The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1994 05 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Matt Ledvina and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino, leff F~ and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner H; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempek Asst. City Engineer LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATF. D AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any additional comments or questions for staff? Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission on Minnewashta Landings landscaping? Hearing none, would the applicant like to msire any presentation at this time? Ken Durr: Not unless... Sco~ It's totally up to you. Okay, if we have some questions, we'll ask. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to ~en the public hearing. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Are there any members of the general public who would lille to speak about the Minnewashta Landings project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Comments. Ladd? Conrad: None. Scott: Matt? Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvinm I think it's fine. Scorn I agree. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Conunism'on recommend approval of the landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition on one conifer in plac~ of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commi~ioll recommend approval of the landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition of one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block L AH voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT FOR A SIGN PLAN REVIEW FOR ABRA AND GOODYEAR LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY $ AT 40 AND 50 LAK~. DRIVE EAST. Public Present: Name Addre~_~ ~oe Harding Tom Kotsonas 530 West 79th Street 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments from Planning Commissioners. Can I have a motion to, or excuse me. Does the applicant wi~h to. Joe Harding: Yes please. Scott: Please stat~ your name and your address. Joe Harding: My name is Joe Harding. I'm with Dolphin Development, a co~on company and our address is 530 West 79th Street here in Chanhassen. We've been there about 13 years now. We have been working with the staff on thi~..so they sent me to idncl Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 of represent the...That is rather than have someone here from Goodyear and someone here from Abra and their respective sign companies, they said why don't you go anti...we've been working with the staff for some time on these signs and there's only one exception to, a little bit of a surprise to me which I saw in the stuff report, and that was a tn~k pedestal for the directional signs. We agree to ev~g else and then in your recommen~fions that the staff has made, I believe it's number 8. It reads that brick shall be used to cover the metal holes. It is not our intent to use brick for the bases for the...and in Chanhassen there's not been a whole lot of precedent for these directional signs~ In fact there's not many around. The closest example I could give you is about a stone's throw from here over at Chanhassen Bank. What they have and what they've done is the same thing we intend to do. Is use the same metal that you sec in the buildings. That is anodi,ed bronze rnctal for both the sign framing and for the posts. These signs, as with thc bank, are functional They do their job. Their primary purpose is to direct people and they're trying not to make an architcctm~ statcrncnt, Wc also think that because each one of these 3 si~, thc small directional now, arc in a landscaped nrea to start with, that by putting a 16 inch square, anti_ that's how big it would be for the pedestaL.Jdnd of a look out place coming out of the landscaping area. SO I'm here tonight on that issue alone. The rest of the reco~tions I agree with stuff on and will ask for your consideration in allowing us to go ahead and do these directional signs with a metal anodi,ed post, A bronze anodized. The same that's predominate in both the Abra and the Goodyear buildings. That is in their ernollients. In their standing seam metal and their capping work you have cappings on the tops of buildings..And if there's any questions, I'H be happy to answer them to the best... Scott: Good, any questions for the applicant? Okay, good. Thank you. Sust a question for staff. Is that, the brick around the base, is that a requirement from the new sign ordinance or? Al-Iaff: The conditional use permit, we want~l the signage to remain consis~nt throughout the site. It was something that was brought up with other plans that have been before you recently and we just felt it was the direction you wanted us to move in. Sco~ Okay, good. Nutting: Have we looked at directional si~ or is it really more the monument si~,n~ that we've been looking at? Sc, om Well I know that we came afire' the Planning Commission saw this so that's why I'm kind of, conditional use automotive in a business highway? Al-la_fi: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay. Ledvina: Well excuse me Mr. Chair. Just a question for the applicant. Do you intend to provide any landscaping around these si~s? Joe Harding: Sharmin, would you put it back up there. Joe Harding: Yes, they are in landscaped m. In the case of the Goodyear, only one sign. None of these by the way are illuminat~l. They're only one sided. Ledvinm Okay. These are not illnminn_tx~[. Joe Harding: Not illuminated. Ledvina: Okay. Because let me clarify that ~ on the drawings that I have, they do indicate that they are illuminated. Joe Harding: Yes, that's been changed. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Joe Harding: In the case of number 1, thc Goodyear sign. The one and only Goodyear sign which will say Goodyear entrance, that is right next to and undern~ a maple. In the case of number 2, I believc there's also and I don't have mine here with me. Maybe I do. I think it's a flowering crab up there. Then over number 3, it's between two other trees in a grassy area. So that, yes they are in a landscaped area and to have this 16 inch sq~__~re coming out of there just doesn't seem to fit. Does that answer your question? Ledvina: Well I was wondering if there was any specific tream~nt for the sign itself or right around the pole like shrubs or something like that? Joe Harding: No, no. This was a new surprise to me in any event so I haven't thought of that one. If there was a post there only, similarly. For grass cutting purposes, for maintenance of what is there, we wouldn't have accents or annuals or anything planted. Ledvina: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Joe Harding: I did take the liberty of making this up, which will show the 16 inch square and the sign on top with the 4 x 1 sign and show the proportions somewhat. This is from the front. This is from thc side, because this is a $ inch wide sign. It is a little odd looking. Scott: Okay, thank you. This is a public heating and may I have a motion to open the public heating please? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody/rom the general public would like to speak on this issue, please step forward. Give your name and your address and ~ us what you'd like to say. Tom Kotsonas: Yes, my name is Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne, which lies just south of Lake Drive East behind the buildings. I guess I'd mainly like to emp~ our position and it sounds from conversations, we're worried about illumination from the side of the building. From that side. Also I think in general the si~, tents, banners, whatever. I'm not sure what they're about to do but be considered what it docs to the effect of driving down Highway 5. The buildings as they stand now with the brick, which is close to thc color behind your, at least in my memory, the building's do have some nice appeal to them now but like I said, we're not reafl excited about them being there but they're there and they do look nice and I would urge you to keep the signs and various types of things very moderate and very discreet manner, keeping in mind the le. Aid~ts that live along behind there. And what we have to look at on a daily basis. Not once in a while but on a daily basis so we're worried about illumination and it sounds like, from what I've...there will be none. I don't know if I'm sure about that but it sounds that way...a.s far as the posts go, it seem, to me that brick posts, that blend with the building, would look much nicer than metal posts sticking up out of the ground. In deference to the developer here. I think they blend with the building and they would, that type of s~..in the ground would blend also with the landscaping and the colors. Just the natural colors around there~.a~md again, it's something that we're going to have to look at all the time so I want you to take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you sir. Joe Harding: Could I comment? Maybe I can ans~ some of his questions. Scott: Yeah, that'sfinc. Okay. Joe Harding: Sharmin, ff you could put up that same one... Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Al-Jaff: Which one? Joe Harding: That one you had up last time. When we first submitl~ our sign plan there was all the signs on the south end of the Abra building, which is the building to the right in this drawing. It was an illmnina~cl. We did ask for illumination and we have since relracl~ that and said, no. We will not illurninom it. You also see that ~ is a...the lot, if you will between the residenc~ across East Lake Drive. Lake Drive East and we also talked with Goodyear and they decided to move, in our plan we have submitted their signage to the west side of thc building. $o thc only fl~g that really faces the residential area is the south wall signage of Abra's. The directional signage, which are 4 feet high, aside from the wood that stands between thc residential area and us now...development of that third lot but those 4 foot signs, which are not illuminaU~l, will not be seen at all from the residential area. Because of the berm and the trees on there. So I think that helps you unde~tand that there won't be any illumination on the residentisl side of this. Wha~ Sharmin has wfi~ up and that's wha~ we've Ilgl'l~ to. Tom Kotsonas: The first sign to the west, which is the western side, does affect because there is going to come a time when that third lot and those trees that are there are going to be gone, from my understanding, when they develop that ~ lot which is just north of the water. Whatever you call it. PoncL Man made pond that's there now. The sign ~st to the west is going to affect those houses that are at an angle. Joe Harding: When you say fur'dmst to the left, you mean. Tom Kotsonas: That one fight there. Joe Harding: That is a 4 foot high sign. That's a 4 foot. That's a 4 foot. Tom Kotsonas: With those two you're getting close to DamServ and you have fewer houses because you have the park directly south of those two signs. Thc sign to the left or the one furthest to the west. The first one over here is the one that the neighborhood is going to see more than anything else. Joe Harding: If you've been over there you know that this drops down. You won't even see these signs. You can't see them from the road. Tom Kotsonas: ...from Chan Estal~. I'm just stating that I'm there every day so I mean I know what I look at and I know what I see and in the winlm- time I come_ down Highway 5 so I'm going to see, and so are my neighbors, are going to see whatever stands up there. We're asking for is the most subtle...signage that we can possibly... Planning Commission Meeting - May lg, 1994 Scott: Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay, seeing none. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public h~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron, comments. Nutting: I don't have a lot of familiarity with this project. Pre-dating me. It seems to me the main issue is just the condition number 8 and the brick versus the poles. They're 4 foot in height. Al-$aff: ...5 feet total Nutting: 5 feet total? Al-Jaff: Including the sign area. Nutting: Okay. And the legs below the sign. Al-Jaff: Are 4 feec Nutting: Okay. We still have the sign ordinance too which needs to be addressed but I guess I would, it may seem a little cumbersome but I think there's a con~stency issue that we've been addressing with this and I think I would opt for con~stency with staff's recommendation on the brick Other than that I don't have anything else. Sc, om Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I share those same feelings. I think about the sign over on Highway 7 and 41 for the Super America right there and they have a htrger pedestal type of sign and then they do have a directional sign that's a monument sign. It's a low grouad sign. It's a brick and it's done very nicely and I don't know. First of all I don't know why a directional sign has to be 5 feet tall but I guess that's up to the applicant. Because all people need to do is see it from 50 feet or 100 feet and turn in. You aren't attracting any people fxom any other locations and I look at them, the signage at Super America and it's very effective and it's very attractive. Maybe ff the applicant, I would support the requiretrumt or the staff recongnendation for brick and I guess I would suggest that the app~t take a look at some different possibilities in terms of height. I think with scale you can make that work out pretty nicely. So again, I support staff recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Se, om Ladd. Conrad: That's an interesting debate. You know do you make the dgnage, if you block it in, you block it in. Do you make a sign that could be not real obtrusive? Do you make it an object? And that's what blocking is. Whereas right now it's not very massive and therefore it's a debate. I don't think the applicant's persuaded me right now. It's lm'd to tell you know. In that case, if I can't tell, I'll go with the staff's opinion. I think you may have a chance to talk to City Council on that one. I think what I've heard is very rational what the rest of the commissioners are saying and I think the staff is tq~g to lead a consislency here. Yet I'm looking at substanance. I'd rather not make a sign bigger or more obtrusive lhan you need to and what I see is not very oblrusive so, but for lack of having wo many ~ves here or a real good definition of what it looks like, I'll go with the staff report. The only thing that I think the signage requirements are good. I like what the applicant is doing. I like how staff's worked with them. I think the Goodyear signage is just fine. The Abra signage is just not very good. Now we haven't measur~ the square, and I'm looking specifically on the north elevation. I think the south elevation is okay. The north elevation is just super ugly, and I guess we're kind of, you know if they meet tl~ 80 square feet. Now that is the absolute. It's 80 square feet per side based on, what's the nde? Is it based on street frontage or is it based on. Ledvina: It's 15% of the wall area. ALia.fi: They are below the 125% wall area. And they are at or a~aially below the 80 square feet. Conrad: 80 per, on that side? Al-$aff: Correct. Per street frontage. Conrad: 80 would be, 3 feet x 30. Nutting: But are you saying per sign or per. A1-Jaff: Per sign. Per frontage. Conrad: Side of building. A1-Jaff: Per side of thc building. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Conrad: Now I'm looking at that garage door you know on the left side, and-specifically the north elevation. You know, a lot of this stuff goes right by me but when something just doesn't look very good, it's just like a red flag and that's just not a very amacfive signage on that side of the building. You know I see a garage door down there. What's a garage door7 8 feet7 9 feet wide7 Something like that and then I see this big A that's got to be at least, on the facia or whatever. That's 4 feet high at least. It's probably bigger than that so there's 40 feet there. I don't know, maybe they meet it. And you're, I think your staff report says you haven't really measured that yet. Didn't I read that? Maybe I'm making that up. Al-la.fi: Okay, I rneastu~ it. Conrad: You did? Okay, and it meets the standard. Al-la.fi: h ~ the 80 square feeC Al-$aff: This is a conditional use permit. You could regulate the size of the sign. Per ordinance they meet the requirements. Conrad: What is the, the auto body and glass. What kind of sign is that? You know the Abra sign is f'me on the left hand side but the auto body and glass, is that a back lit? What is that? Al-$aff: That's what they would be pennitt~l. Back lit. Conrad: What is it? Is it back lit? Joe Harding: It's back lit, and the ~ name of the firm is Abra Auto Body and Glass. That's all part of their name of their co .mpany. Conrad: Yeah I see that in the south elevation. It looks real good. I like that. It's only when you take it out of thc logo standpoint and you start spreading the word across the front it's, I don't know. Joe Harding: And as Sharmin said, this would all be in back lit and separate lettem. Conrad: And what I'm seeing, you know the Auto Body and Glass is not even lined up with thc Abra. It just looks like bad design. Maybe you're aligning it with the bottom of the circle of the Abra but it's just not very good. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ~oe Harding: See the line above Abra Auto Body and Ghss7 Conrad: Yeah. Joe Harding: That's where the standing seam extends backwards. Now we could drop lower, the Abra with the circle to get it in line with that. Conrad: I'm the last one on this Planning Commission that even picks on this. But this really bothers me. This just is not, you know I'd rather, you know signage is a big deal in town. We're spending a lot of time on it and this just doesn'~ I'm just not very comfortable with what you're presenting to me. And boy, I don't want w see this back, ~ ~ell you the truth, but I sure want to send a clear message to the City Council A clear message to the City Council that they'd better look at this when it comes_ in so they're happy with what it looks like. Scott: Do you want to, Ladd as part of your motion, do you want to put a condition in with the position of the two elements there7 Conrad: You know $oe, I just hate getting into design issues. I just want good looks. We'll do something like that. Maybe I'll mak~ tl~ motion and I'll mak~ up son~ words. Scott: The floor is your's. Conrad: I just, boy. Scott: Yes Sharmin. Al-Jaff: You might say something similar to what's ont he north side. Conrad: The north side is good. You know. Nutting: You mean the south side. Conrad: Whatever the side is yeah. The south side is good. It's fine and Goodyear is fine. It just looks good. It fits. North side of Abra doesn't. Those are my comments. Scott: Do you have a motion to go along with those comments there7 Conrad: I hate making motions on stuff that I don't like to get involved in. Okay. I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recormnends approval of the sign plans for Abra and 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions. And as per the staff report. We're going to change the wording on number 1. The monument sign, which will be on Highway 25 side. I don't care if it's perpendicular. You can orient it anyway you want but it's going to be on that side and that's the only change wordwise there in response to the applicant's request. Number 3. We'll change the 80 square feet per side. That's okay with me. Now. And all other conditions per the staff report I accept with condition number 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that faces, that's attached to the bnilding that faces to the north so that we ge~ a better idea of, well Cut tha~ ~t there. That's wha~ ! want A bettering rendering. A better vision for the City Council to review tee me~'its of that sign. Ledvina: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff rec. ammmadafion with modifications. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commlmion recommend approval of sign plans for Abra and Goodye~ as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions: le The monument sign which will be on the Highway $ side, shall be 12 feet high and contain only the naxtw~ of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Good~ buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. 2. AH businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 80 square feet. 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall rehte to color,size, materials and heights. 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residentia~ section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permiUed. 11 Plaoning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Se Thc area of all directionnl sins shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shah not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The ms_t__m'ial and color of brick used shall be consistrnt with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that's attached to the building that faces to the north All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RF~IDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SIN(~LE FAMII.Y LOTS AND ONE OIYYLOT LOCATED AT 11221 GALPIN BOULF. VARD~ SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD F~TATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Bielski 8140 Andrew Richardson 8120 Patrick $. Minger 8221 Peter Knaegle 5301 Tim Dempsey 8241 Jean Rollins 2081 Joan Heinz 2071 Richard & Eliza~ Larscn 8141 Craig Harrington 8140 Pinewood Circle Pinewood Circle C pin mvc Edina Indusu~ Blvd, Edina 55422 C pin mvc Thnberwood Drive Timberwood Drive Pinewood Circle Maplewood Terrace Bob Generous and Dave Hempel presmted the staff report on this item- Scorn Questions for staff. Conrad: It's a good staff report I guess just philosophically, it's zoned agriculttmd esta~s. That's what it's zoned. What, and I didn't do my homework what else is zoned A2 around there? Generous: Everything south of there basically. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- May 18, 1994 Conrad: So is this an eating away at the A2 and basically saying well, there.really isn't a A2 area other than '5mberwood? Is that what really this is going to boil down to? Generous: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Generous: It's providing urban density for...2 1/'2 acre minimum under A2. Sc, om Okay. Would the applicant of thek represenlative, do they wish to speak? Yes sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Peter Knaegle: My name is Peter Knaegle. I'm the en~neer for the developer. My address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. With me wnight is Pat Minger who is the owner and developer of the property and also lives on the site. We're not prepared tonight to make a detailed presentation. A lot of the information...city staff and much of what staff said, we're in thc process of rwicing changes based on thc reconm~ndations of thc slaff report but we're here tonight basically to answer any questions that the Planning Cornmi~on or some of the neighbors may have. In fact becau~ I'd just like to reiterate that we are in the process of making changes, we're going to be submitting them back to thc staff in the next couple of days and they will be incorporating all the requested changes in the staff report in regards to ponding, shifting of the roads, larger cul-de-sacs, tree canopy plan. But every item will be addressed... Scott: Okay. And do you have a copy of our latest tree ordinance? Peter Knaegle: Yes I do. Scorn Okay, good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing~ All voted in favor and the motion carri~ The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, please step forward. Identify yourself and give us your address and let us know what's on your mind_. Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I'm the pwpeny owner directly west of this proposed development. The one where Dave and I have been talking about some essential ponding. Pat and I have been talking about this issue for over a year now. Since he first found out I was going to be buying it, he let me know that he had plans to develop this 13 Planning Cornm~ion Meeting - May 18, 1994 so this is not a SUllrrise to me. However I still have my concerns and I've shared those with Pat and we've been trying to work together to come up with a plan. There are some issues though that I feel very strongly about and I want to put before the committee. One is the drive. Specifically...It's currently a very mature, classic element drive. It's surrounded by trees and you drive up in it, and it's this warm green tunnel which brings you to your home. It's a mute from thc busy city to the how. es~ and if those trees were taken, just for the sake of a 10 foot discrepancy to an ordinance, I think it would forever change the character that I drive through every day and that if _this devel~t does go through, which would cause the people to drive through. And you'd end up with just yet another new developn2mt with lots of space as you drove into it and nothing particularly intrresting about iL So I think for the people that would be living there and for the people that do live there, I would ask that we really look at this 50 foot, to save the tree~ My personal side, the second issue is the loss of privacy for myself and my family. Currently I'm surrounded by woods and most people make the comment that when they come out there, it's like you're living out in the middle of 50 acres. Can't believe you're in Chanhassen. And I can walk out of my house, go to my barn and don't have to worry about who's watching or don't have to worry about anything. It's a very peaceful, serene area. Any development there, no m,_L0~r_ how careful the developers are, is going to change that forever for me and so that I ask that any plans, certainly protect what~wer privacy they can by spacing. I know some people from this development around that with 2 1/2 acres are concerned and when I look at what their...~k yards with trees in them and in their back yards they've got hundreds of yards and I'm looking at the 60 feet to a road that's going to be about 40 feet from my bedroom window. Pat is trying to work to make that less of an issue but it's still going to be within 100 feet, I don't think without really taking a lot away. That's going to change my privacy and I have concern about that. Conrad: Where's your house? Tim Dempsey: ff you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisan~ which I certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they corm out but bosica~y it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It world minimiT~ the destruction of foliage between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It would cut down on just §eneral nuisance traffic of people thinking that...someplace I can go out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 I think if I was a home buyer, that would enhance the home that I was looking at if I knew it wasn't going to be accessible. But the way the road goes, and the plan I gave Pat showed it somewhat different than I think the people in Timberwood Estates probably would object to the way I would like to see it. And that is I would like to see the road follow the current driveway and keep that bend away from coming so close to my house. That will keep the road traffic and the nuisance traffic the farthest away. Now it would have an effect on the number of lots, in fact the development. Because he's got some economics that he's got to deal with and I'm not, he doesn't make me privy to his economics so I don't know what the break even point is here. But I could certainly prefer. .. suggested to him in my drawings, that the road follow the current drive and it would also I think minimize some of the ~ that the street would take anyway but of course the houses are going to take some. That would keep the road and the uaffic nuisance at least timber away from me than it currently does now where people coming down that road you might see ~ghts and hearing noise that I don't hear now and that would put that fur~er away. That's my comments. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else ~ to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Mark Biel.~id: Yes, my name is Mark Bielski. I live at 8140 Pinewood Circle and I guess I would have all of the same arguments for keeping the road where it is as the other gentleman did for keeping it...600 feet of protza~ just to the left of the house which is going in on the other side of the driveway that's in red there. And I have all the same concerns about the traffic and the headlights and just privacy in general. And I know when we moved there, it was zoned agricultural Now it's going to high density and I'd just like to know what is the criteria for chan~ng. You know if somebody just comes to you and says, can I change the zoning? Do you just go ahead and do it or exactly what do you follow? Can I take my lot and make it high density? It's zoned agricultural Aanenson: The City has a Comprehensive Plan that guides all the property...the pmImrty is guided for single family residential And it's been that way since our comp plan was adopted in 1991. So this area was, it's currently zoned agriculUnal but it is guided. There's other areas of the city that don't have development on it and are guided. Mark Bielski: Can you explain what guided Aanenson: It's a comprehensive plan that's approved by thc Mct Council designating future land uses in thc city. Okay, inside thc urban service area there's designations for all thc pr~ inside the urban service area. When you've got sewer and water are available, given the ultimate land uses. Now right now people are still farming or under utilizing the property and then generally it's given an agricultural zone. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Mark Bielski: Okay. I guess my concern is number one, the loss of privacy. Cars. The width of the mad that would access thc site. I'd like to know if any of the trees along my property line are going to be taken out. And the develotyment would infringe on my property at all. I know sometimes when you have a road that's fairly naxrow you have to go beyond property lines to get the sewer and water put in_ And if that was the case, I think that I'd probably lose most of the frees on my pwperty line. Sust simply because there just isn't enough room but you go fight down the center of the existing center line of the road. Scott: Okay, excuse me sir. Dave, can you address that? Hempel: Sure. That is correct A majority of the tree loss is not just from the street right- of-way it's actually for the utility construction that goes on and boulevard grading. The street conslruction usually falls within the paramet~s of the trenched excavation and with this plan here, the sewer elevation, in order to service _this site, would require removing quite a few of the trees on that 50 foot corridor. Even with the special conslnlcfion techniques. TDring to reduce the impact on there so. The tree loss is for the first upproximately 300 feet I believe it is and then where the road bends to the south there, the remaining lrees will be on the pwperty line to the nort~..preservation easement in the back yards. Mark Bielsld: The thing that reafly ~ my lot from the d_~sity housing is that existing tree line. It's nothing beaufiflil but it's got some scrub oaks and it's got a few red oaks in it and it's got some box elder but they've been there enough, they're mature enough that it does provide a good buffer and I think if you put the utilities through, if you took those out, you'll just open that whole view to the south for the higher density housing and the road. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is in the staff report, you'll see that the staff recommended a landscaping plan along that side where the trees would be lost. Obviously they're not going to be the same size caliper that you have out there today but in time they will reforest or revegetate that area. Mark Bielsid: But I think realistically those will be in 20 years or 25 years. Hempel: 5 to 10 years approximat~y. Mark Biclski: I haven't seen, I've been there for 5 years and I haven't seen a pine tree grow up more than 2 feet. I'm just trying to be realis~. You know it's going to pretty, well decimate that back area back there. Conrad: Dave, when I look at the tree calculations, I don't see any trees on thc plans in that first several hundred feet. So what's a function of? You're saying we're going to get 16 Planning Commigdon Meeting - May 18, 1994 significant tree loss but again, as I see them measured here, none-are in the right-of-way. Hempel: Actually there are quite a few trees in the right-of-way. In the commission plans did not provide the trees... Conrad: Okay. I don't think we're seeing what you see on our plans right now. Mark Bielski: I don't know if any of you have been to the site or to the ama but...and take a look to the south, you can really see what buffer there is. If those trees are gone, it's going to ~y devastate our view and our privacy and one of the reasons we'd like~..is we set our house fairly close to the back lot line. Now I bet we're within 100 feet f~m the existing driveway to our bedroom window and had I known something like this was §oing to happen, I probably would have moved the house another 100 feet towards the cul-de-sac that we live on. So it's kind of a, it's getting a little bit close and I hope you understand that. Hopefutly you can go out and take a look to the site. Come over to, you're welcome to come on my property and look to the south and... Ledvina: We will. Question for Dave. Will there be a co~on easement associated with this road here that will involve the removal of trees acv. mlly off the property? Is that what's going to happen? Hempel: Not on the north side. Not on the Timbawood Estates side. The pwpeny that will be probably most imp~ will be the Dempsey pwpeny on the south side...trees outside of that 50 foot strip. There's also thc city's ceme~ry lies just north of this road. It's fairly heavily wooded at the entrance but I'm not sure...§oes back at least 300 feet off of Cralpin Boulevard. That's whcre the trees will be lost along thc ~ line and as you continue cast on that property, the road bends away from that north ~ line and the trees that are out there today will stay so. It'd be nice to show on here where the property line is and cemetery as well as the adjacent properties in Timberwood Estates to see exactly where the trees are going to affect. Scott: Dave, here's a what if. What if utilities go on the other side? Obviously we're going to, what's the impact there? Hempel: Thc elevation drops. Scott: Is it because, as I'm looking here where you've got, as I'm trying to read this it looks like it falls off rather quickly. So you're just saying logistically they're really, engineering wise, there's less of an option? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May I~m~l: It does require. .. some of the utilities that go through there... Scott: Okay. Alright. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Just two things that I have. On the, I would agree with Bielski's view is that the committee consider, as far as the l~rotection. We're one of thc last in this area and probably as far as with the large lots or small acreage type properties in that we had as much prol~dom As much as could be given with either buffer, which is being considered all the way around our devel~t as far as with the elementary school. With the other l~roposed lots that are coming in and this is probably the one that's closest to us coming in with houses as close as they are. And that whatever consideration you could give, most of the owners that are abutting right up to this would appreciate that because of the way, our lots are set up. Especially Bielski is probably the closest right there. The other consideration that i have is, along again that north side just to the east of Bielski's residence there's a low land that originally was a swamp area that was for ponding at one time. Even sprayed it for the mosquito control and it was supposed to have a culvert that went through originally, when the plat was developed, to go under and Pat's driveway. That was in route to the east to nm as a drainage ditch all the way down through 'Vunberwood to the east. And as we relook at how, especially in conjunction with these new lots, how that drainage is going to work as far as on the en~oineering of it because cmrenfly it is not draining well I irnow seve~-al lots the~ the water just stands there and it's a mosquito breeding ground right now. If they could either look at, if that could be compounded with additional drainage by the sloping of these new lots that are going to go in, that could also create further problems in lt~-re. That's only the comments I have. Thank you. Hempel: Maybe I can address that Mr. Chairma~ As part of the subdivision, it will be maintaining thc pre-developed runoff rates of thc site. The continental divide, as I'll call it, it does break at the northerly pr~ linc of this subdivision. Part of it drains east. As Mr. Harrington indicated, there is a low lying area just north of this plat which drains east out to Timbemood. Mr. Minger's propeW] there's a high point that's great for drainage to the north So essentially you'll have just a back yard of the home draining to the north as it does right now. The remaining part drains south into the storm sewer system and water treatment pond. Joan Heinz: I'm Joan Heinz, 2071 Timberwood Drive. We own right east of where they're trying to build that and like my neighbors, before we bought our lot we researched and we saw that that was zoned agriculuual so we felt pretty confident that there wasn't going to be houses back there. $o our big concern is just loss of privacy and the fact that we're all 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 wooded back there now. We own about 50 feet into the woods and we're just concerned that instr.~ of looking out our back yard, there's going to be these...and that just seems lilm a lot of houses for what is it, 8 acres. That seems like a lot of houses back there. Thanks. Drew Richardson: My name is Drew Richardsom I live at 8120 Pinewood Circle. I'm on that 800 feet of, what did you call it, a tunneL Mr. Dempsey called it. In the winter I look out the back of my house and I see basically the horse pasture Mr. Dempsey has. In the sumrmr I look out and see trees and granted, likr Mark said, they're not the best looking trees but they are a very nice border. I'd be concerned with loosing that. At the back of my property there's a fair drop off that goes up and then com~ down and that's where all the trees are. I have trouble envisioning how the drive is going to come through there without basically wiping that out. Without building a wall or something. I guess you'd have to see it to really understand. That would be, that's at the comer of the cemetery...You're welcome to come out and look at it. Come out and see what it is. Thanks. Jean Rollins: My name is Jean Rollin~ I live at 2081 Tfmberwood and my pmtmrly is by Patrick Minger and I guess my main concern is, besides the number of houses, which does seem like a lot between ou~ woods, is the drainage site which you said wouldn't be getting a majority of the drainage. However I live right on the border of the ditch and my pmtaxty is wetland...washed out from the increased drainage and have a terrible time getting the water to drain. And my other concern is that, is there going to be erosion that's going to come down from these other lots and fill up our dilch again? Because right now the city has had to redig our ditches in front of our houses twice..dnereazed drainage or erosion is just going to dog it further. It's going to add more water to it. Scott: Okay, Dave. Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, the site will not inavatse the runoff to the Timberwood Estates development. The water will be conveyed by storm sewer to a regional holding pond. Hopefully there from the Dempsey property which overflows and into the Bluff Creek corridor. It should not affect Timberwood Estates hoffw~ ...there's a lot of drain files in the area in the ground with sIn'ings and so forth that ~ some problem~ in that area. Scott: Okay. Good, would anyone else? Yes sir. Rich Larsen: Hi, I'm Rich Larsen at 8041 Pinew~ Circle. I live next to thc Bielski's and to take the last issue first Drainage is a huge problem in Timberwood now and I don't know if this is thc forum for complaining about that but nothing has been done. I live in a swamp that Craig Harrington talked about. And it's been a constant problem since we moved in. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, !994 Thc City is doing absolutely nothing to help us. They've been out them several times but told us...I'm wondering, to help alleviate some of the concerns, can we somehow tap into that drainage because as Craig pointed out, the drainage has been diverted away from the Minger's property now and it has to go at a 90 degree angle at our ~. Water doesn't like to turn at a 90 degree angle so it collects in our back yard. So is there a possibility of tapping into any new drainage systen~...because it's not working now. So that's one cornrnent. A second thing about that, as...said, we too found that it was zoned A-2 when we moved in. Nobody bothered to tell us that this is §oin§ to change. It's agdcul~ now but it could be high density housing and to deal with the overall planning that if you isolate Timberwood as the only large lot area, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's going to be very uncoordinated looking so I have a ~tion for you guys. If you approve this thing, that you require a I acre rpinirrlum lot size for thie development. That woold tie in better with Timberwood. It would reduce the amount of traffic past everyone's house. I probably live n little farther away from the road than the Bielski's and the Richardson's do but it will still affect us, especially if the trees get red~ So that's my recommendation. That you look at requiring a minimum of an acre lot size. That's awfidly dense for the area and requiring an acre would also save quite a few trees and help that. And the last q~on I had was, when another development's being proposed, there were a lot of discussions about roadways and somebody from the city said that there's a minimum setback between roadways. When you're looking at putting a second street into that new development just, what is it boulder? Whatever. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Rich Larsen: Stone Creek, thank you. They said it was a minimum distance between roadways. I'd like to know, there's T~ood Drive and yet you've got that proposed street going in. Isn't that closer than the minimum requirement and is there a variance being proposed here? Hempel: Mr. Chninrum, I can address that. The street spacing is adequate for the ordinance for that type of street... Sc, otc Okay, and then when this is upgraded to a 4 lane, how does that change? Would it become inadequate when they decide to widen it or how does that play? If this were a 4 lane today, would there be adequate separation between the cuts? Hcmpel: That's what we're working on right now. The comprehensive transportation study predicts...in thc future so our comp plan guides us for what our street widths will be on certain collector type streets, but this has been designated as a 4 lane urban sect/on. In the future an urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. That will change the spacing... Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay, so the spacing is adequate for as big as that road is puzported to be. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, can I have a motion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public heaFin~ AH voted in hvor and the motion carried, The public hearis~ was dosed. Ledvina: The only question I had on the streets. We've talked quite a bit about cul-de-sac lengths and I don't see that being addressed anywhere in the staff report here. They measure the cul-de-sacs at 900 and 1,000 feet respectively and I'm just wondering, was there any thought in connecting two cul-de-sacs? Bob, or Dave. Hempel: Commissioner, maybe I can address that We thought about trying to loop them into a looped system there. Unfortunately it does make a lot of double street frontage or lots with streets on 3 sides and probably would be reducing the amount of houses out there a lot and would increase the impervious surface from the street. We also even looked at, future extension into Timberwood. Those are large lots there. At some future date...probably subdivide as well into smaller lots. So part of our job is to look at future street extensions where feasible or possible. We know the i .mpacts the Thnberwood Estates residents have had with thc Stone Creek development, the Hans Hagen development that's developing and proposed east of the Timberwood Es_m___te~. There was some consideration there also to provide some stub street to Thnberwood for some future cxteusion. However, due to the size of this small parcel and how we envision it developing, you have the creek on the south side. You really can't develop any further to the south. You have Timberwood to the noz~ and to the east there is an opportunity to stub a future street connection that way but I don't think the residents would appreciate it. We do have other streets in the city that are somewhat...we're loolcing at 17 homes on here which is going to generate a large volume of traffic for a dead end street. Public safety has looked at it and didn't seemed to be too concerned about the cul-de-sac. Lcdvina: Okay. WcU I can sec, certainly sec your point as it relates to the scale of the devclopr~nt. Looping those together, you'd have essentially maybe 6 houses, at thc most, inside that loop and that's a lot of strccC It wouldn't seem that cffident for all that much pavement so. Conrad: What does our cul-de-sac olxiinance, what does it say? Ledvina: Can you address that? What happened? Did that die at thc City Council? Aan~n: ...we've been shooting for 600, 700, 800 minimums...what we'd be doing is taking out more trees and...