Loading...
PC 1994 06 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REG~ MEETING JUNE 1, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, Sharmin Al-$aff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer (The quality of the recording on the first tape was very poor and therefore a lot of the discussion could not be hear&) ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERS~CH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATION,A1. BEACHI.OTi WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLANDi AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LO(2ATED ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE~ NEUMANN SUBDIVISION.' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Would the applicant or their representative wish to speak? Ken Adoff: Mr. Chairman, members 6f the Commission, my name is Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, the consulting en~neers for the applicant. The applicant...Mrs. Neumann is here...Harry Peters and Harry Peterson- I'd like to address several of the recommcn~fions. I'll just go through them item by item. On the first one, the 13 foot front yard variance on Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard se~ variance on Lot 4. I believe it should be Lot 3 which is the...On the vacation of 1Viinnewashta Avenue, I did make a transparency and if there's any questions on the location of that. We'd like to just mak~ a clarific, afion of what Mr. Weimerskirch was misquoted in the Minutes of the ~ous meeting on the vacation of actually Sandpiper Lane and I believe he's... Ann Wiemerskirch: On page 18 of the Minutes.any husband said, but they do nevertheless have the fight-of-way to that so we have no intention of, and he said distmt~g that and he's quoted here as saying prese~dng that and we don't want the neighbors to think that we have no intention of preserving that right-of-way to the lake. He... Ken Adolf: Okay, I have...additional clarification. In determination of Lots 1 and 2, the applicant feels that both of those lots...both of those lots meet the ordinance requirements so we don't need variances. We feel that the justification~..all the mitigation that is necessary is provided to the street construction. There isn't any...included for provi_'tling a buildable sile. And the other, two other items...adjacent to a wetland. One of the iterm, we don't feel that that's necessarily a justification for.. .There' s no justification to require that. So that should be Lots 1 and 2, Block 1...On the, I guess which is now item 14. I had in my notes number 7. Storm water trunk fees. This is something that apparently is something new which ttid not appear in the previous report and the applicant is questioning if it's appropria~ for them to be subjected to something that hasn't been...or adopl~ by the city. If I guess that's going to be upheld we would ask that the lots for the two existing houses be exempted from having to pay that fee. One of the justifications for the question of whether it should be done is if this had been approved at the last Planning Commisdon meeting...would have been able to avoid this. Aanenson: If I could just make a clarification. We rlidn't...in the last staff report...that it be tabled so that's why it wasn't in there...We just put four reasous why... Ken Adolf: I guess I'm referring to the discussion in the main report. Last time there wasn't any mention of this that I know of. On item 11, which refers to the tree conservation easement and the 10,000 square foot area that would be available to consm~ a home. That's basically been shown on the tree preservation platL A 60 foot pad, which is required by law needs to be shown plus 20 feet around the perimeter of that...We feel that that's really too restrictive in that it wouldn't necessarily...hrger area than that but...being just restricted to that specific area...a tree preservation easement and...is considerable effort to get that relocat~ if necessary. What we're asking for is some additional flexibility for that. We feel each lot here is unique and that we'd like to just sit down with the staff and identify a tree preservation easement area on each individual lot rather than just using a rule of 100 x 100 square and trying to find that...lot so we are asking for additional flexibility. Mancino: Excuse me, what is the tone of the development? I mean do you want it to be, are you going to market it, advertise it as a wooded area and draw people in for part of that? Ken Adolf: That's correct That's what the intent is and the initial si~ grading would be... swrm water pond and the lots would be c~ and graded at this time. That would be done with the home con--on and we're...homes here which we design to best fit the sile. Mancino: Do you see it's an added benefit and an added enhancem~t, enticement to the people who are going to come to want to live here, to know that their neighbors are going to preserve their trees too and that there is an easement and so that you know that you won't have a neighbor next to you that's going to clear cut let's say or take 3 or 4 trees. Want a nice front yard instead of this wonderful treed lot that you have already existing there. Ken Adolf: I think I'll defer that to either Harry Peters or Harry Peters. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Harry Peters: I can't quite hear yotc I can only hear out of one ear. Mancino: Okay. Am I loud enough7 Harry Peters: Yeah, that's fine. Mancino: Can you hear me better7 Mancino: Okay. My question has to do with, in some of these neighborhoods where we have a lot of trees to be begin with. ff they're forestc~ etc. People you are going to atlract and buyers to these areas, these wooded lots and build custom homes, tend to, one thing...they like knowing that the other people in thig development want to preserve the trees too. And they like the idea of having a conservation easement on each lot knowing that the other neighbors will not be taking down lots of trees. So it is an enhancement. It is an incentive for them to want to move in thi~ type of area because it is so special and it is unique. Harry Peters: Well I think this is yep/true. I thinir anybody that's going to be inlm~sted in building in this area is going to like, apprecia~ naUn~ because thi~ is a very unique piece of land. But most of these lots that we are creating are all very, very heavily wooded. You can say you're going to build a house and not take a tree down. I mean take a tree down to arrange that. But more importantly, your ordinance calls for a side lot req~t and the setback requirement from the road, the setback req~t from the rear lot line, so the configuration that can be built on on these various lots depends on what that side lot requirenw~t is and the se~ from front and rear. And we don't know until someone comes in and becomes interested in a specific lot, what kind of a house they're going to build. Somebody may want to build a long rambler. Somebody may want to build a two story. And some of these lots, the best building sit~ is back away from the road where you get up on a ridge where you can take advantage of those beautifi~ southerly views looidng out to the parkland to the south. Mancino: So would this Kate, conservation easement that we're talking about in 11, restria that? Is that that area? Aanenson: Yes...if you go in a setback area, you have a lot of flexibility. When we go back and we look at the tree ordinance, the one we just adopted, if someone's buying these lots and wants to go in with a swimming pad or cut it down to put in a swimming pool, then they're in the wrong type of lot. And that's why you try...and maybe it's not a first time buyer. Maybe it's the second person that comes in and wants to add on~ You try to identify Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 the conservation area. Obviously some trees are coming ouL We're...but we're saying beyond that, that we want...that's described inw the home, is aware that they...I think we could look at some differenL..In this ~ we thought it would be easier to say this is a 10,000 square area you can build instead of trying to find the...Here's we're describing the area you can build in... Mancino: ...you will be flexible in listening to what they think? Aanenson: Well, on their tree plan they show a....and we support that....move around within that. We're not saying it all has to be...We're saying within that 10,000 square foot there's flexibility. Mancino: That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you. Harry Peters: Well am I ccm'ect, am I correct if we're going to merchandise these parcels of land, these people should be allowed to build on that lot wherever they wish to dependent upon the side lot requirements, as required by the building ordinance. I ~ people buying this type of property, a lot of them are going to have an archit~t and they aren't going to be restricted to this little square that you're talking about. I think we don't have to restrict them. Aanenson: I agree but in talking about, how do you try to do a tree conservation? As they come in and do it lot by lot you know. I'm not sure there's a mechanimn to do that sort of thing. Harry Peters: Well if you're going to restrict these lots to having a building of just a certain little area, you're going to destroy the value of the lot. Aanenson: Well that's the same approach we've taken on quite a few with a home placement plan. That's the direction, the city has had a hon~ placcment plan f~r years. Harry Peters: I mean we aren't, to build on this kind of lot that we're creating is a lot more expensive than these lots all around on the old farmland where they cut in a road and punch in basements. Aanenson: We just looked at the Song property. They had ntunm~us trees on there. Ken Adoff: Well as I said, what we're asking for is just some flexibility to work with the... tree conservation area on each individual lot. The comments we had, a couple itc-ms I'd just likc to mcntion. We did show a center island in the cul-de-sac and we'd like to get approval for that...but I think the natural setting and breaking up the big expanse of the bituminous in a 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1. 1994 cai-de-sac would fit in with the area a lot nicer. An additional comment that was..Jn the record. The pr~ has some deferr~ sanitary sewer assessments along Sandpiper, basically into the wetland area and the applicant is ~king that those sewer assessrnents...wetland area which is not going to be developed and it's in the same are~ where the two lots that are being... Scott: Excuse me. Was that a particular condition that you're? Ken Adolf: Well I think we just wanted to have that on the record that that's being Scott: Oh okay. Ken Adoff: I don't know if a condition is a proper way to address that. Maybe the Council will... On the wetland alteration...and that's where we're kind of sandwiched between the existing house and the wetland and getting into the wetland with some small amount. As as the mitigation, we discussed this with staff and rather than showing it on the north side... proposed to do it on the east side...So we'll work with staff in picking an area that wilL.. Last time there was some question on the docks....if you have any questions on that, Art lohnson is here to address those type of dock...I'd be happy to answer any questions, further questions you might have. Scott: Are there any questions or comments for the applicant? I guess not at this point in time. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was open. Scott: Are there any members of the public who wish to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public heating, All voted in eavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Co~ts. left. Fannakes: If the city has verbiage I think in ~ requiring for dockage, isn't it worded as being temporary? Being removable. -. Aancnson: Speaking to Ceil Strauss from the DNR, their an~nablc to leaving it in Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 permanently as it appears or it may be taken out and... Farmakes: I was just wondering. Is thi~ in conflict with the city ardimmoe? Aancnson: No. Fammkes: So it's not a requirement that it be removed at the end of the season? Aanenson: No. Fammkes: Okay. Aanenson: Again... Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the islands. I know we've discussed these...city engineer has had quite a few problerr~ with it in the past. This is a very small development. In general the recomrreodations are...It seems logical to me how this development's been proposed. The areas for the housing. I would support sm/frs recommendation in the areas for housing pads...come forward with a more flexible plan that makes sense and seem_ ~ to minimize the loss of ll'ees. I don't have any further comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I've got a question Kate about the conditional use permit. We're receiving some DNR approval for the dock... Aanenson: They have more than 4 dips...They're allowed in a recreational ~achlot permit to have, based on their square footage, to have 3 docks. 3 boats at each dock. We're recormnending, based on the wetland, that they...one dock. But when you do that now, you're taking a requirement for permi~g from the DNtL But you have 4 boats at once, that requires a marina~ They do supporL..and again the only issue we've got... Mancino: Okay. My only other question, and I do support staff's recommendations, is on the...What I'm looking at is, I'm looidng...canopy coverage and I assume that everything... Then we have a house pad. Then you have broken lines that give us the 10,000 square foot outside. And I see trees fight next to that. What lrees are going to come down? I me, an they're not just in that 10,000 square foot area, is that right? Aanenson: Right. What we did is look at a driveway and then...~ we figured to have a Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 base line of 50% and the ordinance allows 35%. They were allowed to remove, we feel confident that removal of the trees in this sulxtivist'on keeps them within the 35 percentage. But that's why we're concerned with saying, just going with the setback, that would allow in excess removal...we're willing to work with them as far as some flexibility but just to leave it open, that's unacceptable... Mancino: Okay. I think thc staff reconm~ndnfions look very good and I support them. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Last time we talk~ about the dock and I asked the question, is there going to be any dredging that's going to be requi~red to access the dock? No dredging, okay. Do we know if the installation of the dock will require a wetland alteration pe~t~ Aanenson: I did check with that and no, it does not. Ledvina: Does not, okay. Alright, let's see. On number 14. What would the city's status Dave on exempting the two existing houses from these fees? Would that be standard fare? Hempel: That's a good question. The surface water management fees were partially based on the remaining developable land in the city by the estimated construction dollars to arrive at the rate per acre. Now that would tell me that these homes probably were not inciuded. Would not be included in the surface wal~ management fees. Similar to park and rec trail fees. Dedication fees. I don't think they're claiming these two parce~ should be charged those fees as well. I'd like to do a little more investigation I guess with our consultant who put together the fee s~ructure. The proposed fee structure and get some clarification on that. But my initial reaction is that they should be exempt. Ledvina: Okay. I think we can add something to that to §et staff evaluation on that for the developer so. Let's see. That's thc extent of my comments. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: Kate, under condition 4. Would you just give to me the rationale for 1 and 2 being combined? Aanenson: As Dave indicated in his part of the report, Lot 1 has a...pretty ~ driveway... which exceeds the city requirement of 10% and the other lot is right on...wefland. You have to get...and again we were recommending that the mitigation be moved over to the other side of the wetland. That ~dly it probably would make more sense... Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: On condition number 11. I don't want, I'm not sure what kind of p~cedence I'd be setting but I guess I would staff to review the altemadves in terms of a per lot canopy review, and that sounds like a lot. I'm not sure...I think I want you to do that. I don't know that I'm disagreeing with the condition however. That's all $cot~ Good. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we recomme~ approval of Preliminary Plat q~)4-3 as shown on the plans stamped, or dated May 17, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1 reads a 13 foot front yard setback variance to Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. Number 2 as is. Number 3 as is. Number 4 as is. Number 5 as is. Number 6 as is. Number 7 deleted. Number 8 deleted. Number 9 as is. Number 10 as is. Number 11 reads, a tree conservation easement shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant for placement of these...on these lots. Number 12 as is. Number 13 as is. Number 14 reads, staff will evaluate whether the applicant should pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees for storm water management i ,mprovements in accordance to the city's surface water management plan. Scott: And conditions 15 thru 23 remain as is. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina: Friendly amendment? Mancino: Sure. Ledvina: As far as item 4. Or as far as condition number 4 is concerned. Could we add a descfip~ identify Block 17 Mancino: Block 1. Lot 2 shall be combined into one lot, Block 17 Ledvina: Well no. Lots I and 2, Block 1. Scorn Is that acceptable? Conrad: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the stuff report with conditions. Any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Plannina Commi _talon recommend approval of Preliminary Plat 094-3 as shown on the plans stamped May 17, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: lo A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. 2. City Council approval of the vacation of 1Vlinnewashta Avenue. 3. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street 4. Lots 1 and 2, Block I shall be combined into one lot. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. e Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. e The two existing homes within thc plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becon~ operational The homes may continue to u 'ulize their existing wells until the well fails. 10. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. 11. Tree conservation eaisen~ts shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant as to the placement of building pads in relationship to the canopy plan. 12. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. above thc w¢flaml's ozxfinary high wat~ l~cl. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appr~ site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall pay thc appropdatr storm water quality and quantity fees ~ ~,~,_. .... ,.. ....... ·: .... '~ in accordance to the City's Surface Water Manag~t Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. Storm water calc-lstions for pooding and piping shall be submitted to the City En~neer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standard~ The storm sewer shall be designed for a lO-year storm event. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grs~ding and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordonce to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All retaining walls shall be built outside thc City's fight-of-way and maintained by the pr~ owner. All utility and street installation for public i .mlmyvements shall be in accordance with the City's Latest edition of standard specifi~om and detail plm~. ~ed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The applicant shall be reqtfired to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial seau/ty to guarantee instalhtion of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new slxeet name shall be subject to approval by thc City's Public Safety Deparunent The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPC. A, Minnesota I~L of Health, etc. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 199~ 22. Submit street name ~o Public Safety Depamnent for review pricx to final plat approval 23. Accept full park and flail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail consmLefion. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contexnpomneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family pmtzaW when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I recommend that we recommend approval of conditional use permit 4/94-2 for the recreational beacMot subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4 as is. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded limt we accept staff's reconm~ndation on that item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina: I have a small item here. On the first one, the first condition. I think we should probably say with more than 4 slips because they're looking at 9 slips. We know that so that would be a friendly amendrzza~t Scott: Is that acceptable? Mancino: It is. Conrad: And I would second that. Scott: Is there any more discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commi ~oIl recommmd approval of Conditional Use Permit ~4.2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. 11 Plnnning Commission Meeting - June 1, 19o.4 e The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the C-en~ Issuance Standards of Section 20-232, conditional uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unaninmusly. Scott: Can I have a motion on the wetland alteration permit please? Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commi,sion approve the wetland alteration permit ~)4-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to thc following conditions. 1 thru 4. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Conrad: I do. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve thc wetland alteration pernit. Is there any discussion7 Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commi~im recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~s)4,2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site. e A replacement plan is necessary for any i ~mpacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. e The discharge of dredged or fill mtn'iff into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of En~neers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10'-30' buffer strip and 40 foot stnwu~ setback 0-30' buffer strip and 40 foot ~ setback AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimo~y. PATRICK MINGER FOR ~ REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF~ RESID~ SINGLE FAMH.Y AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOT8 AND ONE 0UTLOT LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD~ ~QIfFH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff? Mancino: Bob, in the staff report The pr~ is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision with 2 1/2 acres, fight? Generous: Yes. Mancino: So the north and the east. The west is Cralpin and south is a park. Correct? Generous: Right. Mancino: So why wasn't this area also guided for something with larger lots? I mean lids is a perfect place. Why did we go from 2 1/2 acres to 15,000 square feet? Isn't there something in the middle there? And this is the perfect place to have it guided for something between where you have the 2 1/2 acre Timberwood lots and. Aanenson: Well that...that issue came up at the last meeting as far as what's going in all around and it's zoned for agricultural and that's a holding zone. It's zoned agriculmmL..and it falls within that range. Mancino: Can we reguide it? Aanenson: Again... Mancino: Ladd, you were here then. I wean maybe somebody else was. What was the thinking when you have these larger lots and then going to 15,000 square feet? I mean why wasn't there some thought on something inbetween the two? Conrad: Because you do have some, we've had some zoning districts and it really goes from 15,000 and it jumps up to what Timberwood is. The 40,000. And I think back then it was, back then? A couple years ago the feeling was that there probably wasn't going to be a huge demand for the large lots anymore. You didn't see the general public coming in when we, and I advocated different lot sizes years and years ago and we'd open it up for public comment and nobody would...another zone and nobody showed up. So the general public 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1094 really felt pretty comfortable with thc 15,000 square foot. And we had the 40,000 1 thlnlr when we did the comprehensive plan. Mancino: Well this is 2 1/2 acres. This has got to 90 to 100,000. Ledvina: 100,000 yeah. Conrad: 40,000 is what we were talking. When I said the 40, that was what we were looking at as a different zone. But we didn't get any support for that so we had the 2 1/2, or we have what Timberwood is and then we have the 15,000 and there really wasn't a public outcry or demand for it. Not that the public leads all the way but when you kind of advertise to the Chanhassen residents. Say hey it's there...and nobody shows. Mancino: It would certainly give us more diversity on different levels. Conrad: It would. It's probably not an economic, and I'm not sure what's economically feasible anymore. Mancino: Well we just...4 1/2 acres. People are out there looking for it... Farmakes: Yeah, but...you've got a fair amount of land... Mancino: But to some people that's important. I'm just trying to figure out why there's such a big gap there and it just seems like this particular area would work... Farmsire, s: I wouldn't agr~ with that. Tim~ood Was one of the developments on ~e...and you had a minimum size that they could be... Aanenson: I think that point is well taken. Those lots were all outside of the urban service area...when we start talking about city servic~ and the cost...when you talk about urban services, it's a different thing... Farmakes: I remem~ the farmers were in here that owned ~ at the time before the corporation-..and they were, some of them were doing their own subdivi_'rlin§ and a lot of it was minimal farmland and they were argo_lng how many acres the winimnm could be. And they brought it down to 2 1/2 1 think. Mancino: Itwas 10... Farrnakes: Yeah. That was something that they were arguing back and forth with the Met 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 because the Met pressure was to get as much density as possible and eliminate the large lots. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Would the applicant llke. to make a presen~on? And please, state your name and your address. Peter Knaeble: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble and I am representing the owners...Paffick Minger. I'm with Ron Krueger and Associates and our address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. Bob went through most of the~..based on the staff report our clients came back with the...In regards to the tree conservation area, here tonight...proposing to purchase the lots ~om the Mingers and...might have some comments also on...concur with the staff l~pon on their recommendation that tiffs project be approved. The only requirement we have is exactly where the individual trees... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: You made a comment that you might want to change...and you may want to put the houses back further and saving trees in the front. Unless I'm viewing this incorrectly I don't see too many trees in the front that need to be saved. If you put the house back. What I do see, according to this plan is if you move the house back you would take out more trees. Peter Knaeble: Yeah, what we started out with every cul-de-sac we got fight at the 20 foot setback line...20 foot, then there would be trces..~t setback area that would be taken.., to overlay the proposed tree conservation area on our grading plan, to do that, at least a few lots...actual tree conservation line is encroaching into that 60 x 60 pad area...Lot 1, Lot 15, Lot 17. Mancino: 7 and 8 and I'm sorry, what were the other two7 Peter Knaeble: I said Lot 1...15, 17... Sc, otc Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I'd like to see a show of hands please. Is there anyone from the general public who is interested in commenting on this particular proposal? Okay. Can I have a motion please to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearinl~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If you'd like to speak, please step up front. Identify yourself and give us your address. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Tim Dempsey: My name is Tim Dernpsey. I live at 8241 Galpin, which is the property adjacent to this and I had a couple of things. Regarding your conunents earlier, we talked about that quite a bit at the last meeting about the A2 and...aud all that and we had a meeting, myself and a few of us...also to understand why guiding happens. I guess I'd like some... some legal ramifications there. I'd like to have more understanding of why we have to have 15,000 square foot lots if it's guided... Farmakes: Excuse me. Do you, when you identified yourself, are you representing Timberwood Estates? Tim Dompsey: No, no. I'm just saying these questions came up. I live right next door to the project. Farmakes: Are you part of the Homeownem Association of some sort? Scott: No. They own the property between the proposed development and Galpin. Farmakes: That house fight there? Sc, om Yeah. Farrnak~: Okay. I thought you said... Tim Dempsey: ...were talking to the people that were from Tfmberwood Estates at the last meeting brought up the A2 and the response that it was guided for further development. And myself, I would like some more clarifi~on on what legal barrier there is... Aanenson: The same thing was discussed at the last meeting. The comprehendve plan... meet all the setbacks and the lot configumfions...that's what they're allowed to have. Now if you say they cannot have that, you have to have a Findings as to why they can't do it. The topography or what,er... Mancino: So guiding really means that it... Tim Dempsey: They just haven't changed the initials yet. Aanenson: No. What it says is that...Metropolitan Council that when urban services are avaflable...If you choose not to... Tim Dempsey: I understand the...Now the other two, the prior meetings before the last 16 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 planning meeting that we were talking about item number 15 in the plan you have which is on page 16. First line says the Minger's house shall be connecl~ to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational The second line...~sey parcel will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months...hook-up only when the present system fails. When the property's developed or (3), when we sell the ~... Hempel: Yes it is Mr. Dempsey but we also said that the City Cotmcil is the only authority that has the power to change the ordinance...That's something staff would support when it came to City Council for discussion- Tim Dempsey: Okay. Well I want to lm4_ng it up... Scott: And that's Ixue with any issue. If you're for something or you're not for something. Is to say the ultimate decision gets made at the City CounciL At least in my experience I see in certain circumslances, in an instance where someone just made a s/gnificant investment in e/ther a well or a septic system or if it's in good working order, I can't predict what's going to happen. However, gather your case. Usually the it~ns that people highlight is the age of the system. How it's working, etc, etc and take it from there but we recommend that you follow flutt issue through the City Council because that's where the ultimate derision is made. Tim Dempsey: Okay. I'll follow it..~md looking at the htyout...where my worst nightmare was and that is the...large oak trees and...and if we could straighten that out, maybe take it another 10-20 feet away from that...somehow straighten that out, it would pull it away from that. I don't know what you're achieving by the 10. If there's some street maintenance issue or whatever but it seems to be moving dose to my house with no real benefit. Scott: Dave is that to give it more of a T inl~x~ection? Hempel: That's cotrecL To try to have them perpendicular...The ordinance requires that they... Scott: And you can get out your protractor. What's the angle, begs the question- Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have one with me here this evening but it appears to be within the 50...It can be looked at further but I don't think it can be ~ifled that much... Tim Dempsey: Well those are my questions. Scott: Did you have, you wanted to respond? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Peter Knaeble said something which was not heard on the tape. Scott: Okay, well if these gentlemen could perhaps talk that through with city staff. Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at _this public ~g? Seeing none, may I have a motion please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to cl~e the public hearinl~ All voted in favor and the motion carriecL The public hearing was dosed. Ledvina: I guess as it relates to the situation with subdividing this parcel, I'm comfortable with the staff's evaluation of the ncighlxxfing propcrfiea I guess I genuinely feel that the site is fairly well screened from the other parcels. Due to the extensive uees along the boundary so as far as that's concerned, I'm comfortable with that issue. If there's some tweaking of the boundaries that can be done as far as the tree conservation easement I would, to whatever to provide some flexibility with the house pads and to actually save lxees potentially in the front yard that would be in the tree conservation easement. Obviously if we cut down a 24 inch oak to save a 6 inch box elder on the back side we're not getting anywhere so I would be very receptive to the applicant demonstrating to ou~ staff where things can be jockeyed and we can be precise in that manner and I would certainly be for that so. Scott: Would you want to modify a particular condition? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how we'd go about that. Scorn Maybe number 47 Ledvina: Let's see. Mancino: It seems that's very appropriate to move those boundaries... Ledvina: Yeah, for the boundary, yes. Farmakcs: It seems like they'd be able to deal with that through asking for a variance. They come in. They say the topographical area requires ~ to put the house here and not therc I belicvc is criteria for a variance....rclcgistafing that to that spccific development. Ledvina: The applicant talked about Lot 15 and that's not on th boundary of thc site so I don't know. Mancino: And micro nmnagc every single lot? 18 Pluming Commission Me~ting - Sune 1, 199~ Ledvina: Well I don't know. I don't know how we'd do that. F~: I think you're going to get this with the tree conservation zone every time we get an area in there that's not farmland. You're going to get saying well what if we want to put the house up here or move it over there. Mancino: Well and one of the reasons why we had the tree preservation, had them put the 60 foot pad, housing pad was to make the developers think about it and where it goes in relationship to the trees right away so that we can get these...So we could starC..mapping of tree preservation areas. Farmakes: ...to argue that you can't do thaL If there's a si~yni~cant stand of trees or a significant landmark of some sort to say no. On the other hand. Mancino: And that's what staff supports, to go out and look at the... Farmakes: And you can always ask for a variance. Under the cfilm/a, if there's something that's in your way, you're certainly allowed to come in and ask for a variance. Ledvina: Bob, would you feel that, do you have any suggestions for condition 4 to meet our objectives here? Generous: Well I think if you incorporate some of the same language you did in the previous case and say work with staff on the individual lots maybe. The Tree Board worked hard to come up with this concept and they're supposed to look at...critically and say this is the area that we think is best. You know if they wanted to shove the house in the back and have the easement on the front, that'd be fine with us too. We're looking for significant stands. Around the pefime~r, especially on the east side. The south side. Then one in the middle. There are perfect areas of significant stands of tree~ Dense vegetation. If we can keep lheir development out of there, that'd be fine. If they want to tweak it around and say in,~/Ead of a 50 foot on Lot, what is it, 8. Have a 40 foot on that one in terms of the cul-de-sac and everything. Well maybe that's something we should look at prior to adopting it but let's get it recorded and platted. Ledvina: Okay. Now I'm comfortable with that, yes. Okay. I guess I would also suggest that we add a 23rd condition which would essen~ally codifies what the residents and the developer have just discussed as it rela~es to that westerly cul-de-sac in shift/rig of that cul-de- sac the appropriate distance. We should agree with that, Mancino: I think it was 15 feet. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: 10. 10 to 15 feet. Something like that. That's the extent of my co~ts. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Well I was going to listen... Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have a lot of comments on this devel~t. One thing on clear cutting on the land issue, h would be nice to see a buffer in here. However, under the circumstances of how it occurred, how the development occurred. Particularly when you take inw SWne Creek. We discussed this issue of Stone Creok...the rehtionship of land versus the adjacent land and the 2 1/2 acres throws a wrench in it. The reasoning for that, as I mall, the hearings that took place. Some people were coming in complaining that Timberwood was being develow~ saying that that housing was too dense and they want~ a more open row of land and 2 years ~ you get the ~ts of Timberwood corning in and saying, this is too dense. So it's just a matter of 5 years here or 5 years there point of view I guess. I don't think it's relevant to expect somebody's going to pay for 5 or 6 acres of land as a buffer. There's a quarter of a million dollar investment before you put up the home on the property. You're going to have 2% or 3% population that can do that. Mancino: No, but by 2 1/2 acres we could go half acre. You don't have to go down to a third. You could do something inbetween where it's not something... Farmnke~s: But again, how do you look at that as a second zone? Where you have a larger loLI think that's been discuss~ int~initum over the years. That issue and it's not on the om'ent plan. Mancino: ...two cents worth in. Farmakes: That's right. 10 years ago you should have been here. But there was reasoning for that and I think it's sound reasoning. The problem that occurred is that there was a motivation to develop outside of town but when they lowered that down to 2 1/2 acres, they brought it down enough in money where people sort of jumped out in front of planning and startexi building. And you've seen how those type of developments di~ what goes around them. Just like, almost like an old tree that is there and the other trees come around it. It's hard to predict what that is because it's in the malta of a developer. A develop~ is dictating not only that acreage but other acreage around it and futura development. Anyway, I really don't have any fiulher comments on this. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this development but I think it's within the realms of the rules that we set up. Although I would be open, if Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 you want to relook at or talk about buffer. The buffer situation on this is really going to significant change this development if that's what you're steaing towards because of the property that's already owned on the west side. That's it. Conrad: I was here for the comprehensive plan and I've kind of looked at it again in terms of what this was guided for, and as I said the last time, if you wanted to protect trees, then you keep it in the large lot, 2 1/2 acre. We don't have another zone. Period. We don't. So there's nothing, and if we did, we should have been doing something before now. The proposal's here so I'm comfortable with the rezoning. It still makes sense to me. I support the guide plan. But when I say that, I'm not a real proponent of transition and there/ore transition is real hnportant and protection of the quality of the life that the neighbors had who bought the property. So therefore I'm fairly rigid in what I'd like to see. I think the staff report tonight is excellent from the co~ts that they heard 2 weeks ago. I think they've put in the protections. It's meeting a canopy coverage which I think I thought was pretty strict. So it's meeting what those guide plans are and so it's hard for me to say it should be something different. In the staff report, on page 4, halfway down the page staff has said, staff still believes that the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac will afford additional tree protection. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That was a statement but it wasn't really worked into recommendations so basically you support that but you've dropped it and I guess I'd like to know why. Generous: Well Dave and I sat down to try and do it and we couldn't make it work with that house placement. Especially on the...but we'd like to see the app~t investigate this further and see if they can make it work. Not only are we concerned with the tree preservation in that area but again there's that drainageway that we think the building pad is encroaching on. Conrad: For Lot, which one? Generous: Lot 10. If you look at the contours, it goes right through the rear of the bu/lding pad. Mancino: Going back to the other thing about making the cul-de-sac shorlnr. So do we want to put a reconunendation that the applicaint investigate that further with you and Dave? And see if you can work out something to save some more trees and shorten it up. Generous: Sure. Conrad: You've looked at it and you're saying you don't have a solution so. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - 1une 1, 1994 Hempeh We looked at it kind of 12th hour. We didn't spend a lot of time_ on it. Unfortunately. It is difficult. There's a drainageway, as I indicated on one side and you've got the trees and the uee buffer on the other side. Cul-de-sac does expand the setbacks out further. By shortening that up you may save Lot 10. The house pad being on the dralnageway but then Lot 11 house pad...so you're not really gaining anything that much by shortening it up unless you can offset it flxrther. We threw it out on the table I guess. The applicant's engineer maybe can investigate to see if there's a feasible alternative to _this with a private driveway that would save trees. That they wouldn't lose a lot. That was another thing that they were concerned about. The potential of losing a lot because...so there's some balancing between the two. Conrad: LOt 13 is a strange lot. Scott: Wasn't there a condition that basically we recommend cutting that lot up and adding it to. Conrad: Along with some of this other, yeah. Which made a Im'fific amount of sense. You know again we have a fair amount of land here and we are trying to buff~ the neighbors to a degree and I think the staff and the applicant has gone along with some of the staff recommendations. I'm real appreciative of that. It's just that geez, we just stuck, there's a real stran§e lot there and I guess it's legal. I wish if staff had found a good way to preserve some of the things we were looking for, I would have loved to have carved that 13 up and moved it into some of the other lots. I'm going to stop. Mancino: Aren't we doing that? Wasn't it suggested that? Farmakes: It wasn't a condition. Conrad: It wasn't. It was not a condition, no. It was a thought but it's not a condition fight now. But I'm hearing from staff that they haven't really found a good way to do a lot of these things and make it a smart. We don't have a be2~ idea right now. Now we can challenge staff again but there's a good chance that there's not a solution to _this one. It's just that in general that's, LOt 13 bothers me and it's just grabbing another lot out of hem which is legal but, and I think again as we're looking to sort of move out of a large lot sulxlivision into a small lot, I guess I'm not always trying to squeak out every 15,000 square feet that we can to put a new house on. And I think the rationale for that was if we could be saving a si~ificant. I'm not looking for one tree. I'm looking for a significant benefit and if it's not there, I don't think we should do it. But I guess I'll challenge staff one more time. That ff there is some way to do it, and I'd sure lilm to see their reco~tion to the City Council of that way. But at this point in time I don't want to see it back. I'd just ~ to challenge 22 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Dave and Kate and Bob to tak~ a look at that. I think that is, you know again, I just think that this is a lot bett~r thing than what we looked at last week. Or 2 weeks ago. I think that it's a good report. I thank them for that and I'll go along with the recotmmmdafions in the staff xeporc Scott: Okay. Mancino: I don't have too much new to add except that I would also like to see staff and the applicant investigate the use of private drive and shortening up the easterly cul-de-sac to see that it will afford the additional tree protection. You know when you drive into this land, I think I rcad a little bit of it in the Minutes. That it was addressed. On the northern part of thc entry to this area there is a stand of trees that separates the land to thc north and this drive thru which is a really nice entryway. Are all those trees, I don't even see canopy coverage up here. Are all those trees going to be gone? On the north side of this new road that goes in where there are, it's a private road right now and there are existing trees and I'm sorry if you. Hempel: Maybe I can address it on the overhead here. Thi.