Loading...
PC 1994 06 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REG~ MEETING JUNE 15, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m_ MEMBERS PRESENT: ~oe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, left Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino. Diane Haxberts was present for part of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-la/f, Planner H; Bob Generous, Planner 1I; Dave Hcmpel, Asst. City Engineer; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-904(C) REGARDING A TIME LIMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRU~ TO BE REMOV!~.D AFIW. R T~E PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED. Public Present: Name Address Veme Severson M. Happy Don Sitter Laverne Wheeler 675 Lakota Lane 495 Lakota Lane 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 445 Lakota Lane Sharmin Al-Jaff presenUxl the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff. Harberts: I have one. Is there a current issue pending? Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: Is the owner aware of this7 Al-laff: ...if we §o through the city there woold~ be numerous. Harberts: But there is one currently that's at our door knocking7 door. Or we're knoc_lring on their Al-Jaff: It's more of, there are numerous docks on the lakes or boat houses and...and those are accessory structur~ where the house was remodeled. Harberts: And they're still standing. A1-Jaff: ...and the lots are just being used for picnic areas. Harberts: Are these ~ry slxucun~ are they being maintained? Or is the majority of them not being maiatained well? A1-Jaff: Well if it's a dock, then it's a seasonal sUucuu~ that is...and removed at the end of the sunm~r. If it's a boat house, lhen it's there year round. Boat lifts. Harberts: But this doesn't apply to like a boat house or a. Al-Jaff: That would be considered an accessory structure. Harbens: It would be7 Mancino: So you couldn't just own some property and have your boat there and have a boat house and not even live there? Let's say I just bought 2 acres to come and maybe put a t~nt on on the weekends. Aanenson: No, that's what the ardinance is for. Harberts: And why is that so bad7 Well I'm just trying to uader~ Aanenson: In some of the neighborhoods, they bought a lot and was going to build on it in 5 years. In the ~time they wanted to let their church group use it every weelrend, That may be a problem. Then we have a different set of...conditional use. We've had that in the past where people have bought large lots and used them as recreationaL_and if you look at the integrity of the neighborhood, that was not the intent...That's why you have conditional Mancino: I was going to say, they may build an accessory structure before they build the main one and live on it for many years and never get around to building the main ~. Harberts: And this only applies to like shoreline or lake lots or sornething7 This is city wide7 Mancino: Less than 3 acres. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Al-$aff: Oh yes. Less than 3 acres. Mancino: Less than 3 acres so if it's. Harberts: So if it's farmland. Mancino: There's a barn there. Scott: Any other? Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for stuff? This is a public hearing so ff I could have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. Ali voted in Ihvor and the public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would ~ to speak, please step up to the po&nm. Identify yourselves with your name and your address and let us hear what you have to say. Is there anyone here for this item? For this public hearing. Yes sir. Don Sitter: My name is Don Sittrr, 9249 Lak~ Riley Blvd. I live next to one of these cases and I'm going to keep this real brief. I think the intent of your ordinance is that you don't have a lot and then use it for a lot of other things. And those ordinances are already in place. You can't just buy a lot or develop it or dock or boat houses. Camp on it every weekend, etc. In this situation is where a house has been removed. There's no deadline to bring it under thc samc ordinanc~ that arc across the rest of thc city. I think the amendment to the ordinance is just to bring these lots in line with the rest of the ordinances and have a deadline. So when they remove a house, there is some sort of deo_dHne that will end the stuff. We happen to live next to one that the house was removed 6 years ago. And it starts out with a dock and then it's a boat and then pretty soon they've got a picnic grounds and they've got all their friends coming for every weekend and it finally ended up where they were camping on the property. No toilet facilities or whatever and it's caused a lot of problems. So I'm in favor of the amendment to the c~linance. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearh~ All voted in hvor and the motion mrrie(L The public hearing was dosed. Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Scott: Ms. Harbens. Harbens: Come on. Give me a break Go ahead Matt. Ledvin~ I don't have any comments. Scott: Ladd? Nancy? JeW/ Farmakes: No. Harberts: Well I have a little problem with it but. Sc, om And that is? Harbens: Well I understand what the gent_l__emsn has said and I certainly support what the intent here is. I guess it just adds to some of my concern with regard to controls. The amount of controls that the city chooses to place on it's residents and I'll just leave it st thac Mancino: Do you think it's too restrictive? Harberts: I think it is too restrictive. But I understand what they're trying to do and it's probably perhaps a few bad apples that rains it for everyone yeah because I don't, I personally don't see anything wrong with if a person owns a piece of property, a building is there and they want to corr~ out there on the weetends to do their boating and they use their .- house, or that storage building to stare boats or whatever. But when it come abusive, I can undersland that because then it starts, infringes on the neighbors. When Ka~ ~ about the integrity of the area and things like that. And it's just too bad that a few make it abusive for everyone. You know that's why some of my questions earlier about, is there an issue right now that prompted this amendment? And I can understand with a conmmnity that's growing like this, we certainly want to be responsive to the residents that are here, to ~ those. So it's really too bad that it becomes abusive and the city has to control it. Mancino: Now can someone come in and ask for a variance? AI-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: And say I'm going to buy this pmIxmy. I bought it and yet we're living out of town. We want to ke~ our boat docked or I don't know what but we never know ever single person who would come with a different request. But they can ask for a variance. Or they would have to prove a hardship. Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recom~ approval of zoning ordinance amendn~nt to Section 20-904(c) as shown in Amendment #1. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-904(c) as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON ~ SAME LOT (SECTION 20.902) IN A PUD DISTRICT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT TELEPHONE SWITCHING BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTEl~ SPRINT/UNITED TEI.EPHONE OF MINNESOTA. Public Present: Name Addrens Philip Briggs lOOO w. o5, Mp s. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff' report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for raft7 Harberts: How many employees? Al-Jaff: None. Harberts: Come on. They're not just going to build a building and have it empty. Al-Jaff: For maintenance possibly they will come in. Plaianing Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Harberts: There won't be any staff there during the day at all? It's just a for storage? Scott: Well it's a telephone. I thinle it's a telephone switch, data switch for the NWS station. Any other comments or questions? Harbcrts: I'll belicve you. Scott: Would the applicant like to, or their representative ~ to make a presentation at this time? A brief presentatiom Philip Bliggs: My name's Philip Briggs. I represent...and this bnildin§ is quite simply being built in order to facilitate the National Weather facility that's being built there. And as shown on the drawings, it's a very small building. It exisls just off of what would be the entrance drive to the facility. As Sharmin s_m____hst, it's our intention to use matching material, matching color bricks and whatever k-ina of metal detailing... And at the request of the city in discussions with Ms. A1-Jaff, we agreed to enhance the lalldscap~ in order w ms_tch the parking space~ of those bnildings so. Scott: Do you know specifically what type of equipment is going to be in that? Philip Briggs: It's a telephone switch facility basically. Scott: Okay. And is the, do you happen to know what the number of lines? The reason why I'm asking this question is that I was just kind of interest~l as to why this was not the equipment that is in that particular building, why that wasn't proposed as being included in the original structure. And also, if this switch is specifically for the use of that weather station, handling data switching or ff it is somcthin§ that would also be used to serve other United Telephone, Sprint customers in that area. So this is kind of a multi-pur~se. Phih'p Briggs: It's intended only for the National Weather Service facih'ty, right. The reason it's not part of the building is that, this is going to be owned and operated by Sprint and United Telephone. And we're reedving a conditional use permit becamse we are getting an easement by the owners of the pr~ to build a structure on the site. Harberts: How many lines will there be then? Philip Bfiggs: Pardon me? Harberts: How many lines will there be out of this building over to the Weather Station? Plnnning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Philip Briggs: I'm not certain of the exact numl~r. It's all going to be under~~ as far as I have been made aware. Harber~: It's interesting that they're putting up a different building like that for thc communications rather than what Joe said, ~g it into the facility. Scott: Well, I think it's probably a lot like what U.S. West doe~ Is that they put their swiWhes. Harberts: Yeah, but for one client like that7 Wait a minuu~, it's government isn't it7 Scott: Any other questions? Mancino: I have a question for you. I see that on the west elevation, the HVAC nnits are on the outside. Why couldn't those be placed on the wp of the building so that the parapet wails screen them so we don't need to have landscaping do it7 Philip Briggs: That's a good question. The building being used is a building by Sprint, U'I~. It's a...extefior mam'iaL We assume that, and Sprint and UTS assumes that the use of landscaping and berms would be... Mancino: I'd really like to reconunemd that they be placed on the roof of the building and have the parapet wall screen it completely. Because I think one of the pitfalls that happens is when you put a little utility building like _this all your city, I mean they show up that way. It's a box. It has nothing archil~anally. It's usually not landsc~ .. so I would like to see those units placed on the wp. Sharmin, how compatible is this landscaping, from what I can see, with the landscaping at the cen~--i~ I mean I felt that there was a lot more landscaping done at the weather cenl~r. Around the bnilding itself. Around the parking, interior, etc. It doesn't seem to reflect that feel A1-Jaff: Well, with the recommendation that sta/f is making with additional landscaping, it would be compatible~ Mancino: Okay. Are you recording boulevalxl trees or lining of tt'ee~ inw thc driveway area or anything like that? AI-Jaff: This is their site. Mancino: And that's kind of the enWance to the National Weather Service, right? Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 A1-Jaff: Correct. Well this would be the entrance into the National Weather Service. So we're asking for additional trees around this...That they have to have, and this will be green. We're also asking for a rneandering...along the north elevation as well as additional landscaping. Additional trees. What we recomm~ded was, and when we spoke to the applicant, we suggesmd a mix of evergreens as well as overstc~ and he would be able to pick out the species from the approved city landscaping trees. Mancino: What are your thoughts on moving the HVAC up on top, on the roof versus on the side of the building? Aanenson: That's sitting so low fight now, the Weather Service is, you're not going to sec it from any direction. Even coming off of Lake Drive, it's sitting high. The Weather Service is sitting low. Mancino: But you have lots of people that woflc in the Weather Service too coming down the road and I just wondered, if it's an easy, doable thing, why not. AI-Jaff: Are the units removed? I mean do they have to have them separate? Philip Briggs: That's basically the design of the facility. It would require that we redesign the facility...if we were to do that. I've been told that would be...but I'm not certain. Mancino: Maybe we can check that. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Thank you. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this particular issue, please step forward. Is there anyone here who would like to speak at this public heating? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scorn Jeff. Farmakes: I only have...one comment. In issues where we onnot see the building...overhe~ut Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 view. When you're referring to the flashing and the metal flashing and parapet and the brick and so on are going to match, I'm assur, i-g that the effort is to match the existing slxuctu~ of the other service building. I cannot remember the roofli-e or the parapet or the metal flashing of that building. But this is a very small slnwmre. It's...24 or something liiw that. I think all of the work that's been done...Even the drive in area where it's being landsc~ is pretty insignificant. We should make sure that thc ma~ and the roof...are an enhancement rather than just a utility building, especially since it's out in front by the entrance. That's it Scott: Nancy7 Mancino: I have nothing new to add. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the air conditioning units but at the same time I'm reluctant to suggest that the applicant redesign the entire buildi,g for that purpose. I guess I'm wondering, maybe I don't have a clear understanding as to where the air conditioning units are. Are they on the ground ar are they on the side of the build/nE or? Al-Jarl': They are on the side of the building. The western wall. And these are the units fight here. Lcdvina: Okay. And which direction does that face7 I mean relative to thc si~e plan here7 So towards the street essentially, right7 Al-]afl: Correct And with the berm right here that we are recommending, is an additional screen. It should be screened completely from here. Mancino: But my only question is, it's probably goes ~ 8 feet tall and it depends if you have deciduous tree~ If you have coniferous trees around it and I think that that will probably work. I'm just asking that staff and the applicant go back and see if it can be done without a lot of. Ledvina: Okay, okay. I would support that. Yeah maybe perhaps on the other side of the building you know because if you're looking at Lake Drive West and there is a potential for viewing that as you're driving by and I know those things can be unsightly if it's not done right I would agree with you 100% there but I don't know that I'd be. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Mancino: Well you have this great looking, the weather building which is very good looking and you're coming in and then you, you know you kind of have this box with HVAC on the outside of it as you drive by. Ledvinm What would you think if it was on the othe~ side of the building? Mancino: Much bet~. Ledvina: Okay. Is that doable? To do a mirror image of that building? Philip Bfiggs: Poss/bly. You might have to change the wiring. Ledvina: Okay. Well I don't know. But if we can leave it a little bit, I don't want to, I'm nervous about if you have a condition like that, doing it in an absolute term because I know that it a~ that the applicant has been willing to look at the options with landscaping and I think that will be fine. That's it, thank you. Conrad: Nothing more. Scott: Diane. Harba'ts: Nothing. Sco~ Thank you. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that the Phnning Commission approve Site Plan Review Is)4-3 as shown on the site plan received May 5th subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2, number 3, and number 4 is that the applicant work with staff to either flip flop the building and move the HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening. And that starts at year one. Not year 10. For year round screening. We don't want to wait for years. Anybody want to second that? Ledvina: I'll second that motion. Scott: h's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commi~d~'on approve Site Plan Review #94-3 as shown on the site plan received May $, 1994 subject to the following 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 o The applicant shall provide a mean~g berm with landscaping to screen the HVAC and cross connect box. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a sit~ phn development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 3. Concturent with thc building permit, a derailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 4. The applicant will work with staff to either flip flop the budding and move the HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening immediately. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I reco~d that the Planning Commis~'on approve Conditional Use Permit #94-3 subject to the following condition. Number 1. Compliance with the conditions of sile plan and plat approval Scott: Is there a second? Mnn~no moved, Conrad seconded thnt the Planning Commission recommend approvnl of Conditional Use Permit 894-3 subject to the following conditiom: 1. Compliance with conditions of si~e plan and plat approval AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMII.y LOTS WITH VARIAN~ TO THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE$~ LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII,Y AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ TI-W. OAK.q AT MINNEWASHTA~ HARSTAD COMPS, Public Present: Name Address Kcith Bedford Paul Hnrstad Steve Johnston Sue Morgan Lynda Scott Karen DeMun Margie Borris 3961 Suatford Ridge 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton Loucks and Assoc, 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Orove 4031 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 6930 Minnewashta Parkway 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson present~ the stnff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or cormnents from commis~on~ for staff? Mancino: Kate, just one question. Is Kings Road a coUector street? It says here in the staff report, page 4, at this time Kings Road is pwposed to be extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as a local collector street for thc subdivision. Aanenson: ...at some future date with the more properties subdividing in that are~ When sewer becomes available, that may be an issue. Mancino: I thought we didn't want any more curb cuts on collector street? And we weren't allowing. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Aanenson: Well we're getting direct access onto, they're all getting access off Country Oaks. The 4 lots in Block 1 are being platted as, excuse me. The 3 lots. The first lot...access off Country Oaks. Those other lots will be platmt as an outlot until such time as Country Oaks, excuse me, Kings Road is developed to city standards. So those 3 lot~ This lot will get access off of Country Oaks. These lots will be phtted in an outlot until such time as Kings Road is developed to city standards. Mancino: When Kings Road is developed to city standards, it will be a collector? Aanenson: A minor collector. Scott: So it's not like Kerber Blvd. Aanenson: Not like Minnewashta Parkway is a collector. It's a feeder street. It wiIL..out of Minnewashta Parkway. Mancino: Okay. Like Lake Lucy Road? Aanenson: No. Not to that...of Uaffic. Mancino: So that when Kings Road is developed westward, you can access individual properties off Kings Road7 I thought we kind of stopped that. Sco~ But because it's a minor. Mancino: Is that because it's a minor collector? Aanenson: There are existing conditions... Mancino: But they're already existing. They're already there. They're grandfathered, grandmothered in. Aanenson: Yeah, and we're not allowing it with the subdivision. Is that your question? Those lots will have access, those two. Oh excuse me, at a furore date, ~ Those 4 lots. Mancino: But we are saying those lots can have individual access, curb cuts on the minor collector. I thought that in ~ons subdivisions we co,rid not, you've been against it. Hen-~l: One clarification Comn'dssion Mancino. This street is going to act ~ similar to Lake Susan Hills Drive where you have all the other neighborhoods feeding onto this 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June l/i, 1994 neighborhood collector if you will. There is driveways up and down that street that access this type of street... Ideally it's, if you can get them off...but all those pameJs to the south, or I should say a majority of them, will have access directly off of Kings Road. There's not enough right-of-way or not enough land to subdivide and put a cul-de-sac street in and so forth. These are very large lots... Mancino: I just wondered if we were being incon~stent at all. Herr~l: No, we don't believe so. Sc, om Would the applicant and/or their representative like to make a brief presentation? Steve Johnswn: Good evening...also with me tonight is Paul Harstad with Harstad Con'gnmie~ Paul will be available to answer any questions you might have...The plat that you see before you is the results of staff's comments and the original proposal. We had a meeting with the owners adjacent to the project...As Kate mentioned, specifically we tried to addressed staff's concerns with the private drive...the extension to the east,.~er than continuing to Strafford...The other modification that you'll see is that we have shit'ted Country Oaks Road to the east so it aligns up with the easm~ property line with the Borris ~. That was a request of the committee meeting in trying to avoid...so we have been trying to be as responsive to the...I'm happy to say that we have come up with the street profile for Kings Road that will save all of the roms on the south side of the mad. All of the trees that are on other people's property. The unfarmnate thing is, by vimm of wi_a_ming the road, all the homes and all the lrees on the north side of the bnildlng will be lost. That's because of the...falfly close to the existing road ~ and it was requested to widened 'that road out... That will take filling along our south property line...north line of the existing Kings Road... There was some discussion at the previous meefing...north line or south line. Our surveyors staked it and we went over that with them. There was some_, they felt,..the line to be staked was correct and a correct south property line which would be the new south line, south right- of-way for Kings Road... As you mentioned, that's one of the biggest concerns at the previous meeting had to do with the. .. sewer installation on Kings Road and that may require work outside of the 50 foot right-of-way. The proposal that we had made was...the sanitm~ sewer through a portion of the park property allowing us to avoid putting...As a result of that though and in looking at a lift station at the western most extension of Kings Road, that lift station will be sized to handle flow from this project and other properties in Chanhasse~..That lift station is being installed as part of the first phase of the project... There is one item in the staff report that we just want to comment on for the record. And that is that they are concerned with the...dlstribution being proposed in the staff report.. Ledvina: What condition is that? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Number 7. Aanenson: That was regarding the park. The city will be taking, or purchasing the park pmporty. Who's responsible for those hnpmvcmcnts in front of the park. ...the city will be responsible for... Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Is there any streetscaping on Kings Road at this point? Aanenson: That's what we're recommending as pm of the woodland management plan. That those trees they'll be taking out, that they come back and look at...That was one of our recommendations_come back with str~mcape plan now for Kings Road. But also... Mancino: Okay, so that's to make sure that the tree preservation and the woodland management plan is that the percentage does not include all the strectscaping... Scott: Any other questions or comments7 Alright, thank you very much. Steve Johnston: I guess I would like to request thc ability to respond to any of the qucsfions Scorn Yeah, I think if there's during the public hearing, certainly if there's a question that staff call't answer. Steve Johnston: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If you'd like to speak on this particular issue, please st~p up to the microphone and give us your name and your address. Margie Borris: I'm Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. I want to thank you for moving that mad. Thcre are, on that first spot I believe... Number one where there were 12 cedar trees on the ridge there... According to the University of Minnesota Arboretum, some of those trees can be moved. So they do not have to be destroyed. Red cedar trees are very rare in Minnesota but I'd like to...that the neighbors around us do want to keep as many of 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 those as we can. The next question is, I couldn't read with our eyes because the writing is so small. Thc questions on the, since the sewer's now going to go 'down the center of the property, how, with the new grs_ttlng, and the roads putting in, are we going to keep from getting wal~r washed into Kings Road, specifically my ~. Because it sounded like we would be lowering, we were chan~ng the grade~..lik~ it could drain into our property. But if there's a sewer there, that wouldn't be a problem but now there's no sewer there. Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr Chairman. Kings Road is proposed to be fully upgraded to the intersection of Country Oaks Drive. From that point west and it will...street. Some portion of the slreet, the upgrade will have curb and gutter and storm sewer in place to collect drainage. Margie Borris: Okay. Another thing that was brought up...is that we have underground electricity which is hooked up fight at the coruer of our lot across Kings Road to our property. If that's going to be di.~ecl or not, what are we going to do for electricity? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, those Lind of conflicts are dealt with in every construction proj~t. Modifications are made in the field to provide ~ service to each individual home site... Those are all factors taken into considewation during construction- Margie Bon'is: Did you come up with a plan while this under conslructi~ so that persona living on Kings Road that have no other way or enlm'ing and exiting their home, they can get to and from work? Hempel: That would be addressed as well. Emergency services to deal with each home as Margie Borris: Okay. Well we went through the Minnewashta Parkway debacle for a couple years and we're real concerned. I was wondering too if there could be a st~ sign placed at the, I can't read the name of that. Something Oaks Drive and..~for the people exiting that development, would this be... Scott: That's pretty much standard procedure, isn't it Dave? Margie Borris: Okay, well it wasn't on here so I didn't know. Scott: Good question though. Okay thank you ma'am. Anyone else please. Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have several issues 16 Plannin~ Commission MeetinE = Stme 15, 1994 that I'd like to address. Several which I've already addressed to the commission and Kate through letters and I haven't really receiv~ a response so I'd like to talk about them for a little. One is thai, I know we talked here about taking the cedar trees on the south side of Kings Road and...This kind of gives you some idea the cedar trees we're talking about. They're these lrees ri~t here. As I said, this is Kings Road fight here and my house is on the other side of the sireet up in here. It's been said that the trees will be spared. We know tha~ accidents happen in co~on and we know thai thcre aren't any gnarantees...in conslruction so we'd like to have something in writing thst kind of acknowledges to us that these will be saved, h that possible? Scott: I know standard procedu~ is to put snow fence. Thcrc's an area, and I believe it coincides with the drip area. The outside of the canopy of the tree and that is denoted as a no tread zone if you will. That's a typical situation. Now when we're talking about a road Dave, we would use that same son of a scenario to keep consmlction equipment off of that drip zone? Hempel: That is one method, sure. During co~on you do have numerous subcontractors and so forth that do prelim thc site... Occasionally accidents will happen...but these trees are all within your property and so if tixn~ is damage done to them, the contractor does have insurance and is available to file claims against. That's one thing...ccrtainly could put up construction fencing around each tree... Mancino: Dave, don't they have to, prior to them getting any sort of roadway i .mlm~vernents, doesn't someone go out from the city. Maybe our intern, our tree inimm and inspects the site to make sure that there is that prou~l fence up before anybody is allowed to start doing the work? Hempel: Yes, that's correct We do go out and in.~ect those areas. Sometimes some of the tree removal is done though acumlly before some of that stuff is put in because vegetation is so dense but in this situation, it's more sparse where it's easy to be put up prior to construction. Mancino: So we can actually write that down as part of the recommen~tion. That snow fencing must be put up and approved by city staff before any of the mad c~on begins. I-lempel: We certainly can. I guess we'll know more of the hnpacts of these trees I guess know the final design of the street grades. I'm not on a comfort level yet with thc applicant's consu'uction plans to see the full impact of the street grades and that...upgrade of Kings Road will be a coopa'afive project between the city and the applicant. Most likely will be a 429 project or an assessable project...~§ the design we'll see the full impacts on the Irees as 17 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1Ii, 1994 we've done in other areas, we'vc...we can to preserve them. Sue Morgan: So basically you're saying that there's sfilL..~y you just said you haven't really seen the final grading. ~ prior to this time you said, you mentioned that final grading had been done on the stre~..Kate said the same thing. What you're saying is now is you still don't know. Hempel: I have not seen a final set of consm~on drawings which you don't develop until you're getting close to the fiual plat stage. But the preliminary grading, the conwur lines w~ indicate the construction limit~ I have not seen those newly revised s~eet grades. I've seen the street profile but not a cross section. Sue Morgan: $o basica~y the problem is that we really don't know who's respon~ble for what. It hasn't been decided if the city is...so right now nobody's taking respon~bility far it is basica~y what you're saying because you haven't seen the grading. He doesn't know what you're doing so it goes back and forth, back and forth. We're still in the same situation we were before is that no one will give us an answer and I want someone to say the answer. Hempel: We will have an answer when a feasibility study is done as pan of the city project to upgrade this mad. Sue Morgan: When is that, a month? Two months? Hempel: That would be once the applicant petitions the city to see...this type of project. Sue Morgan: Is u'mt af~ the City Council has approved this? Is that before the City Council approves it? Hempel: This preliminary plat approval h contingent upon the applicant petitioning the city to upgrade Kings Road. So this will not ~ unless, this develop will not ~ without Kings Road being upgraded, Sue Morgan: Okay, so right now he's just getting his development apl~roved. He's not getting the upgrading of Kings Road approved, is that what you're saying? Hempel: It's kind of a package deal where his development is contingent upon him working with the city. The city developing Kings Road so. Sue Morgan: So basically right now... 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1~, 1994 Hempel: I'm relying on the engineer for thi~ development has done some preliminm~ identification but..Jmpact of the trees but I don't know if he'd like to address it further. Sue Morgan: Okay. Something ehe that kind of i~ that is that in contacting our attorney and also we started some proceedings with our title company, Kings Road, there's always been some question as to who owns Kings Road. About right-of-way. About easement and that still hasn't been resolved. There's nothing in our abstract, in our surveys that shows that the City of Chanhassen owns Kings Road. It has rights to it. I don't know if you or the City Attorney can give me the specific statute or I don't know what you'd call it. If your book of procedures that says what the standard is for obtaining an easement or right- of-way for this ~ for a road but that is still not clear to us and I don't know ff it's going to be...proceeding on Kings Road or what. We're in the ~s of...and maybe that would help clarify or help you guys decide whether..xight to that easement then... Aanenson: Can I address that? We looked at that several months ago and the opinion from the attorney's office is that we have a right based on thc fact the city's been maintaining that road for 7 to 10 years so that we have a right of use. Based on that, where we've been plowing, that's why this plat went back. We had to go back and determine where exactly the southerly property is. Where we've been maintaining that road. That's why it's so far to the north. And they had to give up additional pr~. Push the mad further to the north...the southerly property line for Kings Road now is the most southerly portion that the city has been maintaining and plowing. That's our interpretation based on the City Attorney's opinion of our use. Sue Morgan: Right. That's your city... Aanenson: That's why this plat is moving forward. Sue Morgan: ...there is not a statute or anything on the books that says Chanhasse~ what procedure goes through to obtain an easement other than the fact that you plow that wad, therefore you own that roM. Lowell Carlson's been plowing that road more than the City of Chanhas~n so as far as I'm concerned, he owns that road. So what I'm saying is, that we're going through an investigation...That is the city of Chanhassen's interp~tation. But we want to make sure. Maybe that is the way it is. Maybe that is the way it is. But we need for our peace of mind to find out that that is the way. But moving on. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that one point. Maybe for clarification. The new road will actually be north of that. We're not even going to be using the existing Kings Road. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Right, but have you seen the stakes? We went out with the engineer to see the s~ire~s. We know where the stakes are going and the finished road, you're right. Is going to be north of where the gravel stops now. So it will be a little north of our property. Maybe about 2-2 1/2 feet. What we're concerned with is the actual conslruction of that road because usually, if you notice the construction around he~ you have to go wider than the finished product in order to get the f;nished product. So that's what we're concerned with becau~ you're saying that you've got right-of-way. You've got easements which means, if you've got as much right-of-way easement as you say you do, you're coming right into our driveway. Right into our front door practically. So what we're trying to do is to find out what the parameters are. We're not saying that you're wrong but what we want is to make sure you're right. Okay. Make sure you're right so you're not just blowing ~rnok~.. Scott: So you basically would like to have some sort of a line so it's kind of like this is your's and this is our's and you're not going to be over here. Sue Morgan: And that's fine. You can do what you want with it and we'll do our thing and...so we keep going back and farth and nothing is resolved... Also, the next iron is the drainage... Mancino: Excuse me Sue. Are those trees in the easement? The way it is right now. Sue Morgan: Yes. Mancino: They are in the easement. Margie Bonis: Those 12 trees that I was talking about are actually on the narth side of Kings Road and it's always been interpreted to be as our property because the fence line had been the property line for, since anybody could remember and that's a dispuled area and on that fight of use that you were talking about, if you maintain that area. So if you went over there and you mowed the hwn, we pick the weeds...then we have maintained the north side of Kings Road as well. Sue Morgan: So I guess the thing is, we just need to get it resolved you know. And this seems like the opportune time because development is corning in. You guys are going to be working on it so... But the next item I wanted to discuss is the drainage on Kings Road... There is this one holding pond that is going to be off the park there and kind of dowm..and I'm not, I don't really understand how that works. Scott: I think there's another overhead that shows that outlot that's south of Kings Road. Is that what you're talking about? Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Well it's kind of a combination of the two because the, if there's going to be a holding pond that's here, then there's got to be some way to get the drainage from there into Lake St. Joe which is, I'm assuming is here. Right now this field dmim right across our ~ into Lake St. Joe and what we req~ is the city has no easement on the ~. To make sure that this pass thru is closed off befare construction beans because we really don't want any of the runoff from this cons~on w...property. Also we have some concerns because the elevation here. If you look at some of the schematics they've drawn, it goes uphill and then it goes downhill so if they're going to put a pond here, how are they going to get the water to naturally drain from this pond, underneath the road and through here to Lake St. Joe. Scott: Dave. Hempeh This latest proposal shows thc storm water pond located in this area here, which will take the development's storm water and treat it in here. Then a storm sewer pipe is proposed to discharge in this area here. Continue across underneath Kings Road. As a part of the park development and the upgrade of Kings Road, we're going to need another small ponding area down in this area here due to the elevation change as mentioned. We'll probably have some storm sewer in Kings Road which outlets into this pond area. It's our thought to bring the storm sewer down to _this area here and have an outlet into the same storm sewer system and have it then discharge across the street through the ouflots within the development. Shannin, do you have a little... Scott: So you're talking, the water's going to be draining over the surface of the street and not underneath it? Hempel: No. We're going to pipe it from the proposed pond here down to, it'd be almost like a trunk storm sewer in a way. 1'11 give you a relation here~ This is the proposed pond here on the new development. Pipe it down to a location where we have another pond. Take the swrm runoff from Kings Road. Than pipe it across into this ouflot which. Scott: This would go under the road? Hen~l: Underneath the road. Scott: Okay. You're saying across and I didn't. Hernpel: Underneath the road. So thc water will be pre-~ prior to be dischar~ng to Lake St. Joe. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 199~ Sue Morgan: But you still mentioned that there would be some runoff underneath Lake St. Joe when it comes from that Scott: Well isn't that road going to effectively stop any runoff that's going through the north, with the new urban street section that you're §oin§ to be. Hernpel: ~nis is the high point. This is draining in each direction. All this water that comes down here will be collect~ by storm sewers, put into the storm, proposed storm pond and then routed into the storm sewer that comes from this pond and taken underneath the su~-t through a storm sewer pipe and discharged to Lake St. Joe aft~ it's all been pre-treated. Scol~ So basically that. Hempel: That will climinal~ your current drainage situation that you have right through your properS. Sue Morgan: Okay. So will that be dosed off prior to consmlction? Hempel: In conjunction with construction, yes. Scott: My guess would be that there'd be a construction fence placed in that 4 x 4 feet of black plastic. I don't know what you can call it That entire devel~t is going to have to be ringed by the construction fence which is to keep runoff and so forth from washing onto adjacent parcels. Good. Thanks Dave. Sue Morgan: Again, then I have one other issue that came up at the last meeting and that was on wat~ impactrd. I'm not clear as to what's happening with the utilities along Kings Road. If the utilities for the development are going to move any flmher narth...along Kings Road. Is the city going to be putting in a city owned sewer on that land then along Kings Road? Hern~l: For the upgrade of Kings Road, it only makes sense that we ~ sanitm'y sewer and water under the new street section so we don't have to go back and tear it up 5 or 6 years down the road when these property owners subdivide or want to hook up to city sewer so as a part of the upgrading we will provide sewer and water extension of Kings Road to service these properties to the south whenever they desire to connect up to it. But again, the issue comes up about hooking up W the sewer l/ne and so forth. The cturent ardinance requires the properties that...sewer line hook up to within 12 months af~ it becomes operational. As mentioned in the staff report, the City Council is the body that has the power to grant variances to that ordinance. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Who is the body that decides...? Hempel: That will be addressed with the feadbility study. The upgrade of Kings Road. Scorn So that's cal~ by the city en~neering staff and any consultants that might be involved with it. Sue Morgan: Okay...to make a decision as to whether to request a variance, if I had...and so you kind of put us a little dilemma here because we're... We need to know before we request a variance how much it's going to cost. Maybe it's wi~in our budget to do it... But until you tell us how much it costs, we don't know that. We need to... Scorn Yeah, when do you think those numbers are going to be available7 Hempel: With the project for the upgrade of Kings Road, there will be infamu~onal meetings held on that once we get the information and have it to pass along to the homeowners what the costs will be at that time. Sue Morgan: Also, is the city, the utilities going off of Kings Road can we request that they go on the north side of the road and not down the cen~ line? Sco~ Is that where they're slated to go anyway? On the north. Hempel: The utility lines do follow what they call a 10 feet standard where they have to have certain separation of like the sanitary sewer and the watermai~ If the sanitary sewer runs down the center of the street, the wammah is on the north side of the road and the storm sewer is on the south side of the road at 10 foot intervah. Sue Morgan: ...that falls into the situation with the street.. Hempel: Those are going to be actually under the surface of the mad. Sue Morgan: We were told that they have to make the mad wider in order to put the utilities in and they normally go undeameath the roadway ff possible... Hempel: For the instalhfion of utilities, when they dig out th& trench, it is a little bit wider trench... With swrm sewer generally they can be pretty shallow. Jess than 10 feet. The watermain has to be at least 7 1/2 feet deep... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Sue Morgan: Within the 60 foot right-of-way... Herr~e. 1: That I can't answer at this point. Sue Morgan: $o we're still talking about...You said the trees will be saved but you really don't know. Why... Hempel: I did not say the trees will be saved. That's the en~neer. The applicant's engineer indicated that. I have not seen the full documentation of that yet. Margie Borris: If, I guess just while we're on the tree~ I forgot the gentleman's nan~ in the striped shirt. Steve, okay. He talk~ if we're getting variances, why can't we get variances on the street aligmrm~t. Basically Country Lane. Keep it pretty much like it is instead of changing it into this super modern, meets the city codes and all this kind of stuff and keep a little peace and quiet in Chanhassem Scott: Yeah, that would be nice~ Unfcn~mately. Harberts: I think we'd have about 3,000 other families. Scott: Yeah, that's not, I don't think that's, you know it's nice but it's something that's not feasible. Margie Borris: Why? Scott: The reason being is that based upon thc type of development that's slated to go in and the city stnndards for roads that are needed to handle that k/nd of proposed traf~C:w, also with the utilities needed to support the development, it's not possible to leave things the way they are. That particular road was constructed, it's almost lik~, well from my experience from being down there. Margie Borris: It was never constructed. It was just a cow path that they widened out. Scott: Right, right. But that's not an issue. That's not anything that's going to be changed. There is a road going to go in there and it's going to have a certain urban standard. Margie Borris: ...I think we've pretty much all accepted the fact that they're going to change the road. What we would like to do is ~ it as much the feel of it as possible. Keep...why did we buy our property to move out there. A nice tree lined street. Okay. Now they're Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 talking about widening out the north side... Scott: You know what I think we should do here. Excuse me ma'am. If we could maybe finish. Sue Morgan: I just have one more it~u'n. Also I'd like to suggest that for, I know w~ talk~ about assessments for the road and who's paying what percentage of it, but for the 50% or whatever percent the city will be m~ng care of or absorbing the construction of the road, that perhaps the assessment order can be distributed like the Minnewashta Parkway project. Whereas everyone that accesses that road, ar has access to it, pays for it. Thi.~ road will be fronting a park. A neighborhood park and I would like to suggest that all the neighborh~, the other neighbors in that neighborhood pay for the road. So if you take into consideration that there's going to be like 44 househokis that they're putting in. There's going to be the 4 of us. 4 households there. It'd be nice to kind of distribute that assessment a little further to those people who are going to be driving up and down... Hempel: Mr. Chaimum, maybe just to add onto that. At this point we're not looking at assessing the properties to the south of Kings Road. At some future time when they hook up to the sewer and water, then they would pay their fair share of connection hook-up charges at that time. But we're not proposing any street or storm drainage assessments to those individuals on the south side of Kings Road. Scott: Okay. What we like to tell everybody too is that we mak~ reco~~ions and the City Council, you know. You've heard that story but it's important that you follow the issue because that's where the decisions get made. Sue Morgan: I very much appreciate your time and your ~__~ntion to ~ and I guess the bottom line is that we've been there for a while and the road and the new development is coming in. Maybe if we could get the road to go a little fia'ther north, that would be Scott: Well thank you. Those are good question~. Would anyone else ~ to speaflr at the public hearing? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Conrad: I think the neighbors brought up some real good questions. They'd be the same 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 questions that I'd ask. But at this point in time I think, from what I've seen the dcvelop~ do and staff do, I think they've worbxt out someflfing that I'm pretty comforlable with. It's the, some of the guaran~ that the neighbors are asking for, you know you're out of the systmn basically and what's happened once we say something and once the City Council does it, you're sort of hoping that staff monitors the dcvelotx~ properly~ And I think, that's just tough to bring them back inw the loop once it goes through thi,.. I really appreciate what they're saying. I think Dave, there arc several questions or concerns. I don't know that we can solve them. The big concern still remains with the trees in terms of have we engineered to save the south trees. What would you reco~ the, what's the process? I guess fight now I would have to go along with the case in front of us in terms of the recomm~.ndo~ons but let us say that you found out that the trees could not be saved. Or all of them. Or Kat~ what's the process to review that7 Because by the time this gets to City Council you're not going to know any more then you do tonight. Aanenson: Well not the preliminary plans. What Dave is indicating, before we get the final plat they have to do some... Conrad: And let's say that they find. Aanenson: As the...has indi~ the possibility of maybe transplanting these frees on the north. That's ~y... Conrad: I like that. Aanenson: ...but we have a woodland manag~t plan. The applicants are going to respond...and slightly to the north. I mean that solves his problem with the tree preservation. Conrad: But I really want to tackle, the residents are saying hey, you know it looks kind of good. Aanenson: We understand the condition end...was certainly our goal m preserve the integrity of that area. Conrad: Okay Kate then let's say that Dave take~ a look et the final plans and says that half of those trees are going m die because we do have to put utilities that close to that So whet happens et that point? Mancino: Can't we make a recommendation that they be saved? That they would be moved. Conrad: Well I don't know the process. You know I think thc process would be, Kate Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 would say well they're going to die so we're going to, she's going to adrrfini~vcly de~ with it in terms of the replacing trees and I don't think that the neighbors say that's fine but we'd rather save them in the first place. Aanenson: We've dealt with this in other utility improvement projects in the city where we had to go in and...upgrade the sewer and we had to u&e out trees. The Council's dealt with this issue before and if this is a 429 project, there's a possibility of that being...we certainly understand the concern and the Council does too. The city looked at other utility projects... Scott: What we have I think is the applicant saying the trees would be saved, and I think from a condition standpoint, I think we can put someth_ ing in where a licensed lcrbad~ or someone, independent party can, based upon a final survey of where the road's going to go. When you get that information, then I think at that point in time someone who is a registered, I don't know what you'd call it. I'll say arborist. Can then take a look at, look at the species of trees and say fine. No, they're going to die and then we have another issue. I thlnir what you want to do is, since it's so iffy fight now, we don't want to make a decision to send it ahead and then have the neighbors thinking one thing and then all of a sudden they get the other and you're just trying to figure out how to protect them. Conrad: Well yeah, it's a frustration from anybody that has something hnpacfing them. Then a city coming in and kind of saying, well that kind of looks okay. And in 2 weeks from now the City Council's going to say, well that kind of looks okay. And then the real en~neering reports might come in later on when you see the elevations or whatever, and then it doesn't look so hot but everybody's out of the loop at that point. And there's not, I think we're probably stuck with, in terms of how we deal with thi~ a best effort scxautfio but the only thing that bothers me is really the applicant saying well we think we have a solution and Dave's not able to say it's pretty good. And that's really what I want to hear from Dave is saying, I think it's a pretty good shot and until I hear him say that, I'm ~le. Mandno: I don't thinir it should go out of the loop. I thinit it should come back in if, it's to City Council. If he finds out when he does his real evaluation~ The real thing. If he feels comfortable saying yeah or nay. That at that point, if it's yeah, everybody goes great. The people who live near it. If it says nay, then it comes back to City Council to review it and what do we do then? Conrad: I think that's appropria~ because I think of all thc issues, and there arc a lot of issues that the neighbors have brought in and unfammately this is progrcss and that's what's happening and the best we can do is minimi,¢ the ira?act. I know your lifestyle's going to change a tad and it's changed for most of us who have lived here for 20 years. And there Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 aren't any guarantr~ but I guess thc only thing I'd ~i~e is to have our staff being able to say, it's a good shot and again, there aren't any guarantees. You're probably not going to get anything in writing to say that the city of Chanhassen guman~ 100% of the trees on the south side are going to be saved. I don't think we'd do that because it's just t~o many. We just wouldn't do that. But I ~ again, what I do want to hear is feedback fi~m our en~necring staff saying that thc design is, meets hi.~ specifications so I think we do want that loop. The only other thing I like is the idea of transplanting trees. If that works. I think that's sort of a neat deal and maybe, if these trees, I don't see that as, given the reforesm~on or whaler we need under the tree management plan, I think moving some of these trees might be a good solution. Everything else, I'm in agreement with in the staff report. Scott: So your overall opinion on the staff ret, or-men_ d~tion is positive7 Scorn Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I'd like to give Dave a chance to comment on this. Hempel: If I could just comment a little...Kings Road. City Council still has another opportunity. They have to approve the con--on plans for the upgrade of Kings Road so the issue about the wees I'm sure is going to be relayed to the City Council. They're going to follow that item. They're going to want to see that in the co--on plans of the upgrade. That these trees are being addressed. Are they being saved? Are there retaining walls out there saving these trees or can't we save these trees? That's the time that the City Council's going to say yeah or nay on the construction plans of Kings Road. So there is more oppommity to hold back this development, if you will because of the tree issue. I just wanted to point that out. Sc, oR: Okay, good. Conrad: ~/oe, one more question. The variance that we grant in terms of the 20,000 square foot lot sizes, Kate. That doesn't set a precedent for any lots built closer? Aanenson: These are the lots on the most northern lots of thc plat. Again, they all averaged over the 20,000 square foot minimum and the same for thc lot width and thc DNR supports thc variance based on the location and thc ovcrall lot being over 20,000 square feet. Conrad: So when the neighbors that will build w the east, this variance will not set any kind of, it's a totally independent issue, right? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: I think so. Mancino: Only that, I don't think that we allowed Lamdgren, on thc other side of Lake SL Joe. Aanenson: We gave them variances on the front yard lot line. Mancino: But now on the 20,000 square foot. Sco~ It wasn't averaged. Mancino: It wasn't an average. It was per lot. Conrad: I'm pretty comfortable with how close. Mancino: Are you pretty comfortable with the average? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Some of the lots are dissected. Some of the lots have less than, just a portion of the lot fails within that shorcland district. When this plat originally came back through, there were 57 lots. We looked at giving some variances and whether, not the entire lot fell within the... Conrad: ff I thought there was some real drainage issues between there and the lake, that would be a trigger and I think to solve the, I just don't want the developer to the east saying well, we've had the variance here. So now I can do that and we'll average and I don't think it's a precedent. I think it's still, I don't thinir it ~. I think it's simply a straight variance and we figure in this case that it mak~ sense. So that was my comn'ent Katc...shc agreed. Ledvina: Well I would agree with the staff ~pon. I think there has been some good changes. I know we've worked, and the developer has worked to show as little ~on with the installation of Kings Road as possible. I guess I would suppol't an additional condition to make the co~on plans for Kings Road contingent upon the tree preservation. I think that should be part of it. Score You'll have an opportunity to add that condition when you make the motion. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Mancino: And add to that something about moving the trees because the trees are red cedars. I know that just 3 years ago we had, we moved 3 big, well 25 foot tall spruce onto our property and they're alive and they're doing well. They need m be babied and watered and all that good stuff when they are moved but I think we got Big Joe, the big shovel, the earth mover or tree mover and it's great. It works and I think we can do that. Conrad: How much did you pay for that? Mancino: How much did I pay? Two bucks. Two bucks a tree. It was great. Scott: Any other comments germane to this issue? Mancino: Ah no. I have none. I think that they've been reviewed very well and I'm glad that...participating to this degree and care about what's going on around them. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: Actually in this case I think the system has been worldng pretty well I really didn't like this development when I first saw it. In fact I put it in the top 5 of the last 4 years, I thought it'd be a real detriment the way it was laid out. I like what staff has done. They did a good job in revising the whole concept of how it lays out. I have no arguments of the city's concerns in regards to who's going to pay for what_affect their property. Every time you get this type of development, adjacent to large lots, we have this problem. The problem is of course that when they put in road and figure out how they're going to do this, we think in terms of ~0 years. It's been said that nobody owns property. You just rent it for a while. You have to figure that someday these large lots are going to be developed and we have to develop accordingly. I know that's not what you want to hear but nonetheless as Chanhassen grows, that's what's happening. I would support the adjacent ~ owners... on the trees. I have no ar~t with that and I have no fin'ther comments. Scorn Good. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend appwval of Preliminary Plat//93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the staff conditions listed in their report and 2 additional conditions. Number 27 to read, the developer shall a___.x'm',pt to relocam existing trees as a part of the woodland manager plan. Number 28. Approval of the construction plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation on the south side of the road. Scott: Is there a second? 3O Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Second. Scott: Motion on the floor has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Conrad: I saw Dave grimace. What did you think was wrong with that motion? Hernial: If there's to be one tree removed and the rest are saved, I guess there's. If you could say if feasible. Conrad: I don't know and I can't speak for Matt. I think we're looking for a feeling that you feel that this is thc best possible plan to pmt~ as many trees as you can. I don't think there's expectations here that gee, that everyone will live. Ledvina: Ah yes. Well how about significant tree presc~ation? Meaning, I guen that's not a very good word either. Let's say, to the maximum extent feasible. Mancino: Sust let us know what it is. How wide is the road? 32? Hempel: 31 back to back. That's curb to curb. Ledvina: And again, what I'm thin~ng about is the use of additional engineering techniques like retaining walls or locating other utilities in other areas that are feasible but will result in the tree preservation. Those types of things. Maybe taking an extra step to make that tree preservation occur. Mancino: Making sure that staff is there and... Scott: Is there any more discussion? (Diane Harberts had left thc meeting prior to voting on this it~n.) Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi_smioll recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots ss shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, thc developer shall dedicate to the City the u 'tdities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Maintenance access routes shall be provided tO all storm water po_riding. The route~ are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediaiely restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting daim dictate otherwise. All fiber blanket. o All utility and sucet improvements shall be consuuc~ in acc~mtance with the last edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for stuff review and City Council The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriaie regulatory agencies (i.e. Water,ed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and con~ly with thek conditions of approval. o The applicant shall enter into a development conimct with the City and provide the necessary financial security to gnnrantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. o No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and-~ 4, Block ~, 1 (phase ID until the full 60-foot wide fight-of-way on Kings Road ..%--....~.---:~ Ix. nc is dedicated to the City and the street is constmcl~l to urban standards. This_ area shall be platted ss an onflot until the full street is dedicated and built. o The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. o The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calodafions for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city en~neer tO review and approval based on the approved final set of gl'a_ding and drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the Ci~'s Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marahal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 32 Planing Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase The aPl~Opzi~ drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and podding ~ lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a winiwlum of 20 feet wide. end of VWnite Oak Lane east of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shah dedicate to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround outside the fight.of, way, A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects fi'om the property owners south of Kings Road -"-?~J nmy be reflmded to thc applicant. The exact ~ reimbursement will be determined based on actual construction costs f~r the installation of thc utilitics. ~" .... .~... ..m, ..--~.:_~ ,~ .... · The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 throu~ 27 20 ~ Block 1. Thc street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to thc adjacent parcels or employ other ~ to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The ~ has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and Uee · ~&LL~X.~f.~,dLbS4d. VL~ t~L&~d*&q~ w ~l. VV&J, ~ & .... E~)&J .a.l,.,a,,~4,a~ &.Wnd. W~, ,~'&,~&~ ,m. M.&L V.&.,LV.L~, ~ ,.-,..A,,,-~ :...,.,,.-.,-~.0 ~-, +k~ ~....~.,~..~,~. +...1.,,., fl,.,,,+1, k .~ .,,,..~.~..~1 ,1,.,,..~ ,,,... ,.~,,..f14-...,,.~.:,.,., ..... 6,, ...~11 1.. .......... ~ *~. .. .....--.--,-: .. . ~. o~. ..... ,3. A 5 foot wide co~cre~ sidewalk shah be constru~ along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements. ~...._.7 ~,.,-~ ~.; :~ The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall be designed and constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance (20 ~ wide, ? ton design nd 20 foot wide ease~), 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1~4 18. 19. The applicant may qual/fy for a credit towards the applicant's storm water ~_._.._~. qsmntity fees. The.2/~l~m~ quantity fees should be applied to Ibis development as outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pen_ding adoption by the Cixy Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. ~0o The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the su'eet and utility construction. 21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during thc new home construction process. 22. A woodland managerrgnt plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). 23. Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to MnDOT's design criteria. 24. Thc acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Cornmis~sion~ Compliance with thc conditions of thc Building Official noted in memo dated January 21, 1994. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards whether done by the applicant or city improvement project. 27. The developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part of the woodland manage~t plan. Approval of the constru~ plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation to the maximum extent possible on the south side of the road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: And it goes to City Council? Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Aanenson: It goes to City Council on July 11th. Conrad: It's real important that you stay there. Scott: Don't be on vacation. Goo& Conrad: Go to the City Council meeting. Scott: Yeah, Suly llth. And check the agenda to make sure it's actually on too. Good. Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT ~S BOULEVARD~ ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Public Present: Name Addre~ Lavcrne Wheeler Nancy Lee P~m'ick Blood Verne Scvcrson M. Happy 445 Lakota Lane Admiml Waste Admiral Wast~ 675 Lako~a Lane 495 Lakota Lane 415 Lakota Lane Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item- Sco~ In your opinion, how responsive has the applicant been W, I mean I read the staff report and it seems like there's, the city of Chanhass~n is kind of chasing ~ people and spa_din§ a lot of time trying to get them to conform existing agreements. Have they been somewhat uncooperative? Very uncooperative? I'm trying to get a sense for what the relationship is because, the reason why I'm asking the question is I recall last year we had a contractor's yard situation where it was pretty much a mess and there was a lot of legal time spent on both sides. The intent that I perceived on behalf of the applicant was that they had no intention of conforming to anything and I'm trying to separate these two issues. Hoping that we're not ru_ nning into the sanle thing again. Al-Jaff: Yes. We spent some time working on this. I think that thc applicants had some 35 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 personal, I think a member of their family was taken ill and they had tx) leave town for a while so a lot of thc meetings were postponed that were scheduled and some of the reasons were legitimate. It took us a while to reach an agreement but we did reach an agreemeot. Scott: Okay, enough said. Questions. Comments from commissioners for sm~ None? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative like to speak? Is there anyone here? Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I don't know where to start and I don't want to get long winded. We are, and always have been in the past, 100% cooperative. I think for anybody...I don't know if any of you received the letter that I had sent as a back- up to...If you looked at the...We did not build anything on the property...It was brought to our attention...and if you notice the datns...We want to be as cooperative as we can. We thought we were alright in having our containe~ on the pwpa~. In the lettn-s...We want to do a lot more with the land. We did have conditions...was denied, even though at the...wrote a nasty letter and told we had to get them off right away. We contacted the city to see what could be done. We are, we worked with the city right away. The first meeting was with ~ attorney...Those pictures, I'm not aware what you're looidng at. I know I had taken pictmv~ earlier... Conrad: Is there ever any refu~ in the containers when they're on site? Nancy Lee: No. They're construction containers that we take to the sites but we don't fill them with garbage. Conrad: And is the 58 number that staff has proposed acceptable? Nancy Lee: No it's not... Conrad: I guess I'm not sure why, when did you stm't storing these there and under what? Nancy Lee: They've been there since we had the conditional use permit. Conrad: And the conditional use allowed thi~? Nancy Lee: Yes it did. We have a let~ from. Conrad: Allowed dumpsters? It said that we allow dump~7 Nancy Lee: I have a let~ from Barb Dacy, the previous city planner, and she had a limit on what... 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Conrad: You're aware of what our, this business disizict is all about? Do you know what we're trying to do down there and what we're not trying to do7 Have you talked to staff about the intent of the. Nancy Lee: ...I know we haven't had a lot of direct answers. Conrad: Well it's in print. It's in print so you can always go and ask staff to say, what are they trying to do in that fringe business district. You should do that just so you know how we react when we look at an application. Thank you for your comments. Nancy Lee: Well actually on that, I don't know if you'll ~uernber or not, we have been trying to fmd out from you... Conrad: You know and I'll fill in and maybe because you may not get to the report but that area is a pretty area. And the intent typically has been down there that we don't want to intensify. Yet there were businesses there and we didn't want to harm their right because they had that business. And so under that, we have a very nattu~ looking area. We have an area that's not serviced with Chanhassen servicea In terms of water, sewer. We're trying to maintain that area in ~'ms of it's natural appearance but give business an opportunity to survive. But really not to grow because it's not serviced and we have these other conflicts. So I think if you had looked at the intent, and the intent has been there for quite a while. Since I've been around, for that particular disuict, I think that would ~ you what you can and can't do and maybe might tell you why staff might react to some of the things you do the way they do. But again, thanks for your comments. Mancino: I have a question for Ladd I guess. In Barbara Dacy's conditional use permit that was given, there was a limit of 50 dumpsters when the conditional use permit was granted. Is Al-laff: With that conditional use permit, they were going to have a building act,_ rally. There was supposed to be a garage and an office. Mancino: Oh, and the durnpste~ were supposed to be in the building. AIJaff: They were going to have vehicles stored in that area and it was...I mean it was indoor, enclosed storage and. Mancino: It was just never done? Al-$aff: Nancy, do you want to elaborate? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 19o}4 Nancy Lee: Yeah. It was going to be...It was a garag¢...and outdoor starage. It was...~t's not true...W¢ would like to build on it. A building would be wonderrvl but their.. A1-Jaff: Definitely not sewer and water. No. It's outside the MUSA area. Scott: But electricity though. They could get electricity. Nan~ Lee made a statmnent that was not picked up on thc tape. Scott: Okay. So this was originally a conditional use permit It was a lot like thc contractors yard where 12 months you have to have substantial construction, etc, etc. Okay. Nancy Lee: We were originally told that garbage companies don't fit anywhere...we were told that we would be under a contractors ym~ and we also applied for...so we did that and that's how they granted... Then when we had that change so that we would fit in that category, according to what they wanted us to do, then~..So we don't fit anywhere in an area with contractors yards and everything else. Mancino: Sharmin, tell me about the operation hours and days. I sec ?:00 in thc morning until 6:00 at night. A1-Jaff: On weekdays. Assuming that...or to take a dumpster. Mancino: But I see that's Monday thru Saturday. Aren't there homes in that area7 AI-Jaff: There is one pan of the site. There are two... Mancino: Do we usually in the business fringe allow the Saturday, the 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 p.m.? And is there a need? Nancy Lee: There's quite a distance...property but I thinir people would have to come to the very edge of their property to even see on our land. We're down by 212. And they're up over the railroad tracks and they have to go...There's not a lot of activity... Mancino: Wo, l,4 you support keeping those hours as the area gets developed? Around it. And is there a way to change those if you get more devel~t around? Aanenson: Shannin has indicated that there are, the neighbor...has complained but the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: Well I would ~y, I don't care whether it's one house or 10 house~ Saturday at 7:00 in the morning would not, I would change those hours on Saturday to 9:00 to 5:00 as reasonable for people living in that area. No other questions at this time. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Do you have any other comments you'd like to make? Nancy Lee: No. Scott: Okay, thanks. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Verne Severson: I'm Verne Severson and I'm the ~ owner who's directly north of the lot in question. So I have a few thoughts that I guess I'd like you to think about and then I have a list of problems... First, I guess living in the south end, and having to pay what we feel are very high proper~ taxes and we don't get the same benefit or advantages that other residents of Chanhassen have, we don't have the, like in city parks, we don't get playgrounds. We're forced to use a Chaska address and we're living in Chanhassen. And it's always been a safety issue. We don't have sewer and water. We have difficulty getting our local street paved or ~ly maintained and we get no help in our request for, to mak~ Highway 101 safer for walking and biking and jog.~ng. And then our desire m work on taking advantage of the abandoned rail con'idor, which was met with great cli~interest by the city. So overall we feel that we're somewhat ignored by the city and so when something like this comes up, it peaks our interest. The problems we have, these are I think quite simple. One is we have high expectations of our quality of life in Chanhassen. It's a prestigious city and we want to be part of that but we feel that the noise and smells and the views of dumpsters aren't really consistent with that. I don't know, I guess it's been commented that the site is presentable but I tend to disagree with that. I think it is quite ugly really. We can't see it from our house but people who walk on the trail along there can see it...And number two I think, and those are selfish reasons of course. Number two, I think Chanhass~n should be concerned... Thi~ is the southern enu'ance to Chanhassen. State Highway 101, people come up there. I know that that area's been called ugly town and it has been quite ugly and is still quite ugly but I think that you as city planners should be u'ying to be considering that. Trying to at least improve that...and do it quickly and rapidly but maybe you should just be concerned with Ctumhassen and start working on that.., l.ike I mentioned, it is the southern enu'ance to Chanhnssen and also there's the biking and hiking trail to be developed along there so you'll have more people to have a view of that area. It's a very pretty area and I guess Fd like to see it kept for... And third, we're being asked to make some ~ces. Especially the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 concern of the preservation of the Muff area. There's some restrictions being put on us because of that. And I guess I feel our neighbors should also help preserve the area and keep it looking nice. The report, the staff report says they didn't feel the property value would be decreased by that. Well, I guess I'd dispute that. A dumpstcr is a dmnpstea' and a dumpstea- really is a garbage, it's associated with garbage and that's not good for your ~ value. And I guess my last point is th~ approving this area for storage of dumpstm's is one thing and maybe something can be worked out where that can be allowed but what ~ns is that leads to something else. And we're afraid that if that's allowed, that something else is going to bc...and uglier and it will be difficult w stop so it comes back to my first point I guess. I guess I feel that you should be paying a little mare attention to the area at the south end of Chanhass~ and try to pay aa much attention to us I guess as you do to the Kings Road area. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Laverne Wheeler: My name's Lavemc Wheeler. I live at 445 Lakom Lane. Just down the block to the east. I just second what Veme had said and I just had a couple questions that people might answer for me. A commercial dumpster. I have an image of what it is but, and what it might contain but maybe if I was inftmmd a little more on the type of ~ that these things contain and if there are any refuse left in them at the point when they're ~ at Conrad: They said no. Lavcrnc Wheeler: They're...and cleaned out. Scott: Has thc applicant seen those pictures? I don't think she ha& Laveme Wheeler: I would just, in talking about making that area more presentable, I think this abandoned railway and improvements that are happening there is just an outsumding thing to improve that sxea for both the residents of C~mnhassen and people who might enter and leave through that gateway. And if thc storage site can be screened from those people adequately, with something that's attractive. The dumpsters are clean and neat dumpstem. I ~ something that we...othcr things, I don't object to dumpsters. I've got one in my driveway fight now because I've been ~g but I think if we can find a way to cither collect them in an area where they could be screened entirely from view of the people who are around there. If they don't provide an odor or don't support animals or anything like that, I wouldn't have a problem. But I would cncourage some dramatic screening so that the items Phnning Commission Meeting - Sune IS, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak7 Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public heating please. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Farmakes: I'd agree with thc residents. For Chan's furore, I thinlr that those type of uses along that area have got to go. For some reason along that road just seems to be a magnet to that type of use. I guess I wasn't back here in the .50's and 40's and. Conrad: No, I haven't been on here that long. Farmakes: I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know if waiting until the MUSA expands there is necessarily criteria that we should use for that. Mancino: Well then what would be it based on? Farmakes: Well for instance, we have some developments, large lot developments that squeezed into those areas before we get MUSA and it increases the population. I think the criteria being that there's going to be enough people to object to that type of usage. Kind of does the trees fall until you hear it. We're talking about an area that not only us but the federal government are looking at trying to enhance and I'm not against approving this permit but I'm wondering if we should entertain a time limit for review or if we're just going to leave it open ended criteria for it. I'm not sure how you do that with an existing use that is incompatible, or you think is incompatible long term with the goals of the area. How is the position that we take to nudge that out and allow the person a reasonable amount of time to make arrangements elsewhere. Conrad: See we don't have a maser plan for this area. If Thn Erhart was here, he'd love this conversation because he's always been real concerned with that can'idor. And we don't have a plan and the only thing that's going to force the plan is city services down there and then you can start doing something but nobody's mllly said let's mm it into a preserve because you'd have to buy it. There's no money to do a natural thing down there so therefore we've always taken the easy. Well I don't know if it's the easy way out but nobody's had a vision Jeff to really do something that might be quite different. So therefore status quo has been. Farmakes: And I'm not talking about initiating this now. I'm just talking about in the future. Whether that 10 years from now. It seems to me that a master plan will be done for that area 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 prior to sewer and water going there. And I'm just, they're talking about fi'inge businesses and some of the other ones ~tmt we see along ttmt road. Either mining operation~ or the type of thing that you would not expect out here. The reason that they haven't been objectionable is it is an isolated are~ But long mur~ and in particular. Not just...federal government is becoming more involved in that area. We may be thinking about what we should do long term planning with that area and again allow some reasonable time for the business owners of Conrad: You're thinking right but we don't know so it's hard to tell We shouldn't iv. ally make up something out of the dear blue. Aanenson: Om I just make a oxmmmt? When we went through the goals with the City Council, we promised them that we'd start working on the, we had the 1995 study area south of Lyman and as you know we put together what we're doing in the agenda...but we've cornmi~ to the Council that we were going to ~'y to wrap in ~he BF district in the 1995 study area and start working on that this fall So in short...we also have to start looking at the BF district-..so we have commitmt to the Council that we'll do the 1995 study area...It is a priority. Maucino: So are you saying you would feel comfol'mble with a recommendation that not only, you whichever is less then, the use shall be ruminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Municipal Service or conditions of the permit have been violamt, whichever comes first. Or the Highway 1995 study is concluded and passed or? Aanenson: That might be a good way to wrap it into. To do an evaluation of that as we review the study area... Conrad: Can't we put terms on conditional uses though? Can't we put. Aanenson: You can bring it back every year if you want. Conrad: But your Irade off is, the applicant is only willing to put in so much money inW the site given the fact they may lose. Mancino: Every year they may lose it. Conrad: Right. So you've got to say, what do you want them to do right now and to prorate that over a lifc of, if it's only one year. If we give them one year, they don't want to do it and that's one way to defeat their proposal. But there's a lot of stuff I think coming in down t here. I guess you just have to weigh. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: That's why we're going to be looking at these issue~..~ we'll also be looidng at a Bluff Creek study area which we talked about earlier tonight working with the wairrshed district and...that was part of this charette we had recently. Trying to get some additional funding for Bluff Creek and ~..enhance Bluff Creek and the surro~ watershed area. So there are a couple thing8 happening With that study that wilL.. Mancino: I guess I want to ask Ladd. Do you have a vision for that area? Conrad: Long term, that whole area? It's a tough one. It should be natural. Absolutely. It should be, but thc fact of the matter is, nobody's going to. There's not going to be a gov~t body flint comes forth with a lot of money to buy it. But it is, it's beautiful territory. Should be connected to Eden Prairie is I think a ~e or I don't know what it's called to the northeast of it so we should be connected there. It's pretty stuff. But remember we've got a dump down there and auto graveyard lind it's, there's a lot of poor uses that are ecologically just horrendous. Just horrendous so, a vision for the area, I don't know what it's going to be. It's also on a highway. It's a great highway. If I were a b~iness person in the highway business area, I'd just love to have a gas station down there if it has the fight road access and what have you. It's just, it's 15,000 cars or big numbers. Big enough to really develop a commeacial deal but the right use is natural park or passive. In terrrm of tonight, and I'm going to ask staff but I really think we should be tabling this tonight because the real issue. Well, the real issue, I guess there are other deeper issues but the only way you cam look at this is if it's screened. That's the only way. They're coming in for a conditional use and they've got something that's less intensive than what they were planning before with building something and fencing s~ing and putting Itucks in there and so really I don't mind the use if you can handle it. If you can screen. So screerfi_ 'ng is the major issue and if you can't screen it, I don't want to take a look at it. Mancino: So you want to see the landscape plan and see what they can do. Conrad: Absolutely. Point numb~ one, we'd ~ that it's approved, that the. Well if the applicant can't furnish us a landscape plan that we think is acceptable to us, then in my mind this doesn't fly at all. So I think it should be labled. If staff feels that's the right thing to do. Because I think there's been some communications back and forth and I don't know, some of the, all the bac~und to why this is here wnight. Farmakes: You're mnidng my comments short~. Mancino: I'd support tabling it. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Scott: Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I move that we, hold on. I move that we table Planning Case t94-1, IUP. Scott: Is there a second7 Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table case ~ 1 IUP. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commls~on table action on the Interim Use Permit ~4-1 for Admiral Waste ManaR~_me_nt, Ail voted in favor and the PUBLIC HEARING: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.S9 ACRF~ OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCK,q AND 30UTLOTS FOR A 1(,6 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (~QMPRISED OF ~4 BUH, DING$ OF EITHER 2~ 3~ 4~ 6 OR 8 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY~ SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATI'A~ ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF. ~ INTER~E~TION OF HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOUI~VARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES~ INC. (BE'I*rY O'$HAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Public Present: Name Address Jim & Sue Avis Chuck Gabrielson Howard Dahlgren Derrick Passe John Peterson 8190 Galpin Blvd. 2600 Arboretum Blvd. 1786 Irving Avenue So, Mpls. 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 Bob Generous presented the 8taft report on this item. Mancino: Bob, can you please show me whex~ the 4 or 5 single family homes are. I've never seen them on any of their drawings. On Gal~ east of the development? And how many are there? Can you draw that in? Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Resident: There's 3 there. Mancino: There's more than that, isn't there? Resident~ Where it says retaining wall is where 1 live. Yeah, one fight there. Scott: We just had that development in here last. Resident: One on the other side of the easement. Yeah, fight there. That's the 3 fight there. Mancino: There's only 37 Resident: Yeah. Generous: And then the existing fann is up there. Mancino: And where does Trotters Ridge be~n7 Aanenson: They're south of the wetland. Generous: They're down on this end. Mancino: So between Trotters and then it's wetland. Okay, thanks. Generous: And this trail system will actually connect into that. Maucino: But there is land between Galpin and the wetland on that west side between. Aauenson: There's some upland area that will. Resident: Yeah, that's real wetland. There's a...creek that rnn~ through there. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Resident: And it's about ~g0 feet... Scott: Bob, since we're talking conceptually here, the reason for having a PUD is to gain, have some gain, preservation, enhancement, environmental enhancement for the city of Chanhassen. It wasn't real obvious to me what the city of Chanhassen is getting out of thi~ development as it sits right now. I mean I see a trail §oing around the wesm'n edge of the Planning Commission Meeting - June 1~5, 19o~ development But what are we getting out of this? Is it strictly "affordable housing" or what am I missing here? I'm looking for something significant which would say to me, this warrants a PUD. Generous: I believe it's probably most likely going to be the preservation of these areas west, on the western edge. Sc, om But did_rl't a previous applicant drop this pwperty tx:cause they couldn't build there? What I'm trying to get to is that if they can't build there, we can't hold that up and say they're preserving it if it's unbuil~ble. Or if it's too expensive to build on. Aancuson: I think what you're saying is correct. I mean there's certain things that they have to do based on the fact that there's a wetland but the reason the stuff would support a PUD is we allowed on other PUD's to help with the design framework which we wouldn't if this was a straight site plan review. So what we're looking at here is the awhitecV, nal standards and some of those issues. Scott: But aren't the archi~ standards covered by thc Highway 5? They'd have to have that anyway. Aanenson: Yeah, but they're not officially adopted yet. We're trying to do those. With a PUD we definil~.Jy can put that in a development contract and hold them to that. Scott: So the major advantage then is to stop using the PUD as a design stop gap because the Highway 5 ordinance hasn't passed yet. Aanenson: Yeah... Sco~ What are the other major benefits? Generous: Efficiency on the site. Use of the site and development of thc site. They're clustering their development in the eastern pocket of this wetland complex that they're looking to preserve. Scott: But aren't they just, but once again, is that thc only, that's the only area that they can build on. I mean what it sounds tike is if you can't build on it, you're. Generous: This is developable down here. Phnning Commission Meeting - June 1:5, 1994 Scott: Is it? Can they get a street to it or something? Generous: They could have gotten w it. They could come from the west. They looked at coming from the south. While it might be more expensive, it's possible to develop that axea. I don't believe they're inlm'ested in doing that and one of the things that we can tie them to is, the Comp Plan actually says that south of the road is single family. They meet the density by averaging it out over all the upland area south of that road. Mancino: But it's not single family. Aanenson: If you spread those units ac'mss thc entire... C-~nerous: Yeah, they clustered it. They transferred the density. Aanenson: So you ~ the entire package, that's how many units they can have. They pushed it inw one area. Generous: When I made my calculations to delIm~ne the density south of the road, I didn't even look at the upland area here because I wasn't exactly sure right now what that acreage was. I was able to calctflale back and they were under about 3 units per acre. Sc, om Okay. You've been grilled enough. Anybody else? Conrad: But just real quickly, we've trandetred densities from north of the mad to south of the road? Generous: No. On the south side of the road you clusme. A all your densities up in the northeast comer. That gives the possibility of development on this site...they technically meet for this area, they're a medium density development. If you look at the developable upland area south of the mad, they meet the densities that could be done in single family. But by putting them all up in this area. Scott: Any other comments or questions for slaff7 Mancino: Do you get that? Am I seeing that right? Conrad: Do I understand what I was just told? Mancino: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, l~A Conrad: I'm going to think about it, and let you know. Farmakes: Can you clarify again the reasoning that you used...follow the Comp Plan? Generous: Okay. The Comp Plan says that on the north side of the collector, the future collector road it's medium density residential. It's 4 to 8 units. On the south side of this road, all the developable land could have single family residential Up to 4 units per acre. Instead of putting in single family homes over here and trying to develop lhese even though they might be tougher single family, they transf~ all thc density up here w meet with the low density. Farmakes: Are you saying that all the property you're showing there is unbuildable? Ledvina: Ouflot C? Farmakes: Where you're drawing arrows. Aanenson: No, it's buildable. Generous: This area up here is developable. This is the wetland complex in the middle. Mancino: So they couldn't develop. How could they use that to get density? Generous: But this area is upland. It's possible they could develop thi~ Put u~nits there. This is upland. It's possible they could develop that But instead of doing all the...to get their access there, all the density is concentrated in thi~ area where we can provide the services. Where the sewer line can be brought in. Where the access can be pwvided. Scott: So basically what you're saying is that we've got 166 units and for density calculations purposes, we have "buildable", two areas of buildable land that there won't be any building on and that because that space is available. Mancino: It's calculal~ in the density. Scott~ Yeah. You're using the net buildable land for density calculation, even though it is pretty tight in there. Generous: Right. They've clustered it all Mancino: Is that compatible with what's south? South is ~ Ridge, which is single Pla~niug Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 family and west is Timbcrwood, which is large lot. East, excuse me. Scott: And the elementary school site. Generous: Well the school... Mancino: No, the school site is just north of the collector. Tfmberwood is directly east of that south park. There's not, the school site. According to what's shown here. Generous: This does connect further to the east on that site. Mancino: So it is surrounded by single family on the south and on the east and then you've got on the west, it's surrounded by wetlands. Generous: Yes, and to thc south. Timbcrwood is down here. Thc wetland complex is this, basically thc whole middle of this proposal. Scorn Did you have any discussions with the applicant regarding some community type open space, because this looks like it's pretty dense? Kind of like we were talking about Mission Hills. Toflot or something like that Or is it because of the wetland. Aancnson: Well there is some upland area that's adjacent to TroUcrs Ridge. As you know when we looked at the Opus ~, we were preserving all that upland area that's nicely wooded and there's trails going throu~ that. Access through Trotters Ridge and Opus development. Mancino: But there's nothing right in sight here. If somebody wants to have, I think Ladd you brought it up with Mission Hills a couple weeks ago. What if I had some people over and I want to go outside and bar-be-qne or have a group of people, where do I go in this dense of an area? There's nothing... Conrad: Yeah, I get real frustrat~ I really like, every time we see something dense we always react to it. We want, you know we've zoned it for density but then once we see it, those questions come up. Or let me give you another one. How do these people move around? And it's not that it's bad it's just that because we don't have it in Chanhassen, I'm not familiar with it being here. We just don't have high density areas. It seems to me, in high density areas, we should have sidewalks everyplace. Although you'll ask a devclopem, they'll say people don't want sidewalks. Mancino: Because people don't want to keep them up. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1S, 1994 Conrad: Well it's maintenance. Yeah, it's all that plus there's a privacy type deal too. People who exist in suburbs don't want sidewalks but when I sec more density than wc normally have, I think well. Now we've crammed more people, twice as many people. Maybe 3 times as many people in the same space and I say well, we don't know, I don't know what things should be. I don't know what the park requirements should be for, you know how close should they be. Is there a park within 3 blocks, 4 blocks of here that somebody can walk over to? And what we're doing here is we do have a sidewalk going through on the main street but that's the only one and I think geez, they've got a lot of density there and saying boy, how do people move around in higher density areas? The statement is I'm very naive as we get into some of these. It's appropriate for the site. It's been zoned or it's been planned this way. I just get uncomfortable thinking we're appl~ our same single family, low density residen~ standards to a site like that. Mancino: It may be the other point of view is, multi-family is just Fine but shouldn't we have some common area for those people in that? It's more hnporlant than even in a single family where you have large lots. It's more important that they some space and it doesn't have to be huge but some area within it. Conrad: Maybe. And maybe that's sort of a joke. You know maybe, how many units do we have here, 1607 Generous: 166. Conrad: So you know if we have a totlot that's the size of this room, is that a joke in relationship to 166 units? Does that count? Mancino: Well a lot of these multi, and I don't know why they're not coming in this way but when I go around town and I see some of these multi-family units, they have them as part of the development. There is this place, whether it's a tennis court. Whether it's whatever it is, a little park area. You hardly see them without it so it surprises me that we're getting them in without any of that. Aanenson: I think it mi/bt be appmpriaIe to have the applicant talk about who their market age is, just so they can give you some comparisons. Eden Prairie Rottlund one' s. ..When we looked at this, it's got the school across the street. They're looking at passive park, nature trails going into Opus...and then just south of this is the pa& in Stone Creek and has access to the Minger subdivision which is across the street That also has a passive area and an active area. So we feel there is... Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Would the applicant or their Plavning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 representative liire to ~7 ~ give us your name and your address. John Peterson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Cornmi.ssion_ My name is John Perm, son. I'm President of Good Value Homes and our address is 9445 East River Road, Minneapolis, 55433. Good evening. As you probably know...experience in the city of Chanhass~. We're a 25 year old development company. We've built over 6,000 homes in the melmpolitan area. We currently have a development involved in various idnd_s of...in cities throughout the rr~~litan area. This is a rather complex staff report and situation development and there are an awful lot of issues as you know. I brought the staff report with me on a weekend trip and there's a lot there and I don't know how many of those issues we can actually address tonight. I don't know exactly how much time or how much you want to hear from me but let me give it a start and if it gets too long, in too much detail, Mr. Cl~irman if you would just advise me and I'll sit down and lisum. One of the early issues on this plat was the possible construction of what has been called in your staff report as a frontage road and as a collector in thc east/w street south of Highway S. We would ~ to call it a parkway. We think that frontage, neither of those two terms do justice to the kind of neighborhood that we'd ~ to put in. But in any case, what the major issue was, who's going to pay and how it's going to be built and I think while this is not lt..planning issue. It's maybe something that the City Council may get more involved in, and I think it's important to know that this parcel cannot support the, and pay for the construction of that parkway through it's, the entire length of the property. That is down to the wetlands to the west part of our parcel. That just is not feasible. We have a difference with staff on several issues. One of which is we're not 100% sure that it's going to be real easy to get a DNR permit to cross that beaufififl wetland. We deal with wetlands all around the area and our policy as a company has become to, whenever we possibly can to stay away from them but this is the kind of thing that a private developer would never dare try to do. And while I understand there's some larger public issues here, where we get caught in the conflicts involved in trying to preserve wetlands and they come quite often but a condition that's in the staff report that's somewhat troublesome is that all of the permits for that crossing have to be obtained before we can do our development. And you know and we know that that means that this project is frankly out there a ways and that's a burden I think that we would not like to be involved with. We would pl~er to not build that. Not only not pay for that road but also not have that road built across that wetland. We think it'tt possible to serve this site with a much less road that would be designed to carried must less traffic and just hook up to the north and have a right-in~ght-out intersection on TH 5. I don't know how that would be resolved but I think that's one overall planning issue. On the question of density that you've been discussing, I think it's important to note that north of the parkway we're proposing that the density that is significantly less than the maximum density allowed, or planned in your comprehensive plan. You're talking between 4 and 8 and we're at 5.86 units per acre. The landscape plan frankly, in our 25 year experience, is the most generous landscape plan we've 51 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 ever put together but we turned it over to our landscape archiU~ and I said go to it. I said here's your proposed ordinance. There were about 3 ordinances that we're working under that are not adopted by your city but have been proposed that we're trying to con~ly with. One of which is the tree ordinance. The tree preserv~on plan. Maybe that has been adopted. Okay, it had not been when we started the process but we asked our landscape architect to prepare a plan that met your ordinance and we'll be happy to hear...thst he did, and it does and it's very, very generous by any standard in our standard of experience. It's ~roubMsome that we are, I don't mind shifting the trees around on that site. Frankly I certainly didn't realize that we had more uees on one side of the parkway than on the other side but we can shift those trees. To be asked to add a si~acant screening along Highway 5 I think is troublesome. That is a problem for us. On the existing screen on Highway 5, and I'nt..but there is a nice row of evergreens along Highway 5 now and there's also a significant bcnn, natural berm and we'd like to leave that there and have that serve. Now I understand the MnDot plans, we have had access to MnDot plans for Highway 5 and we understand that it's, that those trees are within the fight-of-way. And here again, MnDot has no twuble. I would think that it might be possible to encourage MnDot to leave those trees there. I don't know if we can get a commi~t at this point from them but I thinir that would be a reasonable request to ask them to do with...m~s that do form a nice, natural berm or screening there. I'm wondering if you could, would it be possible, well before we do that. I have a few renderings and I'll go just a little bit into the idnd of units that we're propo~ng. North of the parkway, and south of TH 5, we're propo~in§ to build units in 4, 6 and 8 unit buildings~ I'm wondering would this work for everybody or no? It doesn't work for you, does it? Oh great. Scott: You can put it facing over here and then the camera will pick it up for anybody who wants to see it on the monitor. John Peterson: Okay, great. These are, this is a rendering of the 8 unit version of this building. One corlv, ction in the staff report, it talks about that we have in the opening paragraph that we have 1 or 2 single or double garages in these units. One of the differences between this proposal and some of the proposals, or any proposals that you've seen on this site in the past, is that all of our garages are double garages. We do not have any single car garages proposed on _this site. Where you see an 8 unit building on your plan, this is what you would see. This would be a 4 unit version of that same, the ones that are north of the parkway. The units are 1,400 square feet plus. They have a bath and a half. Two bedrooms, fireplace is standard. Air conditioning is standard. It's really hard for me to tellyon price ranges and we developers hate to get pinned down to price ranges because we obviously don't know all the costs and we won't know exactiy where they're going to end up. It would be my best guess today, on June 15th, that the pricing would be between, I'm going to make it a fairly wide range here. Between $85,000.00 snd $105,000.00. Maintenance fxee siding. Double garage. The units have on the lower level a living wont, dining are~ I have the 52 Planning Commisdon Meeting- June 15, 1994 sketches but I won't ~how you all that right now...We have an upstairs. There are 2 bedrooms plus a loft area. The t~r§eted rnark~ surprises us a little bit. We have this product approved in the cities of SL Louis Park, in Roseville and Champlin. This wouid be the fourth sil~ on which we would like to put this project. St. Louis Park we have not begun consmicfion~ Roseville we have our model nearly built. And in Champlin also we have the model underway. We are in those two, the two locations that we're really actively marketing fight now we're finding it becoming to more over 50 and above people than we thought we would. We thought this would be for the young people, possibly coming out of aparunents but we're not talking to those people so we don't know where the market's going to settle in but I think it would be young professionals, empty nesters. The empty nesters like that single level That's a disadvantage of this. They really want to be on one level but they're still talking to us about this projecL We think those are the two markets that we would experience. Now south of the parkway, we're proposing in twos, threes and four configurations of 2, 3 and 4. The rendering that I have here is a 3 unit building. It's a more expensive product These will be between $120,000.00 and $1//0,000.00 and they are all double garages. They're up to 1,800 feet. They're between about 1,600 and 1,800 square feet. And this is going to be, we think, predominantly people 50's and above who have lived in this area and would now want to be...and they want a nice townhome. The entire landscaping plan will be in/gated, of course. Underground sprinkling. And in the south of the parkway, Of the 52 nnits, I think it's 18 will be, would back up to the open space, the wetland and we expect this to be just a really highly ~le, beaufifilL I guess that's relative and...developer on it but really a nice wwnhome development It would be a real positive addition to your city. We have the capability in our company to do 3 dimensional renderings and I didn't get every 3 dimen__ ~onal rendering that you want. We guessed at what angle we should do it and we did it at that angle. It turns out that the slaff report is asking for one from Highway 5. I don't have that but I do have this. That's going to be kind of small. Maybe you can see it okay... We have here a 3 dimen_ sional rendering. The aerial view of what we expect the neighborhood to look like if it were developed and complY... I'll address a couple issue~ I talked about the landscape plan. I talked about, or no. I didn't talk about Iree protection. We think that the staff had a good idea. Maybe more than one good idea. Several good ideas but one of the ideas that they had that we think we could work inw the scheme is moving the retaining wall that is adjacent to the single family homes somewhat closer to the single family homes and we can save a few more tree~ However, it is really difficult for us to save trees, very many trees, a significant number of trees, in the parcel that would be right behind the people that are here in their single family homes and south of the parkway. I think we're rep~g with our generous ~ plan, according to your ordinance, those trees and we think we can do a Ettle better, not a lot. The mith of the matter is, that that site which slopes down towards the wetland, lakes some grading and it takes some, a little bit of... takes the planting back in of some trees to replace what we take out. I have with me tonight Derrick Passe, who's a principle of Passe Engineering and he's Planning Commir~ion Meeting - June 15, 1994 our engineer for many years and he's prepared to address issues, specific issues that you may have on the grading plan and we'll talk about that at this time. I guess there are several other things but maybe I should just leave it at that and see what other concerns you may have and I would be happy to be available to answer any questions. Scott: Yes. Ledvina: I had a q~on for the applicant. What are your specific thoughts as it relates to open space that people are looking for in these types of developments and what provisions have you here for that type of situation? John Peterson: Okay, that's a good question. I did have it on my notes based on the comments that had been made. Your Parks Direaor I believe it is, has assured, has commented to me that the land that we will be giving to the city as pan of this wetland which is substantial, 43 acres. And the trail system around the site and some additional land that will probably be taken as part of the Opus developnamt to the west, that that whole system is probably, will probably be the largest public open space area than anywhere in the city of Chanhassen, and you know that better than L I think I'm quoting him accurately. My comment would be that this site, even though the density is normal for us. It a~ears to be high, is h'nmedia~ly adjacent to a tremendous resource that is opea space. There is a lot of open space. The question of totlots for these people, there are at least two problems. Well, I'll start this way. In two of the developments that we did many years ago where we used to put toflots in, the homeowners associations, when the Board of Directors was formed and the people started paying the insurance, the developments with the toflot, which is tremendous. The insurance costs are very, very high and the association has a very high level of liability with totlots. And the lack of use, two Board of Directors said, of course those are the ones that I'm aware of have act~, in our developments, have taken the toflots out and they've been able to do that. I mean they voted and gone to the city and taken them back out. We have not done one development in the last several years where we have built a private toflot Scott: But you're talking about like a playground with playground equipment, right? John Peterson: That's what I'm talking about. Scott: Not just more of a passive, open John Peterson: Okay. Now in terms of this partimflar site. One of the comments that your Planning Commission Meeting - June 1:5, 1994 staff made is along Oalpin Avenue, the 4 and 8 unit buildings that we have there, are somewhat lined up. I'd like to explain why we did that. We lef~ a rather large space, I'm going to step over here. Here's Galpin right over here. And we discussed this at length with your staff. The entire sit~, the farm buildings that are there and the out b~ilrlings and the large trees that are a part of that will all be left. I mean the buildings won't be left but that is a significant open area that we, that will be available to the residen~ and that would be potentially, put park benches in there. But I would not want to put a swing set in there, and that's not the right location anyway. But the combination of this plus the large open space. And that reminds me of one other issue that I need to just mention. We've been in contact with your staff of course and also with the property owners to the west, the Opus parcel I believe it's called. And there is some question on the alignment. I'm wondering if you could put up on the screen for me the layout. Thi~, how this road would cross the wetland, the exact location of that road is undetermined right now but it's the view of the property owners to the west, and I think the staff is concm'dn§ with this. That _this probably has to be tilted slightly to the north. And we've agreed to do that but we didn't redo all of our drawings because we don't know exactly where that should go. They've identified where they wonld like it. Oh yeah, okay. Good. This is not exactly aoctmite. The people, the Opus people to the west would like it slightly north of this but it would take a rather minor. I just want for the record say, that we're willing to do that and we feel it can be accommodated and I think staff agrees that that is not a major problem. Are there any other question~? Scott: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Do you have any questions for the applicant? Farmak~: I have no questions for the applicant, if you're asking me directly. Mancino: And I have no que~ons. Scott: Thank you. Thanks very much sir. This is a public heating and may I have a motion to open the public headn§ please? Maneino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anybody who wishes to speak, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself and give us your address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public heating please? Excuse me, sir. Please do. Howard Dahlgren: I wanted to give the others a chance to speak first but my name is Howard Dahlgren. I live at 1786 Irving Avenue South. I'm one of the partners in the Opus :55 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 land to the west. We've been working with the city, as you folks know, for almost 3 years now developing plans...and u'ying to do it carefidly and...the development of this ~ with Good Value Homes of course is the vehicle for getting utilities to the Opus property. So we support the development in the sense that we must have utilities in order to develop the land. And this development provides the vehicle to get utilities to the site. That's been planned with your en~neering folks, with your staff and with the consultan~ We've met with all those folks again and again trying to work all this out so it will work well for everyone. Mr. Peterson mentioned our problem with respect to the...that east/west road. If it lines up with where we have it planned on our preliminary plan that you have given concept approval to about a year and a half ago, it will save the site south of that road. If you draw it where they have it, it will run right throu~ thc highland and we lose a site so that's one of our problems. We went over that directly with the staff and I think we all concluded in the meeting we had here recently that if we bend the road slightly to the north, it will line up where we have...all along and will give us the site to the south and there will be a wetland to the north. So in summary, we support the development. We feel it fits with the comprehensive plan. The land that we have of course, as you noticed, is planned for industrial We want to do a very nice industrial park there. That's our objective. We support it. We do need the utilities and we would like adjustment on that roadway so that it can meet what we had proposed and save us...We appreciate the opportunity