~ous sm'face, which is one of the reasons why we 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 reconuuended private drives. Led~: Right. So are you recommending a privam drive for the, that would be the, let's see, the west cul-de-sac? Hempel: Temporary common drive at this time to serve the...The int~at however is to dedicate a fun fight-of-way with the fumm intent of upgrading that mad when the Dernpsey parcel develops and subdivides to a full urban street section. The problem we have with those homes that will be platted tluu way on Lots 14, 1:5, 16 and 17. Those will be responsible... Ledvina: Okay. Well I would favor the use of technia, ues that could save as many trees as possible along the drive and I even to the extent of supporting a reduced fight-of-way. I think that could possibly be employed along that north boundary for tree preservation- I tlxink I would also support staff's recommendations to pull the easterly cul-de-sac fiuther away from the Timbemood lot lines there. I think that would provide a little more buffering think that can also help. That's the exUmt of my comments at this time. $cotu Okay, Ron. Nutting: I would agree with staff's recommendations and Matt's comments. We're going to be getting this back. I guess I personally would like to get out to the site and get a closer feel to the issues that have been expressed. Sust to undurstand visually a bit more of what we're looking at and af~ that, maybe a betIrr condition when we get this plan back to kind of... some of those issues. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'll make sure I get out to the site and walk it. I would lik~, when it comes back, I would like staff to give me some guidance on the A-2 disu'icc I'm not convinced I need to rezone it. Unless there's some really, unless I feel there's some capabih'ty here. But I also want to see how it fits you know and Tfmberwood son of set a precedence in remus large lots out there and whether I was for it or against it, it's the ms__n~_ it's there and we zoned it this A-2 because we felt it made sense. Now so when I said, I'm looking for some vision. I guess I'm looking for some realism. Is there a demand for A-27 Do we see that as something that a pr~ owner could reasonably get, sell today you know and again, I don't know what you do staff but I need that kind of insight. If A-2 is, ff these large lots are not going to sell and they're a detriment, then I think we owe it to rezoning. But I'm not convinced yet. I need that insight. I also respect the Timberwood residents in trrms of what Planing Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 they moved out here for and what they bought. So there~ 1'11 be real inlm~sl~l in how the developer adapts to their neighbom and there's a lot, it looks like a lot of u~e loss here and if you want to stop the tree loss, you keep it at A-2 folks. That's an easy one. That doesn't tsire a lot of insight so, y~ I ~ we have to be, so whoever brought up the fact that something can be rezoned. Yeah, something can always be rezoned but we did guide, this for large lots. So before we rezone it, I think we've got to take a look at not only this but we've got to be kind of, as I said, I prefac.~, I said hey if this goes, well then we don't have a A-2 district out there. We have Timberwood and so I think we've got to be prett7 confident that A-2 is something that's. Aanenson: Let me make a clmifi~fion_ It is guided for 15,000 square foot lots. Conrad: Is that fight? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Okay. Scott: RSF. Aanenson: ...I just want to make that clear. We can get a legal opinion on that issue but... Conrad: Thanks for those comments because I was not sure of that Kate. Anyway, that sort of deletes about my last 3 minutes of conversation. I think, I'm real concerned with tree loss here. I'm concerned with what the residents have to say. There's some big trees here and I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it and wait for more inform~ion. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything else to add. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table the development, Case Subdivision 94-1 and that the additional conditions in the staff report be addressed by the applicant, as well as the commission's conunents this evening. Scott: Good, can I have a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we su-ppon the stuff recommendation with additional comments. Is there any discussion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commi~_'on table action on Preliminary Plat #93.25 and Rezoning 094-1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be i~vi~M to meet staff's and Plaiining C~mmissi_'on'8 reco~~ol~ All vottM in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEAR~G: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRF~ OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMII.Y LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ ImSmE_NTI~L SINGLE FAMII,Y AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: Name Address Steve Johnston B. Fuller 1075 Terry & Bonnie Labatt 2981 Keith Bedford 3961 Dave Headla 6870 Kevin CSxidihy 3900 Lowell & Janet Carlson 4100 Margie Borris 4071 Susan Morgan 4031 Linda Scott 4031 Larry Wenzel 69OO Bill Munig 6850 Harold Taylor 3861 Allin Karels 3920 Red Cedar Cove Stratford Ridge Stratford Ridge Minnewashta Parkway Stratford Ridge Kings Road Kings Road Kings Road Kings Road 1Viinnewashta Parkway Stratford Ridge S~afford Ridge Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sc, om Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the at~P~t like to ~? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. C~m/rma~ My nmne is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Assodates. We're locamt in Maple Caove. We represent the applicant tonight. They were unable to attend because...We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and...recommendafions. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 the grading...grading contract out just so you don't get the wrong impression of what we're trying to do...The difficulty that we've had and the situafion...is that we had a trade off. We could either save the majority of thc trees in Lots 22, 23, and 24 by setting the grades at an elevation to best serve those lots. Or we could lower the street down and save more trees on the end of the cul-de-sac. Thc decision was made that we'd keep the cul-de-sac up, saving the trees on those lots. With staff's suggestion to go to a private drive for those last 4 lots, I think we can do both. We can do thc cul-de-sac up higher and we can drop thc grade off then and lower some of these down hopefully presea~4ng more of the trees. The requirement for 130 trees be planted on the site...is acceptable to the npplicamt and we will provide a plan to replace those trees on the site. A clarification that we'd like though to get, it appeatrs that we would be allowed to place those trees within our site and not necessarily out along Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway... Aanenson: Correct. That's what we're saying. You come back with a specific plan. Our ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. What we're saying is in~..ad of just doing 1...put them in one lot or put them in where you can cluster them. I think that's an advantage to go back and get another canopy instead of just doing... Steve Johnston: We'll take a look at that and bring those options. Thc other question I have had to do with the, it's unclear f:mm thc staff report regarding the utilities on Kings Road. Specifically to get thc utilities at the park property. Is the park department participating in the cost of the utilities?... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Margie Bords: My name is Margie Bon'is. I'm that little thing by the driveway on Kings Road. That little thing is 2 1/2 acres. Okay. We looked for lots from Maple Grove to Shakopee to find the rural area that we could relax in. Have our privacy, among other things. It's a safe area. People come and walk down our little road. I noticed that in her little tree plan that she forgot to mention I have a stand of 10 red cedar trees on the other side of Kings Road, which we own. Not just the road area. We own 5, every one of those are 5 feet from the other side of the road. Okay. And from what I understand you can only tak~ the area that is being currently used as a road. Okay. And also that stand of trees shoots up on a bank that's about 8 feet high. It has been a wind break for all these years. It's a privacy barrier, and I'm sorry but the creed of the 80's has just spilled aH over Chanhassen in 1994. It is almost disgusting. We had a rural area. It's been...If I have to become a hog farmer and put my pans in that front yard, I will I'm just about up to here. Now you're going to tell me that we're going to spend $20,000.00 to hook up to your utilities. To tear up my yard. Tear up my basement, and who's going to pay for it? I've got 12 months? This is your guiding. This is the guided area that you were talking about. You just changed your mind Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 on what the areas are like? The City of Eden Prairie has just got some press about these kind of plannings. The over development of a community. Ctranted this is a better plan that what we've seen before but you don't have to live on it. We do. We moved out there for a reason. We sl~ent our money out there for a re~ug)n. We don't live in alum~ out tht~. These are not old, I mean the Scott's and I, which are the ones that you're talking about adding these new things W, those are new homes. I mean and you're talking about all these extra things you're looking for. How very wonderful We've heard some prices about what this land was sold for. Or what the asking price is and I also know what they sold the lots for in that Stratford area. $45,000.00 was the minimum so there's a lot of money traaing hands and what's happening is thc existing people just take it in the shorts, which is a very nice way of putting that. The drainage thing, I'm glad you took a look at it this time because it was by- passed several times. But I will not, I don't know if you'll build a house over to that one side because my house is in the center of that lot which is going to put that new road right in front of my house. Take down my wind break. That little area there that was originally, that was supposed to be moved to the park. Those row of houses that are on the east. I can't read the name of the road. Country Oaks Road. That was going to be pm~t of l~rk development. Now...but that is the only sliding hill in that area. It's the only sliding hill on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. And you know, you talked about this...you don't con~ down the road and see the trees that arch over. I mean grant you they're not maybe oaks or anything but red cedars are not commom And when did th~ rezone this area? Nobody wld us anything. Nobody sent us a letter that said we're going to guide this or whatever you call that thing. I'm serious about becoming a hog farmer. We can have animah on our property because of existing grandfathering, and I will do it. We need something, some consideration for us. Not just the developers. Not just for people that are selling their property. That's going to be developed, yes. But think about it. I want to know who's paying for my hook- up. Does anybody have an answer? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. She can certainly appeal thc commi~ion and thc staff report to the City Council has thc ultimate decision. They may look at waiving that until your septic system faila..fir~ do an inspection of your existing system and make sure it's functioning properly. That's ultim~ly up to the City Council It is an ordinance so it does take action by the City Council to amend. As far as the cost associated with that, for sewer and water hook-up, the connection chm'ge, you're probably looking in the ballp~k of about $5,000.00 to $/5,.500.00. Margle Bon/s: Does that include breaking up of my foundation? Hemal: Well. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: No. That's the hook-up to it. Hcmpel: That's thc hook-up charge. Margie Borris: That doesn't include what you're going to dig through the yard to put in the site. And who's going to fix my lawn7 Hempel: That would be part of the ~ owner's responsibility. Margie Borris: Oh yeah. Hempel: As far as the connection charges, they could be ~ against the prope~. Margie Borris: My husband's in consuucfion and he tells me it's close to $20,000.00. For the entire hook-up. To repair all the stuff. That's not pocket change. That is not pocket change. We recently got assessed for all the work that was done on Minnewashta Pafltway and they were telling us, because we had the larger lots, we had to pay more, which we did. We didn't get the benefits of these new retaining walls or any of that stuff. I don't care. And yet you sit there and you tell us, okay well we're going to charge you more because you have the bigger lots. You can drive a driveway, I suppose we could put a driveway over my drainfield and build a house down at the lower level, which is below the high water mark, but nobody gets back to me on that either. I paid my assessment, by the way. Scott: Excuse me ma'am. Specifically the points that you would like us to consider are, I've heard a lot of things and I'm personally kind of losing track but if you can specific zero in on the most signifier ones, that would help me understand. Margie Bonfs: My trees. My red cedar trees that are sitting on 5 feet across the other side of the road for my privacy. But one of them, the main reason we took this area was the privacy and the safety and now you're going to be s~deling, probably 2 cars per household. I would assume that's the average these days. Some have more. And there's 38 lots. Or 37 lots as it sits fight now. So there's going to be 60 some more cars and they're going to be splitting now between that Stratford and Kings Road. If you want to dinir around with this stupid road, put the road on the propa~ that's being developed or where the park is being developed...Kings Road that we have right now. Then we can keep our trees and whatever is out there but I'd really, I'm not luq~y about this hook-up thing. There's the Ziegler's, they have their money. They're gone. They're in Colorado. They could care less what you do with their property. They just want the dollars and let's go. Scott: Okay. Do you have any. Planning Commission Meeting - May l S, 1994 Margie Borris: The idea of, I mean we got a lot of grief about trying to build a house on 2 1/2 acres when we built in 1986. A lot of grief and now, and you're saying that now you've got 20 some thousand square feet. How does that compare to an acre? Like the other people before us were all talking about, you're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. Where's the planning in this? What if you make those I acre lots? Somebody will buy those if they want that peace and quiet. I went from a corporation to a small business to get rid of that hassle and rat race. My home is a safe, quiet place. There are now so many deer being pushed Wwards us because we have the last of the big land. Every day you can take a walk and you'll run into a deer near dusk.' We've got Lake St. Joe behind us. It's supposed to be a protected wetland. They're already planning to develop on the other side of that. There's nothing left. Sco~ So your specific concerns have to do with the roadway and the impact that that's going to have on the trees. Number two is because of the proximity of the proposed roadway to your house, the hook-up requirement to the utilitie~ Traffic on the road. Margie Borris: Among other things, yeah. Scott: Okay. We just want to make sure that we can specific~y understand the points that you have so. We appreciate you for taking your time to come down and we encourage that because that's why we have public hearings. Margie Bon'is: I know. I've been to several of them. Scott: Keep coming. Thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is this ~ right there. There are several concerns that I have about the way the road is going to be moved. It was my assumption, is it Kate? That the road is going to be moving closer to us rather than going this way? Aanenson: It's moving to the north. Sue Morgan: It's moving to the north? So we have existing ~ 8 or 9-90 year old cedar trees that are here so they would stay where they're at? They wouldn't be enca'oached upon7 Helv~l: It depends on where they are. The utility in.