. You have a parcel on the north that has a home between that property and a knoll. You have Curry Farms to the east which.., street access. You have the wetlands and the steeper bluff to the west. It's really a dit:ficult piece. Mancino: Do you feel that there should be a connec~on with the ~ north of this? I ~ I know that you're allowing some easement from Yosemite but should there be a connection going to thc north? Hempel: There's pretty di~icult grades going up to ti~ north through those trees and so forth and the location of the existing home on that site pmbably...best location in where to extend the road so all those parameu~, it made more sense to approach it from Yosemite in the future when that parcel wishes to develop. I believe this plat at this time is dedicating half the right-of-way for that parcel so it is not land locked totally. Bob, correct me ff I'm wrong. Generous: Yeah, 30 feet. Mancino: Okay. My only other comment would be much like Matt's on Lot 17. It's just a lot of, it's so close to that bluff area that I have problems with that too. And it seems like what, there will be massive re~ning walls there? Generous: No, I think what they're talking about is building the baseboard down to the bottom of the slope and digging in towards the knoll Mancino: So you won't have a bluff at all? You'll just have the back of the house. Generous: Yes. Mancino: So you will have elim/nated the bluff comp_ .letely. With a house fight where the bluff would be. Ledvina: Inw the bluff, yeah. Which is what we're trying to avoid by that exact scenario. I mean it's not just a variance from the setback from the top, which is something I could look at, but we're actually talking about building the thing right into the bluff. Mancino: Yeah. That is concern for me too. Do I have a motion? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Harberts: I would consider making the motion. I just wanted to, I ~ if I was to make the motion I would recommend that it be forwarded onto the City Coundl you know with the understa_nding of that outlot and grading but I would want, I guess I'm just wondering with you two, with regard to your Lot 17, I gu~s I'm akight with it but, and then I guess I would just note the cul-de-sac. If it's 600 to 700, the ordinance I believe that we eslablished is 600 maximum so it's just noting that. Given the fact that Dave said it kind of is a, probably a compromise given the topography, etc that you're dealing with. Mancino: I have it's, the other variances that are required on this to build on I think are I just really have a problem with taking out a whole bluff...are~ I mean it changes the character. Harberts: When you look at overall what's being achieved, do you give up that piece because of everything else that's being saved or pro~ected or whatever. Fannakes: In that particular bluff area, you can't even see it from the road. It's just goes down. You can see the wetland down below but it goes down pretty fast. Mancino: So if you go there it's like, well can you really put a house here? I mean there doesn't seem to be enough land to put it there. I-Iar~: To do it. But as long as that's an engineering, bnilding problem isn't it? Ledvina: I think it's an environmental issue. Mancino: Environmental issue. Farmakes: Yeah and I think with the yin'lance that you're allowing them, they make it in. On those particular two lots. Otherwise they'd be under the, to the wetland I think, or close to it. Conrad: Matt, what would be your justification for not allowing Lot 177 How would you? Ledvina: Well it is in a bluff zone and the city has taken steps to, and passed ordinances to protect these types of areas. The fact that this specific area is not desi~__~ed as bluff is essentially an oversight by the city. I think we should com~ that here. Conrad: And the purpose of preserving bluffs would be what? In this area. Ledvina: For aesthetic reasons. For erosion control Basically those two reasons. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Conrad: Do you think, is it the same as the other bluffs like when we're talking about the Minnesota River. Ledvina: Well not when the vistas are miles. I don't think that's the sc~mado he~. Mancino: But you do look over the entire wetland and the whole area. I mean you do have a view when you're up there. It's not the expanse~ of something else. So the motion? Harberts: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. That we recommend that the City Council approve Subdivision ~ and Rezoning rezoning the property from RR, Rural ~tial to RSF, Single Family Residenti~ consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, l~,~minary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback requirements for flag lots for Lots 5, 9 and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 and a 25 foot front setback requirement for Lot 2, Block I to permit a 20 foot, help me with this one Bob. Generous: Permit a 20 foot... Harberts: Okay, let me restate that last portion. And grant a variance of 10, no. Generous: You're 10 feet from the 30 foot se~ for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 and foot, to permit a setback of 20 feet in the 5 foot front setback variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to pennit a 25 foot setback. Harberts: Subject to the following conditions as outlined in items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 would require the calculation of buildable space on each lot. That information to move forward to the City Council. I think that was it. And we noted that Lot 2, Block 1 was the transifion...so that does not require a separate condition does it? Generous: The only, condition 5 has been resolved. Mancino: So that can be deleted. Harberts: Okay, so item 5 would be deleted and the following conditions renumbered gly. Mancino: Do I have a second7 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Hempel: Madam Chairman, if I could make one point of c~on on condition number 2. The storm water assessment fee was revised based on the acreage. If we could revise the acreage from 14 acres down to 13.1 which results in a storm water assessment fee of $25,938.00. Maucino: Do you accept the friendly amendment? Hartnn'ts: Yes, for number 2. Hcrnpel: Thank you. Conrad: I second the motion. Mancino: Any discussion7 Conrad: Yeah. Staff, what's the rationale for prohibiting that boilding on the steep slope? Is it justified? Aanenson: Well thc reason we have it on the southern portion of the city as well as for this one is erosion controL.a-unoff from the rooftop into the bluff and erosion underneath it. Conrad: And can that be dealt with engineering wise or is it, I'm trying to assess. I think the point is real valid here. I'm just not sure what our rationale is. Hernpel: Camunissioner Conrad, we have addressed similar areas, Fox Path is one area. Lundgren development...steep slopes. Wam~ed depammnt, the Watershed District is required to do individual grading to drainage plans and that those lots be apgroved by the Watershed as well when they come through for building p~mit8 t~ insur~ that th~ roof drainage is being dealt with properly. So it will not create aa erosion problem. Another option I guess here is to relocate that house down on Lot 17 further to the east but that's going to impact those trees with buffeting in neighborhoods so. Mandno: You know what's going to ha~ when a developer or a development comes in that's actually on a bluff. I mean a bigger bluff let's say. I mean at what point do you say that it's a bigger bluff so we don't want a house built into it versus one that isn't? I mean how are we going to. Aancnson: We have noticed for thc next Planning Commission...Muff ordinance dXy wide so we will be looking at that... When thc plat comes in and it meets the definition of a Muff, we will apply those standards. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Ledvina: So why isn't that being done here? Aanenson: We asked that. It's not an ordinance right now. We asked them to loca~ it...as Dave indicated, that we resolve that working with the Watersh~. It's really an issue of, if you want to get right next to the bluff for views and the extra runoff from the rooflines so as Dave indicated, we've got cooperation of the Watershed to make sure that we try to mitigate that issue. Ledvina: So would you recommend that we include a condition that the. Aanenson: That might be appropri~ way to do it. That this lot _mee_ t Watershed approval Hempel: That it submits an individual grading and drdnage plan, erosion control plan in conjunction with the building permit application. Being reviewed also by the Watershed Harberts: Isn't that part of the approvals process anyway7 Hempel: We look at each individual building permit as it comes through. We don't necessarily require a detailed grading plan or erosion control plan, What they're going to do with thc roof drainage and so forth. Ledvina: Would you accept that as a fiiendly amendment? Condition number 29. Mancino: So we do have a second. Ledvina: Hold on one second. Let's see. We should, where I believe that condition number 20 should be changed to be consistent and I would suggest the following language. The 25 foot front setback is granted, or I should say allowed for Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 etc. Mancino: Do you also want to change in that, staff encourages the developer, or do