The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 08 07CHANH~SSEN PLANNINGCOMMI SSI ON REGUL/)R MEETING AUGUS' 7, 1991 Chair MEM8E Jeff MEMBE STAFF Plann~ Charl PUBLI LUNDGi RESIDI LAKE A. PI L~ B. WI Publi~ Terry Rick Frank Peter Bob P~ Brian Jim & Scott Wende Jeff 8ill 3os M Jim R~ Jo calle¢ an Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. :S PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, armakes and Joan Ahrens :S ABSENT: Annette Ellson PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior r; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I; Kathy Aanenson, Planner II; and s Folch, City Engineer HEAR I NG: EN BROS/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND RSF, ]NTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF UCY ROAD: :ELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES TO CREATE 37 SINGLE FAMILY ,TS. TLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER/FI~ CLASS B WETLANDS. Present: ams Address ~orbord athre svoboda Pflaum terson Tichy Claudette Schluck Reinertson 1G. Gravlun 'Nell 3ulie Infanger Tin vis Lundgren Bros. 15311 Knob Hill Curve, Minnetonka 22752 County Road 7, Hutchinson 18070 Breezy Point Road, Wayzata 6650 Powers 81vd. 1471 Lake Lucy Road 6800 Utica Terrace 6801 Utica Terrace 6270 Blue 3ay Circle 6511 Devonshire Drive 6740 Powers Blvd. 1441 Lake Lucy Road 6660 Powers Blvd. Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings the public hearing to order. Terry ~orbord: Mr. Chair, because the staff did such a good job in their staff report and the detail is very complete, if it would be okay with you, I guess I'd reserve my comments until later on because I only have, for the most ~art I think we are in total agreement. There are a few items that I would'like to present to you but if it would be okay with the Chair I would do that later on in the meeting. That would be up to you. Emmin!s: I guess if you have reaction to conditions that they'd impose on appro al, I'd like to hear those now so that other people in the audience Plann Commission Meeting Au 7, 1991 - Page 2 can nt on them too if they want to. Terry Wa' berg real staff detai munic rela and as a the envir rbord: My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros., 935 East Blvd.. I know you're familiar with this proposal because we were you not too long ago in an informal capacity to share with you tbs and bolts and dynamics of this proposal. Rs I just stated, the rt on this, I'm sure you've taken the time to read it is quite · This is actually been'somewhat of an exciting endeavor for us in our line of work, as well as an engineering and planning, 1 planning and engineering, things are changing really fast e to the environment. Thinks like water quality. Quality of life us to maintain our presence in the real estate development industry we need to be cognizant and be on the cutting edge of some of t~ings that are being developed to be sensitive to those concerns. Rnd it's been refreshing for us working with city as a pr right i nfor same looki quali staff )ecause they, we ail seem to be in agreement. Our objectives seem to be much in step with one another. I think it's been a learning curve for of us. Rick, maybe you could put up that first exhibit. Rs you fecal there was some discussion of why this proposal should be looked at armed unit development or PUD. I appeared before you prior to this talking about planned unit developments. I think we've been forth you've been forth right with us and we've shared a lot of on about it. Our objectives I believe with this proposal are the the City's are. We believe we're a quality developer. The City's for quality developers to come into their community. This is a neighborhood community· This proposal will eliminate the sable Ersbo plat which some of you may be familiar with. You were invol with. If you would like me to elaborate on any of these items, pl stop me in case someone doesn't recall something that I'm speaking of fr the past. We are going to improve the pre-treatment of storm water We are going to improve and enhance conditions of existing wetlands and are going to create additional wetlands that are of a higher quality than wetlands that currently exist on the site and there will be a net gain wetland area. There will be further protection of wetlands with an ished preservation zone. Now we probably need to decide what we're going call these areas. Whether they're going to be buffer strips or ion zones or preservation zones and that's something that will be wot out in the final platting process. The reason we decided to opt for a pr ~tion zone, because we want to make sure that the home buyers in their ind's eye, when they're buying something from Lundgren 8ros., that they lize that this needs to be preserved and we're going to depict that in marketing materials. We're going to take a hard look at the way we press that to people who come and buy homes within OUT community. We want make sure they understand what this is all about and what we're tryi to do and what the City's trying to do. Those preservation zones will nclude easements and they will also include deed restrictions on each lot t. maintain compliance with the preservation objectives. With a PUD there ill be more landscaping than a standard subdivision requirement would llow. There will be a greater degree of sensitivity for the ion of significant trees and vegetation with an established ion zone and easement similar to the one that's around the wetla . In other words there will be deed restrictions protecting certa n areas of trees so homeowners cannot come in and cut down those areas ,f trees because they will not be allowed to do so. Rs already Planni August mentic talkeC shoulc and ga housir always delive that F not i r from ~ housir falls Chanha that ' $ would we're after the cc trees ng Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 3 ned by Jo Ann, there will be increased architectural standards. She about architectural elements like wood and brick. I think it also be noted that every year Lundgren Bros. travels the United States ins data and comes back and updates their entire product line of ~. Ne do that in every subdivision that we do. Ne do it so we're hopefully on the cutting edge of what it is that homebuyers want and Fing to them the things that they would find most appropriate for resent time. There will be a transitional area of housing. This is 9xpensive housing. Ne are talking about housing that ranges anywhere 170 to $270. Somewhere in that area. That is not inexpensive 9. At the same time it's not very expensive housing. It certainly ~ithin the realm of the housing that is needed within the City of ssen. As mentioned by the staff, one of the purposes of the PUD outlined very explicitedly in Code is why do you have PUD's? Why one do it? Nell in this particular case we're not doing it because asking for smaller lots or anything. We're trying to find a way, ~eeting with staff it was very clear that Chanhassen wants to be on tting edge of being sensitive. Not just to wetlands. Not just to Put the big picture of things relative to real estate development. Storm ~ater runoff. Traffic. Quality of life. Everything like that. By pursuing this as a PUD, we are able to cluster the homes in areas closer together and maintain an open and green space which is an objective of the City. There's also as you know added tax base to the City anytime a quality development is promoted within the city. At this time I would like to ta k to you about the recommendations that are being presented to you. The f ret thing that I will do at this time if we could put the first page of th~ recommendations up. As I stated earlier, for the most part we are in ste ~ and in total agreement with what we're trying to do here. Since our 1~ st meeting with staff and everybody was scurrying to get all this stuff together so it could be mailed out to the Planning Commission, in reviewing the information and the recommendations, we have found some items that ,ake it very difficult for us to proceed with this proposal. They're not n~essarily overwhelming items but when you add them all together the economic feasibility becomes unmanageable. And for many, some of the~e may be items that are put before you as compromises but what I will urge you to consider would be, are they practical and do they make sense and really so they deaIi Item feet sidew long sharp modifJ 26 foe sidew~ fairl estat right- commul were famil these neigh~ ake an economic sense as well. On the bottom of your first page g with recommendations, under the section labeled preliminary plat. umber 1. It talks about where the proposed street is reduced to 26 here shall be no parking signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete lk shall be prbvided over the boulevard. Sharp curves located in the oop street shall be limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have curve signage. We would propose or request that that would be ed and that we would maintain the back to back curb would maintain a t width throughout the entire subdivision and that there would be no lk. If I may let me just tell you why. Nationally, and this is well know to those who are planners and engineers and even real developers. Nationally there's a movement afoot to reduce the of-way and the pavement, the hard surface coverage in neighborhood ities. ~hy? Because in the 50's and 60's neighborhood communities esigned for automobiles. Nowadays they're designing them for es. They're finally getting around to where we don't need to have huge right-of-ways, freeways running hither and there through orhood communities. We do need adequate right-of-ways on arterials Planni ~ugust and co within certai street certai that ~ reasor ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 4 lectors so traffic can move in an orderly manner and certainly a safe manner but within local, small little neighborhoods and ,ly one of this size where we have 37 total home sites in a loop that serves those 37 home sites, we feel that it's really, it ~ly isn't a necessity to have the street any wider than 26 feet. Now ~s just, that's one aspect of it. The other aspect of it and the we even pursued the reduced right-of-way to begin with is because as you kr~w Chanhassen is right on the leading edge of tree preservation. Wetland protection. Right-of-way is for roads, is probably the single biggest culprit nationally for impacting both trees, vegetation and wetlards. The point is that the larger the right-of-way kind of flies in the fade of conservation. Now if health, safety and welfare is an issue, it certainly should be considered. We do not believe that health, safety and welfare is an issue on this particular proposal. We're talking about 37 housing units and we do not believe that it would be impacted at all by havin! a reduced right-of-way. I would like to point out that right in I believe the street is called Chan View, that is a 26 front 9f City Hall, foot ight-of-way. Right out in front here. Rick ~athre: Terry, you're saying right-of-way. Terry ~orbord: Excuse me. Pavement width. Right in front of City Hall and I d be willing to suggest and feel fairly strong that I'd be accurate, that 3ere are more vehicle trips per day occuring in front of City Hall than t 3ere would be through this neighborhood community. The point I'm tryin~ to make is that it has become kind of a status quo in the past to make k [g streets where they're not needed and we don't believe in this particular case that the 26 foot pavement back to back is too small. Now the cfmpromise apparently that was reached was that the only portions in this ~ ~rticular proposal that would be reduced to 26 feet are the areas aroun¢ significant trees. So in other words, we'd be having a pavement width hat would go from 26 feet to 31 feet then back to 31 feet as it goes throu h the subdivision. At least that's the way I interpret it in the recom endations. We believe that's confusing and we believe that what did we really achieve by it. I personally cannot find anything that there was any g in anywhere. Then there was a request for sidewalks. 6 foot of sidew lks on only those portions that'happen to be 26 feet back to back. We believe that that's probably not a good use of funds. That it would be confu~ing. We do not believe that it's giving or protecting anyone. We're somewtat confused by it. It seems like an attempt to compromise but again I onl ask does it really make sense. Is that a good use of money to do that o we would request that that portion of the recommendation would be chang d so there'd be 26 foot back to back of streets throughout the devel(pment and those small little sections of required 6 foot wide concrete would be deleted. And I believe when I looked at the plan I could come~ a~ with they'd be sidewalk approximately 100 foot long in one space that 1 of a sudden then would disappear. Then in another space it was hard ecause it's somewhat ambiguous. Then there's another section that might have 200 feet of sidewalk and none of them are connected anywhere so i t ju., neces~ this me th subdi~ t seemed to me that I would ask you to consider that it's not ary and that you would delete it. On page 2 of the recommendations, .rimarily deals with landscaping and I think you all will agree with t Lundgren Bros. has probably done more landscaping in their isions than any other subdivisions within the city of Chanhassen and Planni g Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 5 typica 1y in any other city that we develop. We have established a $45,00 .00 budget for landscaping in this subdivision. Let me ask you just for a inute to focus on this. I'm sure most of you have landscaped at your o n homes and you're operating within a budget. And so you look at your h ,me. Probably walk out in the street. This is what we do. We're lookin at the entrances to our subdivision or the areas that we choose to landsc pe. We try to 9et a view of what is it that people are going to see. {hat is important? Is there something we're trying to screen or is there ~omething that we're trying to create what we call a peek-a-boo that we wan somebody to look through and get a corridor of something. When you're ating within that budget then, you find out how many places can I put andscaping materials where it really has an impact. One of the thin~ that's fairly well known in the landscaping industry, if you've ever done ,is on your own home or worked with a landscape architect, they will tell >u to try to form areas that you concentrate your landscaping so it looks .ike there's really something there rather than spreading it all over the ice because otherwise what happens is there's nothing that really grabs and goes wow. So I'd like to run you through (a) thru (f) and give an explanation of what we would like, how we'd like to see these modi . Item 2(a) states that the landscaping on the south right-of-way of La Lucy Road directly north of the Class A wetland. We would like to delet, that for the following reasons. First of all it would block the view the wetland. One of the reasons that we chose that site was there's a wetland there. We knew it had a problem. We knew it was 90~ , or we discovered that through the process but still it was ng that was really pretty to look at. That's why we came to the site. To landscape along there wodld block that view and that isn't ng that we think is what people would want. The other issue that's even e important and forgive me for my typing but survivability is missp lled. We don't think they'd survive because we looked at that and sat with our landscape architect because we want to put some trees ar the entrances and come towards that wetland but we're real concerned for tt distance between the back of the curb of Lake Lucy Road and the wetlaT . Rick, could you put up an exhibit that would depict that. Pr 1y just a site plan. You can see where the edge of the wetland is in green I marked it off just by walking. At the closest point from the back f the curb to what appears to be where it just drops off right to the wetla d is probably about 5-6 feet. The furthest point it's about 17 feet. Kind f varies along there. If any of you have ever driven down TH 169 in Shako ee in Valley Fair where all those evergreens are all along the highw y there, go look at them now. 30 feet in they're all dead and they' e still standing there and the reason they're dead is because of the phosp ~ates and the chemicals that are put on the road for deicing in the wintel . If we did plant trees along there they'd all die. I think for that eason alone it was probably a better idea to take that money in the budge and put it somewhere there's going to be some impact and I'll get to that n a second. 8y the way, these aren't items that I had a chance to talk o staff about so if we would have had a chance to talk about it, I think they probably would have agreed with some of this. Item number we wo, ld like to delete that. Landscaping along the rear lots adjacent to the C ass A wetland. We believe it's a waste of the budget and that it's not n. cessary and Rick if you'd put up something that would show the lots. It ha, been suggested on more than one occasion during both the informal and t e formal public hearing that there is something possibly negative Planni g Commission Meeting Augus 7, 1991 - Page 6 about sing able to see the back of people's homes. Or the back yards of peop s homes. I should have brought with me slide trays this evening of Near ~unt. ain. You would find all through that development that the back yards f the people's homes are far nicer looking in many cases than the front ards because people spend the majority of their time in the back yard they tend to fix it up pretty nice. All those lots that are around that 1 ge DNR wetland are around there and designed there for a purpose. So people who live there can have the quiet enjoyment of what is there. Some the area as you can see on Lots 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, etc. have some ess there. Lots 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 are 700 feet away from Lake Lucy Road. 3, 2 and 1 face directly west and the point I'm making is that first ,f all I don't think the backs of people's homes are something that is ne: ttive to look at. Secondly, I think that that money, rather than being ~nt to plant trees in the back of somebody's yard which they're probably going to do themselves anyway we could take that money and we could~se that in other areas that I'l~ get to here in a moment. Number (c). I'd like to modify number (c). That the landscaping along the 2:1 slope ~dajacent to the Class A wetland. Establishing the growth is important there because the degree of slope is going to be somewhat severe. But it also is important to see the views and we do not believe that landscaping is necessary there. And Rick, if you'd put that same exhibit up again and then point to the area that we're discussing. Okay this is the area that we worked very closely with staff in trying to figure out how to mirimize the impact on existing vegetation, the slopes and on the wetlard. Because there will be a severe slope off from the back of the curb b~ck down towards that wetland, erosion is a concern. Not only to the City b~t to us. We don't want to erode away the base of the road there. Staff ~as recommended that we use I think it's wood fiber blankets or mat along ;here to prevent erosion but not only that. When we were out there before we discussed and maybe this is just semantics so maybe it's something that can be better understood if we had a chance to talk about it. Eut I'm not sure if that's an appropriate area for landscaping. I guess I would suggest that's an appropriate area for very good erosion contr¢l and establishing of different types of vegetation so it doesn't erode and go away. Right there as you can see, when people come in, if you'd ~oint to that street. When the home buyers are driving down that road z id they're coming into the subdivision, once they get around Lot 3, one of the other reasons it's designed, we really want them to see that wetla . That's really pretty and we don't want to put anything there that may i terrupt that view for the same reasons along Lake Lucy Road. So it's an ae thetic, a design idea that we hope people find pleasant so we do feel very nuch and very strongly that there should be erosion control right there and there should be vegetation established to make sure that the roadbed doesn't go away or anything like that but I'm not sure if that's the best place to spend our landscaping budget. Okay, item number (d). We do no have a problem with item (d). Item (e), 3 trees, 2 hardwoods and 1 everg sen or ornamental per lot. We believe that's excessive. We are aware that the City is considering amending their tree policy. I would just ~ike to point out as far as that excessitivity. Remember the homeb~zer who keeps paying for all these things that we keep adding onto the c~ ;t of every home and typically home buyers, when they buy a home, they 1ways want to landscape but it's the thing they do over time. They do a ittle bit the first year. A little bit the second year. A little bit t e third year and after they've gotten adjusted to their payments, Plannilg Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 7 about 4th year they start really doing some nice landscaping and I'm sure, know I've gone through that and you have all gone through that too and t t's why we always think that getting beyond the 1 tree per lot excessive. It's just another burden in the cost of the home that we're tying to control. Item (f). We would prefer to modify that. There' a home, if you would put up your exhibit Rick. It would depict the home rth of the westerly entrance. Okay, and if you could just stand up there e you could point. Would you point to the entrance to the subdi sion? Okay. Right now that is the westerly entrance and would head south nto the subdivision. You can see that it comes in. There's a number of modifications made to this entry point. Some of them had to do with ~e preservation of wetland. Some of them had to do with the pr on of significant stands of trees but the other thing that we were ~cerned about is the impact of traffic heading north towards ~ake Lucy td and what impact, if any, that would have on the homes to the north At the informal neighborhood meeting that we conducted in July, the there was concerned about lights. They were concerned mainly about happens in the evening when it's dark and everybody's got their headl on and will this impact our home? That was a really good co . We were concerned about it as well so we spent considerably time out t looking at it and we actually moved the road to the east. You can a :o see it's angled a little bit right there where it intersects. The reaso that we've done that primarily, the adjustment to the angle were to make e that when cars leaving this subdivision. 