~llfllation, the trench... Sue Morgan: Okay. When we purchased this hnd...we had the DNR come out and evaluate the trees on our pr~ to help us decide which ones we should keep, the value of them and 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 to help us plan where the house was going to go because we wanted to maintain that type of treed area here. As I mentioned they're like 90 year old red cedar frees that we will k~p. I don't know what that means to you but we will keep them. And then also on this part of the property, we have 8 acres here. There is a ravine that drops about 2.S feet, 30 feet from the road and there is water that runs from over in this pasture area, under the road and through our property into Lake St. Joe, which is down in here. We had some concerns last year because this is a naUn'al environment lake and we werc concerned because of dcvelopm~t. These people using Chemlawn. Using whatever they need to use on their lawns. That water's going to carry stuff into ~ St. Joe. Is that ravine going to be rcrouted or is that going to be closed off or what happens with that if they put a pond in the ground? Hcmt~l: That's correct. That location there is proposed for a storm water quality pond for treauuent of storm water runoff generated from the additional development. It will pick up suffaoe drainage from streets and lawns and pond it into thc pond for trcatn~t and ~ will overflow to the storm sewer syst~n down Kings Road and towards La]~ SL Joe is an oufloL Sue Morgan: This way? Hempel: Right in that area...down to St. Joe after being treated. Sue Morgan: Okay. So it's not going to flow through our ~ any longer, is that what you're saying? Hempel: That's correct. It will be rerouted. Sue Morgan: Do you know how that's going to affect lake St. Joe by shutting this off? I don't know ff this supports Lake St. Joe with aquatic life. With wildlife. Hemt~l: It will have to be reroute(L..it will end up in Lake St. Joe approximA~ly 300-400 feet east. Sue Morgan: Okay. What happens to this existing culvert that's there now? Does it just get blocked off? Hempel: That would most likely be removed for the utility installation to be installed. Sue Morgan: Okay. Also when we ptuchas~ this land more than 4 years ago, we were forced by the City of Chanhassen to put in a mound system. I don't know if you're all familiar with a mound system but because this land was mmmd environment lake, we weren't 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 able to put in a regular septic system. That mound system cost us over $7,900.00 whereas we could have put in a regular septic system for $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. We will not hook up to water and sewer until that mound system fails. I don't know what that means to you people but we're not going to 8o into hock just because you want to force us into city water and sewer. You already forced us inw $7,900.00 we didn't have to spend. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Again, if you'd like to appeal to the City Council...way to proceed. City water is not required nnless the well goes bad...but the septic system is a requirement per the ordinance. It is in an effort to help from an environmental standpoint... Sue Morgan: So what..? Hempel: So you can appeal the dedm'on or the condition that we stated to the city Council as it proceeds to the next level. Requesting that they give you a variance from that condition... Scott: What's the precedent because I know that we run inw this quite a bit. How, and I'm not going to ask you for percentages, but does that, are variances like that granted in instances such as, recent purchase of that partictdar, inspection of that particular system. Is that a criteria that cardes a lot of weight with the city Cotmcil? Or is it all over the board? Hempel: It's pretty well all over the board. It really depends on the condition of that homeowner's septic system. Somebody will go out, a qualified person will go out and evaluate the system and see that it's functioning properly... Sc, om Okay. And that's what I'm trying to do here. If anybody else here has got that concern, is to at least start thinlcing. If this development does go in and you are faced with the issue of connecting to city services, that'd be something that you'd all want to consider and make sure that you know what's coming. Dollar and cents wise but I would think tha~ would write sense to me that the City Council would look at that because it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have someo~ who's just invested the money within a couple of years and we won't go into the life of systems and so forth but what other issues do you have? Sue Morgan: The other is thc trees. If the Irees need to be taken out, how are they going to be replace. I guess they will be replaced. You said...Wc have 9 red cedar trees. You had mentioned earlier that.. Steve Johnston: I'm not sure Mr. Chairman if you want me to address that. Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Well I know that the comment was made that for trees that are taken out of the development, that we're encouraging with our new tree ordinance to have them clustered so we'd have perhaps 2 in each lot. But what we're talking about here are trees that are going to be removed due to utilities and roads. Anti let me just ask you a question. If the road is moving north, the reason why these trees are going out is, is it utilities? Because I'm thinking if these utilities are being brought in to serve the development, why aren't we nmning the utilities on the other side of the road? Hempel: Well it's a combination of utility installation and you're also grading for the road. The wad will be actually north of the existing Kings Road. The City Attorney has reviewed the city's fights with regards to Kings Road. We're able to show maintenanc~ of that road within thc last, over the last 10 years and we were granted a reservation, or an easement essentially for use of that roadway system and where a portion of the ditch has been plowed or drainage standpoint maintained I guess. They do have a valid point. Maybe woririn§ with the applicant or the park department in trying to provide a landscape plan in this area if these trees were, or most likely going to be removed as a part of this development. Be replaced. Scott: $o the tree removal, .~ince we don't really have the benefit of seeing that on our plans, I mean I'm just going from what I remember of going through the site. But the trees that arc going to be, are proposed to be lost on the south side of Kings Road are being lost because of either (a) the road itself, (b) the utilities or (a) and Hempel: I would say a combination of the two. Scott: The utilities are rtmning south of the road? Hempel: It would be nmnin§ down the center of the 50 foot fight-of-way that's being dedicated with this new plat. Scott: Okay, so these utilities are going under the road? Hempel: That's correct Scott: Okay. And I won't ask you about why we can't do that on the previous issue because we're not talking about that now. Okay. Sue Morgan: Also, how will this development or the hook-up to the ~ and utilities, whatever, affect the other...subdivisions on property? We're what, allotted 3? We only live on one but there's two others~ So if we hook up to the septic and water, how does that affect usas far as...? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: If you subdivide your property you would have to pay connection charges for those additional lots as well It's probably going to be acttmlly cheaper than having to drill your own well or do your own septic or mound system. Sue Morgan: And do you know what is proposed for a holding or...that little ouflot7 What it's going to look like... Hcmpel: Maybe the applicant...could address that. I believe you refer to it as the outlot, as Outlot A...on that site so the rest of it ~.. Sue Morgan: But if there's runoff from the north side of the road under the road to the south side, there's got to be some opening for that runoff to go into. Hen'q~l: That's true. There would be a stm-m sewer extended south of Kings Road tin, ugh that parcel and discharged... Sue Morgan: And the city would run it through... Hempel: The City would maintain it... Sue Morgan: That's all I have. Thank you. Scott: Good. Yes sir. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, Kings Road. I don't undcrs~ the road here. Not only on my property but everybody else's. Let's start from the property up on, where the ~ begins and the road...Therc will be nothing taken off of me or them because that's thc way we've got it set up. Instead of furnishing part of our property to develop this ~, what are we saying? Hempel: Well it's a change in constructing this road. The right-of-way, most of it is being dedicated with this new subdivision of Harsmd's. 50 feet of right-of-way's being trm~sed. It includes up to the south end of the gravel road out there fight now. The roadway would be set within that 50 foot right-of-way. In the future when you come and subdivide at that time, the city's going to ask that you dedicate an additional 10 feet of road right-of-way. Lowell Carlson: Has anybody ever seen my plot of the road or the property linc that we own in here where the property stakes are? Are we furni~hin§ part of this ~ to help this development develop? $o when we develop our's, we'll be short~ ...my ~ see goes way down here by...and it's way on the north side of the road. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: They went out and staked the existing, the southerly fight-of-way of that road. Lowell Carlson: Okay, so it will start on the north side of that stake, on my property stake, and go north, fight? Hempel: There will be no road consu-ucmi west of that/nm'section that you see fight here. Lowell Carlson: Well right here, right where my pwpe~ ~ right here, we're back in the first trac~ We're the last tract to the north. My property s~,e is out in the road right there. Hempel: The plan that you have before you shows the south property line of that subdivision. That will be your north property line. Lowell Carlson: Just south of the road7 Aanenson: Yes. Lowell Carlson: So my 6 acres, you're going to start, so when you develop your ~ you guys come and say hey, you ain't got enough to develop your land because now you're short. You ain't got 6 azre~ no more. We had to take some for this.road over hem because this guys needs it for there and you ain't got enough down there. You took some of the curb there and that curb, my property stake starts right there and cuts this up. That comer fight there is a deluxe piece of property. .. ~g this comer off the way it's supposed to be or. Hemal: At the time that you come and develop, that comer would be discussecL Lowell Carlson: Well I hear you that right now if that road is going to be, as far as I don't know what we're going to spend doing thi~. But we're at least going to gain our own property. That survey has read for years and years that our survey of our pmtm'ty. You're not stealing no more from me. And we're done someplace, they want, pretty soon you're going to have 3 acres left. But when the Minnewashta Pazkway come in they said I've got 8 units in there. Who surveyed it and told me I got room enough to put 8 units and be big enough to qualify for 8 houses on that piece of property? Has anybody? Hempel: What they did to deteavnine that.they figured out how much acreage you had. 8 acres or whatever it was. Or 6 acres and they used the factor of 1.7 units per acre. They figure you should be able to develop on your pamel. That was over the whole Minnewashta Parkway area. That was the factor that was used to d~ira,,,ine how many units you would be able to develop. You'll maybe only develop one. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: Now they stole a piece off of here..This road is on the south edge, no way. A~ording to the stake. You can §o by the property stake. You move that road on that property to develop it so we end up with our fight acreage. Hempel: What the plat is dedicating Mr. Carlson is 30 feet of their ~ for furore right- of-way. The gravel road actually lies south of their 30 feet. So when you come and further subdivide your parcel, you're going to be asked to dedica~ the other 30 feet for a total of 60 feet. Lowell Carlson: It will be fight on my doorstep, like...up on Minnewashta Parkway. Hempel: I'm not familiar with the location I guess of your house in there but the road would be cenmvxi in that 60 foot strip. Scott: I guess what I'd recommend is having Lowell Carlson: ...for years and years. All it was was a horse trail and th~ said weal, ~n's maintained that road aH these ~ For 7 years. Carlson and Chanhassen have maintained that mad for all these years. So...whoever develops this land, my neighbc~ whatever, they're steading part of the ~...as far as I'm concerned because...lot is. He can't be...sell the land or the ~. They've got a lot stake on ev~'y piece of ~ around here. Can you walk over and take a chunk off of _this one and chunk off of that one and say hey, good enough or what can you do? Scott: Mr. Carlson, I guess what my suggestion would be, is if you do have some plans, which it sounds like you do, to subdivide your property at some future date, would be to meet with city staff and then they'll be in a betlrr position to talk specifically about, and maybe it's going to require a trip out to your property, but I think that's probably a better way to do that. They'd have the specific information at their finger tips to help you understand precisely what's going on because we're talking about red or orange lines on an overhead and I know, I'd have difficulty understanding what I'd be getting into if I were in your s/tuation based upon that. Lowell Carlson: Well we've been in court far about 10 years. Over a building. And we've got it settled that we're off the property line ancL..set back from the building we're going to build now finally. It's on it's way. So we're set back from a property stake. Where my property stake is 25 and 50 back to the road, and that's where we're going to be. They say