The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1995 01 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES OF LAND INTO THREE LOTS LOCATED AT 6240 RIDGE ROAD, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CHRISTMAS LAKE ON THE SHOREWOOD-CHANHASSEN CITY LIMITS, WM. PATRICK CUNNINGHAM, CUNNINGHAM ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Paul & Sharon Graef Gordy & Patsy Whiteman Pat Cunningham Jack Fess Susan & Pam Price 855 Pleasant View Road 825 Pleasant View Road 855 Pleasant View Road 6280 Ridge Road 6250 Ridge Road Bob Generous presented the staff repo~( on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Would the applicant or their representative care to make any comments? Yes sir. Step up to the microphone and let us know who you are and your address and let us know what you have to say. Pat Cunningham: It seems my hearing aid isn't doing it's finest... Are you going to ask any questions? Scott: Oh! If you want to make a presentation or anything. If you don't, that's fine too. Pat Cunningham: Well there's a letter that you all have. Scott: Yeah we just got it just a few moments ago. Pat Cunningham: And that's the...what I'm doing. Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: And that was part of your packet you had the initial letter. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Can you hear me okay? Pat Cunningham: Yeah. Mancino: And Bob, you may be part of this question that I have. One of the recommendations is about conservation easements on the west side of the three lots. And when I took my scale and drew them in to show where the conservation easements would be, they come very close to or up to where the housepads are so I was wondering if one, Bob is that correct? And two, if Mr. Cunningham feels comfortable with that. Pat Cunningham: ...neighbors because when they built their homes it was decided at that time Ridge Road was not going to be changed and it would keep going the way it is. So if they put a 60 foot road in there, it would almost hit one house and Jim Meyers who just remodeled his, it would be practically under the eaves. Mancino: Okay. This is the conservation easement that we're asking for. It's condition number 3. Generous: It's on the western portion of this site. The tree preservation area that we recommended as a condition of approval. Pat Cunningham: About that 30 feet that... Generous: No. There's one, it's 100 feet. Mancino: Can you come up so I can show you. I want to make sure that you understand what we are requiring and that is down on the western edge there's 100 feet of a tree preservation or conservation easement and you have a house pad here. The house pad from this drawing is in that conservation easement area. Scott: Yeah, I think when you put it on the overhead you can see what, Bob do you need this? Patsy Whiteman: Does this have to do with the trees? Aanenson: Right. Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: Okay, the conservation easement would not permit you to do any development on the western part of the property except for putting in like a trail or walkway down to the lake. But you wouldn't be able to build within that area. Pat Cunningham: You're speaking about Lot 1 now? Generous: It's on all three of them. It's condition number. Pat Cunningham: Oh I see what you mean. Generous: We had talked about one of the ideas behind this whole thing is you wanted to preserve the trees as much as possible. Aanenson: And the slope. Generous: And the slope so that's one way that we can do it by having an easement recorded over it so that once you no longer have control of the property it would be in the record of the property of this lot that they cannot build in that area. Pat Cunningham: I imagine they would like to connect... Generous: Well they could put down like a walkway. Pat Cunningham: I'm sure they'd have no intention of building there...Oh, does it extend up into here? Mancino: According to my calculations it does and that's something that I'd like you and Bob to work through and I just wanted to bring it up. Scott: Yeah because we don't want to have a conservation easement that's going to keep the person who buys this from building the house. Patsy Whiteman: This one it would not...and this I do question whether it's a little too punitive. Scott: That's why we want to make sure and I think probably what it is, it's just a matter of adjusting the conservation easement so that, yeah. Mancino: But this shows it visually. Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: But Commissioner Mancino took the time to sanity test it and we'd rather deal with it now before it gets a lot more expensive months from now so that's our attempt to make sure that things actually work. Pat Cunningham: Well I'm sure that once they're home is here, I don't think they'd build it down here. Scott: Well that's the reason why we have a conservation easement so that...and what we'll do is, I think it'd be logical for us to alter the condition that talks about the conservation easement to direct staff to work with you people to make sure that the conservation easement doesn't preclude the owner of the subdivided parcel. To keep them from building a house on it. Okay. So that's what we're doing here. Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you Mr. Cunningham. Pat Cunningham: That takes care of that. There are six different problems in there. Which one are we on now? Scott: The conservation. What other. Pat Cunningham: Well that would take care of that. Then I'll sit down and if you want me back for the second or third or fourth, whatever it is. Scott: Okay. And if you want to go through those. Yeah, if you guys want to go through those. Aanenson: Well there's 13 conditions of approval. I'm not sure if he had a concern about any of those conditions. Nutting: The question is that he's got a letter of six... Aanenson: ...copy of the letter from the building official answering the response to that. I think what Bob is saying is that the building official is willing to work with him on the issues yet but. Generous: Right, he's just going to need a plumber to do the work... Scott: So from the letter of January 23rd, 1 is fine. 2 is fine. Number 3, it appears as if there is. Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: I believe that the only question is the city doesn't take bonds for that type of work. Harberts: What do they do? Generous: Letters of credit or cash escrow. Harberts: Well isn't a performance bond similar to a letter of credit? Generous: No. You have to go through a legal process to actually collect the money and that's only after a certain timeframe so. Scott: What about the comment number 6 about the 30 foot easement? Generous: The 30 foot easement, Dave might want to address that. Scott: Okay, please. Hempel: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. It's essentially our only opportunity to obtain the right-of-way for a future road if it goes in. If it never goes in, then that 30 foot wide road right-of-way could be vacated. However if in the future we do, or if they would wish to petition the city to upgrade the roadway, we'd have to go back and acquire or purchase this property for the roadway so, it's very typical of every subdivision that we require that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way for roads, utilities and those kind of items. Scott: What if, can the neighbors also petition the vacation of the easement? Hempel: The property owner may do so, yes. Adjacent to the right-of-way. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair I have a question. Dave, when the city owns this 30 feet from the center over, does the city maintain it now that the city owns it? Hempel: We would not maintain it until the roadway is brought up to city standards. Right now it is a narrow bituminous private driveway essentially and we do not maintain it. Mancino: So even though the city owns it, it doesn't maintain it. It doesn't have the responsibility for plowing? Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: That's correct. We do have our sewer and water lines through there. Through the private driveway at this time. Aanenson: It would be left natural. In it's natural state. I mean there'd be no improvement to it so it's just like a large boulevard area. They could continue to use it. Mancino: But it does give the city all the legal rights with the street? Aanenson: For a road. For road purposes. Generous: And they have to pick up the other 30 feet on the other side and the rest of it to make it work. Patsy Whiteman: We have a question about this one. Scott: Yeah, questions from the applicant, this is still applicant time so please step up. Pat Cunningham: I indicated in that letter what I would prefer doing is selling Lot 1 and 3 with the understanding if the city asks to put the 60 foot street in, they would be obligated to furnish the 30 feet...if they did it in my lifetime, I would furnish the 30 feet. Beyond me it will be written in the family trust that whoever is in charge of the trust would be obligated. There's a reason, two reasons for that. One of it, there's going to be a wailing of protests if the city decides they might put that street in. And I thought it would be better if after that was decided they still would be obligated so you'd never have to pay on any of the land on those three lots. But it would be the people could keep right on using it until such time as they had to give it which may be a generation or two away. Scott: Okay. Well I know when the lots are finally platted, the potential easement or the easement will be shown on that so anybody who's going to purchase a lot, that will be part of the legal record so. Pat Cunningham: And also in my suggestions it also says that one of these people that buy that lot sells to somebody else, the obligation will run with the land. Scott: Which usually is the obligation of the fee title owner of the property to provide the easement in case that's needed by the City. Yes? No? Hempel: No. We have no legal grounds to require that. This is our only means to do it without purchasing it from a future property owner. The road will continue it's present use. We have no plans of upgrading it. If the future property owners adjacent to the road wish to Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 further subdivide, then there may be a need at some future date to upgrade that road with widening curb and gutters and storm sewer facilities to accommodate the additional traffic. At this point we have no plans to and for the next 20 years it will remain the way it is. And...they also have the opportunity to petition the city at that time to request a vacation of that roadway. So there's no plans to disturb any of the trees that are on the existing roadway. It's just a way of getting the easement at this time while we're able to at no cost. Scott: So the neighbors would, that's the single event that would cause that road to be improved. If the people who live along the road petition the city to do it, then that's what's going to happen. Hempel: That's correct. When either that or further development occur. Scott: Yeah, subdivision would require it. Okay. Sir, are you with the applicant? Jack Fess: Well a neighbor. Scott: Okay. Yeah, what we can do is after the applicant section is finished, then we'll open up a public hearing and then members of the general public can speak. Okay, great. Pat Cunningham: I haven't quite understood. If I sold 1 and 3, would they have that, they would own that land with the proposition that should the city build this street, they have to give this free. Generous: That's not our recommendation. If we would take the right-of-way right now, the road would not be improved but you could sell the properties and that's one of the things in there that you would have to provide them with the cross access agreement to use that private road. But the city would actually take that title of the 30 feet. Pat Cunningham: If I sold those 2 lots they would be 30 feet short? Generous: Yeah. They'd have 30 feet less property. Pat Cunningham: They'd have 30 feet less. Generous: Correct. Pat Cunningham: And my idea would do what? Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: Legally we can't. Mr. Cunningham, legally we can't go back to the next property owner and require that even if you have it in your deed. The city couldn't do it. Pat Cunningham: Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Conrad: Well I think, Pat have you read the staff report? Pat Cunningham: Yes. Conrad: Are there any points that you'd like to bring up about the staff report or the ones listed in your letter, have they addressed the staff report? Pat Cunningham: I didn't mention in the letter why I wanted to continue to take the water out of the lake. We would have an erosion problem from now on if we had to go down 6 feet to run a water line down to this cabin. They call it a dwelling. It's not a dwelling. It's just...Sunday afternoons to have some fun. And if that were the case...and for all that work and all that money and it's probably only going to use about 200 gallons a year. And we drink bottled water or pop. So actually all it's used for is...they got to have it for the toilet. That's the extent of what that's going to be used. That's the reason it's important to me, both from a preservation standpoint of the good bluff and to have it come out of the lake... Scott: Okay, good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Conrad: Patsy, have you read the staff report? Patsy Whiteman: Is that what I read today? Pat Cunningham: Yep. Conrad: Okay. Patsy Whiteman: I do have. Scott: Oh, could you step up to the microphone so we could get it on the videotape. Patsy Whiteman: I just do have a question about how it's written. I can't remember, is he given the leeway to work with the DNR to come up with a satisfactory plan... Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: Not the way the condition's written, no. Patsy Whiteman: Could it be done that way legally? He does have some legitimate concerns.., rather than. Harberts: Hook up. Patsy Whiteman: Yeah. Dad has taken care of Christmas Lake since he was a child and he has some real strong feelings about the hillside and...knows the land and I think he's got some viable options that he can come up with. So I hate to see us... Scott: Which? Generous: Condition 5. It could be possible to amend that condition to put in or come out with an understanding with the DNR that they can continue to use it. Scott: Yeah let's, whoever makes the motion let's. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject. These codes go beyond the city. I believe it's a State Health Code as far as the water and sewer and septic so they may be a little more out of our hands and at a state level. I think the building official put in some alternatives if they didn't want to hook up to water and sewer and one method would be to remove the plumbing fixtures from the dwelling, such as you have a dwelling. I'm not sure if that meets it. Scott: But then doesn't that, because we have our city ordinance that it would become an accessory structure which is against our local ordinance so. Generous: There is a note on page 3, under water service. It is possible that the lake water use in the dwelling may be probable but it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate it's probability on a continuing basis. Aanenson: So I think what your original recommendation then is that we're saying number 5, that we can maybe modify that to work out if there's a way to compromise it. Whether it be working with the State or our own ordinances and try to see if there's some other alternative. Generous: And it may be using that language. Scott: So that's something that then the applicant and the city and then if there's a state official, can get involved and that's something we don't have to take care of in this venue. Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Right. Scott: Okay. Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Hearing none, I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, give their opinions on this particular item, are invited to step to the podium and all we ask is that you let us know who you are, where you live and we'd like to know what's on your mind. Jack Fess: Good evening. My name is Jack Fess and I'm about 4 houses down towards Pleasant View from Pat's property. I've lived there about 14 years and built a new home there which Pat had supported when my piece of property was subdivided. I guess the only question I have is, first of all we currently right now there's about 6 or 7 homes in there and I also manage for the neighbors that road that we live on. And so the city understands, that's a very expensive road to maintain. It's fully serviced with sewer and is completely the opposite. You cross the chain at the Shorewood line and the Chanhassen line. The major difference is the Chanhassen line has all the city services and the Shorewood side does not have water. For instance if there's a fire that needs to be fought on all those expensive homes on the other side of the chain, they need pumper trucks. Now what we don't understand is, we don't want to precedent, or at least I would not want to see a precedent set on Pat's property that has not been set on the others, the homes. Now we have homes, we have property on that ridge. My house is 14 years old and I do not believe, unless the city planner or someone else would want to look up my property, it's 6280, but I do not believe that I have any easement which I have given to the city of Chanhassen to potentially widen that road. Number one, it's not in the best interest of the city of Chanhassen and it sure as heck is not in the best interest of us because where is the road going to go? It cannot go into Excelsior into Shorewood because Shorewood, they've asked to try to have that road widened over there. First of all there's been houses in there for 50 years. It doesn't meet the city restrictions. There's been new homes built over there. This has been brought up before the Shorewood City Planning within the last 8 to 9 months and under no circumstances will the City of Shorewood even consider looking at the opposite side of Ridge Road. What I'm basically saying, I know of two houses that would probably, if that road was widened for some reason, would take part of one house and the front lawn of another and probably the front lawn of mine. There's been two new homes that are being built on this same side, the Chanhassen side. One is 2 years old and one currently is going up next to me. I don't believe there's anything in those easements which the Planning Commission has requested. So what I'm basically asking the question is, I support Pat's subdivision 100%. I mean the 10 Planning Commission Meeting- January 4, 1995 man's paid taxes on his property for many, many years. He's lived here for 80 some years. It's a valuable piece of property. He needs to break up his estate to be taken care of here and I'm only saying why would we ask Pat Cunningham for an easement to be given free to the city of Chanhassen for someday, i.e. to potentially when maybe I'm dead or this lawyer over here is 70 years old, decides that somebody in the Planning Commission or City Council wants to start another hiatus that we just had out here with the Frank Beddor problem. That it comes up and somebody gets a bright idea we're going to widen Ridge Road, which the city does not even sweep one single pebble of dust off that road. We never see the city. We maintain it. We pay for it and I guess I'm at the point, after 13 years with the taxes we pay there, they deliberately wouldn't go one foot off of Pleasant View to even clean the dust off the road when they bring the sweep or something. So my position is pretty simple. If the City of Chanhassen wants an easement on Pat Cunningham's property, they ought to pay the man for the easement number one. Number two, he's been unjustly treated because by forcing that back, Nancy just brought up that you don't want the house to go back if you're worrying about the hill. Well where's he going to build the houses then? I mean we've got homes that have been built there. Precedent's been set. Why would we want to do this right now? Why not allow that property to go through as it is. Under the proper zoning conditions of Chanhassen and then the Planning Commission... Why start a hiatus now about 30 feet of taking this property over, because it is going to set a precedent and I sure as heck wouldn't want to be living there, telling a perspective buyer of my property that by the way, the city has not taken 30 feet of property off the street which means they might condemn the property down the street to widen the road. Who knows? But that's something that us 8 or 9 neighbor people are very concerned about. It has nothing to do with subdividing the property, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that's fair to Pat Cunningham. Scott: By the way, David Hempel is our City Engineer. Well you just got promoted. Harberts: Are you sure it's a promotion? Scott: Well I think so. Hempel: There were some valid points brought out there. The reason that we get it is again, strictly with the intent that some day maybe future lots in there are subdivided again and where do we draw the line. There's 6 to 8 houses on that road right now. There potentially probably could be twice that with the number of lots that could be subdivided based on the current zoning regulations. Right now there's not sufficient turn around room up there for fire vehicles, emergency vehicles and so forth. That's the purpose of additional right-of-way. To upgrade the street and provide the avenue for these vehicles to maneuver. The 30 foot right- of-way will not affect the building setback of the proposed subdivision. There's adequate front yard spacing. The house pads will stay as they're proposed. And again in the future the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 right-of-way, or 10, 15, 20 years from now is not needed, it could be petitioned to be vacated. Harberts: Dave what has been the, is that the practice of the city to, when they look at the future traffic needs or public safety needs, is that the process that they usually follow? Or is it that when they see the need or have the need they just go in and purchase at that time. What's usually been the practice? Hempel: The usual practice is with the platting or subdividing of the property to do it. We have a number of projects underway where the city has had to go in and purchase additional property and that raises assessments which in turn the property owners who benefit from the project end up paying for it so the long run this subdivision is going to benefit because they've already dedicated the necessary right-of-way and will not have to pay for it in the form of assessments. Harberts: So from what I'm understanding then...future homeowners or builders or whatever kind of make them aware of what the situation is with regards to what's available in terms of easements and whatever. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: And when you're talking about benefit, is that loosely calculated as fronting on an approved road? Or if you're on the road and it gets, if you're on the road and it gets widened or the services get improved, you're going to pay for it because you own the road. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. So what you're saying is that in the long run, if the easement can be dedicated as part of a subdivision, that reduces the assessment which means that the people who are living there when and if the road gets widened, will be paying less in assessments. Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: Now I have a what if question. You'll love it. Okay, future. 5 years from now. One property, two property owners decide to subdivide and you get 4 more houses there. At what point will the city require, for public safety reasons, for the road to be updated? To be widened to use city standards. To current city standards. Hempel: That's a very good question. Our current ordinance that deals with private driveways limits home sites to 4 for private driveways and they've already exceeded that in this situation. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: That's why we had the variance. Hempel: That's why we had to approve this variance and it was approved. Now public safety would then come into play in this situation and I believe the City Fire Marshal might have to say which number of homes or vehicles would trip it from a public safety standpoint. We have other streets in town that are similar, like Dogwood and Tanadoona out in the western part of the city that is a similar scenario but potential for subdividing is much greater and much more homesites than Ridge Road. Ridge Road will be limited to the amount of homes potentially servicing by it but again it's just our normal practice. It's part of the ordinance of subdividing that we acquire the necessary right-of-way through the planning procedure at no cost. Mancino: So the current homeowners that are there now will need to keep watching the process so that if someone does subdivide there, that they need to come to City Hall and find out if that's going to, if the city would look at upgrading the road. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: And that would be a public hearing and they'd be duly noticed. But couldn't, because this road extends into Shorewood, couldn't that trigger point happen because it's a development that actually occurred in Shorewood? Hempel: We haven't done joint projects with other adjacent communities. At this point I'd have to say no. Scott: Okay. My concern is that if somebody subdivides in Shorewood. Hempel: Right now there is a gate and lock and there's no thru traffic. That is considered a dead end street I believe. Only for emergency purposes can the gate be opened. Scott: Okay. That I wasn't too sure of. Yes sir. Jack Fess: Since we work the snowplowing on the Shor~wood side, I don't know if the staff has had a chance to really walk up into, and walk in the Chanhassen side, the Covington side but they'll notice that as that property gets subdivided on the Silver Lake side, on the Christmas Lake side, there's more and more homes in there and there's only been one new house up until last year. There's been no...on the Chanhassen side was mine, which was 1982 so most of the folks that are here, these lots have been here for many, many years. You know residents for many years. I questioned that myself and Bruce Benson, who is a Councilman in Shorewood and was on the Planning Commission, many of the people when 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 this building started to boom in the last 3 years, they actually went to the Shorewood Planning Commission and to the City Council to seek help on this issue we're talking about. Number one, is there a safety problem on the Shorewood side of that chain? Now we have the chain up because if we left that chain open we would have another Pleasant View Road. We would have a way to cut from Covington so we have very strict limitations. We only allow the chain up and down while a truck's going through for a house being built, heavy loads. The builders on the Shorewood side do not run any trucks through there unless they get permission from me and my neighbors, which we have given them a key. The Fire Department has a key, the garbage man, etc. And it's becoming a major concern to all of us because of the building that's going on and trying to maintain that road. Now they just spent $12,000.00 of neighbors money just to resurface a quarter mile of that road and we have about $50,000.00 on the Shorewood side. Now our side, it drains very well so we haven't had those type of road expenses but you can imagine last year when 3 new homes were going in over there and all of a sudden they want to run trucks to save money. The contractor's off of Covington Road, or I mean Pleasant View Road, off our road. Tear our roads up and then go over there. So we've had our own little neighborhood hassles over this but I can assure you that Shorewood, even when those folks went to Shorewood and said look. We've got too many houses here and we have, for safety reasons number one. They don't have water in the street so I don't know who would want to build a new house without property water protection from the fire department, but they do. They would use the hydrant that's in front of Pat's property to fight a fire down in Shorewood. That's where they have to hook in, or else use the pumper truck. The last house that caught on fire burned to the ground. So I don't see that happening because Shorewood would have to literally not only tear the road up there, they would have to spend so much money on that because they've got the steep hillside on the Silver Lake side, which we don't have on our side. Plus it doesn't even have water rights in there okay. So I think the question is good. My only question is, if we start doing that, and since there's a new home going up right next to me on the comer of Pleasant View right now, which is a very million dollar house...Dr. Joseph to give up that 30 feet which he just started building in September and directly across the street from him on the 2 acre lot, which was built on only a year and a half, which is on the opposite side. Did we ask that homeowner so we have two new houses that have gone up in a year and a half and I'm just basically saying, have we asked this question before when they went for building permits. Now they didn't subdivide but has the city said hey, we need to do this because there's the comer of Pleasant View and if you didn't take 30 feet there where you'd have to make a turn off of Pleasant View, why would you take it at the end of the chain where it goes. Aanenson: You made the point exactly. They didn't subdivide it. The law, we have to legally, we cannot require easements. Only when we subdivide and that is what Dave is saying. It's because it's a subdivision. There are lots of record out there. Now it may be additional building but when somebody comes in for subdivision, that's what trips it. _ 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Jack Fess: So in other words, if the city did decide for one reason or another to widen the road, they would have to just condemn the 30 feet of property in front of my place and everybody elses? Aanenson: Right. Scott: Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? I'm sorry, did I miss? I'm sorry, go ahead. State your name and your. Susan Price: My name is Susan Price and I live at 6250 Ridge Road and I wanted to comment also on this 30 foot easement. I think if you take 30 feet off the front of property, you take out my house so I guess I'd like to be on record that I would like to continue to think that this road is not going to be... We will maintain it as a private road so that it is... own our road all the way to the center and people have half and this side owns the other half so the whole idea of having one piece out of that road different from the rest of the road does set kind of an edge that makes me feel safe coming off...chose to condemn 30 feet off the front of the property. So I'm supporting Pat on that... Scott: Okay, thank you. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: The public hearing is now closed. Ladd. Conrad: No comments. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I guess I would certainly be okay with modifying condition number 5. As I understand the report that the building is not being lived in. Right? Lot 2? ...is that your understanding? Generous: Well yeah but it is a dwelling. It is a dwelling whether they live in it or not. Scott: I think what we're going to want to do is want to modify the condition number 5 to get the right parties together because this is a unique circumstance and we need the right parties together to figure out an equitable solution. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Yeah I think there's not, we need to modify it maybe then what...demonstrate that it's not being used yet and it's just being used as a spot. So I guess I would be open to that but if it is a dwelling, I guess my bottom line here, it has to meet State and City codes. And so whatever modification is available to do that, fine and it sounds like the applicant is willing to sit down and chat with whomever is responsible so I guess that's really the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well in that regard the Department of Health, to their water well requirements they have variance processes that can be gone through and that's certainly acceptable to me if the applicant wants to pursue that route. The situation with the right-of-way, I certainly understand the residents' concerns as it relates to property but I think overall in terms of planning and the issues of safety in the future, I think a 30 foot easement is appropriate for those lots that are subdividing. I think one of the most important things though that we really haven't talked about relates to the variance for frontage and we have a requirement normally for 90 feet of frontage at the street side of the lot. Is that not correct, 90 feet? Generous: That's correct. Ledvina: And we're easing that requirement and I don't really understand why. We have a situation where we have a private drive that seems to be fairly taxed in terms of it's traffic capacity and essentially we're adding an additional lot up and beyond what we really normally would allow by Code and I don't see the rationale for that there. The variance process is a fairly well defined one in terms of the hardships that must be proven and I've always petitioned that we should have a rigorous analysis of that variance process. I think that in this situation and it's more important again because we have the private drive situation so I'm very concerned about that. I think the lots are large. I know that and the applicant has been very willing to work with the city in terms of the conservation easements and I appreciate the ecological approach that the applicant has for this parcel. That's very important and those things somewhat offset this variance scenario but again I don't feel comfortable at this point in passing it along tonight without more rigorous analysis of that variance, so those are my comments. Mancino: Bob, can you take a minute and explain the variance a little bit. As I'm looking at Lot 1, Block 1. Generous: Basically as Matt said, they don't have sufficient frontage, the required 90 feet of frontage at the front. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: From the house to the road. Generous: No. From the south line to the north line of that front lot. The width. Ledvina: The width is inadequate at the road. Mancino: From here to there, oh. From here to there? Generous: From the north line to the south line of Lot 1 there's not sufficient distance. Mancino: And if we moved the lot line of 2, could we get it? Generous: No. Aanenson: They're all at the minimum. Generous: Yeah. 2 and 3 are right at 90 feet. Now I didn't look at it from the perspective of if we move it 30 feet back, what does that do to the lot line. Scott: Well, as I understand the second lot is going to be in a trust for an extended period of time. Is there, I mean you discussed that being an outlot. Something that would be unbuildable. Is that an option? Aanenson: Because it has an existing structure on it, I'm not sure it would qualify because right now that's the lot that's existing. Ledvina: Yeah, you can't create a variance. Mancino: But you're saying at 30 feet back. Aanenson: Back it meets the 90 foot frontage. Mancino: It does have a 90 foot frontage. Generous: Well I'm not sure. I'd have to scale it off. Ledvina: No it doesn't. It's narrowing as you go to the. Conrad: The whole property is expanding though. And then there's a job. The thing that didn't bother, that didn't bother me a great deal because it sort of looks like an artificial jog 17 Planning Commission Meeting - JanUary 4, 1995 and when I saw the artificial jog there, you know there's 10 feet so in my mind I said it's okay because we're talking about, on paper it's wrong but literally there is space there and it's not being used by, it's there. So that variance I felt pretty comfortable with simply because of that jog. Mancino: Does that make any difference to you Matt? Ledvina: I guess that's one thing but again I want to see a more detailed evaluation of variances as they come before us. I understand your point Ladd but I think that process is fairly well defined and I think we've got to follow it so. Mancino: There is rationale on the comments here. Ledvina: Yes. Yeah, I want to see the whole thing on it and I think it's important for the record in terms of what we're doing. What we'll do in the future. Conrad: And that's real valid Matt. Aanenson: We've got a comment as far as another design option that we could have considered. Generous: If this was a flag lot they wouldn't have had that variance request. Aanenson: We could have looked at it that way. Generous: They could have pushed it back and had the frontage back. The front of the lot back where it widens up in there the 30 feet, it wouldn't have been a variance because Shorewood requires them to have 120 feet of width at the building setback so that's one of the reasons that we have the jog in the southern line. Ledvina: But we're in Chanhassen. Generous: But they don't have, in Shorewood they don't have sewer so they wanted the extra area. Or they don't have water, I'm sorry. Mancino: Kind of like Deephaven. Bob a question for you. The only one that I have at this point. The DNR, in their memo to us, made a recommendation about, let's see. Their letter dated December 15, 1994 and it's on the back of the page. It says, the structures in the subdivision should be screened from view from Christmas Lake using topography, existing 18 Planning Commission Meeting - JanUary 4, 1995 vegetation, color and other means approved by the city. You didn't include that in your recommendations I don't think. Generous: Well that's the conservation easement. Those trees would screen those two new houses. Mancino: Right. That's what I wanted to ask. Thanks. Generous: And that also keeps it above the bluff. That was one of the rationale for making that width like that. Mancino: Thank you. That's all my questions. Ledvina: I had one more comment I forgot to make as it relates to the bluff. You mentioned the lot with the tennis court on it. I think that's Lot 1. Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Now did we check to see, I think you called out a specific contour. Does that, are we, does this building pad meet that setback requirement. I don't think it does, the way I look at it here. Generous: It encroaches into that but that 60 x 60 pad is just the possible area. There's not a whole lot of. Ledvina: But if it's possible and it's within our setback, it's not possible. Generous: Yeah. They wouldn't be able to build but by designating the contour we have them on notice that you're going to have to be 30 feet back I believe from that elevation. Ledvina: Okay. Do we need anything in our conditions to rectify that in terms of the plat that we have versus, you know the plat map versus the language? Are you comfortable with the way... Generous: Well we're not going to permit Lot 1. Shorewood is and I don't know if we can really control what they do. We have to inspect it to make sure that their plumbing complies with our code because they're connecting to our city sewer and water but other than that we don't issue the permit. Ledvina: Okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: So I wasn't as stringent on that. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I guess I don't have any comments to add. I'm a little, if I were in the position of the other neighbors on the issue of the right-of-way I think I'd have the same concerns. I also though feel from the standpoint of public policy and consistency of application that my hands are tied unless I hear or see something different from that being a condition as a part of this project. So I think I'm prepared to...as modified. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: ...modifying 5 that approves the variance. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I would make the motion. Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision//94-20 with a 11 1/2 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition, subject to the plans dated December 6, 1994 with the conditions as listed in the staff report with 3 alterations. Point number 3 would add the note, and I'm not sure how it changes the conditions but would add the note that the staff will review the easement to insure that there's an appropriate area for building sites and I think we are particularly talking about Lot 1. So that's the addition on point number 3. Addition on point number 5, and I'm going to make it an addition so the words still stand but I would like to add the following comments. That the applicant will work with the DNR and the city to evaluate other alternatives as detailed on page 3 of the staff report and also on the letter received from Mr. Cunningham dated January 3rd to look for alternatives other than demolishing the structure. That's the end of that point. Point number 14. Staff to document the rationale for the variance. Scott: Is there any discussion? Harberts: Second. Conrad moved, Hm~e~s seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-20 with a 11 1/2 foot lot frontage vmiance for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition, subject to the plans dated December 6, 1994 with the following conditions: 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 . . . . . . . o All structures shall be built within the Shorewood city limits for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition with the exception of fences and the driveway. All appropriate permits shall be applied for from the responsible jurisdictions. The following contours are designated as the top of bluff: Lot 1 - 974 contour, Lot 2 - 978 contour, Lot 3 - 980 contour. A minimum 30 foot building setback must be maintained from these contour lines. When building permits are applied for, the applicant or future builders shall provide a survey showing the appropriate contour elevation and the minimum 30 foot setback. The following conservation easements shall be recorded over the property: The western 100 feet of Lot 1, Block 1; the western 140 feet of Lot 2, Block 1; and the western 180 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. Within this conservation area, only minimal shoreland alteration as provided in Section 20-482 of the Chanhassen City Code shall be permitted. The staff will review the easement to insure that there's an appropriate mca for building sites, pm~icultuty Lot 1. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction to protect all trees that are to be preserved. The existing dwelling on the property must connect to city sewer and water or demolish the structure. This shall be done prior to the issuance of any building permits for Cunningham Addition. The applicant will work with the DNR and the city to evaluate other alternatives as detailed on page 3 of the staff report and also on the letter received from Mr. Cunningham dated January 3, 1995 to look for alternatives other than demolishing the structure. The applicant shall inform the builder of Chanhassen permit and inspection requirements. This shall be done prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 1. The applicant should revise the garage floor elevation on Lot 3 to 996.5 and/or employ the use of retaining walls to minimize grading impacts. A variance to the 10% driveway grade is recommended on Lot 3. The maximum driveway grade shall be 12%. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for each lot. The City Engineer shall review and approve the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall be required to pay the surface water management fees in lieu of constructing downstream stormwater improvements. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 10. The applicant shall enter into a joint powers agreement between the cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen for providing utility service and billing for Lot 1. 11. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat one-half of the necessary street right-of- way for Ridge Road. The final plat shall dedicate the easterly 30 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3 as road right-of-way for Ridge Road. The final plat shall also dedicate the necessary side, front, and rear drainage and utility easements per city ordinance. 12. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. 13. The applicant shall verify that there are no wetland impacts to the site. 14. Staff shall document the rationale for the variance. All voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 6 to 1. Scott: And your reasons were, due to the variance? Ledvina: The situation with the variance and I guess it doesn't reflect at all on the position of the applicant here but I think that we should see the analysis as well and I hope that that can get in there before City Council so they have that. Scott: So that'd be acceptable to have the analysis forwarded as part of the packet? Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Okay, good. Well the motion carries. I'd like to thank Mr. Cunningham, or the Cunninghams for coming in and all the neighbors who took the time to speak at the public hearing. This goes to the City Council on the 13th of February? Generous: No this is the 23rd. Scott: Oh I'm sorry. 23rd. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (46 UNITS - 13 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5 FOURPLEX BUILDINGS), AND 20UTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN R1DGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Public P~esent: Name Add~ess Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm not sure if the applicant's here for this one. Aanenson: We need to make sure that there's somebody here for the applicant. Scott: Okay. Are the speakers turned on out in the hall? Okay, I'll yell real loud. Conrad: We can table it. Ledvina: Why don't we work on it? Conrad: Without the applicant here? That's sort of invalid I think. It's their problem. Ledvina: Well I have some questions on it. Scott: Shall we move it, let's move it back to the end and see what happens. And then if they don't, if they're not here we table. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO SPREAD APPROXIMATELY 5,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCAVATED WETLAND MATERIALS ON THREE SITES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BLVD, AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BLVD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Mattson Scott Mezzenga Steve Mironov Denise St. John Larry Kerber Bob Peterson 2020 Crestview 6731 Galpin Blvd. 6605 Mulberry Circle East 6605 Mulberry Circle East Dave Hempel presented the staff report on fids item. Mancino: I have some questions. On each of the sites on Galpin, where exactly will this excavated land or the excavated wetland be spread on those properties? Hempel: I do have a couple aerial topography maps that shows the proposed location. Unfortunately they don't make very good copies. Essentially they are hillsides adjacent to the property. On Galpin's it kind of the back slope. Again it's a hillside or heavy rolling meadow area. There's no tree loss and no trees lost involved in this grading. It's all filling the wetland. Mancino: Okay. And the terrain, how will it alter the terrain? The topography. The natural topography. Hempel: It's not intended to alter the terrain more than a few feet. We're not showing any kind of large mound or stockpile areas. It's going to be blended into the hillside. Mancino: Okay. Do these homeowners, three homeowners get paid for this? Hempel: We are not intending on compensating any of the homeowners for this. This was done just merely to accomplish some filling on the property to make the land more useable 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 and to give the city an opportunity to dispose on a site near by the excavated area to reduce trucking costs, which are very expensive. Mancino: What happens when these homeowners, this is an assumption of mine so a question for you. When they go to subdivide and is this what you consider unstable soils so when they have to go in and do some soil corrections, is that going to be a problem in the future? Or if we want to widen Galpin Boulevard, is it close to Galpin and if they go in and subdivide in the future, will that be a problem for them with this excavated fill? Hempel: Those are very valid concerns. Both fill areas are nowhere near any future roadway extensions or widening projects. The fill material would be considered I believe unbuildable. Basically if it's topsoil, organic type material. If you start excavating though, the material may turn into a clay like and may become fill material that's qualified for structural. We don't know at this time until they actually start excavating. We assume that it's going to be an organic type material which you find in the wetlands. Farmakes: Site 2 has been used as a fill site for other projects, has it not? Hempel: I'm not sure. Site 2 is Scott Mezzenga's property. Mancino: That's on the comer of Lake Lucy and Galpin. Farmakes: I saw them dumping fill there over the year. Hempel: I believe there's some landscaping business operation there. I'm not certain. The property owner is here...could address that. The other site, Larry Kerber's site on the comer of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard have had a grading permit in the past to do grading and filling on that property. Mancino: But do these homeowners know, I mean I'm assuming that they do. They know that this is a possibility that in the future if they go to subdivide, which I know the homeowners on the corner of Galpin and Lake Lucy will do in the immediate future, that it could present a problem for them, or an additional expense. Hempel: It may create additional grading for whoever, if they decide to build a home in that location. On the side of the slope though like that, it's possible it may be a back yard area. The homesite is not right at the peak of the slope. It's more in the down slope. One of the sites looks like there was an erosion area. Possibly a ravine that's being leveled off with the fill material. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure that the city had gone over that with them and said, this is a possibility. Just so that an educational process has been part of the agreement on both parts so they're aware of it. Scott: Could I see that map? Mancino: I don't want to make a big deal about it. Hempel: A couple of the property owners are here this evening. Maybe they'd like to address that... Farmakes: Is 2 in the Lake Lucy watershed or Lot 3 and 4? Hempel: 4 would be in the Lake Lucy watershed. Or 3, I'm sorry. 