you want to take that out? Ledvina: Well, if there's other areas, no I'd like to keep that in there. If there's other areas in thc development that setbacks or some other standards might be applied to benefit the bluff zone, I'd certainly like to see that so. Also on number 11 I would propose that we change thc terminology of that to, from should to shall as it relates to the out, lot Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Mancino: Diane, do you accept7 Harberts: Yep. Mancino: Anything else? Okay. We're done with discussion. Conrad: Nancy, the motion 29. h's not the motion but condition 29. Dave, you kind of worded that. Could you say it again for me? In fact, I really want it to be extremely tight. If we build there, it's just got to be engineered so well that we protect the environmental things that we're concerned with. I think it's taking advantage on this site. I don't think the site should have a house but I don't really think we have the ordinance to say no right now. But I do think we have, we can make it extremely. I just want it worded Dave so that we have all the controls in there so we are not furthering any kind of erosion or pollution ar whatever. Runoff that's not controlled because it's such a unique site. Hempel: Would you like for me to atmnpt? Conrad: Yeah, would you. Hcn*~l: In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block 1, thc applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to the Watemhed District's approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Mancino: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion, we have a secon_A Any other discussion? Any other friendly amcn~ts? Then let's vote. ltarberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision ~ and Rezoning 94-2 rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, comisteot with the City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side m~ack variance from the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag lots for Lots $, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block I to permit a twenty foot front setback, and a S foot front setback variance from the 30 foot setlmck requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 25 foot setimck, subject to the foflowing conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calctflations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwa~ quality/quantity ponds in accordance with thc City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to 21 Phoning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 . . e . review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-devd~ and post- developed stormwater calculations for lO0-ycar storm cvcnts. Normal water level and high water level caloxlations in existing basins and ~ storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to d~n~ if ~t catch basins are being ufiliTed. In addition, water quality pon_ding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $25,938.00 assuming 13.1 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant co~ an on-site Walker pr. treatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the devel~ contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake Lucy Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain files found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. . . Se . The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on the ~ fails. The applicant shall work with staff in de~g the most feasible location to extend sanitary sewer and water service~ to the north (Stewart parcel). Thc grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block 1 to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side/comer walkout type dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be prohibited. ThC existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on thc site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The stormwatcr reUmtion pond shall be relocamt furth~ to the n~t on Lots 10 and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1. Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 shall be pl~__tted_ as an outlot due to the lack of adequate utilities and street. This ouflot wonld_ not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard, municipal sanitary sewer and wamr is extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues are Drainage and utility easements shall be ded/cated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary finan~ security to guarantee the ~on of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of thc City's Sumdard Specifications and Deu~ Pla~. De~ed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be subrnit~ed to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat conddemfion. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Wamahed District, DNR, Depazunent of Health, MPCA and other at~a~0~a~ regulatoz7 agenci~ and comply with their conditions of approval. Upon completion of sim grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the sim grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and sud~l in accordance with thc City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before co~on beans and will charge the applicamt $20 per sign. Planning Co~on Meeting - July 6, 1994 19. 0, 21. 22. 23. 4e 5e 6e 27. 29. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval. A 2S foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block I and a 20 foot front setback is allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and to preserve re:es. The applicant shall incarpara~ retaining walh and custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are minimally impacted. Staff encourages the developer to incorporate bluff prol~rtion guidelines in the develoInnent. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, lrees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. Thi~ is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely ~ Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval Advise Fire Marshal of the status of ws___~r main and fire hydrant placement and spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots 1 - 5, Block 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval The tree preservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as pan of the final plat approval The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall be re-evaluat~xl and either be ~vvised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have the grs_ding plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the woodland management plan address thc replanting of these areas. Calculafl~ for buildable space on each lot be forwarded to the City Council. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit appflcation for Lot 17, Block 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed gradinlb drainage and erosion control plan subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to issuance of any building Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEAR/NO: nWrgR~M u$~ P~mvn~ R~)~ TO ORAOg. 46~ AC~U~ Tn~ PROP~gTY ~ LOCATED EAST OF mGHWAY 101 AT 81~H STREET, lViI~SION HH.L~ TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Al Klingelhutz Dick Putnam Dermis Marhula Dave Nikolay 7808 Creeh/dge Circle, Bloomington 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Tandem Properties Wcstwood En~neefing 8500 Tigua Circle Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Haxberts: I have a question for staff. Maybe this is a Ka~e question. Do we usually, the Planning Commission, get these grading plans? Aanenson: Yes, we've done on it projects where there's timing...Byerly's. We did it on Target Ledvina: Oak Pond. Aanenson: Where they're trying to keep the project moving. Farmakes: There's been some movement on, since we sent it forward. There appears to be fewer units to the south, is that correct? Aanenson: He may want to comngnt, that is yes. Aanenson: Tabled it their first, to wait to get the Park recommendations... Farmakes: But the plan_moved over to the east it looks ~ and enlarged. It looks like there's fewer units there. P/ann/ag Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Aanenson: That's what they're going forward to the City Council with. Mancino: But the City Council has not approved the ffrelimimuy plat. Farmakes: Okay, I was wondering where that came from. That came from City Council's comments7 Harber~: But if the Park Commission is waiting to review and comment on this. Aanenson: They mec..based on that. The City Council tabled it because they wanted the Park and Rec Commission's. They met on the 27th. Park and Rec met on the 28th so they have commented on it...so they're moving forward with that... Harberts: So this reflects comments from Park and Rec? Aanenson: I don't believe so, no. What we're talking about specifically in Dave's report is the gl-a~ding itself. We're not talking about the site plan. Harberts: But wouldn't the grading plan then if there's something si~ifieant in the Pazk and Rcc mporg wouldn't that have an effect on how grading occurs? In a parti~ area of the plan. Hempel: That's correct. In the one location where they do show the play lot where a lot is proposed. That is one area that we feel a pond is not warrant~ and can be accom~ with another pond on the site so we feel conditions can be worked out between staff and the applicant. We need a little more time to do that. The applicant is on a time line here to try to get the site...will take them some time to move that volume of ea~ work. So they're just trying to stay ahead of the game. Haflxrts: Would you have we have a complete proposal here or understanding? I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with approving something that I don't know if they incorporate all of the necessary conditions there or whatever, but you shared with us though that you felt that's an avenue that can be taken care of between staff and the applicant? Hcmpel: That's correct. What's before you this evening, the interim use pa'mit for grading the si~. Conditions listed in the staff mporc..If there are additional issues that need to be resolved with a grading plan but we feel they can be musaged to work. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Ha_rber~: Oh alright. Mancino: Anybody else have any questions for stuff7 Farmakes: I just have a general comment. I think it's an i .mprovement over what we sent. Mancino: Applicant like to address the Planning Commi~sion- Dennis Marhula: Well I can maybe ad/keam some of the questions you have. I'm De~_ his Marhula with Westwood Engineering and you're fight, we have changed the plan and...park and staff as occurred with the changes that we show here. Basically you can see we've changed the smaller toflot that was configured in this location, we've shifted some of the units slightly and we created a larger toflot, play lot over here which meets the appro~mA_te. acre and a haft that Park and Rec were looking far. And we also, am.that we showed Park and Rec was to create a toflot open space in this vicinity but this was their first choice of those options. So we have reconfigured thi.~ area a little bit and picked up some of the units that we've lost in recon6guring this park. So I think the site plan I believe and it does...approval of Park and Rec and I'm confident that it will meet the approval of the City Council as well. I'm sure it addresses the concern that the Planning Commi~41ion had several weeks ago when we were here. As it relates to the pod_ding, we discussed this a little bit at the Planning Commission meeting last time we were here and we are wofldng with Dave to resolve the issue. The dilemma that we're in is that the city's ~e storm sewer plan generally shows large, centrally located ponds which are to serve much larger areas. Our initial ponding in this vicinity to serve ~i.~ basic catch...they show m the ponding to the east of us, larger ponding to serve runoff that generally goes that way. What we are trying to do on our site is provide that inmim treauncnt and storage that is necessary ~o avoid any downstream damage or any contamination or silt running downgav, am~ We're providing a water quality pond and storage pond on our site until those city faciti~ can be constmcu~ And so it becomes a timing issue. This pond for instance and this drainage goes generally to thc north into a larger pond. That pond, and one of thc things we ~ at thc Ci~ Council meeting is that pond essentially could potentially be an interim pond. And that ponding area after Highway 101 gets consmscted and thc pond is cons~ further north, space, open space, w~er...might choose. And that's similar with some of the other ponds that we have shown here. Eventually this area, a majority of this area drains to the east and will be accommodated by a larger city pond but that interim solution that we're grappling with with staff right now. On how to accommodate the interim solution as well as thc future pemument solution but I'm sure that we can make that work. We think we have a, from our standpoint, we think we have it preUy well worked out and we've given stuff, shown a lot of calculations and ponding calculations and so on. I'm not sure that Dave has had, because all Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 of this is going so fast Since the last City Council meeting. You know it just tak~ time to work through. I'm sure Dave hasn't had tirr~ to spend to look at the dcudls... But we feel it can be worked out...The interim use permit does have to go in front of the Council as well so, and they certai~y will not allow the interim use permit to...The other option that we had was to, we are not requesting you to...to wait until we final plat the ~. And we feel that, with where we are in the construction season today, and looking ~ at the next Cotmcil meetings and their decisions...that will be made, and the time it takes to corr~,lete that process of final plat, that would simply put us out of this construction season. So the only hope we have of doing anything this season is to go through the interim use process and use that process. As you're aware, I think we first came to your commigsion a year ago and through no fault of our's and through no fault of your's, we've been delayed si~it~cantly due to Highway 101 studies and 212 studies and the sewer and water smd~ and so on and we would, at this point, like to... If you have any questions regarding the grading or... Mancino: Any questions? Jim Ostenson: My name's Jim Ostenson with Tandem Properties. One of thc devclopc~ of thc project Just one comment that A1 glingclhutz asked that we get on the recmxt, and the beaning that occtws on thc south side, there is a slight.onto his ~ which is future freeway. Highway 212 fight-of-way and that's been approved by the Highway Department since Al still owns thc land. He's...so we will make that adjustment to bring that berm back a couple of feet so it's not on his pwpet~ at all Mancino: Thank you. Okay, would we like to have a motion to ~ this for a public hearing? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: So, would anyone like to spe.~ at the public Dave Nikolay: Good evening. My name is Dave Nflwhy. I live at 8500 Tfgua Circle. There's just a couple things. I've talked to city stuff about these things and Dave Hcmpel as of yesterday to clarify a few points but I think it's imp~t that I address you and make sure that these things arc included in this plan. One of the things involves the gm_ding. I've ~__m-_.nded all thc public hearings since this issue came up. I still believe that the issue relative to the water drainage across my ~, which I'll point it out here. My ~'s located over here, 2 1/2 of these lots plus some, that's located on that ~ Duc to the horse farm's dumping of waste from their operations over thc~ the topography and that's don't show the changes that have occurred. I believe that over t/me the water that used to drain to the marsh Planning Commission M~ting - Suly 6, 1994 now drains across my pr~ and I'd ask you to make sure that in your approval of this, that the lots that border my property, that there should be no drainage from those residen~ lots across my property. It's occun'ing fight now. So I'd ask you to take that into consideration. Hempel: Omirrnan Mancino, if I could address that point. Mr. Nikolay's ~ 1~ up in the northeast comer of the site, correc~ me if I'm wrong. The site currently drains, sheet drains in this direction to the northea~ as well as to the north through Mr. N'drolay's property. As a result of the grading and the development of this ~, thc drainage to Mr. Nikolay's property will actually be reduced by glading these back yards to go south into a drainageway which will be picked up with the storm sewer on Block 2 and the pre-~t pond prior to discharging into the wetland area. The only two areas which will continue to drain nor& of these back yards of proposed Lot 8 and 9. So it should si~onificantly reduce the amount of drainage going Mr. Nikolay's direction. There's also a proposed storm sewer, cawh basin in this location here to collect the drainage from the slreet and take that also back to the south. So the drainage issues should be resolved with development of this property. Mancino: Thank you. Dave NikoLay: The second issue relative to the grinding, and I think it's just a matlrr of how the fanning has token place. There are trees on the pmtmrty line~ My belief is, and you can ask A1 Klingelhutz to comment on this because he's been farming that land over the years. I believe that there are approximately 3 feet of trees that are made up of a variety of species from oak to ash that have, or are indeed on thi~ ~. ! would ask that none of those trees be des~'oyed in the grading process. Whether they're on my property, for sure those should be protected but those that are not on my property, ! think this is to the benefit of the developers as well as to thc future residents. But in the grading proce~, if they go right down the lot line, those trees will be taken out. And when ! tsik~ to staff, they asked me if ! knew where the stakes were and to the best of my knowledge, there are no stakes there at this stage. ! just have a rough idea where the ~ line is from where ! purchased the property 13 years ago and there are trees that are on the proposed development sit~ on these 2 1/2 or 3 lots that border my propcn~ and Fd ask that those trees and shrubbery be preserved. None of them be destroyed. ! don't think it creat~ a significant problem for the developer. The other issue that ! talked to Dave about, and that's about the road maintenance during thi, construction period. Fm not sure how long this is going to take place but ! anticipate it will, before the final street hnprovements are made with the paving, that we're probably looicing at upwards of a year. If it goes faster, gre~ If it tak~ longer, then it just will be that much longer that we'll have to deal with the issues but ! don't thinic it's going to be avoidable with the heavy equipment to be, they're going to be crossing this road. ~t's a rninimnm maintenance road now. It was never designed to be a city street and with any type of 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 equipment going across that, that's going to be a problem. I see in the staff report that they've address~ that but the question I raised with Dave and with Sharmin is, who's going to have to call who? Dave said that I should call the developer and I said I'd rather not call the developer. And then he did coz~wm;m and said, you can call me. I thinlr thst'S fair. But from my perspective, I just want to make sure that during this entire period of time, that I don't have to beg anyone to maintain the road. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. We've lived there for 13 yearn We've never once complained to the city about the maintenance of the road. It's not a well ~ road but that's okay. We've lived with that and we're happy with thaL If it gets any kind of traffic on it now, with what we're talking about here, the wad's going to detedarate very quickly and that's going to cause problems for us. So Dave said I could call him_ But I wanted to make sure, somebody should be responsible during the course of this grading. I shouldn't have to call someone to see that that road is maintained. I'm not talking about access. I'm talking about a good surface to drive on during wet conditions and otherwise. The last point, I guess that's it. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Dave, is there some weekly check that occurs? Hempel: We can perform daily on site inspections out there. I just think Mr. N'flrolay's more concerned you know if we get a rainy season or a spring thaw...and so forth but that's to be maintained daily and I think the applicant's contractor is going to have equipment there and it will just be a daily function to back drag it or shape that wad up to maintain access. Public safety also is going to be concerned to ~ sure that that road is capable of supporting en~,'rgency vehicles. I would ~ to make one point of clarificatiom Right now 86th Slreet, we do not have city fight-of-way or easements for that stre~ The city has kind of Ixxm maintaining that over the last few years, grading that and snow plowing but we don't have the appropriate ~ts for it. But as Mr. N'grolay indica~ he can certainly contact myself or the City Engineer if there is a problem out there and we can address it. ~g a hold of the developer or using city services to perform the neces~ maintenance and bill the devel~ ly... Harbem: What ~out the trees? Hempel: The trees, I believe Mr. N'flwlay is referring to, along those Protmrty lines there's probably a little buffer or a little row of trees along Lot 6 and 7, up in this area. They're only a couple feet into the developer's property. There's not a significam grade change there. I think th~ could probably easily accommoda~ that request and keep the g~__ding tO tho outside of those trees. I'd do~ that again to the applioant...agr~ment that thq would do Mancino: Would the applicant like to respond please? Planning Connnission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Dick Putnam: We do that on the normal course. I mean that's, as Mr. N'flroklay ssld~ it's to our advantage to leave it so we would be leaving it. Mancino: So you will be? Dick Putnam: Sure. Mancino: Thank you. Any other people like to get up? Al glingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz and I own some of the property that's being developed. I guess my biggest concern was that part of the berm was going to be on private property but they've pretty well taken care of that. Another concern, and I don't think it pertains to thc grading ~t on this at all, is the fact that the ~ that was received by thc city, that they took my right-in and right-out but I did call the Highway I~t and they were setting up a meeting for next week to discuss that issue. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Sarberts seconded to dose the public he~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Jeff. Would you like to start? Farmakes: I'm going to go with staff recommcn~tions on this. I likc..~ I like what thc City Council came up with them. One of thc residents talked about keeping thc road open. I think we can make that a condition of approval and that's it. Mancino: Matt. Ledvina: Okay. Thc condition number 2 identifies that city stuff and attorney time will be compensated and, is this a standard operating procedure Dave for this type of in.~ction? Hcmpel: As far as inspccting on a daily basis? Ledvina: Well no. No. What we're talking about in terms of the relmbm'sen~nt. Reimbursement to the city. Is that, I mean you have the permit fee and then you have an hourly fee. 31 Planning Commisdon Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Hcmpel: It's similar to our development conuacc The applicant or the developer is responsible for reimbursement to thc city for any fees inoured as a result of the development. The City Attorney's time in processing litigation or whatever is involved in that. Ledvina: In terms of in_~-'tion~ do we have any idea as to how many hours this is going to be7 This is going to involve. Hernpel: I did calculate I believe in my breakdown of the fees approximate hours ...appm~te totals in grading 4 days a week..48 hours of inspection time at $30.00 an hour. Ledvina: So $1,400.00 or something like that? Hempel: Approximately, yes. Ledvina: Okay. I'm concerned about this. You know I don't like to see an open ended situation. I think for developers it's fair that they know what the costs are going to be for doing their development and I think it's unfair to have an open ended situation like this. But as long as we have somewhat of a budget that we're looking at and the developer understands that, I think that's reasonable. But it's just, it seems open ended at this point but as long as there's a, they have an understanding there. Condition number 8. Well let's hit number 7. I think there's a word missing in the second sentence. If the city ~ that there is an additional, excuse me. If the city determined that there is a problem warranting testing. I think the word testing ~ould be in there. Such ~ests shall be paid for by the applicant. Number 8. Hours of operation and we've seen this in the past. I guess my thought is we should cut back the morning hours on $~y. Give the residents a chance to rest a little bit, and I would propose 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p_m_ for Saturday hours. Mancino: I'd go to noon. Ledvina: Well, 7:00 a.m. is just way Ioo early on Saturday. Let's see. The one thing that I see was omitmt from the staff recommendations and I know there's a lot of pre-~rsers and a lot of conditions in terms of the triiscrs for getting this thing going and for approval but I think one thing that I would like to see is adding a condition number 16. Having the gm__ding permit conditional approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council and it's not in here but I'm sure you were thinking that. Just to make sure that we're square on that. And then considering the concern of reaidents and also for the overall development I'd like to see the condition, as it relates to saving the trees and the shrubbery along thc east property boundary. Also as it relates to containing the grading for the berm on the south property boundary 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July ~, 1994 Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I agree with Matt's comments. Mancino: Diane. Hattm'ts: I would support approval of this. I guess I have some of my co~ were probably taken care of with that number 16 that Matt proposed. Tying the grading permit into the preliminary plat approval. And I would certainly support the points brought out by Jeff and the remaining ones, trees and stuff. Mancino: Okay. I support what everyone said. I am a little more sensitive on number 8 about hours of operation on Saturdays. I think that one of the things in this overall development and what's happening in Chanlm~en, not only do we have to have a concern for the developer but also for the people who live in the contiguous adjacent properties. They're there. They've been there. They have their weekends on their ~ and to be heafin§ all day Saturday the big earth moving and the back up noise that they have, which you can healr a quarter to half a mile away, is I just think very disturbing to the quality of life for the people who are there on a weekend day and all day. So I would not even like to see it 9:00 to 6:00. I would limit it to half day, 9:00 to 12:00. I'd like to hear any discuss/on on that. Ledvina: You mean 12:00 to 6:00? Mancino: 12:00 to 6:007 Ledvina: Yeah, noon to 6:00 p.m. Is that what you meant7 Mancino: No. 9:00 in the morning until 12:00 in the ~oon. So half day. Ledvina: Okay. Well I omainly understand your concerns but I think that the work will be done in the summer months and it's not a year round type of thing. In Minnesota, our construction season is rather short and I think in moving the quantities of din that they're talking about, they're going to need to have a decent