Loading...
PC 1994 08 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 par~ MEMBERS PRF_~ENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, $oe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Rcm Nutting, and Diane Harberts MEMBERS ABSENT: left Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Directs, Sham-fin A1-Jaff, Planner I~ Bob Generous, Planner IT; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: I~ARVER COUNTY PI~TBLII~ WORK~ FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT FQR ~ RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 17 FROM ~ EXISTING FOUR LANE~ SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD (SE~'TIONS 14 AND 23, T lI6N, 4 23W). UPGRADING OF TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES wrTI-HN ~ F_,XI~TING RIGHT- OF-WAY WILL IMPACT 1.$5 ACRES OF WETLAND. APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND WILL BE CREATED AS MITIGATION. Public Present: Name Addres~ Jon Horn BRW Beth Kunhel BRW Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Blvd. Kate Aanenson inlxeduced Beth Kunhel with BRW to present the staff presentation on thi, item since Diane ~telle could not be present at the meeting. Mancino: How long does it take once you mitigate and ~ a new wetland there. How long does it take until it becomes a natural? Beth Kunhcl: Actually thc area that we're looking at right now for wetland mifi~o~ a couple years ago a beaver had moved in and dammed up a portion of thai drainage ditch and thc city just removed that beaver dam and in the last year or so the ~__tt_nils sprung up so within a year. Or less than a year you can have the wetland vcgetation there. Mancino: It starts. And what we're mitigating right now or filling fight now is all ag wetland7 Are we getting into any natural or pristine wetlands that we're filling? Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Beth Kunhel: No, I believe they were all ag urban, except for the one that was created and that was u 'ttlized. Com'ad: So the ftmcfions of the wetland that we're filling, what were the f'on_etions of those wetlands? Beth Kunhel: Basically storm water and somc...larger wetland area to the south which kept some wildli¢¢ habitat.... Sco~ Any other comments? So you have any other comments for us? This is a public hearing. May I ask, arc there any people who would like to speak on this particular issue? Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearinfb All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak? Let the rccoM show that no one whhes to speak at this .... public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public heating? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to do~e the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Nothing. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for staff in terms of the wetland bank. What do we have in our bank and do we use this just around the city as we fill wetlands for road i .mprovement projects? How does that work7 Hempel: I can answer that. The required, as pan of the wetland loss that right now are in mitigation, when you fill an acre of wetland, you have to replace it with 2 acres. So essentially we're filling 1.55 acres and we're mitigating 3.1 essentially is a wash there... Beth Kunhel: Thc restoration area that we're looking at restoring thc existing wetland and areating additional wetland adjacent to it, there's a good possibility there would be more wetland created than the 3.1 acres. So that could be enrolled inw a wetland banking program. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. What's the balance on our account right now? Hempel: Zero. Ledvina: Zero, okay. So this would be our first wetland banking type of situation? Okay. And again, this could be used for other projects. Sc, om Other city projects or is it specifically for the use of other city projects or let's say another developer, we can apply that? Hemal: We're leaning that way. We're trying to establish a banking program whereby we can actually sell some mitigation areas to the developer down the line here. We can give them a total package on where and how to do that... Mancino: I have a question about that in principle. If we are going in to certain areas and we're filling in wetlands and ~king for mitigation 2 to 1 in that same area? A lot of times it's because there's been habitat and wildlife in that area. Don't we want to ~ the area where we're filling lind putting in the 2 to 1 mitigation kind of in the same way? And even add more to the site specific areas versus making it. Hempel: That's a good approach there to replace...mitigation laws go 2 to 1 so ff we're 61ling an acre of habitat, we'd be replacing it with 2-acres. We're essentially going do we need to replace 1 acre of habitat for the wildlife and so fotth...an extra acre of land... Mancino: And that was the inUmt of the 2 to 1 mitigation? Aanenson: ...ag urban wetland...that we can pick an area such as Bluff Creek where we want to...and we all concur that that maybe that would be an area that we want to do and put it in an area where we want to enhance it as an improvements. So those are what we're trying to get some makings on...the implementation portion that Diane is working on, where the appropriate locations would be. Mancino: That's wonderful. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I don't have any additional comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please7 Planning Commission Me. ting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~)2-5 subject to the slaff, the conditions identified in the staff ~ Sco~ Is there a second? Mancino: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff's recommendation. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~i_'on reconunend approvM of Wetland Alteration Permit ~ subject to the following conditions: 1. The replacement plan includes restoration to the existing Wethnd A. 2. The dcsign and construction specifications must be approved by the City before the- project commences. 3. A wetland bank be established for'the City and the County if the wetland restoration creates more than the required mitigation. e A~ing to the WCA, the project cannot comment until 30 days after the City's decis/on has been distributed to the panics notified of the application. .... The County will monitor the replacement and restoration for a period of five years as required by the WCA. Monitoring forms will be completed and submitl~ to the City at thc cnd of cach growing season with descriptions of thc site vcgclafion, wetland types, and ground photos. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scorn City Council, excuse me Kate. This goes to the City Council on the 12th? Okay, good. Thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 25.85 ACRE~ OF PROPERTY ZONED RR~ RI, IRAL ItF~qlx)E~l. TO RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMiI.y AND PItF. LIMINARY PL~T TQ SUBDIVIDE 2~g$ AO~R~ INTO 21 ~IN~LR FAM~.Y LOT~ AND 30~TS LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3~ T 116~ R ~3~ NORTH OF i:IIQHWAY ~ AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41~ BRENDEN POND~ {~ESTACH AND PAIJLSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst David Gestach Lee Paulson Charles Stinson Sam & Nancy Mancino Peter Davis Steve Buresh 7640 Crimson Bay 8001 Acom Lane St. Bonifacius, MN Dcephavcn 6651 Galp~n Blvd. Mancino: Plaoning Commissioners, I'd like to ask your approval, well just let you know that I'm going to stc'p down from the Planning Commission at this point for the next two subdivisions that are coming in front of us, which is the Ges~h-~ and the Ryan subdivisions because my land abuts their land. I have no financial inte~v, st in it but I do care about what happens so I'm going to remove myself, if that is fine with you. I tallmd to the City Attorney and kind of gone over this with him ~ will take my place as a private citizen and speak from that point of view. Scott: Good, thank you. In view of similar things on other parts of city government, that is definitely appreciated but does not surprise me. Thank you very roach. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. ~: Wlmt's thc, excuse me. What's thc conuncnt by public safety on this issue. I'm trying to determine traffic flow and then stacking up hcrc. Has staff lookrd at that? Hemal: One of thc issues that's been b~ught up in the subdivision before us this evening that is being addressed, that thc in--on spacing w~ Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hernpel: On their submittal, yes. We aid point that out. h would be sufficient, we would ~ tl~ drawings and g~ additional space. Aanenson: I'd like to make a couple of conunents as far as the options. What happened with this is we had the Gestach-Paulson party who wanted to go forward with the plat...Lake Lucy extension. Having done that, the Ryans put themselves in a position where they want to make sure the road that they're designing so they were ready to develop. Well that left us with the concern, is well now Mancino's is the hist big missing link here and...we needed to make sure that access is provided for all propcrti~. If the Mancino's to come in first we would say okay, you need to now provide access to G-cstach-Paulson ~ and to thc Ryan's property so all three parties have been very cooperative and we've spent a lot of time. It's been very difficult. We've kind of wrapped each...issue here as far as on this subdivision but they're all inter related. So wc fried to rnak~ sure that each subdivision provides access to thc adjoining property. It is a complex issue and we're not sure that we've got all the answers but we've tried to give some options that wc think may work. There's some steop slopes on this ~. Significant grade chan§cs. Some nattual features. Wetlands. Heavily wooded areas that wc had to preserve. So it is con,lex but on this, the ~h-. Paulson property, we feel that however wc get access to thc Mancino's, there is one outlot that was platted on the Shirley addition. We're not sure but...would be to the north into the Mancino's so we're saying somewhere, either through the Ryan's subdivision or through the Gcstach-Paulson subdivision, access needs to be given to the Mancino property. And that's why Commissioner Mancino removed herself from this because we're insisting that, whether they develop or if they would scl] at some time in the futm~ somebody may want a public street through there. It may not be them but somehow we need to insure that there's access to that ~ and we're not land locking them so that's why this issues is before you with this sutxiivision. Scott: Just a question. Dave, with the aligunumt that we sec here having access to the Mancino ~ from it looks like between Lots 20 and 21. Is that slope going to be, is it going to be, is it going to be about a 10% grade street or 15% or something like that? Hcmpel: Yeah. We looked at thc topographic maps and it was extremely steop and then I believe the Mancino's had hired an engineer's offi~ to do that as well The grades were pretty significant for this swath. The street would be 100 feet or so in that area. We felt that that was not a feasible route for a city street to go. Scott: How do you feel about that? Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hcmpcl: I would concur with that. I bellevc there arc better alternatives to serve the Mancino parcel than bisecting it in that spccif~ location. Scott: Would you, I mean just from looking at the maps that we are provided, does it appear, at least if we're looking at access from a westerly or southwesterly portion, would you agree that a connection between Lots 15 and 16 would topographically would yield both the access with a minimum amount of disturbance. I mean we don't, obviously we're trying to allow three different land owners to develop responsibly here but just dealing with the access from the westerly side, does it appear that going between Lots 15 and 16 is one of the better aim'natives? Hempel: It is a better alternative than thc southerly one, definitely. There are a couple drawbacks with that one as well. It would be a single loaded street The school property is directly to thc north. If the Mancino's develop, fl~y may not even elect to use that option. They may loop the slreet back internally but at least we're providing an access with the utilities for future extension if so desired. Scott: Is there enough distance inbetwccn, now we need a quarter of a mile inbetwcen access to county mad? What is the distance requiren~nt? Henq)el: In this subdivision here we're looking at 300 foot intersection spacing. The quarter mile refers to artedals like Trnnk Highway 41. Scorn Okay. So there wouldn't be really anything that would preclude an access point to the Mancino property off of CR 117 that was somewhere in the middle of their, I know there's an existing driveway or something like that. Aanenson: And that would be one access. They would have direct access out onto Galpin. What we're saying is, if that was their only access point, let's say. Scott: Well yeah, you need. Aanenson: You would have a long dead end cul-de-sac and that's our...there needs to be another access point into the Ryan's piece which cam.or up through the extension of the cul- de-sac from the ~h-Paulson propa'ty. Scott: Okay, thank you. Al-Jaff: We are ~mlrl/~.dlng a,pproval of ~ subdivision with conditions outlined in the staff report I have some minor changes to some. One_where the applicant needs to shift Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 some property lines to give some...adequate frontage. We also apolo~-¢ for not forwarding the grading plans to you. If there are any questions regarding the grading, it's fairly sirnple and if there are any questions regarding the grading, we will answer them. Vfith that we are ~ding approval of the plan with conditions outlined in the slaff report. Scou: Good, thank you. Any comments from commissioners? Hearing none, would the applicant or their representative wish to speak at this time? Yes sir, please stole your name and your address please. David Gestach: David Gestach...we've been wcn'king with staff and the adjoining neighbors am:! ~ they say, it's been a long process. The first plat was submitted back in '85. That was in 2 1/2 acre lots and then...so it's been a long process so we're appreciate your appr~g the plan. It's basic~y the same layout as far as...but I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Good, thank you very much. David Gestach: And the other thing is, we are willing to provide a public slxeet to the adjoining ~ owners. Scott: Okay. Good, thank you. This is a public hea~g. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to Olna the public hearing. All voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: ff anyone would wish to speak, please step forward. Give us your name and your address and tell us what's on your mind. Steve Buresh: My nan~ is Steve Buresh. I'm more directly in~ in the next it~n but this one does impact me somewhat since I do live on Oalpin Blvd. I do have a few con~ with having lived in this area since 1987 in the Lake Lucy Highlands area. And in that the concerns are with thc extension and then with the two additions that are planning to go in there. Currently we already, as sorne.~ne who tried to get onto Highway 5 every morning, we ~tly have some extreme ~ problems out there in that area and I think that the Planning Commission should definitely take a look at the approvals of additions out there with the current status of Highway 5 and the fact that it's only 2 lane out there. And then also what, basically what impact this, all these homes going into this area are going to have. Scott: So you're concerned about your access from CR 1177 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Steve Buresh: Well with the continuation of Lake Lucy Road there. I'm just about 4 houses down from the inlm'secfion of Lake Lucy, thc cun'ent Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd. The traffic that's going to end up being dumped onto Highway S to the south there and then also currently with the trafl~ that's going through that area fight now in the rush hour period. So I just want to voice that we should lake into consideration the cun'ent roads out in that area before we start expanding that at too large a rate. Scott: Okay. Dave, do you want to talk about the signalization project this fall? Hernpel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The projection with thc new elementary or middle school being constmctexl at the southeast comer of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd, there will be consUuction and installation of a signalized intersection there to assist traffic in crossing Highway 5. This project and Lake Lucy Road extension will ac0mlly probably assist in some of the traffic. Right now you only have one access and that's going south with the e~on of Lake Lucy Road through and provide a parallel street system to Highway 5, approxim~ly a I 1/2 mile north of Highway 5 to give another option to access TH 5 as well But we are well aware of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Oalpin and Trunk Highway 5. We're' working on resolving that. Sco~ Okay, so that signal will be installed yet this fall? Hernpel: Early 1995. Scott: Okay, good. Does that answer your question? Steve Buresh: Yeah. That concludes my concerns. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sam Mancino: Hi, I'm Sam Mancino, 6620 Cralpin Blvd... Nancy Mancino: Mr. Chair, Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. Sam Mancino: First off we'd like to make it clear that we at this time have no intentions to develop. We are merely trying to do some long range planning. As the development around us sets in, it becomes clear that we have to apply ~ pmdent...how we deal with lifts pwperty and allow for future contingende~ But at this time we don't have any _dt~inite plans but we have done some drawings and some planning to...decision. In the process we've talked to a lot of experts and engineers as well as staff...~hed this and we want to kind of walk through some of the issues as we see them. As it regards, ~ first part of ~is area, the Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 basically in terms of the topography for the hst many years, wofldng farms has been mostly clearing trees. The rolling topography remains but most of the uees have been cleared. During that same period of time in the 40's and 50's, our's was the old Slogan Tree Farm and planted a lot of specimen trees. The perimeter is pretty much lined by trees and within the site itself there are a lot of very mature trees. The western half is almost completely woods with a ravine sysmri that runs through it. It makes future development of it possible but as we say somewhat problematic. We have to deal with and _sensitive to it. Our house is located at about the gift point east and west, very close to the southern ~ line. Sam Mancino: By the way, this is Charles Stinson who is an architect who will be helping with the presentation and planning. There's a perimeter tree line that runs the entire east/west portion of the southern pwperty line. Many of you who drive Galpin Boulevard probably are...... familiar with the large stand of arborvitae trees that line the western side of Galpin Road. There's a companion set of arborvitae through here. This entire section is woods and will be...through here, that will meander back into here. The terrain rises somewhat sharply here to a high point. The section near our house is probably at 1,050-1,060 feet and this property falls off down into the 960's I believe or 980's. It's about an 8 foot drop there so just to give you an overall sense of the terrain. Through here there area lot of stands of Ponderosa - pines... As a consequence, most of the people who have advised us about looking at our future development potential, both devel~, archi~'ts, and engineers, have really come pretty much to the same conclusion which is whatever is ~ing here, we shottld pwbably consider that whatever development we do in our propr~ty will be somewhat different than the surrounding developments. Both in terms of the lot sizes, which following the landfonm and the natural trees and vegetafion...force themselves into a larger lot configuration than we see being platted around us. And so our long range thinking is that we will probably tend to develop that as an eye per se. More self contained and for that purpose we probably don't want to gO through...adjoining properties. We've looked at a number of road options. We've been in some discussions with the Gestach-Paulson and Lee and have at one time looked at a variation that staff had talked about us with which had us accessing a road system through here, or a road system through here to serve this property. And perhaps Charles, maybe you can talk to us about some of the things that's happened as a result of that road system. Charles Stinson: Okay. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and I live at 4/33 Eastwood Road in Minnetonka. I was approached by Nancy and Sam about taking a look at understanding that none of us wanted to do a maximum deasity redd~tial area and we 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 wanted to keep and save thc integrity of thc area. I mean it's, with all the development going everywhere and with trees corning down and topography being ripped apart, we wanted to save one of the last stands of just specimen_ trees. I mean there's huge ponderosa pine. Across this area, I mean they're just gigantic. There's a big ravine and again there's 80 feet of drop going from here to down in t~i~ area. A lot of, there's pathways. Just a ~ous amount of trees that were planted 40-50 years ago and they go all the way across the ~. This is totally dense. Kind of an unmolested nature in this area and they actually extend across the property line. So as we looked at it, the first thing we wanted to think about is, as we get back to the road, was just the idea of what can we do to preserve the integrity of this whole area without destroying it. And with the buffers we're thinking, at the beginning point is, areafing a conservation zone that would occur on both our property and the properties abutting that would be desirable for everybody. You know perhaps 30 feet on each side or something but it would be far enough away that it wouldn't deslxoy the root system and that's one of the problems of so many of our developments is we go in and we say well, we're going to miss that tree with the road but by the time we do the glo_ding, it gets wider than we think and dirt is you know knocking the oxygen out of the roots or the earth below the tree and we lose not only where we've just placed the trees but we've damaged everything around it that we'll lose it within a couple years. So u'ying to preserve their root system for everything around, for everybody in the neighborh~. So the idea, and in looking at this and the other, we can look at a concept here of the road but to give you a feeling of how they live there...have lived here for the last 10 or 12 years, is there's a private drive that comes in here. Drive through past the existing houses and reache~ their house. In going in there, so you're just cutting right through the trees. It's just beautifid and very private. And when you arrive at the house, there's a giant meadow that's just going all the way across here that just goes on forever. There's also a large meadow behind their house and wildflower garden and then again the path system going through here is just, you really should take a look at the property. So in looirlng at it, I can address this road alternative but this is an example of what can happen I think just about anywhere where a large street comes through the site. But an engineer took a look at this and showed us the topography so I've just identified the area of the frees that certainly would be lost. And to see that, I mean it's a major displacement of that forest. And even if a natmal road came in the top, it would do pretty much to the top what the same at the top did and all the ponderosas that seem to be here and here would be gone. And it's right next to the school field and it's exposed to the fence and all that. So it didn't seem like a real good altn'nafive. So what we looked at. Sam Mancino: One other point. In addition to just knocking out the Irees, because of the grades. We'd have to probably be either outside...10% grade in some cases which would require, I think that requires cutting down of 10, 12, 14 feet. Behg able to ~11 with 16 feet up in places and being able to...across the whole ravine system so it seemed a bit of a violation to the topography. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Charles Stinson: So in a very ~n form, this ia what we were thinking of. We were thinking if it had to, and we were trying to come up with stages that would happen ~o the Mancino's could live in their house with the same integrity that they do now and the site. $o we thought if, there are several components here but the ravine is so big and this is so dense and the topography is dropping down so much this way and that way, that the service is dipping down here. The best way to service this side, instead of brining a road all the way through, would be having a two private drives off the west side of the pwpertT. One coming up here and would service this lot and this lot with each of them are good sized lots. I'm not sure of the exact acreage they would be. Sam Mancino: Probably 3/4 of an acre. Charles Stiuson: Yeah. And another one coming up at the top. So it would just be a private drive and utilities so anything brought up would actually stop at the conservation line instead of wrecking the trees with these. If it doesn't happen and then at some point we would bring them in. And then thc other access point would be in Lind of a phase one but would be just coming off this existing road up here. That neighborhood and corning out with one cul-de- sac that would service here, here and here with a private drive going to that lot so we could work the homes built in a reaL_solution inW the existing topography.. And. then leaving this all the same as it exists in the middle and just brin~oing in a short road and a cul-de-sac here. Just servicing these lots and keeping and using this, what would be the furore road, as a private drive going to these lots temporarily and that would-leave this whole meadow area as. kind of a neutral open zone and that way we'd be leaving all the trees here, all the trees here, As much of this as we possibly can all in this except for where the road can come in. Mancino's would continue to use their existing private drive coming in and enjoy this area. At some point they retire and move out to the country or something, they could put this road all the way through. Connect the two of them and divide this up into lots and they would have a thru street here and a short cul-de-sac at this point. But from the lower portion, just bringing up utilities because the topography is...bring the utilities in here. Instead of having a thru road going through here, just have the utilities again stop at the bottom of the conservation line and I'm getting ahead of myself on this next site but it's all so integrated that it's doing the same thing here. That way we could bring it up. There is a short open space just by the arborvitaes here. Just on the back side of it that there isn't anything. So we could bring it right across there and if we need to go across, we could just kind of tunnel underneath the trees as opposed to making the big hole there. Sam Mandno: As it relates to the future possibility to hook up to Crestview. Some years ago we were requested to come to thc city Planning and City Council meet~ and we have a note from February 7, 1990 which made a City Council recommendation that at such time that this plat was f'ded, that it should be ~ to provide the right-of-way for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 extension of Crestview Road...feet which basically though it doesn't lock in the exact location of the road, either positions it through here or possibly through here as long as there are some proper buildable lots. So I think that there is some notice in the record that that is a strong preference from staff at one point that recommended that we hook up at that time_. Nancy Mancino: Yes, that is Ixue. That when the Shivley's went in and did, I think it was a subdivision in here. That staff asked to make sure that we had access to the north. And the particular mad ali~rnent, where that access is. Whether it's between here and the~ it was not drawn out. It was not stated exactly where it is. That there is an outlot that was ~ to have a roadway to go into the new property. But the exact location is bemeen there and there...very comfortable that if it isn't right here, it could come over the cul-de-sac and also allow for our entering onto Galpin and there would be two accesses into the ~ so there would not be a long cul-de-sac. Sam Mancino: Just to reiterate my point. Though we've looked at the possibility of bringing in a flow through road, we do believe that we, long term will serve the community's needs to flow a road through into Cres~w, which will create the ~tion and the need. The other thing is that in terms of violating and ripping and tearing the ~, there's two discreet private drives that would be built to city roadway standards would probably be...vimudly no different than a road easement for full service roads. We don't feel that that's much of a burden on the adjoining pr~ owners and we.have offered to help in landscal~g the road. The private drive going in there to be able to winimiTe the imp~ on that. And it also facilitates a better sequence of any future development, whether it's ourselves or someone else in the furore because there are a number of options for sequencing in this area. Nancy Mancino: No, I don't think there is. As just rated, we would recommend that trader the condition of the staff approval that n~ 28 be changed. Instead of having a street access off the, the applicant shall provide a fight-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of thc plat and tying in a temporary cul-de-sac which will be signed on l~rricades to indicate this street shall be extended in the future. That we do reconm~nd that two accesses, two private drives between Lots 15 and 16 and Lots 19 and 20...be approved. Aiso them be a 30 foot conservation easement on the perimeter of the ~ that abuts the Cw, smch-Paulson property. Scott: And from looking at the staff report, you've discussed the private drive issue with the ~esmchs and they've. Sam Mancino: We haven't. Unfortunately haven't been able to work out all of the details of that. As they said, they are, as I understand, they are more than willing to bring a road up at either of the locations. In some conversations we've had we have asked for two private 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 drives in lieu of a single road. At our hue, st discussions, I think that they would prefer a single road, full sized... Scott: Okay. Good. Nancy Mancino: Any questions? Sam Mancino: Any questions? Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hem'ing? Yes sir. Lee Paulson: My name's Lee Paulson. I live in St Bonifacius. Gestach-Paulson Cons~on. We've already gone over this private driveway stuff. My parmer's talk~ to stuff and ~ to Mancino's and our experts tell us that it woukL..our development by having these private driveways running through our development. We don't want private driveways. We agree with staff with Option A or B. We just don't want these private driveways in there..I don't believe staff really wants these driveways. The way I understand it, want the driveways either and we'd like to see this moved on to, voted on and moved on to the next step. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public ~g? Steve Buresh: I would like to comment. Scott: Well why don't we see if there's someone who would like to speak first Or for the first time. Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, my name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Oalpin Boulev~ which is that kind of odd shaped, rectangle in the upper right comer. I just wanted to be reco~ as an interes~ party. I haven't been involved with the other discussions and just to save my remarks for item 3. Scott: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir, if you can make your comments extremely brief then. Steve Buresh: Now that it's been outlined here and made a little bit clenr~, since this does pretty much go along with the concerns that I have for the next item on the agenda too and that is the area that adjoins Galpin Boulevard there. This whole area along Galpin Boulevard is 2 1/2 acres and larger lots and I think that, I don't know exactly what the size of the lots that are being proposed for this section, for that small pan handle section there that runs up to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Galpin Boulevard but I would strongly recmmr~nd that those lots be no smaller than an acre and a half in ordcr to fit in with the aesthetics of the area. This area is also very, there's very much wildlife in the area. I've got deer that go across my ~ all the ~ That's one of the reasons that I moved out there. I was raised on a farm so I like the open spaces and basically I feel that that probably is thc reason a lot of people are out there with the large sized lots. So I guess I'd ask the Planning Commi~on to monitor what size those lots should be in the panhandle section there of that development to make sure that those arc, would fit Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else ~ to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearin~ Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was close~ Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I haven't, perhaps L..what is staff's reaction to the privat~ drive issue? I-Iempel: Maybe I can address first from a utility standpoint. Depending on the length of a private driveway, it's typicmlly 200 feet is probably maximum far the sewer and water extension for a single service. The...we looked at servicing additional lots and properties and trying to get a full sewer line or a water line in there... The other issue is basically...for a single lot or two lots for a privam driveway that responsibility is with that homeowner to maintain that line. Whereby if it's a city street, it's obviously maintained by the city and so forth. With the roadway ext~mion to the northeast cotn~ of the ~, it leaves the option for the Mancino's to either explore a ~ ~a~ street through there or explore stubbing off a private driveway to serve up to 4 lots off of that cul-de-sac. There is significant elevation change from the north end of the property to the south end of the ~ where it may be somewhat difficult to extend the privat~ driveway down to service that area where the southerly private driveway the Mancino's are requesting. That end there...will be served internally through a private driveway through the Mancino's but again there's some steep slopes and ravines and the private driveway would have to meander in order to do that. The private driveway would have less environmental effects, less trees, less grading, to do that but the...so I think staff's position is that we're obligau:cl to look at provi'din§ adjacent properties street and utility service and I believe that's what we're doing in this circumstance. Without a full fledged development proposal before us from the Mancino's, we really, there's a lot of options in developing the ~. The Mancino's are requesting large lots. That's fine. That's great here. It would be nicely ~ed with that. There's also potential that the Mancino's would sell the property at some future ~ to another developer and we would 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 have potentially a 15,000 square foot lot subdivision. So it's critical from a street and utility aspect that it provide the in~rastru~m~ and street right-of-way to service that for a full fledged subdivision. Nul~ing: Did I hear correctly, did the applicant prefer Option A or B and not C? David C~tach: Yes. Nutting: ...Option C. Aanenson: That was before...we asked Mancino's to explare whether or not, there was a portion of this plat that is on the Ges~h-Pa~n that's called Outlot A. This partion isn't being platted right now. That's a future devel~t... ~o's looked at going out through there and we asked them to see... Nutting: I think there are a number of issues here. I think I'm going to defer maybe some of . those to the other commissar. Scott: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I guess just from my perspective, I'm certainly torn with regard, to the-~ty to develop the land on both parties in the way that they want to. When I go back or revisit our other plans with regard to how important it is to the conmmnity with regards to it's natural resources, and the uniqueness that exists on the Mancino property.- I guess I'm not ..... quite sure. I think there's a lot of, I think the commission should maybe have a discussion with regard to some of those values that we place on our natural resoulceS and see if this might be one of those projects that we might want to have some kind of special consideration because of what we're dealing with. The development itseff with regard to the app~t, I guess I'm okay with it in broad concept and I guess my concern lies more with that overall picture, espedally when we're dealing with some of those special resources. And I'm just, I'm undecided. I really am. Scott: So you need more time to consider? More time to think about it or. Harberts: Well mine is, I think maybe it is a matter of more time to think about it because we have a really unique feature here and when you look at some of the work we've done with our other developments, I think it deserves a little extra special consideration here. And you know, I mean Kate kind of characterized it well when she said we don't have all the answers but we're trying. Maybe at this point that's all we can do but it sounds like both the applicant and the Mancino's are trying to work something out. I guess personally I'd like to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 sec this resolved for all parties, including the city. ff we're locking ourselves in by some type of approval on it tonight. I'd rath~ then tabl~ it or ~ I said, see it resolv~ ff we're in fear of locking ourselves into something if approval is given tonight. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Harberts: Did you find your page? Conrad: I found my page, yeah. I like the staff report I think they covered most everything. It seems like a good staff report I like one of thc additions thc Mancino's mede about the tree easement I think that's hnportant. I think what everybody is talking about is sort of unclear in my mind right now. I'm not really sure. Road ali~t for Lake Lucy I think should be as per the original. I don't like Alternative B for Lake Lucy. I like the way it was originally speckeA and I think that's where it should be. In terms of access to the Mancino property, I really apprecia~ what they're trying to do. It's a little bit, yeah it's funny you look at it, it's not based on what we typically do here in our bigger lot subdivisions but what they're trying to do is what we endorse. But to a degree it seems a little bit, it's hard to totally grasp what they're trying to do. I'm not stn'e I unders~ it yet. I certainly don't mind an access to the north off of the proposed Brendcn Pond cul-de-sac going into their property. I'd reduce the number of lots on the plat that I'm currently, on the subdivision that I'm seeing. I think ff a road were to swing to the north off of that cul-de-sac, I'd really, I thinic I'd be eliminating a lot there. And I also, I think there's yeah. I'd be eliminating a lot up there and swinging at least a road or a cul-de-~ into the Mnncino property. I'm not sure how to deal with what they're requesting for the private drive to the southwest of their parcel. Bottom line. lJlce the staff report. Like thc tree easement Road access to Mancino is, I'm up in the air on that I guess I do want an access on the northwest comer. I'm not sure ff it's a private driveway or if it's a connection to that cul-de-sac. If that cul-de-sac literally dead ends into the Mancino pr~. If it dead ends into it, I'd keep a lot, Lot 15. I want to have a full lot there so that would back up to the school I don't really know what I'm talking about because I haven't walkexi the property and I know Matt has so again I guess I'm §oing to, maybe Matt can persuade us a little bit becam~ I know he's been out there and maybe he has a better feel for it. Scott: Okay, Matt. Thanks. Ledvin_n_: Well the issues that are associated with thc plat arc real thorny ones and thc problem that I see thc Mancino's face in tcrrne of their development is that the west part of their property is isolated by a ravine and they feel the need to maintain that landform and also the tre~ that arc associated with that. Because if they go blowing roads through there, I mean they're going to wipe out a ~us amount of really beautifld area and. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Can I stop you for just a second7 How would this fit in with our bluff mdinance7 That ravine. Is that considered a bluff7 Aanenson: I don't believe it would be, no. Ledvimc I don't think it would, no. Aanenson: There is a ravine that topographically. I mean we looked at putting a culvert in there and yes, it does pose a significant...but maybe not. Scott: Okay. I just thought maybe with that ordinance. Ledvina: I don't think that comes into play but in terms of the acces~ I would generally agree with Ladd that the nonhero access be provided. I don't know about the access towards the southeast corner of the Mancino parceL I don't know how that wo~_ld work. There's still, according to the grading plan that the app~t has proposed, there'd be some, it would ...-. really run havoc with their grading plan because they do have some steep slopes right in that corridor. I don't know. It would almost seem that although the pr~ lines have served to kind of define the vegetation for landform to the western, part of the Mancino property is really with this subdivision or with this parcel And so it's always hard when the tines get drawn on the maps and I think that's the exact same thing we're going to see with the other parcel to thc east and in relation to Mandno's south line there too. Although that's, the trees have been come up because of the amount of time. Still it's, you're dealing with kind .:....... of a related land area in terms of the slopes, etc. Okay. Having said that, I wonlri feel that.:.-.: there should be a way of running that nonhero street to the propaiy line and exumdin§ some kind of private drive to the south. I don't know. I think that possibly the south private drive could be reviewed to see if that could be e 'hminated, I didn't have an opportunity to review the grading plan before this evening and I guess I do have some concerns immediately as I look at this grading plan. I think the, first of all I think that a conservation easement of 30 feet along the ~ boundary abutting Mancino's represents an excellent idea in trying to preserve those trees but you, the grading plan as indicated this ev_enin§ grades right to the property line with some severe slopes so I don't know how off the top of my head, I don't know how to remedy that or reconcile the situation with the conservation easement and the grading as shown. Obviously if they're going to grade right to the propaly line, that wonla actually affect some of the trees that actually are on the Mancino property so that essentially is unacceptable, h the other portions of the subdivision I see that the developer is relatively conscientious of the trees that are bordering the wetlmd on the west pan of the parcel and then even in the south. They've done a pretty good job of staying away from the wetland area so it's essentially that difficult area near the southeast or southwest comer of the Mancino's that I think has to be reworked and I don't know if you change the grades here, I 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 don't know how that would change the street grade~ Or what can be done there. If necessary, perhaps retaining walls represent an option. I don't know. The other l~hlng that wo normally have with these phts before we make decisions relates to the m:e conservation and we generally have a tree inventory associated with these developments amd although I can, I generally have the feeling that the trees along the western part of the developnmmt, adjacent to the wetland, I have a feelin§ that the grading doesn't 8o into those trees. I don't really know that. ,~md again, along the east boundary I have concerns there too. There also is quite a bit of grading in Outlot A that doesn't appear to be necessary. And again, I don't know what trees are down in that area and how that's going to affect what could be done there in the future so I think that, I don't know, can they grade on Outlot A? If this is all platted Al-$aff: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So that would be something that I'd like to see also. Yeah, it appears they're grading quite a bit there. Well at any rate, I didn't have very much time to study that plan. Let's see. I guess as far as the street layout, it seem~ to be utilizing the area fairly well. I don't have a problem with that. Snst for looking at some of the conditions of the staff report, there's some duplications in here I ~ Number 8 is repeated as number 14. · And then 25, 26, 19 is also l~peated. Let'ssee. As it relates to number g. Dave, Ihada question on condition number 9. Talking about Lake Lucy Road. Would we also want to identify that those lots that are platted with, or fl~at are developed with Outlot A shall be.. · limited to interior streets or I guess do we have to define that at this time._ I-Ien'~l: I don't believe we do. The other problem we have here is if Lake Lucy Road alignment does get shifted northerly, there is a potential lot site or two on the south side which may be appropriate so I guess at this stage we would have another chance at Ouflot A. That would have to be platted and brought back before you to address that issue. Ledvina: Okay. So we would see Outlot A as a preliminary plat before us again, okay. Hempel: That's coffee/. Ledvina: Okay. I don't know what else I need to comment on here. I guess my overall feeling is that I'm a little uncomfortable. I am uncomfortable with the situation with the tree invenWry. I would like to see the developer and the Mancino's try to work a little bit more on the access scenario because it appears that they're worlds apart. The developer does not want the private driveway and it appears that that's the prefen~ technique for development for the Mancino's and I don't know that we can get between that process and try to resolve that here tonight. And it's important because it really will affect how that area associated 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 with the ravine gets developed and whether there's exumsive grs~rling in there or not and associated tree loss so I think we could see a little more work on this one. Scot~ Dave I just, I have a question, lust a question. I noticed that the official it looks lilce the official alignment for Lake Lucy Road shows the road, and I'm talking about the area between West Baptist Church and the Carlson ~. It appears that there's qui~e a bit of clearance inbetween the property to the south. When I look at the applicants drawing, it comes right up to the property line. My question is, what kind of an hnpact, since we're talking about adjoining propcrt~s, we really have not spoken about the CarLson trroperty. With the change in the aligmnent, what sort of impact is that going to have on the Carlson ~? It looks like the road, the applicant has shifted the road and I can't tell you how many feet or what it is. I mean it's obvious if the road goes straight through there, they're going to lose, probably lose 2 lots. Hcmpcl: I believe that roadway alignment for Lak~ Lucy Road has been established as a part of the feasibi~ty study the city has conducted. Sco~ On the applicant's plan? Okay. Hempel: That's correct. My understanding. Ledvina: It looks a little different. Scott: Well it's a lot different. I mean I'm looking at this. Ledvina: Yeah. The section just east of Highway 41. In terms of the feasibility study and what the applicant is. Scott: Yeah I don't know, is this an of~ial map here of the proposed Lake Lucy alignment? This is, okay. Well when I compare this to the alignment to the east, or the west side of the applicant's development, it wuches the ~ line on the south side. So I'm trying to figure out if this is official, it's not the same as what the applicant has on their ~. Hcmpel: I believe in the feasibility study they showed 2 or 3 different aligmnents for extcvding out to the Westside Baptist Church directly affected the Carlson ~ to the south. There is a degraded wetland on that southwest corner of the Baptist Church sit~. That was one option. I thin~..elected to align. Scot~ Swing it up, yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hempcl: ..xcjuvenate or restore that wetland... Scott: If you have a preliminary plat map you can, if you happen to have that, you can see how there's a difference between the road ali~ and my question is. where is it going to Aanenson: I think thc simple answer to that is, Mr. Engelhardt, Bill Engelhardt designed Lake Lucy project and he's also the project en~neer for the Ges~h-~~ piece so we're confident that he matched the alignments. That would be our qualification on that and Mr. Carlson. as Dave indicate, is aware of this all. men_ t that was approved by the City Council as part of the feasibility study. So they should match... Scott: Okay. Well I just was concerned because I saw some differences that were visible in these two. Aanenson: ...again, we put this in for your edification... Scott: Okay, that's fine. I don't have any other comm~_ ts. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that we table preliminary plat for Subdivision ~10 for Brenden Pond. Sco~ Is there a second? Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table this iron. Is there any disou~on? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commi~ion table action on the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~PJ4-10 for Brenden Pond. All voted in hvor and the motion carried. (Nancy Mancino did not participate in voting on this item.) Scott: So we'll be seeing this, what on the 7th? Aanenson: If you give the staff direction? Scott: Okay, preuy easy. Matt is going to need the time and the rest of us are going to need the time to review the grading plato We need a tree inventory. Aanenson: We have a tree inventory that was done. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Sco~ I mean a graphic representation of where they are. I mean we went tin, ugh this with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition- We had a listing of all the trees but we had no idea where they were. Something like that where we can see the locations and then also staff's best guess of the trees that are going to be remov~ due to streets, utilities and pads. Building pads. What did I miss? Harberts: I'd like a little further work, consideration with regard to the environmemal resotuces here. With regard to full road versus perhaps that private drive concept and recognize that it's probably not the usual way that the city likes to condu~ business but again I guess I'm just pointing out that I feel we have a unique situation here with regards to the environment and maybe just revisit it. Maybe the app~t, the Mancino's and city staff can sit down and maybe there's a resolution. It sounds like you're dose. See if there's some alternative that is palatable for everyone. But I perso~y think there's some environmental issues here that we should be sen~tive to. Thank you. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, also along that, the east pmtm'ty boundary and deal~g with the grs~c~ing in relation to the conservation easement I think that has to be addressed somehow. And how that affects the grading for the entire parcel I don't know. Scott: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: lust as a point of clafificatiom I know we can serve the two lots the Mandno's want to serve on the northwest with an extended cul-de-sac into their-pmper~. Dead ending into their property. I know we can. Well I'd like to know if that's possible. Same ~reet standards as not a drive but the same street standards as we're using on the Brenden Pond roadway and then the question again is, how do we service the, can we service the two lots m the southwest and the Mancino ~. Is there a feasible way of doing that and is that be. aides the private drive that was recommended. Scott: Okay. Does that help? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. I'm sure we've got everything. Scott: Well I'm glad you asked. We need that someOmes. Nutting: Pan of the hypothetical here is you're talking about a plat for the Mancino ~ which doesn't exist and may not ever exist and I think, I sense in thinking through this process and what, where staff is coming at this from is you know we may never get the applicant and the Mancino's to agree you know sitting down so then we're left with making a decision. That decision either takes away a lot from the applicant or i .mpacts the potential Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 development which the Mancino's may or may not do. As we say, they coukl sell the land. Someone else could come in and the northerly entrance may not be a significant issue. So what I struggle with in this whole thing is, we've got the app~t before us. We have to make the decision on how we're going to impact that on the basis of what might be impa~ted in the adjacent development I'm not sure where we, you know the dividing line in terrm~ of, I guess we're playing a little bit of, we're developing the Mancino property here with the street proposal that we're making. Harberts: But I think what we're also doing is. Nutting: Or we're moving wwards that. Harberts: And I'm not disagreeing with you Rom Nutting: I'm not on one side or the other. I'm throwing out the position here and I think we need to be a little careful as we, or it's very definitely it's a piece of ~ with a resources that for all of the...this is the type of thing we want to be careful about and make sure that we preserve what we can from a development s~ndpoint but I straggle with what we do with assuming they can't come w some agreemeat down the road as to accessing private drives or if staff doesn't feel there's any room to give on the private drive issue versus Option C that they're proposing. What direction we mm. Harberts: And I would just add or comment or take it from there on that perhaps what we're. facing is perhaps a situation in which in the true sense of planning, af~ all the numbers are ran and all of this, it's like what does my gut tell me because this is really what we're doing is guiding land use. I think that's the real, one of lhe real elen~nts here that we have to deal with. And there's nothing wrong with that_but that's where my frustration or going back and revealing all of the things that we've done with other developments. The Lake Susan. The tree inventory. The conservation. All of those things. To me it looks like we have all of those elements here. Wait a minute. Maybe we need to just stop and revi~'t that. Understand what we're doing. Because of this site we don't have, I don't know if there's a whole of other sites like thi~ but it's just a matter of taking a little extra time. Underslanding what we're doing. Nutting: I agree. Scott: Good. Thank you for your commen~. Thank you all for coming. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 .PUBLIC HE--G: REzoNE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL ~IDENTI~L TQ RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII.Y~ PR~LUkflNARY PLAT TO SI, IBD~E 37,92 ACRF~ INTO 52 SINGLE FAMn.Y LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT Tm~ ~rERSECrIO~ OF ~ALPI~ 8OUL~.VARO Z~O PROPOSED LA~O~ LUCY ROAO ~SIO~, ~0 OA~Pm ~Otn~VARD, ED A~O MARY RYe, S~AM~. OC~C RmGE. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst David C, estach Lee Paulson John & Mariellen Waldron Martin Kuder St~-ve Buresh Pelur & Marg Davis Sam & Nancy Mancino 7640 Crimmon Bay 8001 Acorn Lane St. Bonifacius 6831 Galpin Blvd. 6651 Galpin Blvd. 6620 Oalpin Blvd. Bob Generous preaented the staff report tm this item. Scott: Questions? Harberts: I just have a point of discussion- You know I cemhly respect the amount of time that staff and the applicant put on this. I know it takes a lot of work on the staff's time and I respect the firm that the people have taken to come here to make conumnts. I feel, I guess I'm just looking at, in ~erms of time and good use of time, with all of those issues and not really having a complete packet I guess I'm a little concerned about spinning my wheels because I don't know, I see some of these aren't maybe requirements with regards to lots. Things like that. I don't know if that's then going to change this drastically and it's just, I guess I just don't like spinning my wheels with other things going on with my time. But anyway, that's just a point of discussion. Sc, om Okay. Can I just ask a question? How many residents arc here for this particular issue? Okay. Well we are scheduled to have a public hearing and we will have a public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification7 Scott: Sure. Aauenson: We had the same issue at staff. These are three properties are very, very complex. The reason we put it on, even though there's a lot of issues unreamlved, we need to give them some direction... We came forward with our reconm~nd~ion. There was no concurrence so we felt the best thing to do was to put it in front of the public and give them some march~g orders so they know so they're not spending their time...so we me trying to make that, give them some clear direction on where to go with their plat so that's... Harberts: That's a good point. Thank you Kate. Scott: Okay, good. Harberts: I still thinir I'm spinning my wheels. Scott: Okay. Any other questions from the cornmlss/oncrs for staff. Would the applicant like to make, or their representative like to make a presentation?. ~ sta~ your name and your address. Chuck Plowman: My name is Chuck Plowman, the project engineer representing the Ryans. Mary Ryan is here this evening ff there me any questions that I am unable to answer. Ed would have loved to be here but he was involved in an accident and he's still recuperating so he's not able to attend the meeting at this time. Let me start with just a little bit of the project bac~und. Lake Lucy Road, can you just put that map up there that shows the ouflot- I'd liire to see the one where Lake Lucy Road ends...specifically to give the Ryans an opportunity to evaluate their plat. See what might be most feasible and practical and...involved with the properties. So we've been spe~_~ing the last 3 months going over different plans and different options and looking at exactly that. So what I'd like, I gave Dave a copy of something yesterday which is a modification for a lot of the th/rigs that we're talking about tonight and I think if you could just bear with me, I'll shed some light on a lot of things involved with brining up some major issues. Let me just stm't with, the initial plat was submitted, let me call it Plan A showing Lake Lucy Road up at the top. Staff told us that this was not a good plan because of the impacts on the environment and the excessive grade, ~ctual grading up into the pr~ north of us. $o we came back with trying to address those concerns. We did another plan, without much input from staff but just giving some, they gave us some direction aud we just come up with a second drawing that we submitted to them prior to the last scheduled meeting that we were going to be on. That showed Lake Lucy coming right down the center of that corridor. And what I liked about Planning Commisdon Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one so much was that it was the most sensitive to the environment. ...all the trees along the north. (]ave us long lots this way. Long lots this way. Stayed out of the wethnds. It was just the most favorable as far as environmentally concerned. It gave us some nice walkout lots here and some liveable lots here because we've got a lot of room in the back to do some grading. This was bumped down because staff said that we don't want all of these driveways connecting to Lake Lucy Road. $o that brings us to the plan that we have before you tonight. This is almost identical to the one in your packet but there was a couple things done to it to address some issues...Here we're 60 feet south of the property line with the beginning of the right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road. That enabled us to consln~ the road width along...boulevard and also a 3 to 1 slope and if we do get inw the trees, it's very, very minor. And it also allows us to have two cul-de-sacs, one to the south and some very desirable lots looking over a wethnd. This is what we're really studying the entire plat for what's economically favorable to the plat and also what's favorable to the enviro~ So we've come up with this plan. We are not encroaching on the wetlands. We're not taking out the trees. We're coming up with a favorable plan for development and we feel this is the plan that's best. Let me just talk a little bit about this. This is with the Lake Lucy Road going with this original ali~t~nrrlent to the south. With the cul-de-sacs going to the north. We end up with tuck under lots. Two for sure, poss/bly more. We end up with destroying this one's not favorable from a development standpoint. -It is definitely not favorable fixnn the environment standpoint. Let me just back up a little bit to the staff report. Let me just talk about Options A, B and C. Option A I believe was the one I just showed you. Option A was the... Okay, I really just went over that and ~bed to you why that's not a good choice. Option B, which is the one that we just talked about, which we like, As far as the location of Lake Lucy Road. Option C is not at all favorable to the Ryan's because it's going to, this number of lots are going to be getting up here plus they're ready to develop now. They want to develop now. And initially we had hoped when we started a few months ago, they were looking only at the alignment and wanting to get some location or connecting point set. That has changed. They spent the money to have all this work done, and research done and they'vc got a different mind set. They do want to develop. They don't want to wait 2 years, 5 years, whatever. So they're here. They're here to get your approval so they can develop. So Option C is not a good option. And I was tmderstanding it also is not very good for the future plans for a cul-de-sac to come down into this property through the trees so that to me would be another reason to not go with that one. Let me just touch on some of the issues. I know Dave's aware of some of them that I addressed. Things have been happening so fasL I get a short notice about _sorry_ things that need attention and then Dave gets a short time to look at it so again, it's kind of works both ways. The 300 foot spacing from (]alpin Blvd to the first street. The initial thought by staff was that this was going to have a ripple effect. It's going to change all these intersection. When in fact it didn't. This intersection moved I figure about more like 100 feet. 110 feet or something like that. But Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one really didn't change all except for that moving over rrudring these lots decper and these were excessive before so they fit thc plan_ What we did also with that is, ~ of having, see how the street is moving up and in fact it's going to the right. Once we swiwh this street over, it was not workable doing it that way. Now we had a previous plan that showed it coming this way so this is going back to that plan..~ B so we kind of referred it back to that on this plan and we think it works much bettor. We did lose another lot. Now we're down to 49. We're moving in the wrong direction. So I guess the ~ of the 300 feet was not a major issue, and I know that' s.. .not only your's but mine. But that wasn't...everythin§ stayed the same... Along with this reconfiguration right here, the 17 foot by the way was also added to Galpin. Thewefland~. TherewasadmflJnge~x~rona couple lots which showed this pad down here so it was...and was Obvious that it was too close to the wetland but when in fact there is room there so that's not... The storm water trea~t ponding area was also an issue and before we turned the configuration things, we had no choices where the inlet and outlet was going but since then we reconfigured this, which allowed us to construct a pond in thi~ fashion- ,&nd also discharging the stm-m sewer at this end of the pond. Outlets at this end of the pond. We have plenty of volume. As you can see it's quite large. $o we do have an ideal situation with the discharge and the outlets being offset into the pond and that's what Dave was looking for. Something in that fashion. On the wetlands itseff, can you differentiate between the green and the yellow? Okay, the yellow is actually fill that's going into the wetland.-T~i~ ~ea is not filled because we're actually excavating in here. But wherever fill is taking place, you have to follow rules to mitigate for that. The green areas are mitigation areas. And those areas sum up to a little shy of being 2 to 1. $o we need to confer with Diane about what our options might be. There's no credit given for storm water ponds according to the rules, even though we're creating wet ponds, it doesn't apply for mitigation. The option I was looking at was...the cul- de-sac a little bit. Reducing the fill so it is workable because I did...find where I c, an do that. Lower it down and reduce the...that 2 to 1 ratio. Time is running short so this is what I came with. I looked at the canopy coverage, because that was one of the things that they were looking for, and I count 10%. So there was an error made by one of the fellows...came up with, what was it? C~nerous: 75. Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10%. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. The idea of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive between these homes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what I would like to ask is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of one for each because I know the city does allow a~ess to collector roads where there's not a good allm'native. I think this is the case where there is not a good allm'nafive. We've done Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 real well in keeping everything off Lake Lucy Road. I think this is a piece of property that', no matter how you slice this up, it happens. You can't get away from it. Again I think I'm just going to reiterate but I feel this is the best plan. This is the plan we want and we want you to consider this for approval tonight contrary to what staff is l'~omm~nding sO ali the actions from here are taken into account with some items I've clarified and addressed. Not to make it any lighter, I wanted to also mention the fact about the potential of using 50 foot right-of-ways. Staff discussed with us...about doing that. I forget which layout we were looking at. But the advantage to :50 foot fight-of-ways, for examp~ here. We could use the 10 feet and pull this right-of-way in. Along with that we pulled the grading slope 10 feet in. It's a plus as far as... 60 foot fight-of-ways are really something that have been used for many years and more and more we're going to 50 because the utilities are now going in a common trench so we don't need that room we used to have in the boulevards and the easements that they used to have for gas, telephone and electric. They're all going in one trench so the 50 foot right-of-way's working well We can live with the 60 but I think if it's possible, we'd like the 50. I really had no timber comments unless there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Harberts: Could you just take one more minute and just kind.of tesummsrize why you prefer the aligmnent of Lake Lucy? You know your preference as to why again. Chuck Plowman: Sure. This location of Lake Lucy Road was pulled away from the north property line so that we could preserve this tree line along this north property line, and I ...... know the Mancino's are very concerned about that and... 5o this location allows us to build a road with the boulevard and...it's very tight but I'm saying we can geO..in here and preserve the boulevard and save trees. On the other side, we're not encroaching onto the wetland with any fill. We do have a nice location here for a treaunent pond and discharging runoff before it goes into the wetland. As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I don't care how you look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we need to be sensitive to the uees. The wetlands. We can move a lot of dirt. It doesn't cost that much when it comes to developing land. I ~ it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you know if you move 2 feet of dirt, the tree's gone. If you move 10 feet, the ~ree's gone. It doesn't make any difference. Harberts: Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Do you want to hear the reasons why I don't like the other one? Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 ~: No. I got those down. I just wanted to again, just make sure I clearly understood the preference of why on that one. Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Well obviously from a developer's standpoint, we have lots that we can sell for a good price. If we put the cul-de-sacs up to the north, we lose lots or value. Scott: Good, any other comments or questions? Good, thank you sir. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion plcasc. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearinge All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: The public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak about this particular item, please step forward and give us your name and your address. Don't all stand up at once. Thank you sir. Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galp~ Blvd. One small question. Now this is also a proposed approval of a preliminary plat drawing for thc area. Scott: Yeah. And then a rezone from RR to RSF. Steve Burcsh: Right. Well that in fact is what I had the biggest problem with. This particular asking for, which I guess has been revised down to 50 now, single f_s_mily homes, may fit in with the residential single family but the residential single family rezone does not fit in with this area at all. The area is large lot. The lots on Lake Lucy Highlands area are 2 1/2 acres. That is probably some of the mmllest lots in the area. And I think that if we allow it to be subdivided as it is currently, we're totally going to des~y the look of the area. That's probably something that we want to attain at some point. I think we have to strongly look at the people that are in the area now. What their wants and needs are but also consider the future obviously. We can't have all this land if it's not going to be developed at some point in time. That's just not feasible to believe ~hat that can happen. But I guess my reco~fion is not to rezone it as residen~ single family but in fact keep it as mml residenti~ and work out some kind of agreement likg we've done in the Lake Lucy Highlands area and I guess I wouldn't see a problem with it being even 1 1/2 acres per lot. This would fit, still fit in with the aesthetics of the area and this particular location of this proposed development is fight in the middle of the deer migration path. I know in fact because I wak~ up every morning and have deer crossing my ~. They go right into this area. This is going to destroy the wildlife in the area, but I'd like to reiterate that it's just destroys the aesthetic value of that area. So I strongly recommend that you do not rezone this as residential single family. Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Sco~ Okay. Kate, RSF. 1S,O00 square foot lots. This is approxims_~ly what, averages 20. Generous: 22. Scott: 22, okay. The reason why I brought that up is that, and ttfis has been guided in our comprehensive plan as a RSF area. What the applicant could have done is put in 15,000 square foot lots and would have met the minimum requirengnt for lot si~e. in a residential single family. So we feel that this is preferable. It's beyond what the minimtlm would be but your co--ts are appreciamd. I think that dtweloprmmt is going to happen snd basically what we see, our position is that we try to get the best that we can for the city and it's very rare and I think since, in the last 2 years that I've been involved here, I don't think that we've put through a development that met the minimums. I don't think we really atw. gpt the minimums. We try to encomage better but no, you're co--ts are well taken because you know you're used to a certain type of lifestyle and what we're trying to do is trying to manage the land use as best we can but they always have to be subject, to the ordinances that we deal with but thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis, 6640 Galpin Blvd. Could I ask that that map be put back up which showed the two different properties. I wanted to speak to several items, specifi~y I was encouraged to hear that there is a cotw, em over the aesthetics and the ambience of the area. We just recently moved into the area. We knew that this developmeat was about to take place. What I wanted to point out, and since some of you have started to walk the property and is generally aware of the aesthetics and what some of the unique fe. atmv. s are. This gentlemen spoke of some of the migratory habits. There are a lot of ecosysmm that are really coming inw play here. Not only the deer but we have snow owls and bat populations. Phe. asant runs that are taking place from across Galpin Lake Road where a~tually coming up from other wildlife areas to thc northeast coming through this ~ and out into these wetlands and then going and spre_~tling out back across Galpin in both directions. So what I wants! to point out was the fact there are actually quite a nmnber of diffel~-nt ecosystemg both plant and wildlife that are going to be ~ by _this developmeat with all of the rapid that has been taking place in Chanhasse~ I think it's ve~'y hnpormnt that the~'s some considerations being made. We're very encouraged by the Mancino's efforts to set up some buffer zones and we would like m r~mm~mt that you actually consider some of the other effects of grading, as I unde~tand it, some of the mitigation land that would ~mble son~ of the prot~ion for these migamry patmms that ~xist and cutting from the northeast to the southwest. Secondly I wanted to r~comnznd that from an ambience standpoint in the ama, the use of private drives. We currently share a private drive with the Mancino's that was, has subject to a lot of easements and what not and are finding that the an'ang~nt to be quit~ workable. We want to encourage some of that kind of developmeat because I think it adds to Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 the area. It promotes somewhat of a lower density which is why we actually chose to move out to this area. And lastly I wanted to spcak to the nature of the devclopmcut in terms of the overall mad and density and I wanted to encourage the city to do anything it could to acceierate any uaffic work that was going to go on as was mentioned tonight to us earlier about the light at TH 5. Since that, there is quiie a bit more tmf~ that is already coming into some of thc developments on the south. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes sir. Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. To get back to a point we made earlier. We know that this...potential to develop but we would like to revim't this plan for a moment because we are going to... What I'd like to borrow these for a minute if I could. To remind you of the configuration of our property. The lines okay start immediately south of our ~ line. And there's a stand of trees along here gaat straddles either side of the line on that property and there's somc bluffs here. When we first became aware of the Ryan's intent to develop, we went out and tried to understand the ~ that that was going to have on us and understand it from an access point of view and a utility point of view, from land use point of view, and from conservation and things like that. One of the things we had to understand first, what was going to §o on next to us and what basically was the land use intent and a lot of the first things that we found was the original design pushed Lake Lucy Road up to the property line. That the intent was to grade basically all the way through the tree line and on _this site plan that would put that grading about here where our house is. $o that concerned us to begin with. Just a little concern. Throughout the process of seeing the plans start to evolve here, what we've seen is a continual kind of a paradon &at was drawn originally on a flat piece of ~ but has ultimately trs_nsl,~__ted itself into turning the land into a fiat land. They're trying to take all of the ground from here and transpose it over on this side by grading all the way up. And I think that what we've heard is just basically to maximize the number of lots, which is not our point to comment on other than it does ~ us about the size, the shape and configuration of that snd ltmt it no way is that compatible with what we see going on up here. That we would like to argue against forcing any penetration at this point because we think we can access our property through here, ultimaiely migrate out through here...for a connection at this point. We are concerned on a few other things. As their grading plan started to evolve, even their latest version which pushes the road down 60 feet, still has severe grading and as their en~neer has said, we won't lose mo many trees here but as he's also said, if you grade 2 feet you lose trees anyway. $o what we would ~ to request is a 30 foot easen~nt, conservation easemeat along here. The consequence of thek grading, any of the remaining trees on thek ~, which are indica~ through this section and show up on some of these plans, will all go away. They're not preserving a single tree that I'm aware of in this section of the ~ so at minimum we'd like to be able to request that this be a buffer be provided and that we be given an appropri~ utility easement 31 Planning Commission Me~n§ - August 17, 1994 for the lot to the edge of the conservation easement for furore access. We also agree with staff that in their cmTcnt plan, I'm not sure if it will show it on here but what is shown as Lot 10 is an unbuildablc lot and they're trying to build some very, very steep retaining wnlls and do some severe grading again on the ~ that more lots ~xiuals more money and I'm not certain that that's an acceptable premise. It's posaible but I'm not sure that I believe that. And that I think as another by product of this 60 foot ~ ff you look at the grades it's probably very doubtful whether they'll be able to grade out and_encroaching on the required conservation land. Charles, is there any~iq§ that you'd like to add? Charles Stinson: I'd like to add to if I could. I think a lot of it, Charles Stinson. Minnetonka. I think the point being that we're real concezned about anything that happens across there, just as we're, I thought your comments on the last project were just very good as far as taking the time to identify really what's happening here because I think just having hiked this site and I ~ink the same thing across there and I'd suggest that maybe if everybody could, it'd be really helphtl because I think you can really see how the lay of the land is and what's going on and how both access. How important it is for the access points here without disturbing the change of topo~hy here as well as down here. That if you brought the utility lines, the utilities up her~ and here to the tree zone, we could have access here. But leaving everything unmolestrd so to speak, especially the road coming up. One thought I had and this isn't I _talk_ed to the Mancino's and I'm not having these comments representing them. They're just my own as a citizen but could you put that back up on the screen. Just a thought I had is that I believe there's always a winning solution for everybody, including the land owners and all the neighbors but it always tak~ a long time to get there. I ...~ think Sam had a great quote from Mark Twain that was, if I had more time I would have written a shorter leUrr, and I think it really applies to dc'veldt. The longer you think about it, you can always find a simpler way of doing it than mak~ everybody happy. But I think one of the thoughts is, I think one nice thing about having a mad at this point was the fact that, and I like. A the other idea about the mad coming up here instrad of fight here. I guess I'll do one thing at a time. I think the engineer's idea of coming up here I think was a good idea. Ctd-de-sac this so you don't have a road here and I was just wondering if you could do the same thing with that one. Ctd-de-sac from here so you don't have anything so close to the intersection there, just as far as safety to that corner and you're just having the streets, two openings here. But the thought over here, the nice thing about having a little, and just for the citizens driving by as you're looking across the wetland and you're not doing anything to it and it's kind of a pleasant drive in the midst of a lot of development. The ideal thing for here would be perhaps some private drives or do some as priv!_te_, drives going up here. But the other thought is, I just whispered to the Mancino's to see if they'd be interested but you know there's a value that you put on on this piece of protmly that you're going to get from developing and selling it and if you back out the cost of what it costs for the roads and utilities, maybe there's a land value that the Mancino's would just buy from 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 you and then you wouldn't have to worry about developing it. I know you still have the pheasants nmnir~g around and the deer and everybody'd be happy but I don't know if there's any, if that's possible to discuss about that but it just seems like there's a lot of development happening in a small area and that's it. Sam Mancino: One other thing that I'd ~ to add. Throughout this process I've appreciated the di~culty that ~ has gone through in ~jing to put all these pieces together. They've worked awfidly hard at it. They have made an alternative suggestion about C, about exactly a variation on their point which is as much as this area relates to development from that site, given sequencing, yes. This area up hem does actually relate more to development but there's a definite sequencing issue. We have had very little time since the report carm out to think about how C would work. I know this was a sketch but when I actually put the pen and the ruler on it, we found that our house was actually right here and so we, before we cormnent on that we'd like to have a little time to understand the en~n_eering implications of that kind of a plan. So we'd like to reserve commen_ t on that at this particular time, ff that would be okay. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hero, g? Okay, seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public heafing~ Ail voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scot~ Matt. Ledvina: Okay, where do I start? Mr. Buresh made some comrmats as it relates to the zoning and the zone changc and I think you made some good points as it related to that but the other thing that I, another important ~ we look at when dmding with zone changes and looking at the comprehensive plan for how this is developed in the ultim~_u-, rela~ to how is this going to fit in with the other parcels and as I look at this tmrcel, the Shanvock Ridge, you look at County Road, or Galpin here and in the future that area, or that road will be a 4 lane mad. So you have that as somewhat of a buffer between the other land use to the east And then also I think the developer has done a reasonably good job of orien~g the ponds, etc to provide some open space beyond that to the west before you actually get into the development area with the lots that are indicate& And even the lots along that side are fairly large size lots in comparison. They're above the average in size. So we unders~ the residents concerns as they relate to transition with density and I think we're trying to do as good a job as we can as it relm~ to the ultimate development for this area. So we try to work that into account. Looking at the staff report and ws]~ing the area and kind of getting a feel for the relationship of this parcel with the other two parcels. This is, they're defini~ly 33 Phnning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 all together and readly you have to look at how it's going to work. I think the staff is pretty close in terms of their ideas on this. I wo.ld choose, or I feel that the Lake Lucy Road aligmncnt as originally proposed by the city along the southern portion of the parcel, is the best alignment. The other major point that staff makes rela~ to the western 1/3 of the premature in terms of the development of this area at this time and I would support that mva being platted as an outlot at this tim~ I mentioned it with the other plat. I look at this extremely steep hill and it's, the views to the south over the wetland are really actually breath taking. It's a very beautiful area. I can, from my perspective, if I could see this whole mv.a being graded fiat and I don't know, I just can't see what would be gained by that process. So I think the road probably has the least impact on the area in it's pwposed alignment. I did have one question for you Bob. As it relates to the tree stand on that western portion. I look at the tree inventory. I think it's, let's see. So~ like 621. Is there 648? Somewhere in there. There's quite a few reasonably sized trees. Do you know if those trees will be saved with the alignment? The proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The city's alignment. I know, I don't want to put you on the spot but I. Generous: No, I haven't really... Ledvina: Right, ri~t. Well whatever. I think the possibilities of those trees being saved ~. I don't know for a fact but I think the posm'bilities increase there so, and that's something that I'd like to see looked at. I had a quest/on about trails and that recreational opportunities. We have a trail proposed along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy Drive. Is that on the. south side or? Generous: North side. Ledv~na: North side, okay. Are we proposing any trail or easement along the west side of the wetland area which you've identified as Ouflot A? I know in the past we've done a lot of trails around wetlands and I'm just wondering, ~is is a pretty large wetland and I don't know if there's a good chance or an opportunity to have a trail around there and how that would fit into our trail needs. Generous: I don't believe the Parks ~t has looked at that. That's actually on the Carlson property so that hasn't been proposed with the devel~t. This wethnd continues over to the wesL Ledvina: Right Well, continues to the south where Outlot A is, yeah. Just a thought. I don't know if you would take a look at how that fits into the overall scheme because I know in the parcels further to the south towards TH 5, we've got trails that are along our wetlands Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 there nnd those nre nice ameni~ and if we could do something like that hn~ nt least get an easement there, that might rnnke some sense. Let's see. I guess I'm not going to look at a lot of the detnils but I would support the staff recommendntion of generally I think they've done a good job of evaluating this and ! thiner that this thl.g, thi~ plat would need some work before it could really be con~id_,~red tying into the overall development of this nz~a. Scott: What kind of direction would you give? Ledvina: Well, I would give I think, just as I mentioned, I would prefer the feasibility stndy alignment. I would prefer that the western 1/3 of the parcel be platted as an ouflot. And that area, that very sleep slope area be developed somehow. I know Mr. Mancino mentioned that the street goes right throu~ his house. Obviously we don't want that but maybe there's another alignment to the west that might work there. I deflni~y think that area should be served via access from the north. And as I look at it, maybe there's a possibility of serving it from the east somehow but by private drive as Mr. Stinson has mentioned. So I think those are the most imporlant things. I generally see a lot of grading that I don't think is necessa~ but it's not as critical in the eastern portion of the ~ as it is on the western portion of the property so maybe some, a little more sensitivity can be used in the grading processes ff this is redeveloped. Sc, om Good, Conrad: I ask a question of Dave. Is it real clear to you that Lake Lucy Road shouldn't be shifted to the north? Is there any solution? Hernpel: I believe the City Council's already made that determination with thc approval of... on June 13, 1994. They approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I which is only up to that inm~ction of the Brendcn Pond but the intent is to continue with future phases on the southern realignment Conrad: It sure seems like that portion on the western part of this plat relates more to the Mancino development than to this one. I support the staff recommendations. I think the developer should, has to work. There's obviously a difference of opinion and I think staff brought up some, a lot of good points. I think they have to be ironed out before it comes Scott: Good, Ron. NuHing: I also support staff recommendation. The applicant has attempted to address some of the issues tonight. I need to see staff's response to those items before responding to them. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 I can't act in a vacuum and so I would support tabling this application and addressing it. It also, when you've got a key issue with just the southerly versus the northerly mute of the road and it seems to, it appears from what was said here tonight that the southerly route is somewhat cast in. Aanenson: I don't want to differ with Dave but the Council did, th~ did leave an option on the Gestach-Paulson piece. That Outlot A that showed a portion over to the south so in deference to what the Ryan's are trying to do. There was some flexibility. We know it has to touch down on a certain point on Galpin Boulevard. There were two proposa~ shown. A northerly and southerly one in the original, in the original Lake Lucy alignm~t- A northerly and southerly ali~rnent and they gave feas/bility for the supplemcn~ phase, they left the option out whether it goes to the north or to the south so I think their response that they were trying to decide what works best for them and they pushed it to the north. That's what they originally came in with. And we said it just didn't work because they're grsdlng into the Mancino's property... Then we started moving up and down the pwperty trying to figure out where it works best. And going back to what Matt said, you can see the dilemma we were ... in. Throwing out ~ lines. You just look at, how should this property best be served. That's what we came up with and that's, the problem is that the ~ lines don't follow the natural topography and as Mr. Plowman indicated, once you...2 feet, what's the Well that's the problem. There are some unique naUn'al features there that we're trying our best to try to maintain. And it's not a flat, square piece of property that you can lot out 15,000 square foot lots. It's got some unique features but'they will respond to the option of, there are two options showed in the...study for Lake Lucy. One to the north and one south so that's what they were responding to and I just want to make sure that that was clear. And that's what we were asking your direction to give to them. Do you want to go to the north or to the south and our preference was, to keep it south. That's what-..keep it towards the middle. Nul~ng: Thc impact if it was to thc no~d~ on ~e pr~ious applicant's proposal, just looking back at that- Do you have any drawings? If the road was to the north. Hempel: I'm sorry, which development? Aaneuson: The Ryan's? Scot~: Gcstach? Nutting: No. Scot~ Gcstach-Paulson? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Nutting: Paulson. Aanenson: Yes. Generous: You'd have lots on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road and on the north side of Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Street front facing lots. Nutting: Okay. So you'd have the issue of private chive. Aaneuson: Front facing lots on a collector ~reet, yeah. Right. Nuttin§: I guess I would concur with staff's recommendation and Matt's observations as well in terms of the southerly route so I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Phnnin§ Commission table Case ~? SUB, is that ri~t? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. The Shamrock Ridge subdivision plan. Scott: Do we need t~ table 94-3 and then the rezoning and the wetland alteration permit? Okay, why don't you add that. Ledvin~ And I would add those under the items as well Scott: Good. Can I have a second? Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the issue. Or all three of them. Is the~ any discussion? laglvina moved~ Conrad ~e~onded tlmt the Phuming Commlmion t~ble ~:tlon o~ Subdivision ~94.7, Rezoning ~ smd Well,nd Alteration Permit #94-3. All voted in f~vor ~md the motion carri~ (Diane ~ had left the meeting and was not present to vote on this issue or subsequent issues.) 37 Planning Commission Meethg - August 17, 1994 Scote Okay, thank you all for corning. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR CHANItA~qSEN RETAH, 2ND ADDITION CREATING 20UTLOTS AND CHANHA~S~N RETAH. ~RD ADDITIQN PLA'~TING OUTLOT B INTO S LOTS AND ONE 0UTLOT~ SITE PIAN REVI~.W OF A $~000 SQUARE FOOT BUn,DING FOR PERKINS RE,.qTAURANT~ A PLAN REVIEW FOR A I~OO SQUARE FOOT BU-,DING FOR TACO LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY $~ POWERS BOULEVARD AND WEb'l' 7ffrfl STREET~ CHANHASSEN RETAH, CENTER (TARGET SITE)~ RYAN COMPANIES AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Danny Chadwick Tom Palmquist Daryl Kighton $ohn Dietrich Marc Kruger Maleah Miller Memphis, TN Ryan Companies, Mpls. Ry n Companies, Mp . RLK Associatrs, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins 47OO IDS Cent~, Mpls. DIR, 1121 E. Franklin, Mpls. Bob Gene~ presented the staff report ou thi~ item. Mancino: Now Bob, these arc brick This Taco Bell is brick? Generous: No, they'll be stucco. Mancino: Okay. So it will be different than this? Generous: Yes. The tile on the roof will be the same. The stucco is son of a lannish. It's something the applicant has some better photos...to show that The color band, the canopies will be the same. The signage will be the same. They're actually using two tones and fl~e rest of the devel~t...so they'll have the arches will be an accent band and then they have the other colors on the rest of the stucco. Mancino: And is the band around it the coqx~a~ colors? Scott: It looks like it, yeah. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Generous: ...I don't know if it's a registered uademark. Mancino: Does this take...at all with the Highway :5 design guidelines about using identity colors as an architectural element7 Scorn Or brick. Aanenson: I'm not sure. We'll get back on that. As far as the ma__t~sls, we did look at that...The brick that you see on the photos there, we have met.. Again, this is a PUD so we're trying W make this part relate, not to the Byerly's but more to the Target PUD so we're trying to blend. We're trying to pick up elements of the same. You have this green...which is also an element on the Target so we're trying to pick up all those things. Mancino: Okay. But I know that we had concern on the Highway 5 Task Force on the design committee task force, part of that about on Highway 5, that commercial ~ and the design and architecture of their buildings have to be comprised of...corporate colors so I would like to look into that. Ledvina: Colors though? Mancino: Well some of them have like...big bands that actually have a great deal to do with the architecture. That becomes a design element in the architecture and that we were concerned about that. So I just wam~xi to make sure that this did not fall into that. Ledvina: Well they have file bands. You know bands of tile around...Does that represent a negative thing? Mandno: I think we felt that if it became a major part of the architecture it could. So I just want to check it. I'm not saying no but I just would like to have staff review that and make sure. Scott: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If yes, please give us your name and your address. Tom Palrnquist: My name is Tom Palmquist. I'm with Ryan Con'5~mies. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Staff memlx~. We are in concurrence with all the items of the staff report and the items of staff that you have had this evening. Yes, we do acknowledge that we do have an access issue as it relates to the site plan. However, we've met with Charles Folch on numerous occasions and we've been unable to resolve the issue prior to this meeting. We are confident that we can resolve the issue to the satisfaction of staff and I 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 guess we pledge to continue to wo~ diligently with staff...agreement with the city. Redevelopment here on the same side~ I guess we respectfully request that the commi~ion reco~ preliminary approval of the platting for the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as well ns the site plan approval for the Perkins Reset and Taco Bell subject to the conditions of the staff report and the...conversations which we intend to have with staff to satisfncto~y resolve those issues. Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant? No7 Good. Thank you very much. Tom PalmquisC We do have a perspective from, that does show thc view of the site from a location on Powers Boulevard just south of Highway 5... Scott: Powers east with Target in the middle. So it's kind of. It's Highway 5 on the right and then there's Target's pylon sign. John Dietrich: Highway 5 is down. You're approximately halfway, maybe if you can. Scott: There's the West 78th Street allot and it ben_ds to the north. Mancino: Where is West 78th? Scorn West 78th Street. Mancino: It looks like... Scott: Well this is distorted. You see it looking straight down 78th. John Dietrich: No, we have Taco Bell on the left. Perkins on the right. So that would be approximately at thc elevation if you were along Powers Boulevard. We've anticipated some landscape ~t would be ocom'ing within the gateway elements yet to be defined. We're interested and to continue w_orking with the city on the development of that but we anticipate with the gateway and the greenery, that that will be...element. And_ the third restaurant added would be back up in this area here and that has yet to be defined as a. Mancino: So what's open space there behind the frees will be a restaurant7 John Dietrich: Yes. The site plans do identify...where that third restart would go but again, that would require site plan appwval and go through the process untiL.. Tom Palmquisl= If I might correct one item on that third outloc The contract for private Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 redevelopment that we have executed with the HRA provides that it could be something other than a restaurant, h could be a... Mancino: I have one question from the staff report. The drive thru should be buffered from all public views. Where's the drive thru and how is that being addressed? John Dietrich: In terms of the drive thru, the drive thru with Taco Bell facing West 78th Street is on the south side of the building and you would access it either/nm the lots or coming back up and around and then progressing out. So the buffer area or green space between the drive thru and this central entry drive would be green and these ~es that are identified as ornamental would be going to canopy frees according to the staff report That any trees we put in here should be, have like a canopy of tree versus an ornamental. The intent is that this green space and the trees would be the buff~g to the Highway 5 to the south. Mancino: It says from all public views. How is that buffered from Powers? John Dietrich: From Powers we have a row of ~vrubs that are coming within this band space here and...future building structure. We only have to go within this area. There are utility lines and watennain, sanitary sewer and buried teiephone cables that these sites have been worked aron_nd so that those utility trunk line utilities do not have to be reiocami so the building location's pretty well set. Mancino: So you will have a buffer on that side? John Dieu-ich: Yes. Mancino: Would you go over the Iraf~ flow? I mean like where are the stop points going to be into that drive thru on Taco Bell ff you're coming in one, from the south side or the north side coming around. How do the two come together to go through the drive tlmff Are there stop signs? How does that work? John Dietrich: The intent would be as uaf~ would come in. Aanenson: Let me just make a clarification before you respond. That's, there's an issue there that that's...just so they don't misunderstand that. That's where the issue lies is the access to Target is further to the south and that was dedgned as a T access to service this propa'ty and that is an issue that we think we can wozk out inm'nally. Staff and the applicant. But it's the engineering department's feeling that that entrance is too close to West 78th and needs to be moved. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 1'/, 1994 Mancino: For stacking. Aanenson: Exactly. Where it was originally shown, which cul~ into the Perkins site...they have a concern but we think we can work that out. Just so you're not misled when they show you that because... Scot~ How would you propose to gain access to the third paxcel? That is as an oufloC How would that happen? Is that just drive straight throu~ and in or? lohn Dietrich: At this time, yes. It would be driving straight through and then we would anticipate some type of circulation into the center. Aanenson: Typically it'd be a common drive with cross access agreements is what we would require~ All parcels have easements across each o~cr... Scott: Okay, good. Mancino: Can you go ahead with the internal? John Dietrich: Certainly. The intent would be to allow the franc/low to come in from the Target lane and access the two sites. In terms of exiting the site, the drive thru would be coming through on the south side and we would anticipate a stop sign so that the ~ flows through the pafldng lot and would be able to move out and they would be just yielding. Mancino: But you have two lanes that go into the drive ~ right? John Dietrich: I would like to have Maleah Mill_~-, who l~l~e~nts Taco Bell to respond to the number of lanes. Male, ah Miller: Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Male, ah Mill~ and I represent Taco Bell tonight. Typically we only have one lane going through our drive thru. Mancino: There's two coming into it. Maleah Miller: We have the one. One is ~g in. Entering into the drive thru lane and it's 12 feet wide and it wraps around the south side of the building. Thi~ is our pick up window at this point. They pick up their food and then they continue on and can exit out. Mancino: I'm sorry, I'm not being very clear. Planning Commission M~eting - August 17, 1994 John Dietrich: I think I see your point now. In terms of you have the oppommity to access coming from the west side and also an opportunity to access coming from the east side. Mancino: Okay. So how do those two merge into one lane that goes through the drive thru and how do they..Js my question. Iohn Dietrich: In terms of the traffic coming through, ~inge this would be on the fight hand side, we would anticipam any traffic corning through this way would have the right-of-way. Perhaps we need a sign flint would say yield to traffic coming through. Male, ah Miller: There is quite a few slacks coming back to this point. Now in your drawing ithas ?? John Dietrich: I believe 7. Maleah Miller: ? stacks. Mancino: Can a car with a...on the back get through there. Can I get your opinion? I've never seen a drive thru having. Hempel: The turning movement from that direction, the outside, may be somewhat tight for a vehicle...opporumity to go the other way to more easily negotiate that turn. Aanenson: I guess my understanding is it was always cued to go the other way.. I mean if . . :-: you come in, you would go into the restaurant. You would exit that way, not through the drive thru...so in other words you can't go towards West ?8th. We'd only be exiting on Mancino: How does the applicant feel about that? Just limiting it to access through the drive thru one way? Male, ah Miller: We would probably just put our simons for the drive thru at this point hoping they'll, encourage the people to come through. I think it's very important for the whole drcuhtion of the site that people, once they enter in here, they can exit out...so there's still the ciroflafion of the site that people once they enter in here, they can exit out so there's still the circulation. Mancino: $o there'd be a one way sign. Scott: Could make it one way? Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Maleah Miller: Yes, So we'll put the sign here saying drive through this way so a majority of the people will know to come in this way. This movement is hard to make,.. Scott: See a sign for one way, do not 8ni~r. Mancino: Yeah, or something. Male, ah Miller: Or even this, when they get to that point, just drive thru with arrows that way. So people know to get to the drive thru when they first enter the site, it is coming in and going toward~..encourage them to go this way. Tell them to go, this is the drive thru. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: It seems to make a lot of sense. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Bob, I know that you said that we're asking for a revised in~ parking lot landscaping. What's being planted, and I'm sorry I haven't opened it up to the right page. On the parking islands, one of the things that we've talked about conceptually as a Tree Board is asking for vegetation on the islands as far as something like daylillies, hosta, instead of rock because the rock just carries the asphalt feeling more and what we were trying W do was to have some green space inside of our internal parking lots. Not overstory trees but also on the actual landscape islands. And is the app~t doing that? $ohn Dietrich: As part of the revision the code, landscape code requires that thc hmdscape islands be a minimal of 8 feet in width. And this plan~.for exan~lc, those islands would have to be 8 foot in width where that is one of my... In terms of the ground planting, asain a variety of ~ that could be utili~4xt so that we could look at a lower plant ~ so we'd like to have song that would be hardy. That would talin salt. That would tak~ snow loarting so if it was not going to be a perennial like a daylily that would die down...die down completely. It would be something like spirea that could be...grassier, soflm' type plant material versus a woody type plant matm'ial ~ a lilac. Mancino: Or a juniper. John Dietrich: Or a juniper. Mancino: Versus rock, yeah. Just putting in rock into a pafldng lot. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing so if I could have a motion please. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. AH voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak at the public hearing about this iem? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak at the public heating. May I have a motion to close please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor nnd the motion carried. The pul)fie hearing was dosed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I don't have much more to add. It sounds like the applicant is in agreement with staff's recommendaiions as in thc discussion earlier. I think I'm ready to move forward with this. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I feel pretty comfortable too. One of the things that I'd like to bring up is I'd to make sure that Taco Bell and Perkins knows that when they do come in that they will, would ask that they follow the new sign ordinance that will be passed when we pass it and that they abide by that and that for now obviously we follow the old one and when the new Aanenson: We do have PUD standards that were spelled out for this project. When wc put it together we said there could be one free standing sign and each ~ual tenant's limited to...and that it be architccturatly compatible. That was already spelled out in the PUD agreement. I think that would be consistent with the sign. The one they showed you... Nutting: Did I see a pylon s/gn for Perkins on that earlier drawing that you had put up? Generous: Those, I gave you a revised plan that I put on your desk tonight. That should have a black and white picture and the pylon sign...the 34 foot height would not be permi~ They'd get a maximum of 20 feet on the pylon. Aanenson: And that one again, that was spelled out in the PUD for the entire Target and Outlot B. One pylon sign...for all three tenants. That was up to their choice and then Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 each...would just be given an extra monument sign. Nutting: How is that planned to be used? Is it just Pextim? Tom Palngtuist: The intent at this point is that this pylon will be divided into three panels with each of the three users represented on some...ba~. Conrad: Horizontal? Vertical panels? Tom Palnvtuist: It will be horizontal. Aanenson: I think we may want to see that again. We had some concerns with that as far as...Maybe the signs can come back as a separate. Nutting: It's laid out in the PUD in t~'ms of the. Mancino: But that can come back separately. Aanenson: Certainly. That's something we haven't had a chance to review specifically except for what you've seen there...I guess we want to stay as uniform as far as if there's different logos on it... However, if they all their own corporate logos on it with unlqne colors and all that...we'd like an opportunity to review that. Again, it does tie in archimctmally... Mancino: I'd agree with that. Are you done? Nutting: Yeah. Mancino: One thing about one sign per street frontage. Where is that in our staff relxm? I remember reading that. Generous: It's under the PUD standards. The development standards. They're only permitted two wall signs, Two elevations per building to get a sign. Mancino: Is this the sign we're talking about? Generous: That's the Taco Bell. Mancino: But don't I see four? Generous: You see it on the drawing but they're only getting two. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: Obi Is the applicant aware of that? Tom Palmquist: As we mentioned earlier, we are in concurrence wilh the recommendations of staff in the staff ~ Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for going over that... Aanenson: Can I just clarify...as far as the bm~ling. We did go through these conditions when we wrote the r~port and what it says as far as, it says colors shah be harmonious and bright or sharply conlrasfing colors may be used for accent purposes and that's how we in~rprel~ it...as long as it's an accent. It doesn't address what i~'s supposed w provide and that's how we interpreted this... Mancino: Thanks. Well I appreciate your checking. I don't have anything else. I think if we can work out thc internal working and the flow of traffic. I'd leave it to staff to make sure that the interior parking lot landscaping is quality. Quality, quality, qns_lity being this is a PUD and that's it. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: I guess the only _thing I would ask or maybe question rela~ to the landscaping aud how it fi~s in with our proposed planting on this comer and you know essentially the Ouflot A is reserved for our. Aanenson: The city retained ownership of th~ The City Council and ~ HRA are w~g to do, this is one area they look~ at gateway lrca0n~ts. They have Hoisington-Koegler working on those gateway ~ts. They may not go anywhere but we are k~ping ownership and we arc under obligation to landscape that.. Ledvina: Well I guess what I'm wondering is, is there a chance to coordinate the landscaphg of these buildings with what's ever done on thc outlot or the gateway treatment if you will I mean does it. Aanenson: You mean coorrJ_ins_fing or signing? Aanenson: Are you talking ~g? Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: Well yeah. Whatever. I don't know what that means necessarily but other than tasking it ali kind of fit ~ogether. If you've got a row of shrubs and then something else that goes in in front of it that doesn't work on our chunk of land, you know. That we want to try to avoid that situation obviously. Mancino: Like compatibility of architecUa-e. Mancino: It's the compatibility of the landscape. Ledvina: Right, so how can we do that? Aanenson: I think we can work that out. As we've ~ they need to look at those species and we can coardin~_te, that with what Hoi~ington-Koegler is looking at as far as thaL.., we can certainly look at that before it goos to Cily Council Ledvina: Okay. Tom mquist: If I may Md. The intent is to begin grading this fs. ll. The landscaping would not physically go in until next spring so there would be an opportunity to mak~ adjustments or modifications to the approved landsc~e plan is that Hoisington-Koegler plan was not complete or you know to .the exact leveL.this time_. Aanenson: And you may want to make that a condition. Led~: Right, I was just thinking can we tack that on somewhere? Maybe condition number 20 1 suppose. On the site plan? Conrad: Impervious surface ratio has to be 70 or unoX? Is that what it is for ~us sm'face. Aanenson: Over the entire site. What we did is started with over. Conrad: 76. Aanenson: And obviously we picked it up... Phnning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Com'ad: And this site says 68. $o 68 and 76, I don't know how it, I haven't been sold that we have the final numbers here. Generous: Well I think we're pretty close. I estlmA__~vl that they were at 66% and with thes~ two developments they needed like .05 acres onto the third site and that will be easy to make on thaL Comad: Okay. It seems like if we change the access point, and I don't know how much we're charting it but you're saying we're changing it. It changes the whole plan quite a bit. The access point, you know if you change it 2 feet, no big deaL If you line it up with the Target, it is a big deal so I guess I'm not sure. How much is this going to change when you start negotiating with the folks. Generous: Well that's...the Perkins parking lot doesn't change. I tried three different ali~ts for the eastern half. It's feadble. One of them you have an ishnd that runs along the east. It's like, almost a boulevard type that would pmallel the Target and then basically turning back up and then incozporate that middle boulevard area again for access to the third site. It would be chan~ng the orientation. There is one alignment that Charles Folch wonlrl like that you'd sort of diagonally go through that ~. Conrad: Well, you know we've spent some time talking. I probably shou~la_ have talked first. Really if we change the road access we really don't have a site plan. Everything changes. I'm not, I guess I'm not saying I'm against what I see. Staff has some standards that they want to implement- Given the staff standards that they want to imp~t, I don't think I see a plan that is something I can react to. Second thing, when Target came in I really pushed for sidewalks and I don't think anybody, at least dividing the Target parking lot with a sidewalk down the middle and Target persuaded us not to do it, or somebody else not to do it. We don't, Vision 2002 talks about sidewalk access and we made Wendy's connect a sidewslir. I'm curious staff, we don't have sidewalks coming into here. What's our posture on that? Hempel: We do have sidewalks running along the south side of West 78th Street. Could easily be adapted to connect into the site plan requiring Taco Bell to open as a train of ~ Conrad: I guess I'd be interested. I'm not sure what we want to do with it but if Brad $ohnson were here and said people don't walk, and that's kind of true. I really feel badly that we didn't do something in the Target parking lot so like it's been ~ised there and so do I really care. But a lot of people are giving a lot of lip service to pedestrian Uaffic and here's a case where we got a chance to do that. I don't know that people are really going to 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 walk but on the other hand, I don't think we considered sidewalks corning in or going out and I don't know how I'd do it here but. Aanenson: I guess we've got the sidewalk on Powers too. Conrad: But that doesn't get you in. Aanenson: No. But...somehow get to the Per~.~ over there and up and around, I guess that's. Conrad: It's not like. I'm going to maim a case. I'm not going to make a case for thi~. If somebody else wants to make a case or are concerned, then we should take a look and see if we really do want pedestrian foot ~xaffic coming in hem. I always get uncomfortable when, you know when we put out 3 restaurants together. It just looks like a lot of stuff. You know it looks like we've got roads all over and no real p~. You know if I, I wouldn't design it this way. It looks, it doesn't look like what you get out of a PUD but I don't know how I'd redesign it. Mak~ it three restaurants. We have a lot of car traffic going in thea~ But it's, I guess my biggest concern is going back. We have an access to, we have an access point that's not really where it is on this plan and I think it's going to change it quite a bit. That's all my comments. Mandno: I want to respond to your sidewalL.. Going to those Vision 2002 meetings, you're right on that we certainly don't want to deter or say that we're against obviously car traffic . because everybody's going to drive to the cen~ of the city but we also said we want to balance it with pedestrian traffic. And maybe someone would come and say well people aren't going to walk through here but we never created a space, a welcoming space for people, for pedestrians to walk and maybe they actually would tak~ advantage of that if we do that. Scott: Well think about the ouflot and having that as a landscaped amenity. Benches and stuff and I can see taking my fajitas over to the ouflot. I mean sometlfing like that. I mean this is an element that it should be tied in with this and if we're talking about pedestrian walkways, I think topographically the outlot's pretty fiat isn't it? Or will be. $o that might be conducive w, I mean although it's going to be on a major inm~ection or something l/kc that. And they're talking about some sort of a gateway treatment but from what I understand, we're reluctant to be investing any significant sums in a sign that says we're Chanhassen, you're not, or something like that, right? But yeah, I would have to agree with your conunents on the walkway area. And once again the whole idea about planning is that we're talking decades here and 20-30 years, maybe the automobile is not going to be the method of getting around that it is today. I don't know but we can't forget that the idea of planning, 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 we're thinking decades, not just years. Mancino: So you'd like to see them inv~stiga~ mo~ of a pedestri~ friendly walkway between the restaurants? Conrad: At least getting into them. I'd ~ to see the trade offs. If you put a sidewalk in, you take out vegetation. Ledvina: Yeah, and if it's just a couple of rows of sod. Conrad: Yeah. If we're moving sod then it's not a big deal. Scott: Is there a motion somewhere? Mancino: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission approve ..... . Sco~ Well there's two of them. Tom Palrnquist: Point of chirificafion7 Scott: Ah no. Mancino: That we approve, or reconm~nd approval of ~2-5 PUD for the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhas~ Retail 3rd Addition as shown on the plans dated July 25, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Conditions number 1 as is. Number 2 as is and number 3 as is. That's it. Scott: Okay. Is there a second7 So at least in my mind_ you're willing to move along the PUD but not the site phm review. Mancino: Yeah. Because I want to add conditions to the site plan. Sco~ Okay. Is there a second? Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve Case ~2-5 PUD. Is there any discussion? $1 Planning Comm~ion M~ting - August 17, 1994 Nutting: Can I have the ability to he~r what 1~ wa~ just going to say? Scott: No. Public hearing's closed. Ledvina: Now this is thc PUD. Aanenson: What you're looking at is the subdivision for ~ Retail 2nd Addition which creates Outlot A, the city is going to maintain and then the C~anhas~n Retail 3rd splits Outlot B into 3 tmweh. Ledvina: Okay. Alright, just to make sure. Mancino nmved, Ledvina seconded that the Pianni Commimj'on recommend approval of P)2~ PUD for the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as shown mi the plans dated July 25, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall petition thc city to vacate the old West 78th Street right-of-way which traverses the overall site. 2. The following easements shall be dedicated on the final plat: a. A 30 foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer - ali~t through the site. be Thc existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underl~g plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained. These easements cover the City's existing watermaln and one of thc telephone cables. An additional 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. It appears that the northwest comer of the Taco Bell building would encroach into the proposed 20 foot drainage and utility easement and be approxirrm_te, ly S feet south of the existing buried phone cable. The develotg~ shall obtain appwval from the phone company for this condition and if obtained, a subsequent encroachment agreement shall be All voted in favor and the motion carried. 52 Planning Commisdon Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Do you want to make a motion on the 94-6? Mancino: I reco~ we approve Site Plan//94-6 as shown on the plans dated luly 19, 1994 and subject to thc following conditions. Conditions 1 through 19, a, b, c, d .nd I'd like to add number 20. That thc landscaping plan for the Taco Bell site, the Perldn~ site and actually the future restaurant site, be compatible with the final plans that the city irr~.lements for Ouflot A. 21. That the applicant and staff work through the parking lot realignment as it states in which condition Bob? Aanenson: 8. Mancino: Okay. And if there are big differences. If the siV-.~s become. Aanenson: Significant changes. Mancino: Changes that come again for the Planning Commission to okay. And 22. That the. staff and the applicant work through the internal Uaffic flow of the Taco Bell parking lot in ~regards to one way in and one way exit. Especially a one way cnlrance into the drive thru. And number 23. That the applicant investigate a pedeslxian friendly walkway that would fie the restaurants together. Or that would access the rcstamants. Scott: Maybe just have the staff and ~ the applicant develop a pe~ walkway system connecting the Perkins and Taco Bell? Mancino: And the future restaurant. Scott: With the existing what? West 78th sidewalk on the south side of West 78th? That was rough but is that Mancino: ...my words. And the last one, I think it's number 24 and I guess I don't have to say anything about the new sign ordinan~ do 1~ Aauenson: Well I think what we would like is to bring the signs back. Thc sign package. Mancino: Oh yeah. 24. We would like to see. Aanenson: We haven't sega what's going on it yet. If they're putting 3 logos on it or 3 name plates. 53 P/arming Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: Okay. So we would like to see the sign, all the signs for this ~. And approve them. Scott: Okay. I~ there a second? Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve 94-6. Site Plan review subject to the additional conditions. Is there discussion? Conrad: So that means you don't want to see it back? Aanenson: Unless there's significant change. Mancino: Unless there's significant chang~ when they do the parking lot realignment. Conrad: And the drive will swing how many feet south? Generous: About 100 maybe. Mancino: Now if you'd like to do a friendly amendment as to what constitutes significant. changes, I'd be open to that. Generous: No, I don't know. Ledvina: Well perhaps if the staff feels that they can't come to resolution with it, considering the optimum traffic circulation, you know then maybe bring it back to us and say, what do you think? Whatever. We can't keep... Conrad: They'll be able to handle it. Ledvinm I think so mo but in the event. Cw, nemus: And there will be significant changes. Conrad: But the mst will go to City Council It may come back. Aanenson: ...there is some design constraints on the two north~ly pieces as far as the footprints and maybe you can con~ me if I'm wrong but we've got a lot of utilities running through them and there isn't a lot of movement for the Taco Bell and the other use. The P/arming Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 only flexibility is the location of Perkins and obviously they want to put it on that corner but not the parking, which we also want for Highway 5. We prefer to have the Perkins there as far as the visibility giving that a nicer look. And it screens the pafldng so, obviously...so we've been giving them some options that th~'re not happy with but you have to realize too that they need to split this ~ to make it easier for cross easements. The less crossing you do makes it easier for them so they're trying to ma~ it as clean as possible to sell off the three lots... Conrad: 1ust out of curiosity, why didn't we push the Peddns and the future restaurant footprint to the outside of the property so the parking's internal? Aancnson: We can go way back when we originally looked at the Target. When they came in, we did the design charette when we had Barton-Aschmau s/t down when we ~ Target was looking at corning into Chanhassen. So we did some designs as far as the Target in there. What would be the configuration of the mnaining portion and that was one of the options that you looked at. A row of buildings screened and as you recall, originally we looked at this whole package. There was probably 6 outlots on the developmmt and I think we threw 6 out right away when we were looking at it and then we came down to 5 or 4 and · through negotiations with the city...But then you really start getting.in again to some of those design things that we talked about with the utilities that run through there. There's some fiber optic cable and some of the issues that makes it really Wugh to try to locate some of those.., and obviously Target has agreements as far as making sure them maximize views to their building and some of those issues all came into play as far as how they're laying this out. But that was a consideration as far as lining those up as far as visibility. That was originally looked at. Mancino: Because you could pull the Perkins baildiag closer to Highway 5. Generous: 20 feet. Aanenson: As far as the Highway 5 setback was 50 feet. Conrad: So you accomplish splitting up the paridng. Aanenson: Again, you have three separag tenants and that's what it tongs down to. That market force of having 3 separate tenants having their own ~ ownership. Conrad: What's the potential. So we've got an exit from Taco Bell on the we~t Or an entrance. And then the future restaurant is, is that roadway going to be a common roadway? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: So we won't have an ishnd and another roadway there. Aanenson: h will more than likely be a continuation of the... Mancino: What do you meam.. Conrad: Well we have enwance/exit for Taco Bell on the left hand side and then we have another resta~L But potentially they should be using the same street to come out or enter. I just don't want two side by side roadways there. Not logical to do. Mancino: It will go back. It will go west and go into that future restaurant so there will be one common driveway. Aanenson: Yes. But we're saying it needs to be down here where the curb cut was shown . · and it needs to curve up and then go over. Ledvina: Is that curb cut acV. mlly there for a new Target site? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. It shows up on your subdivision plan. Conrad: The outlots always worry me because when they come in, we son of diclated how they're, based on what we just saw, we dictated how they're going to develop and that's too bad because there will be no leverage to make the road. You know thc opportmfity here is to minimize the number of roadways and cross traffic and again, I'm not a designer but I'd sure like to cut off some of the, if I were designing three ~ts in a group, I'd have one enwance to each one of them rather than multi entrances coming in and it makes it clear and less pedestrian, fewer pedestrian problems. So I guess I'm going to stop talking but you know, that's probably not my design that I'd want if I had three restaurants sitting on a semi circle or a square. I think there's a lot of benefits. There's a lot of good things. They're both good tenants that we're looking at and I think but it's, I don't think we've i ,re?roved, other than space. I think we've got some green space down there but I don't know that we've really done anything in terms of sinking them together. There's a road coming in and we've got accesses off the road but anyway, those are my comments. The comment section was before. This is discussion. It's not cominE back more than likely. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: ...the que~on and try to sec some sk~h plans along that...and see how it would work. Conrad: I wouldn't bring it baok for that. Scott: And you wouldn't bring it back for the change in the entrance? Scott: You would? Conrad: Oh yeah. I think it's major. I don't, you've got stuff flin~ng around ~ I don't know how they're going to do it so. Mancino: So you would like to see if there is a change, it back? Conrad: Again, I think your motion is valid, ff it's a major change it should come back but it's all, in .my perspective, it's got to be a major change. It's going in a road down here. You're changing some, I don't know how the waffic patterns go through Pefldns lot and gets you up to Taco Bell and then swings-out to the future restaurant. I don't get that. Mancino: Is staff comfortable enough with that so we get it back if there are major changes? Generous: Yes. Scott: Should we vote on thc motion and see how it goes and then. Ledvina: Yes. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commissi_'on recommend approval of Site Plan ~sM-6 as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994 and subject to the following 1. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this sim including but not l/mited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, 57 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Developer shall submit to the City En~neer drainage calculations and a drainage map for the entire site showing areas and q-pntity of flow to the Target pond and to the County Road 17 pond that are consistent with capacities of the existing storm sewer syslm~ e Stormw~__ter drainage from the Taco Bell site to the West 78th Street storm sewer shall be directed into the easterly storm sewer lead from West 78th Su'eet immediately north of the parking lot. 5. Developer shall indicate any quantities of bon'ow msterial and/or mn_Lerial to be hauled off sil~ including a proposed haul roul~. 6. The applicant shall develop an erosion control plan in ~ce to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for development. 7. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protection of the existing public utility facih'ties within the overaU site. Developer shall also differentiate on the final site plans which lines are public and which are private. to align with the existing curb cut across from the entrance to the Target parking lot. 9. Fire hydrants shah be incorporated as per the Fire Marshal's recomme~lafion. 10. Thc devcl~ shall enter into a siu~ d~*velopment contract with the City and provide the necessary finan~ scculity to guarantee comp~ with the terms of approval 11. Cons~'uction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or conuactor shall install and maintain a gravel construction cnlrance until the access driveway is paved with a 12. but the parking lot for Taco Bell does not meet the required 20 foot selback for parking lots from West 78th Street and must be revised. 13. The applicant must also verify that the height of thc pi~h~ roof element will screen the rooftop equipment from the high point of Highway 5 and from the high point on West 78th SUleeC 58 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. bo de The developer must provide a trash enclosure location far the Perkins si~. Trash enclosmv, s shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same ms__terials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all ri~t- of-ways~ The applicant must revise thc landsc~g plan to replace all .man. nmb and cvcrgrcen within thc vehicular area with ovcrstary type trees. The developer shall screen the trash enclosure far Taco Bell with evergreen plantings. The minimum peninsular ]andsc.4q~ island width is 8 feel One tree pet each 250 square feet ar fraction thereof of landscaping area. Each landscaping island must be a minimum of 200 square feet and must contain at least one tree. The applicant shall install an aerationfuri§ation tubing, see figure 11-3 attached, in each pen_ insular island. At least one peninsular hm~ area shall be provided along the n~ piffking lot stalls far Taco Bell. Thc applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be revised to comply with this condition- In addition, one pylon side is permit far the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. Fire Marshal recommendations: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhas~n Fire Marshal for exact locations. Install "No Parking Pirc Lane" signs and paint curb yellow in desi~ fire lanes. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal far exact locations of signagc and curb painting. Submit turning radius tO City Engineer and (~]anhassen l:H.l"e Marshal far review and approval. A ten foot clear space must be ~ around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television transf~ boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pm'suant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. That the landscaping plan for the Taco Bell site, the Perkin~ site and the future restaurant site, be compatible with the final plans that the city implements for 59 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Outiot A. 21. Thnt the appliennt nnd stnff work through the parking lot renl~ ns it states in condition 8 nnd if there axe Mgnifleam ehnnges mnde, thnt it come back to the ~ Commimion for review. That the staff and the applicant work through the internal traffic flow of the Taco Bell parking lot in regards to one way traffic flow through the site and into the drive thru. That the appficnnt investigate a pedestrinn friendly wnlkwny thnt would tie the restnurnnts together or would nccess the restaurnnts, 24. The sign package shall come back to the Planning Commim!'on for approvak Mancino, Ledvina and Nutting voted in favor. C(mFad and Scott voted in opposition and the motion and the motion caFried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: Reasom for voting nay Ladd has t~ssed. I would agree. That's it. APPROVAL QF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who abstained, and the motion carriecL CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Kate Annenson reviewed the Report from the Director dat~ August 11, 1994. Ledvinn moved, Conrnd seconded to ndjmtrn the meeti~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.n~ Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning DLrector ~ by N~m Opheim