8y the way, there are two i ;tess and egress so some of them will be using the other exit but the prim reason was to try to direct the traffic down what would be the pro y lines or if you're familiar with that subdivision, there's kind of a Lnd area that goes northeast that those headlights would go that dir on. Additionally we met with the owner of that property. Found out what 'r concerns were and I personally, we believe very strongly and our 1 architect does as well, that we can nullify any impact to that home the planting of some trees like evergreen trees along in there. But in recommendations it suggest putting berms in and landscaping. Once you into an area that's already established. It's already landscaped and start hauling dumptrucks of dirt in there, we open a can of worms and becomes a major project right there where we do not believe there going to be a significant impact and we do think that we can nullil any impact with the planting of some evergreen trees. It will be green 11 year round and that should screen that area. So we would request that hat portion of the recommendations would be modified so rather than stati what it does, that it would say that the applicant will work with that eowner to plant coniferous trees to screen from headlights. And by the w y, the headlights don't go directly into the house. They go into the back ard. Anybody who does choose to go left, they may sweep through the windo and that's what we're concerned about too and we think we can acc odate that just with planting of trees. So we would ask that you modif that. Okay, then I believe on the next page is the last item that I woul ask you to consider modifying. This would be at the bottom under wetlald alteration permit. Item 3. We would ask you to delete item 3. It that alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland and not during the breeding season. The first question was I did not know what the breeding season was because if you want o talk about breeding season it would be 12 months a year if you take into very species of animal that there is. So that poses a problem Planni August obviou The Ci street partic minute someth unable you do do hay impact ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 8 ;ly because there's certain things you can't do in the wintertime. ;y has a policy that you can't pull a building permit until the are blacktopped which means you have to start construction of a lar development sometime in the spring and I assume just for a that breeding season maybe meant for maybe ducks or geese or ng like that and that would be in the spring. Well, if we were to go in and do any work in the spring, it's to the point when do it? Then the other part of that is if you look at the whole and we a wildlife expert with us this evening. If you look at the whole of development on a particular piece of property and on an area in general[, there is some benefit into concentrating that development process intot~e shortest timeframe possible rather than spreading it out over a long iod of time because you may be trying to save maybe a duck or duckl rs here or there but over a long period of time of development maybe the 'on and the sedimentation problems created with development are worse you're taking more time to do it. $o there's a trade-off. Every me you try to save something here, you may be exaccerbating the probl here. So we would ask you to delete that. That does not mean that we do want to be careful but the way that this is written, it puts what we eve to be an unreasonable constraint just on the development pro . In summary, I would like to reiterate again that for the most part are 100~ behind and in agreement about what staff has done and I'd like also reiterate that it's been fun. This has been challenging. I think Paul stated, or excuse me. I'm not sure if it was Paul but as staff ted in the report, he believes that this is kind of the shapes of thing to come possibly. Not only in Chanhassen but possibly everywhere. I mea where there's a working relationship between the public and private secto towards these sensitive types of issues. We like to think we've alwa been like that but we're learning more about this as times goes by also so in summary I would like to ask you to consider our request for amending the recommendations. I do have for each of you a copy of that for your ference. If you have any questions we'd be happy to answer them. We do have our wetland and wildlife people here and our engineers so please feel res to ask any questions that you may have. Emmin s: I'm sure the questions will come. Thanks Terry. This is a publi~ hearing. We ask at this point if there are any member of the public that re here that would like to express their concerns or ask any quest one they may have with regards to this proposal. Is there anybody here lbo wants to speak? Erhar moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Erhar' two d I seel that 50 fe then urban would consi : I'll just start out maybe, one subject that seems to run through scussions tonight and that's the street width and right-of-way width. to remember for most of the time I've been on the commission here he standards for right-of-way in curb and gutter streets was always t and you kind of state here that in the report on this subdivision t was changed. Let's see, City Code recently amended to increase street right-of-way standards from 50 to 60 feet so that right-of-way be consistent throughout the City. What does that mean to be ~tent throughout the City. Planni g Commission Meeting Au 7, 1991 - Page 9 Olsen: In the rural areas it was 60 foot right-of-way so we wanted it to be :istent that a 60 foot throughout the City. And another reason and Charl can add to this was so that all the utilities and everything was withi that right-of-way. It's not necessary to have the outside easements in tion to that. Erhar 31 Did we at the same time then increase the street width from 26 to or has it always been 31 feet? Folch: I'm not sure if it always has been that way but it has been for a of years. The narrowest road width has been 31 feet back to back. Emmin : What does back to back mean? You'v.e both used that term and I do n ' t now. Folch roadw Back of curb to back of curb basically which is considered a dimension. Emmin! : Okay. Erhar ri thou! which aiwa' more I t here ordi Then I heard the other night, the difference between a 60 foot )f-way for use of utilities may still be justified. However I the reason there was a difference in rural lots you had a ditch k up a lot more space on either side surface. I assumed that was the reason why rural was 60 and urban was 50. But again we have ilities and cables and everything like that. That may be justified. ht I heard the other night, you were talking. It was in the staff maybe we ought to look at and then again it suggested a landscape ce discussion that we look at at least going to narrow streets maybe in ller subdivisions. I guess I would tend to agree with that. Certa nly we ought to study it when we get to that point because there is some 'eas around here where the streets seem massive. The expense of putti the street in. You've got to maintain it over the next how many hundr d years. Plow it and quite frankly it's hard to service. Whether this ubdivision ought to have 26 feet or not, I don't know. It just seems that there's inclination to review that, this ought to be one that ought to be 'dered. I don't think, it doesn't make any sense to me to put the sidewalks in. I guess that doesn't make sense. I'd also like to say it's tunate that maybe the applicants and the staff didn't get a to talk some of the additional landscaping so maybe what we ought to addre ~ there is, leave it loose and end up with the developer and the staff meet to kind of nail down those last items before Council rather than try.. In general again, as I stated the last time, I think the developer has t~ an area and obviously gone over almost every square foot and tried to address and come up with a plan that makes sense and I guess... I hav~ a question on your page 5 here where it implies that, and maybe this is just verbage 3o Ann. On the first paragraph there you say that you're refer] lng to the tree preservation plans where we require. Tree preservation plan comes in. Let's see. Building pad is showing moving some f the most significant trees and then we're left to argue with buildlr and homeowner over redesigning their home. Do we really argue with homeoL nets about what their homes? Pl Commission Meeting 7, %991 - Page 10 Olsen: Well yeah. Sometimes you do have where we've had, some of the probl recently in $hadowmere where we've had tree removal plans required and 's happened is the builder has actually gone out and removed the trees Well they've met with the homeowner. They know that there's a tree pr on plan required and they remove the trees so it fits the design of house that they want where actually if you rearranged it you could have tved those trees so there's been some, in the past we've had the tree pr still ar in t yeah, is to house on plans and it really hasn't preserved the trees. I mean there sn't been very much sensitivity in designing the whole and working what exists there. It still comes to where it's cleared. They put home and then they call us and we go out and it's a little late. $0 has been some difficulty. So what we're trying to do with this lly preserved and make it clear that, and with that tree ion plan we have worked around saving sizeable areas for Er gets In your mind who is the ultimate authority to decide if a tree ,moved or not? Olsen: The homeowner? I know what your's is. Erhar Home owner. I'm sorry, home builder. The builder...homeowner, who's ot the ultimate authority to decide if a tree gets removed or not? Olsen I know what your opinion is. Krausl To back up on that a little bit. When you buy a project and you'r buying into tree preservation as one of the elements that sells the proj and is a good move for a city, you have to have some assurance that that ee preservation is going to occur. Now on plans where we've had speci ic areas set aside or specific trees. For example in Vineland Forest if recall there were specific trees that we said were going to be pr and we went out there and they were preserved. The contractors who ilt the roads knew they had to be preserved. People who built houses on De lots knew they had to build around those. Olsen But since then they have been removed. Kraus~ There was one that had been removed. But the problems come into play 'e we've had this ambiguous statement like Lots 13 thru 14 should have tree preservation plan. Well you get the old line. I'll save every tree .to cut down to build the house. What we want is to put the cart b the horse and to say where we have specific areas that are valid and worth' or tree preservation, let's block them out. Let's put an easement aroun, them. That easement will show up on the title and when somebody looks t buying the lot. When Lundgren's sits down with these people, they' e going to say you can't put house plan 49-A on this one because it doesnt fit. You're going to have to twist it around to accommodate what you w nt in tree preservation. It puts the emphasize I think where it s be. Erhar : I don't have any problem with the tree preservation easements. I think that's a good idea because that's part of the overall design for the devel ment. I'm just a little curious what our City's position is with Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page %1 the ho',eowner who buys a lot. He wants to build his house the way he wants to bui.d it and he wants to end up the trees the way he wants them ended up. ~ch as I agree we want to encourage and eniighten and coerce and ever' lng, I guess I just want to make in my mind there's a point where by golly f it's his lot and he wants to cut down the trees, that's his ire. That's my opinion. Olsen: Right, that's your opinion. Right. Erhar staff When I see the term, what I'm trying to clarify is what the City Olsen: We're not beating each other up out there. Usually what we do is work th, when we have had these in the past I've brought out Alan Olsen and ,n we have worked with the homeowner and actually had the homeowner out ,re with us to work with them. This is the house design they want then ese trees will be impacted and remove them now. It's not, maybe that the wrong word but we have had some cases where we have spec lly, such as Vineland, say specific some really important stands of ~s and where now we have the homeowner who wants to put the garage right brough those and that's where we do try to take a strong stance. Erbar I agree because a lot of times a lot of that gets lost between the time ~e homeowner really doesn't think about it and I like the process to force im to think about it. But anyway I'll get off that. On page 9 there am I reading that to say that our PUD doesn't allow, on the top there doesn't allow 30 feet setback from the street? Olsen That's the perimeter. Exterior sides. Erbar : That doesn't affect their desire to do a 20 foot, okay. : In fact there's language in the PUD that waives the internal k requirement. Olsen toget realil I thought I read that one place and had a hard time tying it · What's under the concern about raising the wetland 2 feet and I you're going to go into that. Maybe Charles you could address it. talking about Lake Lucy or are you talking about the street the er's putting in? Folch my st and r Emmin Folch This particular issue was brought to my attention late last week by ~et superintendent who has been with the City for a number of years calls back to when this road was improved and it's his belief that. s: When you say this road, you mean Lake Lucy? Lake Lucy Road. It's his belief that one of the primary reasons why ti e road was raised at that location basically is to get the road subgr de at an elevation above where it normally would be wet and saturated from stability standpoint. I've gone back through the file. I cannot find ny specific information related to that. However, my gut feeling is this ould be a valid point to at least investigate and make sure that we aren' adversely impacting the road subgrade by raising the water level. Planni August It'S have Erhart that t and wh loadin when y really lg Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page i2 )mething that needs to be addressed. At this point in time I don't lough information but we need to look into it. Just my comment on that is I think one of the really good things ley're doing on this is stablizing the water level in that whole area ~ther we agree it looks the way it is because it's some nutrient or whatever it is, it's only going to become a valuable wetland ,u can stabilize the water level at a higher level. I think it's good...so I guess obviously the developer would have a problem. Let me jus stress quickly the other issues that were raised regarding the conditions that were added at the last minute. I assume you're looking for some c~mments on that Jo Ann? Olsen: Yes. Erhart Okay, so we'll go to page 21 on 2(a). Item (a). Again since you haven had the staff and the developer hasn't had a chance, I'm not going, I thi k it's best for you guys to get together and talk these through so I '11 just give you some views. I think we should do some planting of decidu)us trees along the, again without really studying it. Along the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road but in those areas where there's adequate highland area an~ where it can be a reasonable distance from the curb. so I think you're going to have to kind of go out and look. Olsen And that's what we were planning on doing in a species that would survi~ ~. Erhart Like every 40 foot plant a hardwood and you could still see underr ;att the hardwood and out there. Item (b), I agree that we shouldn't be as lng them to put landscaping in the rear lots. (c) again, I would agree that we ought to put some hardwoods along that 2:1 slope maybe every 30 fe~ t to give it the boulevard effect. Olsen And again, that's a pretty extreme slope and what we were thinking about was something that would maybe not even, trees that won't work with some igher. Erhart: Item (d), given that this is a PUD and it appears as though we're going to adapt some kind of a landscape ordinance in the near future it's Teaso (e) t ordin. exist good build do be] $o th Emmin numbe Erhar able to ask the developer to conform to that. I also think in item ough if we're going to do that we ought to note that the landscape nce allows them to have alternatives to planting 3 trees also. So if ng 6 inch trees exist. Lastly, I do believe, I think Terry has a oint. Going in and dumping a bunch of dirt on the north side to a berm right now may not, probably didn't sound very practical but I ieve planting evergreens would solve that problem with the lights. t's it Mr. Chairman. s: They have one more Tim over in the wetland alteration permit, 3? : Oh yeah, I did have one. You must have seen my notes. Emmin s: The Chairman sees everything. P1 Commission Heeting 1991 - Page Erhar Yeah, I think we've been very consistent in not allowing alter ;ion of wetlands during mitgatory waterfowl breeding season. We shoul stick with that however we could delete the other verbage that talks about east impact to wetland. Probably the comments are valid. Do I have an Steve? Emmin~ : No you don't. Was I right? Er Yep. Con subd Jo Ann, can you briefly summarize for me what the previous .sion looked like? Olsen Ersbo? Conra< Yeah. Several years ago. Rick tthre: I've got the initial one. Olsen It's right in this area. It had the cul-de-sac coming in directly acros: from Arlington. It had 6 lots in addition to the 5rsbo property. Cony So we never had a plan for the westerly part of that? Olsen No, we never did. Conra~ Okay. Why isn't the DNR, what's taking the DNR some time to get back n what they'd like to do? Olsen this that for to d have That you k Well have to, we did have Ceil come out and that was kind of as lication goes out. It goes kind of midway into our application DNR was brought in because they received our submission to them comments. Once she was out there it was really difficult for her ine exactly where the ordinary high water mark is. So what they do now is bring out their survey crew so that takes some time. why it's taking. It's going to be another month. I don't know if when they're coming out. The survey crew but. Conra So their first letter back to us on 3uly 10th. Olsen Just with the plans. That's all they're looking at was our plans. Kraus : Well I'd add too that the DNR letter that was included in your packet was based upon the original plan that we brought to you conceptually sever 1 weeks ago. The plans that are before you tonight have been refined exten ively based on not only concerns the DNR raised but our concerns as well nd we brought them back out to the site and we think a lot of their conce are being addressed and they've indicated to us that seems to be the c~ se but they just don't have the final letter ready for us yet. Conr : Well I'm real interested in what they have to say. When we get a proposal for modification to wetlands, we really don't have experts. Other peopl can bring in experts and I guess the best we can do is lean on the DNR a d maybe a few other agencies that can help us. I'm kind of Planni August fascin probab you be me thi it's j the Ti ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 14 ted by what they believe. We're talking state-of-the-art wetland ation and it kind of sounds neat but then again I don't know. I'm y hearing one side and I don't know if you two Or staff believes. Do ieve that this is state-of-the-art type of wetland preservation? To sets a lot of precedent for what we should be doing. And therefore st absolutely, if this is the precedent, I want to make sure it's iht one. The obvious next direction is to follow it up in terms of what o .r wetland ordinance says. Some of the things I endorse are some of the th~ngs I just don't, have a clue if they're right or wrong and I need somebc~dy other than somebody a developer brings in. I need somebody that advise~ us that this is. Everytime you do one thing you really, you can be improv ng one thing but you can be doing some harm in another area. I think ~e're all aware that wetland serve a different function and is this wetland, is this A wetland primarily habitat? Is it water quality? What is it? Is it the setting? Is it ground water? Then I get a little bit confused but anyway, I really would have liked to have seen what the DNR said as I react to this design. It's sort of like saying I kind of like it. ~nat I'm seeing. I like the idea of a PUD. I think this is a great examplB of how a PUD can work. Some clustering. I like how this can work but th gn there's so many other unknowns to me and the only experts that I have t ~at I feel are kind of non-biased maybe, I'm not sure that they're state- f-the-art but at least unbiased would be the DNR and so I'm reacting to nothing right now. I'm not going to take a whole lot of time on some of my con tents but tell me staff about the 6 foot path. I assume as we go down f om 31 to 26 we're worried about pedestrians. But I also assume, I've S ~t to make sure that I heard what Tim's comment was. It is a 31 foot paveme ~t except in a few areas where it's 26. Why is it? I heard Terry talk ~)out 26 might be a better way, o¥ a future way of going in the county z. Is that a future way of going in Chanhassen and why are we at 31 versus 26 for this? And speak to me a little bit about pedestrian. I go throu: ~ the Lundgren development, Near Mountain and on some days the stree's are lined with people. They're just lined with people walking and Terry ou should go over and see them. They're all out in the street and I guess [hey like that but then that gets back to my concern always of how we're moving people around. As we reduce the size of the street, then We're like olsen: at r e( of th( City not p 26 re, been being have ConTa Olsen Folch ordin. moving people around on that street. So I'm sort of at a loss. ~rinking the street but I worry about people moving. And those are some of the concerns that we had also. We are looking Jcing the right-of-way with like the landscape ordinance and is kind way things are moving is to less pavement and all of that but the till has a 31 feet which is we're still comfortable with that. We're epared to say that 26 feet is the right width and if you do have it t, then you don't need a sidewalk Or you do need a sidewalk. It has one in other cities and they'll probably go through that but it is done in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie and other cities do successfully he reduced pavement. : Is there an associated sidewalk with that or how does that? Not in all cases. MT. Chairman if I might add some light onto that. The 31 foot nce was established for a number of reasons. It wasn't just an Planni August arbitr You ca People Garbag to ti~ ]g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 15 ~ry number that was set. And I think safety ~s a key issue here. say parking's not going to occur on the street but yes it does. have gatherings. People entertain guests. You have mail service. service. There's going to be vehicles parked on streets from time and when you narrow that roadway width down, you not only are narro~ng the competing area between vehicles manuevering around that but also t~e pedestrians and that's a very, very important issue because I think~n this area particularly where you have some quality environmental amenities that people are going to want to get out and walk around that neighk~rhood. They're going to want to see things and take a look at t. hin~ They don't have a walk so they're going to have to make use of the stree In the 2 areas where there was difficulties getting around the wetl where we were agreeable to reducing the width down to 26 feet, we thoug it was a good compromise by also providing this walk off the street to al the pedestrians not to have to compete with the automobiles in a narr road width. 31 feet also allows better sight lines and clear dista es for people getting in and out of the driveways. Looking down stree , especially on curvalinear roadways. There's a number of aspects relat to safety that are involved with that road width establishment. It's t just an arbitrary number that somebody decided 31 sounds like a good . Conra : Terry when you were in here a couple months ago you were talking about he Near Mountain development and talking about Silver Lake and maybe there be some nature trails there. You didn't design any nature trails in thJ development. You were saying in the very beginning you factor in all t~ costs and that way later on things are going to come out econonically for everybody but I think you were speaking real positively of some Cf the amenities that a nature trail could bring. Hasn't been desig ed here. Not that I need you to put it in but I'm curious why in this articular development, I mean given that you have a wetland that's rathe pretty and 9iven that you did talk to us several months ago about how t at would be a nice amenity in some cases. Why wasn't it put in here? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Terry Forbo' d, Lundgren Bros.. I don't recall speaking to you about nature trail~ or anything relevent to Silver Lake and Near Mountain. I do recall speak ng to the Planning Commission about planned unit developments and some f the things that may enhance a planned unit development. That was not a sweeping statement where all planned unit developments should have those types of amenities. Every situation is different. The other thing, there s been three times during this discussion where this subdivision has been, ompared to Near Mountain. Near Mountain is 360 acres that has close to 50~ housing units. There's a big difference between a 30 acre site where vet su,. you g~ a dyn, ~cono~ lot. o' Conra~ commo 41% of the land is open space, wetlands and only 37 housinQ units a huge planned unit development and so when you look at the scale t into practical thoughts real quickly. ~hat really makes sense from ~mic design and aesthetic standpoint and then obviously from an ic feasibility standpoint and that's why. I mean it wouldn't make a sense to do that. And even the Park and Recreation Board agreed. : So basically a walk trail in people's back yards is not a sellable ity? Planni August Terry vast m their it and two, t that's spouse ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 16 ;orbord: We find in 22 years that the vast majority, and I say the jority of people, number one they do not want a sidewalk in front of ome. They don't want to pay for it and they don't want to maintain they don't want anybody walking in front of their yards. Number ~ey've even more adamant about a trail in their backyard because where they go to relax. Nowadays when you've got a spouse, both are working, they come home, what they really want to do is have some let enjoyment of the things they're working so hard to have and they usuall~ escape to the backyards of their homes and the last thing they want are a >unch of people walking back and forth in their backyard so it's a phenom have t say da willin Conrac of nat factor trail amenit sellab Terry point againe Conrac They ' ~ this b Olsen ConTa, Olsen Conra( wetla Kraus: Olsen Krausl both We've a pro~ Conra( Olsen Dna that from an idealistic standpoint it would be truly wonderful to ails everywhere but from a realistic standpoint, when you look and ,s it really make sense. Do people really want it and are they to pay for it, we find exactly the opposite. You did make that statement several months ago about the validity [re trails and when you design them in the front end and economically them into the equation they will happen but I don't need a nature lere. I'm just curious about what Lundgren's sees as important ies as sort of a way I learn about what's going on and what's [e and what people are wanting. But thanks. =orbord: I don't want to misunderstood because there certainly is a ,here that would be appropriate. So don't misunderstand that I'm L them. I am for them. They weren't factored in here. Yeah, I know what you're saying. just not here and I wanted to know why. Staff, who will monitor uffering strip around the wetland? Us. Staff. : Who? Who specifically? : Yeah, Paul? So there's a stake out in the ground where the d is and then there's a 10 yard or 25 yard. : We'll have a couple of things. It will be on easements and show up on surveys. : Any survey's that submitted to us for building permit will show he wetland line plus the conservation area, whatever we call it. 3een talking to Terry about monumenting the line. That's always been lem. : The wetland line or the. The buffer. conra, : The buffer? Okay. Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 17 Krauss So everybody knows where it is and you know if your neighbors monkey,d with it and that kind of thing. It's something that you go back out an retrace. Conrad And what's this buffer zone going to consist of? Olsen: The vegetation will just be a natural vegetation. Mostly canary grass. Conra So if one person cuts into it it might stand out? Olsen: Well it's going to be going from 10 feet to 25 feet. It's not going .o be just a straight line so it might not be real obvious if 's cutting their 25 feet into a 15 foot but that's why if we do noti something, if somebody calls, we will be able to go in and find those ~takes and look at the survey. Co Well I like the idea. I'm just worried about carrying it out. Olsen I think we've had the most difficulty trying to protect them in the past id these are things we've always talked about that might be good so again it's experimental. ConTa we're The setback from the wetland, especially Class A is 75 feet so lng 45 now. The DNR has final say? Olsen No. They have no setback on that. Conra, : They don't have a setback from a Class A wetland? : Only from lakes. Conr : Only from lakes. It's our ordinance that's 75? Olsen Right. Conra( : Are they reacting? They're not reacting to that are they? Olsen We've told them about the buffer strip and they think that that's a real god idea but as far as the setbacks themselves, they're not conce . Conr Okay. What is a 2 foot increase in water and Class A wetland makes it more of an open water space right? Less vegetation so it's more of a ond than it is a wetland or what? Olsen Well they're doing it to see if that will kind of remove, there's a lot o4 , I don't know if it's duckweed but there's a lot of algae on top so they' e hoping that that. Conra : Aeration planned or there is no aeration planned for that? There's no dr~ dging to clean up all the stuff that's run in there? Planni Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 18 Olsen: We discussed that and a lot of, again with the DNR and Fish and Wildli:e and people aren't real excited thinking that would really resolve the pr lem. So with dredging the sedimentation you mean? Co Yeah. Erbar If I could interrupt here. I think keep in mind some years, in dry rs the whole thing dries up. Currently the way it is... Conr I think there has to be some pedestrian. I'm comfortable. I don't :now. I don't mind taking a 31 foot street to 26 but I need staff to endor that right now and right now they haven't. That sort of bothers me. guess I have a tough time reacting to that. I almost have to go with at staff's saying. I do need some pedestrian, I do need to be confi ~t that the pedestrians have been taken care of, especially around the foot areas. I don't know what to do right now. I guess in the of not knowing what to do I have to go with staff on what they're su lng. However, on the other hand, I sure don't mind reducing the imper ous surface of that street if somebody could satisfy my needs to move lople around safely. The walkers. Does the Lundgren plan of $40, .00 for shrubbery and what have you, does that meet our new sta where let's say this was a $6 million dollar development, 1~? Olsen It doesn't apply. ConTa some It doesn't apply. I know it's not in but are we trying to use those standards? Olsen resid, Those standards don't, we can't really apply them to this to al. Er 1 ordi and What does apply though is, it more closely correlates to the 'ng standards that are being proposed for the subdivision :e. This talks about perimeter landscaping and boulevard planting on the lot. Co Okay. Last couple things are just reaction to some of the la ing issues. It's really tough when Terry's saying one thing and staff is suggesting another. Like Tim said, I really would like to have staff nd the developer work it out. I think there's something to having v on wetlands so that people driving by. We don't need to block them. I thi k if you take a look at the other Lundgren developments, back yards reall' aren't unattractive the way they've developed other properties so that esn't bother me either but I still want, I still feel comfortable in sayi enforcing the 2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen in this development and less ~fset. Would that be, if they've already got 2 or 3 on that prope ty, then that particular lot is taken care of? Olsen Oh yeah. Conra4 : Okay. I really have to defer to staff and the developer to work those things out. I can't be smart enough to outguess that. And then point number 3 on the wetland alteration permit. I guess I don't know what the rding should be on that. We're certainly, as you ge~ so close to a Planni Commission Meeting Augu 7, 1991 - Page 19 wetla and it's so close you're in the wetland when you're putting in the s and what have you and fill, I guess I'm concerned about how that's done. And so I think that's what Lundgren has to live within is what the staff ts up as permissible so that it doesn't affect the wetland that much. If spring is the time that the developer comes in and puts roads, that' when there's a lot of runoff. I'm concerned with what happens but again have to defer to what staff suggests. Rick were think .thre: I'm Rick Sathre. I'm the engineer for the project. There couple things that Commissioner Conrad, issues that he raised that I could address. Specifically how we changed the impact on the DNR Emmin~ : Do you want him to address that? Did you have a question you'd like to answer? Co Let's keep going and Rick if you could comment after we're all done. Maybe that would be appropriate. Emmin! : Alright, Tim. What's your name? Batzl My name's Brian but I'll answer to Tim tonight. Emmin! : Okay, go ahead. Batzl I'd like to say that I think, I appreciate the sensitivity that Lund! ;n and staff have put into this and now I'd like to hammer it a littl bit. 3o Ann, have we figured out what is the net average lot size? Olsen: It's 30,000. BatzlJ: No that's gross isn't it? If you took out the wetland portion here t are totally undevelopable. Do you know what kind of lot sizes we've ct here? Olsen No I don't. Batzl : Okay. I 'm not going to talk about that much. I think Jeff's going , unless I call you Brian tonight. I don't know. I think that we've .ct some really small lots in here and we're going to be putting some pret big houses on them and we're not doing ourselves any favors. If r experience with PUD's is any indication regarding real small lot sizes and houses put next to each other as far as variances in the future go. s far as what these homes look like, granted you're going to have a big w tland in the middle of a lot of them especially on 8lock 2 but from just ooking at the impact of what these homes crowded next to each other woul look like fairly small lots from the road, I think some of the nei ors and maybe none of them spoke tonight but I think they all feel like t's going to appear as if these are very small lots. Even if you put a faily nice house on there, they're concerned and I'd like to know what the h ck these lot sizes are really going to look like once you factor out both he protected area and the wetland because it appears, especially in Block 2 that they are going to look very tiny. I also have a comment or Plann Commission Heeting Augus 7, 1991 - Page 20 quest n about what your density net is. Did you calculate the wetland size b~ taken out as 8.6 acres? Olsen No actually I did the 8.3. Batzl that to CUTVe And do you take out the road when you calculate that? I think [mber should be much higher. Closer to 1.7 or better. I'd like you at that again. On Lot 7, Block 1 they've only got 40 feet on the Don't we have some kind of rule or regulation about that? ht we had required more. Olsen On a curve you have to have the 90 feet at the setback. Batzl At the setback? Olsen Right. Batzl And we've got 90 feet there? Olsen No, no but. Kraus~ Keep in mind this is a PUD. It's not RSF standards. 8atzl look Yeah, I understand. Do we like that? Do we comment on it? Do we it? Olsen It was in the table. I pointed out which ones don't meet that. Batzl : I know but do people look at it from the standpoint of we're going to ha' a couple of driveways right next to each other on the curve? Do we care? I don't know. Should we share a driveway there? : Ne have actually asked that that be modified. Olsen As a curve. Kraus~: We wanted the eyebrow removed and the driveway shared if necessary but i would open that area up quite a bit. 8atzl : I guess I'm looking at it from the standpoint that it looks mighty crowd, on the curve and especially if, well I don't think the pavement is reduc in width there is it at that point. Is the road width in Fox Hollo, reduced from 31 feet? Do you guys know? It seems to me that there was s~mething granted in Fox Hollow. Either the right-of-way or either the widthlitself. Do you guys know? Folch find Batzl guess detra¢ With poten That I'd have to check on. I'm not aware of off hand. I'd have to ut for sure. I don't recall. : It seems to me it's narrower in that particular development and I I'd, I mean I agree with Lundgren that I think sidewalks would t from this particular development from a sellability standpoint. he tight curves. I know in my particular development it's a ial problem with people driving their cars too fast around the curves Planni ~ugust a nd es has a going Folch'. down o have y Batzli south? there? Folch: Batzli Folch i t ha,, in tha Batzli that's road i going look a potent Kraus~ there ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 21 =ecially there's a hill and a curve area in our development and this ouple of slope areas. I'm not sure, is the elevation of the street .o be fairly consistent Charles do you know? In fact it won't. You're going to have the grade will be coming both sides from the north down to the south where you're going to )ur lower points so it will fluctuate. $o you're going to be coming, especially on the east side going You're going to be coming down a hill and then around a corner Exactly. Is that one of the areas where the width is reduced? That's one of the areas where due to the existing site limitations been proposed to reduce the width in order to get the road to work area geometrically. I don't know. From a safety standpoint I'd like to see something for sure. There's been a lot of close calls with little kids on our an area similar to that. I'm not sure if the reduced road width is ;o impact it that much or not. I asked last time if we could take a t incorporating any of the road structure of this development into a ial development to the west. Was anything really done on that? : There's a couple reasons we didn't pursue that. First is that Nas an original plan that looked to do that and when the property owner~o the west was thinking about throwing the property in. He since decided not to pursue that which makes it difficult to anticipate a street connection through there. The grades get rather tough. If you don't have the c¢ rather 8atzl that chari somew incor Kraus~ that Olsen know Batzl to ha operation of property and know how it's going to develop, it gets tough to see where a road's going to cut through. : I know we've done this hypothetically in the past and I just think e're going to end up with another entrance right on the other side of g bend there in the next development down which is going to be ere between 100 and 200 feet away when it seems to me we might try to orate it. I don't know. If you say it's impossible, I believe you. : I don't think it's impossible. We see a concept that demonstrates t's not impossible but it's quite difficult. There are some wetlands right adjacent to, on the west. I don't f you've got something that shows that. : If and when we ever get a trail system in this city, are we going e one along Lake Lucy Road? OlsenI I think that trail system is there. There's an additional easement for that trail. Batzl : Is there one already? Planni Commission Meeting Augu 7, 1991 -- Page 22 Olsen: There's an on street trail. Just a bike trail. Batzli That's as much as we'll ever get there? Olsen: Well there's an easement for off street but I think that what you'v got is what you get. You know it's for the park department to reall determine. Batzli Terry, if I can direct this question to you. Who will own the littl piece of land on the northwest corner of the development there that' by the entrance? Is that Lot 23's property up there? Terry The atr is bord: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Terry with Lundgren Bros.. 3ust to make sure I understood your question. northwest corner just west of the road there's what appears to be lular piece of property that goes along the western boundary. That of Lot 23, you're absolutely correct. Batzl $o it will be up to Lot 23 to maintain that piece of property? Terry 'orbord: Sir, Mr. Commissioner, that area is a preservation zone. It wi have deed restrictions on it where it will maintain it's natural state If you look on the exhibits that have been supplied by staff and upon ff's recommendation, that is an area that they feel should be mai ned in it's natural state and it's always been our intent to keep it that . There are some significant trees. As you know, the City of Chanh sen requires a tree survey of every tree that's I believe larger than inches and we have done that on this particular site. That area along ~th sides of that road in approximately 400 feet has significant trees both sides of the road and that's why that area is depicted on the pr ,ation map exhibit as a preservation zone. Batzl that 8o you're not going to have any entrance markers or anything like that area? Terry bord: To the contrary. Actually in the very northwest corner, as you w 1 see on the exhibit on the overhead, there is actually a Walker Pond hich is a sedimentation pond that will be trapping the storm water ru that comes into this. Eventually goes into the large DNR wetland and can see it kind of there depicted as kind of a kidney shaped little objec there. That is a pond on that side. The landscape plan depicts lands, ing all around that area. Now as you know when you're putting in roads nd you have a right-of-way and especially by entrances to subdi ' ions, it's very important that your sight lines be established so peopl, at that stop sign are turning, they can see some distance. $o yes there 11 be some landscaping but a safety considerations are there so the peopl ingressing and egressing will be able to see in a safe manner. Batzl : So you're not going to have any entrance markers into this devel ~t? Terry ~rbord: No, that's not true. Batzl : Where are you going to put them? Planni Commission Meeti~g Augu 7, 1991 - Page 23 Terry orbord: The entrance markers are on the landscape plan. They are depic d there. Olsen: It's up on the transparency. Terry bord: Rick, would you put the landscaping plan up please? Batzli Maybe I should ask it this way. Is there going to be a homeowners ' Ltion in this development? Te¥¥y >rbord: No sir. Batzl So will it be that Lot 23's responsibility to maintain the :e monument and the landscaping on that corner or is that all going to be n the right-of-way? Terry the la on t agre that city Batzl -d: It will not be in the right-of-way? What we have done in even within this city and many other cities is that there is a , lng easement, a monument easement. Often times a utility easement particular lots where there is monumentation. There is an nt with the individual who buys that home that they will maintain perpetuity. That's been done in this city as well as every other we've had. When do we normally do that Paul? When would we require that? Er The homeowners agreement? Batzl that a PUD Well he said there's not going to be one. But require for example ping and sign monuments, things like that get taken care of in : Well, if it's a concern you can require that it be set up at this time. In the past we've had problems with some of these monuments that incl lighting and backlit signage and stuff that would fall apart and the ,Whet didn't maintain it. I think Lundgren typically has gone to, what common now which is a low or zero maintenance type of facility. So,et a rock wall with brass lettering fixed to it. It's a difficult one o that particular lot Commissioner too. We want to have a low maint~ nce or no maintenance landscaping. The homeowner reasonably is not going be maintaining it. The homeowner reasonably isn't going to think of t t as being part of their property. BatzlJ of un~ they'~ Terry busin~ probl( Batzl! sayin~ befor : That's my concern is that you're going to have a development full :py people because somebody's not going to take care of it and e going to think that it's the City's responsibility. orbord: That has not been our problem in the past. We've been in for 22 years. We've have done this and we have not had that : There's been that problem in other developments here. I'm not Lundgren's is the problem. I just suggesting that this has happened Planni Co~mission Meeting Au 7, 1991 - Page 24 Terry orbord: You're right. It does happen with other developers. I think .he basis for that is how is the agreement handled between the home buyer the developer. Is it thought through beforehand. As I stated, we t have those problems. Batzl they' City being ma poss Typically when you put this kind of restriction on the deed buying, who has the right to enforce it? Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Ne could arrange for the be involved in the chain of title so that if the property wasn't intained we'd have the...to go back to the homeowner to require the nce. We'll do it ourselves and assess the cost. That would be a lity. Batzl I'd like to see something like that. Terry 'orbord: Mr. Chair? Mr. Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros. is here and deals with these things himself so maybe he could better address some those questions. peter laum: There's no easy answer. What we do is there's an easement on t property that in the event the homeowner doesn't take care of it, we have right but not the obligation to come and take care of it. $o there s a protection from the homeowner if this person is not doing it, we can in and rescue the situation. Batzl : Lundgren? Peter there we gi prob it a you' aum: Lundgren, yeah. And we use that in those cases where not a homeowners association. If there's a homeowners association them the right to do it. But like Terry said, we've never had a but if we did, we have the right to come in there and take care of then figure out how to resolve it with the neighbors. Usually not talking about a major item in terms of dollars. Batzl : No, typically it's for an individual or group of individuals insid, the subdivision and you're right. But I guess I would feel more comf .able. I have a lot of confidence in Lundgren but I think the City might here longer than Lundgren. I would prefer that the City have that right Ahren: : What is the sign going to look like anyway? Is it going to be no mai nance? Kr : I don't believe we've gotten into the details yet. Batzl~: The building inspector's comments on the type of house and 5 foot drainage easement and stuff 3o Ann. Is that handled in your condition e( f )? Kraus.~ Batzl thing: : I believe the condition that's handling it is condition 9. : Okay, so 8(f) plus 9 handles it because really they talk about The type of house and then the 5 foot drainage. Okay. I share Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 25 Ladd'sm concern. I would like to see it demonstrated that there's kind of no net loss. That this is really top drawer and we're doing the right thing. As far as the landscaping, I agree with (a) that I think we should put a :ouple in provided they're going to survive. (b) I think we can get rid of (c), I really don't have something to protect the slope but that doesn' necessarily mean trees. Is that right 3o Ann? Olsen: Right. Batzli Yeah. And then (e), I think as long as they're acting in nce with what we're proposing in the new ordinance regarding if there s existing trees, a minimum of i or whatever the language ends up. I don't now if we're going to pass it that they can delete all three. They' credited with existing trees over a certain caliper. I just think that ~ould be worked out depending on what we talk about later tonight. agree here shouldn't be a berm. And as far as the wetlands, I think there shou it the be we a point be some kind of language in there that it should minimize impact on the standpoint of I guess we don't want their grader running around ire wetlands. I don't know how we say that but I think there should protection. As far as the during breeding season, it seems to me do have that in there but I guess Terry raised an interesting It might be all year round. Olsen Well, it usually is in the spring when we mean it and when we say minim~ disturbance, a lot of times you can do that grading when the ground is st 1 somewhat frozen and stuff so when you're filling in a portion of a wetla' you're really not, that's the least impact. It's the harder gr . That's what we intended. Erhar : ...Item 3 that you're discussing deals solely with the timing. Not extent of granding. Olsen 8atzl Olsen densi anoth not r it's Emm i n Olsen Rick Olsen stree and I Rick densi Right. The timing. That's what I mean. : I'm done now. If I could, I did go through the, you're right. The actual net is 2.1 without the wetlands. For some reason I had that done and one got in there. $o what was in there is the net lots and it had moved the wetland. So if you remove all the wetlands, 8.3 acres, .1 units per acre. Thanks for catching that. s: And our city average is 1.77 That was shown in the Comp Plan. athre: ...37 lots on 22 acres. What I did is I had added up all the lot areas. Had removed the r S and then what I did was just remove the wetland areas from that came up with 17.7 acres. .athre: And roads. But if you just take out the wetlands, then the ¥ is 1.7. Plann Commission Meeting Au: 7, 1991 - Page 26 Emmin.. : We take out both. When we say net, we take out both. 3elf? Farma s: I'm going to start out with some stuff just in general that I have ~estions on that we didn't cover in the previous meeting. I just can't "ind in here in all this paperwork. I'm going to start out with this tree eservation. So to Exhibit H that shows some of the trees. It's on this ,eet here. The road that comes up in the northwest corner that you said you changed the angle so it wasn't going straight into the road. The we're talking about the light shining into the homeowners home. I'm looki at how that relates to the trees that are in existence there. I can that whoever did the plotting on this thing was trying to get a lot out what is now Lot 14. Buildable lot there in the corner. The ;st corner of Lot 14. Was I guess trying to get a minimum building lot i there. I'm wondering are there any other ways to run that road throu there so you wouldn't have to slice through? Olsen We did talk about running it right like adjacent to the wetland. Farma' east? : So that would curve it off to the east? A little more to the Olsen Exactly. Then once you get the building pad in there, you'd be losinl them so we weren't really, there really was no way to get around it even you did move it all the way over because then, like I said, with the b ilding pad. Also the ponding area that's in that northwest corner, they' going to be dredging that out and making it deeper. That's going to be emoving some of the poplars and stuff there too so it is kind of getti hit from all angles. Farma : I guess I'll get into this Lot 14 in a few minutes here. It seems hat the stand that's there essentially will be eliminated either throu h the road or that holding pond or Lot 14. Correct? Kraus. : No. There will be some trees removed. What you have is a trade, off. If there's a potential and alternative for the road to come out in an~ ther location onto the adjacent property, that would be the only way to do that but there's net environmental impact damage on that site to accomplish it. If the road's going to connect there at all, your other altetative is to come through the Class A wetland and we've been trying to keep ome, everybody's been trying to stay out of that. What they did is sort f split the difference and they've got trees located on either side of th road. Significant trees located on either side of the road and as the consic kind Rick earli shift, final allow, of th altho, patti .ad comes through there at a diagonal, you should still have erable tree massing. I don't know where you want to pick out the f trees that are in there. I can't read it. athre: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Serquist. The plan that some of you saw last time we were here, the road was a little bit farther east through this area right in here. I chose this alternative after looking at about 3 or 4 others because this us to save some 16 to 30 inch oaks right in this area that are west existing Ortenblat driveway. Also saving some significant trees, gh they aren't oaks on the west side of the road. Picking this :ular alignment gave us trees on both sides whereas if we pushed it Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 27 farthe west or east we lost everything on one side or the other. This seems .o protect the largest trees the best. Farma ~s: Was one of those options when you went to the east, there's sort of a Ltural gap between those two clumps of trees where you move it fart~ to the east so it's on the east side of where those oaks are you would .ip some of that wetland up in the northwest corner? Rick thre: Here's the existing driveway. That's where that opening is? Farma s: Well yeah. It comes at a different angle but. Rick out thre: Okay. Well it isn't wide enough for the road so if we came e, then we'd fill into the Class A wetland. Farma s: But you could angle it and fill in that one corner up there to minim e the loss of those trees? If the angle was this direction rather than e present direction of the road? Rick thre: If we moved the entrance farther east and did impact the wetla , you'd still have, it's back here where the trees are significant. So moving the entrance east didn't help necessarily. Olsen I think he's talking. Rick thre: Maybe I don't understand. Terry : Mr. Chair, Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros.. I know when you' looking at one dimension on a map, even for those of us who do this day i and day out, it's very difficult to try to understand the dynamics of mo' something even one foot east or west. The other thing that one needs take into perspective when they're just looking at these lines and wo' , is this where it's going to be is something called grading lim . Okay, so when you're looking at those lines, that isn't the only area will be impacted. The grading limits that it takes to make it all f together and the engineer can probably explain this from a City's persp, ire, the grading limits can change depending on where you put the road. If we move that road further to the east, the impact wouldn't just be on you see in that one dimension because you may have to grade 50-60 feet each direction beyond the right-of-way in order just to make it work of the topography. So when we selected, like Rick said and I think he was fairly modest when he said we've looked at three different conce ts because we worked with the City staff seeing their concepts and then ur concepts and we went back and forth. Sot the wetland people invol ed. I mean every expert that was available got involved in the desig of 'these sensitive areas and the roads. But we also had to take into of th yOU of an wetla Farma about ffect the grading limits of the right-of-way. How far on both sides road were we going to have to cut dirt or move dirt. The spot that e right now, right where it is today has the absolute minimal impact alternative for that particular location. Whether it be trees, ds, wildlife, whatever. es: Paul, did you look at these other proposals that they're talking Planni Commission Meeting August ?, 1991 - Page 28 We in fact sat around a table sketching out a variety of things at severa meetings, yeah. Farma s: Okay, because as far as the grading goes, the angle that I'm talki about really t-elates to Lot 14 and whether or not there is a Lot 14. e angle isn't that much different than the present road that goes in there . It's slightly more to the east. I'm not an engineer. I don't build cads. Olsen: Do you want me to show what I think you're talking about is to bring .he road or do you want to come over and do it? 8ut you're talking about inging the road through here instead? Farma ,s: Nell just either that or angling it up and nipping a bit of the wetl Olsen: And then what you're saying is that they would lose Lot 14. Farma : I'll get into discussing Lot 14 in a minute. But it would be Lot that is correct. I think we've maybe covered that enough. My co is that maybe when this does come before the City Council that that' looked at. I'd like to touch quickly on this road issue. On page 20. the safety, has this come before the Safety Commission at all or have commented on any of this? Olsen Ne got comments back from the Building Inspector and then also from the F e Marshall. They had no comments specifically. Far It's str : You don't see this, this isn't really a thru street of any kind. st internal traffic and you feel that this would be, without a that this would be a safe issue? Olsen Hell that's why we're doing the compromise to try it. To try and see i we can because it really was a difficult situation because we really to save the wetlands and the trees but also provide the closed str . So we're comfortable that the transition would work. Farma : The sidewalk would~be 6 feet on both sides? Olsen No, just one side. Farma : Which side would this be? The north side? Olsen where We were proposing that it be on the wetland side. That's mostly le would be wanting to walk. Batzl : I don't think people would use them though. I don't think people would go onto the street, onto the sidewalk, back onto the sidewalk kind of a thi g. Olsen If we make it like an easy transition. We kind of were thinking just little ramp up, ramp down... Planni August Batzli people know i Olsen Kr aus,, clearl the we there our si being we're It's ¢ that a for t~ clear depart a nd se ordin~ we'd ] the n~ wouldf built Farina consi, approt Kraus.