working day on Saturday. Maybe if we scaled it back and went from. Mancino: Then maybe it's once a month or something but what about the people who on the summers, that's when our residents can go outside their homes. Do their garden_ lng. Can be 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 outside and enjoying it and be Rollerblading. Doing whalever they can and theae are not soft sounds. These are not h~gbirds. These are, and so we've taken every Saturday out of their one summer. Ledvinn: Well I understand that certainly it's a disruption but you need to, I feel that you need to certainly not disturb the rest of the residents. I mean I think you should be able to sleep in on Saturday but at the same time, I know how hnpormnt it is to have that extra day of the week when it's not mining and have that available for construction so. Mancino: 8o would you be amenable to one Saturday a month? Two Saturdays a month. Doing something so there is a catch-up. And before you answer, the applicamt has something to say. Jim Ostenson: Jim Osteuson again with Tandem Properties. Just a couple of things. We don't anticipate that it's going to be 14 weeks or 12 weeks or whatever it is that we're going to have grading in there. It's more likely going to be closer to 5 or 6 weeks that we're going to have. The other thing is that Matt is fight, we have a very short season. We can't stnrt until May 15th for grading, for clearing and we get closed down on the first part of November. We've got a road that we're required to keep open that you know, ff we had rain on Friday and you don't allow us to go in there on Saturday, it's going to be ~t for us. Our site here isn't any different than any other site in Chanhassen and if this is something you're proposing to do city wide, you know to all developers, perhaps could be a discussion. You know at another Plauning Commission meeting or the City Council. Our intent is not to ruin people's Saturdays but it is to get in there, get the job done and get out and restore the neighborhood to it's nomutl noise level. So our intent is not to harm anyone or ruin their day but we do have to get the work done and the weather doesn't always cooperate. Most of the time we find our utility crews work four 10 hour days. They aren't there even on Friday. And it's only in the cases of weather then that we're going to be in there on Saturdays working. Or if we get to the very end of the year and uying to beat the snow fall Mancino: $o normally you do not work on Saturdays? Jim Ostenson: Many of the utility crews that we work with do not work on Saturdays, unless they've been rained out earlier in the week. They work four 10 hour days. Mancino: Dave, can you do this amount of grading in 5 to 6 weeks? I mean just your thoughts. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Hempel: Depending on the con~ and the work force I guess, and ~ conditions, there's a lot of contingencies there...I guess. ~tically I'd say 6 to 8 weeks probably. 12 weeks may be stretching it. Mancino: Kate, can you respond to the, what we do for others? How it's set up as far as Saturday grading and do we, have we taken into account the lifestyle of our citizens who are in that area? I mean that aren't involved in the development and one of the ways to think about it is that, I don't know about you but I probably have 30 more summers of my life and so one summer of every day of that weekend is significant. Hempel: We've had comments I guess from other residents saying yeah, Saturdays are nice but you know it's nicer to get the job done with. Get them in there and get them out of there. Get green grass back in there growing instmd of dragging it out longer. And our construction season is pretty well limited with the seasons, We have very wet soils out here and so it does take a lot of work...those soils and you need to...work out there. I guess I, the homes that are close by here, the larger lots and homes are spread out a little bit farther. Mancino: They're going to hear it. They're going to hear it. Hempel: ...agricultural fields. Mancino: But at this point the other cons~on sites we have gone ahead and allowed the Saturday 7:00 to 6:00? Hempel: The 7:00 to 6:00 is under the intrdm use permit and there are typical cons~on specifications which show construction hours from 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. In some cases the applicant has requested a deviation to the work hours by going to the City Council and requesting starting at 8:00 and working until 6:00. Depen_ ding on the areas of town where they're working, sometimes they've been granted that deviation. But mo_st cases they stick pretty much to the 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. Mancino: So normally it is 9:00 to 5:007 Hempel: Yes, that's correct. Mancino: Okay. It's not 7:00 to 6:00 ~ here? I would be okay with the 9:00 to 5:00 and if it gets over 6 Saturdays, well what can we do? Kind of you monitor that? Hempel: We can monitor it based on the amount of con~laints we receive from the neighbors. If we received a lot of complaints, come back and revisit that...construcfion hours. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: So are you. Mancino: What I'm proposing i8 to limit the hours on Saturdays from 9:00 to 5:00 and that we have heard lr~sfimony that it would take 5 to 6 weeks, 6 to 8 weeks and for 6 weeks of Saturday work. And at that point, if there is a problem from the neighborhood, W revisit that. How do we revisit that? Formally. Because it's so open ended again for the developer. I don't feel Aanenson: Well acumlly it's a condition that will be tracked forward to the C/ty Council and then ff there's a complaint, we'll bring it back to the City Council w relook at the issue. So ac_~mlly it will be forwarded because you're making a reconmaendafion up to the Council If there are any complaints that Dave has a si~t, niflcant amount that we need to adjust the hours, we'll go back to the Council and recomnmad that they change the hours. Mancino: Okay. Harbcrts: And I would guess that the City would consider that if there's extenuating circmnstances, such as rain or whatever. Mancino: Sure. Okay. Ledvina: Well I'll give it a shot here. I would move that the Planning Commission appwve thc Interim Use Permit, earth work permit of 130,000 cubic yards of material for thc grading of the Mission Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to the conditions identified in the staff m~rt with thc following changes and additions. Number 7, second sentence of that condition to read. If the city determined that there was a problem wazranting testing, such test shall be paid for by the applicant. Number 8 be modified to read, the hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work hours on National Holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation are limited t~ 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. ff complaints from residen~ are logged with city staff regarding Samnhy operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council And let's see. Number 16. The grading permit shall be conditional on approval of the p~dimimu'y plat through City Council and this is the preliminary plat for the Missions Hills Subdivision. Planned Unit Developrramt, excuse me. Condition number 17. Trees and shrubbery along the east protmny boundary shall be saved with this grading activity. Number 18. (tr~ing activity for the berm along the southern prolzaW boundary shall be contained within the ~. Number 19. The applicant shall maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the residents in the area. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Mancino: Can I have a second? Comad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commimj'on reconnnend approval of Interim Use Permit 4~4-2 for Mi_,~_'on Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to the foflowing conditions: le The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00 to cover any wad damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site ~on and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane. e The applicant shall pay the City $630.00 in grading permit fees as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all City staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be coml, u~ ted at a rate of $30 pet hour per person. e The applicant shall obtain and comply with nil permit reqtfiremcnts of the watershed district, DNR, Army Corps of En~necrs, and 1Vlnr)OT. e The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an acceptable storrnwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of units. Sincc the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not bccn fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimi=e erosion off the site. e Upon completion of the site grnding, the applicant shah supply the City with a myhtr as- built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the state of Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has been e AH site restoration and erosion control ~ures shall bc in acc~ with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 'l'ne applicant's cn~ncer is encouragcci to pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and 37 Plavning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 site grading is completed. Topsoil and discmulched seeding shall be imputed immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictales othe~dse. 1 Noise levels stemming from the ~on are not to exceed 1V[innesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. , Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p_m_ Monday through Friday and no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limi~! to 9:00 a.m. to $:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours slmll he reviewed by the City Council. e The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel constrtwfion enmmces during the grading operation. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining ingress and egress to thc existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as cmcrgcncy vehicles at all times. 10. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee comp~ with the Conditions of Approval All grading work shall be completed by Novem_her 15, 1994. Il. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be main~ until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. Thc city engineer will determine the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion comrol measures. 12. The applicant shall notify the city en~neer of all drainage tiles encountered during site grading. The city engineer shall demmine the appropriate abandonment or rem_u-ting of all existing draintile system~. 13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perime~- of the site. Erosion control fence SUlTOundin§ the wetlands shall be the City's Type 1TI version. 14. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of aH wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 19o/4 15. This grading permit approvnl be conditioned upon the City auth~g a public improvement project to extend trunk utility ~ to the site. 16. The grading permit shall be eonditional on approval of the prdiminary plat for tim Missions Hills PUD by the City CounciL 17. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be roved with t_his grading activity. 18, Grading activity for the berm nlong the southern property boundnry slmll be contained within the property. 19. The applicant shah maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the residents in the area. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this it~n. Farmakes: One of the questions I was ask~ from an association on the lake there, is there a time limit that we set on floating debris in the lake that uses that type of reproduction to son of continue itself like ~ils? Where large chunks of it break off and float over to a homeowners prolx~ to secure itseff there. Can that hxneowncr then remove that7 Is that considered to be vegetation? Desotelle: That can be removed and ~ in the shm~and ordinance, you can pull weeds out up to 2,500 square feet within your frontage. You can actually remove that without a permit from the DNR. Farmakes: Some floating bogs though is beyond that. That's why in a case...there was one that was about 100 square feet long. A huge chunk and it actually hmkr up into smaller chunks. That's why that was brought up as a question. Desotclle: A floating bog. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Farmakes: Yeah, it was huge. Desotelle: Okay. Geez, I don't think I can answer that question tonight. I'm not sure. I tbinlr you'd have to address that with the DNR to find out if it can actually be removed. Farmakes: Some of these types of vegetation are actually floating. They're not nece~arily, you can push them with your hand out. The question is what...are you allowed to go in and float that baby out. Desotelle: Which eventually would probably come back to then depending upon where they're located with the directional winds. Farmakes: This particular chunk we're talking about floating around for...years. Desotelle: If you're asking if you can push it off, I don't see how that would be a problem. If you acumlly want to remove it, or what you're going to do with it. Farrnakes: I'm not sure in it's natural state, what is a floating bogy I mean is it by nature floating7 Aanenson: Well...jm'isdiction of the DNR...We would probably just call the DNR. They may come out and look at it... Farmakes: The reason I brought up in the discussion to them was, was that the excuse that the homeowner used or the builder used over on northwestern Minnewashta is when they killed the cattails, well those just floau~d over and auached themselves there so we killed them. So that's why I, does that make it expendable, the fa~t that it floated over. It seems to be a natural way... Desotelle: I had the same question with Eurasian l~i]¢ofl you know, it got cut off and it floate~ over and planted itself. If the question comes up again, call me and we'll call DNR Mancino: I'd like to move that we open ~is for public hearing. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearin8. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened, Conrad: It should be noted that there's nobody here. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Mancino: Is there anyone here in the vast audience that would like to get up and speak? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Mancino: Diane. Harberts: I have no comment. Conrad: Are there any standards here, I think some were taken care of but are there any standards in tcu'ms of lot sizes, impervious surfiw~ that we have liberalized based on the DNR standards versus standards that we do have in our ordinances? Aanenson: Well the one we did is the. Conrad: Is it Lake Susan? Aanenson: Not riparian lots. Desotelle: Kind of natural lakes. 20,000 square feet is the DNR and we asked for flexibility requiring to have it at 15,000 which is our current lot size for..ananagement plan in place and we show that the city would allow us the flexibility for lot size~.. Aanenson: If you look on page 6, Section 20-480. Conrad: Okay. So riparian lots require. Aanenson: Riparian is still 40. Actually it's the non-riparian. We're still saying if you're adjacent t~ thc lake...we kind of batt~ that one around because we said once you're off the lake, we felt like our storm water management plan...equa~ to people that are doing as good a job. It needs to be...DNR gave the flexibility to say, really if you maiu~ the average, we don't care if you have some less than and that's kind of what we wanuxi to see too. So again, it's just for natural environment. Mancino: Could we say an average of 20? Aanenson: We looked at that... Desotelle: Yeah, the big question was, we have to redefine how we would average 20 and it would over the whole lot. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Aanenson: It got too complicated because we looked at that with the city at~~. Desotelle: Yeah, and he thought do you want to do that or look at it on a case by case basis. Com'ad: Any others? Desotelle: The other flexiMiity request was the i .mpervious surface coverage. To have it up to 35% on Lake Susan because of the industrial zone there. The recommendation by, or the stau~ ordinance is 25%...and again, because of our...current conditions on Lake Susan and Rosemount there, we asked that they cannot... Aanenson: Hus also if you look at thc list of uses that we have in our industrial park, we felt that that was compatible for the types of businesses... Conrad: Now the way I read. Mancino: So we're more liberal than the DNR? Aanenson: Again you have to look at the purpose or the intent of this. We feel like we have a lot of ordinances that, the reason why this is an ordinance, if you look at...so we're saying because we're already doing that smf-f, it's kind of like you have to give them the flexibility to match our own. The way we read the hnpervious surface...The in~ent is the preservation of the natural features and we feel like we're accomplishing that based on... Diane Desotelle made a statement that was not clear on the tape. Conrad: Thc DNR standard, we can always be more strict or stringent than DNR smndard~ They're not known to be the tightest. In fact the more you karo about what the DNR does, I'm not real confident. Their rules get developed through a real political process of a lot of give and take and I'm not always confident that they're environmentally, these rules have been developed because of their pure environmental nature. They are a political beast So every time when we start taking them for a sumdard, I worry a little bit about it. And then when I see that, we can be more strict and I'm toting to rationalize libemlimn' g. It's tough to get a good standard in place so when you liberalize it, I really want to make sure we're doing it for the right reasons. And it's not a break even situation. It's not well we have all these other things in place so we can give up this and so you know, so it's...no place, then I don't think we've done it. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Aanenson: I don't think we're saying that at all I think again, you have to go back and this has been in the works about a year and a half. Jo Ann spent a lot of time on it. This is what Paul and Jo Ann spent a lot of time trying to get to thin poinL And again, I don't want to say that because we need... What we're saying is we're still above a lot of their goals. If you look at the underlying goals of what they're trying to accomp~ we feel like we're exceeding that in the way we interpret that Desotelle: I think here we're just trying to tie in as well as possible to what our comprehensive plan says and how things are zoned and...felt very confident that that was the way the comprehensive plan was written. So they just wanted to keep it con~t with the comprehensive plan. Ledvina: Well let's look at where the in¢onsisten~es are. Now for the land that's abu~g the surface water that we're consistent with DNR. What we're saying is that the lots that are off water, like in a subdivision, they can be, normally DNR would say 20,000 square feet so we're saying they can be in accordance with our ordinance which would be 15,000 square feet so. Mancino: But what's the distance? Ledvina: Well within 1,000 feet of the surface wa~er body. That's the shoreland. So what we're looking at is, we're relying on our system of storm water control in those more upland areas which we have in place and will have in place to enable us to go ahead with that number. Desotelle: And a couple more things that we hear. They are more conservative and all our lot widths will be changed to 90 feet. The DNR says 75 feet. And the minimom we ask too that with the setbacks, that if there's other existing structures in place, further back, that those be averaged instead of allowing those s~ to be set back in front of the existing Aanenson: That came out of the Ken Durr...on that subdivis/om He had a 200 some plus setback and he provided to thc city what some of thc other cities were doing as far as avera~ng setbacks along shores so we looked at flrat. What we're saying, instead of creating the large lots, that due to the purpose, isn't it better to maybe make them a little bit smaller and get a better pond use in those pre-treamnent stuff and I think that would be...for a lot of communities that don't have that sort of _thing whereas we're, we've got a storm water management plan to accomplish that. To make it work you've got to...as Diane indicated... density to make that work. They're saying, the DNR is saying, if you have large lots you're Plnnning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 accomplishing protecting the environment. What we're saying, well we think it makes more sense to do some of thcsc pre-treaunent ponds...but again, you look at the... Mancino: But wc can add to it. Thcrc's no qucstion that if you makc a biggcr lot, you'rc going to do more soaking and. Conrad: Yeah, I think I'd buy our philosophy. I think I can, you get a chance to, I think we have thc right tools in place ac~_,_n_lly on the lot size off the non=riparian issues. It's probably okay at the 15,000, even though we could §o up to the 20. It's just, I just wanted to intellectually go through that a little bit and assure myself that we had the right tools in place. The other thing, go back to the coverage of the i .mpcrvious sm-face. We allow 70%. We're allowing 70% in the Lake Susan industrial area, is that what we've said? Desotellc: 70% impervious covcragc? Conrad: That what it says here. Aanenson: Yeah. For indusu/al zones. Desotelle: Right- Conrad: And what, and normally that's what we typically allow in an industrial zone. What was the DNR standard for an industrial backing up to a lake? Mancino: I would think you'd want to treat the indusUial backing up to a lake the same as you would riparian rights for residential, being a little bigger. Aancnson: Wcll this is kind of an anomaly, based on thc fact that Rosemount went in already, ff you look at what we already have~..situations where that's going to occur. Conrad: So thc 70% is really, we put that in to be consistent with what we've allowed basically. Aanenson: Yeah... Dcsotelle: That's how I understood it- Aanenson: And in order to do that we had to provide some, we had to protect, that was kind of with the park on there too. We had to...compromi~ that so there was a give and take on that- Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Conrad: Right Well I'm comfortable with what we did. But now we're making it as a standard. Dcsot~lle: Just for Lak~ Susan. Aanenson: Just for Lake Susan. Just for Lake Susan sh~ district. It lcgitimizes just... It wouldn't apply anywhere else. Com'ad: And why do I see that, why do you tell me that that's just for Lake Susan? Aanenson: Well if you recall Mission Hills. Conrad: I'm looking on page 13 in this catinance. Aanenson: It says, Co) it says, within the Lake Susan shoreland district Section 20485. If you recall when Mission Hills went in and they have that commmxrial piece plus...medium density. We looked at thc shoreland...They were between the Rice Marsh Lake..~ Susan... So we had two of our shoreland ~ with different standards. But yeah, we do apply this. Conrad: Where are the words that you're reading ~o me? Desotelle: On page 13, Section 20-485. Impervious mn'fitce coverage lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area except, and then number (b). Seventy percent ('70%) in the industrial zones withir! the Lake Susan sh~ district. ex)nm& Okay. And then what are they in other zones? Aanenson: They're again at 25% and there's just two exclusions from that. Conrad: Okay. DesoteUe: Now the medium/high density is 35%. That would be city wide. Mancino: Is there more, is there going to be more building in thc Lak~ Susan shoreland district? In thc industrial zone? I mean are the~ more lots there? Aanenson: There's not much rnorc to the north. 45 Plann/ng Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Desotellc: There's a little bit to the southeast. Aanenson: Residential. Yeah, as far as industrial, I'm not sure there's much more .... within the district, we're not talking ripadan...TH 101 aud si?{fleant road separation. .. and the same with Lake Susan. It goes out over TH 101. So yes, there will be someone in the shoreland district, but not ripadan. And again, we pre-treat it and all that sort of stuff so that's what I'm saying. Conrad: Okay, so we're talking industrial We're saying the standard can be 70~ impervious. And so, and you're saying, Kate did you say that there can be more inelustrial moving in7 Aanenson: Within the shoreland district. At 1,000 feet. Conrad: Okay, and it could be heavy industrial or could it, or will it. Is it forced to be light indusu/al? I'm not comfortable having indusu/al going in there at 70% impervious. Aanenson: Well we don't know how many indusu'iaL..We have this pwperty over here that's zoned currently industrial office park. Mancino: Is that the Ward property? Aanenson: No. The Ward pwperty, correct. So that's all within the 1,000 feet. Again, it's separated by the extension of TH 101. So here's where we asked for some flexibility. We're saying wait a minute, we would require them on... Conrad: I tbinlc we're okay. That's it. Well, we're there already. Mancino: In one place and that was a PUD so there' s a reason for that. And it was a PUD and there's give and take but what if you get with somebody coming in that's not a PUD? Conrad: They won't be on the lake though. They'll be within the 1,000 but they won't be. Mancino: Not riparian. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying. Conrad: That's what solves it for me. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Maucino: And it explicitedly says, non-riparian here? Aanenson: Okay, I was ~ing you that. That that's for those bluff developments. Ledvina: So we're looking at it as any other area? Mancino: Okay, gotch y~ Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well I know you're concerned with monkeying with the language in terms of a standard DNR format but I feel that this is our ordinance and it really should say what we want it w say. I think there are some things thiit we can do w enhance the policy statement and throw some things out that I talked about last time. Desoteile: It was just recommended by the attorney, by Roger Knutson. He said, he just didn't recommend that we mess around with the warding so that's why I thought well, you know, I'll let it be. Ledvina: So Roger suggested that we maintain that specific hnguage? Desotelle: Exactly verbatim because some of it...k~p it verbatim from what the State Statute says and they §o through their difficult process and I guess what he came down W was you have to decide how imporlant it is. If it's very hnpormnt, if it's going to really make a big difference in how...then we should de/initely change it. If you don't think it's going to make a big ttifference, then you could...