to... Scott: Thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? May I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearin~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mnncino: Okay, I'm going to bring up some topics and I'd like everybody to respond. First of all Kate or Bob, can you respond to the applicant's concern about the parkway and whether it can end at the wetland and go north and have a right-in/right-out on Highway 5. Aanenson: Staff has always supported this and it's on the comprehensive plan as a southern frontage road...parkway. We feel it needs to go through. There's going to be people living here. The purpose of those frontage roads is to keep people off of Highway 5. Tlne...to get people over to the school. People working at the Opus project without going onto Highway 5. Not only that but the utilities will be §oin§ across _this section anyways. We certainly believe that based on, as Mr. Dahlgren indicated, we've got a touch down point on the Opus site that we feel is the most sensitive to get it across there on their property. We certainly feel like this is a wetland that we want to work to enhance with no development on the 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 western portion of that. We feel like we can do a lot. There is a wegand north on the Opus site and then another upland area where we're going to preserve the integrity by keeping it park and natural area so we feel like even though the road's going across, that's going to be very nominal as far as the overall ~ so we'd certainly support the decision made a while ago about the integrity of having that road go across, We feel like it can be minimi~,d through the wetland. As far as the...when we first met with Mr. Peterson that the city would support the application process as far as the permilfing process Time are also...as far as how that road gets paid for with this development...if the road stops at this end of the development, how that road gets paid for. $o there's several options that can happen there. But as far as the road going through, we would certainly support the road to go through and we would not reconunend that it be stopped at the cnd of this development. That would just force more traffic onto Highway 5. Mancino: Okay. Conceptually land use, and I'm looking at, I feel very comfortable with the north side of the frontage road being multi-family and medium density as it is. I would like to suggest not a line up of the units as they are. I'd like to see them more creatively placed. I mean those are pretty good sized units. Each nnit building is what, ll,200.feet. That's a fairly good sized foo~t. So I would like to see them adjusted so they're all not lined up. I would also like to see, Jeff brought this up last time on Mission Hills, some variation in the architectural detail upon them and the color of them. Whether that's paint. Whether that's aluminum siding. But I would not like to see them all being exactly.the same. South of the frontage road, land use. I still support, in a little different fashion, thc comprehensive plan guided use for single family, low density south. And the reason why I say that is because of the, where it is adjacent to a wetlan/L A wonderful, gorgeous place for single family. It could be low income housing. Whatever. It has single family to thc south. It has single family to the west. Or to the east. And also the other feeling that I get is that these places where we have designated for multi-family, that the footprint of that rrmlfi-fam~y doesn't get too big so it's a sea of roofs as far as you can see. And I'm a little concerned about that. The view from Highway 5 south inw seeing a sea of roof tops. Since I don't have a perspective from that, I can't tell you exactly what that will look like. but that's my concern. That talks about my land use issues. On the Highway 5 where it buffers Highway 5, I would definitely want to sec more screening, more buffering from the roadway. I'm not sure ff the existing pines can be saved but I would like to see mare actually south of the pines. Some of them are in good condition. Some of them are not. I live on Galpin so I see them quite a bit. Bob, you talked a little bit about the massive grading and what were your concerns and what are some of your solutions for that? Generous: Both Dave and I went back and forth on this one. It just seemed that there was exce~ve grading on this site. You couldn't really tell based on the plans we have but it looks like there were things they could do such as moving an 8 unit and replacing those with 57 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 smaller units that might not need as much gl~_rling. There's a, we realized from the elevations that there's a knoll on the eastern edge and it sort of goes down from that so we're going to have to bring the development down a little bit. Mancino: Oh, right where that cul-de-sac is? Generous: Just northwest of the first in--on of the privat~ road and the collector street in thcrc and there's a Y. That's one of thc high points on thc site. And they're right. It does slope down to the wetland area. There's a big question, when you get to the far ~ edge of the development, it looks like they have those at a 14 foot elevation change and the small little...at the ends, how are they handling that? Is that all fill? Could they st~'p this development more? And those are some of the issues we wanu~d the applicants engineer to bring out. We also had a tough, ~ I said, with the scale of the grading plans, it was really hard for us to decipher all the changes that were being proposed so one of the Mancino: I know one of the things we discussed on Highway 5 guidelines was having a much more natural topography as much as we possibly can so I'd like to see that worknd on in this concept. And in the Opus too. We talked about that. The rollingness. Not the steep retaining walls all the time. To keep some of the rolling hills still there. Not to level them off and have nothing and have just cut off retaining walls. 1 love the parkway with the, I think the...effect is good. Could be beau~ there. The boulevard trees. I don't know what they are. Do you know what they are? Generous: Lindens. Mancino: And that's on both sides? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Up and down. That's great. Those are my comments for right now. Sco~ Okay, ~eff. Fannakes: I heard a comment about the, or excuse me. The comment's already been made about the density. I guess in looking at the overall path, it's kind of clusmring, although they won't be able to build on it, it's still philosophically what they're doing is in a way clustering to move it up. It is creating bah'lets between other usages. Si~i~cant barriers so we don't get into the situation where we're bnilding a fourplex and then a duplex and then a single family home. So I guess I'm, with this particular development I'm comfortable with how 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 that's laid out. The grading may reduce some of that. I would also back up the grading issue. I think we should follow that on everything, parfi~ly these higher medium density developments where, and including the industrial development next to it where it's ~rr~ly easier to get more on when you level it out. I really would like to see more massing of txees. I realize that there's a limited amount of space for your right-of-way but maybe the city can get involved in what's sitting up on Highway 5 there because some of those trees are not in great condition. The clustering that you have on the northeast comer there, where you see that clump of trees up in the comer. I'd like to see more of that, which is more of Morri~h had on his drawing~ Where you get more of a naturaL..clustedng look rather than rows of trees all in a row. And even on the west side also where the pondin§ is, the trees sort of stop there and don't §o into that comer. Where you would get a view on that angle from TH 5. Are we §oing to see actual matx~ds that are being used when thi~ comes back? Aanenson: That's why we're just receding concept at this point... Farrnakes: Okay. But we will sometimes we get a brick and sometimes we get materials or we get a concept of what is going up. In partlY, the reason I ask is with these no maintenance materials, and we were ~g issues of where you see a large grouping of homes where they're all the same color. The idea being is that we maybe should look into this on a recornrmmdation of how we deal with that on our PUD. You don't want to create a company town or look where you get all these neutral taupes where you get 500 buildings all in the same color. And one of the buildm~ that I think did a good job with it is Centex over in Eden Prairie. They used neutral coloring but they have subtle changes in color of these no maintenance ~ And it makes it look more like a, more random like people's homes rather than a big company look to it. I just talked about Highway 5. Mancino: ...concerned about some of these details... Farmakes: The issue of distance on this plan, as I look at it, it's really not that bad as I'm measuring it out. Maybe it's the same as it was before but L..on the previous plan. Aanenson: 75. Mancino: It is 75? And that's minirrmm. 75 is the minimum and 150 is the maximum. Farmakes: Let me just jump back into, before we start talking feet here. The intent with this partioflar development, and you add it to the other developments as talk about it. I might as well use this as an example. When we get that medium or high density corridor, which is what it's going to wind up being, up and down TH 5 between Lake Ann and TH 41, with the exception of a couple of business developments. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: You keep ~ellin§ us that but we're not going to see it. We already know what's happening on either side of thac Narmakes: Okay but I disagree with that. I disagree with that it isn't going to happen but it is. That's what we're seeing up and down the hi.way. Aanenson: This is thc only one on the south side. Farmakes: On the south side, that's com~ Mancino: East of the schooL Farmakes: You have the school and then you have the previous development that we saw from the blond fellow, what's his name? Scott: Heritage. Aaneuson: And we're not sure... Mancino: Well we talked about zero lot lines. Farmakes: ...north side of the highway. I'm lalking about conceptual here when we're talking about up and down thc highway. Both north and south side. When we're talking about this type of development. What we're doing is we're grouping all the density homes, and it's in our plan. It's in our comp plan. It's not a surprise to anybody. But when we're talking about, when we're talking about ~ siting, and we were talking about this type of grouping of density, what we're doing is we're going to crea~ we're shoving all these buildings fight up against TH 5. This type of housing and I'm wondering if somewhere, either in the north side or in the south side they're not connected. She's right. They are broken up by industrial use and they're broken up by the school. But we might want to consider somewhere along TH 5 the breaking up of ~ group. Now they went with the alternate site where, if they go with one and it runs all the way down to the highway. There's going to be a significant corridor of housing similar to this. And I'm just wondering if bring it up, you may want to consider that maybe even altering the comp plan to break up some of that or to at least be cognizant of the fact that we may wind up with a corridor of that visual. Not n~y all connected but visually as you drive down. You get the type of density that you see on 169 and some of the areas in Minnetonka. Some of the ones farther north up on 494 and 100 where literally you can drive for 10 minutes and see nothing but high density. But this is small. It's on a small scale. Actually this is, for this type of housing, this is what I like to see. I like to see a smaller scale and it does utilize the Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 clustedn§ well with the existing property. On the setback on TH 5, if we can get more uees in there, with this particular slice, I'd be fine with that. If we can get more trees along that Highway 5 corridor area. I'll leave it at that. Scot~ Okay, Ma~. Ledvin~ Well I would support the other comments that the other commissioners have made. As far as the land use south of the parkway, I don't know. I think Nancy you're thin,rig that that should be single family residential? Mancino: I can see single family. Actually almost mixed use. I can see single family along the wetlands area going north and then maybe the two unit areas in the middle there and doing a nice kind of a mixed use south of it. Because I think that they are nice mneaities for single family and I do also think that we need some moder~e priced homes in the area. Single family. Not just multi-family. I mean whenever we talk about affordable housing or moderat~ priced homes, it's always got to do with multi-family. I would like to see some single family too. Farmakes: Now that's not going to run up. This isn't affordable housing. This is not... affordable. Ledvina: Well I can understand your desire to mix the housing and, but I don't know about specifying that to that level for thc devel~er, you know I think we can say maybe the d_enaity should be decreased down there or maybe try some 2 units or something in there or I don't know. I don't know that. Aanenson: We looked at that...the way we loohxi at it is, you can have 4 to 8 on the north side. He's indicated he's got 5. He's at thc low end. So if he comes back with a different product, as you indicaled Matt, and you come in with single family here, then we come back with something complel~y different on the north end....see that the north end is kind of palatable the way it's laid out. The. .. orientation of the buildings...but when you start messing with the bottom end, and then what does that do to the upper, to the northern... Ledvina: Yeah, and I'm sen~tive to that. So I guess I don't know. That's a real tough issue. But I don't know. Aanenson: ...mix them up more. ! J~ you said, maybe do the duplexes throughout and that's what Bob is saying with the grading plan it maybe is appropriate where you mix them... Ledvina: Right. Where you can use the larger, or I'm sorry, the smaller building footprint in 61 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 a sensitive area to reduce the gra__ding. That you know, that seems to be a good idea. Ledvina: Right, exactly. Mancino: That's where a lot of. Ledvina: So maybe some variation can be done in fluit specific area wilhout you know messing too much with their density that they're looking for. In terms of units per acre. I don't know. I'm interested in what Ladd may have to say on that I think some of the other things, that open area where the abandoned house is, I think that's a nice opportunity for the developer. I think he had a good idea that I hadn't seen in here before as it relates to the passive use of that area as park or open space or whatever. I guess maybe ff that coold be a littlc bit more inviting and I don't know how that's done. With maybe just a small trail segment into that, I don't know but something on that nature, I had a question for stuff on the trail along the edge of the wetland. I presume that we're going to be maintaining our setback and does the trail, as it's drawn, do that? I suppose we don't have to specifically worry about that now but. Generous: Well I believe the way Todd is propo~og this whole thing, that we would maintain that buffer strip outside of the trail...the trail wider than it actually is. Ledvina: $o you're saying that the trail will not be bulk within the. Ledvina: Within the buffer strip, okay. Genemous: Yeah, it would be within the 50 foot setback or 40 foot actually... Aanenson: It is classified as an ag urban wetland... Ledvina: Okay. Within the setback or outside of the buffer, okay. Akight. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Bob the, do you like the density transfer? Has there been something that you think is neat over there and what you're giving up is, you know the reason this was ~ngle family 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 was because it was next to our favorite Timberwood, right? So you're comfarlable that Timberwood's protected in terms of transition? Kate you too? You're comfortable with Aanenson: Well we have a concern with the, as indicated thc grading and the tree loss... Conrad: The issue's not density down there per sc. The issue is buffer. Aanenson: It's a transition. If you look at how much open space is left on the other side, I ~ it's just pushed in this corner. But again, I think if we looked at a different product, as I indicated, and you put more on this, I'm not sure that would make it, more on the north side, I'm not sure that would make it a better product either. But I think we're on a good stnn. We need to look in a little bit more detaiL.. Conrad: I just need, you know you guys are planners and you have to assure us that we're doing the fight thing for ~ood. I love density u-ander, h's a good use. It's neat to do. It looks like we can do it here. But I also have to be, I need your best guess that it's doing what we want it to do, or I want your best guess that we're buff~g Timbcrwood too. I just want to reinforce some quick thoughts. What Jeff said, the building designs. We need a little variety in here and I think what Jeff's con~nents were real valid. I just don't want the some color modifications. I would like Kate or Bob, f. you could bring back, when this comes back in a preliminary mode, I'd just ~ your recommendafi~ in internal sidewalks for high density areas. I'd just like you to think about it and tell me what you think. Okay. And then at the same time when this comes back in a preliminary stage I need, and you could probably do it now. I don't want to do it. I need to know the hnpact of the parkway on the wetland that it's going through. I just have to feel comf~le again that the impact on the wetland as the road goes over it, is not just killing the wetland. I don't think it is but I need to know that before I can approve this. And the grading. All the things that have been said about grading I really believe in. That just has to happen. So again, I really like what staff said. I like what Bob said when he kicked this off and the things that he wanted to look at. Overall I think it's fairly decent. But I would hope that the developer could start reducing some of these points. I pretty much agree with what the stuff has there and I guess I'd like to see fewer items coming back next time and not just leave them 3-4 pages long. I'd like to see some movement on that because I don't think we're that far off. That's all. Scott: Okay, thanks. Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd like to follow up. On thc situation with thc permits for thc wetland alteration. The developer has stated that they want to disconnect the approval with those 63 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1:5, 1994 requirements. What are your thoughts on that and I guess my initial thought is that, we want to have this thing together as one project and I don't think we can separate those things but. Aanenson: Plus as a part of this, we're tranderring some of that density. We're looking at the whole property and putting it on one side. I rrr, an yes, the development's heavy on one side but we're looking at the whole gross acreage. We can't just wash our hands of the road because the development stops there. The ugh'ties are going through that segmenC This is a wetland. We've cerlainly identified that we want to locate. .. and we will wack to secure the... Ledvina: Well one thing that the applicant n~ntioned that this would slow them down potentially. Do you see that? I mean is this going to be a long, drawn out Aanenson: Well that...one condition in the staff report by en~neering that the condition 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the necessary permits. Ledvina: Right, I saw thac Aanenson: I guess pan of that too is we want to locate, we want to tie down the alignment of the road. They're kind of fled together. We know the touchdown, we have an approximate idea of the touchdown on the Opus site but where it crosses the wetland, it's my understanding the DNR... Maybe that can be modified as we move along to the next... Ledvina: Okay. Sc, otc Good. I don't have anything to add. Mancino: I have one question. Bob, you've got on 31 that thc grading has to stop within 10 feet of the natural wetland. 10 feet7 They can get within 10 feet? Generous: Well that's the minimum buffer strip. Mancino: What's the maximin? I mean isn't there a max and a rain? Generous: Well acms_lly it's 0 to 20 with a 10 foot average. Mancino: Okay. I just, I was surprised that the natural wetland, that you can get machinery within 10 feel Aanenson: It's not a natural wetland. It's an ag tuban. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1~, 1994 Hempel: Diane has classified certain portions of the wetland south could be considered natural. Aanenson: But generally it is classified as an ag urban. Mancino: But you can get within 10 feet of a wetland? Aan~n: This land up here is all ag urban. What she's saying and this comes out of Diane's report, the southern end where they're not doing anything, where we've got a passive area. There's a...that are pretty high quality. Portions of this whole wetland. That's the part we would look at...that natural. That's why we're saying, our intent for this development is to upgrade that wetland. We think it can be made into something very nice. Ledvina: We'll maybe even want to have staff take another look at that specific elearumt and potentially increasing that to prot~'t those southern areas of that wetland, if it is in a more natural state. Whatever. I guess we, in the preliminazy, we'H see that again and maybe we can revisit that. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: Well I would recomrr~nd the Planning Commission recommend to City Council conceptual approval of PUD ~)3-5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural ~, A2 to Planned Unit Development and pre~ plat. Whoops. No. Excuse me. That's it. Subject to the conditions in the slaff ~ And I don't have any changes. Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment? Ledvina: Do you want to second it? Mancino: Second. Scott: Is there any discussion7 Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment and that has to do with, let's see. I think the 3 of us talked about and that is we'd like it to come back to the ~ plat to see some variations and architectmal details and colors so they're not all the same. That there is some diversity in that look. And Bob, a question for you. I would specifically like to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in that southeast comer. Is that specific in here? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 1:5, 1994 Generous: Not specifically. I want them to come with a tree protection plan. Mancino: Okay. And I will say that 37 has to do with, well is that okay Matt? Lcd~: Sure. that's fine. Mancino: Adding the architecuual and color as an amen~t and the 38 would be, for staff and the applicant to look at reducing the grinding and the tree loss in the southeast comer of the development south of the parkway. And 39, and I think you may 'have this in here. Tslicing about increadng the landscal~g parallel to Highway 5. Generous: Yes, number 5. Under 12 1 mean... Mancino: Okay. And I would also, you know as you look at tha~ if we need to add more to the setback on Highway 5, I would be in favor of that to give more screening. Ledvina: That's acceptable. Scott: Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commis~don recommend to the City Council conceptual approval of PUD 893-~ to remne 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Devdopment, PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Devel~ must contact the City En~neer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. e A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhas~m City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shaU have an unobsmwted width of not less than 20 feel Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal ptwsuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Depamnent - Fire Prevention Policy//06-1991 (copy enclosed). Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 Chanhass~ Fire Depot policy on Premise Iden~on must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Depot - Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to City Bngineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). 8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Depm'mgmt, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. e Revise the preliminary gr~,ql.g plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval 9. Obtain demolition permit. This should be done prior to any grs_ding on the ~. 10. Adjust property lines to permit open_ ings and projections in exterior walls or conFrrm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. 11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops/sheRers within the development. 12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a more equitable distribution of trees throu~om the site. Additional groupings of evergreens sludl be planted along the northern project boundary to provide additional screen~ lng and to prepare for the possible future removal of thc evergreens in the right-of-way with the widening of Highway 5. 13. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as uee preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be altered to minimize grading (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc. 14. Staff recommends that the applicant alto'hate building orientations along the eastern and western pe~ of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the app~t Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 1994 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 0e 21. should exchange one or two six unit structur~ along Galpin Boulevard (c.g., exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. Pay park and trail ~.~ as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the construction of the trail se~t within the devel~t and or the dedication of park land. If feasible, two water retention ponds should be combined to one large wat~ ret~mfion pond locamd in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes there, afu~ for safety purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to City su~ff for review and approval prior to final plat considemtion~ The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate wa~' quantity fees based on the City's Surface Water Mam~mt Plan. Staff has estimated the propos~ development would be responsible for an estimm~ water quantity assessment fee of $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable lancL The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the overall development. Staff will review the final co~on documents and delta'mine the applicable credits, if any. The SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval process wi]] be adj~ accordin~y. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be com~. tible with future street grades along Oalpin Boulevard. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall si~e hnprov~ts. The street shall be construcUxi in accordance to State-~ slandards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota ~nt of Transpomfion, State-Aid olde. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of En~neers for extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parceL The applicant will be required to enter into n PUD/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial secun'ity and adrninis~~ fees to guarant~ compliance with the conditions of approval 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard public ~crnents shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the prot~ abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days dm' the fumi plat is approved. 4e The applicant shall provide a copy of thc covenants for re'view and approval by thc City. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and di~ons of all corrected house pads or other documenlmion acceptable to the Building Official 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necess~'y permits from the reguhtory agencies such as the MPC. A, Health ~t, Watershed District, DNR, Army Coxps of En~neers, Mnr)OT and Carver County Highway Depamnent. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 28. Erosion conlrol meas~ shall be consistent with the City of ~ Best Management Practice Handbook. 29. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas wi_thin the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation meamn~ shall be completed in conjunction with the site grs~ding and restoratioix ~0® The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDOT's State-Aid office approving the street alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised aggordingly as a result of the Stat~-Aid review ~. 31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be main~ around all natural wetland~ Thi.~ will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wet[ands. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflec~ ~ req~t 69 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 32. 33. The applicant shall provide a full-time, on-site construction inspector for the construction of the frontage road. The inspector will need to be State-cerfif~L A driveway or cross-access easements including main~ agreements will be needed for the private drives throughout the development. 34. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re-evaltmtezL 35. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed project and the frontage road as one project. 36. The City requires detailed sttmn water quantity and quality cakulations from the applicant prior to final plat (storm~ system should meet the City's SWMP requirements)." 37. The applicant shall incorporate architectural and color variations to the housing 38. Staff and the applicant shall look at redut/ng the grading and the tree loss in the southeast comer of the development south of the parkway. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCII, UPDATE; Aanenson: We didn't put one in the pack~ because City Council met Monday ni~t... Kindercare was given concepm~! approval. The list that the staff had put in with all the conditions...it was either table it or give it conceptual Mancino: 26 but. Aanenson: Well there was more than that. There was a conditional use. There were conditions under the site plan so all those had to be incorporated into a new s/te plan and brought back. 7O Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Conrad: To who? Aanenson: The City Council There's some things you can't do. I mean obtain a permit from Mnr~ot, that's not. Anything architectural or that we need to see additionaL.. Fannak~: I thought that the applicant said that they weren't going to change anything, ever. Aanenson: Well, if they don't want to, then I guess... Scott: Tell them that it will corm back here. I bet it will flip flop the parking lot if you say it's going to come back here. Thank you very much. Do we have any ongoing items7 ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: ...shoreland regs and the storm water. See how you would ~ to handle next week. Since you tabled two items tonight. The Coffman plat..~ e 'hminafing 5 lots and. Generous: Potentially.- Aanenson: That we felt the integrity wasn't there so they're going to wait and come in with...so that will be back on~ Ledvina: Are they receptive to doing that? Generous: Not all 5. Aanenson: I _thinir they're receptive to thc issues that were raised though. Generous: They're going to show how they'~ going to address it. Aanenson: And A~fiml Waste is going to be back on. We tabled that and then Roman Roos will be back on. That means we have 3 items fight flu~re. Plus we have quite a few other items that we need back on. Scott: This is our ~uly 6th? Aanenson: Yeah, Triple C. That's the big one that has single family, apartments... Mancino: Where is this? 71 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aauenson: This is for the 6th. Generous: That's if they get their packets in tomorrow. Aanemon: Plus we have Heritage, the single family...I want to talk about that again af~ I get done with the agend~ Anyway, we wanted to open the public hearings. We've got the work sessions going to finish up the sign ordinance. We've got the work session that we didn't quite get over to do the shoreland regs and the SWMP. Farmakes: Could I just interject, as long as you're on the sign ordinance and I saw that Perkins was going to be an applicant... Do we review limitation on height of a flag pole? Aanenson: I've already indicated to them that it's a PUD and it wouldn't be allowed... Fro'make: I was just wondering if legally we could not keq~ that size reasonable. Aanenson: ...so what would you like. Would you like to discuss the shomland, the regs? I apologize for rushing... Ledvinn: Well I'm okay if I can just give you a call, well I can call you and we can talk about it. Aanenson: ...I'd appreciate that. Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know that there's changes that I'm going to want or whatever. Maybe it's real simple. Aanenson: Clarifications. Ledvin8: Yeah, I just want to try to understand what some of that criteria are as it relates to the water levels and such and how those are going to be enfowaxt. I see a few problems with enf~'ty in some of that stuff and I'm almost to the point where if you can't enforce it, leave it out and put it in the intent sta~ But don't make it an ordinance requirement then. $o there's one or two spots that I'd liim to just talk to you about. Aaneason: Okay. How about the, do you want to discuss the storm water... Ledvina: It's huge. Scott: Can I ask just a quick question? Who all's going to be here on the 6th of July? 72 Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 15, 199~ Ledvina: I will be here. Conrad: I hadn't thought about it. I assume I will be. Scott: Jeff, you going to be here on the 6th? Farmakes: I've not planned that far in advance. Scott: Oh yeah, I'm not going to be there and Nancy, you're not going to be here? Mancino: I don't know. Scott: So we're going to have to have somebody take that meeting. Mancino: Okay, if I'm not, I'll call Who would like to? Otherwise I'll rake it. Scott: Yeah, I won't be reachable. Ledvina: Good for you. Aanenson: We're going to have a workshop on the...SWMP plan so what I'm saying is the 6th is full and it gets hard... Ledvina: Well, what do we need to do with this SWMP plan administratively? Aanenson: What you need to do is reco~ adoption to the City Council to hold a public heating. It's really a mini comprehcn~4ve plan amendment so the procedure to go through is you hold a public hearing and take comments. Recommend to the City Council After the City Council adopts it, then we send it up to Met Council for their approv~ It's a comprehensive plan. It's really a sewer and water... Mancino: I don't know enough to do that at this point. Scott: And you've got to read it. Conrad: Yeah, it took a long time developing it. It's son of like Tim Erhart should come in. Did he come in tonight? Aanenson: ...Diane was here and we idnd of went... 73 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Mancino: We could do 2 hours on Saturday morning or something like that. Conrad: It's son of like when you preseni~! the Izee ordinanc~ It's like oh geez, if I try to understand that, I've got to do as much work as you did to develop it. Ledvina: That's what I'm thini~ing too. I don't like to shove off the work but in doing it, but in reviewing it in detail and going through it page by page but that's going to be a tremendous tasl~ Aanenson: No, I think you have to have an understanding of how it works and what the...and we'll certainly have the people here to answer the questions for the public... Scott: Basically what you really need to do is that we need to be spoon fed on these huge things like that and then we also have, I think we were probably more trusting of the commissions and task forces. More so than the City Council is but I think there's a certain level I mean I take a look at this. It's a ~ i ,mpre~e document and I mean I went through and looked at the first couple of pages and you know, I'm sure everybody else did more than that but in my mind I go, you know. We've had x nnmb~r of people 8pending x number of years doing this thing. They obviously know what they're doing so what am I going to add to the process. The executive summary is good because we're going to have to have rudimentary knowledge of the document to be able to comment on developments and so forth but perso~y I don't really see a need to spend a tmrlendous amount of time. Maybe spoon feed us. Get our reactions and maybe, we may come up with something significant like aw man, we didn't think of it. The chance of that is probably pretty low. Not taking anything away from how intelligent we all are but I thinir you know what I'm saying. Ledvina: Oh yeah. Well would you recommend one more work session and then a hesrk~? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: A public hearing. Okay. Aanenson: We did start getting into the slides and then we want to get back to the document where we... Ledvina: Well if we could start on time, we'd be in good shape. I don't know if people can give an hour and a half or whatever before thc meeting. Conrad: It's tough. When you're here from 5:30 until 1:00. 74 Plavning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: How about if we could start at 7:00. If we start at 7:00 and not put any of the development issues on until maybe 8:00. Give yourself an hour from 7:00 to 8:00. Mancino: That's a good idea. Ledvina: This is like to discuss the document. Aanenson: Right. And maybe try to just make a work session or... Ledvina: Why don't we start at 7:00 every _time? I wish we would. Aanenson: We'll see what we get. Some of these things may not come im..they may fall off... Sc, om Okay. Fam2ke, s: Is it still your intent to give visuals to that? We showed the slides for the sign ordinam~ That's all the further we got the Farmakes: To integrate it into pamphlets of some sort for those people who were applying... Aanenson: ...all the definitions in the back. Yeah, I think that's important that we should have to work... Mancino: ...cul-de-sac length. Are we going to revisit that? Scott: That was like our big watershed ordinance, the first meeting we were here. I was all excited. Of course I was all excited about Highway $ and where the heck is that? Farmakes: I'm kind of parfi_'ol to the non-conforming recreational beachlots myself. Scott: I do have a fondness for contractors yards too. Anyway. This is open discussion now. Mancino: We talked about that as 600 and we never did anything about it so. Ledvina moved, Conrad secoaded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p~ 75 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Submimxi by Ka~e Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheirn 76