~ Commi.. with t Wedne~. somet to rr, e Farma infor been think thing that areas see a ng Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 29 I just think of like in Eden Prairie. A lot of times you see walkin9 down the street and the sidewalk's right there. I don't they'd use it. You want to provide it just in case. We may be 9uilty of trying to be over creative on this but we wanted to be sensitive to not plowing into, we needed to protect bland. We didn't want to plow into the hill with the oaks on it and s only so much room to put the road and then we looked at revising mndards which the PUD ordinance encourages you to do. But we're asked to break some new ground here and there's a limit to how far =omfortable in going and we developed this compromise out of it. lear to me in looking at planning literature from around the country lot of places are looking at reducing right-of-way and street width e same reasons that we're considering it here tonight. What's not to me is the standard that we should use and I think the engineering ~ent has indicated that they're going to check with other communities e what they're going with. You know it takes a while for tbs nces to catch up with what some of other communities are doing and ike to see what is safe. We do have a tight curve here compounding rrowness of the street. We think it can be done safely or else we 't propose it. But we wanted to have all the safeguards we could into this and the sidewalk was part of that. es: If the sidewalk was deleted, did you take that into station when you were looking at that? In other words would you e it or do you have real safety concerns if that was deleted? : We'd really have to take a look at this. I'll be honest with you sioner Farmakes. This is something that we had a conference call ne City Manager and ourselves sitting around a conference table late Jay afternoon with the developer's engineer trying to work out lng that we could agree on that met the goals that we felt we needed t. What you see in front of you is the net result of that. es: I'm going to reserve an opinion on that until we get further ation on it. The next thing I want to touch on is the lots. I've sally impressed with Lundgren development and their developments. they've done a really nice job. $ignage, landscaping, the whole I do have some concerns that again when this goes to City Council hey're really looking at what this really is. Particularly in these where they show the wetland. Often it's the case in the wetland you huge lot there and really it's not quite so huge when it comes time to build on it. In looking at Lots 14-5, if you look where the.building pads 1re and you superimpose where the wetland is, and that's Exhibit C and E, if zou put those two together, it would seem to me and then look at the squat footage that is on page 16 on the staff report here and look at those when subtr cases 3. E~ wetla~ istings, they look pretty substantial when you look at lot area but ou subtract the wetland and you subtract the wetland setback and you ct the front setback on the lot, these lots are half or more in some And then compare them against Lots l, 2, 3. The existing home on en 1~, 15, 16. These lots aren't suffering a lot of loss through d habitat or they're pretty much all buildable. It concerns me that Plann Commission Meeting Au.~ 7, 1991 - Page 30 5 14 are so different. I understand that PUD, that's what goes on but I thi~l that these figures are a bit deceptive. That we should also have ~,Jhat lly net buildable square footage of that lot is when they're com ng them against the other lots that are there because I think they look different than what's on here. The other lots that I have concern about Id be Lot 13, Lot 12, and Lot 10. Also those lots are having a fair nt of loss due to the proposal. I'm also concerned about 7 and 6. The .,ess on the road. You said there's somebody over there that wants the t 'u street through there. Is that the positioning of that street or where 's proposed? Olsen No. Like I said, in just our first shot at that we've looked at that already do have access on Powers Blvd. that they could bring in their n private drive and there's some slope and topography there and trees hat would be removed. Farma : It seems awfully narrow there. They'd either have to share a lot put them both of them right together. I'm concerned in particular about ot 14. I still feel that, typographical considerations aside, that the r son that that road's going through so that building pad on 14 and it's st the corner there. I guess considering looking at these homes and the ity of these homes, if you look at them on any part of the lower level the south part, if there's houses close together in the arran ~ent for the typographical area, there's not more than 3 or 4 of them a row and then they change angle. When I look at 5 thru 14, thew' sort of all on a crescent. They're all, because of the cal positioning all in a row. They seem awfully close together to me ed to the rest of the development and I also understand that a PUD, king use and consideration of the land that that's what you do so es. I'd like to see fewer homes in between there. Between 5 and 14. particular 14. If you eliminate 14 and move those apart a little bit, can maybe get those a little bit more to conform. I don't know about economics of that but to me that's a glaring standout there. When talked about, to go onto the next subject, when we talked a bit about he improvement of the wetland. I still have concerns about finding out i :ormation about how the wetland that's on the lower half of this devel nent is affected. The drainage ditch at one time, it's now filled up, guessed it being about 12 inches deep at the time it drained out the . Is that correct? $o it takes very little to drain that level n to the next wetland, is that correct? Frank it That ,oboda: The ditch as it is today is about 6 inches shallower than originally. There's about 6 inches of sediment on the bottom. probably about 12 to 18 inches. Farma ,s: Okay, but at this point that's more of a, it's not draining out right now into the lower, it's filled in? The drainage area. Has there been ny discussion as to what, if anything that they talked hypothetically about ting a crop in. I'm sure the DNR isn't going to allow that. far improvement. If they approved the water level on this thing, how is that ing to affect the wetland and the next slope down which is on the south t of this property? Besides the road or Lake Lucy Road, are they going to be doing anything to change the nutrients in this issue that's a there? Particularly if this land has already been cropped. There Planni August is sub lower going the ne what w back t That's highwa from t the vi but I I'd 1i KYaus~ lg Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 31 ~tantial amounts of nutrients there. How is that going to affect the Jetland and in raising that water level, how that drains? Is that ~.o take the nutrients and the problems from there and put it down to ct one? Is there something that can done about that? And if so, >uld the DNR allow us to do? My comments then, to finish up on going page 21. I would defer to the City on that as far as blocks view. an aesthetic issue. This is a considerable distance from the . I've seen the other development's homes. They look pretty good .e back. I guess I don't have as much concern about the blocking of ~w. It will take a long time for those trees to get up to that state ~till would like to see some landscaping. Survivability is an issue. <o to hear from the City on whether or not that's a confirm on that. On boulevard trees along Lake Lucy? Farma delete here, Krauss landsc take a believ a lot What ~ and Er k ;s: That's correct. That'd be line (a). They would like that J and next to it, the thing Terry handed out here. Comments that say [t says blocks view and low survivability. We have asked the street superintendent, who admittedly isn't a ~pe expert but who's familiar with what grows in his rights-of-way to look at that when he was looking at that drainage issue and he ~d that it was wide enough to support some boulevard trees. He's got >f intuitive feel for these things and I sort of trust his opinion. were talking about though is exactly what Commissioner's Conrad ~art mentioned which is the boulevard trees with deciduous trees throu~ ~ there. Basically just to break it up a little bit. Farma es: I'd like to see that stay in then, unless there's legitimate infor ~tion backing that up that we can't put anything in there because it's r)t going to live. It would be a waste of money. On (b), as far as the l~ndscaping of the rear lots adjacent to Class A wetlands, I'd still like to see that remain but I also understand that the sellability of these types of homes, these people are going to want to look out onto the lake. They'~e going to want to look out on the wetland. I guess as you said beforE, if there's enough there to break it up. Olsen Yeah, that was our intention. It wasn't going to be a solid scree~ Just a little. Farma~es: So maybe a definition of what that is. Perhaps something that is co~promiseable there. I'd like to'see also (e) stay in there. I don't thinklthat's excessive. However, since that's not on the books, perhaps again that's something up for discussion. A landscape berm and so on, I guess lands( as li exper like if, again I defer to the City's opinion there on whether or not the ape only is going to affect that particularly in the winter. As far e 3, again I'd like to hear from the DNR on that. I'm not a wildlife and what constitutes a breeding season and how that will affect. I'd o get their opinion on that. That's the end of my comments. Emmin s: Thanks Jeff. Joan. Planni'~g Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 32 Ahrens I'd like to first comment on Terry's comments and then I had some genera comments. As far as the 26 foot width of the street goes, I think that's ine and I think putting in a sidewalk is, I don't want to expose the City to any liability here by not putting in a sidewalk but I don't think >eople use them. I know that they'd use them if they were only on it for a ~hort time but I think it would look nice. The landscaping. Under (a), t~e landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. I guess my only concern there ia not to block the view of the wetland for everybody else. I don't know what y)u had in mind there as far as what kind of landscaping goes but there'; other people that look at that wetland besides the people who are going o live in it and I think that shouldn't be blocked from the road. (b), have no opinion about that. I'll defer to the City on that. (c), I my understanding is that your intent there was to stabilize the land ,xt to the wetland. That's why you wanted some landscaping. Is that true? Olsen: Right. There's some special grasses and stuff like MnDot will use and will slope the pr erode were also going to look at if it is possible for like birch or but again it's something that, it's maybe just one. But that pretty steep so that's something we'll be working on but at least letation. Thick growth vegetation. Ne just want to see what they're ng and make sure that that was going to be adequate. That wouldn't Ahren~ Okay, (e). We've been talking about this requirement for some time , months and we all think it's a great idea and I don't know, if we don't t here when are we going to start? I don't see that as too big of a rden for Lundgren. And (f), I'm biased on this because that's my littl house up there across the street from this. Emmin~ : Well how does the homeowner feel? Let's hear it. Ahrenl Well first of all, I've heard lots of comments tonight that the road Ls been moved east of where it's original location was. Right? Rick ~ e: The angle coming in has been cocked so it's just this lip here. The intersection hasn't been moved farther east, no. Ahren~: But on your Exhibit, on your sheet ~7, it shows the existence of the o road alignment as compared to the existence of the new road align, nt and then new road alignment is actually west of the old road alig nt. Rick thre: The absolute touchdown point on Lake Lucy Road moves very slig ly west because the additional proposal showed a slope going actually into he Class A wetland a little bit. We shifted it over just enough to avoid that. I think you're talking about this one aren't you? Ahren~ : Right. , Rick athre: The initiai proposaI had the siope coming down off of the road ight-of-way into the very corner of the Class A wetland. We shifted the r :ad from, the curve line from here over to there to set a little farther away and then the angle coming in, you can see. I don't know if PI Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 33 you understand this graphic. It's very hard but the cross hatched lines epresent where the road was a month ago in our planning. This dark line i the newer road. New idea for the road and I guess what you see looki at it, studying it, a couple things are different about it but one of is that the headlights coming out the road would be pointed y until you got closer to the road. Ahr Okay, but once it's at the road, I mean I can tell what's west and east ,re and once you're at the road where the cars are stopped and ready to go ~t onto Lake LUCy Road, it's actually further west than it was befor Rick ~thre: Yeah, the cars would actually stop probably 15 or 20 feet west. Ahre The road And if you look on sheet ~6, where the existing driveway is now. ,enblat driveway, that's considerably east of where your proposed Rick dr thre: Jo Ann, can I use your market for a moment? I'll draw that on here. Ahr Do you have your own Exhibit ~6 because it's on there already? Rick Lthre: That's the tree survey map? Ahr Right. Tree survey and vegetation. Rick Lthre: It was up here a while ago. This one. Is this the one? Ahr Right. Rick ~thre: This is the existing driveway location. That would be about at eastern edge of the permanent road. Ahr : Right. The eastern corner would be more accurate. And you know, Terry a very persuasive person and I can see that he persuaded most of the c( ission here that a berm isn't needed there but I'd invite any of you t( back into that driveway at night and point your headlights out and you'l see that this goes directly into our backdoor. That's not an accur, depiction of where the house is compared to where the road is going be. And there's a big difference for us living there to have a dirt iveway there than to have a paved road with all these houses. I think here's been landscaping, as far as evergreens go that, we planted 3 ever~ ns there several years ago which was a big mistake because it's real indy and real sunny there and I'd like to talk to your landscape archi ts and see what they have to say about that but evergreens aren't going to make it there. So I think there should be a berm and I encourage the , that the City require that a berm be put in there and landscaped. As as the removal of the trees go in that roadway too, are those going to be replaced? Emmims: The question is whether or not there's going to be replacement of the tees that are removed to put the road in on the west side. I , Planni g Commission Meeting Augus 1991 - Page 34 Olsen: hat was part of all the additional landscaping that we were requesting. Specifically on that site or that location we have discussed relanc~caping like the pending area. Like again right now it's kind of an inde tion with some poplars· To have some of that vegetation back but as far a replacement in that location, we have not specifically talked about that. Ahr I liked Jeff's comment about moving the road further east if that could .e done at ali. Closer to the actual alignment of the existing dri . However, again even if it was aligned closer to the existing dri there would still be a problem with the impact on our lot. It's a big mjact there and I don't know if Lundgren has ever gone out there at night .nd done what I suggested. Shown your headlights up there. Mostly it's a hill across the street and I don't know what the grade is. What' the grade going to be? Folch: I don't recall off hand. Rick as actua Like thre: The road grade comes down to a low point... I believe we a 6~ slope coming down toward Lake Lucy Road but then we level off get right to the road so you don't slide out onto the road. You'd , as you approach the road you get pretty flat at Lake Lucy Road. driveway is now. Ahre I'm going to move off of that point. I could go on for a long time lout that. When do you plan on raising the level of the wetland 2 feet? When would that be done? Right away or would that be something that would ~e done down the road? Terry bord: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address that question at this me? Emmin! : I'm sorry· If she asks you a question, go ahead and answer it. Terry Terry would final prepa' lot bord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is herd with Lundgren Bros. The precise time table of when that ir is unknown at this time. A lot of that will depend on when the ovals come from the city. When the development agreements are · When the funding is available and if we are in a construction or if we are not in a construction season. $o there's obviously a factors that none of us know at this exact time when that would happe . So I can't give you a date when it would occur. Ahren: : The reason I'm asking is because I'd like to know what the, if you raise he level of the wetland it's going to increase the circumference of the land and how does that impact on the setback that's shown here? Does Terry submi are u a res setback get pushed? : Mr. Chair, the chart that is shown and it has been ~d to you as a preservation zone and an upland wetland setback zones ilizing the new ordinary high water mark that will be established as it of the raising. Planni 19 Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 35 Emmi : Okay, so all of the figures and all the drawings you've presented to us lready have in place the wetland being 2 feet higher than it presen ly is? Terry orbord: Yes sir. Rick ~thre: The line that's on the drawing as the edge of the wetland isn't ~he water surface. It's actually where the vegetation changes from wetl to upland. $o it's generally that line is up, I'd say the el on is probably around 979. Emmin~ : Now wait a minute. Now you're saying something different. Rick pr e: I'm saying something different than what Terry did. We're ng to raise the water surface from 974.5 to 976.5. Emmin~ : Okay, and what's drawn on here? Rick hei say e: That line is actually where the vegetation changes out on the which is a line that's actually way up the slope. It varies in because the vegetation doesn't follow the contour. But that line is Emmin~ : So everyplace that line is higher? Rick Much e: It's always higher than the water level is now or would be. gher. Olsen And we did discuss this and we did have them take that into account with buffer. If it's a 10 foot buffer it'd be coming from the height or th edge of the water after it's raised 2 feet. $o it does reflect ever ng being pushed out. Emmin! : Well no, that's not what he's saying. He's saying the change in the v, ;etation from aquatic to terrestrial to day. That's what he just said. Rick hre: I can help you. I'll try to help you. I don't think I have a gram hic. These probably aren't the same scale. Well they're fairly close enough. Erhar : Rick? To ask a quick question. Is that the change in vegetation today or as proposed? Rick athre: No. The water surface in the wetland right now, and this is an ap roximation. This is the water right now. Something like that. If the DIR would allow us to, we're proposing to raise that so, whoops that's not g~ing to work. We would be creating a new water surface that would look, this is 9oing to be hard. Maybe you can't see all of them. Can you? It wol ld spread out a little bit farther than it is now but the line on the wetla d map, the line that we measure from is what Braun Intertec located on th, 9round as the vegetation line and that's uphill still farther. On the w, stern shore isn't that different because the slopes are steeper but on th, east side, I know the wetland line right now. is something like that PIannilg Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 36 so it' upland quite a bit and it comes right through between the Walker Pond. In general there's three different Iines. Emming : Okay thanks. Olsen: The green line is going to be pushed out though and I thought that' what we asked for the plans to reflect. That when everything is push When the water is raised, the vegetation is also going to be going out . Rick .thre: I think the reed canary grass might migrate up the hill a littl bit. Olsen: We can work on that one. Ahr $o what are you going to do about that one? Olsen: Well, what we want to have reflected is, the water level's going to be ra :ed up 2 feet. If that's approved, that's dons. Then you'll have, we'll ~termine the edge of the wetland and wherever that is and that's not ~rily where the water is. Actual water edge is but then we'll be takin~ the buffer from that. $o that's what we want to have because if you raise he water, then that also pushes out the emergent vegetation. The wetla vegetation which actually determines the edge of the wetland so it's thing we've got to come to a conclusion actually where that is and then om where the edge of that wetland is and then that buffer strip going $o I don't know that it's much different from where it's at... Batzl So as a condition for example Jo Ann, let's say I want to add an ame ~nt that we're going to pound in monuments or markers. Since we don't :now where the vegetation is going to migrate up to, how do we know what 10 or 25 foot buffer strip? Ahr : Also for the easements. Legal description. Emmin : You'll end up measuring it from the other side... Batzl : Well what would you like us to do is the question. Kraus~ : We're dealing with a DNR wetland where they establish a wetland edge OHW. We're going to know what that OHW's going to be. Ahre At some point in time though. Krau : No. We're going to know that exactly. I don't know if this was your arlier question. In terms of when this would happen. This would happe as part of the development. It'd be a condition of it and it would occur at whatever time development occurs. This fall or next spring or er. So what we're going to do and what we have done is regulated the ks relative to the new elevated water line. From the expanded wetlald the setbacks would be measured from there. Now it's true that the wetlald vegetation would migrate uphill from there and we don't know to what xtent but we have an expertation that I'm pretty sure it's going to Plann Commission Meeting Au.. 7, 1991 - Page 37 wind the in that additional conservation strip that we're providing beyond land · Ahre How is that going to impact the wetland to the south? When you raise ,he water level. EnQi no d going direc The outlet, the outflow and I guess I'd defer somewhat to the City ,r or the applicant, but the...flow leaving this water body should be nt post development than it is today. That's what we try to so that we're not inducing any water flows or anything else that's upset the balance downstream. By the way, this thing flows in two ns. It's kind of weird. The flow splits somehow. There's an outle underneath Lake Lucy Road. Emmin; : But that's being shut off. To my understanding. Krausl We're still doing some final talking on that. In fact whether or not close off one entirely or just the elevation on both of them and let i continue flowing in two directions like it is now is going to be, we're loing to ask the DNR that but I think our last discussion on it was that should probably raise both of them and have it continue to flow in both rections. ' Emmin~ : Alright. Olsen We're also trying to assure that water isn't totally cut off from that and to the south either. We want to still have water entering so that' being