§o through it and ac~_~lly... Ledvina: Well what's the down side of changing the policy ~t? Harberts: Ullders~_~ndin§ your intenL Aanenson: It just leaves with more ambiguity. Ledvina: Well what I would like to do is make it mare clear in Umm of our objectives for our ordinance here in Chanhassen. That's my goal Aanenson: We can ~y forward those onto CounciL.Jet's just go ahead and forward it ' to Council and they can WAk-e the decision. Ledvina: Well okay. I don't want to do it just blindly because I think it should be done, but. Plann/ng Commission Meeting - Suly 6, 1994 Aanenson: Sure, if you guys feel strongly you can put it in there and we'll send it up to the Council and they can respond. Ledvina: Sure. Well number 1 is, as I ~ to you bdore, I think this ceclinance stands on the merits of environmental pint.don and I don't fecl that references to tax base are appropriate. And to that extent I would propose a change in the first sentence of item (d). The uncontrolled use of shoreland of Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare and contributes to pollution of public waters, period. And further in the paragraph, legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate subdivision use, development of the shomlands and public waters and thus preserve and enhance quality of surface waters conserve the natural cnviromncnlal values of shomlands and provide the wise use of waters and native land resources. Desotellc: Could you repeat that one again please? Led~: I'm eliminating the reference to economic value. And one other thing. In addition, this would be an additional paragraph under that section. And essentially what I'm doing is I'm going to page 12 and talking about shoreland allnmfions and I would propose that to read, alterations of vegetation and topography within the shorcland shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public w~t_ers, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank sloping, and protect fish and wildlife habi~ Aanen~n: Add that in? Ledvina: Yes. Add that to thc policy under item Co). I just, I think that if we would go ahead and make those changes, I think it would be more direct in terms of what we're doin8. Desoi~lc: I'll double check again and just make sure what Roger, if he doesn't think we have to go through a process with thc DNR. Ledvina: Well if that's the case, I don't want to make more work for the city staff but again, it is our ordinance you know and I don't want to curate son~ big hurdles for you people. I know you have to follow up on this stuff but at the same time, those are my comments. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Fannakes: No cornments on this issue. Mancino: Okay. I don't either. I think I gave them to Diane. Do I hear a motion? Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Ledvina: I would move that the Phnning Commission reco~ adoption of the Shorehmd Ordinance with the changes in thc language discussed. Mancino: Do I hear a second? H~b~m: Second. Mancino: Okay, any discussion7 I just want to make clear Matt. You're kind of asking Diane to go over those with Roger. To do a check with Roger first before they're Lcdvina: Yes. Well if. Aanenson: We'll still put it in the Planning Commism'on update to say that you had these concerns about the intent statement and would like to sec it modified... Mancino: Great Does that do it? Ledvina: Well I guess if the city attorney feels that we're losing some strength in making those modifications, then I certainly don't want to occur because within the ordinance you know there's definitely, I'm not really adding anything new to it. I'm just brining the statements more to the front in terms of objectives. So you know, if it turns out that that's not acceptable as far as the legal perspective, that there is concern, then I understand but I'd like to see those changes. Ledvina moved, Sarberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Shoreland Overlay District regulations amended to reflect the changes indicated by Commi~oner Ledvina subject to the City A~mey'8 review. Ail voted in favor and the motion carded. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to approve the ~utes of the Phmning Commission meeting dated June 15, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who abstained, and the motion carried. Conrad: I thought we just had to note the Minutes and we're approving them recently. I thought we just had to note them. That's okay but Joe's doing it aH the time and I think we had decided that noting them was just okay. Mancino: Well I know that a couple times Matt has had some changes and it's been kind of good to go over them and formally or something, I don't know. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 19o~ Conrad: I don't know, that's fine. Ledvina: It's the record. CITY COUNCIl, UPDATE: Kate Aanenson gave the Planning Commission an update of the previous City Council meeting. Mancino: How come there's a first and second res_ding? Is it you just divided it? Aanenson: They always do it that way. The first reu_ding ia a public hearing. Not public hearing, public notice or new business...and then we publish a summary in thc paper of the ordinance and that's officially adopted... Mancino: Are there any changes? Si~anificant changes that they? Aanenson: No. They recommended approval as it was. There wasn't...basicaHy the parking in front of the buildings. Also the designating of pitched roofs. The Council askxxi why. Mancino: And I think we decided to strike that out. Aanenson: Well we said we should leave it out so we relooked at the parapet wall You know we're looking at different in~tions of how to get... We were looking at different inter--OhS of the...The other was the approval of the pt'e]~ plat, conditional use and the site plan for the Kindcr~re. It does have to go back one more time for the final plat. That would basically be for the subdivision though and that we scheduled for the 11th. Mancino: And were there changes on thc rooflinc for Kinderca~ and all that kind of? Aanenson: They met thc list of conditions... Conrad: Anything new in their ~ flow? Aanenson: No. No, no. They looked at quite a few different things there but. Famuflt~: One thing I think that hopefully the City Cotmcil will look at will be the, I think that it's unethical to have a representative presentation to the commission and then not remove themselves from the Council I think precedent was set. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Aanenson: Well he indicated to the City Attorney that he had no financiaL.. Farmakes: It's still not relevant. If you're proposing and coming forward with a proposal to a commission or council, it seems to me that. Maucino: When you're in that facilitation position- Farmakes: When you're in that proposing it, you're proposing it. If you're going to vote on it later, it seems to be a conflict of interesL Conrad: Oh absolutely. Mancino: And it doesn't have to be an immediate reward. I mean it can be one of those long term things that everyone knows about in business so why don't they talk about it openly. Farmakes: And I got the feeling that there was, that that affected the way that that was being thought about from not removing, on how that was going through. Now maybe that's just my intmtrmtafion but irregardless, looking at that from the outside and just removing the names and looking at it from what happened, it seems to me if there's a conflict of interest there that needs to be dealt with...that nobody seems to want to deal with them. Which I think is unfortunate. I understand. Aanenson: It's really a Council issue. Farmakes: I understand. Aanenson: It was a very uncomfortable issue the whole way through. I don't think we need to talk about that. Fmanake~: Moving on. Aanenson: We resolved that. Whe~ a project like that comes in again, it's going to go a public consultant. That would solve a lot of problems... Mancino: But even still, it should be more dealt with more openly about docs that person, whether they're facilitating getting finandaL.. Aancnson: Yeah, that needs to go back and be discussed at the Council al~ough I understand your concerns. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Mancino: And also, when that same person asks for the City Council m go outside of city code. Aanenson: Anybody can request that though. Mancino: Oh really? Aanenson: Certainly. Anybody can request to get in to Council at any time. The Council can then decide whether they want to hear it. If you want to ask to be on the agenda, you certainly can. Whether they choose to take action on you, that's something separate so. Farmakes: I think that there was one other precedent that was set on that thing and it wasn't addressed in the newspaper. That we were u~ing the applicant's self imposed safety restriction as a reason for not moving any of the pad. In other words, we were using their criteria for not moving the pad and staying a certain amount of feet from the power line when we ourselves, as a government body, had no restriction of that usage. So just as a philosophical matter, it seems to me that that looks to me like we're surking our responsibilities and then allowing an applicant to detenvdne what the safety factor is. Aanenson: Okay, on number 4, we talked about Mission Hills.. They tabled that and recommended that it go to the Park and Rec Conwni~om.aneets the intent of what we feel, as a PUD, we look at the criteria, they need to provide open space to balance that...I think it's §oing to be a better project So it's going back for prelimina~ plat and I think the Council did the right thing by tabling it and se~ding it to the Park Cowmission... Ledvina: Yeah, there were some good comments at our level here, Planning Commission. Aanenson: That's what I was saying. You guys made good comments and I think they felt, and Todd picked up on that and Todd...took a lot of hits to say, we need to have a bigger park...but it is a PUD so I think your comments of f~ng up to Todd and Todd picking up on those and you got a better quality project. As I indicated next week, it will be mostly comprehensive plan issues. Ledvina: Next or 2 weeks? Aanenson: In 2 weeks. Next meeting. Conrad: We have Vision 2002 tomon'ow night? Aanenson: Yes. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: I think it's the last one isn't it? At 7:00 ~ or at. Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meetin~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53