2, 3 and 4. Farmakes: That lake has problems. Is this type of transfer of material going to create any problems for that lake? Hempel: No. We intend to revegetate immediately. Farmakes: ...problem? Usually that type of material that close... Hempel: Again, once we start excavating the material to determine what types are actually in there we would.., again, with the weather conditions we have, the freezing and so forth. Farmakes: I know on 3 and 4...home on there. Ledvina: What's the depth of these fill materials to be in place? Do we know? Hempel: I believe we're just going to be spreading it out in a uniform basis. I don't believe it's going to exceed 2 to 3 feet. Ledvina: Okay. So that would reduce the concerns potentially of getting into foundations where you're placing foundations on these soils. Maybe for a walkout you might have that situation but for a standard look out or a basement you wouldn't have a concern then because the footings would be on native soils. Mancino: Would I want the silt in my garden? Ledvina: Yes. I would. I don't need 5,000 yards. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: Dave, my last question for you. When is the date that the event will terminate? That's one of the conditions. Hempel: That does depend on weather conditions. They intend on starting the project at the end of January. Depending on weather conditions, they hope to have it done, I would imagine, within 30 days. Mancino: Okay. So if we put a termination date in our recommendations of. Hempel: I would give it to say July 1st. Ledvina: Do we need that though? Just in case there's some delay. Mancino: Well it says, the standards for interim use permits are as follows and number 4 is the date of the event. Aanenson: We can always come back and ask for an extension if it's a problem. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments from commissioners? This is a public hearing so may I have a, is there anybody here who'd like to speak at the public hearing? Great. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Hm~e~s seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cra,led. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak, please step up and give us your name and your address and we'd like to hear what you have to say. Steve Mironov: My name's Steve Mironov. I own the property right behind Site 2. 6605 Mulberry Circle. I have a couple of questions concerning odor. Since this is done...very clay like material that's going to be coming from this site and what type of problems, or what type of remedy is there if there is an odor problem? And how long before a remedy would be... Scott: Well I don't have a clue. I'd have to. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The odors would be from the decay of materials deposited or the grasses and brush from the initial excavation and the peat or fibrous organic materials. That would subside or be eliminated once it's been revegetated with growth in the 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 spring. I wouldn't envision you'd have any kind of odor smell with snow cover until you'd have the spring meltdown. Steve Mironov: So the time that this is going to be happening this year currently at the end of January? Hempel: That's correct. Steve Mironov: And it would go for 30 days is the initial plan. Hempel: It's our intent to complete the project within 30 days, weather permitting. Steve Mironov: Okay...with the vegetation, how long does that procedure take and would that be started and...if there were odor problems, we'd have to rectify the situation. Hempel: Seeding dates on the project, we could dormant seed it right away after it's been leveled off yet this winter for spring germination or it could also wait, we could wait until the spring growing season which is about late April I believe. Steve Mironov: Okay. What type of revegetation...? Hempel: The seed mixture we use would be the standard MnDot 500 mix which is a mixture of grasses. Fast growing to revegetate the area. Steve Mironov: I'm not familiar with where the excavation material will be coming from but is that sort of like farmland? Is it something that will be tested at all before it goes to this site? Hempel: The excavated area is located right in the Carver Beach. Scott: Can you put that map up? Hempel: Area number 1 there located, Bob if you could point it out. Which is within a residential area. Is a wetland, wooded meadow land. It's not been farmed. It's a typical slew, wetland area. Steve Mironov: ...soil reports laid out. Hempel: If I could ask for, testing for what? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Steve Mironov: Well you know, whatever the normal... Hempel: We do not intend on testing any of it. We're not aware of any kind of buried hazardous material that would be there. If something would be exposed in the excavation, we would be obligated to test the material and notify the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Steve Mironov: Okay. It would at that point then... Hempel: That's correct. Steve Mironov: I've got a, the amount of material that's going to go into that site versus sites 3 and 4, is there any sort of position that's been thought? Is it 1/3 equal between the 3 sites? ...is that the assumption? Hempel: I guess we'd be working with the homeowner at their direction once they received enough material. If they were satisfied. Maybe the homeowners that are here tonight, they can address it... Harberts: But we're understanding that this was on a volunteer basis. Hempel: That's correct. Harberts: They're not made to accept this. Scott: No. Please, continue. Steve Mironov: I was just going to say the existing grade would pretty much...that's going to be a few inches higher. Hempel: It would be a couple feet, couple three feet higher than the existing grade. Steve Mironov: 3 feet higher. And how would that be leveled off towards the back of the property? The existing trees, how would they be affected? Hempel: There's no plans to remove any existing tree vegetation. The fill would be feathered into the existing slopes. Steve Mironov: Is there a way of knowing how far that would go in proportion to that property line? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: The drawings that I have here I guess do not show any filling very close to the property line. Ledvina: Just for a perspective. If you have 5,000 cubic yards and you spread it a foot thick, you've covered 3 acres. So I don't know if that helps. Steve Mironov: Well that helps a little bit but I'm just trying to get a perspective of where... Dave Hempel explained to Mr. Mironov the plan. Steve Mironov: Where would the, and this may be something that the property owners would have to let us know of, is where would the truck traffic be entering the site and where would it be... Hempel: The two access points I believe is Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. One would be off of Powers Boulevard where there's currently access to the site. The other would be from an existing road for access to be provided... Steve Mironov: Okay. The main concern I have was with the odor problem, and I don't know if there's anything that can be done to address that if there's problems. If I, as a homeowner speak to the property owner...where I have to go to voice my concern on that. Scott: I would guess, I'm thinking since the spring winds and summer winds are usually prevailing from the west and southwest, probably a little bit of an advantage there. But I believe that odors are considered to be a pollution, a form of pollution. I don't know, I know we have noise ordinances or nuisances. I would suppose that would fall under our nuisance ordinance which basically covers just about anything. Hopefully, I mean it sounds, at least to me anyways, that the City of Chanhassen is undertaking as much as they can do with grading, reseeding, and then doing the work in the winter time to minimize that. But as a citizen, what I would suggest, is if you have any other questions or if you determine that there is a problem, is just to call these folks. What we found with other residents, and I hope you do too, is that they're very reasonable individuals and they work for you so just keep that in mind. Steve Mironov: I know this is kind of a more of a subjective thing but where would that threshold be where it'd be considered a nuisance? Is this the right place to ask that question? Scott: Well I'm not an attorney. My guess is, at least for me, if it bothers me it's a nuisance. So that seems like a personal call. But hopefully it won't get to that point. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Steve Mironov: Okay, thanks. Scott: Well thank you very much for coming. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir. Please let us know who you are and let us know what's on your mind. Bob Peterson: I'm Bob Peterson. I live near site 2 and Larry, on Kerber, the owner of site 2 is here tonight and I don't know what to ask except that the questions may have been asked. I didn't hear. On site 2 I'd like to know how that filling will relate to the driveway that comes in past the barn house there? If that will throw more drainage towards that driveway. And the depth of the filling area is a curiosity to me. I didn't hear that. Can I get an idea of how much is to be filled so I can take a guess as to how a new drainfield is going to. Hempel: The drainage in all three sites will be maintained as it exists today. Bob Peterson: And what's the purpose for the fill? Just so the city can get rid of the stuff?. Hempel: To get rid of it, and also to accommodate the homeowners to fill in portions of their property to utilize it for potential development. Bob Peterson: So it's an advantage to these homeowners to have their site's filled? Hempel: I'm assuming so or they probably wouldn't allow us to do it. Bob Peterson: Okay. Did you have a map there that you showed the other gentleman? Dave Hempel showed the map to Mr. Peterson. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Yes sir. Larry Kerber: Yeah, I'd just like to make a comment. Scott: Yeah, please step up so we can get you on tape and so the folks at home can see you. Larry Kerber: Yeah, my name's Larry Kerber. I own site 2 and they were getting a little carried away here but I don't know if anybody's figured out how much we're going to raise the grade. If they spread over all the area and gives me a third, it's going to raise the grade maybe 4 inches. If we spread it over the area they've got designated and I get one-third of the fill. So when you're dealing with a 4 acre piece like mine, like he made the comment before, how much it's going to raise and if you divide that by 3 people so you take the 12 and divide that by 3 and you get 4 inches. So as far as the odor thing goes, I've lived here a long 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 time and farmers spread manure all around and nobody did anything with that. I can't see we're going to have an odor problem or any problems with this. That's all the comments I have. Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Yes sir. Bruce Mattson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Mattson. I live at 2020 Crestview Drive. It's north of some of the designated fill areas. A number of years ago, probably 12 to 15 years ago the city made an attempt to fill in a deep swampy ditch area that is adjacent to my property, right next to Galpin Boulevard. It has never been satisfactory and every time it rains, it remains water there for a week or two and although it's not my property, I do believe it's city property and I maintain it by mowing that and it makes it impossible to mow it. I thought this would be a good opportunity for the city to rectify that problem and fill in that additional and put in some black dirt over it and reseed. There's also a drain in place there which is higher than the other wetland where the water sits. The water can go nowhere because of the actual level of the property is lower than the drain that's in place. This just seems to me to be a very good opportunity to rectify that. Scott: Yeah. I think that'd be something that if you wanted to give Dave Hempel a call, because he's with the engineering department, and then he can help coordinate that. I mean if it's something that, if you guys think it makes sense, I mean these are the kinds of things that you know if we're going to have someone working in the area, we could take advantage of that. So I mean we appreciate you bringing that up. You can contact Dave Hempel at the city. Bruce Mattson: Okay, thanks very much. Scott: Sure. Thank you very much for coming by. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Hmbe~s seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Jeff. Farmakes: Support the staff recommendation. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Support the staff. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I do too. I just have one question for Dave. On recommendation number 7 about hours. Instead of saying to dark, because this may happen in the spring and in the summer, or until July 1st. Do you have any problem with saying 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? Or 6:00, regular construction hours. Scott: Our noise ordinance time. Mancino: Yeah. So it's 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Thank you. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: No further comments. Scott: Ladd? Harberts: Zero. Scott: Okay, could I have a motion please? Mancino: Yes. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Interim Use Permit 7/94- 3 as described herewith and shown on the attached figure subject to the following conditions, 1 thru 6 exactly as they are. 7 would read, working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday with no work occurring on holidays. And number 8 being that the termination date of this interim use permit to be July 1, 1995. Scott: Good. Can I have a second please? Farmakes: Second. Ledvina: Friendly amendment? Mancino: Sure. Ledvina: I would add a condition number 9 that the applicant advise property owners regarding the unstable properties of the fill material in relation to building construction. Mancino: Thank you. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Good. Any other friendly amendments? Mancino moved, Fmxnakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #94-3 as described herewith and shown on the attached figures, subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained. . Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to site grading and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the city. . The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District. 4. Since the applicant is the city, all fees associated with the permitting shall be waived. 5. Haul routes will be designed and approved by city staff. . Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The city will be required to keep haul routes clean of dirt and mud, etc. Any damage to streets, curb or other public facilities shall be repaired by the city. . Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, with no work occurring on holidays. 8. A termination date shall be set for July 1, 1995. e The applicant shall advise prope~y owners regarding the unstable properties of the fill material in relation to building construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES $500.00 CASH ESCROW OR LETFER OF CREDIT TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED TO GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN'S EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: I didn't see anything in here, is it part of the development agreement when certain events occur and the city goes in with a crew and puts the fence in and fixes the fence. What's the event? Is this something that maybe John Rask is involved with from a code enforcement standpoint? He visits a site, notices a, b, and c and then a work crew comes out and then the city draws against that letter of credit. Is that, it's not in the ordinance but is that something that those conditions would be in the development agreement? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. Any other? Aanenson: Yeah, let me just clarify that. Actually erosion control involves a lot of city time in the summer. You're aware we had the problem on Kurvers Point where we actually had sod wash into Lotus Lake and into people's garages and actually this eats up a lot of time in the building department. And then they have to go back out to recheck and they are so taxed as far as time and actually they actually use our forester, Jill to go out and inspect. Actually anybody that's out in the field. They're all obligated to, we take it upon ourselves to inspect erosion control. It's a really critical issue in the city when you've got a large subdivision underway and erosion control measures aren't up. And you have to monitor it daily because what happens is, there's constant deliveries onto a site and it's much easier for the person delivering the trusses, the shingles, to back over the erosion control and not put it back up. Then what happens is it tums around and the builder says, well I'm not there. I didn't know the delivery was made so what we're trying to do is, instead of trying to figure out who's problem it is, if the erosion's down, and we need to solve the problem immediately, we've got the money there to just go ahead and fix it. So everybody is involved in erosion control. Anybody that's out in the field takes upon that responsibility. Scott: So you can hire a subcontractor to go in and fix it or whatever you want to do. Aanenson: Yeah. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Is $500.00 enough? Hempel: We believe it is for each individual single family lot. For every permit. Harberts: Oh each family lot. Scott: Yeah, each building permit. Aanenson: It's not each subdivision. Now when you have one builder in an area and we seem to have a better control of it. Where you have a builder-developer. You have a little bit better control because there's a working relationship out there. Where we seem to have more problems is when you have individual builders going in because you lose a little bit of control. Scott: What about a situation where there's, well how many building permits would be issued let's say in a fourplex? One or four. Aanenson: There's four separate building permits but you've got one builder. Scott: Okay. Yeah, I was just thinking if it's a different type of a housing. Okay. Aanenson: Right. And again this goes back to what we're really trying to do, and adjacent to a wetlands is we're trying to preserve equality of the wetlands and our lakes. And when we don't have the erosion control up, it's running into the streets. It's running into the storm system and then we're back into the wetlands and it's very frustrating for the staff to go out there. We have all these conditions when the plat comes in. Everybody feels comfortable that yes, I'm going to do this. And then we're out in the field and it's not happening and we've tried, as Dave indicated, we looked at a lot of different options. We've spent a lot of time with the public safety and said, how do you think is the best way to handle it because we've put the burden on them because they're out in the field more. So we really feel like this gives us the immediate response to go out there and solve the problem. Scott: But is it enough? I mean is $750.00 a better number? $1,000.00. Aanenson: We think $500.00. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: What you're talking about is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Well it's the time. Aanenson: Well the fencing and the haybales and the silt fence. Harberts: But you're just talking materials but are you incorporating the time? Hempel: Well right from the onset the developer and the builder is required to put up erosion control measures. The material's going to be on site. It's going to be up. It's for those times that the delivery truck knocks it down or subcontractor or something like that where it just needs to be replaced or if we go through the winter months here and it's totally obliterated next spring. Aanenson: Or the homeowner, we won't release it until the vegetation has taken place so like Dave indicated, sometimes that happens towards the winter and now you've got the homeowner in there and for some reason they take it down for site reasons, whatever but we need to make sure that the vegetation's established before we allow that to come down so sometimes as Dave said, it has to go through the winter. So maybe the builder's out of the picture. He doesn't want to take responsibility so then it still stays with that homeowner until vegetation's established. Harberts: Does the $500.00 deal with the fact about the developer being responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer? Does that get tied to that as well or is that considered separate? Hempel: We have a separate agreement that covers that. We have a maintenance bond. Aanenson: That's part of the development contract. Harberts: When does that, what is the cost of that? Hempel: For the total cost of the public improvements. Harberts: Oh it is, okay. Mancino: And how come that's a 2 year period? Hempel: We used to do 1 year and the defects would show up 2 years later typically in our clay like soils. Compaction and settlement. Plus the 2 years it takes to build out a subdivision typically is 2 to 3 years. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: So is it 2 years after the subdivision is completed or, when does this start? Hempel: After acceptance of the street which is approximately a year after the utilities are accepted. A year after building permits have been started. Mancino: So do we need to put that in? When it starts. When the 2 year period actually starts. Hempel: That will be incorporated into the development contract. We have that language. Scott: And is there something that's required in an information source so that the homeowner understands that they can't remove the erosion control? Aanenson: Right. That's similar to how we have it right now. There's a letter that they have to sign. Whoever's taking out the building permit, that requires that they sign that they acknowledge that they have to plant at least one tree and that there has to be revegetation of all disturbed areas and they have to sign that letter and post the escrow. What we do then was modify this letter and explain that they also need to maintain the erosion control and how vegetation's established and released by the city. Scott: So the homeowner is going to be. Aanenson: Whoever takes out the building permit. Scott: Which may not be the homeowner in most cases. Aanenson: Right, yeah. Well sometimes the homeowner would still put the escrow up. But again, that's something, again if you have a builder such as Hans Hagen, Lundgren Bros, Centex, throwing any of those names out, they lots of times will put in a large escrow because they're taking out numerous permits and that's fine. They may release it to the homeowner. They may hold onto it themselves but then it's their ownership to make sure you know that it's revegetated so they can get their money back. Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Harberts: I guess my comment is that I think that the $500.00, if that's considered enough, that it should also be able to cover time as well as material, especially in the event that there's a irresponsible developer. So I guess I would like to see that the city have opportunity to collect on some time. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Ledvina: You mean staff time? Harberts: Yes. Nutting: Well you're saying right now that for the most part the materials are likely to be there. It's the time. Aanenson: Right. Nutting: But there are exceptions where materials will be needed because what was there... Conrad: So what's the intent, time and materials? Aanenson: That's what it covers, we believe it covers right now. Conrad: Time and materials? Aanenson: Yes, exactly. But I guess what Diane's saying, she wants to make sure that that's enough and we'll certainly revisit that before it goes to Council and make sure. Mancino: Make sure the developer knows that too. Conrad: Kate is this, excuse me Matt. Go ahead. Is this a significant penalty to a big developer? Is it a lot of money for them to escrow? Aanenson: Well we hear complaints that they think $250.00 is expensive for one tree and that $750.00's expensive for sod. I mean what you're looking at is a total now of $1,200.00. That's a pretty significant amount to put on, when you're coming in for a building permit, just to hold in escrow. Harberts: Per lot. Aanenson: Per lot. That's punitive. That's on top of everything else you've got to pay for when you come to pick up your permit. It's an important issue. I guess we don't want to make it heavy but we feel like this, it puts enough pressure on somebody to make sure that they get it done in a timely manner and that's really what we're trying to get. Is get it done in a timely manner. Scott: If it were working we wouldn't need the ordinance and it's not working. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Exactly. And you know we're really concerned about water quality and our wetland quality and we're having problems out there, especially when we've got these large subdivisions and you get a large segment that doesn't have any vegetation in it. One flash flood and you can have significant. Conrad: Is every house in that development equally liable for this kind of pollution problem? Typically one side of the development is close to the wetland so what we're doing is we've got a $500.00 penalty for every house. And again, I'm playing with the escrow amount. It's a lot of money and I support, I'd increase it $500.00 if I thought we needed it but on the other hand I guess it's a big penalty for a big developer. Aanenson: Yes it is. And the other thing too, even though you're not adjacent to the wetland, if your drainage goes into the street, what you're trying to do, still your front yard could wash into the street which goes into the storm system which eventually ends up somewhere too so. Harberts: We're putting our money where our mouth is. Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Question for Dave. Does this apply to every building permit? Like if I'm building a deck. Mancino: Good question. Scott: Or commercial structure. Ledvina: Because if I'm Matt Ledvina and I'm putting a deck up and I've got a building and I'm not doing any erosion control, I certainly don't want to...another $500.00. Aanenson: Well you've got established vegetation too. Unless you're taking out existing vegetation, the same thing comes up when someone has trees. If they demonstrate, if they've got a wooded lot, we certainly don't take $250.00 because they've already met the criteria for the tree on their lot. So we evaluate that and that is a good point Matt and we certainly could look at if you're disturbing soils or not but that would be a criteria and that may be something we want to look at. Scott: What about a building permit for a commercial structure? Or building an addition or something that's pretty big. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: Those are typically handled with your site plan. Scott: Okay. So this is specifically residential. Okay. Ledvina: So would you add language to the ordinance? Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's a good point Matt. I think we should look at how much disturbing because really what we're trying is to get established vegetation. Now if it's an above grade deck, you probably would have minimal disturbance of vegetation and that may not be necessary so we should probably develop some criteria for that. That's a good point. Scott: Any other comments? Ledvina: On the ordinance, item (c). We're looking at to minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after the completion of the grading operation. That's not enforceable. That's not going to happen. I don't know what the number is but I know that you're not going to have ground cover restored in 5 days. I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but. Mancino: I thought if you seed or whatever it is supposed to be. Ledvina: Can someone expand on that? Because there's weather. There's. Aanenson: Actually we should probably modify that so it's more consistent to what we have in the ordinance right now. We do have something that gives you a window depending on the growing season. If you build within a certain timeframe, then you've got that growing season. If you pull a permit in the fall, you have until the next July to get vegetation so we should modify that so it's consistent with what we have right now for revegetation. Ledvina: You're putting in the incentive that the homeowner would want to revegetate as soon as possible so they can get their escrow released. So what this seems to be, I don't know where it's coming from but I don't know that it's enforceable. Aanenson: That's a good point. Scott: Could I have a motion then. Open the public hearing, I'm sorry. This is a public hearing and is there anyone here for the public hearing on this particular item? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. The public heating was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open. Let the record show that there is no people from the general public here to speak for this item so I would like to have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cmaied. The public heating was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: What? Scott: Would you like to issue a comment about the motion. Mancino: Oh, the upcoming motion. Scott: Comments. Or if you like. Mancino: Oh, oh. No, I'm sorry. I don't have any comments. Scott: Would any of you like to make any comments about this particular item? Farmakes: I support staff recommendation. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please. Conrad: I do have one comment. I would like to see a procedure developed that tells the developers how this works. If you're taking $500.00 out of their pocket, I think you need some kind of staff procedure that says, we will make one phone call or two phone calls and we will take. Aanenson: That's what we do right now with the sod. As they're getting close to that deadline, we send them a letter. We have a...and that's part of what John does and Jill does. Is they go out and inspect as we get close to that window and that's kind of how we handle this. We try to give them an opportunity to rectify it. If we go out there and we notice that it's down, we can certainly develop a procedure that says you need to get this up in 2 days or something. But the problem is, you need to get immediate response. If you tell somebody 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 you need to get a tree in in 30 days, that's not critical...flash flood. But I agree with you. We try not to be immediately punitive. Conrad: Well my point, I'm concerned that we're doing this because it says people aren't responding and we're taking ownership of the problem and we're going to penalize them so if the city's taking the job on, they should jump and I guess this may make them jump but literally if there's an erosion problem, you don't have 24 hours to solve it. I know construction a little bit and I know when a superintendent says, do something. The subcontractor's have to do something right then. So I'm a little bit bothered that we're not getting that response so. Aanenson: That's why we got to this point. Conrad: ...solution, that's okay but we're taking the responsibility away from somebody who should have it and they should be jumping. So I don't know that we have the right solution but if there's a problem out there, this is certainly going to financially take care of it but I guess I'm just assuming they're taking care of it within 24 hours Kate, and I'd be really disappointed. I'd close the job, I'd close it down. Seriously. And I think that's easy for me to say. Aanenson: We looked at that. Scott: It doesn't work though. Aanenson: We looked at citations but what you do when you start kicking in the police powers, it really, you're bringing a lot more people in and you're still not necessarily getting the problem solved. We looked at what is the easiest way, because really our goal is to get the problem solved. We want to stop the erosion. Scott: We have the money and you can do it. Aanenson: Yeah, otherwise they bring in their attorneys and. Conrad: So then the city's taking it over, you know. Scott: We're the people though, the city and the residents are the people that take it in the shorts in the long run with water quality so we might as well fund it and take care of it. Mancino: I agree with that process. There needs to be a standardized process. Scott: Well they'll need to know that here's the deal. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Ledvina: But there's a level of indifference that a contractor will have. If there were no dollars, it's not going to do it. If it's $200.00 they're going to say, well maybe I'll do it. If it's $500.00, they're going to say I'm going to be out there so I can get my $500.00 for the project and he'll do it right away. Scott: It gives them an option. Ledvina: It reinforces his motive to do the job right. Mancino: But I only think not only money but I also think time as we said before. There's only a 24 hour period or 12 hour period. If they don't react, then we move in and that's it. Conrad: I really want that detail and I obviously have different levels of problems so maybe this is a whole gray area but they've got to jump. Scott: We'll send that along to the Council. Aanenson: Yeah, I think what we can do too is when we get that, our form letter that they sign, run that past you so you can see what that procedure is but again, that's why we put the $750.00 in for the seeding because we found out people just weren't seeding. You get a homeowner in and they need drapes, they need this and they wait and wait and wait and unfortunately we had to put, and it is punitive to someone that buys a new home and has $750.00 sitting there. But what we found is, they'll put the seed in or put the sod in and that's really what our goal is. Scott: Can I have a motion please. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the, is this a new ordinance or is this a modification? Okay, amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding erosion control based on the staff report and the discussion that we've been having. Scott: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Scott: Any discussion? Mancino: I just want to make it real clear that not only the financial but the timeliness is as important to me as the financial part. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay. Is there any more discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning O~dinance implementing an erosion control escrow be adopted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Let the record show that the applicant for public hearing item number 3 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (46 UNITS - 13 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5 FOURPLEX BUILDINGS), AND 20UTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECYION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Scott: Let the record show that the applicant for public hearing item number 3, Good Value Homes, Autumn Ridge, is not in attendance. Therefore this item will be noticed for the next Planning Commission meeting? Is that, Kate is that what we'll do with that? Aanenson: I think what we should do is table, make a motion to table it because that other, the agenda for the next meeting's already been published so I think we'd want to table action on this. Scott: Okay, so the appropriate handling of this would be to make a motion to table. Aanenson: Correct. Harberts: Do we want to have some discussion first? I think Matt had some comments and I don't know if. Ledvina: We could do it outside of that, if you want. Aanenson: That'd be fine. Mancino: We do have someone in the audience. I don't know if you want to make comments. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Sure. Sir, would you like us to open up the public hearing. If you have comments you'd like to make for the record, we can certainly do that. Roger Schmidt: Not at all. I was just here for informational purposes. Just a quick question. This is being tabled and will be brought up at another time. Scott: Yes. Roger Schmidt: Will I get a notice of that? Scott: If you're an adjacent property owner. Roger Schmidt: Well I got one for tonight. Scott: Oh great, okay. You'll be noticed again. Aanenson: Well that's what I was going to say. If you table it, we wouldn't automatically renotice. That was the purpose of my telling you because it's already been. The agenda for the next meeting, your next meeting has already been published. Mancino: So it might not be for 2 meetings. Aanenson: No. You can table it until the next meeting so we wouldn't have to notice it in the paper but if you would like us, we could still notice everybody within 500 feet again so they would know but we would make it. Conrad: Maybe you should just get his name. Aanenson: Sure. Scott: You'll get a phone call from the Planning Director. Ledvina: So do you want us to continue or to table it? Roger Schmidt: It's on the sheet. But okay, so what is the schedule? Is it going to be for the next meeting then or? Scott: Will it fit? Mancino: Is the meeting long next time? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Yeah, actually the next few ones are. Yeah actually you've got two subdivisions and a site plan for next time. Conrad: What's our obligation for process? Aanenson: You have until March 2. Generous: Yeah, or April. Beginning of April. Ledvina: But don't they waive some of that with not being present this evening? Or whatever. I don't know. Harberts: Well then why don't we just delete it off the agenda because the applicant isn't here because the applicant isn't here because does the process start there or did the process already... Aanenson: Once they submit, once they have a complete application. Generous: They have the 120 days. However, you have 45 days from opening your public hearing to make a decision. Scott: Well we didn't open the public hearing. Aanenson: He didn't open the public hearing. Yeah, you're just going to motion to table. You never opened it. Harberts: So it's not going to be the next meeting, it's going to be the following meeting. Conrad: Then it will be listed. Aanenson: Exactly. It will be in the paper and there will be notices. Ledvina: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission table Case #93-5 PUD, Autumn Ridge. Harberts: Second. Ledvina moved, Hm'berts seconded that the Planning Commission table Case #93-5 PUD, Autumn Ridge, due to the applicant not being in attendance. All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: Scott: Now last time we were talking about electing Chair and Vice Chair. If you would mind just telling me. I was not around when the interviews were going on. I mean are there candidates for the City Council. Aanenson: On Monday's meeting before the City Council, it's on your Administrative Presentation. The Council made a recommendation to wait until the new person is seated so then they'll probably set up a work session to decide if they want to interview incumbents or just the new people. So that decision hasn't been made yet so. Scott: So we really can't elect a Chair and Vice Chair. Aanenson: You're all on until such time that they make a decision. Harberts: Is there a staff recommendation? Aanenson: No, we don't make a recommendation. So it will be up to what the Council decides. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, would you mind serving? Scott: Not at all. Not at all. I mean I saw what happened to Batzli last time so. So basically about the only thing we can, I suppose we can talk about liaisons. Aanenson: Yeah, we can adopt the By-laws though too. Scott: Okay. Did everybody have a chance to read the By-laws? Conrad: Yeah. Are they new? Aanenson: They're the ones we adopted last year. Conrad: Were they? Scott: I was quite interested to see that Section 7-2, the commission may suspend any of these rules by unanimous vote of the members present. So if Ron and Jeff happen to come and there's not a quorum, they can suspend that rule and still vote. There's a section in here that says a quorum is 4 but. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: I believe it's referred to as the DFL Rule. Scott: Thank you very much. So I mean I thought that was interesting because I was under the assumption that we couldn't do anything. Ledvina: You can't have a vote unless they have a quorum so. Scott: But they can do everything except the vote then. I mean that would be pretty unusual but. Conrad: You can meet but you can't vote. Scott: But I'm saying, if that is a rule, that can be suspended... Mancino: I've got one so I want to talk about that 1.2. Preparing a comprehensive plan for future development amendment. One of the things, are we still talking about, what are we talking about? Scott: We're talking about By-laws. Aanenson: You're kind of required to adopt, review and adopt them every year so since this is the first meeting... Scott: Yeah, at this meeting. You are correct. So has everybody. Mancino: I move that we adopt the present By-laws. Harberts: With the addition that they're made in a gender neutral. Scott: Yes, thank you. Ledvina: That was mentioned last year too. Mancino: And in 2.2-C it says his. Scott: So Chairman will become Chairperson and in it's absence. Mancino: The pronouns, they're all generic or male. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay, can we genersize that. We'll neuter the English language here a little bit. But I think that sets up a point. That's a point well taken and since you're going to be Chairman next year, you'll be a Chairperson. Ledvina: How sacred is the 7:30 meeting time? I'd like to start at 7:00. I mean that doesn't jive with everybody else. What does the Park and Rec do, 7:30? Aanenson: I'm not sure. I can check on that. Scott: Yeah, what do you guys think? Ledvina: I like 7:00. Scott: I could go for that. (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: ...but really, there really shouldn't be dialogue amongst us, and we do it all the time. We have a consensus, we draft our motions together. Now there's some real good things that. come out of that. I think we come up with some decent motions but, and Mr. Chairman this is your call on this so you're the one that either enforces this or relaxes it but I think it's just good to review the rules because'we really don't follow them. And especially (f) and (g). And literally a developer or an applicant can call us for, they could take us to court on those because we are not following the guideline. They won't. Typically they won't do it for this but I just think it's a good thing to note, and Mr. Chairman you're the one that makes it happen or loosens it or tightens it or whatever. Scott: That's why I'm real tight on (g) but then on (f) is the one where we're. Conrad: Again it's control. It really does give you control. Scott: Yeah I think there's a time when we're issuing our comments prior to having a motion where there's some good dialogue but I think if there's someone who is, like someone who's speaking and then there's comments going back and forth and it gets kind of distracted but otherwise I read through this stuff before I started running the meetings and what I, at least my attitude has always been we, there are developers who have been to Planning Commission meetings before so they are always expected to toe the mark and when the public hearing is closed, I mean sure there's plenty of times we've seen it and maybe I was a little bit crass but the public hearing is closed with them. That's it. With members of the general public I've tended to be a little bit more, I'll give them a little bit more leeway because a lot of these 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 people have never been to a thing like this and I'm trying to make the process user friendly. But anyway, the next chairperson needs to review these and interpret them as tightly as they see appropriate. Are there any other comments on the By-laws or any suggestions for their interpretation? Then, let's vote on the motion as amended. All those in favor of accepting the By-laws as amended, signify by saying aye. Mancino moved, Hmbe~s seconded that the Planning Commission approve the By-Laws as amended to make the document gender neutral and to change the meeting times to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 10:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: They're accepted and if you could give me a redrafted copy and then whoever the Chairperson is. Aanenson: Yeah, we'll give everybody a redrafted copy. Scott: And Diane, you've got the meeting on the 9th. Let's see what else. Nutting: Are we supposed to receive the full packet or just the agenda? Aanenson: Whoever is the liaison should get the full packet. It's been going to the Chairman but really what it should do is it should go to the liaison. And for some reason that got screwed up but at the first of the year we will change that. The Chairman should get a copy of the agenda but the person going to the meeting should be the one that has the reports. Ledvina: They put me on the spot and I didn't have a copy of the stuff and I didn't remember exactly what transpired. It was a very convoluted motion that was made, as sometimes occurs, and yeah. I didn't have the stuff to review and I felt like a dope. Here I'm standing up there and no, that wasn't what you said. That's not what it was like so I really, if I'm going to be at a Council meeting, I want to have the stuff. Scott: And I think we'd all agree that we want to rotate. Aanenson: Yeah, I put a list back. If you have a problem with that meeting, we'll post this list so the secretary doing the City Council agenda gets the agenda to the right person but if you do have a problem making that, if you'll let us know before the packet goes out, we'll make sure that we can get it to somebody else. Scott: That idea of not having a Planning Commission meeting around the 4th of July, like holidays, is a great idea because that's the only one I miss. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Let's just eliminate it. Aanenson: Right, well that's what my question was. Because I think it'd be very difficult with the next day being the 4th to get, or the day before getting a quorum so. Farmakes: I have a question. We've discussed in the past of making...some of the time consuming things that take place. One of them that seems to be reoccurring, if there's a disagreement with staff in the report and developers coming in and going down 30 points of order and get into a 2 hour...at the same time they're to cut compromise in a specific point made by staff. I would prefer that if they have to deal with...that you as the Chair to cut them off. Ask them to deal with that compromise and allow staff to respond in our packet rather than in an open meeting as to what they can live with, what they can't live with. The reason being is we're not able to get staff's input often in that forum. Aanenson: That's our objective... Scott: And then when documents are presented at the meeting. And I think that that's something that if they're presented to you, I mean you guys can, and should say well if you'd like these to be included in the packet then we'll just move your item back to the next available spot. If this is not important, then we won't talk about it. Aanenson: And it's happened too when we haven't gotten information and you have and I think that's, it's hard for us to always interrupt but we feel really comfortable if you stop the meeting and ask us, have you seen a copy. Do you have comments? I mean that's what we're here for and if we say no. We'd like to have time to review this, then I think as Jeff indicated, that maybe you say we need to table it to resolve it. Scott: Or if something comes up, because it's very easy for me or someone else to assume that maybe you have the information. So also too, if you see something happening then say excuse me, we don't have that information. We would like you to consider tabling this item so that we can work with the applicant and I'm sure we would go, oh. Okay great, let's do it. Mancino: Well and there's a third party involved in this. Not only the applicant and us but there is also the concerned citizens who may live adjacent to the property and they've done, looked through and done all their work preparing for it and then all of a sudden the applicant comes with new information and that is very premeditated and it happens all the time. And then the concerned homeowners, landowners don't have that knowledge and so they can't come prepared. So it's not only us. It's not only staff. It's also our neighbors. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: I think if we hold to our guns on that, it happens over and over again with a few developers and I think the problem... Mancino: Well it's certainly a strategy that is used. Aanenson: Yes. So does everybody understand about the binders? That was one of the other issues on this one. Scott: Oh yes. Good idea. Aanenson: I don't know if you were here during that part Jeff but you just leave your binders here and then we'll refill them. Now if you miss a meeting, if you want to drop the binder off, fine. If you can't get it, if you're out of town for a week or something and you can't drop the binder off, we'll just go ahead and send the packet without the binder and you can just put it in. We hope this is a little bit, we won't put the staples in next time so it's a little bit easier. I know the suggestion about the tabs, we'll try to do that too, so I hope that's a helpful way for you. Mancino: So if we want to take something, like the reports on transition, we should take that out tonight? Aanenson: Yep. Take it out tonight and then just leave the binder here. Anything you want to take is your's. Go ahead. Scott: Okay, any other organizational items that we need to speak about? Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Nutting: Joe, on page 46. It indicates that you and Ladd opposed the motion and it carried 4 to 2. I recall that I opposed the motion. I question whether it was really 4 to 3 here or were you in favor of that motion. I opposed it. I guess that's. Scott: I didn't oppose the motion so. Aanenson: Right, it was the other way around. Scott: So it should be Nutting and Conrad. So thank you. So let the Planning Commission meeting Minutes dated December 7, 1994, page 46 in the Harberts motion with that change to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Nutting who opposed the motion along with Conrad and Scott voted in favor of the motion. Thank you. Any other comments? Harberts: I would feel more comfortable Joe noting the Minutes rather than approving the Minutes. I don't read them that thoroughly in terms of catching everything and what I'm afraid of is because it's public record, that someone might be able to come back and say well see. It was approved. The Minutes were approved versus if it was noted. That's just my comment. Scott: Well I know that's not something that's dealt with in our By-laws. Aanenson: We can get a clarification on that. Scott: Sure. What does approval constitute. Aanenson: Yeah, what the legal implication is. Harberts: Yeah, that's just it. Scott: Well then we will say that they're here. Ledvina: Or you can abstain. Harberts: Well and I will but it's on all the Minutes because I, as part of my daily job I have to, we count on the Minutes as public record and position. And I have to make sure that they are correct so that's why I'm just uncomfortable. It's just a comment. Nutting: I didn't read everything. I just skimmed it. Ledvina: Well no, I mean if you go through the motions and make sure that the motions are right anyway. Mancino: But you can sometimes though, with public record like that, in terms of what the intent was during the discussion. I mean we've moved state laws. Changed them because of the intent of committee hearings that happened 10 years ago. Ledvina: Well there a lot of things that are missed in the Minutes too so then if you get into that. 54 Planning Commission Meeting- January 4, 1995 Conrad: We used to spend hours on that kind of stuff then we went to noting them. No lie. But I guess it would be nice to hear back what the legal implications are. I think I agree with Diane but I don't know why. Harberts: Well I'm just looking at my procedures and...so you have a motion on the floor. Nutting moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 1994 as amended on page 7 changing the vote to Nutting who opposed instead of Scott. All voted in favor, except Hm'berts who abstained, and the motion carded. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Okay, this goes back to the last meeting on December 12th. They approved a metes and bounds subdivision on Orchard Lane, which is adjacent to Highway 7 Minnewashta Park area. A one lot split. They reviewed the concept plan for Tower Heights and they concurred with the Planning Commission and continue with litigation and not consider the proposal. They also approved the Delwiche Addition, which you reviewed, on Pipewood Curve. A portion of the lot was in Victoria and a one lot split. And then they recommended approval of the sign ordinance so that was exciting. Ledvina: Much kudos to the Planning Commission and the Chamber for all the work that was done. Aanenson: Yes. The Council really appreciated all the work, because you guys did spend a lot of time. And I appreciate it. Staff, we all appreciated the extra work that you did and spending the time. There were just a couple of comments of clarification that we made so they'll be after the second meeting on the 9th and then once it's published, we have the new sign ordinance in place so that's pretty exciting. Scott: Okay. And then the goals and ongoing issue. Aanenson: Yeah, I had some ongoing issues I just wanted to run past you. In the previous packets I'd kind of gotten away this, what we had put in the back of the agenda ongoing issues just to kind of give you what the issues are and where the updates so we're going to go back to that. Now that we're at the end of the year and we've kind of laid out, if you remember back in October, I believe I wasn't here that week and the meeting went very late. I had put out in a memo to you and I don't think you got to it. I hope you had a chance to read it. Some of the projects I had proposed as part of the budgetary for the City Council so what I've done here is kind of outline those for you and kind of tell you where we're at but this is kind of what I see as kind of the big work schedule that we'll be undertaking on the 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Highway 5. Those of you that weren't here at 6:30 we do have the EA hearing set for the January 23rd City Council meeting so we'll finally get the determination on whether the road goes to north or south. After that determination, then we'll go through and look at the land use recommendations and start that process. So that will be kind of the early part of the year we'll be working on that. We are undertaking the 1995 study area. The northern, or the portion adjacent to Highway 5 we've kind of already looked at. The alternatives based on the road alternative but we committed to do the business fringe district. What that really means is what's left, you've got Halla. There isn't a lot inbetween so really what we're looking at is the rest of the city. What we're doing is putting it in, in conjunction with what the Park and Recreation Commission is looking at and they're trying to block out some areas that are natural resources. Some park areas that they want to preserve before we even look at development issues so that will be kind of the first component. But what we'll be doing then is how we see this being laid out. The framework will be to look at what the possible land uses should be and then consider MUSA. So that's really a two prong thing. We don't anticipate bringing any areas into the MUSA this year. What we really are looking at is looking at potential land uses and get some recommendations and then have the neighborhood hearing process and then go through the Met Council. So that could be a 2 to 3 year process. Harberts: But when you talk about bringing it into the city MUSA line, what you're doing is asking the Met Council to expand the MUSA area. Aanenson: Absolutely. But what they're saying, we're not looking at for at least a year, to 2, 3 years down the road. So we've got plenty of development issues. Plenty of things we need to get controls on first. And then one of the other things we're looking at is the slope protection ordinance. We've turned this over to the City Attorney's office. We've given them some research. They're doing some additional research and we hope to have an ordinance on that shortly. Come back with that. Ledvina: In addition to the bluff ordinance? Aanenson: Yes. What we found with the Ryan plat is that there are areas that have unique topography that really don't fall within the bluff protection area and is there another way that we can define slope or preservation of natural features that has some definitive terms instead of just saying natural features. Define further between bluff and slope and that sort of thing. We may find that may not work but what we're trying to do is put an ordinance forward and kind of see how it flies. Again we're out there where there isn't a lot of other cities that have something like this so we're kind of, again we're kind of out ahead of everybody but we've got some creative ideas and we'll just have to test the waters and see how they work. Kind of what we do with the tree ordinance. We kind of came with 2 or 3 different models and actually I think we've got something that's pretty unique and pretty workable. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: You know what would really be helpful too is then to say, okay this is the new slope section of the bluff ordinance. This piece of property right here on the comer of such and such, here's the thing and then we can say, oh. We can see like a physical. That's one of the things I didn't do with the bluff one and I had a little big of trouble understanding... Aanenson: Right, I think with this we're going to have to do some diagrams because what's going to happen is we have some dialogue and applications on how that's going to work, absolutely. Scott: Yeah. And then just apply it to a piece of property that has something we want to preserve... Aanenson: Right, that's kind of testing the waters. You'll have to apply it. Scott: Then we'll have a test case, okay. Aanenson: So one of the things we were looking at as far as that goes is, I found an article where they did for scenic easements along highways and what they said is, you put a density factor in and they're based on slopes. So what you're doing is kind of to stay away from the slope, you' force the density into a different category. Again it gets us back to making larger lots. So you may not be able to say x slope. That may not work but you may come in in a different direction and say when you have slopes on there, then you need to do a PUD or you need to do larger lots. Yeah, density transfer. So it may end up to be something like that so we're kind of coming at it with a couple different approaches and we'll just have to work through it like we did the sign ordinance and say does this make sense. What happens if we do this. Scott: Which kind of comes back to something you and I have discussed is what, we need to do two things. We need to gain control so that we can have control of the way the building's going to look. The way the architectural standards and so forth. But then again, in order to gain that control, what we need to do is we need to offer the developer more flexibility so that it's more of a negotiation. Which kind of brings me to the point of making more use of the PUD because if you make more use of the PUD, bluffs can be taken care of and slopes and building materials and so forth. Aanenson: Which brings us up to the next one and Bob and I have had problems with the PUD ordinance. As you know we haven't used it too much since I've been Director and the problem is, when we did the Bluff Creek study, it became very apparent that everything that we're doing to the PUD ordinance were required anyway. I mean we're saying we're getting tree preservation. Well we require tree preservation anyway. Well we're getting slope 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 preservation. Well we require that anyway. So what we're saying is we need to revisit the PUD ordinance and say it should be a process. Okay. It shouldn't be a zone. We already have the zoning in place and the standards in place but what it is is a process. So you really are getting higher quality because we're not right now. All we're doing is giving them different lot sizes. I'm not sure we're getting anything for it. Mancino: We're giving them variances. Aanenson: Exactly. That's what we're giving them and we're not getting anything that we wouldn't require in a normal subdivision process so I've been uncomfortable. Scott: Because then once again that kind of defeats the purpose of planning. If you're micro managing lots, you're not looking at, not only are you not looking at the development as a whole but then when you're focusing on lots, it's also you kind of forget. Well what about these people who live on the other side of the property line. Aanenson: The only thing we are getting in some projects is architectural control. But under a standard subdivision, we don't normally look at architectural control because each, generally each home is different in a normal subdivision. Each homeowner picks a different type design. Now we know that we do have projects that come in and they're all the same. You may have a townhouse project or some other duplex type where they are similar. But you can't, you know we want to change that process so Bob and I have some good approaches to that so we'll be working on that right away too. Mancino: Actually I thought that some of the material that you gave us for the transition was very good about open space and PUD's and in multi-family areas, etc. Aanenson: We're giving them the variances but we're not requiring the open space and shame on us for not doing that. Mancino: Kate, when did the bluff ordinance pass City Council? Did it? Aanenson: Oh yeah. But that's only 25%. But what I'm saying is there are areas that don't meet that but they're still maybe unique. Mancino: And the new slope ordinance would be retroactive for all preliminary plats? Aanenson: Well we're hoping to get it, again because there isn't a lot of literature out there, it's kind of hard to try and draft one because we're out there kind of by ourselves so we'll try to get something right away. The next thing we'll be working on is the Bluff Creek study. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Diane is going to the City Council on Monday to, we're going to take some of our seed money, it's a small amount from the storm water plan and we're going to leverage the Watershed District, the DNR and Met Council to get some additional money and we're hoping to get someone hired. They may not be working in this building but they would be working on the study. And again it ties into the natural features. Kind of what we did with the Bill Morrish study. Trying to enhance the quality of the wetlands. So we think that's going to be at least a 1 to 2 year project too. And then the last thing is a joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. As you know they're going forward trying to do, looking at a bond referendum to acquire properties and this also ties into what we're looking at as far as future land uses outside the MUSA. So as soon as you would like to meet, they do have a meeting, a town meeting on kind of the park issues set for February 7th. But I think it'd be a good opportunity for the Park and the Planning Commission to meet to kind of get a common basis of issues that they're looking at. As I indicated earlier, Todd's really been doing a great job as far as trying to acquire natural features on some of the projects that we've had in. Heritage most recently. Treed areas there. Ledvina: What... Aanenson: That goes to the Council on Monday. We thought we had concurrence with the developer but now it looks like we may not. I guess we'll find out Monday night. We want the 3 acres. They want, it's the amount of compensation too I think. I think that's kind of what's coming down is how much they compensate us. So hopefully we'll get something. But anyway, if you want to pick a date. If you want to come to one of their regular meetings or if you're flexible, I'll try to work something out with Todd. Let him know for the next Planning Commission meeting. Nutting: When do they normally meet? Aanenson: I believe, fourth Tuesday. Scott: Yeah, I think since we're kind of visiting, maybe we should piggyback on one of their meetings. Aanenson: That would be the 24th. Scott: Of?. Aanenson: January. Harberts: Is it the 24th or 26th? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: It'd be the 24th. Harberts: I have a commission meeting so I won't be here. Aanenson: We'll try to shoot for the 24th and then if that changes, I'll let you know. We'll try to maybe get this taken care of at the beginning of the agenda. I'm not sure what other action... Harberts: Doesn't HRA meet that day too? Aanenson: No... Ledvina: Third Thursday. Scott: Speaking of the HRA, what sort of headway has been made on the facelift for the Filly's and the bowling upgrade and Chez Pauly's and all that 'stuff?. Aanenson: I think they're kind of revisiting the facade issue and they may go with something different. So if they do that, they'll be back before you certainly. Harberts: I have a couple of comments too Kate, on your priority with Council. What is the position of the Council with regard to some regional issues as it deals with clustering more density in terms of development and also affordable housing? Aanenson: There's a lot of ongoing issues that I didn't put in here and that's our relationship with you know Southwest Metro. There's our relationship with the Southwest Coalition. Affordable housing. Senior housing. I didn't put all those issues. These are kind of specific, kind of comprehensive plan issues. If you want me to put those in there, but I didn't address all of those but there are a lot of other ongoing issues. We also still are actively involved in environmental issues as far as working with the county on, I was working on the collective waste. Generous: Organized collection. Aanenson: Organized collection. And what we're doing with hazardous waste and those sorts of things. So those are kind of ongoing things that we do. But I guess what this really was more kind of comprehensive plan sort of issues. But affordable housing may fall into that. We are working on that. The City Manager and myself have met with, and we're trying to get some projects going on that so. And the senior housing project, as you're aware, we're trying to, you'll see that project. Not the project itself but the density transfer will be on your 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 next Planning Commission meeting. On the Oak Hills/Oak Ponds. As you recall, the property adjacent to Saddlebrook was the rental property. What they're going to do now is change the density allocation and come in with all owner/occupied and they're going to reduce the density on that. Do the density transfer over to 70 units for the senior housing. So we'll have the same number of units. It will just be transferred to the senior housing and then lowered on the other side. Scott: And it's like a multi, you're saying like a 3 stow. Aanenson: Yes. So you won't be doing the site plan review but you'll be looking at the density transfer and site plan review only on the townhouse project. Scott: Okay. When is the neighborhood meeting...that's going to be. Talk about yelling and screaming. Aanenson: Yes. What we're trying to do with that then is, obviously the density transfer is going to, we'll know whether or not the senior, if they don't want to approve the density transfer, and the Council doesn't approve it, then it pretty much kills the senior housing project. Scott: Why did that change? I mean I don't know where I read this or head it but was there some sort of a financial difficulty in putting the deal together for that property as it was proposed? Because that's a pretty radical change from what the neighbors were sold across the pond. From maybe 1 or 2 stow single family or rental property to a 3 stow. Aanenson: Well actually it's going to sit up quite a bit higher and then that's part of the issue is to work out a design acceptable with the neighbors so that's part of the process that, while we're not doing the site plan. We're not at that point yet. That's when you bring the neighbors and try to look at, maybe you step the building back or try to reduce the scale through a design. Scott: Who's the applicant going to be on that, City of Chanhassen? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Well I would be really careful about not falling into the same mode of operation as some of our friendly developers are when they're kind of, I mean you're going to have to get the neighbors involved right away. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Well that's part of the reasons why for next week, if you're transferring the density and if the density, and we're approving that for 70 units of senior housing. Now if that's unacceptable when it goes through this process and the City Council, then we don't transfer the density and it stays the way it is currently. Scott: Well as long as it's an early, early public hearing. Aanenson: The neighbors we had a meeting a couple of months ago and the neighbors were informed and invited to that to hear a presentation about the senior housing project to get some ideas. Scott: How was it attended? Aanenson: Very well attended and they have legitimate concerns about the scale and that's why we're saying we're going to meet with them to review and try to work closely with the neighbors. Mancino: A question. I'm not sure I could make a decision on density transfer without seeing the site plan. Aanenson: We do have some typical models and I guess we can show those in part and parcel. Harberts: I'd like to be involved from Southwest Metro's perspective because transit's going to be a big element for that and with our new buses, we need to make sure that we've got enough. Aanenson: We can talk about that at a cursory level. Just kind of show you what we're looking at as far as that. And there is a scaled model that we do have here and try to give you an idea of what it could look like. That's certainly again a legitimate issue. We're not ready to go forward with the specific model yet but if you're uncomfortable that may be an issue that you want to see them both together. He's ready to go with the rest of the project and the other one, the senior housing one is not quite at the same stage so I understand what your concern is. Conrad: Vision 2002. In terms of our plans. Is there any implications for us this year? Aanenson: Implementing any of that? Conrad: Yeah. Taking what is decided and. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Did you all get a copy of the results of that? Scott: The survey? Aanenson: The survey. Mancino: I did because I was at the meeting. Scott: I could talk about that for a while. I'm not a marketing research expert but I know enough about it that I would, I don't think I'm going to be too far out of line saying that was pretty bogus. The way the questions were asked and the whole thing that was the most bogus thing about it was, would you approve this. Yeah. If you have to pay for it. No. And then that was misinterpreted. Misrepresented and the Villager was the worst. So I mean that was, I was very upset about that. And I think from the giggles of the other folks who have experience in the advertising biz, I don't think I'm. Conrad: Well what's the process? I guess I'm real curious about the process. It's been done. It's been paid for. Aanenson: You know it's outside of kind of our arena. It was really done through administration so I'll find out if there's some implementation things that we need to look at. There was some land use recommendations on it... Conrad: And I may disagree with some of the things that came out in the study but that doesn't matter. I think the issue is, are there anything that we should lay the ground work for right now. And to make sure it happens. I don't know who's going to make sure things happen. Aanenson: Well Ladd maybe the best thing to do is just have Fred come and just do the whole summary presentation of what. Conrad: That's a real good idea. Let's bring him in. Aanenson: And kind of the conclusions that he had and where we're going. Conrad: Without harassing him. Just hear what he's got to say. Mancino: ...for everybody to look at the survey questions and see the information because we need to do quantitative research. The whole thing is.built on the survey questions. On how they're asked, etc. Whether they lead. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Is there a plan for a community center too? Aanenson: Is there a zoning? Harberts: Is there any planning being done for a community center? Aanenson: Yes. That was one of the recommendations of the Vision 2002. Harberts: But is the planning being done now? I know it was a recommendation but there was a comment made once that was of interest to me by a Council member that said that the community center would be done by next April or something like that. And I just thought whoa, what? Aanenson: No. Not to my knowledge. Harberts: They don't have any funding in terms of, they'd have to go for a bond referendum or something like that. Farmakes: Somebody take this stake out again. Harberts: I don't know, this is just what I heard. Aanenson: No, there was a provision for that as a land use in the plan. Harberts: But there isn't any active planning. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge, no. Harberts: Or financing the HRA or anybody. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Ledvina: What about the project to rehab the bowling with the... Aanenson: That's the one. It's my understanding, the status of that is they're rethinking the facade and they may go with something completely different so honestly I have no idea until I see it again. We only looked at it as a conceptual thing. It has no standing so. Farmakes: I heard from our State Representative and our State Senator that the issue of affordable housing will be a contentious issue as the legislative session gets started here. Is it 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 the intention of the city to continue developing their own attitude towards that exclusive of the... It's rather baffling to me as you look at the subject matter, it doesn't seem, as I said that you can find a solution to the problem until you define the problem. It seems like there's several definitions for this problem depending on who you talk to... Mancino: Well there's no question that we went to the, was it low income housing seminar that the Metropolitan Council. When we go in 1995 or 1996 to extend the MUSA line, no question. They're going to come back and the Met Council, the speaker said in no unquestionable terms. Now, one of the things for us to look at, as the city wants to expand the TIF districts. Looking at those districts right away and seeing if those will hold affordable housing because that's the only way it could be done right now. Harberts: But TIF dollars, can they be done for affordable housing? I thought TIF dollars... Mancino: That's what they did in Edina. Edenborough Park, etc. Harberts: But those are all TIF. Scott: There was actually some private and public monies and then there's a real unusual kind of a sale, lease back. Yeah so I mean it's a hybrid but that's about the only way that's going to be done. Aanenson: But that is something certainly that's on our work load and we are looking at it so we are working with some people and trying to come forward with some sites. And even private developers to try and give them some incentive to try something creative. Harberts: Well when I think though what's to our advantage is that there isn't a clear cut definition on what affordable housing is so it would be real easy for us to define it in our own terms rather than wait for somebody... Aanenson: Well what the Met Council is trying to look at is they're trying to call it life cycle housing is really what they're looking at. And that's part of the senior housing. We do have a demand for senior housing here. So you'd have entry level housing. You have upscale housing. So that's kind of what the term that they're using now...correct term is life cycle housing. And what they're looking at when you come in for the MUSA line is that you demonstrate you have that life cycle housing. The rental. When you're first out of school or your first job and then you move your way up. Harberts: Can we annex Carver or something and mitigate out there? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: One of the things that it seems to me that we're seeing is sort of the direction that's very similar to the group home situation. And it will, I see that as how it's being engineered by some people in St. Paul. I am wondering how much the residents of the city are going to be involved in the process. Aanenson: Well you have to realize too, we already have something in our comp plan that says, we have a goal to provide a mix and varied housing. We've already adopted that and that was. Farmakes: We had to...mixed affordable housing is. Aanenson: Well I think it's defined in the code. I think the problem is we always look the other way. As it was indicated, you know we have all these densities. We've had high density in the city for a number of years. It just so happens that financially it's difficult to come in with that density. For whatever. To get mortgages, for the tax implications and those sort of things. We can't affect the market. I mean if the market's not there, if the zoning's there, there's nothing we can do I mean to make a developer come in and try to make a profit if it's not there. But we do have a goal to try to provide that and what we've seen, when someone comes in at the zoning, it seems like unless we beat them up and make them drop a few and come under, then we're not happy. Because every project that we've had come in is always under the density. And maybe that's good, if it's for environmental reasons, whatever. I don't know. Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. But even on Lake Susan, that was always. That was a PUD. When that was thought of back in 1987, there was some thought that along this collector where it was topographically separated from the rest, that this may be an appropriate area to have some higher densities. Now when they came in, they were way under what we originally thought back in 1987 and we still had to beat them up a little bit to drop some things. Yeah, we got a good quality design but they could have been a different type of product and they still would have met the density requirements. Farmakes: But if you're dealing with issues real estate stability, which is one thing that's market driven. And it depends on market conditions. And you're dealing with another issue of social engineering and politics, which is a different goal altogether. You're going to get certainly in two different directions. Scott: There's also an interesting development that's going on in Eagan where someone, a developer wanted to put in some affordable housing and the Eagan Planning Commission nixed it and then Dakota County is in the process of suing. Aanenson: No, Dakota County HRA was the developer. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay. And then now the county is suing the city to build the, so I mean our politics perhaps are a little bit different in this county but I think that does underscore the, I mean we are way out in front on a lot of other areas. Harberts: But affordable housing doesn't necessarily mean clustering low income in terms of however you want to. I think there's different processes or procedures or opportunities in terms of how you reach the goal. Aanenson: Well this is something, Nancy brought this up a long time ago and we still need to see this somewhere in the city, is that we have small lots and that's again going back to our PUD. We all got hung up on this 11,000. We can't have anybody on a lot less than 11,000 or something terrible's going to happen but why can't we have single family detached on small lots somewhere in the city that are affordable? I think there's appropriate places. Harberts: And it could be intertwined with larger lots. Aanenson: And a PUD with cluster development. Scott: Because see that's the thing I like about a PUD is that first of all, anytime you're doing something that is anti-market, you're asking for trouble. The great thing about a PUD is that you can say okay, here's a mix of housing Mr. or Ms. Developer. We'll give you extra density over here... Aanenson: But the standards we applied didn't work because we said they have to average 15 and you can't go less than 11. Well what we end up with, we end up with the same vanilla subdivision where we allowed some of the lots and we didn't get anything for it. So that's what we're saying under the PUD. I think we need to go back and revisit that so we can be a little bit more creative and get something because I think there is some great sites to do some small lots. Single family detached housing. Affordable housing. Conrad: We should explore that. Smaller lot is the solution? I don't think that's the solution. Scott: Zero lot line. Conrad: That's part of our economic deal but boy, that's certainly a long way from affordable housing. Aanenson: But you have to make sure that you get affordable housing. What happens sometimes is you get someone that puts a huge house on a small lot. Well that's what happens with the 11,000. We're not getting, we're getting big homes on those small lots. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Conrad: Good subject. We should lead the way before somebody tells us what to do and it probably should be down here. Another thing, and I don't know. We should talk about this sometime but I think Byerly's made Chanhassen almost a destination and I've heard this from a lot of people outside the area. It's sort of a, I'm just laying this out there. I don't know what I want to do with it but I think it is going to change the demand for retail space in Chanhassen. I guess it's just interesting to think about. Are we going to be taxed? Do we have the space? Are we comfortable with what we've allocated to downtown? Are we comfortable with what's going to be built across Highway 5? I don't really have an agenda on this one. I don't really have a yea or nay. Aanenson: I think that's why we have to go back and look at the 2002 because that's one thing, and whether or not it's biased but that was one thing that came out is that people liked about Chanhassen is the concentrated downtown, and I think that's one thing that's unique. Conrad: I'm just hearing such great reviews of Chanhassen. Another thing. The train was here for that weekend deal. Any interest? Anybody pursuing them to continue that type? Aanenson: We said that they could do it 4 times a year. They're kind of testing the waters themselves. We would like it. Conrad: Can we encourage them? Farmakes: We've got a depot. Aanenson: Well that's the other thing is we would like to... Conrad: That's kind of neat. Aanenson: We've talked to them about that. That's certainly something we'd like to see too. Work with them on that. Conrad: Is that a planning issue? Aanenson: Sure. Conrad: Can you put that on an agenda just to trigger some. Aanenson: And maybe it's something we meet with the HRA and get them involved. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: We're looking at it. We're looking at that tracks as a way to get people downtown. We are. Scott: Well, is there anything else? Mancino: What are we going to do with transition, that we met about earlier tonight? Where do we go from here? Aanenson: Well if you'd like, we can come back with some recommendations for implementation of some of the ideas. If you want to give us some more direction. I think what, at this point I think our conclusion is that we have a transition zone requirement. What we need is better standards within that so I think we'd like to come back and say, the landscaping or buffering standards, what those should be. So right now I think they're pretty loose. So we'll take that packet and if you want us to add anything more to that. Mancino: I would support that. Scott: Yeah, that's something and then if we can get a definition of what affordable housing is, I think we need to have a work session on talking about that too. I get the feeling the only reason we're not out in front in affordable housing is that we all understand tree canopy, bluffs, you know but we don't know what. But I think once we put the stake in the ground and say this is what affordable housing is, I think we can work session something and get out in front because it's going to be ugly. It's going to be real ugly. Farmakes: I think what makes it ugly is how it's being discussed as an economic...and it tums out to be like the other developments in the past, not only other cities but Minneapolis itself, it certainly isn't going to be very palatable here. The objectives in the private sector are certainly being utilized much better to achieve that. Scott: And I don't think we need any unfunded mandates either, which is basically what we're going to have, anyway. Hm~e~s moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion cmxied. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 69