provided for too. Ahr : There was some discussion in here, in your staff report. I can't where it is but concerning use of the neighborhood parks by the peopl who live in this development. I don't know where I read it in here but suggested that kids will be using the Curry Farms Park which is act the road. There will be kind of a crosswalk or something. Is that going be? Olsen That was in the Park and Rec memo from Todd Hoffman and their discu: ion. It was just something that I think they're recommending. They 'e commenting on that they would be looking at. Also that they would nt that to be provided for. They didn't make it a specific ndation. Ahre : I know it's not part of this, part of your recommendations but I was ' t curious about that. Are the locations of the lot in the PUD pr 1 different from the location of the lots in subdivision proposal? : How do you mean? We've never formally reviewed a subdivision. Ahre : Well the one that we saw before. Krau : You mean the one that came in two weeks ago? Ahren : Yeah. Are these clustered more or anything? Planni ~ugust I'<TaUSS That b This p not on commun don'ts is the ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 38 Well see that was just an earlier version of the PUD concept. ~sically was a PUD plan that was being presented to you 2 weeks ago. an is simply a refinement of that. The one you saw 2 weeks ago was that was designed to come in under normal RSF standards. .,. ;-,ad the reduced front yard setbacks. Reduced right-of-way. My last question, is Lundgren or the City going to do any ty education for these people who live along a wetland? Do's and on living next to a wetland and what they're supposed to do. I mean e anything the City can do about that? Olsen genera our ne protec don't Ahrens :We didn't again discuss anything specific with this project but in with what had happened in the past. We talked about trying to use ~;letter to educate the public that those are wetlands and they are 5inn what you can and cannot do. We have done that in the past and I (now that it's been very successful. You've done it in the past? Olsen: We've had some in the newspaper articles and it's never been anythi ,g. It wasn't in the newsletter yet. We haven't discussed anything specifically educating residents of this new subdivision. Krauss ...too that under the surface water utility program which is now kickir in, we've got an article coming out in this newsletter. There will be per [odic...to everybody in the city. Those kinds of educational materi ls and programs are part and parcel of that project. Ahrens I don't have anything else. Emmin! : I do. I don't really, it's hard to know where to start here. There ~re so many issues. It almost leaves me to the conclusion that this hasn' been worked on to the point where we're ready to take action on it but t~ ~ one thing, a lot of the comments that have been made strike me as bein9 comments that relate to the fact that we're still looking at this in - 'o'c of ways as if it's a regular single family subdivision as opposed to a PUD. We've kind of got our, this is kind of new for us and I think in a lot of ways we've got the anchor of our boat stuck over in famil' subdivision and it's hard to get the anchor out. 8ut when I look at it or, tall, when I look at the fact that we're preserving 41~ of this as open ~ pace, I think this probably is exactly what we're trying or should be tryin(, to do under the PUD ordinance. I think it is rightly done as a PUD bL Lot 1.' of 92 you 1 120 f, where and I about with we we we do t I keep getting hung up. I was looking, as an example at Block 1, which is advertised as a lot with 27,500 square feet. A lot width feet A lot depth of 303 feet and that lot depth of 303 feet then, ok a~ what the wetland 'plus the buffer eats us, the depth drops to et and the area drops to something just over 11,000. But that's I think again my anchor's stuck back in the single family subdivision don't think we ought to be looking at it that way. We've talked the comments that were made about houses. There being too many lots ouses appearing too close together. I think that one of.the things e tryin9 to do in the PUD was to cluster. Get the houses together so leave bigger areas of open space and I think this plan does that. Plann Commission Meeting Augu 7, 1991 - Page 39 But I not sure. And I'm trying to think about this without bringing along 11 that baggage from the single family subdivision ordinance that we're used to working with because this is very new for us. And I guess to sci extent I'm thinking by virtue of the fact that the staff and gren have worked on this together that the staff has been re nting our position in reaching those goals. The goals of the PUD in terms f clustering and getting other amenities and particularly open space in e ordi shou I've zo ne ~nOU I don a lan~ tree nge for relaxing a lot of the requirements of the subdivision e. $o the bottom line is, I think I support this and I think it be moved along to City Council with those kinds of reservations. a few other more specific comments. With regard to the buffer ffer zone I think is an excellent idea. I'm not sure it's big in some places and I don't know if I like 10 feet but nevertheless, quite understand what's in the buffer zone. I hear that it can, as if I want to put a tree in there, can I go back and plant a the~e? Olsen: Emmi i n the Yes. : Alright. If there's a tree in there that I don't like, can I go e and cut it out? KT desi pert If it's not, yes. You could. If it's not in one of those tted tree preservation areas, yes. It'd be the homeowner's ttive. Emmin~ : But he can't mow right? He could plant wildflowers in there if he wa' to I suppose. I don't quite understand, I don't know how the 1 s are going to know what the hell they can do or not do in that zone and I almost feel like we ought to give them some direction. Maybe need a definition in our ordinance about what a buffer zone is and what >lks can do but that isn't provided here and I think it's kind of a nebul is thing. The second concern of mine with regard to the buffer zone is it's got to be marked in backyard in a visible way. A person ought to be le to walk in the backyard, anybody ought to be able to walk in that kyard and see a marker where that zone starts. And it shouldn't be a p' in the ground that's flush with the ground that you have to find with metal detector. It's got to be something that you can just walk in there nd see. That's the only way we'll ever have any hope of policing that Olsen cover, d how but can a Emmin~ Batzl Emmin~ visib any way it seems to me. We've discussed that and those markers are, sometimes they do get with the vegetation. They can be moved or removed. We've what kind of markers those would have to be. Concrete. That's came to that post is that that's something. Yeah, it's not visible 's something that will always be there. It can't be moved and you ,s find it. : I think it ought to be visible. I think it's got to be visible. : Put both in. : Yeah, do both. That's okay too. I don't know. But if it's not · I don't know. The policing of this is almost hopeless anyway and Planni g Commission Meeting Augus 7, 1991 - Page 40 if yo bury that pipe, it's totally hopeless. I mean it's beyond hopeless some . Whatever that might mean. With regard to raising that Class A wetla~l 2 feet, the raising of the level of water in the wetland is going to be one simply by raising the outlets. Is that right? Or where the water 11 spill out. Kr We structure the outlet so... Emmin~ : So you're not going to be pumping water into this thing. It's going fill up by natural...or won't fill up at all. And sometimes it's going go down I take it so the line we're talking about on the shore, the ic vegetation changes to terrestrial is something that's going to chan. over the years no matter what we do there, unless we actually pump and it full at the specific level. Okay. The one thing that bothers me the Class A wetland is everytime we looked at wetland designs, where 'ye installed them or we've gone in and approved them, they've alwa' had an undulating bottom so that you had areas where vegetation can Orow shallower water and then there's deeper water areas and I don't see any 't at all being made to do that in this one or is that just somet ng that's not here? Olsen It's being done. Kraus Specifically the Class A wetland? Emmin! : Yeah. Kraus: Well the Class A wetland we've been pretty much told by the DNR not look at... The new wetlands that are being created. Emmin~ : Yeah, I'm just talking about the Class ~. $o the DNR is not for doing at? Olsen When I was talking about the dredging was to dredge all the mater 1 on the whole site. Emmin.. : No. I'm only talking about making an undulating bottom. Olsen Emmin Olsen Emmin Olsen sugge~ Frank Commi proce creat( wet. lal I know what you're talking about. Yeah, that's. s: I would think the DNR would be for that. It was total dredging to remove phospherous. s: I'm not talking about that. We don't need to talk about that. Right, I know. That's what I'm saying. That's what the DNR ted. Svoboda: I'm Frank Svoboda. Mr. Chairman, members of the sion. What you're referring to, typically what's done is in the s of reconstructing or designing a new wetland. What we try to do is that variable bottom. In this case we're dealing with a natural d. Pl Commission Meeting 7, 1991 -- Page 41 Emmim : No, you're dealing with an agricultural field. I mean to some ex isn't that right? Frank Ooda: Well, when I use the term natural I'm using it in the sense that DNR would use it. Yes, I would agree based on the history that I gave ,u that it is no longer or it has become naturalized because it's fill up with water. This bottom is basically flat and we're not pr ng to do anything with that because that would require a permit to alter .hat wetland through the DNR because it is a DNR protected wetland. So al we're proposing to do is a practice that is consistent with both DNR and F and Wildlife Services practices when they actually manage wetlands to en nce them for waterfowl is they will put in a control structure and they ll raise the water level by some determined amount and they will not do an' sort of modification of the bottom. Emmin., : Okay. It seems to me if we went and approved that wetland that's one wi to do it. But I don't know. The DNR isn't requiring you to do it. I don know. It seems like we're turning what is sometimes a wetland into a porn here. Maybe that's okay. I don't know but if we're going to call it a and and be consistent with what we've done in the past, it seems to me ve Erhar now ere ought to be some variation in that bottom so that you get some ye growth that's typical of wetlands. If it was dry when thew did this project, you could do tha~ but Lt you've got what, probably a foot of water? Rick e: A foot to. Emmin~ : Well you could still do it I suppose. It might be harder. Olsen Just real quickly. The DNR did suggest that they do want to get the v, station like what you would get if you had the undulating bottom. You ld have it drained completely and let it dry out for a couple of seasoT and then that vegetation would appear and then let the water come back Jn and some of the vegetation would be removed or some stay in but you'd have to do that on a cycle. Emmin~ : That's an awful lot of nuisance. I don't have any problem with the r!zoning. On the preliminary plat, the 26 foot roadway, I just like other ~eople have already said, I don't have any way to know. One thing I would~ike to ask though is if you're going to, I assume that if it does taper from 31 to 26 that's going to happen over, it's not going to go like this. Kraus~ : No. There's standard road taper details. Emmin! s: Okay. I'm not sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to have a unifo' m roadway going through there. 26 feet, I don't know if it's enough or not. If this is one of those points where if the developer can talk the City nto it, the Engineer and Planning into it, that's fine but I don't have nyway to think about it. On that one curve though, you're reducing the r ad to 26 feet from 31. Then you're adding a 6 foot sidewalk which bring you back out to 32 it seems to me and I don't know why, what the Planni August bell's sidewa ~9 Commission Meeting 7, 1991 -- Page 42 the difference if you build it as a road or as a road and a k. Olsen you ha have t boulev Emmin~ still It was going to be on top of where the boulevard would be. $o if the 31 you still have boulevard and you still have that. So you street, the curb, boulevard so you'd have wider street, curb, ~rd versus narrower street, boulevard with a sidewalk. 3: Okay, but if you just eliminate the boulevard on that side, you'd ~ave the 31 foot road. Olsen accept Krauss boulev road Emmi n,. to th densit that becaus up, Conrac : Yeah and that was something that we discussed and it wasn't ~ble. You need that boulevard. It was our City Engineer's position that he wanted to maintain the ~rd section both for the installation of utilities and to allow for ~intenance. s: Alright. Another thing that came up but I'm not quite sure how nk about it and I'd almost like to ask Ladd about it is if the net here winds up being 2.1 when we typically have 1.7, isn't that, startling to me but again I don't quite know how to evaluate it we are preserving so much open space. I guess the reason it winds lon't know. That's tough. And I've been struggling with that trying to figure out w it loc there on , e cluste the Cj Olsen the t' Kraus~ Conrac ~ tt we're really, I guess I have to ask staff again. On the surface ks like there's a lot of open space but there's a lot of open space 3o matter what that you can't develop on and so we've got 37 houses ~ecially on some, very small buildable sites. I endorse the lng thing. I really like that but I'm still struggling with what is ty getting back in return for that. The buffer area is something kind of new and in addition to that ee preservation areas. I mean definitely setting them aside. : And the additional wetland area. : A little bit. Rick ~.athre' An enhancement of quite a bit. Conrac: An enhancement? Rick .~athre: There's only 2 acres of the wetland that's there now that's not c propo~ impro~ the s Conra, densi there along anging. Most of the wetland that's there is either or we're lng to improve it either by raising the water level or we're going to e it by recreating it in a more diverse manner. So we don't have all ne kind of grass and wetlands. It will be more diverse. : I guess that's where I get back to, I like the trade-off of y for improvement but I just can't tell at this point in time if is, I don't know what kind of improvement there is. Does the DNR go with this? How was Chanhassen changed because of these new Plann ¢~ugus' standa I unde impro~, manag~ we he 1 incorF these from r we caf bit t¢ un¢om~ and t~ N~ hak of tot Emmi m, Kraus,, units Batzl devel, Terry Emmin~ Terry you g~ signi Emmin right my was d( yards going Olsen Emmin! Olsen this wetla appro~ is acc ng Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 43 rds? The 45 foot setback. I just have a real tough time saying rstand what the trade off is. On some of that, we are learning as we go. I mean the science is ng. The knowledge is improving. We've got our surface water ~ent plan coming up. There's new State legislation for wetlands that med draft that's now in place. We have new management practices that getting from various State organizations. We're trying to orate that stuff as it develops. I can't sit here and tell you that ire the standards that we're going to propose to you 6 months, a year )w with our new surface water utility but we think these are the best offer you at this point in time. Also if I could go back a little o about the density. I've often told you in the past that I'm real ortable with our net versus gross but that's what you've always done is is not really the appropriate place to argue about that but when ~ a net density figure here, 2.1 units per acre, the 1.7 unit per verage density that we told the Metro Council we experience here is a number. We just went in and took subdivisions and divided the number s by the area. We didn't knock out the streets and wetlands. s: Okay, that wasn't a net number. I thought that was a net number. : No, that was a gross number. So that would equate to the 1.4 ~er acre gross density that you're getting in here. : Assuming you have a big wetland in the middle of every oment. --orbord: Mr. Chairman? s: Sure Terry, go ahead. =orbord: There's been a number of issues raised by each of you as ~e your comments and if you'd like, I think I can answer the icant ones that I heard to date. s: Okay, if you're not going to address what we're talking about now, I'd like you to wait because I'd like to finish what I've got on et and then you can go ahead. That's okay. You were just hoping I ne. Like everybody else. Now when people build decks in the back of their houses and they're along that Class A wetland, are they to have to come in for a wetland permit? If it's developed within 200 feet? s: Yeah. We've never done that in the past. I think what we intended with s that we establish those setbacks for the Class A and Class B ds and as long as they maintain that, that was essentially all being ed now. That any development within that 40 foot to 75 foot setback eptable. Batzl : So you can construct your garden shed right at the marker? P[ann Commission Meeting Au 7, 1991 -- Page 44 Olsen: Yeah. No, not at the marker. Batzl Why not? That's within the setback isn't it? Emmin~ : As long as it's in your back yard. Olsen: You have 40 foot. You have a 40 foot setback. Batzl Up to the marker. Up to the conservation easement marker. You have a setback though. Farma ~s: Is the setback from the marker? K The setback is from the wetland. So part of that setback and the conse ,ation easement overlap. Emmins : Okay, what is the setback from the wetland? Olsen: That's where you have it ranging from 40 feet to 75 feet but the buffer within there might be 10 to 25 feet. Emmin~ : Okay. With regard to the things that Terry talked about. Under numbe' 2, the revised landscaping plan. The landscaping on the south side of Lucy Road, I drove by there tonight and that was one of the first thin! that struck me is that it needs it. But it doesn't need, and I think agree with the other comments I've heard. It doesn't need to be a solid een across there. It needs to have some clumps of things just to break what's there so I think you're kind of on the right track on that one it definitely needs something. The landscaping along the rear lots, I personally don't have any interest in that at all because it seems to me he lots that are closest to the road already have, there are some trees in there already and the ones that don't have it are a long ways away and I not that concerned about that personally. The landscaping, (c), along he 2:1 slope adjacent to the Class A wetland. I don't really have any c( ~ent about that. It could be sumac or anything like that. $omet lng that would hold the bank but not be that big a deal. On (e), the 3.tre. per lot. I don't know if Terry knew when he said that was e that they get a credit for what's on the lot and that might chan his attitude toward it a little bit. I don't know but I think it shou be enforced. As far as the issue, which we can now call 3oan's house that we've been referring to as the berm, what I was going to on that even before I knew it was 3oan was that, that seems to me, if hing else Lundgren has demonstrated a real willingness to work with the City and it seems to me they ought to have the same willingness to work with Zoan. And she ought to get, the person that lives in that house ought to get what they need. If it means a berm, it means a berm. If that's what J t takes to satisfy that homeowner, whoever it might be, then that's what J t takes. That's what should be done. I'm not that concerned about the wE that west street goes through, even though it's taking down 10 to 16 i oak trees. There's no way to bring a road out on that end that saves all the trees. Cutting down some trees, I don't know. We're trying as d as we can to save as many as we can and you can't save them all and trees fortunately grow. You can plant new ones and you ought to be Plann Augus' plant. J doesn reaso: ng Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 45 r,g new ones all the time. But it doesn't, the location of that road b concern me that much. It seems to me like it's in a pretty able place. The other thing I've got here is in the back of our packet. There was a letter attached from the neighbors to the west. 3os Morin and it was endorsed by Ted Cosy. I don't know if I'm pronouncing your rases right but I guess if nothing else, I don't know that we've addressed all the issues that were raised in that letter but the letter was a lot of effort. I can see that and it Nas aimed at a lot of specific proposals and it's not that often that we get this organized something from the neighbors and I think it ought to be acknowledged. I can't give you much ,ore than that but Ne ought to acknowledge it. The blending with adjacent neighborhoods that you bring up is a problem that we've discussed at the Planning Commission almost as long as I've been here. We've never found a way to do it. We've looked at ways of doing it where you have formulas. If they're going to be lots that adjoin another property, there can orly be a certain density so you wind up making the properties bigger along the edge if you're abutting up against big properties or smaller... I thirk it's more in living in a developing community... The farmer doesnt like to see the big lot subdivisions coming in next to him. When that armer sells and that developer builds smaller lots, the big lot people don't like the smaller lots and it just goes on and on and there's just o happy Nay. There's really no sensible way to address it. Some of the p, ints he brought up, you know there's the visual impact of the back ards. That's really an aesthetic issue and that one has been addressed to ome ~ xtent. The impact on the Class A wetland on Lake Lucy, I guess we're rel¥ifg, because we don't have the expertise primarily we're relying on our staff and DNR to tell us what Ne should or shouldn't do here. That's why Ns're making the DNR permit a condition of our approval also. Excessive numbe~ of variances. There won't be any variances because it's being done as a CUD. Maybe that seems like a little bit of slight of hand but I don't think it is. The notion of buying the PUD, at least the way I see it is, that e do relax the normal single family subdivision standards to some exten in order to get something that Ne think is of value to the community. To get a project that we think is a good project. That preserves open space. That's sensitive to other natural features and think~ of that nature. So I don't know. Those are my general reactions to what oe wrote. I don't know. This is 2 hours into this and now really I guess I owe you a chalice to respond. Conrac: 3 hours. Emmin! s: 3? Okay, I live in a different time zone. Terry, go ahead. Terry =orbord: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'll be brief I think that it's important for each of you to realize, and I belie, s you do realize this. That you have a staff, and I've heard it repealedly from each one that you're relying on staff because you don't have he expertise, etc.. I think it's important for you to realize that you h ye a staff that is highly competent. We work in every community in the wlole western suburbs and there is no other city as much on the cutting edge f the issues that you're all worried about here tonight more so than Chanh seen. That's a fact. I can state that. There are some very close behin~ you. Plymouth and Eden Prairie but to me that tells me you should have certain amount of credibility or we all should have a certain amount Plann Commission Meeting Au~ 7, 1991 - Page 46 of dili~ Engi sla fair nth Bros. zone~ not k type forth idea ibillty and understanding with staff that they're doing their due There was some discussion about we rely on the Army Corps of rs of the DNR because they're so fair. Those people are more probably than the development community. Maybe. So I think it's say in this particular analysis that staff has taken this to the tee and I think staff would also support this claim. That Lundgren the one that came forth with the initiative on the preservation Plow to make it enforceable. How to make it work in a way that I do of a city that has that or has ever had a plat filed with that restrictions as far as setbacks, etc.. That was an idea we came th after them asking us can you come up with some sort of creative will make it so we can protect what we're trying to protect. To me, j from a professional standpoint, this has been a real private/ publi sector endeavor. Next item would be, I think it's important as Paul sta in the staff report, it's important to recognize what we are not askin for. There's a lot of discussion and confusion still that appears over versus a standard subdivision. It's really not that complicated. PUn's e simplier to understand actually than standard subdivisions. Bell it or not but it's important to recognize what we're not asking for. f you look at what all the things that a PUD may encompass. There's been lot of discussion about density and I'm glad that Paul brought it up I was just squirming in my seat to share with you what the real densi issues are here. When you get into this 1.7 and 1.4, 1.2, 2.1 busi . This proposal, as you know in the RSF district you can have an' e from a 1.2 to a 4.0 density. This is at 1.2 if you use the same ratio what the City uses throughout the City and the way they factor the 1.7. issue about when you look at a site plan and say well these lots reall aren't that big because there's a wetland as part of it. I don't under nd that. Those lots are that big. Those lots are owned by the let. If you took into consideration some of the comments that were and you looked further west down Lake Lucy Road, there's some 5 acres, some acre tracts and some 20 acre tracts. If you took those 10 acres. There about 3 or 4 10 acre parcels just west of this. If you subtracted out o' those 10 acre parcels the wetlands, or the unbuildable area, those peop do not have 10 acre parcels. Should they have been allowed to have a bui lng permit? So in reality they do have 10 acres. In reality these lots meet the test. They are the correct width at the setback line that the C ty requires. They are the minimum size that the City requires and wheth r there's a wetland there or not really is irrelevant. If you took the w: tlands completely out of that plat right now and all you could see were t lines, this project wouldn't be any denser. Those homes wouldn't be an) closer together than any other subdivision that has those setback regul~ .ion~. Those sideyard setbacks. Nothing would be different and I think that s important to recognize. For some reason I keep hearing these are closer together. Boy these are really shoe horned in there. They're not. So I think it's, I had to remind you of that. The wetlands don't have nything to do with it. The issues about the DNR. The staff has put in as a recommendation that whatever approvals before you this evening would be contingent upon obtaining each and every other governmental agency appr al and that's only fair so we do not have a problem with that. Me agree with that. The landscaping, I neglected in my earlier presentation to get to what I was finally going to say. What I was goin~ to talk about was t}e concentration of wetland budget effort so when you see the 1 aping you really feel like you've got something and the way to do Planni ~ugust that ], most. spreac no t go key p 1 trying irriga other There And at allow We wou other of say the wa really just prese~ quite neates Actual anyway a way be ma blend prese' We ta ] I do t shoul¢ agree, there and al ng Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 47 ~ concentrated in the very most important areas that need it the In other words, if your budget allows you to buy 200 trees and you 200 trees at equal distance all .over an entire 30 acre piece, it's Lng to look like there's very many trees. 