~ is where the existing driveway currently is on the property and it continues up right through here. The tree removal will be contained in this area here. The vegetation actually goes on the north side as well On the cemeuxy property as well as on the homeowners property there in Timberwood Estates. The vegetation, the ~ line essentially is centered on that vegetateA road there so half of it would be lost. The southerly half would be lost and this first 300-400 foot of roadway. After that the roadway curves south. The remaining vegetation is, as Bob has pointed out here in the purple, will be a tree preservation easement area and all saved. Mancino: So are you taking vegetation off somebody else's property...7 Hempel: No we are not. Mancino: Has there been some soil...in your wotxfland rnanag~t plan request for maybe putting some trees in that area that's being, that were existing? Generous: No, not specifically in the woodland management plan but there is I lrJieve a reco~tion that they provide a landscaping plan. Mancino: I thin~ that that would be a good place as a buffer between the cemetm'y and it's, it was there and those, a lot of trees will be down. I think it would be good to have some coniferous trees there so we get year round buffeting. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Generous: Yeah. Well under condition 3 we address the... Mancino: Okay, good. Those are all of my commen~ Scott: Good. Could I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission reco~d approval of Subdivision ~-25 and 94-1 Rezoning providing for the prelimina~ pht of 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of thc property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to RSF and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject w the staff conditions. Modifying condition number 4 to include the applicant shall work with staff on the individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. Adding condition number 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul-de-sac approximately l0 feet to the east at the intersect/on of the main access street. Mancino: Can I give a friendly amendment? 23. That staff and the applicant will investigate further, investigate the use of a private drive and the shying of the easterly cul-de-sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection- Mancino: 24, thanks. Scott: Is there a second to that motion? Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commi_mJ'on recommend approval of Subdivision #93.25 and Rezoning 094-1 for the preliminary plat on 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate Distrkt, A2 to Single Family Residential, RSF, and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the following conditions: 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 199~ subdivision in lieu of land acq~tiom e Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and conslruct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall reimburse the developer for this constmction~ In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be con~ on Lot 17. e Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the enmmce road into thc development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the ~. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) of the City Code. e Incorporate on the final plat a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area to be dedicated along thc perimeter of the plat. V~/ithin this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees be pennitted. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, ~ tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedic~ed as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of lots 2 and 3, and lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the north lot line of lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of lot 16. No construction activity of any Icind will be pc~nltted within these easement. The applicant will work with staff on individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. Remove thc applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first lift of asphalt 7. Provide water quantity/quality pooding ~ing to SW?v~ requircn~nts. 8~ The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34-inch oak and 28- inch oak on lot 1, block 1. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 e Submit proposed street nam~ to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Divim'on, for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names ~ their review _and approval The existing homes will be required to change their addresses consislxmt with the new street names and numbering system 10. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 11. 12. 13. 14. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Wecknum, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. Thc applicant shall investigate the shortening of thc easterly cul-de-sac the use of a private drive to service the four houses at the terminus of the cul-de-sac. Detailed conslruction drawings and specifications for thc public i .mprovements will be required for submittal with final plat approval All street and utility construction shall- be in accordance to the City's latest edition of sumdard specifications and detail pla~. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicamt will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary finandal security to guarantee installation of the public impr, ov~ts and conditions of approval. 15. 16. 17. 18. The Minger's house shall be connect~ to sanitm~ sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utiliz~ their existing wells until they fail, then the parcel must connect to ci~ water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes. The applicant shall apply and olmfin all the necessary permits of the regulaU~ agencies such as MPCA, health deparunent, ~hed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. Thc developer shall report to thc City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volume. Storm sewers shall be designed and consuuct~ to handle 10-year storm events, Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 19. 0e as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predcveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall bc consistent with the City of Chanhass~'s Best Management Practices Handbool~ Prior to thc City signing thc final plat, thc applicant shall enter into a clcvc~nt contract with thc City and provide thc necessary finan~ security to guarantee construction of thc public improvements. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transf~, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 21. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to thc special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing req~ts and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to thc property. 22. Depending on the storm ponding calaflations, if the developn~t is not meeting the Ci~ SWMP for waw, r quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute inw the City's SWMP prograrm The proposed rate per acm for single family is $1,980/ac~e excluding wetlands." 23. The applicant shall shih the westerly cul-de-sac approx~y 10 feet to the east at the intersection of the main access streeL 4m That staff and the applicant will investigate further the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. AH voted in favor, except Mancino who oppomi, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 tol. Sc, om And your thought is? Mancino: ...I just don't think it's a good...use. I don't think it's a good transition land use between Timberwood and a park. That's what I think. I think it's too dense. Scott: Well, here's a thought. We've seen a proposed development on thc north side of Timberwood. As part of the. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: At the school. Scott: Well there's a, I'm trying W reme~o~ who had it. Mancino: Oh, Heritage. Scott: Yeah. So there's an opportunity if you would like to make a proposal on that particular piece. See there's, we've retained some of that, we've seen a request to rezone property adjacent to the north side of Timberwood and I believe there are some 15,000 square foot lots. At least the development that we saw had 15,000 square foot lots lined up, you know where the power line goes through the~e? Mancino: Yes. Scott: Abutting the east side. So that is a similar, it's guided similar to this pm'ti~ protxnXy but it is not as far along. Mancino: And this one has some other site c~tics being...100%. 99.6% wooded so... to preserve some of our woodland areas. And I think that this is important so that we do have bigger lots... Scott: 3md severe topography. Mancino: Severe topography which will be a little diff~-ent. I just, I don't know. Don't think that this is the best use of that land. Scott: Okay. This is for the 13th? Okay. Thank you for corning sir. And the applicant, thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10~315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARI~. FACII.ITY AND A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FQR A LIi~ENSED DAY CARF. CI~.N'I~_.R IN AN IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARI~ LQi~ATED AT Ti:W. NORTHWE~Y QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5~ MARCUS CORI~RATION. Sharn'dn Al-Jail presented the staff report on this itr-m. Scott: Any questions or comments from connnissioners? Mancino: Sharmin, I just have a question about the site plau review on page, starting on page 1. The April 13th meeting. That those need to be revised. That those are not the...13th 28 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 meeting. The staff recommendation that we adopl~ the following motions on April 13th. That those are different than the ones that start on page 34. So I wanted to make sure that you've got the right ones in here. On page 34 it says, Mancino moved, Har~ seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the site plan review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building shown on the site plan received April 13, 1993 subject to the following conditions. And if you look for instance on number 6 on page 2 of our current report dated May 26, 1994 it says, the Press addition shall contain archil~'tuml detailing to break the long wall masses. If you look on page 35, number 6. You had put in bold, what we wanly! to add so that all of these 1 thru 21 should really reflect or be the same ones as what's on page 34, 35, and 36. Is that correct? Because I know that we wanted to keep the impervious surface of the Press at 70% and you had that in 19 on page 36. Is everybody kind of following me? Commission: Yes. Mancino: Okay. So we need to change that. Thank you. And I don't know about 20 and 21. Yeah, 20 and 21 stay also. That are on page 3 of the most recent staff report. Thank you. Scorn Any other questions or comments for stuff7 Dave, I've got a question for you on the SRF memo. Item number 1. The fight turning radiuses and turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emerg~ vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Would this be the kind of thing that would be sent to the fire depamr~-nt, staff or, because I saw this and then I was looking through my staff report expecting to see a memo from l'un. Is this the k-ina of, I mean they've reviewed the site plan that we saw the first pan of April and my e~tion was to see a comment from them on that. To your knowledge have they had a chance W review this? Hempel: No they have not. Scott: Huh, okay. Not yet. First of sll are there any other comments for stuff? None. Would the applicant like to make a presentation7 Mark Senn: Good evening. Forgive my voice. It's almost gone. We don't have any problems with the consultant's suggestion in terms of the Kindercam parking lot. The other thing we did in response to some of your concerns was redesign the pazking lot here cre~ting a detached driveway basically going through here towards the south. Basically there's a fairly substantial barrier to use this thru traffic. We just have done the absolute, I didn't get a chance to mention it earlier today to staff...but I think it answers a lot of the questions about the pass thru Iraffic... 29 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, Scott: Good. Just a show of hands. Are there any people here for the public headng on the Kindcrcarc/Press expansion? Seeing none, we'll forego the public heating. Ladd. Conrad: I'm glad to see Mark go back. I don't want what you have. Well Dave, tell me about the traffic engineer's report in your mind__ Have we irrqar, oved? They've made some statements. Have we taken it to the level that you're comfortable with? Hempel: I believe we have Commissioner Conrad based on the parking lot movements. The one restriction that still is, makes me uncomfortable is thc sharp turn inw thc site. But given thc fact that thcy'vc then rcstfi~ thc access to the site, we're really limited. I envisioned seeing a lot of U turns happening at the intersection of ??th Street and Dell Road, or 24th Street. Whatever you want to call it. Essentially ua/ftc signage will be instal]Ed there to prohibit those type of turning movements. And as people get more accustomed to access the Kindercare through the Pre~ sim, it may allevia~ that problen~ Conrad: So you haven't seen what Mark has done in terms of the intem~ roadway. In my mind that is solving a major part of the tmf~ issue that had me concerned before. You have not seen this? Hernpel: That's coxrecC I have not seen that in detaiL Conrad: Okay. On the surface it sure looks like it's taking care of the trat~ needs which would basically. The no U mm would basically force most ~ down that internal roadway, correct? Hemal: That's conecC Mancino: Ladd, can I further ask a question of Dave? Looking at this... As I was thin.rig about it, one of my suggestions and can you put that up on an easel for us all to look at while I'm talking and Mark, you want to be too. To maybe simplify the circulation problem and I know that we were all concerned with the U turns. When you're leaving on Dell Road and the U tums we create on the 77th, we were concerned about the people from the Press parking lot cutting through to get to Dell Road and they still can go around the ban/er, although that's much better. The barrier that's up there. But it still doesn't close off the cut thru. My question is, and it's something that's, I know that Jeff brought out in the last meeting was, flip flopping the playground and the parking lot. First of all the parking lot, acmording to the consultants, would be 33 spaces versus 45 and that's 1 per 6 child which is what our ordinances require. But if you have the parking lot, ~p flop it. We have it on the north side of the building, you egress and ingress through the 77th driveway through the Press 3O Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and go into the parking lot and that's your egress and ingress. There's nothing on the Dell Road so that people can't cut through. The Press employees can't cut through to get to Dell Road. You have one driveway that acces~ both the Pre~ and Kindelx~, which is done far Abra and Goodyear and the emi~don controls where you have the one driveway and you go to each individual place, and doesn't that cut a lot of the circulation problems? Easy. Scott: Yeah, you don't have the U tums. Mancino: You don't have U tums. You have people coming off of Highway 5. If they're coming west, obviously a right turn onto Dell Road. East on 77th and come through that way. And you don't have any cut throughs and you don't have your turning radiuses so small I mean you have to kind of redesign that entry point but that seems to me to be very, very simple and we could use it in other applications. Farmakes: How has the pad changed? That he's proposed. Conrad: I thought you didn't want to put the kids close to the electrical wires. Mancino: The building's in the same place. Conrad: But the kids are closer you know. I think. Farmakes: You'need more room to the north. Mancino: You need less room ~ first of all the parking lot wouldn't be as big. The parking lot gets smaller. It has 33 spaces, not 45. And you can actually take the building a little bit more to your east and if you wanted to put some staff parking on the west side of the building there. The buildings arc in thc same place. The kids arc going to be in the building 3/4 of thc tirnc you know in thc day and that's thc same distance from thc clcctri~ wires versus they may be outside a couple hours a day. And in thc winter they're never. Conrad: Well did I read things wrong thc last meeting we had. I really thought that, I think that's a real logical thing to move thc p~ldng lot to the other side in terrrm of tm~c. Mark Senn: As far as traffic goes, I can't disa~ with you but they can't build the facility then and the reason is the lot, the playground cannot be on that side of the building. Yes, there's the regulations as it relates to the readings coming off of the lines. Okay. The building right now meets that setback because the parking lot is in front of it. The playground area is considered the exact same way that the building is as it relates to what's emitted off of those power lines. They're actually more exposed because now you've 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 eliminated the shell building and putting the kids out in effect an open area and stuff. The other thing is that you also have a highway out there with 55 mph speed limit and stuff and if a runaway car would occur, you have absolutely no ban/er at that point between a playground area in effect and where the kids would be outside. And in a situation, I mean you'd have a limitation of a berm and that's about it. F~: There's two berms there though. The signal light berm and then there's the hill plus the trees you're planting. I see what you're saying .... is 200 feet for a setback. That was their reconunendation though. Mancino: It's not a state reco~on- Fannakes: Well there is no recommendation based on what we've read there in... There's fielder's choice. They can't say there is and they can't say there i~'t. Mark Senn: There is no current U.S. law. There is a cummt U.S. standard which follows the E~ standard of 150 feet back. Okay. And the standard has no basis in law one way or the other. Right now there is pending legisLation to make that but that hasn't been passed and it's an issue that's §oin§ through substantial debate because of the power constraints and who knows if it's ever §oin§ to be passed. Those laws have been passed in Europe and again that's a standard that's tryin§...in Europe. Mancino: How did you draw any conclusions from your ~g? Conrad: Well, I guess I would err on, well. I think there's something to it and I would feel badly by, you've got a safety problem in terms of traffic and if some kid gets hurt, we're going to feel badly. Yet on the other hand, if you put 50 to 100 kids closer to some electrical, you don't know what that damage is. It's not necessarily seen real quickly. I couldn't do thaC I couldn't expose them simply knowing that there probably is some impact Even though it's not proven. Even though maybe there aren't the definite standards. I think if there's a debate, I guess you can't do it so the risk is we still have a mediocre traffic situation at best. But I think it's been in~oved. Your solution was just pedect, and I think the parking lot in the rear is exactly where it should be Nancy. But we can't put the kids out close to the wires. Mancino: What do we do about single family developrmmts then. They are going to go very close to, you know and I see it in Eden Prairie. Down Highway 5. There are single family houses that are right underneath them. I mean they're not, maybe they're 20 feet away. What do we do at that point7 Do we say as a city that you can't build closer than a certain footage from you know the power lines? And is that a _tsldn§? I mean you know. I'm 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 taking what you're saying and. Mark Senn: If I could offer, you don't have ~o say that. Okay. Right now there isn't a mortgage company I'm aware of that would lend on a house that way. Now that doesn't go back to say that when houses you're referendng in Eden Prairie were built some 20-30 years ago, that wasn't the case. Mancino: No, new ones. Just the new ones that are on Highway 5 on the north side between that shopping center and Dell Road. I mean there are new houses right there. Mark Senn: Between the shopping center and Dell Road? Mancino: Yeah. What. Conrad: County 4 going west. Mark Senn: The housing all along Highway 5 on the north side there is not new housing. It's far from it. Mancino: But it's not 23 years old. I mean it's in the last Mark Senn: Well it may be 15 years, yeah. Maybe 15 at best. Mancino: That was just last year. Scott: I know Diane's house is probably 5 years old and she's got a power line running down her east property line. Conrad: We wanted these power lines btuied as I recall Mancino: Does that help? Scott No. What about m~ing your idea where the traffic goes down into the Pre~ and there's no ingress and egress onW Dell Road but thc ingress and egress is from the west side of the parking lot? Mancino: Sure. Take the same idea and just cut the egress and ingress off of Dell Road. Keep the parking lot where it is and then you just, you know. I mean that would work too. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Because it seems like, in list~ing to Dave, I mean it seems that that's going to be idnd of a traffic pattern that you're not going to want to have more. They're talking about 800 trips a day or something like that? Hempel: That's correc~ And then all of those would be doing the U tums. Some of those. Some would be normal southbound traffic on Dell Road. Another consideration mo, if you e 'lnninate that U turn would be to restrict this access onto Dell Road as a right out only... Mancino: Yeah, no entry. Hen-q~l: That would force your traffic to enter the site from the Press driveway. Mancino: But that still doesn't eliminate any sort of a cut through. I mean what the developer has done has helped negate that. I undersland that. I just wanted to respond to your circulation and parking lot. Conrad: The cut thru is a big deal. And inCarming the Press employees not to do it is not, that's not forever. That's 2 weeks. A month and then it's gone. It's just got to, you know I'm looking for an absolute way. I think you've got to have a right in, fight out. I'd rather not be moving people up and down that long road. There's going to be some developrmmt up there and I don't know. I guess I'd rather not do that if I don't have to so getting people out is probably the fight thing to do but I really haven't found the solution to keep the cut through down. I can't come up with that. Scott: What do you think Dave? Hempel: I just thought of something and I'll throw it out on the table at this time. The access issue onto Dell Road, it would be nice to have an access onto Dell Road, especially if you have another development occur north of this site. What happens ff that access street divides these two parcels? Or if we cut off the access to the Kindercare off of Dell Road but later on when the parcels to the north develop, we have a thru street there. That would serve Mancino: Show me where that would be. Hempel: Midway point in this fashion in here. Mancino: Okay. So it services both the north and the south lot. Hempel: Right. Or either short cut if you will out of the site tIn'ough here. It divides the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 two points off the parking lot. What would happen though if this drive aisle would ideally have to be shifted back to provide this, have a 4 way intex~c'tion if you will You'd have to provide enough buffering though between the playground area and their access. That would give you access either to the site through there or through at this ~ here. It still wouldn't eliminate yom U tam potential though at 77th Sm~ if ~mae~ wanted to come in through that and turn. Mancino: But that would eliminate any cut through that we're concerned about through the parking lot? Henq~l: That's correct. Scott: To the Kindcrcare center. Mancino: Any other comments on that? That's prel~ good. Conrad: Something to think about. Then you've got some traffic conflicts. Internal confficts. Dave, would that cut out the road, no you'd still have the road going to the north. So you've got cross uaffic. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other comments other than the traffic issue. Sco~ Okay. Any other comments7 Matt. Ledvina: Well, I'm not going to add anything more to the traffic discussion other than the memo from SRF. That first comment. I don't know, it seems to leave everything up in the air, and what weight do we place on that? It says the tight tm'ning radiuses and the turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especiatly for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Is this to the point where we, is this such a concern that you know it's unacceptable? Do you have thoughts on that Dave? I don't know. I ~ if we have to have that access, arc we cutting ourselves short by approving this site plan? Hempel: I don't want to speak for public safety but I would like to point out there is two access point~ to ~ site for emergency vehicles. The quickest response route, I couldn't give you that answer at this time. I would suspect the turning radius onto Dell Road would accommodate a p~c type unit vehicle or ambulance and _definitely would not accommodate a full fledged fire truck. Led~: In thc event that we had a fire crncrgcncy, a couple extra thousand fcct or whatever to go through the Press access, right? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hemal: Actually it may be a shor~ route ff they use West ?8th Sueet as a frontage road to get to thc Press access. It might ac~_ l_R_lly be quicker than going out onto Highway 5, down Dell Road and trying to make a turn there. Ledvina: That's right. Hcrnpel: Thc other issue, if a fire U~i pulls up, they may just stay on Dell Road to address any kind of a fire. Ledvina: Okay. So the magnitude of that comment is somewhat unknown but it's, it may not necessarily be. Conrad: I don't think it's stops it. Ledvina: A deal killer, okay. A/fight. I guess I wo_nld like to see if we do take the recommendation by SRF. I notice that they have a parking plan that u 'tdiz~ 33 parking stalls and I don't know what the proposal with the new plan ~ It's lxobably still at 45 but I think one of the things that we've udked about is softening the, you know the psrking lot i .mpact on that side of thc building and I think that would help if we start reducing those spots to what's a more reasonable number and what's, you know what can be laid out to accommodate the site based on ordinance and what's been discussed in the past. So I would like to see that. I don't know about the cut through issue. I think if you have a speed bump there, I think that's going to slow the traffic down and you're going to reduce your conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. They're going to be there but at ~ast at slower speeds you're going to in~ the safety factor so. Conrad: Matt, I think thc new design that got brought in is going to help that. But pay attention to the fact that as you're corning from the north down to the south, you miss the first entry point and then you've got to loop around so we got double traffic in there. So you come in to the south. You loop around to drop your kid off to the north and then you loop Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Farmakes: You interpret SRF as a glowing recommendation? Is that what I heard? Ledvina: I don't know. I think that, I know that there's a lot of looping going on here. There's kind of one way type of trsffic in here but I don't know. I thinlr that it can work. That's the extent of my comments at this time. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Scotc Okay, thanks. Serf. Farmakes: I'm going to back up just a little bit and rather than...~c. I'm going to discuss the use of what we have here. It's becoming apparent to me that this is not an appropria~ use at this particular area. I think environmentally there are potential hazards. We're not sure what they are. It's constricting where the building goes or where the outlot development goes in that building... There is virtually nothing that can be done for the Highway 5 issues that we talked about. That's another issue that we're not discussing here right now tonight. But it is a pertinent issue for this area. I think that this is typical of the type of the development that you're going to see on the mnainder of Highway 5. More often than not we'll see parking lots exl~nded as far and as close to Highway 5 as you can get them. The barrier I think is minimal between TH 5 and the highway, although I'm not sure it's an endangerment but even, it's a buffer of some sort. Essentially you've got enough room for a row of trees and that's nothing different than what Eden Praln'e's done. A lot of things in the traffic pattern are telling us that this is a make work situation. It's not an optimal situation~ Potential options as I see it would be to run the road higher on the border line. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the additional lot sizes. Mancino: What does that mean? Farmakes: The recommendation that the city engineer just made. To replace the Kindemare on the north lot. Again, the marketability of the south lot comes into que~on I think because of it's access. I don't think that on this scale that this is an a~p~-opHate use for a daycare center. The issues have been brought up that financially it has to go there. It has to be seen from the highway. There are several daycares, both commewial and not commercial I'll use the example of the Sunshine or Sunrise and non-commercial would be the Lutheran Church up here that we just lookexi at. They've got about 100 kids there. It's an old daycare. It's been there for years. Scott: Or the New Horizon that's on Lake Drive and faces south. Farmakes: They are not dependent on signage from a major highway, although I'm sure it would be beneficial or desirable. Again, I have to ask myself what's an appropriate use there. It almost seems like we're sticking a use there that would be inappropriate. I would expect in looking at that, that would be an industrial use. And remain so. The problem if the daycare were shifted to the north, I think it would ~ the enviromnental concerns, but also lessen the lraffic problem. Again, that does not address the problem of the developer and marke~bility of the south loL But I think that those are criteria that back up farther than just discussing the traffic issue. I don't think _this is a glowing recofnme~ldation on the part of the engineer. At least that's my interpretation of iL It says yeah, you can do it but it's probably 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 not a good idea. I have concern about the U turn issues and I think any of those would be enough to deny this usage and I see several still yet remaining as compelling issues to me to discuss it. That's where I'm at. Mancino: Another thing I think you would add. I think we're trying to work something in there that just doesn't, isn't working. Cfmuhtion wise. Highway 5 wise. Even architecturally wise in this lOP area. I mink that the KJndercare architectm'al style does not fit in here. So I have still some big concerns with trying to put it here on this lot. Sc. om Well we have 3, we need 3 motions. One for the site plan review. One for the preliminary plat and one for the conditional use pem~t. So, would any of you like to take a stab at any one of those? Mancino: Didn't hear your comments. Scott: I would have just been, I don't have any new issues so. So I'd like to call the question or have a motion please, left, do you want to take the conditional use permit. Mancino: Kate, a question for you and Sharmin. Conditional use permit. This is a conditional use permi~ in this area, corre~? A1-Jaff: For use of a daycare center. Mancino: Daycare center in an IOP. Al-Jaff: ...permitted under conditional use permits in au lOP. Mancino: Okay. So that's a done deal, Kate is it? Aanenson: No, you have to go through the criteria to see whether or not it meets the criteria of a conditional use. That's what Sharmin has outlined in the report. And we have to have Findings to support your recommendation. That's what Sharrnin put in her report... Conrad: Before somebody makes a motion_ Nancy, Jeff. If the parking lot were ~p flopped, then what? Mark says it's a dead deal but if it was ~p flopped, have we solved. Farmakes: The only way that that would work if you flip flopped it is you have to back up the building a little bit farther to the north so that the playground area was beyond the recommendation. I'm still uncomfortable with the recommendation. 150/eec That's what the Europeans are doing. I've never seen so many, well I guess I don't look at government 38 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 reports that often from the EPA but it kind of rernin4s me of the water quality thing from where we had this various government agencies giving you reports that really were 300 pages to say very little. I got nothing out of those ~ Conrad: So how do you read that7 Then if you got nothing out of then~ then are you concerned? Farmakes: If there is a problem, I kaz to put kids wimln 50 feet of them... Mancino: Yeah, exactly. I'm still concerned. I fed ~ it's a catch 22 either way. I mean yes, I would like to flip flop this as I first brought up and I thought that that probably solved the dretflafion problems but I'm not going to put children at flak. Farmakes: If the city looks at accl~g some additional property along TH 5 for some tree massing or something. Total feet or enough pmtzaXy to get us something other than a row of trees, will there be a viable lot to the north if you move everything up 50 feet? A second lot. It seems to me that you have to ask the question first as to whether or not that particular use there, even as a conditional use, is viable for that area and then does it fit into the site. I'm still very worried about this issue of are we taking considemtion~ for the outlot, the totlot issue. We're going to move it 150 feet here but again, the criteria that we're using is being supplied by the applicant. And I was surprised that the government really has to press this issue at all. Mancino: Well if you move this to the north and you put a building in for people to work in, I mean you move ~i.~ to the north and then you have this southern lot. What goes in there? Do you want those people susceptible to the same problem? Whether it's children or whether it's adults. Inside a building. Conrad: You're really talking about quantities. The power line is there. The power line is running along Highway 5. It was approved to go there. There are, to my knowledge there aren't really grade restrictions. There aren't restrictions so we're making them up or we're just... (There was a tape change at this point and the remainder of the discussion pertaining to this itc-m did not get recorded. The following is a summary of the action takr~) Matt Ledvina made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review ~1 as shown on thc sitr plan received April 13, 1994 and as updated on June 1, 1994 by the applicant pertaining to the access from the north, subject to the following conditions: 39 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 lo e e e 0 8, 10. 11. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of matm'ials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utiliT¢ brick as a base for the sign rather The applicant shall provide a ~dering berm with landscaping along the south portion of thc site, between thc parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The apphnt shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be ~ in calculating the required financial guaranme& These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimel~ of the Press expansion of coniferous uees as suggest~ by Nancy Mancino. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo datvat March 10, 1994. Thc Press addition shall contain some srchi~ detailing (with relief) to break up thc long wall masses Concurrent with the building permit, a derailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Derailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submittvxl to the City En~neer for review and approval. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property linc where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway enwance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 19o~ 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the mnin parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way truffle. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be co~ in accayrdance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restar~ AIl boulevards disturbed as a result of the site hnprovements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bun~ shall be placed between the Press and Kindeware sim m slow down and discourage tra~c from cutting through the Kindeware site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kindercare facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 0o The uaffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the ~zvised plan prepared by S~rgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Aceess to Dell Road shall be revised to a right-out only to eliminate short cuts. The maximum number of parkin~ stalls will be limited to 33. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepm~ by SRF. There shnll be a Inndscnping ensement of 30 feet running lmmlld to Highwny S and then north parallel to Deft Road a distnnce of 7S feet, A signiflcnnt number of trees shrill be plnced on the southenst corner for an entrywny. Plnntings nround the building ns well ns interior pnrking shnll be provided. 23. Staff shall review an east/west connection. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Proportion of the roof size to the building wadi height is ineomlmtible. Arehitecturnl plnns must be revised to reflect compatibility. The appficant shrill bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare lmil~ making it compatible Ledvina and Conrad voted in favor of _this motion and Mancino, Scott and Faxmak~ vot~ in opposition. Thc motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Farmakes moved and Mancino seconded to deny Site Plan Review ~1 for the Kinderc4cre Daycare facility based on traffic circulation and inconclusive information relating to the harmful effects of Electro Magnetic Field from power lines. Scott, Mancino and Farmakes voted in favor of denial and Conrad and Ledvina voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. The Conditional Use Permit ~ 1 was also denied by the Planning Commi~om PUBLIC HEAR~G: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (46.q6 ACRES), PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF 1VHXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWEI.I.ING UNITS), !5 SINGI.~ FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WIHCH WII,L CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGI~BORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S). SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. ~ PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 101 AT 86TH STREET, MLqSION FHI.LS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this i~n. (Taping of the ~ began again at this point in the discussion,) Don Jcnsen: ...window shapes create budding problems for si~ing and other ways to make ceiling of those designs. They're a little bit more difficult and they add cost to thc building. So if we can keep within those particular paramete~ that we've looked at and that we've proposed, we would appreciate the Planning Commis~on working with us on that particular Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 issue. If there's any questions about that parlicular bnilding style, that really is our focus. We've also passed around the light fixture that we'll be wo~ing wit~ NSP. It's a high pressure sodium light fixture for the internal slreet. For the street lighting system. It is a regular residential style light. It is not a downcast shielded light. There is glare with it and that's part of what you get for the increased security and the extra ti t mx. They do have shields on the tops so that they are focusing the light more down on the roadway surfaces. Mancino: Are they decorative? Don Jensen: Correct Mancino: I didn't see any pictures. Farmakes: They're over there. Don Jensen: There's still one in there so I can start one from the left side if you'd like. They're the same fixture there. NSP, in an effort to respond to development goals of having decorative fixtures over the last 2 or 3 years has come out with a series of light fixUn~ that they own and maintain under lease to associations for a period of time of about 25 years and so the benefit there is an association does not have to go to a distributor for some different design that goes out of vogue in 5 or 10 years and becomes very difficult to maintain and operate. This way you get the beUer buying power from a major utility comlmny. They're going to maintain it if it goes out. The photo cell goes out. You call NSP or the electrical company that's in that district. They take them out and they replace it. They fix it. It's part of your ongoing monthly service charge. On the buildings themselves, you're going to have lights that may or may not be on photo cells to highlight the entry ways and those are going to be your typical residential lights. Those arc normally in more of a decorative fixp. u~ with smaller incandescent light bulbs. Not high pressure sodium and those can either be conlrolled with a switch or they're on a photo cell When they're on photo cells continuously, which is the theme for our vilia area here, they do not tend to emit more than about a half a foot candle which is what staff is talking about. Much more than the center of that particular prival~ roadway that you have there. So they're encom?assing the whole driveway apron. The garage apron out to the roadway. You add streeflights, then you're able to increase your foot candles up a little bit more so that you've got more hot spots on the roadway surface. So you can put some high lights on an intersection areas where you're going to have tra~c coming out and in parti~ that's ~t for the winl~r months. If there's any questions about the architectur~ style of the garden home. The villa everybody seems to be pretty comfortable with. I'd be happy to address them. The square footage is a little bit over the 1,200-1,225 square feet on that particular product. Again, that's designed more for ~ nesters who are looking for a handicap adapl~le and handicap accessible type dwelling unit. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 All on one floor. All the living area and the ~ between the two buildings is that the interior units, 1 car garage on our 8 unit buildings can allow people who arc widows, widowers, single people, never rrmlTicd who really don't need that 2 car garage. It also has 1 less bathroom in it so it's a slightly smaller floorplam When you add all of those buildings up on the...pan of the road, you have a total of 12 different buildingS. 515 traits. A width real singlar to single family structure when you encorr~,ass both units. We think that there's an adequate amount of diversity there which accomplishes the city's goals to have a diversity of housing type and that it is an interesting building and an exciting building to look at in real, up close and that's why we have the phoWgraphs that we brought along that we just shot out in the field about a week ago. Scott: Comments or questions? Conrad: Not yet. Scott: Okay. Do you want to talk about the buildings to the south? Don Jensen: Sure. We don't want to spend a great deal of time with them. But what we have are thc two different building types. Thc villa, which I have on the larger lots in the back configuration. Just hold up the floor plan right here. We have square footages of about 1,125 square feet on the center with the 1 car garage. It has a living area upstairs and downstairs. Floor phm here. Upstairs. Downstairs. Direct entry inW the kitchen. The living area with the patio area in front. The end n_nits have a patio area off the side. They're approximately 1~ square feet. 2 car garage. Again, direct access into the kitchen ns well as the front door in bold design. 