that the road is going to come back here and go in that building too? Scott: I can't answer that question- 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: It's so loused up that...development, how far is the sewer and water going to nm? Come into our ~. Where is it going7 At least have some kind of. ~1: Mr. Chairman let me address that. It is proposed to eventually eocamd sewer and wa~er all the way down to, is it the curve. Lowell Carlson: Down to this here? Hempel: And dead end it there. Lowell Carlson: Are they putting a lift station to pump it up on top of this hill and go back down or what are they planning on doing? Hempel: The sewer will be..Antersection of Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It will be serviced through gravity. That west~ly edge of the curb and ~ From there on it may... Lowell Carlson: If the thing will get that close to my house, I want to put a deeper foundation if they're going that deep to that lift station. Hempel: We have to go over the plans sometime in the office to make sure we're adequately going to be able serve your parcel. Scott: Yeah, that's alright. Are there some other people who would like to speak at the public hearing, if I may? Margie Borris: ...Mr. Carlson about losing his property? Scott: Yeah, excuse me. Mr. Carlson, okay. Yes ma'am. Margie Borris: We're getting taxed at so many square feet in our...and if you lose thc square footage of the road and the 5 feet on thc north side of the road, which belongs to each one of us as we go along down Kings Road. So you're going to take the road plus the part that would be all the across the width of the pmpe~. So we're all going to lose several hundreds to thousands of feet of our ~. Are we also going to get ~, like he said, resurveyed? That we now go to a smaller lot and pay less taxes? Scott: Those are issues that we don't address here. I think there seems to be a lot of concern as to what's going to happen. Perhaps, would you mind drawing a drawing up there so that everybody that's concerned about right-of-ways, you can say if your property line is here, the road goes here. Right-of-way is here. If you decide to subdivide 30 feet here, etc, etc. I 35 Planning Commission Me,ting - May 18, 1994 thini~ that's a lot of the property owners have that question. I think we can deal with all of them fairly surgically, if you would. Hempeh Okay. Right now Kings Road is a gravel road that kind of meanders down to th~ south property line. But based on the drawings I was looking at, something like that and then ~ders even further south. What this subdivision is doing is dedicating 50 feet of right-of- way, actually on the north side of Kings Road. The road will then be built basically centered within this 50 foot right-of-way. Resident: Excuse mc, you just drew a line both north and south... Scott: It looks a dimensional arrow for the 50 feet. Hempel: Right. That heavy black line is aco_,slly the north ~ line, all the way along there. The gravel road acumlly lies south of that. The right-of-way that is being dedicated is north of that The new street will be centered within that ~) foot right-of-way. The gravel Ledvina: Excuse me Dave. What's the width of the street? Hempel: The new street will be 31 feet back to back. Curb to curb. That's a standard urban section. Scott: So basically that 30 feet is going to be in, and the street is going to go within the 50 feet and as of right now the property owners have not lost anything. They have not gained anything. That's going to impact, because of the utilities and thc slxeet construction, that's going to impact m~.s. I mean that's an issue that they should be concerned with but as far as any change to their boundaries. Any change to their pr~ size. acreage, zcro impact. Hcmpel: That's correct Scott: Okay, does everybody understand that? Sue Morgan: No. See thc only problem is, there's some legalities and I think that that's the issue. Not so much property. The actual where the road is. But there's legalities because I don't know if our deed says anything about ownership of the road or how we get into the road but Margie's and Carlson's does. There's some ownership of that property because Kings Road was originally just put in there by plow horses just to get back to the fields. So the wad was never really a city road. So these people own some of that land. So what he's saying is, there's still some legalities that haven't been figm~ on all the lot lines as to...frorn the gravel and whatever but still there's some legalities that have to be resolved. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Yeah, and that's I guess what we're doing here is we're collecting feedback on these issues and there are going to be sorm other avenues to discuss flint. That's not someth/ng that we're going to recommend but what I'm thinking here, ~ince this seems to be the bone of contention and I think it's ingumant that everybody unders~ what's happening and if it has to do with taxation, I mean this is not the forum. Future development. That's not the forum. I mean you need to talk to city staff about that but if you could continue, because I think it's important for people to know what's going on here. Hempel: Sure. Thank you Mr. Chairma~ Again, the gravel road that's out there will eventually be abandoned with a new road built. And driveways would then be connected to the new slreet. Sco~ Now when that happe~ then, so if, would that be a vacation of pan of Kings Road that would revert to the ~ owner7 Hempel: There would be no vacation involved because there's nothing in writing that the city has an easement over it. We've acquired the rights to use it with adverse possession of maintaining it for all these years. Scott: Okay. So when you're talking about the, so the road ownership, actually there's no change. Thc people own it. It was an easement to the city. Okay. Hempel: Eventually if you further subdiv/de your pwperty at some time, then the city would request an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to dedicate the wtal of 60 feet. The road won't change. Thc road will still be there where it's going to be built, or proposed to be. Scott: Okay. Are we all tracking with this? Lowell Carlson: Not really. This stuff you dedicated as right-of-way, who's dedicating it? Hempel: The Harstad's development. The applicants of this development. Lowell Carlson: Because where's he dedicauing it from? Is he dedicating it from the north side of the road and he's going to go in 50 feet into that ~? Hempel: He's going from your north property line. From your property line or his south pr~ line... Lowell Carlson: 50 feet deep. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: h's all contained in their property. It does not affect you. Lowell Carlson: So when this thing moves over, let's see that would be, well let's say that's their property. Where are we? Their property line. Hempel: This is the 50 feet area here. Then as you go beyond this property and get in front of here, the fight-of-way is being reduced down to 30 feet because we're not constructing the road beyond this point. So it would remain a gravel road. Lowell Carlson: And you're going along with sewer and water at tiffs ~ time down there? Hempel: I don't believe we are going any further at this time...Those homes are a future phase. It's shown on this as a preliminary plat. The final plat will not plat those at this time. They'll be remaining as an outlot. Cannot be built on until they are phtmi. Margie Borris: But they don't have to hook up and we do? You can't build on them? Scott: Yeah. They Hempel: There will be at some time and at that time the road will have to be upgraded so sewer and water also can be extended in front of those parcels...so it's going to remain a vacant piece of property. These parcels right here will mmin as an open space. They will be replamxi... Lowell Carlson: Is this sewer and water coming up...in there or where is it going? Hempel: That's correct. Sewer and water will be brought from Minnew~m Paflmmy, up the new road, up m the intersection and then ~ought into the subdivision. Lowell Carlson: Okay what about, is there going to be curb and gutm', blackWp and storm sewer and the whole works going up to the point then also at this particular time? Hcmpel: That's ¢~ Up ~o ~ poinl~ Lowell Carlson: And it gets assessed back to, what portion of it will probably be paid by the people that live on this side, on the south side? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May lg, 1994 Hernpel: There will be no assessments for the street or storm sewer. There will be future . assessments, what we call a connection charge when you want to hook up, or need to hook up to the sewer and water lines. But at this time there will be no assessments to those property owners to the south. Lowell Carlson: For instance if I owned this ~ right here and it was coming by at this particular time and I wanted to subdivide this out, could I have a stub rnnning to that one at no extra charge? Hempel: They would put in stubs at this time but with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by the City. When the city collects a connection charge from those properties fol' hooking up. Lowell Carlson: Okay, that's... Margie Borris: When they're building this road, how are we going to get to work? That's the only exit we have to Minnewashta Parkway. Hempel: That's correct. That will take some coardinafion- It's not uncommno for a lot of construcfiom..similar to the downtown budnesse~. We kept the downtown businesses going while we recons~ downwwn. Margie Borris: Are you going to put us all in a hotel? Scott: Probably not. Okay. Bxcuse me, Mr. Carlson. I'm just saying, if you have a, if you've got some plans to subdivide your property, it'd probably be a real good use of your time and the city staff's time to speak specifically about your parcel and talk about stubs and reimburserrw~ts and potential future assessments. It sounds like it's a project you're quite Lowell Carlson: Well my Metropolitan Sewer fi'iend, my brother lives down here. At that time the send box for the Metropolitan Sewer, now it's $800.00 or whatcwer... Sc, om Build now. Develop now. Beat the rush. Okay, good. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing? Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and one of the things that kind of struck me when I sat down Wnight and I heard this plan, I mean we just got the drawing in the mail like last Thursday and it's the first I had heard that anything was even going farward since the last time we were here when it got, we thought it got denied. And I looked at it 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1 and I thought, well this looks like a much better plan. It seems to deal with things bet~' that were concerns at the time. And then I was sitting here and I heard these things about the, when the road comes through, that we are likely to lose these trees and I don't know if any of you have been, drive out Kings Road but our house is very close to the road and right now we have a buffer that is a very sharp drop off to the wad. It's about 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall And right on the edge of that are all these huge old cedar trees, And if those go, the hill goes, suddenly we're totally exposed to the road. I moved out here with a natural envimmnent lake in my back yard, protected from the road and I'm not naive thinking that development won't come but that whole ~ is vacant, or will be. And I don't see any reason why it can't be done so that it doesn't disturb anything that when people who already live there have and have tended and pan of the reasons that we bought the property is that we bought you know, he's saying the road won't affect it but if, I mean these trees are right on the edge of the road. Anything past the edge of the gravel is going to kill those trees and they're not replaceable in my lifetime or any that's here's lifefin~ And_ so it concerns me a great deal and I think about what happened on Minnewashta Parkway and these crumby old huge m_s_ple trees, which are beautiful in the fall but they're not beau~ the rest of the year, were saved to make it difficult for all these boat owners to get their boats down the ramp because Minnewashta Parkway got diverlrxt by that. I just see some incomfistencies that really bother me. And when I hear about the concern for the trees that are existing on the pmI)eny that's being developed, and I don't think there's one tree out there that's nearly as old as any cedar trees that we have. I do also have some concerns about the sewer bosiness but that's been fairly claxified that that will happen sometime in the future and approach the City Council, did you say on that? But I think all of us, you know like people who's property is being developed or don't live there yet. They don't even know what it looks like. They don't know what they'll be losing if all of the right-of-way is on the north side of the wad and not infringing on our proper~ or taking flees. And make that a legal battle if it comes to it. I think it's unfommate that these things just keep getting sort of popped on us. We come here and here about all these plans that affect us and no one will ever come directly to us and talk to us about it and explain how the road's going to work. We see these little stakes out there and it's like control point. I wonder what a conlrol point is and I see little stakes staking out the edge of the wetland and stuff but it's almost like a big secret or something. I don't know how to get more involved. I know before I had spoken to you in person. I have spoken to one of the city engineers in person. But when I saw this plan it looked, where the pond was, so it didn't concern me too much until I got here tonight and...my stomach dropped out when I heard I might lose those Irees because they're very beaufiflfl. Another aspect, Sue mentioned where we have drainage that now goes through our property. Where the wad is, it's a ~y steep drop off and I'm not sure what the plans are there. I would really like to know specifically how this plan will affect my property because it's my pr~ and any changes to it impacts me and how I think about it and how I feel about it. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you very much. Hcmpel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one point. In some projects lille this which you know really ~ nelghborh~ and that, it's not uncommon to hold a neighborhood meeting between the applicant and the neighbors out ~. Scott: Has that hapt~ed? Hempel: I believe that..from the applicant's engineer, that tha~ would be a doable process h~xe and maybe could shed some more light on the residents. What action will take place out there. Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak at the public hearing with new information? Larry Wenzel: Yeah, I'm Larry Wenzel, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Would you put up that liule drawing? The only thing that I, I have a concern where they pc~ued in the cud-de- sac going from the west to the eas~ and fl~e b~unce of our ~, the most feasible way to develop the rest of that land if it were to be developed and I'd just like to sta~e thst thc~ might be other options other than that.I'm not sure. That leaves 2 houses to gain 5 lots which might not waive an awful lot of economic sense. The City has to assess 6 lots on the front as far as the s~et on ~giinn~a~[a Parkway i8 concerned. I don't think they could fit in there anyway but I just think that allm'nat~ concept ~y should be looked at. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Kevin Chutdihy: I'm Kevin Chutdihy, 3900 Stratford. I'm just curious as to what's going to be submitted to the City Council. Is this plan h~re going to be redrawn as we see it here? FuV. u-e development as compared to the one that's been up most of the evening. Primarily these three lots being pushed back. Aanenson: This is what the applicant is proposing. Part of our job is to look at the surrounding properties. As Mr. Wenzel has indicau~d...vla a l Vat ~ve. Mr. Headla who has indicated that he wants to subdivide his property in the futura. We certainly reco~i~e that someday the Hallgren property will also be subdivided. It was always intended for Stratford to go through and as it roms out now, the way it was, the easement is given to the homeowners association. In looking at this portion of the Hallgren property being a cul-de- sac possibly...We're recommending that the option, the other option with the cul-de-sac serving the Wenzel ~...probably be most ~le. We're just putting that forward as the staff's recommendation and having the option if it should develop. Whether or not the Planning Commission supports that or the City Council Again, it depends on too, as far as 41 Planning Commisdon Meeting - May 18, 1994 what the Park Commission is recommending. We're just showing that there's a possibility that they can...morc lots. You know whether that happens. Certainly this is what they understand~..But right now we feel tha~ this proposal is probably the best way to do it. This would be our, the staff's first choice~ Ceminly there are other option~ To have this wad §o through. I mean you have...that's an option. That's not our ~ to have a private drive. Certainly that's obviously an option or have Headla get access off of Stratford Lane and have the street be cut down instead of showing, that certa/nly is another option too. That wonldn't be our first choice. This would be our first choice as far as access and future development. That's wha~ we'd be looking for this plat Scott: Okay. Kevin Cuddihy: I'd just like to do something a little bit different and say, I think this... rcco~d is my first choice as well Just speaking for 3900 Stratford. That this would be a first choice as well. Sc. om Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Dave Headla: Dave Headla, 6870 lVlinnewashta Parkway. I'd like to address the two ladies and their concern about red cedars. We lost a tremendous amount in that area. We had an awful lot of them at one time. And what I'd like to see you do is just save the big cedars. They don't go. They are not going to be touched. Find another way to solve the problem. I think there's, I'm not sure of the dze of some of these. I know conifers can be moved a lot easier than the cedars. I think we ought to see if we can't move the other red cedars someplace for these ladies if they so choose or be convenient for them. But I sure hate to see us lose any more trees, the red cedars. Scorn Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Bill Munig: Bill Munig, 6850 Stratford. I'd just like to encourage you to vote for this little amendment that they got up there to access the, I know that Mr. Headla would lilm to have future access to subdivide his land there and I understand it's restricted coming off of Minncwashta Parkway. Like he said, by putting that up theme you're going to greatly reduce the number of triple fronted lots that would be in Stratford and over in the Hallgren ~. And since I do live in one of those triple fronted lots, I'd like to vigorously encourage you to go with this plan allowing the extra cul-de--sac and moving those other 3 lots further to the north. If you vote for that, you'd be greatly enhancing my quality of life. Thank you. Scorn Okay, would any residents like W, yes sir. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Suafford Ridge.. I think this plan is far superior to the last couple that we saw. I think most of our concerns was the tra~c and the trees. I don't know any~ing about red cedars but if it takes 100 years to get one, it seems like it ought to be worth something. Do whatever is necessary. I guess I do have a question as far as the parks...as far as they like this plan or don't like this plan. What happens to the outlot as far as the beach area? What type of uses... Aanenson: That's going to all be ~ at the l~rk meeting on May 24th. I think what they looked at...is that would just be maybe an area to dock boats or anything like that, just a beach arum_ Harold Taylor: Does the developer have a plan or has he su~ a plan? Aanenson: No, the city will lake it as a park lot. So it will be in the city's. Harold Taylor: Okay. And at that time the city will decide what type of park facilities it will have? Aanenson: Correct The Park Commission make~ that decision. Harold Taylor: Okay, thank you very much. Alliu Karels: My name is Allin ~ 3920 Stratford. The plan that's up ~ my con~ would be increased traffic going down Stratford. But the plan that's there now would not feed all of the traffic through Stratford, is that my undemanding? Aanenson: Right. Right now the only access still that would go down would be Mrs. Hallgren who still has a 33 feet right-of-way. When that pr~'s developed, then it would Wuch these lots. So you'd have lots that... Alli~ Karels: So it wouldn't feed all 50 cars down that, from the development? Aanenson: That's not the intent, no. The intent is to go back onto Kings Way. Eventually when these streets fie up, Country Oaks Drive is going to be open to the north towards Highway 7. A11in Karels: I obviously would prefer this just to keep the traffic, the speed of Iraffic, which is our, which is my concern also, on Straffc~. So I'd certainly be supportive of staff's suggestion. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 199~ . Scott: Good, thank you. Keith Bedford: Keith Bedford. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. The second...reflects back to what people refer to as Stratford Lane proposed. I, in visiting with Mr. Headla, undersumd hi_~ need for the extra 30 feet...to have them to cul-de-sac him and to have this i~ue settled at thia time. I would be very much against any increased traffic on Stratford Lane. I think it would have a devastating affect on the matke~lity of those properties because they are close to Stratford Lane now. It's been reporUxl in the City of 8horewood that each new house generates approximately 7...tra/~s a day. So if we have 50 lots times 7, and Stratford Lane did go through, that would be the main feeder onw Minnewashta Parkway and because of the decrease in value of those properties, I would be very much against it. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Yes ma 'am. Excuse me. Lowell Carlson: Is that, who ends up with the beach part of it on that particular? Is that part of Chanhas~? Aan~n: The City of Chanhassen. Scott: Yep, the City of ~ Yes ma'am. Janet Carlson: I'm Janet Carlson. I live at 4131 l~ings Road. How many openings we were wondering into thc park will there be out onto Kings Road? Aanenson: That's something for the Park Commission to decide... Janet Carlson: Okay, and those...make a comment on, as far as the upkeep on the wad. We should keep track of how many times the city bhdes that road and how many times Lowell Carlson blades that road. You'd be amazed. We've done it 7 times this year and the city's done it once. It's a mess. Scott: Any other comments7 Can I have a motion to close the public ~g please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearing, All voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Ledvina: I want to talk about frees. I undermnd the value d the trees and I don't know, is there a possibility that those uees can be moved? I nean if you're talking about a 100 year old tree, I would imagine so. Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: We tried to get some moved and if the u'uck is over 6 inches, they said it couldn't be done and they're all over 6 inches. I~l~: Okay. Aanenson: ...trees on the survey, it's hard to speculate on a lot of things. I think what Dave suggested is that the engineer meet on sit~ and we ceminly...tree c~rdinance. We try to meet on site and work out this. I think at this point, they didn't show up on the tree survey because they weren't on their ~ but the trench will obviously i .mpact that. I think that's something we'll have to me~ out in the field to try to see if there's a solution. Ledvina: Do you have a recommendation on that then? Aanenson: Well that they work with the applicant's engineer to go out on the field and see what we can do. See what the options are. Ledvina: As it relates to what we have in front of us? Aanenson: Yes. I think the condition would be that we work to save the trees. Ledvina: Dave, is that possible given the grade that we're looking at? I ~ the grade, the street grade that we have is fairly straight forward in terms of. Hempel: The...pretty good stxeet grade though there too. I would say it's 5 or 10...to m,_te.h the contours out there. Match the existing properties. It would be helpful to see the placement of the trees~..They are north of the gravel driveway and the gravel driveway is all being disturbed as part of the new. Ledvina: So let me understand this. The re:es that are going to be lost now, sre they.on the developer's property? Hempel: That's a question that probably should be addressed by the applicant. That can be shown on surveys. On a survey... Ledvina: Okay. I guess I see that as a very significant thing and I don't know exactly if that precludes our acting on it tonight. I can't speak for the other commi~ioners but...Let me take a look at some of the other things and I'I1 just set that aside...The Outlot A...is there a residence on Outlot A? Or what are those? Are there buildings there? Resident: Those are...bams. Or sheds. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: So there's no development that occum whatsoever on Ouflot A? Aanenson: ...engineer to save the wetland and basically we've determined that to meet...~ kind of wetland setback and nav. m~ environment. Previously they had to...two lots but we always felt they were questionable... Ledvina: Okay. Well yeah, I want to say initially here that I feel the plan is much better than what we previously saw and I think thc developer has tried to work with thc trowel quite a Mt. I understand that thc residents concern with thc trees and those arc some things that I'm sure he is dealing with ~obably for the first time toniEht. So but overall I like the street layout. I'd support the staff recommendation as it rclates to thc connection or the sueets or connections with other parcels. The surface water po_m/ing area now, this is property that's going to be owned by the developer? Is that cxarect? Aanenson: Well we asked that it be put in an ouflot. Are you talking about on the park Aanenson: Yeah. We'd be taking... Hernpch That's correct. Originally it was proposed as parkland. What we're saying it should be dedicated as an outlot Ledvina: Okay. Well, thc reason I ask is, this is, this looks to be a very large po_riding area and I'm certainly all for having a pond that's going to work and do thc job but I don't know what thc total area here is that thi.~ pond will serve but it appears overly large and if that's subtracts from usable park property, I wouidn't want to see that. Because I don't know what's going to go in here but if we can make sure that what's laid out there in it's final form is reasonable and not n~y oversized. We need it functional, yes but not oversized such that we're essentially wasting park space. Dave on condition number 16. You say that the city has allowed up to 10% street grades, etc. Consideration should be given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impacts to the properties to the south. What are you thin.rig there? Are you talking about modifying the grade of Kings Road there? Hcmpel: Yes. That's the intent is that we would allow them to increase the street grade, if that would help reduce thc impact to thc properties to thc south, then we would be in full support of that. Planning Commi~ion Meeting - May lg, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments Mr. Chair. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: It's a far better plan than we've seen. I live it. I think the neighbors have brought up some valid points. There should be a neighborhood meeting. Without a doubt. The co~ts, the surprise. We hear that all the time and I think, the way to solve that is a neighborhood meeting. Hard W feel like you're fighting a developer with the money that they have or stand to gain and hopefully we can bridge that little gap with a developer talking to you a little bit more. I do need a uee survey on Kings Road. Absolutely, positively. Can't review this without seeing it. It's a big deal. Hook-up costs and those other things, You've got to follow those through. We don't do that here. Thank goodness but you can, you're going to need a variance. There's a reason for hooking up. It's a protection yet they're also, we do know that septics, that mound systems and septic systems can function very validly so, without polluting so, but the ordinance says you hook up. So you'll have to follow that through. Don't consider you telling us that tonight solves the problem. It doesn't. That's it. I think staff did a good job again and I think the developer has done some nice things. I think it's starting to fit a little blt bet~. But I guess I need it back. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the tree issue is very si,~ni~cant and I want to know what's actually corning out as a result of the road development. I want to know who owns the trees and how, if this things goes throu~ they'll be compensated for that if they can so. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I'll echo those comments. Trees are a si~ificant issue. Short of just putting it as part of condition 16, minimize disrupfion...not removing the trees. I think there's probably some issues that I've heard about who owns them so let's get it back with that. I didn't sec the original plan. I wasn't here but I'll take the comments of the other commissioners and that it is an improvement over thc past. I didn't have too much. I don't have a whole lot of other comments at this time. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything to add. The other commissioners have touched upon what I'm concerned with. I would like to thank the residents for coming in, as well as the applicant. That's an important part of the process and I think that a lot of people feel that the city kind of does what they do and never telh anybody and if perhaps some of you feel that that's the case, that's ~y not the intent. But it is important that you're here and as Planning Commission Meeting - May 1 g, 1994 we said, we make recommendations to the City Council They make the final dechn'on~ Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, exagept for one ns I recall, but you can get those from City HaIL 2]mre's nothing wrong with calling and lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this again. The directions are quite clear from the other commi~one~ so I'd like to ask for a motion please. Steve John.