8ut if you put them in the aces. Right when you're going around a curve or right where you're to screen something or right when people come in, boy and then you .e it and you plant some flowers around it and you do some of the hings with low profile bushes and stuff, people are going to go wow. B going to be an immediate, what we call, point of arrival impact. )ut the landscaping, I guess what we would request is if you would Js to work with staff because we really haven't had that opportunity. Id pursue that in the same way we've pursued and overcome all these ~hallenges. We would go out on the site with the staff. We'd kind , well here's where the road is. How does it work best and that is , we would propose to do that. $o I think the landscaping issue is a non-issue. I think that's something we can work out with staff we have all these other. The visible markers at where the ration zone is. I think that's an excellent idea. We discussed that m bit at staff level. In fact we kept trying to come up with the t ideas and we kind of had like a little brainstorming sesson. ly we are not opposed to, I mean there's going .to be monuments there and rather than having some ugly iron monument there, maybe there's that we can come in. As you know, as part of this PUD we will try to ing the signs and all those other architectural elements kind of together. Maybe we can come up with a small little sign that says ration zone and it would go on a particular monument at each corner. ked about that at the staff level. That may be a possibility because hink, as Chair recognized, that the people do need to know and there be no confusion over that. 3ust so you know, in all of our purchase ents as exhibits there are items that depict what you see here and s an easement for preservation under that becomes a deed restriction exhibit that's actually in each purchase agreement that each homeb~.er buys. But that's not to say that maybe we shouldn't try to come up wi~h another method of being more proactive and handing out maybe DNR literature to our prospective buyers so that's something I think we can work through with staff because I think they're all items or objectives that ye're all trying to meet. I think as far as Commissioners Ahrens situat Lon with her home, that's a difficult thing. I don't have an immed ~te fix for that. I don't think there is a perfect fix. I do know that ~at home from the elevation of the Ortenblat driveway, that that home probakly to it's peak or let's say just to the upper most windows on the upper level is probably close to 15 to 22 feet high. Approximately. You'd have ~o build a berm that high to completely screen the house. It would virtually, it would not be practical but I do believe that it would make sense to try to screen to whatever extent reasonably possible any traffic. Excus~ me, headlights. That's on a very busy road. The majority of the traff c that goes by that home isn't coming from our subdivision and the major ty of the traffic that continues to use that road over the next 10-20. 30 years will not be coming from this subdivision. I think we should look ~t what impact will this particular subdivision. It would only be the peopl~ that are making left turns at night with their headlights on remember. It's not 24 hours a day, every single car coming in and out of there oppor and remember there is another entrance. But we would like the unity to work with the subject property. To determine and find a way Planni August that w think EmmJ. ng Conrad agenda Erhart Conrad you fe iron o ~g Commission Meeting 7, 1991 - Page 48 can screen that because it is a concern of ours as well. But I t should be fair' and I think it should be reasonable. Thank you. : Thanks. Should we start over now? We've got to end this soon. Are there any more items on our The bankers. Just a thought. I'm looking at things we don't know. Staff, do I that you've ironed out a lot of things or are there more things to .t that should be brought back to us? I guess an issue that I'm just strug.~ing with is do we want to see. this again here. There are a lot of open i~sues in my mind. There's a lot of issues, when you talk about ng for- 3 hours it means things aren't real clear. It means they're foggy Question is can we deal with it back here or is it still going to be fo ly the next time? There's a lot of subjective feelings and it will be 'ective once it gets to City Council also. So yeah, I'm struggling with ,ether I want to see it back. Paul, Jo Ann, is there validity from your nt. Landscaping you haven't talked to Lundgren a great deal about t. But definitely some difference of opinion and the way Terry set us up he was talking about some financial things that make the project go or go. That's the way I heard it in the beginning. Whether that was an ~tement of the case or not, I don't know. Olsen defin d defin means to t I think the landscaping we can, I think that's something we could ly work out. The wetland issues, Paul and I were already lng that we should probably before it goes to the Council, ly gets those comments back from the DNR. Whether or not that want to see it again, I don't know. What were those main issues wetlands? What was really impacting... Co righ Obviously if they don't get the permit this road doesn't go in, Olsen Right. Conra( to So you've got a whole different alignment and that, it would have back to us. Olsen That would. Oh yeah, there's no question. Conra~ So I guess I'm kind of bothered. I really would have liked to have ~en the DNR comments. Obviously Lundgren wants this in and wants it gone to ha 3 1/2 sta we're haven well set. d hopefully the DNR will approve it but I really wouldn't have liked seen what they said about this before we spend 3 hours of our life, rs screwing around with this. And we're changing our setback ds of a wetland program that we set that really is a State model and lng it. I think what you're telling me is pretty good but we considered it so here we are. We're in a PUD. We're saying okay, must be good. Let's do it. Let's forget about the standards we et's slip them. See I don't know again. Plann Commission Meeting Augus' 7, 1991 - Page 49 Emmin~ : How are you ever going to know though? Conra, We'd get the experts in and say hey, setback doesn't matter. 10 foot ansition area is far more important than an arbitrary 75 foot. Olsen We have received that though. That's where we got the idea from talki with Fish and Wildlife and talking with the DNR. Saying look, we have his 75 foot setback but we're still having all these problems. What do yo , and I didn't give you that background but that's where we got a lot of th~ t from. But the density issues and things like that, if that's what you w~ nt to see, we can bring that back. Conra~ : Those are just some discomfort areas that I've got. I had a conce' n with pedestrian traffic and I don't think I could go down to a 26 foot cad if we haven't found a way to handle people. I think I'd have to keep t at 31. Road access by 3oan's house, I don't know that that's been solve . The landscaping hasn't been solved. 3elf talked about density on Lo 14 and all the lots that are backed up there. The engineer, we're not s re whether the 2 foot rise in elevation or water is going to affect. There s just a lot of little issues and whether we're going to do anything about them if they came back. That's what I'm struggling with. Do we have any i .sights when this comes back that it's going to be better? I do know that ~taff would have more time to address a couple of them. The road acces and the landscaping. The question is I th~nk do we want to see it. Emminls: Just as a very minute point, I think what Terry said about calli g these zones preservation zones rather than calling them buffer zones is probably a good idea. Just because the name tells you what it's about O1 Actually I think we're going to have it as a conservation easement. Emmi s: Yeah but if it's called a preservation, that one carries a lot diff ent impact than a buffer zone. I think it's probably a good idea to call t that. Would you, Paul have some comments on Ladd's questions? K : This is a tough one. We're examining this subdivision, this PUD u a microscope that we didn't even know existed a year ago. I mean we are lding this project to standards that the State hasn't even thought of yet. They've just started a committee to think of them over the next 2 yea We're examining this, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's star s instigation that we're doing this but we're examining this subd ision to the extent that we're determining whether a road should be 2 or 3 t wider than it is to save a tree. We're biting off a lot here and ther. s an implication that because it's more complex and there are some thinz wrom reca Mark. Comm lot repl you' thes that still need to be resolved, that there's something inherently with the plat. I don't think that that's necessarily the case. I there's kind of a parallel. Two years ago when we brought you Square PUD and it had 20 something conditions attached to it and loner Conrad was very concerned that that implied that there were a loose ends and it probably ought to be thought of some more. My was no. It just implied that it was a more complicated proposal than used to seeing and we needed these conditions to guarantee that kinds of things would happen. I'm not going to tell I wish we had a Plann Commission Meeting Augus 7, 1991 - Page 50 littl more time or that the DNR could act more promptly. Part of the thin~ 's throwing the DNR on this one is they too are going into this is they too are going into this in more detail than they've really been to in the pa'st. We're holding ourselves to standards that other peopl aren't yet and we're proud of that and we want to continue to do that. I don't know how to sum it up. I don't know how to recommend where you ke this. I know that the applicant has some time considerations that he but you need to be comfortable with it and ultimately we need to get a project for the City. I think we can handle it on the presumption that '11 have these loose ends cleared up before it gets to the City Counc 1 but it's really up to you. Emmin s: It seems to me Ladd. I don't know but it seems to me the things that re open are 10~ of the whole, or some small fraction of the whole. To me th 're not big items. I'd just as soon see it get moved along and figur that the staff's going to be able to continue to work with them betwe ~ now and City Council and get things done. Or if they can't, that the C ty Council maybe would then send it back to us. Conra~ : My only comment is if the DNR turns it down then it's a lot of waste, time. It's wasting, and I guess that might be up to staff's best judgm, nt in working with them but if the DNR can't allow the filling of the wetla;~d, we've wasted a lot of our time and we'd be wasting the City Counc l's time. Emmin Is: Maybe then we should put that in as a condition. If they don't recei 'e that approval prior to the, if they don't receive that approval it's lot to come back. Conra : I think that the City Council should see the DNR's comments. Emmin, s: Oh they have to. O1 And that's what we were saying is we should do too. Emmi is: Do we know when that's coming? the comp time We're calling them daily to light fires. I guess normally, under mal process we would have had it for you but because of the ity of this thing and because we redesigned it, they haven't had catch up. Rick e: Mr. Chairman, when we first were in here, when we first were talk to staff we were encroaching that cross hatched area and what we've done 'nce then is we really, we pulled the road over much tighter to this stee slope and now at the worst point we're 14 feet out into the reed ct grass that's been mowed alon~ that wetland edge. I ~uess the bottom line s, I don't think the DNR is really goin~ to say that their juri ction line is this red line. I think it's goin~ to be lower than that It usually is but what the worst case would be, yeah they say, our line is the same as the Federal wetland line. Well, what would have to is this road would have to move 14 feet easterly which would put it into slope a bit. That's how you avoid the wetland. You impact the slop instead and I don't think. Plan Augu Emmi Olse feet Rick that Olse for ConT shou Emmi COl'Ir this Emmi Farm Emmi Batz know they it. Conr, out if D to C: what subm] It m~ Erhal OlseT Erha' Olse~ Terr Olse didn Emmi it a ling Commission Meeting ~t 7, 1991 - Page 51 gs: Is this the only issue that the DNR is looking at? : No. They also have to receive a permit for raising the water 2 Sathre: But that's not a, either they like that or they don't like : And they're just going to be making comments on other things to do t. Ld: I feel the item should be, as I look at it for your, I think it d be tabled. igs: Do you want to make a motion? .d: I can to see what the rest of you think. I make a motion that item be tabled. ~gs: Is there a second? kes: I'll second it. gs: Is there any discussion? i: I guess I would rather see the staff work on it because I don't what it's going to show by us holding it back and they come back and say yeah, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or DNR, whoever looks at it likes hen what are we going to say, fine. So ahead. d: Literally at that time I would assume that staff would have worked ll the other issues so it would be a clean staff report and we would t. That's really, we'd see what DNR said and we wouldn't send along R had some negatives. See right now if we pass it, it's going to go t.y Council no matter what. And that's the debate. Can we improve we've got for City Council? Can we add value to what the staff ts to the City Council? I don't think we're going to slow it down. y be a week or two but. t: ...when would it be back? : If it's tabled? It would depend on when the DNR responds. t: When do you expect them to respond? : Well, have they told you when the survey crew might get out there? Forbord: They've already been there. : I don't know exactly how long. I talked to Ceil today and she t give an indication how soon it was going to happen so I don't know. We've commented on this thing. We commented on every aspect of guess I'm not sure what it would do to keep it here because the Plan ing Commission Meeting Augut 7, 1991 - Page 52 only circumstance in which I'd like to see it back is if the DNR does some' hing that changes the design. Then I'd want to see it but I would J. mag ne that in, I don't know. Is there someway we could pass it along and say hat in that event we want it back? Olse : Sure. Emmi ge: We could pass it the way it looks now, a~umin8 that there appr ,val. If there's not DNR approval and that winds up changing the desi in, then we'd like to have it back. Can we do that? Krau :s: Well our normal procedure is to bring back anything to you that sign ficantly deviates anyway so making it as a condition is perfectly fine with us. I guess though I would ask if we could define though. If the DNR did ,ake a change as Mr. Sathre proposed, you know if they said stay out of ther. entirely, we'd wind up chewing into the Ersbo hillside more. Emmi ge: But that doesn't really change. KYau: s: Well that was the answer I was seeking. Emmi ge: That doesn't change the plan. Krau s: If the road configuration changes in any significant way or the lot onfiguration changes in any significant way, certainly that should come ack. Also there were issues raised regarding the design by Comm ssioner Farmakes and several others that I think need to be responded to a~ well. So we would make sure that that was presented to the City Council. Emmi Is: Is there any other discussion on the motion? Conr, clar item fail. moved, Farmakes seconded to table Subdivision #91-9 for further . Conrad, Farmakes and £rhart voted in favor of tabling the Emmings, 8atzli and Ahrens voted against tabling and the motion ~ith a tie vote of 3 to 3. Emmi ~s: Alright, is there another motion? Ba : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning ffgl- property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following conditions l, 2 and 3 as et forth in the staff report dated 3uly 17th. Er : I'll second that. Emmi ~s: Okay, so this is just on the rezoning? ErhE : Yeah. Emmi is: Is there any discussion on the rezonino? moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend of Rezoning #91-2 property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following 'ons: Plan Augu · · . All Emmi Batz Subd, foll~ and ; disc~ prop~ Do y< back' Emmil, Batz. We'r{ Emmi~ Batz Do y, Emmi Batz shal of t areas word slim each howe as i: with be pi Emmir Batz] and t apprc lng Commission Meeting 't 7, 1992 - Page 53 he applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement ontaining all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall, :ubmit all required financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be 'ecorded against the property. :ompliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. 'he applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ~91-9 and letland Alteration Permit ¢91-4. ,oted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. igs: Is there a motion on the preliminary plat? i: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of vision ~91--9 as shown on the plans dated 3uly 29, 1991 subject to the wins conditions· Conditions 1 thru 11 set forth in the staff report 'd like to make a radical departure and ask the Chairman that we ss, or at least go slowly through these changes that I'm about to .se here as I make the motion so everybody understands what they are. u like that or do you just want me to wing through them and then go gs: You're leaving conditions I thru 11 as they are? i: Well 1 thru 11 as they are but I'm going to modify them now. So going to include those and now I'm going to modify them. os: Alright. Do you want me to just go through them or go through them slowly? want to be able to comment on them individually? gs: No. You just go through them. i: Okay· Number 1, the words, and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk be provided over the boulevard is deleted. Number 2, (a) at the end e sentence in patens (shall include deciduous trees in highland ). (b) shall be eliminated. (c), at the end of wetland add the , to maintain the slope. (d), the words berming and would be hated. (e), parenthetical at the end of the sentence. (Credit for tree over 6 inches caliper on the lot shall be granted· For that lot, er, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided.). (f) would remain · Number 8(g). Added at the end. Such easements shall be marked ~ermanent visible monuments and the location of such easements shall 3vided to City staff for approval. gs: Read that one again. i: Such easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments he location of such easements shall be provided to City staff for ~al. Olser: Location and design? Plan lng Commission3 Heeling ¢~ugu 't ?, 1991 - Page 54 Batz i: The location of the actual easement. Emmi gs: Don't discuss them. Just give them to us. Batz i: A new one number 12 to read, the applicant shall provide proper rest' ictions (subject to City staff approval) on those lots having entrance monu ents and/or landscaping. New number 13, applicant shall work with city staff to provide for a ~hared driveway between Lot~ 7 and & o~: Block 1. And I would also add as a motion but not as a condition that the staff rece .ye the approval or the comments from the DNR regarding the wetlands and io net loss and all this is a wonderful idea prior to it going to the City Council. I would also like to see that they work with Lundgrens to elim. hate Lots 14 and one other lot, either 5 thru 13, somewhere in there of Bock ~ Emmi igs: Lot 147 Batz i: Lot 14, Block 2. Emmi ~gs: Okay. Is there a second? Ahre is: Second. Emmi ~gs: Okay, discussion. Bat. z i: That last one was not a condition. 3ust a suggestion. Emmi gs: Alright. So that's not a condition of approval. What is it then Batz i: It's a directive to staff to talk with Lundgren about doing it. Erha' t: Eliminating two lots? Batz i: Yeah. Erha' t: Your change on item number 1, essentially leave it the same? 26 feet in some areas and 31 feet in other areas? Batz i: Yeah. EYha' t: Without the sidewalk? Batz i: Right. I don't think the sidewalk's going to do anything. Conr d: Well let's talk about that. It's at a bend in the road right? Righ where you need it. It's at a 90 degree bend-. Batz. i: What is the side~Jalk going to do? Conr d: I don't know. Batz i: I don't think the sidewalk's going to do anything. Nobody's going to u e it. I would include it if I thought it was going to do something'. P~n ~uGu, I th nice GolD. subd prob CUrV, whet that CoT]r~ Bat. z litt that Conr rL~nn time Bat. z, you stre Conr Lotu hund' Batz anyw~ Conr a 90 on t' know Bat. z perf, Con'l-, ,3. re, keep Batz down Conr, 8atz wort know all say lng Commission Meeting t. 7, 1991 - PaGe 55 nk we could make the whole road 26 feet. I just think the 31 feet is because some people are Going to park on it. I don't know that it's to matter. That's my rationale. I believe the road through my vision is actually narrower than 31 feet and the only time you have a em is when people park. There's a problem down the hill around the but there's always Going to be a problem with that regardless of er you've Got an extra 5 feet or not. I don't buy that 5 feet is to make that much difference. That you're Going to put in a sidewalk nobody's Going to use. d: I think they would. i: If you were running down the road. You run through all these e subdivisions. You're telling me you would use the sidewalk around curve? .d: If I Go around curves and cars are coming the opposite way, ,rs are, we're Going against the traffic. They're close to me all the i: So you'd use it because you're running against the traffic. If :ere going the other way, you'd cross over to the other side of the ,t and run on the sidewalk? ,d: If you take a look at the little asphalt path on the north of Lake Park. People are always on it. It only Goes for a couple ed feet but they're always there. .i: In fact they need it more stretch by the soccer field there but .y Ld: I don't, know. I'm not a technician in that case. I just look at degree corner and yeah, just hypothetically. A runner would be coming le right hand, running come in would be Going against traffic. I don't that that runner's Going to use the sidewalk. I don't. .i: If all the other commissioners want a sidewalk there, I'd be ,ctly happy to accept an amendment. ~d: I heard that people didn't like them. Yet on the other hand, it's 1 strange curve. You've Got a 10 mph limit. Maybe that's Going to the traffic from Going too fast there. i: I don't know that the sign or the curve is Going to slow anybody d: I find that just a General problem and I don't have a solution. i: Put 18,000 speed bumps in there and let the enGineerinG department about trying to put the snowplow through there in the winter. You I don't know what we're Going to do. If the sidewalk would help at nd it would save one life, I say put it in there. And maybe then we ut it in there. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu :t 7, 1991 - Page 56 Conr d: I just ~anted to raise that point. It's not a straight line. Tim and designed a nature trail going through. That would take all pede :trians off the road. Emmi ge: Is there any more discussion on the motion? ,i moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appr of Subdivision ~91-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 and sub ,ct to the following conditions: . Ihere the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall be "no )arking" signs posted. The sharp curves located in the loop street ~hall be limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" ignage. revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following: Landscaping on the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road directly north of the Class A wetland shall include deciduous trees in the highland areas). · Deleted. . Landscaping along the 2:1 slope adjacent to the Class A wetland to maintain the slope. · Additional landscaping along the access points. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) per lot. (Credit for each tree over 6 inches caliper on the lot shall be granted. For that lot, however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided. ). · A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right-of-way Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes· · · · he applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control lan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required r all slopes steeper than 3:1. he applicant shall work with staff to investigate the provision of ture services of sewer and water to adjacent parcels. The applicant 11 submit final road, drainage and utility plans and specifications or revie~ prior to final plat review. The applicant shall also work th the City Engineer to address concerns with Lake Lucy Road ;fade. applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the :essary financial security. 6. applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits. Plan ing Commission Meeting ~,UgU t. 7, 1992 - Page 57 . 'he applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land ~edication and trail construction. 8. 'rovide the following easements: Dedication of all street right-of-way. . Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas· Access easements as required to service the "Walker Ponds". . Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. · Standard drainage and utility easements. · Provide a conservation easement over ail established wetland buffer areas. Such easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments and the location of such easements shall be provided to City staff for approval. . he applicant shall indicate the allowable type of dwelling, the house ads and the lowest floor elevation on the grading plan· 10. he existing hydrant between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be relocated 5 feet to the south. The Fire Department must approve street names nd a 10 foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. dditional hydrants are needed at the intersections of Lake Lucy Road nd the proposed public road. 11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration it ~91-4 and Rezoning 12. The applicant shall provide proper restrictions (subject to City staff 'approval) on those lots having entrance monuments and/or landscaping. 13. The applicant shall work with City staff to provide for a shared' driveway between Lots 7 and 6 of Block 1. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the motion carried witl a vote of 5 to 1. Emm ngs: We need a motion on the Wetland Alteration permit. Bat 1i: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alt ration Permit ~91-4. Jo Ann, help me out here. Is there supposed to be set of specifications or a map or something that this is based on? Olsln: Yeah, I would just., there were some details. Why don't we just use theiJuly 29th plans. Plan' lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 7, 1991 -- Page 58 Batz. i: The July 29th plans with the following conditions numbers 1 thro gh 7 as set forth in the staff report. Number 3 shall be clarified that it's understood that the breeding season refers to the migratory wats fowl breeding season· Emmi ~gs: Is there a second? Erha t: Second. Emmi )ge: Any discussion? BatzLi moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appr,)val of Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 as set forth on the plans de July 29, 1991 with the following conditions: I . 11 wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III ~rosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good :ondition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. . he proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance able for each lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No land setback less than 40 feet will be permitted and the buffer trip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be .reserved by an easement. Iteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least mpact to the wetland and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding ;eason. he "Walker Pond" and wildlife areas must be designed to the standards roposed in the applicant's submittal packet dated July 30, 1991. · he applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to guarantee hat increasing the water level of the Class A wetland will not affect stability of Lake Lucy Road. · applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of ngineers. . he applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and nin~ ~91-2. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the motion carried wit) a vote of 5 to l. Emm ngs: Ladd, do you want to embelisb on your no vote on the preliminary and or wetland alteration permit or do you think that's on the record? Con' ad: Nell, just no it's not. It's confused on the record so I'll clean thaw up. I think this should be brought back to us is the primary reason. ~no~her specific reason ~4ould be the sidewalk issue. I think there should be sidewalk. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu t 7, 1991 - Page 59 Emmi~gs: Or the road maybe should be widened. I don't disagree with that. That s something that I think needs attention from the City Engineer and the ity Planning staff. What we really need there and that be presented to t e City Council. I don't know what 26 feet looks like or feels like when you're out on it and if you're a kid who's biking, that's a scarey corner. Well that's well done. C HEARING: KRJ ,SSOCIATES FOR AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK, LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, MARKET OPOERTY ZONFD PUD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE A m B ,. Pub SECTION OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD: %T A PORTION OF OUTLOT A, MARKET SQVARE. ~ITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,740 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. Present: ,e Address Klm cobsen Bob ittrick Schultz P.O. Box 635, Long Lake, MN P.O. Box 755, New Ulm, MN 300 Main Street West, Sleepy Eye, MN Emm ~s: In view of the lateness of the hour, unless there's somebody t s got a burning desire to have a staff report we'll skip it, assuming tha everybody's read the staff report. Okay, what? A1 ff: I would like to add one condition please. is: You're going to give it anyway. Go ahead. Al- : Just add one condition. is: Oh, you want to add a condition? Where? Tell us the page A1 ~ff: Site plan approval. Emm ~s: So this would be number 6 on page 127 It would be number 6 under Sit, Plan Review? A fl: Yes. The condition would read that the parking stalls located to the of the site be designated for employees only. Emm ngs: Read it again. Al-~aff: The parking stalls located to the south of the site be designated for~employeesTM only. The reason for this condition is to minimize conflict between cars that are heading towards the drive thru and cars that are backing out of those parking stalls. Plan, Emmi appl Kim Amer work feet We ~V that issu, thro not Emmi pret dorm Kim thei I'll Emmi that Kim ~ing Commission Meeting :t 7, 1991 - Page 60 .Os: This is a public hearing and are there representatives of the cant here who want to present something to us? acobsen: I'm Kim Jacobsen from KRJ Associates. I'm representing the cana Bank. I'll be brief. I think what we're looking at is we've d with staff very hard· We've got a rendering behind us of what we the building is going to look like. I think the major issues that come up with have been mainly our cut from West 78th Street. I think would be one issue that we would like to discuss and that's our major · Other than that I think that we've gotten most things under control gh staff. They may tell us different but through the report there was whole lot that really stuck out at us. Os: Maybe while you're up there I'll just ask you, staff seemed to be strong in the report about wanting a little different roof line or up there. What about that one? racobsen: Well, staff had not seen this sketch and I have not heard latest response back. Earlier tonight I thought it was positive. turn it over to staff and ask them at this point· ~gs: Well is that plan different than the ones, the other drawings they've seen. lacobsen: They've never seen a rendering colored and it has changed slightly. It has been modified. It's now to it's final design form at thi~point so this is the first that they've seen this sketch· Krau~s: I think in the past we've tried to get their rooflines to reflect the~oof that's typical in downtown Chanhassen. Our design studies that are lng along corridor of TH 5, we're looking back into doing that. T is no agreed upon standard here. I guess I'd really like to hear comments. I would still prefer that the roof line was broken up a 1 more. It's not as massive a building as it was when our concerns first raised so to an extent they've been partially addressed. We don claim to be architects. We think we have some idea of design. I thi it could probably be refined a little bit but I'd like to see what reaction is. Emm Str, th ~s: Do you have an overhead of the site plan? Now on West 78th the road that comes down from West 78th Street that enters into , property, that's not, there's a road to the left of that, or to the of that that services the shopping center. Is that right? you S : That is the main central drive aisle in the shopping center that ,e there. Monterey which is a public street which borders the west of the shopping center. Emm ngs: I'm not thinking of Monterey· I couldn't picture this· Okay, so the cad that. That's Monterey. Now the road that we're lookin~ at is goi right down the side of that and that's the only entrance into that who property from 78th Street? Kr ss: Correct. If I could have a pen. The internal driveway does Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu t 7, 1991 - Page 61 some .hing like this· It comes to the main entrance over there. There's a driv that comes around in front of the shopping center. Comes back in over e and then there's another access point up that way. Emmi ~gs: Okay. Erha t: There's no plan for a median cut now at that entrance? Krau 's: At the north side, no there is not. Erha t: So it's a right in. If you're coming this way you have to turn at Mont .fey? Kr is: Right· Or turn down on Market before you get there and make a deci 'on. Emmi ~s: Alright, now as far as that being an issue, you got up here and sai that's your major issue. What do you want there? Klm thi ri goi : Well, we'd love to have a full right/left turn coming out. I what we're willing to settle for right now is coming out and having a tutti out but we want to have a left turn median cut so the traffic west on 78th can access the site directly. ~s: Alright. And that's the plan we have in front of us is wrong? Klm n: Yes. ~s: And the staff side of that argument is? Fo : I guess if I could address that. This issue was, as you can see fr your staff packets, was given to the firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch to bas lly evaluate whether that was a possibility there. From their c ion it was that yes, you could have a curb cut there and that it wou n't be a problem as far as cars stacking up eastbound on West 78th blo king that intersection. I'm not an expert in traffic engineering. I do a basic knowledge of it. My gut feeling is, looking at how close you 'e going to have. Ultimately you're looking at signal lights at both Mar and Kerber which are a 400 foot distance between the two. My gut fee ng is, having a left turn there when they're predicting ultimate fut, 42 1 d tal thi sta the~ her~ com are whel doe.~ And traffic forecasts of 20,000 cars a day, that's typical to like a CR h Apple Valley and Burnsvitle. That's going to be an awful bad ion to have a left turn in. And this may be analogous to getting rent opinions from different doctors. Things like that. I've also to the engineer who designed the downtown system and he doesn't k it's a good idea either· Looking at the dimensions from a technical int. Looking at the dimensions for that turn lane, typically 're substandard when you're designing urban situations but this one is even further reduced in design. It's really shoehorned in there ared to the other left turn lanes throughout the rest of the downtown · It's much lower in dimensions. And if you look at the concept of e the left turns are located east of Market through the downtown, this n't seem consistent with the approach that's been used in the past. that in a nutshell is where we have our concerns. Plan'~in9 Commission Meeting Augu~:t 7, 1991 - Page 62 Emmi .ge: Now as far as the other conditions. I'm sure it's obvious to you that I'm trying to push this along but the last thing I want you to do is feel like we're giving you a short thrift here so if there's anything we're not alking about that's important to you, just let me know okay? Klm acobsen: Okay. Emmi ~gs: But as far as the rest of the conditions that are contained with n the staff report, do you have any problems with those? Would you like to address any of those? Klm acobsen: I think as far as we care, most of those are pretty much wot ble. Emmi ge: As far as the signing. Klm 'acobsen: Through the signing, everything else. We've talked to sta . We're ready to resolve it at this point. E Is: Okay. Klm acobsen: I think one thing we should point out on West 78th Street tha I think is a good point is right now, if you look at it and if you loo at access from public safety. Safety vehicles. Emergency vehicles. a tough center to get into. If you have a life threatening situation. coming down West 78th and now you've got to bring your traffic down t h Market back in for a fire truck and ambulance. I think that a sar y issue was there on West 78th that you need access. The center needs acc Is. The bottom line, the City owns part of that center. If you can't get stomers to that center, if they're going to drive by on West 78th and the 's 20,000 cars going by, that number I don't agree with but I'll give it. They're going to go somewhere else· And if the City's a partner in the center, I would think you'd want to get people there· The number one thi g you do in a development is make it accessible. I don't think Market Squ re right now is as accessible as it should be. So from our standpoint we eel it imperative to keep number one, our customer coming in to the sit.. We also like it from a life and safety factor. That we do have protection if there is an accident. If there's an accident in the center, it'., easily accessible and I don't think it would be off of Market Blvd.. I t ink that the traffic, the number of turns the safety vehicles have to tak. , emergency vehicles are going to be prohibitive to get people in the Emm to ad(:: K'i-& (::Ion als rec e · rigs: And the difference that they're proposing is, just so this is r in my mind. The road coming in off of West 78th was originally going e a right-in/right-out and the wrinkle that we're adding here is we're ng in a left turn into it for traffic going west on West 78th Street. ss: Exactly so. That's the change. I'd also add too here that I t necessarily disagree with anything that the City Engineer's raising. 'e talked about this quite a bit but there's a lot of other things that factor into this. First of all it should be clear that we would never mmend a median cut for an individual property owner. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu :t 7, 1991 - Page 63 Emmi igs: That's not what we're talking about here. ;s: No. This is a main drive aisle to the shoppin~ center. It hap~ ns to access the bank but it also accesses the dry cleaners across the way nd everything else. And the second thing is that there's something of a ign situation here that I think the Council needs to evaluate and even blw the HRA because we've asked Strgar-Roscoe to come up with a design of )w this median would look accommodating the turn. We're not sure how of the landscaping we can save. Strgar seems to think we can save a fai amount of it but you clearly don't have the median that you have right now ~o there's a subjective design issue related to that as well. I don't We just wanted to bring it to you with all the facts and concerns and you and the City Council make that determination. Emm Is: Okay. Anything else you want to add right now? Kim agr pro~ imp( Emm Klm Emm, pub at Erh fav, Emm Ahr cobsen: I think that's, the issues like you say. We are in ent to work on them. I think we can work and resolve those with no lem. I think that we need a resolve on West 78th because it is tant to this project. ngs: Okay, thanks. Jacobsen: Thank you. ngs: This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else here from the ic who wants to comment on this or has any questions they want to ask his time? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? rt moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in ,r and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ngs: Joan, what do you think about West 78th Street? ~ns: Well at the last second here I was confused. Staff is ,mmending a curb cut right? Kra~ss: We have recommended approval of the site plan as you see it. That incorporates the curb cut but we've called out that curb cut as an issue you may want to evaluate. ngs: When you say curb cut you're talking about a median cut? Kr ss: Median cut, yes. : Median cut. My personal opinion is even with a median cut that is, or the properties are inaccessible. The design of that street I th. k is terrible but aside from that no one asked me before they built it. El rigS: Well they thought you'd want a berm somewhere. Th, did. I noticed a berm in here. I had a comment on that. berm right here in the landscaping. It doesn't have a landscaped Plan ~ing Commission Meeting Augu '.t 7, 1991 - Page 64 berm though but you'r~ going to be requirin~ a berm along the northeast and west~ fly portion of the site. I assume you mean a landscaped one. Thanks for eminding me. Is that true? Al-J fl: Yes it is. I'm going to go along with the staff report on this. I'm a bit about the issues concerning the architecture. I can't tell if s what you were aiming at. Is this what you were aiming at? This line in your recommendations? A1 ,fl: The building looked too massive as we were looking at it from the pla that were submitted originally. i: Does this look less massive? Fa kes: Are you talking architecturally massive or more square feet? : No, architecturally. The massing relative to the corner. Far kes: Just straight slab. Kra ss: Yeah. I mean clearly we want to get away from just one straight too' I think if you look across the street at the hotel you'll see that the roof turns a couple of different ways. It has significant dormer type fealures that are built in it. I think there's a cupola on top. I wasn't necessarily looking to replicate that but I guess we would have a pre-erence that for lack of a better word, I don't know if it's accurate or not :but those dormer features be somewhat larger. We were informed tonight tha the shingling on the roof that would be what we're looking for, mat hes the hotel or possibly metal which sounds better to us but again, it' a subjective evaluation at this point. I don't have any specific des gu guidelines to base this on. Emm rigs: You kind of want your bank to look massive don't you? Secure. Ahr~ns: So this is closer to the design you had in mind? The dormers are right size? Can you see it? Kr dss: Yeah, I took a look at it before the meeting. I think we'd prefer they be somewhat more accentuated and that the roof line be broken up a ttle bit more if possible. : Well, I'd like to leave that up to the applicant to work out with because I can't tell on that what that really looks like. I guess I t really have anything else. ngs: Alrigh{. Jeff? Fa~ ar( th~ Hakes: I realize that a lot of this is subjective when you talk about hitecture. I really don't like this building but I'm just going to make se comments just from a personal level. It's just another large slab Plan .lng Commission Meeting Augu ~t 7, 1991 - Page 65 buil ling in our city here, a gray monolith that to me tends to make this city look like an army camp. I still can't figure out what that light Granted it's maybe in right now in the late 80'8 and early 90's but too h of that is a bad thing. We've already had some large oversized bull ings for our city already in gray. I'd like you to look at that. I a~ that, maybe that's nit picking but I'm going to say it anyway. The ' of the building, what still bothers me is it's still massive. The~ 's very little window space in it. I would look at that building and I w( ld not want to go in there. It's very unfriendly to me. It looks li a, it's either a skating rink or it just looks like something on the C . EmmJ Is: Do you feel strongly about that? Farn kes: I'm not going to dig my holes any lower. It's subjective you k We all have different colored houses and we all' have different i ior decoration but I guess I would go back and compare that with the oth~ r bank in town and say that there's a striking difference I guess here and I guess this looks, I guess that they'd be investing the money som~ where else other than the building. The next comment I'd like to make is n the signage. I agree with the staff in their comment's. I think that the sign proposal is overkill. We talked about that before and I'm glad that this is a PUD so I can bring it up. I particularly, I'd like to see one sign on this building from the main entrance there on 7$th because tha~ 'd be more than enough. That there is other examples of business buildings where that takes place. I know the one that you're referring to her~ in the report. I'm not quite sure whether we ever decided if that was a btsiness building or if it was quasi-retail or what it was but con: idering the size and where that is, if they don't access it from there, it' going to be darn hard to miss that sign. But if you feel, I guess if it' 3 feet on the other signage is appropriate. I'd rather just see one is y personal druthers. I think that that does the job. In fact, if you re not seeing that the Americana Bank from the parking lot in the back, so hat? I mean you've got to drive by it to get out of there so. I like eom of your comments going back to the issue of what you're trying to do wit this building. I'm not sure, I guess I would ask you whether you feel they've come back and improved from what you've asked them to do. I'm ing the impression that perhaps you're not 100~ thrilled with this or am getting the wrong impression? Kr. : Yeah, I think we have to emphasize that they have worked with us qu se a bit and the building design has changed quite a bit. It is si: ificantly improved and we like the way that it picks up a lot of the ar itectural detailing on the shopping center which we've encouraged it to do this is a requirement to developing on that lot. $o there's a lot of el lents on the building that I think are good and worthy. As far as t ..goes, I mean we also noticed that the windows were small but I don't kn, how well I can comment on those kinds of detailing. I mean I'd be ha to if that's the policy that we establish. Fa~ kes: But the lack of window space creates more mass on the building. Kr~ass: It makes the building look bigger than it is. The windows are ller and the ratio of the window to the building area is a lot different Plan ling Commission Meeting Auou st 7, 1991 - Page 66 than it is normally. Or appears to be anyway. Farm kcs: Is the rest of the shopping center supposed to have the green roof and gray paint? Kr,8 of beh : They have green barrel roofs. In fact they picked up the detail shopping center. You can see it around the back part of the or the bank building. They picked up the tile detailing that comes there and the building materials are pretty simtliar. oug bas kcs: Well I've only been on here since January but I think the City to look long and hard about painting the entire city of Chanhassen in I don't know of any other precedent where the entire city is lly painted one color. Emm ;s: Well Emerald City. Farl kes: Well Emerald City but maybe you can talk a little bit to the des or it Emm Wesl eng Emm alo Kra sam Emm Fol n center at the U. I don't know of any other place where conformity t just lends to boredom and counter productive I think. But I'll drop t that. That's the end of my comments. rigs: What about the road? Do you have any feeling about that up on 78th Street? akes: I really feel that the road issue is one for city staff and I'll up whatever they want to do with that. I'm not going to play street Deer . ngs: So right now the position of staff on the median cut is to go g with it? tss: That's the recommendation with this site plan, yes. But at the time it has some reservations. ngs: Yeah, and Charles has talked about his reservations. We rstand that. h: I guess from my perspective, I can't support the median cut. ns: You're not supporting it but they are? El rigs: And what we have in front of us, if we vote for it, we will be a ing that median cut. Just so evreybody's clear on that. Brian, how do feel about the windows in this building? Ii: Hum. Emr ings: Okay, Ladd. Bat 1i: I would really like to know if staff thlnks that this site plan is we 1 developed since I counted 11 things that they didn't have or else %~e re still working on. 10 foot right-of-way. Additional landscaping. si nags. Lights. Lighting plan. No grading plan. Canopy issues. Plan Augu lng Commission Meeting t 7, 1991 - Page 67 Arch tect. ural issues. Expansion issues. Roof screening. Turn lane chan les. Median cuts. On you really think this is well developed? We kin~of talked about this on the last one. Kra~:s: The kinds of conditions we have on this are standard conditions vir ally with every site plan. Not having a grading plan at this point is no g deal because the site's perfectly flat and we know how it's supposed to ade anyway. We want it before a building permit is issued. Things li that are minor detailing. i: Alright. You're comfortable with that then? Kr : Yes. Bat;Ii: I think the new cut is groovy. I can dig it. I want it there. I n't care about the stuff down the middle of the road anyway. It's getiing late. I think I would like to see, I don't know how much has ly been done to the building to date and I'll rely on staff to coniinue to work with them to come up with something that's acceptable to thel . I think there may be a couple of minor changes to the conditions but nth, rwise I think it looks pretty good. I'm done. Emm ngs: Alright. Ladd. Con' ad: Are there two entry spots off of Market into the shopping center? Kra .ss: There is one. Wait. Before I say that, there's...for trucks or not Ols n: In the back. Kra. lss: Way in the back. But not off of Market. There's one main entrance on larket. ad: From a standpoint of running the shopping center, you've got to ha, an entry off of 78th. You've just got to. Em ngs: Well there is one. C ad: A right-in/right-out. nos: Right. C, ad: Yeah. The question is, we force the folks going from the east go g west down Market. nos: Or around back. Co: ad: I guess I have to endorse the cut