2 bedrooms upstairs in both particular instances and we have the bathroom upstairs in both cases has the master. We do have the oppm-mnity in some cases, because of the plumbing, to have an optional bath on some of these dwelling units downstairs. When we go to the non back to back building, represented by this elevation and also which we passed around in a neighborhood that we're getting under way in Inver Grove Heights of what that looks like from the rear to match the eiev~on in a real phowgraph as well as the front. What we have in that particular case has incre~ed the square footage and gone to a, not msndn__tory but it's going to have 2 bathrooms. 1 down, 1 up. More for guests on the downstairs for your half bath. It's labeling an upstairs square footage is increased up to 1~258 square feet on the outside and it's a little bit more square footage, about 1,180 square feet on the interior dwelling nnit which again has a I car garage. The target market there is the first time home buyers, which have been incumsingly locked out of the wesim'n suburbs. It is predominantly 50% women pmchasing as the only person on the mortgage. That doesn't mean that there's a lot of children. It just means that there are single women that are applying on the mortgage and it is an oppommity for those people to get started in home ownership options, espedally in light of all the employment opportunities Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that exist in the Chaska, the Jonathan, C~mssen, Eden Prairie market. That's been real consistent. We'll see another 20% that will be ~ingle men. We'll see 20% that are couples and about 10% that have been older buyers, which we believe are now served more by the garden home product because it's approxims~ly the same square footage that we can offer to all on one floor versus the two floors and the stairs that are the inherent problem. We believe that a lot of the older buyer, and I'll categorize that as people above 55-60 that show up on the mortgage, were interesl~ in buying something that was within their price range and that was in a number of our neighborhoods, something between $65,000.00 and $85,000.00, depending on an end unit or interior unit in w~er neighborhood that happened to be at. And we believe that there's an awful lot of people who would like to, at least in the older market, not spend all that money that they've happened to accumulated, or not accumulate, on new housing that better meets their mobility concerns or their long term concerns. Both of these are in associations, which means that the maintenance of these areas are consistenL We have one association in the noz~ It's a Wwnhouse platting, which means each individual dwelling unit has it's own lot and block number. The villa neighborhood to the south is condomim'um platting rneo~ning that it's one lot for the whole building and it's added in a sequential fashion so that people own...in the dwelling unit. Both of these are governed by the State of Minnesota with new laws that have changed as of yesterday regarding new structure for adequate maintenance. Regarding a whole series of items that were meant to level the playing field, in the legishture's eyes, as to what goes into an association. Something we've been doing for a number of- years which is change the language. Mancino: Where's all the ~g? Applicant; Metering of 2 Mancino: Electrical. Whatever. Don Sensen: Okay. If you notice on some of thc photograph~, and we have those probably the best way to see it, right through here. Mancino: Many of them are stuck by the front door. Don Jensen: That's the case in all of our dwe11ing units. The way that we lay it out. Mancino: I can't see it. Don Jcnsen: You can't see it? Mancino: No. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Don Sensen: Well, I'll just point it out on the elevations then. Mancino: Is it here somewhere? Where you have your electrical meter and the. Don Sensen: Sure. You have to look closely because it's in a lot of the shadows through here. Where it is, it's in the wrap around right by the front door so right on the opposite side of this wall right through here, that's where the met~ would be in this location. Now what Rottlund has done, which is different from some other builder, is we've got one gas memr for each dwelling unit. We've got one electrical unit for each dwelling unit and we have purposely not ganged them up so that we're not ganging them up on any one individual home unit. The gas ~ on the e~l elevations occur on the end elevation so the only thing that's going to happen near the front door, which will occur on the 4 unit buildings, is the electrical mot~ which is now occurring also with the telephone and the cable box. So you've got an area of approximately this size for electrical mCu~, telephone and for cable, all near the front door area of each dwelling. Mancino: And is it attached to the wall? Don Sensen: Yes. And they're. Mancino: How high up is it? Don J'ensen: They're screwed to the wall By c. ode they have to be about .5 feet high. Mancino: Can you camouflage them? Don Jensen: No, because they need to be read by the people. Mancino: Oh no, but I have a box around mine so, and it's insdde so that you can't, you know it's camouflaged architecunally. Don Sensen: In this case, no. We understand 1VlinnegascO'S looking at a different supplier, as is their goal to be more service oriented to customers, which includes builders and thc residents. They're have a smaller me~ other than the one that they've been using for years and years and years, which is appmximmely the size of the television. Small television. 19 inch television. So in the case of an 8 unit building for example, fight through here you have your gas meter and your electrical meter in and around the front door. In this zone through here. The end units. You have the gas on the outside and have the electrical, telephone around the front door in this area. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Scott: Any questions or comments on these two designs7 Good. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add? Don Jensen: Not at this time. Scott: Crt~c Is there another member of the development team that would like to talk about some aspect of the development? Dick Pumam: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could I guess just u'y to wrap up by quickly going through the recommendations and where we have questions, maybe we can just ask that question and highlight them for you. On pages 25 and 26 of the report, at the bottom of page 25 it talks about dedication of right-of-way for one lot. I think Mr. Hempel and planning staff remember this last i~n we ~ pt~ously about dedication to the right-of-way. I guess Mr. Klin§elhutz and ourselves object~ to it before. We don't believe it's fair, equitable and legal. I think the staff is...little different configuration, if I'm not mistaken. They've taken the tact that we should approach it like you would approach any other enlarging of an existing city street or county road, is that correct? Hcmpel: Mr. Chub'man, yeah. That's essentially correct. We fdt, the original concept review I think was that staff felt at that time the entire strip should be ~ 230 or 270 foot wide strip. Af~ consulting with the city ~'s office on that, that would have been excessive and probably...legal but there was some talk of we do have some fights to some futm~ right-of-way out there within reason. Most likely this will be turned back to the city for more upgrading, which will de~ with assessments and financing mechanisms to upgra~g this section of TH 101. Therefore we felt that it is fair to require dedication of a normal one- half of the normal right-of-way which would be required on a collector type of street, which is 100 feet or one-half of that would be ~0 feet of right-of-way. But the remaining balan~ of that platted as an ouflot for the future intent for acq~sifion ttn'ough condemnution or outright purchase of the applicant. Dick Putnam: I guess Dave, clarify it for us. In other words, the policy would be for us to dedicate one-half of the right-of-way necessary for a 100 foot street, is that ~? Hemal: That's correct. Dick Pumam: Okay. What we would propose then, since there's a 66 foot right-of-way on TH 101 today, or 33 feet on each side of center line, we would dedicate an additional 17 feet. Not 50 feet. Is that ~7 Hcmpel: That's ccarecC That was thc intent is to gain a total of 50, one-half of the right-of- Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 way, 50 feet. So if they've dedicated alre~y 33 feet or half of the right-of-way out there, an additional 17 feet would equal the 50 foot of right-of-way. Scott: Well how's that impacted with, I know that the alignment ~ was chosen as the proposed and that alignment does not run right over existing TH 101 but you have somehow determined how to, are you talking about. It sounds like we're talking about existing TH 101 but there's this proposed alignment/F3. How do you recondle those two? Hempel: Alternative g3 also blankets the existing TH 101 alignment. Therefore, we would be essentially able to acq~ part of that dedication. Dick Putnam: Okay, then our understanding is c~ Then we don't have any problem with that 17 foot additional fight-of-way. The next sentence however is one that's fairly .s~ry. If you can put yourself in a position of the IRS asking you to create a blank check for them in case there are future taxes needed and you wouldn't mind agreeing to it, that's exactly what this says to us. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or letl~ of credit for future upgrading of Highway 101. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after the preliminary design and feasibility study for upgrading TH 101 north of Trunk Highway 212. I guess if we knew what it was, we'd cerlainly look at it but it's very difficult for us or anyone to agree to something that's that unclear. I notice that that recommendation is not in the recommendation section but it is referred to here and I thought I'd inform you that we make I guess our concern fairly swaight forward. Until such time that someone can tell us what it is and that everyone is being assessed equitably and fairly, we can't agree to something without knowing what it is and I think you can understand Our reasoning for thac If you go back to the recommendation section, the first part of it of dedicating to a 50 foot width is there but not the escrow portion and we prefer your reconunendafion at the end of the report rather than the sentence I just read. At the bottom of page 26 it talks, just to clarify. It talks about the wetlands and it says the property appears to contain 3 wetlands and I of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. We don't know of a wetland we're filling. If you read on through Basin A and B, the last sentence in that section says, it appears that there will be no fill or excavation on existing wetlands. We agree with that sentence. We are not filling any wetland up. We aren't getting any permits to do that and just so you understand, we aren't filling in any. Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chaimum, I'll have to further investigate that clarification with our Water Resource Coordinntor. Dick Pumam: We iv. ally aren't doing any. That's the i .mportant thing and hopefully that's Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 dear. If we could go to the page 29 and in §oing through the recommendations. Item I lalks about cons~on of streets, particular 86th Street where it goes through. We're, in talking with the staff, 86th Slreet where it goes through the new TH 101 right-of-way would be built as a temporary section and not as a permanent section because it would be ripped up when TH 101 comes through, lust so that's understood. Scott Have members of staff heard these? I mean is this a dialogue that you've already had with the applicant that is being repeated for our benefit or should thi~ be something that they should be talking to you about and then you bring it to us? Aanenson: That's what we'd like to do. Hempel: Most of this dialogue has not been brought to our attention. Scott: Okay, because let's, why don't, I think that discussion needs to be had with the staff prior to bringing that here. Because there's a lot of these things that we're not going to be able to react to such as. Mancino: Until you work with staff. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure how many more he's got Maybe there's. Dick Pumam: All I'm trying to do is clarify so in everybody's case you know, when it says all of the sm:ets will be built to the design section. We spoke with the en~neering depamnent and the planning staff before and obviously the section in the old, or the new TH 101 fight-of-way will be a paved road section but it won't be curb and gutter and build a permanent road because it's §oin§ to get ripped up in, I think Karen said 1997. All I'm trying to do is clarify for everyone's benefit That's my only purpose for it I'm not trying to be argumentative but just Conrad: Do you have a lot of clarifications like number 17 Dick Putnam: No, I really don't Conrad: Okay. Dick Pumam: Item number 3 1 think that deals with the storm water. Ed mentioned thc fact that it would be very difficult to go to 3. We believe we can go to 4 ponds plus the pond that's there for the conunercial section and we'd like to be able to wozk with the stuff on defining which one of those are. I think we have a couple things that we can do to do Ikat. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Item number 10, which is what we discussed with the street We'd be looking at, and that's on page 30. The westerly 50 feet really is an additional 17 feet bringing it to a 50 foot total, and we don't have a problem with that. We did have a problem with the escrow for... On page 31, item 17 where the staff is asking that they be able to discuss housing disuicts with the builder, in this case Rottlund, for moderate cost. For working families. Rotflund has no problem with that These are...nnits so whatever program the city would like to work with 118 on, I'm sure they'd be happy to do that. They aren't renlal units. They're for sale units. Other than that I think by and large most of the items are pretty clear. A question Don just mentioned on 15(a) which is the toflot. This lists a number of different things that could be included in it. I think what we're looking at for the scope of the project, the people living there and the size of the space, and it's location next to the pond. The picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus for small children would be the extent of the development. Not tennis courts, basketball hoop maybe but not tenni~ courts. That sort of thing. So with that, I guess Mr. Chairman, those were the only items that we could see other than the commercial area. If you have any questions. $co~ The reason for the conunent was there's another development group that goes through the litany of, and unfortunately I may have painted you with the same hmsh but we have another gentleman that we dearly love who kind of goes through each and every item and it's noL Dick Puman~ I didn't give my name first each time I did it. Scott: So anyway, that's the explanation. Dick Pumarn: You should understand, we just received the staff report Nriday? No Monday. Scott: Well that's when we got it right? Dick Putnam: The reason we haven't had a chance to talk very much to the staff clarifying is that we just got it. Scott: Good, Dave. Hernpel: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted one more clarification. Atrparenfly there's a duplication in conditions 7 and 18. Warded somewhat rlifferenfly but they essentially mean the same. I would propose to delete condition 7 and rephrase condition 18 to read, preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon and the remaining sentence as stated in the staff report Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 199~ Hempel: And final plat approval shall be contingent and the remaining senl~nce as is. Scott: And we're hearing the ~ plat right now so basically what you're saying is that we're not going to be able to approve, as this condition, we can't approve the ~ plat for this development because that's what's on our. Hempel: That's a good point. We should rephrase it to delete the preliminary portion of it. Scott: Final plat. Hempel: Final. Scott: Okay, I got it. Would anybody else from the development tram ~ to speak7 Yes sir. Please state your name for the viewers at home and your address. A1 Klingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz. I own the pmtmrly that we're talking about here pertaining to the proposed commercial portion of the ~. One of the reasons that the plat was laid out on that ~ is I think I explained this at the last meeting before the Council is, when you haven't got a highway for a road, who's going to build a commerc~ property. How can you really lay out a plat until you know what the map is going to be? I guess I'm not too anxious about leaving it out of the plat but if I would have to come in and say, well this is moving to here and this is going to be here and this is going to be here at the present time, I think personally I think it'd be an effort in futility because of the fact that who knows what that neighborhood is going to want and who wants to come in there as a business. The other thing I had quite a shock on when I looked at 50 foot setback on 4 sides of a 8 acre tract as an ~ space area. Now on one side on 86th Street can be changed to 30 feet. But if you take 50 feet around an 8 acre tract, and you're cutting out about 3 1/2 acres of that 8 acres...and as far as I'm concerned, that's a taking. It isn't a giving~ it's a taking and I thinlr the courts would say something on that. The 30 feet I could see, I can see 50 feet using pan of that 50 feet for the driveway and your parking lot but to expect to give 50 feet clean around an 8 acre tract of land I think is very exce~ve. What if Highway 212 never comes? What happens? What happens to the proposed fight-of-way which hasn't been acq~? Probably never will be acq~ What happens to the ~ of that right-of- way and how can it be accessed without some other plan? Are we sure Highway 212 is going to become a viable thing within the next 50 years? It's been going on for almost 50 years at the present time and I've been on the I~ghway 212 commit~ for 42 years. And we're looking at something that's not very tangible. No money available. Whenever Carlson vetoes the 5% tax increase, it mak~ it less apt to happen. And I'm a Republican and I think 51 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 that's one thing that really tums me against Governor Carlson...something pretty essential for thc State of Minnesota to keep our roads in shape. And you're talking about the new Highway 101 north of 212. And you're looking at a 200 foot right-of-way. Is that going to be built with Highway 212 or what are you talking about at the present time? Hempel: Mr. Chaimmn, at the present time we don't have a set date of upgrading this segment of road. Development certainly will help dictate a time line or brining it up to speed here a little bit faster. We've projected a date of sometime after 1997. Al Klingelhutz: Highway 101's a state highway and if the road is built prior to the time of 212 coming in, you're planning on assessing the abutting pr~ owners for part of that, for putting in that road. You're going to put in a 4 lane collector highway. Major highway from Highway 212 north and you expect the landowners to pay for pm't of that highway? Hempel: Just one clarification. We're looking at the upgrade of TH 101 north of 86th Street. That portion up to where Market Boulevard is. That segment the city and/or county will be the funding source for that upgrade. Of course there ~e funding mechanisms out there such as the TIF district. County Aid. State Aid dollars. And assessments are not out of the question. Al Klingelhutz: Up to the new 86th Street? Hempel: That's correct. Al Klingelhulz: Okay. At the present time you aren't thinking of going beyond it? Hempel: That's correcL A1 Klingelhutz: Well then it doesn't affect my property so it doesn't...but when you're looidng at going across a large tract of land which the State, if 212 ever intends to be built, has said they would redo Highway 101... Scott: I think the last time we saw this project I think the comment was that MnDot was going to be pardcipating very heavily in that stretch from the proposed 212 to 86th. Maybe we need to push that 86th Street a little bit timber north. Push it to the creek. Al glingelhutz: Well I know that's been in the plan all the dine that they were going to tala: care of everything from 212 to 86th Sueec Proposed 86th Sueec Hempel: That's corre~ That's our understanding as well. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Sco~ We'll see how that goes. Good, any other comments sir7 A1 Klingelhutz: Well you know, looking at the commetci~ zoning. The signage in there. One monument sign and if you're going to throw the commercial out it doesn't mean a thing at this part of it right now. But one monument sign for the whole lot and then the next sentence says wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontagea The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. Now do I read this wrong? That I can have all the wall mounted signs of only 24 square feet. That's on 6 x 4. If I have 5 businesses in there, I'll have a I x 1 sign on each building. Al-$aff: Well the intention is 24 square feet per sign. Not for all signage. Not all wall mounted signage. Al Klingelhutz: Well then clarify the one monument to me too. Where would the one monument be? On the one entrance or should I have one on both entrances to the property or? Al-Jaff: One sign for thc entire. A1 glingelhutz: I don't think; you know like the City of Chanhassen is going to put up...City of C~mhassen on 2 or 3 different places. When you go into a subdivi~on fi'om 2 different directions, you almost should be allowed to have 2 monument signs when you enter the place. I don't see anything elaborate or anything but just some nice entrance signage. Scott: Which condition would this be? Al Klingelhutz: That'd be number 1 on page 38. Aanenson: Put it this way. We're all recommending that the comme~ be left as an outlot at this time. It's more of a conceptual We're not going to be zoning. We don't know when it's going to come back and as Mr. glingelhutz indicated. Mancino: It could be changed. A1 Klingelhutz: One problem I've got though is with storm water drainage...taking commercial into consideration at the present time. Where is that water going to go ~metime in the future7 Sc, om Where were you guys saying7 53 ~t~uming Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Al Klingelhutz: Where it was proposed on the original pht, a good share of that storm water drainage was already designated to go inw one of the holding ponds. Scott: I guess it was said that some of it's going to be draining kind of to nox~ northeast into a retention pond that's going to serve both the southern portion of the development and then also part of the commercial and then when 212 is built, into some sort of a ditch of Al Klingelhutz: Somethiug that could come up in the future if it isn't thought about now. If they put a ho!ding pond in the residential portion of the property and if by coming at some future date with commercial zoning on that, and they say well you've got to have a holding pond and there's already a holding pond's been put in that should be sized big enough for the comanercial site outside of what goes along 212 and things like that. And some future Planning Commissions and future Councils says hey, you've got to put in the holding pond and there's already a holding pond been put in to take care of that portion of the water that flows fxom the commercial ~ into residential property. Scott: Well I would assume some calculations have been made based upon a pretty flat pad to convey water in both directions, I would guess. Hcmpel: As part of our comprehensive surface water management plan, we designated regional ponding areas for both water quality and quantity. To be quite honest I get confiug~ ...a commercial site. What was desi~ if anything, on this site. We'll look into that for Scott: Good, thanks. Al Kiingelhutz: Okay now, about berming along 86th Street I notice you're saying that the residential part is going to have to berm their's and you're saying that comme~ziaL Well then there's going to have to be a berm between the residential. Are we going to have two berms there? Scott: I don't think so. Al-$aff: No. Al Klingelhutz: 86th Street and then that portion that goes up south of 86th Street up to the southerly boundary of the residential property. Scott: Sharmin. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Al-Jaff: There will be a berm that the residential developers will be provi'ding to separate the residential district from the conunercial district, which is contact with what the conceptual approval stated and then most probably there will be a meandering berm that we would require around the perimeters of the cornmeaci~ parcel as well It's something that we're requiring with the residential district. Al glingelhutz: What's the use of having a berm between the highway and a commewial property? I can see it between the residen~ but between the highway and commercial prope~. When you allow buildings on main street to build right up to the sidewalk. Then you come out here and you've got 50 feet of open space along 4 sides of a piece of property, it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Scorn Well I think the precedent I think is set with the berming requirements for the Highway 5. My guess is there's going to be a Highway 212 task force that's going to be putting together the same sort of a study so I think that's consistent with the treatmeat that we're giving to thc requirements for construction along Highway S. Al Klingclhutz: I know I haven't...Highway 212. This states you're going to berm Highway 212. They're taking a 400 foot right-of-way there. What are you going to do with it all? Scorn I would thinly though, if there's a 30 to 50 foot, whatever that setback is, that is where the berm would be going. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Al glingclhutz: I don't know where all the ground is going to come from that you're going to not let anybody change the conWurs of the land. Scott: I don't have that. That's another thing I don't have an answer for. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to, from the applicant, like to speak about the development. Okay. A public heating is schedulexi and I see a few reddents. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scorn Would anyone like to speak? Yes ma'am. Please state your name and your address. Martha Klein: My name is Martha Klein at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. My main concern I guess being up here is to...and I live on the existing TH 101 but everything that's being 55 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 shown is on the proposed. I guess my position is that, then this should not be started until the proposed highway is available because we exit onto that highway through our driveway. As do many of my neighbors. My children have to cawh the bus on that highway. And thi, is just going to be an incredible amount of traffic increase. Scott: I'm sorry, which side of the highway do you live on7 Martha Klein: I would be, right there. Scott: Okay. Martha Klein: So everything that's being shown says pwposed Highway 101. It is not there yet. As Dave stated, it might not be there until '97 or af~. And just 2 months ago we came to a meeting. You know got...alternative for TH 101 and it was stressed how the uaffic has already reached it's capacity. I'm not against change but I feel we already are up to our capacity. The noise, the pollution and my children's safety as well as my neighbors. There's so many neighbors along there that have no facility to turn around. They're all elderly. They cannot turn their vehicles around. They have to back out onto that highway. And the traffic's already incredible. I don't know where these are, if this plan is based on a proposed highway, I think it should wait until that highway is available for use. Sc, om Dave with, I guess in this particular area. Typically how would that work when the highway is widened7 I xrwam obviously the ingress and egress to their property needs to be maintained. If you could maybe go throu~ a real quick scenario of how that would work. I know that this is, maybe take a step back. Is this a chicken and the egg situation? Let's say this development gets through to final, let's say it's completely approved. Ctround ~g starts. This development will be coming on line. Applicanu August. Scott: Yeah August of. Applicaut: August of '94. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. Thi, project, as we mentioned earlier, is contingent upon the city authorizing the Lake Riley trunk utility hupmvements which wo,,]d extend trunk sewer service to this area. This area is able to be serviced through city sewer. Sanitary sewer. And it's been one of the issues that we had all along. What's going to trip upgra_ding TH 101. And obviously without development pre~ like this, is there really a need or a warrant to upgrade TH 101. $o you kind o£ need this to spearh~ development for ~6 Planning Commission Meeting - lune 1, 1~24 upgrading of TH 101. Safety concerns along TH 101 are certainly valid. We hope to, with this project, where the new inl~secfion of 86th and TH 101, in~ some safety improvgm~ts sugh as 0am lanes, by-pas~ lane and improve thg sight distange on the hill there...one side or the other. All that will be lu~lressed with this temporary connection to TH 101 with 86th Street. There is also a sharp curve or narrow bridge further out to the north. Those issues will not be addressed with this development. Those will be addressed la~ on after 1997 with the fulxtre upgrade of TH 101. Pred Hoi~ington, who's been ~ city's consultant for probably over the last 4 years in designing diffc~nt allm'nalives felt tha~ I've got lraffic counts too for TH 101 but they felt that this development here woold not exceed the lraffic capacity of TH 101 on this site but it'd be pushing it to a limit. Scott: As it exists today? Hernpel: As it exists today. Right now Tnmk Highway 101, based on the 1991 traffic counts, carries about 4,,~00 cars a day in the vicinity of 86th SlxeetflH 101 in--on. To give you an example of the traffic north of Trunk Highway 5 up TH 101, it's 10,000 cars. Now you have a similar road design although we probably don't have the wide ditch sections and cur~ roads that you have south of TH 5. Marflm Klein: Excuse me, do you have driveways exiting onto that highway? Hempel: There are a few, yes. Scott: Yeah, on the Eden Prairie side. Scol~ And also in Chanhassen. Yeah, as a maurr of fact they're kind of, they're lake. It's very, very similar. There are lake homes on Lotus Lak~ who have veer narrow driveways but I guess wha~ I'm frying to do here is to kind of, to give you a bit of an idea of how this is all fitting together and the impact and I know that when the development does come on line, and you live north. It looks like you live north of where the new 86th is going to be coming out So correct me. There won't be any construction activity by their driveway because they're north of where the conslruction's going to be going? Hempcl: There may be some, what w~ call the acceleration or deceleration or by-pass for the light at TH 101. But no 4 lane improvetmnts. No driveway corrections in that area. That would be upon the homeowner if a safety concern arises, which is a normal responsibility of the homeowner to put in a turn around. $7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Question. When will these be inhabited? If you start co~on August '94. Jim Ostenson: I would think that if we were able to start this fall, we would certainly be at least 6 months before there'd be any inhabitants at all Don Jensen: Yeah, you need at least 4 months to get one of these bnildings done. That'd be about a month longer than a ~ingle family structure. Mancino: So next winter. Don Jensen: Right. InW the winter. Jim Ostenson: And then beyond that we would probably look at a 30 to a 36 month build out for the entire site. So the building's all got built and up. Don Jensen: Spring '97 is really when the whole thing is probably going to be completed. Mancino: Because I was going to ask you about letting t/me. You know can you...time because the thing that's triggering developments like this or U'iggering would be thc realigmnent of TH 101 and making it wider, etc, can't we compress that letting time between when thc development happens and when the infrasffucture is needed? Hempel: Fur_ding is a major role in the upgrade of TH 101. Obviously we don't have the construction dollars to do it. But I was going to point out that with regards to the city's...the improvement project, extending utilities to this area, that won't happen until sometime hte this fall so as long as the project gets approved however but the City Coundl, we could grandfather plat approval and notes to proceed with this development to occur concurrently with the city's development So it could start this fall as well Martha Klein: So what you're telling me then is. Mancino: You mean a 2 or 3 year leg time? Martha Klein: But we have thc effe~ after the cause. It's like we have m wait for this development to come in to increase our traffic and then get the okay on the highway. That seems backwards. I rnean...backwards. The road is already vea-y busy. Now you're saying that the levels are safe. Okay at that meeting just 2 months ago where they were saying they were unsafe and it had to be plotted and it needs to be changed. It's just, it seems like you're turning things to meet the needs of the city. Right now I don't see a big housing need. I ~ there's houses, there's developrmnt everywhere. I don't see we're doing it for a need 58 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 and there's houses everywhere. You said people can create a turn around. I can give you 3 or 4 houses right there on the lake, they do not have the facility to create a turn around and they are all elderly people. I can't irna~ne there is no facih'ty for them. There's no room. They pull right in off the road into their driveway. They have to back out onto the highway, which is already unsafe. My children have to catch the bus. They have to cross thor_ highway. I just don't see where the need is justifying it. ff there was a substantial need for housing in Chanhassen, I could see it but right now it doesn't justify jeopardizing my family or the families around it. I just don't feel that's the situation at this time. Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make? Martha Klein: No, that would be all Scott: Okay. Well thank you very much and please follow this issue along. We mak~ recommendations. Would anybody else ~ to speak? Yes sir. Dave Nickolay: I've never been at a meeting this la~ Scott: I have. Dave Nickolay: My name's Dave Nickolay. I've been here before you at the previous hearings. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm on the northeast corner of the proposed development. Approximately 2 to 2 1/2 of these single family houses will adjoin my proper~ number of homes also bordering my property. I submitt~ a letter, or letters to you on Sepmnber 12, 1993 and on October 17, 1993 and to makr this very brief and to preserve your time and my time also, I'm not going to go back through all those issues but I would like you to review the comments that I submitted to you back then and I did testify at the previous hearings so all of that is on record so I'm going to save us all that time at this point. I would like to just be on record by saying that I think that this type of den~ty as it relates to the development that I purchased land in a number of years ago, 13 years ago, is not consistent This is just way too high a density. There was a co .mpromise made by the developer here to change the single family. They did reduce it by 2. It had no ingn~ on my lots or the number of lots that adjoin my ~. I just don't believe that the transition is adequate here to accomm~te. What we've got are 3 properties that are affect~ in Rice Lak~ Manor. One of those properties...3 homes and you're looking at 7 homes back up to us. The other issue that I'd like to point out. I also noted this...but I'd like to make sure that it's on the record for thc purpose of Wnight. The horse farm ~tions over the years have changed the drainage plan in that area. I talked about that ~ously. The water drains differently today than it did back then. Some of that water drains across my ~ and I 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 would like to see whatever is decided and resolved here, that the~ be no drainage as a result of this development coming across my property. Again, fight now that is ~ing but it's a result of thc farming operation and they're d~g their ms__tt~'sls on that site. The ~ point that I'll make deals with the park issues occ~g on the property owners that are in Rice Lake Manor. I don't know what the estimated number of people are that are going to be in thi.~ development but 3/10 of an acre of park. I disagree with the Park Cornmi.,~sion's reconunendation that there's adequate parks in the area. There is not. The street that's going to go down that row of single family housing, the developer's proposed to put in I believe a c~ fence to cut down the traffic that might come across out of the development into Rice Lake Manor. That that does not provide for the securing of the north end of the development You can have a dead end street that's going to open itself up to a marsh. There is a trail down below fight now. It's not a public use trail It's the fight-of-way for the sewer. There's going to have to be some provisions made to protecting people or preventing people from just having access to that. So what's going to happen is they're going to come down this sm~ They're going to spill around and they're going to come across the comer of my property and then they're going to end up going through the properties that are in Rice Lake Manor. So there's going to have to be some provisions made to protect that. I said I'd be brief. Thank you. I'll wait to hear what your recommendations are. Scott~ Okay, thank you. Yes ma'am. Jo Larson: My name's Jo Larson. I live at 8590 Tigua Circle and a couple things that, as per the design of the development, I really like it. Everything that the devel~ and staff have put into it except that I don't feel flzis is the right place at this time to put it. I feel that the only reason that multi-family or high density got put on the c~n~ive plan in the first place was because proposed 212 was not a proposed plan. Along with, and right now we don't even know if 212 is going to go through. And a lot of the comprehensive plan, in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act which states that you have to pay particular attention to the suitability of an area for cemin development. And I just don't feel thi.~ is right without, if the highway was, ff we knew the highway was going to go there, fine. But without the highway, I don't think this would have ever been put on the comprehensive plan you know. And I think you still have to take in effect. I hear the Planning Commission with other things coming up, well it's guided for that It's guided for that but you have to remember that in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act And what I'm really concerned about is the value of my home. I don't think the transition is right fi'om the big lots. The market value of the existing homes there and I just want you to know that I'm concerned about the value of my home and I think it's your job to help protect mine. That's all I have to say. Scott: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak? Can I have a motion to Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 close the public hearing please7 Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Were you going to say something? Mancino: No. I just have a couple questions for Sharrni-. Scott: Go ahead. Mancino: Not comments yet but just some questions about some other people's concerns. On the stm~f report on page 6, under issue number 2 which has to do with hard s~ coverage that was requested. I go back to the City Council meeting for November 22nd, 1993 which is on the last page of the whole report. Here you say that the planned unit development ordinance allows a maximum hard sm'face coverage of 50% and you're over in Block 4 so you would ask them to come back down to 50%. Yet when I turn to the City Council meeting Minutes it says that the City Council would like the multi-family portion of the site exceeds 30%. Can you explain that to me? And they address it in number 23 too. Al-Jaff: The first time I wrote the report I worked the standards under 30% hard surfa~ coverage, which was a mistake on my part. It should have been a 50% hard sm'face coverage. And I coneci~ that at the meeting. Maucino: Okay. And that is the standm'd PUD hnpe~ous sudace? A1-Jaff: Correct. For multi-family. Mancino: Okay, thanks. But we do have a little bit of ovenge on Block 4 so we've had to reduce that. Scott: Can you transfer density? Is that what you're. Dennis Marhula: If I could address that please? I sent a men~ to you Shannin. She had asked that we calculate the hard sudace coverages within the various areas so that she can include it in the...and the numbers that I gave to her at that time, and that's pre~ numbers off of the plans were Block 1 had a total of 37%. Block 4 had a total of 49%. So the average of those two is actually 41%. I guess I'm not exactly sure where the 55% came from Perhaps maybe she can explain that to us. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Mancino: You mean she believed your numbers? Dennis Marhula: Pardon me7 Mancino: She believed your numbers at 49%7 Dennis Mm'hula: Yeah. I guess they're also reiemted on page 34 in the staff reparc Mancino: On page 34? Oh okay. So there's a disci~ancy here. Al-$aff: This was an issue at the time when the plans originally appeared befor~ the Planning Commission. Mancino: Years ago. Al-la/f: Yes. At a conceptual stage~ That was addressed and the situation has been corrected. So the section entitled, Background. It's basically the issues that were raised at the time of the conceptual approval and since then all those issues have been addressed. So no, it's not a discrepancy. Mancino: The other question has to do on page 15 and again, has this been addressed... CFhere was a tape change at this point in the discusdon.) Al-$aff: ...They are providing some variation of thc topography. They are creating a term. They preserved thc existing rolling tenain. Mancino: Desirable site characteristics. They preserve those. And they are preserving those? Al-Jarl': There is quil~ a bit of grading on this. I know they are grading additional. Mancino: But are they not creating for p~serving anything? Are they preserving any site characteristics? Not creating new ones but preserving any? Al-$aff: They're not touching the wetlands. And that is a site char~tic...grs~ding. Mancino: Rolling hills? Al-~Iaff: Rolling hills. There will be grs_Hing m~ng place on the site, yes. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Maucino: So then you cannot, should not be under the summary of rezonin§ PUD. It should not be something that we're receiving because we're not receiving on page 15 it says that...of flexibility. Al-la/f: The preservation of wetland. Mancino: Okay. So we're not going to retain any wiling hills. They are going to go in and curate man made, well I don't know if they're man made, roiling hills or whatever. Okay. Matt, do you have any questions about the grs~ding and do you have any remarks on that7 Because we're doing so much of it. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: And I know that that has always been a concern since we've seen this. Ledvina: Yeah. I walired the site and I've been concerned with that and I can picture the size of the gullies that they're dealing with and I know that there will have to be some graveling that's required on the site to put the b,_ild!ng's in there. That's a given- But I do feel that there's still opportunity, especially in the northeast I'm sorry, northwest part of the site for stepping some buildings and provi_'Hing for somewhat of preservation of the general topography. I'm not naive to think that you can just go in and start stepping bnilrlings all over the place and have steps in the buildings and not reach havoc with your budgets and all that kind of thing. But yeah, I would agree with you that that's a question and in my opinion I think that there's possibly some more things that the developer can do in that area. But I thinlr it's a thing that should be worked out with stuff. Maucino: And would you like to put that in the recommendation now? Ledvina: Yes~ I think that's appropriate. Mancino: Okay. The wtlot, again. One of the things we brought up and Shatrnin would you refresh my memory. We approved the toflot as a third of an acre for this much density? Or did we have, did we know it was going to be a _third of an acre7 That just seern~ I don't think we hado. ScotC Or was this a situation where the Park and Rec depax~nent ~ed that this was not park deficient7 Is that kind of how7 Fanvmkes: No. That's not what happened. What happened was that the park, as I recall, the park...didn't need anything and we thought they did. We asked to take that area and at least make it a commons, if not a park of some sort of green space. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: I don't remember a third of an acre. Farmakes: No, they didn't have a specific. Scott: Because that's kind of what I w~ thinking. Is th~ the PREk probably because of Lake Susan Park, deterwined that this was not park deficient but we said hey. This is so dense, you need something. So this is something that we put in. Farmakes: Originally I jostled for having something in the south and something in the north and it didn't work out that way. h seems to have something in the south and not the north, They have that area that has the berm allo__ned_ for... Mancino: Well from the City Council meeting on Nov~ 22nd, I mean it says on number 16. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commi.k~ion. The app~t shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landsc~ grassy areas, picnic tables, and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts. That says to me that it's bigger than a third of an acre for this size and this density of development I mean it doesn't rake, you can put picnic tables and park benches and play apparatus on a third of an acre but you can't put a basketball court so I think that they were thinking of something and I know I was, bigger amenity common area for this development. Farmakes: What I was argaing for was to...based on their recommendations and the rest of the parks in the area to service them. I didn't see... Mancino: Is that ~7 Al-Jail: Well one reconunendation that I was going to make is, the Park and Rec Commission will be reviewing this ~pplicafion within the next 3 weeks so you might want to make a recommendation that they make sure that they use amenities that the applicant is providing meets the needs. Mancino: ...development in this area. You might want to see what they say first. Because I think it is deficient in that area. Scott: And we nomudly don't, after the public hearing is closed, we nommlly don't entertain additional comments. My thought here is that this is perhaps not a significant issue. I'm just trying to be fair because I, except in extreme circumstances do not allow additional cotmn~ts so I'll have to respectfully request that l~rhaps that you take it to the Coun~ aftrr we get Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 through with this~ Do you have some other comments? Maucino: No. I think that those are my two biggest issue~ One is the den~ty and how many...especially for being a PUD. I thought that we were getting more common area. Amenities from allowing this kind of density. And number two, the grading. I'd like to see more...and I don't have any more comments right now but I may later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: ...the commons issue is one that I talked about before when we were looldng at this. I think that, particularly when you have higher density, you have less of a sense of community and neighborhood and I don't necessarily think that there should be ballfielrh or basketball hoops there. Sust even a gathering greenery area or something. I wanted to see something north up by 19-18 area,..thst wasn't in the cards. The area down below, the third of an acre, the common area between 15 and 16. I'd ~ to see more of what they have... not putting in the landscaping plan, Again, I thinlc .. should be referred to the cluslming. And c~tisidering that as a passive use rather than a recreationa~ use. If they don't determine that there's a need for such a thing...They're showing 1 tree per lot on the recreational homes. Or not the recreational homes, the single family homes, Is that, Mancino: ...the new tree preservation. Farmakes: Is that the old or new rules? Aanenson: That's the old. Maucino: You know it's a PUD. I would like to see the new tree preservation ordinance apply to this. Scott: Well wouldn't it apply after final approval? Whatever ordinances are in place after final approval or at the time of final approval A1-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: To figure out canopy coverage and a map. Ledvina: Did you have a recommendation for another condition on that or do you think it's addressed within the report7 Do you think we need that7 A1-Jaff: Right now there aren't any trees on the site and they're not removing any. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - June l, 1994 Aanenson: ...2 trees per lot. Ledvina: 2 trees per lot. Okay. Is there a specific condition ar where we need a modification? Mancino: Well 2 trees per lot is not using the tree preservation ordinance. Which means that because there are no lrees on it, they have to go in and do a reforestation and do a management plan and put in trees. I mean it has to be at least 15%. With the new tree preservation ordinance there's nothing. Ledvina: Well they have an extensive landticaping plan for it. Mancino: And it may cover it. Maucino: I don't know. But somebody has to figure that out. AI-Jaff: So do we take thc single family portion as part of the entire landscaping plan for thc PUD or? Ledvina: I don't think so. Scott: Or is it all PUD? Ledvina: The whole thing's a PUD. Scott: Everything's PUD so. Farmakes: But the criteria would be, unless you've granted them less than standard for the... Mancino: Pardon? Farmakes: We don't have a criteria for PUD m grant less than typically what we would ask for, assuming the req~ts for forestation, do we7 I mean we can say 2 or 1 or 3. Mancino: No but at least, I mean PUD's are taken into account in our tree preservation ordinance. Farmakes: Yeah. So currently they're showing 1. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: And that would...~ you wo~ld have to look at canopy coverage. I ~ the bushes don't count. Farmakes: But do you specify a number or do you say, incorporate that into the new regu]Rtions. Mancino: Incorporate them in the new regulations. Ledvina: Okay so, what. Would we just add on a condition then7 Aanenson: Yeah, we just need to go back to the landscaping plan and verify the percentages and the canopy coverage. That they meet the... Mancino: If they have 1 tree per, I doubt it but we can see. Farmakes: To finish up my comments. They deal with Outlot A as a separate issue. It seems to me that the logical way of, the concern about the safety issue or the people living on Highway 101. It's always frustrating to listen to comments, not statistical evidence when you're looking for a reason to go ahead and put something somewhere. They use the safety issues. I remember that you have to have an accident before you have a reason to put up a stop sign...but anyway, the sad part about highway systems is that highways follow the votes. That's where, if you get votes, you get highways and it requires population to get highways. That's a sad fact but that's how politics work in this state and politics are very much tied into highway construction on this. They don't always spend money where it makes sense. All you have to do is go to ~ towns and you see an enormous over capadty of highways there. You come to other areas and you see areas that are sadly deficient in highways, i.e. the southwest suburbs. So it's a problem I don't have the...w solve but if there's any way we can modify currently what we're doing and address that problem, I would reconu'nend that the City Council... I think first and foremost we owe that to the residents. That they're safe and that this is not going to be a, add to already an existinE. Just in that, I guess that's it then. The extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I don't talk after widnight J'o~. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I'm just going to go right through this. First of all I'd like to say that I think the staff did an excellent job on this report. It's a very complicated project and they seem to 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 have worked out ail the issues on many of the very difficult issues with this so they did a nice job. Let's see, Dave. On condition number 1. The developer is asking to get an exception to the standard specification for the street for that partion of the roadway which will be tipped up. Is that, with TH 101. Is that acceptable to you? Hempel: That's something I guess I'd like to look into further. It does make some sense. However, if TH 101 doesn't get upgraded after '97...3 years, 5 years, it might be 10 years. It's something I'd like to investigate further. Ledvina: Okay. Can you help me on number, Dave agsin_ Could you help me on number 107 How do we want, do you want to change that at all? The remaining 230+ feet shall be platted as an outlet. How do I change that? Hempel: On condition number 107 Ledvina: Yes~ Page 30. Hempel: Right now we're requesting the applicant dedicate in the final plat the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 right-of-way. If we said ad additional 17 feet of right-of- way lying east of the existing TH 101 right-of-way. Ledvina: An additional 17 feet of fight-of-way? Hempel: That's corre~ Ledvina: Lying. Hempel: Easterly of the existing Trunk Highway 101. Ledvina: Shall be dedicated? Hempel: Correct With the final plat. Ledvina: Okay. Then _eliminn~ thc remaining 200 feet. 230 feet, etc. That sentence is eliminated? The last sentence or leave that in there? Hempel: Well just say the remaining ~ shall be platted as an outlot for future road. Ledviruc The ~g property? 68 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Hernpel: Right. Ledvina: Okay. I think I. got it. Here's a question regarding the residential area. Now as part of the design in terms of reducing the impa~ to the existing family, existing lots there. We talked about bringing, providing those extra deep lots. Those larger lots above the city standards. Quite a bit above the city standards and then scrag those buildings off of the back line but there's really nothing here fl~at I see as it rela~ W like a modification of the rear setback And I'll point W page ~4. In the table, the last table it udks about the ordinance. 30 feet front. 30 feet rear. 10 feet sides. As the home setback. Do we want to modify that to insure that the houses are built away from that back line? I mean can we modify that, let's say like 80 feet? Al-laff: ...you bet. Lcdvina: Okay. Because I was lool~ing at it and essentially there's about, from what fl~-y've indicated here for the house pad, there's 100 to 125 feet in umm of what th~ setback so allowing for a little bit of fudge factor, maybe an 80 foot rear setback would be reasonable and would insure that that impact be reduced as rrmc~ h as possible. So I know that's our intent but I want to make sure that we get that in there. Aanenson: We'll...lots that are adjacent... Ledvina: Yes, exactly. Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7. Sust on those specific lots. Okay. And I'll work that in somehow. Any thoughts on that from the other commissioners here? Conrad: I think it's a good idea. Mancino: Yeah, I do too. Scott: Say, reducing the number of lots. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see h~. And let's see. I guess for the purpo~ of a motion then I would b~ in favor of sdding a condition that stuff work with the aPOrt to...thg grs_dlng in the northwest portion of the site. Adding another condition that the Park and Rec Conm~sion review the extrnt of the park facilities within the dgve~opmgnL Mancino: Can I ask you a question about that Mat~ Do you feel comfortable letting the Park and Recreation just idnd of ~ how much common area and not coming bagk w us af~ we've made a suggestion? I ~ let's say that they say that this is flue. Do you feel comfortable with that as the entire common area for this density housing? That's my 69 Planning Commission M~ting - .lune 1, 1994 qu~tion. Lcdvina: Well, that's a tough question. I guess maybe we can add the, well They're going to be look at_and I also feel that it may be appropriate for some areas to be provided in the northern part of the development, as Jeff has indicauxi. I think that has a valid point. I don't know if .3 acres is right for just an open space. You know I don't think there should be ballfields here and I don't think that's necessary. Conrad: Passive. Lcdvina: You know like a passive type of gathering area. Maybe a _third of an acre is adequate. I don't know but I would defer that to them. Co~g our discussion here and what our thoughts are in the ~. Mancino: Would you like to see the devel~ come back on the parks to show ~g in thc common area? Lcdvina: I'm comfortable with moving it along. I think the developer's done a real good job and I trust that he would work with the staff and the Park and Rec people on doing something nice them so I'm fairly comfortable with that and that's kind of a seat of the pants type of thing but that's how I feel about it. And then the last thing I would do would be to suggest or to have a condition that the applicant verify that the landscaping meets the city ordinances regarding reforestation. Mancino: The tree preservation ordinance. Lcdvina: The tree preservation, okay. I'm sony. Mancino: Tree preservalion ordinance as it relates to canopy coverage. Ledvina: I think that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Would you like to continue right along and make a motion? Ledvina: Well, do you... Scott: I would say you covc~l, the oth~ commissioners covered anything that I hoped to talk about so if you'd like to continue along and make a motion. It'd be airpreciated. Conrad: Before you do Matt It is, I like the development I think some of the neighbors 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 brought up some concerns and they're real valid. On the other hand, I think this is a good location for this kind of density, even if 212 doeam't go in. I'm still comfortable with iL I think Dave's taken notes in terms of some concerns we have on traffic and concerns we have on drainage. Drainage going off site to the northeast so I think there's going to be some things that staff will look into. But as a high density development, you know the park issue is real significant. Here we have the highest density thing we've got and I don't know where people go. And that's not, I'm not trying to reduce density at all. I just don't know where people §o and that's sort of I guess a naive thought because we don't deal with these here and I haven't over the years but it's just an issue. I like the trail around the wetlands. I think people can walk around a wetlands but I don't think there's really a place to go. I have a feeling that Park and Rec looks at ballfields more than they do internal sites like ~ So on the one hand that's their job. I don't lake over anybody else's job. That's what they should be doing. But I, I don't know. I'd like somebody to say well yeah, everything's fine. They've got places to recreate in here and they can get in their car and go a mile and find a park, or wherever. Aanenson: That's what their reco~fion is taking revenue from this project and putting ...into parks. Conrad: But I just, here we have a high density, 200 nnits or whatever it is and I don't know where people go. But that's just an issue, not necessarily with this one. It's just like, what do we think when we put in high density7 Mancino: It is one with this one though. Scott: Well we're going to be seeing, when we take a look at how the land has been guided up and down Highway 5, multi-family residential big. Mancino: We're going to have a lot of this. Scott: And I think it's important to do thnt. Oh I'm sorry. Conrad: Well no, that's okay Joe. Scott: I was just going to say. In deference to our temporarily fallen connade, I'm thin~ng of the types of people who are going to be living in a lot of these. I said conmide, not Conrad. But public transit. When you think about the people, if these pwpertie~ do sell for $69,000.00 up to $95,000.00, we're looking at about a $6.'i0.00 a month payment. Two people working in a not Wo high paying job could actually afford something like that. I think public transit then txr, orn~ an issue and just I think for your information, I don't know what 71 P/~ning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Diane's title is but. Mancino: Well there's the plan. She's done the planning for 212...the transit hub when 212 goes in. What happens if we develop this and we need a transit hub there sooner than when, or 212 never goes in. Scott: I'm thinking about transit access for this particular. You know are thc buses going to be able to get in here so I mean, just to let you know that when this comes back for final plat approval, the lady who occupie~ that chair there is going to be looking at that very closely. Al-Jaff: It won't come before you. Scott: It doesn't come before us for final plat approval It doesn't? Even though we're approving a preliminary plat. Why doesn't it come back here for final plat? A1-Jaff: Planning Commission only reviews preliminary. City Council reviews preliminary and final. Conrad: Just a couple other things. Dave, you're going to look at the cotnmcrcial drainage issue going to this sit~? You have or you're going to. You have to do that. The buffeting of thc units that back up to thc commercial. I just trust that once this goes in and then comme~ial goes in, that the owners won't be in here saying we didn't buffer. Seriously. Here's a case where there's just no excuse, whether some kind of disclosure statement that they know that there's conummial going back in here. But they just shouldn't be here. They have to know that commemial's going in there. Jeff, you brought up a point. And the only issue that I really have. I thinir Rottlund's a good builder. Crood reputation. I like them. Every unit's the same color. You know of all the things that we talked about tonight... affordable units. It's a real great objective. It looks like a quality, affordable predu~ Yet on the other hand they all look the stone, you know. And that bothers me. And I'm not a marketing genius in terms of what colors people like but to have all units the same color is just like...now this is a PUD and again, I'm not trying to drive up the cost. I just wish you had a creative solution to that. Seriously. Without changing the cost and that's probably a contradiction. Can't be creative without driving up the cost. But to have all the units the same color. Look the same. That bothers me. I'm not real happy with that. It is a PUD. I think we're moving some things around. The developers have done some things to, I think they listened the first time in. I'm pleased with that. I'm just not pleased with, Matt you're talking about elevations or in terms of rolling and you know, arc we leveling and arc we putting in the same thing? That bothers me. That's all I have to say. 72 Planning Commission Meeting- June 1, 1994 $co~ Okay. A motion. Ledvina: Well what would be the consensus then in m-ms of what we do here7 Conrad: I think we should challenge Rottlund to show City Council what they can do to add a little bit of diversity without driving up the cost $10,000.00 a unit. I guess I don't really want to see it. We could bring it back. I don't ]mow that I do. But I really think we should challenge them and say hey, give us the economics of allowing some diversity in there. What does it cost? What does it, maybe we have to negotia~. Maybe we add some density. I don't ]mow what we do but again, seriously that seems simple. I'm not in that business but I want to challcngc thc Rottlund to come back to City Council and tell them why. Why you can't do it or what it's going to cost. And I'm not sure that little cuts that the staff has reco~ed, although I like them and I thank you for doing that, I'm not sure that that separates one unit from the other, ~o tell you the truth. Tree preservation has to be dealt with and met the ordinance and then I think you covered everything else. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. I would recommen_ i that the Planning Commiasion recommend to the City Council approval of pre~ Subdivision 4/94-5 and Site Plan ~24-5 as shown on the plans damt April 15, 1994 subject to the staff conditions in the report with the following modifications. Number 1. Add, sutff shall evaluate the poten~ for temporary wad section for the furore TH 101 fight-of-way. Or for the TH 101 right-of-way. Number 3. The first sentence to read, the number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and applicant. And thc rest as indicated in the condition. Rlimin,t_e number 7. Number 10. The first sentence as it reads in thc condition. Thc second sentence, thc remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right-of-way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of fight-of-way lying ~s~ly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. Number 15(a). To strike the word tennis in that condition. Number 18 shall read, final plat approval shall be contingent upon thc city authorizing and awarding the bid for thc Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility hnpwvement Project No. 93-32. Adding condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff in recon~dering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. Number 32. The Pa~ and Rexav~fion Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Number 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. Number 34. The app~t shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. That's it. Oh wait, hold it. Okay, yeah. That's for that motion. And then the other changes go with the PUD development plan. Scott: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Or any additions? Can I have a second? Conrad: I second. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Discussion. So you're telling me Matt that you're fine that if the Park and Recreation comes back and say we don't need any more park facility in this development, as in active park. They come back and say no. That we're fine with not seeing auy more common are~ Any more inactive, what do I call that. Sco~ Passive park. Mancino: Passive, thank you. It's gelfing late. So we're fine with not seeing any more passive area in this high density development? That we're going to let it go just the way it is with a third of an acre. Because thc Park and Recreation's going to come back to us and say and they're going to think about it as active pazk. I don't feel comfortable with that. Ledvina: Well they have their job to do. That's their focus. I mean I realize that we're trying to incor/mmte all these things but. Mancino: But is a part of the intent of a PUD to allow transfer of density so you do have some common area for that higher density areas? Fannakes: To achieve that you're going to have to...I don't disagree with what you're saying. Mancino: Because you guys talked about, both you and Jeff talked about some aream on the north part. North of 86th Smmt. Farmakes: Will the l:~'k Co--ion start e 'hminafing buildings? Mancino: I think that's up to us. Farmakes: But I'd like to get their recommendation as to what that should be because I don't know if it should be a half acre or what it is. Mancino: Alright. Farrnakes: The targeted amount for that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back after that or do you want to just go with whatever the recordation they make, is what I'm asking. Scott: Or do we want to go to the Council meeting and just say, oh by the way this is our thought and bring that up. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Farmakes: Well I'd like to get some professional rec. omme~ons to what that should be to accommodate that many people and we rely upon the commission for thaL The Park Commission. I will agree that I think their focus is more on recreational developrmmt than in passive use, which in thi.~ case I think is appropriate. Scottz Well I think the condition was pretty specific when it said, their recomm_enrl~tions for space within the development. Mancino: And maybe we should say, passive space. Mancino: But I just want to rnal~ sure. Ledvina: I know it's a touchy issue. I understand that. Mancino: This is an important part of this whole development. I. zxivina: I understand there's a lot of big issues here. Scott: And we're going to be getting, I can think fight now of about maybe 5 more PUD's of this size. Maybe smaller. Maybe larger. That we're going to see and what I think we need to do is to, this is something that's a little bit different but it's the type of development that we're going to see more of and I think we really need to set the tone with it. There needs to be some sort of passive gathering space wi&in these developments and I think. Ledvina: Besides from thc spec~c park and rec formula. Scott: Yeah. Mancino: Get their input and then see it back just on that one issue7 But then when...change. Ledvina: I can't change this. Scott: Or do you want to not see this again and. Conrad: City Council can handle it. They're big people. They know how to do this stuff. Scott: Yeah, just as long as we can let them know what we're thinking in person. Up close 75 Planning Commission Meeting- June 1, 1994 Conrad: I won't vote for that but you can bring it back. I think it should be clear though. I think Nancy brought up the fact, at the first go around City Council asked for some things and I don't think it came back the way they asked for it. So whether I agree with City Council or not doesn't make any difference. I think it should be noted what they ask~ for and that should be brought to the Park and Rec's attention. Scott: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Farmakes: Are you going to add that as an amendment? Rec~tion. Ledvina: I would accept that. If you want to specifically state that there should be whatever passive open area provided in the northern part of the site, or whatever you want to do that's. Mancino: Yeah I would like to add some. I would like to get the Park and Recreation committee's suggestion as to what that might be and then I think some should be added definitely. I don't know how much. Ledvina: Okay. I would accept thaL Scott: Okay. Any other discussion7 Ledvina: You were the second. Do you accept that? Scott: Any other discussion? Any other friendly amendments? Or amendments, friendly or otherwise. It's been moved and seconded that we accept thc staff rccotmnendation with conditions. Mancino: Does this also, excuse me. I have one question. We are putting the Outlot A and it's just got Lot A. It is not part of the PUD. Scott: No. It's just Outlot A. Ledvina: Theo we deal with that on this next motion, fight? We have two motions that we have to make. Aanenson: ...de, sling with the preliminary subdivision... The next one is just a PUD plan. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - Sun, 1, 1994 Submittal plan. Ledvina: $o what are you suggesting7 Aanenson: ...Outlot A is the commmcial area. Shown as a c~ area and given concept approval... Mancino: Not preliminary plat approval. Aanenson: Right. Not approved as pre~ plat. Ledvina: I would accept that. Yes, thank you Kate. Scou: Is there any more discussion? It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff reco~tion. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of prdiminary Subdivision 4P)4-$ and Site Plan 4P)4-$ as shown on ~ plans dated April 15, 1994, subject to the following conditions: . All utility and sir. et knprovements (public and private) shall be con~ in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed consmlction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Slx, et grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. Staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary road section for TH 101 right-of-way. e The applicant shall be responsible for obaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Depar~nent, Walershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. . The number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and the applicant. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet conlxol m'uctures to consol discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. The City will be maintaining the retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appr~ easemeats on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restora~on on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 77 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 . e . 10. 11. ff the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the over~izing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shatl be in accardance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. The homeo~ers association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and ~al as it pertains to site main~ prior to final plat approval. The applicant's ~n~n~r ~ submit desigll calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds prior to final pht approval The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour st/mn event. The outlet of the rmention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the pr, developed runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional pending on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said po_nrling. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berrning. The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. The applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 for right-of-way. The remahing pr~ shall be platted as an outlet for future road right-of-way acqui~tion. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way lying easterly of the existing highway shah be dedicated with the final plat. During consm~'tion of utilities and sueet improvements along 86th Street, the app~t shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 12. Allowed uses in co~ site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 13. 14. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the fight-of-way and wetland areas. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, dong Highway 212 and Highway 101 right-of-ways and between the area separating commewial and residential lots. 15. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Cornmi_~ion: Ae The tot park facih'~ shall include typical park amenities such a~ ~ grassy are~ picnic table.& park benche~ play apparatus and ~ courts, etc. 16. 17. B, Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's temfinus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. Co A bituminous trail be consm~cmt encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the '~rk site. In consideration for the co~on of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of cons~on. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for Do Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the ra~ then in force. Plans ouflinirtg general layouts (with aim'natives) building ~gs, square footage limitations, grading, building malefials, amhitecturai desi~s, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commewid area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this ama. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are locamd within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability w ingure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. While not mandatory, we would like to hold ~siom with the applicant regarding the potential establhhment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. 79 Plmning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 18. 19. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility hnpmvement Project No. 93-32. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. 0e 21. 22. 23. 26. 2~7e 28. The commacial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen 17hre Marshal for approval. Chanhassen Fire Depannamt's policy on Premise Iden~on must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Deparm~t Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Policy enclosed. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Surer Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy ~1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, Le. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, trand~ boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly locat~ and safely operamt. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structtues to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhazsen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval ~t to 1991 Chanhas~n Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). Dead Ends: ~ end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire appmama When 8O Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 29. buildings are completely pro~ with an approved automatic fire sprinkler systr'm, the provisions of this section may be modified by thc Chief. Piquant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 ex¢. #1. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. Thc city shall determine type and placement. 30. The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south side of West 86th Street. 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of Imil~ elevations. The Park and Recreation Commipmion 8hall review the extent of the park facilities within the development and look at adding additional passive park area in the northern part of the site. 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ledvina: We have one more thing to do and I guess I can do that one too. Do we label this as the sam~ development plan, 894-3? Aancnson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. I recommend that thc Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of PUD development plan ~t-3 subject to the raft's conditions with the following modifications, On page 34. The top or first table. For thc commercial parking setback for West 86th Street shall be 30 feet. Again on page 34. On the bottom ns it relates to. Aanenson: Excuse me a second. We were going to strike any reference to commeavial at this point because we didn't want to givc...so I think we just leave thc motion thc way it is... reference to thc commewial development. The only change I would have is when you talk about the 80 foot...but we need to make sure that the 80 foot works and I'd like to see some changes before it goes to Council... 81 Plimning Commission Meeting- June 1, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Subject to staff review for feasibility. Aanenson: We still want the compliance for the residential so basically I think if you strike any reference to the co~ development... Ledvina: Okay. So as part of the motion we strike the reference to commercial developments associated with Ouflot A. On page 34, the ordinance, or I should say the setback requirements for the, the home setback requirements for the rear lot for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, identify that rear setback as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasi~ty. I think that's it. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD development plan as o~lined by staff in the staff report striki~ out any reference to commercial development nnd adding a provision thnt rem' yard setback requirements for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, be identified as 80 feet subject to review by staff for fensib~. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sco~ Let me just ask a question. We have 3 items here. The rezoning, sim approv~] and preliminary plat for the subdivision. Did we do ail of them7 Okay, good. PUBLIC HEARING: (~ITY CODE SECTION 18-$7, STREETS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (1%0 AND (O) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING R4~ 1~ RI2 AND RI6 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USF,~, Scott: Is anybody going to cry ff we leave this for next time7 Okay. We're going to continue item number 6 to the next time. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutrs7 I'm sorry, yes. Al-$aff: There is someone here that has been wa/ting for 5 hours. Scott: Then we need to do it then. I apologize sir. I didn't realize you were there. Sharmin AI.Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 82 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Scott: Any questions or comments for smf~ Anybody else? I don't happen to have any. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public heating please. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearint~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Stuart Horn: I'm Smart Hoarn with Burner Re~ty at 19400 Highway 7 in Minnetonka. Actually Excelsior. I'm appearing on behaff of Robot and Paul ~ who have prope~ on Ore~t Plains Boulevard. There was a situation that there were 4 lots that were created long before the subdivision ordinance required the 7 ton road. I think that was, Sharmin was that I believe in '877 When did that. This was approved in '86 or '87, I can't remember which. And the ordinance came along in 1991. Al-Jaff: So. Smart Hoarn: These are grandfathered in_ There were 4 lo~. Two of them had houses on and there's 2 in the middle that don't have houses on them. These 2 lots in the middle were recently sold. It's wo late to reprice them. It's too late for the people who bought them to do anything about-..Thc issue then beco~ that the paving, thc paving bill is close to $40,000.00 that would be retroactively applied to these lots. If they come in for a building permit. If they come in tomorrow, they wouldn't but if they come in after this is passed, they would. That's the issue. That the lots are soid. It's too late to do anythin~ about what they paid. It's too late to...to reprice them because they had already sold. And there could be other situations, I don't know. We know about it. We in_qulred about iL It's happ(~_ ing in this timeframe. But there could be other situations out there where people don't know it's going to hit them so our request is that the ordinance not take affect for building permits issued prior w the end of the year so there's a chance for people W sell their lots or reprice them. If they have their lots priced at something now and they haven't got that $20,000.00 built in, they have time to change the price and remarket them or whatever they're going to do. I don't know how many other situations there are in the city...but there's this one for sure. That's really alL.. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments7 I'm just kind of looking at this correspondence here. We'll have to lake a moment here to go through this. Let's see here. So basically the new home has to be constructed for it not to require paving. Stuart Hoam: That's ~ If the ordinance amendment is passed as it i~ 83 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 Scott: Oh I sec. Smart Hoarn: When these 2 lots were added in, where there were 2 and now there's 4. When these 2 lots were added in there, there were 2 houses and 1 large piece which was then divided in haft. We had 3 lots. Two with houses on thcm and thc 1 in thc middle didn't have a house on it. That was divided in half so now there's 2 in the middle and these still don't have houses on them. Thig subdivide took place in I believe it was '86 or '87. If the subdividing had taken place after 1992, the developar would have had that as part of the conditions for the development of that and provide for this paving. That as a new ordinance or change in the ordinance. That was the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance. Now this is going to be under this amendment that's before you now, it would be... subdividing into the zoning ordinance which means when people apply for building permits, they have to have thig paving done..And the other issue in particular instances is there's a new subdivision to the north of this one that has already received pI~_liminRry plat apgroval by the Planning Commission in which there could be a new street added and that's also from, there is a new street there. But just by moving the cul-de-sac slighting would eliminate the need for a shared driveway entirely. Sco~ This is almost like a variance application for an ordinance that i~'t on the books yet, which we don't do. Conrad: You just hope we don't do that. You don't know Joe. Scott: Well I'm kind of looking at it. We have, the issue in fxont of us is whether we want to reconunend to the City Council that this happen. I mean that's what we're doing. Smart Hoarn: Well also when it takes affect Conrad: Is it worded so it's retroactive? Aanenson: Well that's a definite option. It could be. There could be exemptions existing off the record. Normally when a subdivision comes through now...we're going to tell you right up front. This is what's going to happen... Smart Hoarn: When they're applying for a mortgage. I mean they don't know this. I mean $20,000.00, one way or the other, when they say to the rraxtgage officer, well how much do we loan. Give or take $20,000.00. Maybe it will fly, maybe it won't. This is a very difficult thing for some people who are living through this right now. Tim~ is of thc essence for them. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: I'm just thinking what's the risk if it's a lot of record versus somebody who now wants W subdivide. I mean somebody who wants W subdivide, there's a process and it goes on forever, especially once they get to the Planning Commiasion but, I guess my thought, and you guys are going to have to maybe, lilre what are we missing? I mean I'm thinking if there's a lot already of record, to me I don't see the loss on the residents of the city, the grand whole here we're talking about. I don't see a problem with just saying hey, this does not apply. But I could see, such as the case with the pr~, the subdivision that we saw this by Timberwood, that's serviced by a private drive. They're subdividing and they have to pave it and upgrade and all that good stuff so, it kind of looks like the intent is for things that subdivide, we want to upgrade the streets. But something where it's a lot of recc~l that's maybe served by a public. We're probably talking about smaller number of lots and it maybe doesn't make sense for us to apply this particular proposed ordinance to that situation. I don't know, what do you guys think? I thought it made sense. I don't know. Conrad: Joe, I think you're right. We've got to get out of here. Scott: I guess well, I could repeat that. Conrad: I think it's wise if staff could show us the implications of what that _meant though and I don't know if we want it back but. Scott No, I don't want to see it again. Conrad: But on the first cut at it, at the quarter to 1:00, it sort of seems like it shouldn't be retroactive unless staff really says we're going to miss some things or there's going to be Aanenson: ...identify those. Get a map and identify...and get an idea of how many we're talking about. Conrad: Right. I think we should do that but otherwise. Scott: Well I think our direction is to ~ lots of record. Aanenson: Or to research it. Scott: Our feeling is right now, exempt lots of record and then go from there...anyway, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to dose the public hearing. All voted in favor and 85 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1, 1994 the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Sco~ Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we adjourn. Scott: Yeah, we need a motion on this particuhr item Conrad: I like how Nancy track~ Scorn Even though I'm not supposed to be doing this. Ledvina: You can't do it. Scott: I would make a motion that the Planning Cowmis~4on recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as stated in this here document but that the ~ research exempting existing lots of record from this proposed ordimmce. Conrad: I think that's very good. I would have made the motion just liim that. Scorn Thank you sir. Is there a second please7 Mancino: I would have changed it. Scott: Can somebody else second this motion I shouldn't have made? Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay, good. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18~7, Streets, by smen~ sections (n) and (o), to include Stan~ for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R.12, R-16 and Non. Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Off Street Parking and Loading with direction to staff to research exempting existing lots of record. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina: I would move that we approve the Minutes with the cco-ection as indicamt on the 86 Planning Comm/ssion Meeting - Sune 1, 1004 first agenda item. I don't know where that is. I've been trying to scan it. Scott: Relative to preservation versus des~on of namr~ resources or sometlfing like that. Led~: Yes, please do that. Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 1994 as amended. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Okay, and the City Council update, we read that. On going items, there are none. There will be no open discussion- Can I have a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meetin~ All voted in ~avor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 ~ Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planrfing ~ bx N _nn Opheim 87