~ton: Could I address the commission please? Scott: No. Ledvin~ I would move that the Planning Commi.~ion table preliminary plat, Case # 93-11. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93-11 for ltarstad Companies. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this ns soon ns possible so it looks like June 1st. Okay, thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18-$7~ STREETS~ BY AMENDING (O.) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4~ 1~ la12~ AND RI6 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. Sharrnin Al-laff presented the staff l~pon on this item and stated that because of a change, the public hearing would have to be re-published. Sc. om That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinance~ I think if we're talking about an R-12 or an R-16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know, Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 dueling ordinances so. We need to see how that's going to play. Maybe we have to do something with, you know if it has to do with a public safety issue, obviously we have to take that into suong consideration but then if it imp. acts the ability of someone building an R- 16, that may preclude someone's ability to do that so, just as long as we don't, I personally don't want to have to deal with that when we're ~g a large development, which is probably what we're going to be getting when we're looking at this kind of zoning. So anyway. Al-Jaff: I might add, for instance the development you were looking at before this one. Kings Road was going to be 31 feet curb to curb. So in most cases it will be below the 36 that is recommended or that is requested by the Fire Department. But again I have been looking at the ordinance before and I asked for the/r input and that's what they requested. And that's what their reasoning is behind iL Scott: Okay. So you're just looking for comments. Al-Jaff: Input and comments. Scott And then we'll have another public hearing. Ledvina: This is the, you know the forest through the trees. I mean talk about all ~ things creep up and when you look at a multi-family and all of a sudden you're going to require a minimum of 24 feet. You've started to build a barrier to affordable housing again. I mean these are little things and maybe I'm off base but I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at the overall goals and see what's happening here. I don't know that that makes any difference but I don't know. I think it's kind of a creep process. A1-Jaff: So you would rather see the private driveways narrower? Ledvina: Narrower, I don't know. And getting back to Joe's issue with i .ml~:rvious surface. I ~ that's going to work into it too. I mean you get these things fighting against each other. You're trying to get the densities up to make things affordable. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out. I don't know how it all fits together but just a thought. A1-Jaff: WelL.. Nutting: Is this guidance or confusion? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Sco~ I think you get some of both from us. More of the later than the former some~ Ledvina: This is a public hearing though, fight? Scott: Not yet. It wasn't properly noticed so we'll have to continue it. To be continued. Conrad: Just philosophically, I'm sort of not listening so bear with me. Philosophically the standards for a private street, why are they different than a public street? A1-Jaff: We would not be maintaining a private street. It would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Whoever owns that strip. It will be dedicated to... Conrad: So in terms of construction requirements, it would still be the same for a public versus private? You've changed some tonnage requirements. Al-Jaff: Correct. What's required. We still want to have em~gency vehicles to be able to the roads but we won't be main~g them. Conrad: So this is a, there's some environmental i .mlmct here. We can allow a private street that may not, they can come in at a smaller size with a private street so that's one thing this does. What else? A1-Jaff: It reduces hard surface coverage. In comparison to a full fledged city street, which Aanenson: We see them a lot when we've done condominium or atmmnent projects and you see therm..Again what it goes back to, as Sharmin indicated, the impervious surface. What we're doing right now is trying to legitimize what we've been doing. As the ~ indicated we're promoting private driveways for whatever reason but certainly not, there's really more streets when you're serving more than one person. And we're going to...and we usually talking about land functions and things to do that in and it does address...wefland plan. Our tree canopy, which I think is really on the cutting edge of tree preservation. And now with this privatr drive. Again, it's tools to preserve landfonns. Conrad: Yeah, I sure like some of the tools that are in place or real close. It sure mak~ some decision making a lot easier than willy hilly. You know it's nifty stuff. Ledvina: Does that mean that sewer line.,s don't go as far and you have longer lalm-als and things like that? Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: Not necessarily. Ledvina: I me, aa because your city irnprov~ent is less. I me, aa it's not going all the way kind of thing. Al-Is/f: It would be than the private street's. Ledvina: Well I mean just for example White Oak Lane. The one that we had today. This evening where you're actually ~g the su'eet 100 feet or something ~ that. Well, that means 100 feet less sever and are those ~ coming in longer or does the? Aanenson: Actually it came to a Y and they all separated. Under that circumstances it would come just like a big cul-de-sac and they all have their connections off that. I think you have to look at it on an individual basis depe~_ding on where the driveway is split off and... Ledvina: But that means longer lammls right? Aanenson: Again, it depends on how the lots lay out. I mean it may have a continuous... Ledv~: I don't know that that's necessm'ily bad but. Aanenson: That's a legitimate concern but I think it would depend on the length of the common driveway. It's just like if we looked at townhouse project...and this one I don't think so. When we were looking at the Oaks on 1Minnewashta, I think the lalm'ais... Conrad: So do we recommend private streets? Arc we re, c, onm~ling or is the developer requesting? It can be either? Aanenson: On this one he. Conrad: Well, in our ordinance. In thc ordinance is it staff saying, we don't want to maintain that or build that. A1-Jaff: Wcll if hc's going to meet our staadm~ thercforc wc don't want to maintain them. Aanenson: Are you asking who's asks for them? Aanenson: Normally that's the only way to subdivide the ~, we would reconunend 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 that. Or if for environmental reasons it makers more sense. That would be two options. This en~neer wasn't even aware that was an option so we showed him and he said well hey, that makes sense. Great, I'lL.can save more trees. Ledvina: Are we compromising our in--on though for people to gain access to their houses? By doing this. Aanenson: As far as, do they have an association to maintain that se~umentq Aanenson: Well that's a trade off. It's a trade off. Ledvina: I understand you know but. Conrad: I think it's a nice tool. It gives us some liberty to do some things. Ledvina: Sometirrw~ it's going to work really well Some~ ff it's misapplied, it's not going to work. Aanenson: I think we've got_where we apply it and certainly for the fight reasons. Not just because well, the developer wants to do it There's got to be a specific reason. Scott: And then what happens? Let's say you've got some sort of a homeowners association or something that has, I'm thinking about ~ke a R-16 and then for some reason thc association does not take care of it or ~g like that. Is the city going to end up with the responsibility? It's just like henceforth and w~er. If your association doem't handle it, get your shovel out. I just don't want to see stuff coming back where the city's going to have to then maintain something that's not easy to maintain. A1-Jaff: The intention is also to have all those agreements with that associ~'on recorded with the County. And Kate, I don't know how much we/ght that Aanenson: No, but that's what we do right now when we get those agree~ts... Scott: Okay. Do you guys have any questions or comments? Ledvina: No. Aanenson: I guess we wanted to have this,..because the next 2 wee~ agenda is,..hopefully 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we flushed out a lot of issues tonight, we though we tabled quite a few of them.. Al-laff: So the two issues that you definitely want us to look at is, hnpact on affordable housing as hard surface coverage? Ledvina: Well, just some thoughts. I mean I don't need a science project or whatever, or a research study but what I'm thinking about is, and kind of working off of your comment is that, we've got things that we're trying to accomplish goals and are we putting hurdles in the way of ourselves without even knowing it I guess. You know a lot of times we look at things. We work hard to do it right but we don't see it in light of the big picture and that's, I don't know. Scott: Do we need to do anything? I mean do we have to vote to continue? Okay, it's continued. APPROVAL OF MlPH. rrF. S: Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 1994 as preseated. All voted in fav~ and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: ..Just a reminder that I need somebody from the Planning Commi~,sion to attend the charette on the 26th. I think Nancy was going to try W. Ledvina: What charette? Aanenson: That's on the Bluff Creek Ledvina: What's the? Aanenson: It's from 9:00 to noon. Possibly 12:30 down in the senior center with Bill Morrish and we're going to try to... Ledvina: Those day meetings are really tough. I'd really like to go but I just can't me, ak away. Aanenson: Well af~ we. Nutting: Didn't Nancjr say something about a charette? 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aan~n: ...we'd like at least one Planning Commissioner. We're trying to keep that... Aanenson: What we're going to do with this...~ grant and then you'H see. Other than that I just wanted to let you know that...and focusing on the three in--OhS. Kind of the old TH 101 and. Scott: Not Dell Road and Highway Aancnson: No. And the other one is the Target site. Powers and TH 5_ Scott: TH 101 and TH 5, Market and TH 5. Aanenson: ...and just a reminder that it will be a lengthy agenda. .. so hopefully you did flush out a lot of the issues even though these were tabled... Ledvina: I've got a question now. When I looked at the itrms today, on Minnewashta, I thought to myseff, well you're rccornmmding us to table it And I said, well this one here and thc last one that we did. Aanenson: I didn't recommend tabling. There was actually one... Ledvina: Oh, oh, oh, the one before. I'm sorry. Well that one. And I looked at it and I said, well why are we doing it? We're not going to act on it essentially. But I guess aft~ I heard thc residents speak I felt wow, that was a good way of undc~g thc issues and not really putting yourself under thc prcssurc to tmvc to make a decision on it and I like that. But is that going to be something that we're going to see more and more recomn~ndafions to table? Aanenson: Well I think when we feel comf~le with it. Ledvina: I mean first of all, is the developer rcq~ that we, that you bring it to us with a reco~on to table7 Aanenson: No. Ledvina: Okay. I wouldn't think so. So how does he react to that? Aancnson: Well normally when we get to thc point where we xealize there's too many issues, then we begin dialogue to say, you know there's some issues here. Right when we start Planning Commission Meeting - May lg, 1994 working on it we say gee, we're missing this and we're missing that and sometimes staff misses stuff and that's your job to tell us. We don't have enough information. But we try to do is have a dialogue that we need additional information in order to make a recommendation on this and if we agree that we can't get the information in tima or a substantial change from, and they can't get it to you. You've had it...once or twice. What we don't lik~...we certainly feel like we're capable of following through with a specific, I mean... Ledvina: I don't want to belabor it. I just wanted. Scott: That's one of the things that's interestin§ about the chair person is you want to move things along but you don't want to be what you really arc. Anyway. REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE. Aanenson: I just put that into the packet because I think the next packet_is going to be pretty lengthy. I thouEht this would give you some additional time to read through it. As I indicated, we've got some slides showing the wall signs, I think will be very helpf~ To give you an idea where we're going with that. And also we're going to have slides of each of the different definitions so I think that will be helpful And I'm sure there will be quite a few people here to hear that. But we're hoping afmr this disc~ trying to finalize it and then come back with just the ordinance itself and then have the public hearing and pass it on. But I envision this next meeting...to be a work sesdon again. Not a public heafing...for you to understand and then have the public hearing on it. Conrad: So June 1st is a work session? Aanenson: I think we want to... Nutting: So we're talking 5:307 Aanenson: Thc other thing is we're trying to §et on the shoreland regs. Scott: The who? Aanenson: The shoreland regulations. We had an extended deadline from the DNR to get that adopted. Fommately they haven't worked on it and we're pressing up against that time window and the other _things we want to do is we've got some big co~nsive planning issues and that's the storm water management plan which we've been actually...on these projects but we haven't officially adopted...And that's another meeting that, I think if we can put maybe just the shomland regs and the storm water management just as a separate 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 meeting. That might be appropriate. Ledvina: A full meeting. Aanenson: A full meeting just to talk about those issues because I think Diane needs to be there and then we can just handle that and try not to take anything else. I think that will up pretty much of our time. Conrad: Storm wal~r's a big deal. Aan~n: It is vc~y...give rne some Scott: I think we just need to have them earli~ at 5:30 and then those who can mak~ it, you know come and the other folks just get there when they can. Aanenson: I think you need to have a work session before you have a public hearing... Conrad: And then we're going to let the Chambe~ folks, the chamber's doing some stuff, fight? Scott: Yeah, they're. Conrad: And they'll be invited to the public hearing? Aanenson: Yeah, they can certainly come to the work session. I think at this point you have a better understanding what we're doing before we, just like we did with the comp plan... Conrad: But do they know that yet7 Aanenson: I s~nt... Scott: Yeah, I appreciate the wozk that you've been doing with the Chamber of Commerce. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjo~ the meeting, AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p~rn. Submitt~ by Kat~ Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 56