as the applicant has proposed it If there's just absolutely concrete evidence that well, Charles has sal that engineering wise it's not a smart move. Senerally I would have 3, t totally paid attention to that. I just really believe there should be a entrance from 78th to the shopping center. Not to the bank. To the sh(pping center. Plan' lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 7, 1991 - Page 68 Emmi los: Or really to both. Because of the shopping center. Conrld: Yeah. I really don't like the drive thru and that curve. That tota turn around. There's some things here that just sort of bother me desi in wise. You have the drive thru and then the cut back. Obviously they d like to get out on the road but I think staff's point was well taken but , I don't know. How are we solving that? The turning radius. the. applicant have to go and buy more property to have that happen? Al- ff: They're making the building smaller. Depth wise and then they are quiring an additional 10 feet I believe. Kim acobsen: We aren't acquiring anything. We would have additional fog ;e when it's replatted giving us 20,000 square feet. Give us a couple mot feet north and south dimension just because of the shape of the site. Con' coral me des Cou in bu P Klm hay : Okay. I don't think I have, just generally and I've never ented on design before of a building. This building just doesn't make 1 comfortable. In 10 years here I don't think I've ever commented on gn. I try to leave that out of government. This one bothers me. d be the roof line. It just doesn't seem like, this is the key t..rsection of Chanhassen and it's, as Jeff said, it's not a real friendly i ding so I don't know what it would take to make it warmer. I like the a out in front. I think that's terrific. I'm just not comfortable the design of the building. h rt: What's the material in that exterior of the building? Jacobsen: He've been dictated that we're going to try to match ,ever the shopping center has which is some sort of a dr¥...material. Lrcylic stucco iS the way they described it and I don't know if they a decision. Erh rt: Who's dictating that? ~'mm Kin Th~ Emn SOT wh~ ce! the 3acobsen: The PUD development. ~ngs: Yeah, we did that. Jacobsen: That's what the staff has worked us on. The gray color... roof colors. All of that has been dictated through staff to us. zngs: We said that whatever went into the outlot, because it was, we t of sa~J somebody coming in with a Dairy Queen I think and we said tever's going on that corner has got to be consistent with the shopping ter. That kind of fear. Now this may have snuck around and hit us in back of the head. Erlart: Well that's what I think. I don't think the building's necessarily that ugly but I do agree with Jeff in that to drive everything tollook the same is crazy. My feeling is, when you get right down to the su~ face material in this building has to be the same as the center has Plan~ lng Commission Meeting Au~u~:t 7, 1991 -- Page 69 beyo d reason. Farm. kes: That building almost, from that perspective or from where you come in, it's going to be far more predominant than the actual center itse f behind it. Emmi gs: Right. : Plus the center behind it looks like, is more attractive looking the bank. it, kes: A Dairy Queen's one thing but something that large in front of don't know if that was a good idea. Emm ~s: Well, we were scared of one thing I think. I don't know that thi: is what happened but this is the way I remember thinking about it. We sort of scared of the unknown there so we said let's make sure that goes there is consistent with what's around it. I think that was as h to discourage McDonald's or whatever from being there as anything else and it's maybe gone too far. Erh~ rt: So anyway, granite sheeting would be pretty good I think. Anyway, set ly though. Con' ad: His little cut at humor. Erh. rt: I do really like the idea of using the Timberline roof. I think tha' 's one place where we've missed opportunities in the downtown .... not req, ire wood shingles and a good compromise is the Timberline. It really has a nice effect when you talk about the big surface areas up there. Reg ~rding the median cut, my opinion is if we aren't willing to bulldoze the whole median out of downtown, we ought to put this curb cut in. Bat ili: This is a start. That's how I look at it. Er irt: It's what I see as a start to what's going to ultimately get done bec tuse the logic I have is someone coming that way who misses the i ~rsection. He then has to turn left at Monterey anyway. They're going to :tack up. If you at least provide two cuts, you get less stacking be some are going to turn in here and some are going to turn at ey because in either case you're going to have, what you're ul mately have is stacking someplace on there. So that's that one. I a! :e, I think maybe Jeff, it seems to me like we have too many signs or signs are too big. Help me with what does it mean that signs on each, or foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation. What does t~ mean? Kr : Well actually there's three wall mounted signs and there was also a nument sign proposed. Em~ ings: Two. One. Plan ~ing Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 70 Emmi s: There are two on the plan aren't there? Kr : There's one facing the drive aisle and the shopping center. Emmi ~s: I thought you were restricting them and cutting them down. I'm · Ah This only shows one in front of the building. Wall mounted. You can't see the other two elevations· Er : Are those two other ones, are those on entrances or just on the of buildings? : One is on the drive thru and one is on the rear door. Erh~ : My view of that would be, I don't mind the large sign on the front entrance of the building but the other two ought to be substantially sma let. That's my opinion· And lastly is, does that exit road, once you go brough the automatic teller, does that exit into the mass parking lot the or do they actually have to drive all the way up? Kra~ss: What we're thinking on this is that you have the balance of Outlot A d~wn here...over there. This lot is pretty constrained by the fact that you/ye got Market on one side, the main entrance down here. There's really no ~ther place to provide entry to this lot so what we're thinking of is her~'s the exit lane and then at some point somebody's going to build an entrance lane over there and then this would function as the exit lane for bot~ the bank and whatever happens down to the south. ! Erh&rt: Okay, but somehow traffic comes out of there and they're going to hay to drive through. They're either going to drive through and go all the way down here or they're going to have to go through up here. You're for: lng all this traffic in front of the shopping center. Kra ss: Yes. Er ~rt: You made a big todo about not giving a right-in/right-out down · Kr : Right. Er t: Is that a wise thing to do? Kr : Well,.if I could touch on that. We felt very strongly about it the shopping center came in because we didn't believe it would be safe at 1 to permit it. As time went on, we got much better traffic in rmation now than we had 2 years ago when we first approved this and we as $trgar to take a look that. In your report there's documentation t says when we put a signal light up here, which the Council and the HRa arq now look~.ng at doing. When this thing is fully developed, the traffic is~going to back up way down here and you will have no way to make a cut at th~s point or up here without cutting across traffic that's stalled on the ot~er side. In addition, the ultimate development over here is a free ri~ ht turn lane, two thru lanes and a left turn lane. What you're going to Plan ling Commission Meeting Augu ~t 7, 1991 - Page 71 have. over here is, this traffic as it comes around the corner is acce erating. Some of it is slowing down to get into the shopping center. So of this traffic may be turning at the same time and making a merged move ent. It's not really the place you want to throw in people turning into traffic. Everybody's looking in the wrong direction at that t Er t: You've got the two thru lanes there going to a single lane? s: Again, I said ultimately. t: Oh, that's when you take the median out? Kr s: Hell, that's down the road. We think the median can stay if t. ha s desired but at the present time there's only going to be this single lan. The HRA wanted us though to reserve the right-of-way and that's why e, ng is shifting 10 feet to the south. Reserve the right-of-way so tha if it's determined in the future that you need two lanes east of Maj' Blvd., that we have the physical ability to do that and don't have to uy a bank and tear it down. Erh rt: Boy I'll tell you, it's just awful to put all those cars backing up .n front of the shopping center. You can't bring it areund the outside eit er because then how. does it get... Kra, ss: Actually though, that's the safer place to be. It's an internal basically and will have specific well defined egress points out onto et and to Monterey and 78th Street. Erh. rt: I'm just thinking about all the traffic and people trying to get in nd out of the center with their cars. Kra ss: Most of that should be focused, well the main entrance again is dow here. In fact there's two exit lanes down there and that's where the peg .le who are coming from Market are going. Er t: ...that's right. There's parking over here yet. Okay. I was thi] ng that the shopping center was right here. Okay. Kra :s: That's the shopping center. The bank building is sitting up in her . Here's the proposed curb cut. Here's the main entrance and exit. Erh 't: And where does the return traffic... Kr~ : The drive by wraps around through here and then it comes over out th way. Er ~rt: Okay...I think I've got it. Emi zngs: Are you done? I wonder if you would have proposed a different kid of bank with different kinds of materials if you hadn't been working u er the restrictions you were working under and I wonder if we wouldn't e to see it. But I guess I pretty much agree with all the comments that e been made about the building. The windows are too small. The roof, if you're going to keep the building like it is, it seems to me the roof Plan, lng Commission Meeting Augu::t 7, 1991 - Page 72 ough to have a little steeper pitch and there ought to be, those dormers ough to be more pronounced as staff has said. I agree with those comm hts. I think that taking into account the reasons that we wanted to put ;ome restrictions on what happened on that corner, some of those fears woul be allayed by the fact that we know now that there's a bank deve oping on that corner. If that would mean that you'd want to make some prop ~sals for, I still think that the bank has to somehow fit in some of it's design elements with the Country Suites across the street and the sho 'ng center but if you want a different exterior materials or wanted to cha e some things on there to make it, to address some of the concerns you" e heard addressed up here about it appearing to be an unfriendly bull lng or too massive or whatever, I think that you might do that. I thi that as far as West 78th Street goes, I absolutely agree there's got to a left turn lane there and that's all the comments I've got. Unless an 's got anything else, let's see if there's any motions. We've got w First one is site plan review, a subdivision and a PUD amendment. Ba i: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Rev ~91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991 subject to the fol lng conditions. 1 thru 5 as set forth in the staff report and the fol in9 modifications. The sentence that reads, eliminate the proposed bui din9 addition from the plans. Is that still shown here? Kra, ss: It's dashed in. Bat~li: Okay. I would eliminate the word since and include the words, in par! because we would never be necessarily approving the proposed addition so don't want it to look like that's the only reason we're not approving it. And at the end of number 5 insert, and submit the same for staff app oval. Ahr ns: There's a number 6 here. Emm ngs: Oh, you weren't here. Bat 1i: No, I wasn't here. ngs: What you would be moving if you had been here. Ba 1i: Oh, and a new condition 6 that reads, parking stalls located to t south of the site shall be designated for employees only. ngs: I'll second the motion. Any discussion? :li moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend a 'oval of Site Plan Review ~91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, I ~ subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and incorporate requested directional signs. 2. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge of the ling Commission Meeting August 7, 1991 - Page 73 ite as proposed in the staff report. The applicant shall provide taff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used'in alculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule ndicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. he applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and ide the necessary financial securities as required. If the West h Street curb cut is approved, the applicant shall be required to nsate the City for all costs related to its design and nstruction. 4. evise architectural plans as follows: Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable measures to enhance the design of the roof line. Provide details of HV~C screening. Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating consistency with shopping center construction. - Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans in part because ~e would never be necessarily approving the proposed addition. - Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot setback is provided to all portions of the building, including the entrance canopy. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided for safe turning movements for cars existing the drive-thru lanes and submit the same for staff approval. 6. Parking stalls located to the south of the site shall be designated for employees only. A1 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ii: This really gets back to what you just said and giving the a icants direction on do they want to come back and look at something el . I think we would be willing and the Council would probably be wi ing to look at that condition we put on the PUD contract for this icular outlot for the development 'and I don't know. We talked a little bi about changing it and I didn't really see any nodding heads or shaking back there as far as whether they would want to propose something neu at this point. Emf ex ings: I look at it this way. This is an aesthetic issue. It's ethinq we probably can get into trouble trying to dictate to some ent. I don't know. I don't know how much leeway we've got and I don't Plan' lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 7, 1991 - Page 74 know how much they bought into the plan. And if they want to take this plan to the City Council, I guess they've got the right to do that. Batz i: Oh sure I think so. I don't know whether they looked at this bull .lng and thought this is it. This is our building or if they thought we r ~ally would rather do something a little bit differently. Emmi ge: Ne don't want to go into that at midnight I don't think, do you? Bat i: Nell I don't know. If it was a 2 or 3 word sentence from one of t I'd love to hear it. Kra 's: A couple comments. First of all we're trying to expedite this for the ank. The shopping center's supposed to break ground in early Se ~ber. The bank as I understood it is to open by a date certain under the State Charter... We were going to try and hussle this onto the Cou 1 meeting for actually next Monday if possible. If you'd like them to rk on this further, we could still get on the second meetins in August and ;ire them a little more time to work. Relative to the condition in the PUD lreement, my personal response is I'd be hesitant to drop it. Whether or this design meets your standards, I think the provision 's a good one I'd ask you to keep in mind that there are four additional out bui ding sites. Well three additional besides this one that you're going to e looking at and we keep hearing rumors that Hardee's and places like tha are interested in it. I have been in meetings with Hardee's where the' tell you that this is the building 49-A with an orange roof and I want to e able to tell them to get lost when they do that. Far akes: Well is it possible to modify it rather than drop it? Putting lim tations say on the size of the building... Emm rigs: You can leave it in there and you can give them some leeway to do wha we wanted done. You can say, it has to be compatible with the other bui dings there and what that means we can decide what that means. Far lakes: Well compatible is different than conforming. Kra [ss: Well I think compatible was the work that was used. Also, to the arc itects credit, whether or not they achieved their goal, they did set out in mind with the fact that this is a corner property and that there shc~ld, you can't make it look exactly like the shoppin8 center but you've got to recognize that you've got Country Suites across the street and then there has to be some sort of transition. Again, i don't know if they achieved it or not but that's why they're going with this kind of a roof wh Dh mixes in more with the hotel than the shopping center. Ah' .~ns: You know Paul, to back up to the first thing you just said. I ¢on't think that whether or not we're trying to expedite this to get it to the City Council should, I don't think that should dictate any decision we~should ever make. We live with these buildings for 20-25 years. If we tht~k it's ugly now, it's going to be worse then. Emi ings: Okay. Is there a motion on the subdivision? You didn't get an an: wet to your question did you? -- Plan' lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 7, 1991 - Page 75 Batz i: Well no. Emmi ,gs: Hhy don't you ask a specific question. Ba .i: How would you guys feel about doing some more design on the bull ting or don't you want to? Do you want to stick with what you've got and lodify it slightly? Klm desi 'n. : We feel we've taken a directive from staff. It's our third Ahr ,s: Do you like it? Kin : Staff's input into it has been very strong. We like it. We wou 't have presented it if we didn't. We think it will be a lot nicer tha' you're interpretting. It will be the nicest building in Chanhassen is our 'nion. By far. Honestly I feel you'll be happy when it's built. We wil, work on some of the concerns but other than that to go back into a red~ ign at this point means we go back to Federal Regulators and work thr ugh them also and that's not within I think... So we have worked very dil gently with staff. We have prolonged this meeting. We were on the age da 2 weeks ago. Worked with staff again and we're back at this point. So guess our feelings are right now, we'll sure do everything we can to wot with some of the things you said. Work on windows. Work on dormers. love to work on colors. 8ut I think to go back and totally start over is ough... Bat ill: And I appreciate you working with staff and I understand why that dir. ~ction was given. I guess we want to welcome you to Chanhassen. Not mak you feel like you're moving in and we don't like you from the start but t's a question of looking at it and it's tough to tell from this dra!Jing what it's actually going to look like. You're right and I hope thc when it's built we all look at it and say, this is the best thing in Cha ~hassen. I hope you're right. Con 'ad: ...downtown architectural standards are a big deal. Design is a big deal. We're talking about, do we have any control? Yeah we do. We abs lutely do. I think a lot of our reactions and like I said, a lot of our reactions were not real positive. It's up to the applicant to persuade us hat it's for the good of Chanhassen so I don't know that we should back do~n. On the other hand, well. I don't know that we should back down. I think it's just a different looking design. It's the first time I 'ye ever res-~ted to a building design in all those that I've seen. hot to Dittrick: I think what we've tried to do is to get to the design that Id be something acceptable to the City that would...center and the el. It makes it pretty tough to do. On the other hand, the staff did icate to us what Chanhassen wanted and that's what we want to do. But Jant to say that staff has been very cooperative and we've been trying do the same for them. We think we have. dy Schultz: I think the drawing might not do justice to what you're lng. We intend to, from the beginning, bring into to~4n a very friendly, Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu ..t 7, 1991 - Page 76 Conr. d: It's to your advantage to do that obviously and we'd like to think you ~re. Bob ittrick: ...way off base here the way it's sounding. There:s too many people saying hey, it isn't that. That's scarey for me. Far kes: Well, I'm a potential customer so. I feel bad in a way that ma what the attempt was here to do and protect back fired. Particularly I nk because of a building of this scale. This is much larger than a 's and I think we should maybe look long and hard about modifying t I'm not sure what that does legally to that whole position but bui ings of this scale and size really affect a lot. Tbs feeling of a cit' and the perception of driving in to town and that really, that street the' along there is going to be main street. I guess I don't feel good al the fact that maybe the restrictions we put here are part of the pr em of making this sort of not fit anybody's successful plans. Con~ : What would you do Jeff? You're concerned with color but is there any1 lng else that's just. Far akes: There's a lot that you can do to a building facia wise without rea ly changing the gut of the building. There are a lot of things that can be done here and I feel uncomfortable to sit here and say what they wou d be. I would rather that the architect maybe address the issues of how to approach that but I also feel that those restrictions are also coming from us. Restrictions of color and restrictions of you should look partly like this building. Partly like that building. I don't think, and I w~.sn't here when you did the issue of the shopping center but we should rea ly look long and hard at making things look the same because what you get if you've ever been in an army barracks, everything's painted the same col .r. All the buildings look the same and it's not, it doesn't make for successful city development. I don't think. It makes it look very boring and very restrictive. Unfriendly and very too corporate. I would hope tha if they don't have enough leeway of coming back and working with star on .his, that maybe we could look at modifying that ordinance. Maybe we can give them more leeway or at least such an example that buildings of ti size could be changed or relooked at. Does that make sense? ngs: Well yeah. I don't know that we'd want to change the r fictions that we put on that property Jeff but I think maybe we'd want to hangs it in this way and say that we're looking for, I don't know. $~ the buildings that creatively incorporate elements of the nding buildings but also presents a variety in their appearance. Ma ~e make it so we don't wind up just saying okay, we'll take these three e ,ents from here and these four from here and slam it together and live wi what we've got. Fa lakes: Particularly if you've got a building that's much taller than th~ rest of the development and you've got more massive. That's where your ey~ sight's going to go. And when everything is the same. Em ings: Nobody ever intended that but that's the way it worked out in th s case. I need a motion on the subdivision. Plan~ ing Commission Meeting Augu::t 7, 1991 - Page 77 Erha t: Yeah, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subd vision ~91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991 with the two cond tions stated in the staff report. Emmi gs: I'll second the motion. Is there any discussion? a the t moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ,val of Subdivision #91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991 with g conditions: rk and trail dedication fees shall be paid at {ime building permits requested. 2. ovide the following easements: · Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. · A 10' x 30' utility easement located to the southeast corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP. c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the City. d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Erh rt: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the a ~dment to the PUD ~89-2 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991. ngs: I'll second the motion. Is there any discussion? moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend oval of an amendment to PUD #89-2 as shown on the plans dated July 29, . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ii: Actually on that last one. Shouldn't that be with the changes ected in the other motion? ings: What are you talking about? Bat 11: I'm talking about the PUD amendmenti We made changes to this. Then we were recommending it as shown on the plans. Em, i ngs: No, the amendment to the PUD. What have we done in amending the PUl ? Plan' ing Commission Meeting Augul t 7, 1991 - Page 78 Krau ;s: What have you done? Emmi ~gs: Yeah. Why do we have to amend the PUD? Krau :s: Because the PUD shows a blank spot where the bank is supposed to be. Emmi ,ge: Okay, and that's all. Then as far as the rest of these items, the andscape ordinance we'll have to put on for next time. We're not goi to do it tonight. Did somebody stay just for that? I apologize. : No, it's probably better because I said the changes were shown J.n ld. You probably noticed. is: No, they weren't there. There's no underlining either. Aan~ ~on: So I'll go back for the next time. APPt OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meetin~ dated Jul 17, 1991 were noted as is. CIT COUNCIL UPDATE: Emm ngs: Then we've got the report from the Director which we've all read and enjoyed. Then we've got sign ordinance amendment and that's going to to go onto our next agenda. We've got news and blues which I thought very funny. That's something I get because I'm the Chairman. Ahr ,ns: We didn't ~et that. Con'ad moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor a the motion carried. The meeting Nas adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Sub itted by Paul Krauss Pla ning Director ~ared by Nann Opheim